WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, February 21st, 1861.

The Conference was called to order by the President, at ten o’clock and fifteen minutes A.M., and prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. STOCKTON.

The Journal of yesterday was read and approved.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: As I stated yesterday, I now wish to call up my resolutions relating to the termination of the debate, and to have a vote taken upon them.

Mr. CHASE: Will Governor WICKLIFFE permit me to make a formal motion, which cannot give rise to discussion? It is this: The resolutions passed by the Legislature of Ohio, under which myself and my colleagues hold our seats, make it my duty to lay before the Conference the resolves I now offer. I ask to have them read, laid upon the table, and printed.

The resolutions were read, and the motion of Mr. CHASE concurred in.

The resolutions are as follow:

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to proceed to final action on the grave and important matters involved in the resolutions of the State of Virginia, in compliance with which this Convention has assembled, and in the several reports of the majority and minority of the committee to which said resolutions were referred, until opportunity has been given to all of the States to participate in deliberation and action under them, and ample time has been allowed for such deliberation and action.

Resolved, therefore, That this Convention adjourn to meet in the city of Washington, on the 4th day of April next; and that the President be requested to address a letter to the Governors of the several States not now represented in this body, urging the appointment and attendance of Commissioners.

Mr. EWING: I wish to state here that I do not concur in these resolutions.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: I now offer two resolutions, one providing that debate shall cease upon the report of the committee, at 10 o’clock to-morrow. The other, that five minutes shall be allowed to the mover of an amendment to explain it, with five minutes to the committee to reply. Upon reflection, I will offer a third: That a motion to strike out and insert shall not be divided. If desired, a vote may be taken on the resolutions separately, as I wish to have each stand upon its own merits. I will not discuss these resolutions, for I think all must be impressed with the necessity for passing them now.

The resolutions were as follow:

Resolved, 1st, That at 10 o’clock, the 22d February, 1861, all debate upon the report of the Committee of one from each State shall cease, and the Convention will proceed to vote, and continue to vote until the whole subject shall have been disposed of.

2d. If an amendment be offered by the Commissioners of any State, or the minority of such Commissioners, five minutes is allowed for explanation, and the like time is allowed to the committee to resist the amendment, if they desire to do so; and the mover of the amendment, or any member of the same State, may have five minutes for reply.

3d. A motion to strike out and insert shall not be divided.

Mr. CHITTENDEN: I shall not debate these resolutions. As I am engaged in taking notes of the discussion, I cannot enter into a contest for the floor, and I would not if I could. My State has not occupied a moment of time on the general subject, nor are her delegates very anxious to address the Convention at all.

Whether the Conference will give one of us a few minutes or not, is simply a question of policy, of which I am not a disinterested judge. It is possible that some suggestions might be made which would be worthy of attention.

Mr. GOODRICH: I move to amend by inserting Saturday, instead of to-morrow, in the first resolution.

Mr. RANDOLPH: There is force in the remark of the gentleman from Vermont. No State should be cut off. I suggest that the States whose delegates have not addressed the Conference, should have the preference.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri: I represent a youthful State. She is not the daughter of any particular State or section, but of the Union. We Missourians love the Union, but we have fully arrived at the conclusion that the time has come when something must be done to prevent our entire separation. We have hitherto remained silent. We came here to preserve the Union. Not that we love the Union less, but we love our rights more. We love our rights more than the Union, our property, or our lives. We desire to come to a speedy adjustment. Ten days of Congress only remain. It will be difficult even to introduce our propositions, still more to get them considered. I sustain the motion of the gentleman from Kentucky; and Missouri will vote for it.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: I will make the proposition as acceptable as possible. I will insert one o’clock instead of ten.

Exclamations were heard from several members of, “Let us
agree,” and the question being taken on the first resolution
as amended, it was adopted.

Mr. BACKUS: I move to insert in the second resolution, ten minutes instead of five, wherever the word occurs. That time is none too long to state the purpose of an amendment properly.

Mr. NOYES: Is this resolution designed to exclude all discussion upon an amendment, except by the member moving it and the committee?

Mr. WICKLIFFE: No! Such is not the intention. Any one can speak five minutes. I rely on our sense of propriety not to abuse this construction of the resolution.

The amendment of Mr. BACKUS was decided in the negative by a vote viva voce.

The resolution was then adopted, together with the
resolution relating to motions to strike out and insert.

Mr. BROWNE: I move that when the Convention adjourn, it adjourn to meet at half-past seven o’clock this evening.

Mr. CHASE: I hope the Conference will not hold night sessions. Our day sessions are protracted and very laborious. I agree with Commodore STOCKTON, that night sessions are dangerous.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky: I do not agree with Mr. CHASE. I have particularly observed the demeanor of all the gentlemen in the Conference, and know that they are as well fitted for business at five o’clock in the afternoon as at ten o’clock in the morning.

A vote by the States was called for, which resulted as follows:

AYES: Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia 13.

NOES: Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts,
Ohio, and Vermont 7.

Mr. WILMOT: In pursuance of the instructions of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, I offer the following. I wish to have it laid on the table, and printed, that I may move it as an amendment to the committee’s report at the proper time.

The motion of Mr. WILMOT was agreed to, and the amendment is as follows:

“And Congress shall further provide by law, that the United States shall make full compensation to a citizen of any State, who in any other State shall suffer, by reason of violence or intimidation from mobs and riotous assemblies, in his person or property, or in deprivation, by violence, of his rights secured by this Constitution.”

Mr. DENT: I ask that the following may be adopted as an additional rule:

“When the vote on any question is taken by States, any
Commissioner dissenting from the vote of his State, may have
his dissent entered on the Journal.”

Mr. CHASE: I suggest whether it would not be better to call the yeas and nays, on the motion of any Commissioner. I have heretofore introduced a resolution to that effect, which, with the gentleman’s permission, I will now call up.

Mr. DENT: I won’t insist.

Mr. CHASE’S resolution was taken up as follows:

“The yeas and nays of the Commissioner of each State, upon any question, shall be entered upon the Journal when it is desired by any Commissioner, and the vote of each State shall be determined by the majority of Commissioners present from each State.”

Mr. GUTHRIE: I hope the gentleman will waive the first part of the resolution. I think it is the best way not to disclose our divisions any farther than is indispensably necessary.

Mr. CHASE: I copied the rule verbatim from the one adopted by the Congress of the Confederation. I think it right and fair. But I have no objection to modifying it, so as to have the yeas and nays called on the motion of any entire delegation.

Mr. DENT: I did not withdraw my motion. I think it will accomplish all we need. It will be taken, of course, that those who do not dissent vote with the delegation.

Mr. REID: I think it is entirely too late to talk about saving time. How long will it take to have the names of dissenting delegates called? For one, I desire to exercise my rights under the authority of the State I represent. I will not consent to waive them. When the vote of my State is cast, I wish to have the record show who is responsible for it.

The question was taken on the resolution offered by Mr.
CHASE, and it was rejected, and the additional rule proposed
by Mr. DENT was adopted.

Mr. COALTER: I offer the following, which I shall move as an amendment to the report. I ask that it be laid on the table, and printed:

“The term of office of all Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the United States, hereafter elected, shall be six years; and any person once elected to either of said offices, shall ever after be ineligible to the same office.”

The above motion to lay on the table and print was agreed to.

Mr. BRONSON: I also have an amendment, of which I ask to have the same disposition made. It is as follows:

“Congress shall have no power to legislate in respect to persons held to service or labor in any case, except to provide for the rendition of fugitives from such service or labor, and to suppress the foreign slave trade; and the existing status or condition of all the Territories of the United States, in respect to persons held to service or labor, shall remain unchanged during their territorial condition; and whenever any Territory, with suitable boundaries, shall contain the population requisite for a representative in Congress, according to the then federal ratio of representation, it shall be entitled to admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without persons held to service or labor, as the Constitution of such new State may prescribe.”

Mr. BRONSON’S motion was agreed to.

Mr GUTHRIE: I call for the order of the day.

The PRESIDENT: The order of the day is called for, and the gentleman from New York has the floor.

Mr. SMITH: At the adjournment yesterday, I had proceeded to state two or three grounds upon which I think the proposals of amendment to the Constitution reported by the majority of the committee would be unacceptable to the North, and I had also stated some special objections to action in this way and at the present time.

The next consideration to which I would invite attention is this: Is it necessary or wise for the Conference, composed as it is of friends of the Union, or is it expedient thus to encounter the settled sentiments and convictions of the people of so large a section of the country? It is not necessary, for various reasons. This territorial question is, after all, a question to be looked at in a prospective view. Why is it necessary to disturb the Constitution by inserting such a provision as you propose? Why is it necessary for gentlemen from the South to have it in, in order to enable them to stand with their people at home?

Slavery is now in New Mexico. That must be acknowledged as a fact. The South think it rightfully there the North believe it is there wrongfully. But its existence in the territories is a fact nevertheless. President LINCOLN cannot help it if he would. The Supreme Court will affirm its rightful existence there, whenever the question comes before that body. That Court cannot be changed before these territories are admitted as States, if the disposition exists to change it. You claim that the question is already decided. How, then, can it be important to you to press the adoption of these sections as a part of the Constitution? My judgment is, that it is best to leave this subject alone that that is the true way to save the Union.

Gentlemen of the South, remember that if you must stand at home with your people, so also must we. There is a North as well as a South! a northern people as well as southern people. You press us hard on these subjects. But can men who are rational ask us to abandon our own people, to go counter to their convictions and sentiments? We cannot do it! You would not respect us if we did! I am very sure that if this Conference is to attain any beneficial result, it must abandon all idea of coercion or intimidation as applied to the friends of the Union.

It is said we are contending for a party platform that we are letting party stand between us and the Union. I could trample parties and platforms under foot to preserve the Union, but I cannot understand how honest men can abandon principles because a party has adopted them into its platform. Do not tell us that by adhering to the Union and the Constitution, we are simply adhering to a party platform. Our principles are at least as dear to us, as yours are to you; you must not expect us to sacrifice them either to promote our own material interests or to promote yours.

Let us then sink the question of slavery in the Territories. Let the courts take care of it if need be, or let it be dealt with when it properly comes up. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” In that direction lays the path of peace.

But perhaps it may be suggested that such a course would really leave no plan to be adopted. Perhaps so. Is it, then, not true that we are having all this trouble over a contingency that may or may not arise? That the Constitution is sufficient for all purposes but this, you aver; and yet you say in the same breath that the Court has settled this question entirely and finally in your favor. Why not be satisfied, then, with the settlement? Can you make it more of a finality in the way you propose? No, gentlemen; believe me when I tell you that the true remedy does not consist in endeavoring to humiliate the people of one section for the benefit of another. Remember we are dealing with the American people; I would not throw the Constitution into the vortex of disunion that is opening before us; I would preserve it rather as a rock on which we can all safely stand. Do not throw away the compass by which alone we can safely be guided!

If I were to suggest a suitable remedy, what I think a wise plan, it would be the one adopted on a similar occasion, when one of the States set itself up in opposition to the General Government, with such very beneficial results; and that would be, to have the Government appeal to the people for support to throw itself into the arms of the people. The result then has become historical. It is remembered with pride and pleasure by all. I would have a similar course pursued now. The result would be equally grand, equally gratifying. It would rally every patriot, every friend of the Union from every section, to its support. You, gentlemen of the South, now friends of the Union, still give it the strength of your support, the favor of your countenance, and you shall be supported and sustained as you can be in no other way. You shall have the support of the power of the Government and of every friend of the Union in the country.

You remember how those patriotic statesmen, CLAY and WEBSTER differing from the Executive, opposing his election with all the strength of their gigantic intellects when the authority of the Government was questioned, and South Carolina, under the lead of Mr. CALHOUN, undertook to set herself up in opposition to it how they waived all former differences, and instead of encouraging secession by their delay and timidity, without asking for new guarantees or for amendments of the Constitution, came voluntarily and earnestly to the support of the Executive and the administration, because the Executive was right, and was the chosen instrument of the people to preserve the integrity of the Union.

Mr. BARRINGER: If the gentleman will excuse me, I will state that the course of the Executive against South Carolina was universally acquiesced in except in that State. And yet the opinion that President JACKSON far exceeded his powers, was equally unanimous. That precedent has been greatly misinterpreted.

Mr. SMITH: I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. He entertains his opinions, I do mine, as to what then saved the Union. I should not probably be able to make him think with me; but I feel sure that the idea prevails quite extensively, that South Carolina returned to the path of duty then, because the power of the Government was wielded by an honest and energetic Executive. She came to the conclusion that any other course would probably be attended with danger.

Our present differences had no very remote origin. They belong to our own generation, and we ought to be compelled to deal with them. I think the so-called compromise of 1850 was the cause of all our troubles that instead of saving the country it brought it into greater danger than it ever was before.

Mr. BARRINGER: I wish to make a suggestion on that point.

Mr. SMITH: I hope the gentleman will not forget that he will have a full opportunity to answer me. I am nearly through, and generally no good comes of interruptions. They only consume time.

I was about to say, that I do not propose to go into the question of who was to blame for that repeal. I agree with gentlemen from the South, that there is no profit now in discussing the origin of our troubles in inquiring who set the house on fire before we put on the water.

Mr. CLAY: Does the gentleman do justice to Mr. CLAY, when at one moment he says that Mr. CLAY held up the arms of the administration, strengthened the Executive, and aided the Government in putting down secession, and in the next, states that the compromise of 1850 was the cause of all our troubles, when it is well known that Mr. CLAY strongly favored that compromise?

Mr. SMITH: When I speak of the unhappy effect of the compromise measures of 1850, I ascribe no wrong motives to Mr. CLAY or any one else. If he approved that compromise, I have no doubt he did it in the full belief that it would be beneficial to the country. Experience has shown that he was mistaken. Saying this is doing no injustice to Mr. CLAY. I spoke only of effects. I spoke of the zeal and the energy with which the patriots and eminent statesmen of all parties of this country have been accustomed to come forward and sustain the administration when any necessity existed for doing so. Now let this Conference let all true friends of the Union everywhere, with one voice, without attempting to place any section or any man in a false or disagreeable position, unite in one determined effort in behalf of the Union, and in an attempt to bring the rash and dangerous men who would seek the destruction of the Government back to a sense of duty. Let us address the country, let us show that we are devoted to the Union, far beyond any considerations of party or self; let us invoke the aid of all true and patriotic men; let us ask them to lay aside for the time all other considerations, and give themselves for the present to the country! The spirit of the old time is yet alive. We can call it out in more than its old strength and vigor, and it will save the country. Our private interests may suffer, but the great interests of the Union will be strengthened and preserved, and the Constitution, which has been our pride and strength, will not be dragged down into the great whirlpool of disunion. I appeal to the venerable and able men around me, who bear historic names who have been themselves long connected with the Union and its Government, to join us in our struggle to save the Constitution.

The views I have expressed may be chimerical. I have advanced them with no little diffidence, but I felt called upon to state them in the discharge of a duty I owe to a people who love and will make great sacrifices to save the Constitution and the Union.

A majority vote, one way or the other here, would be of little consequence. It would carry no weight with it. But if the members of this Conference would all unite in such an appeal to the country, the response would be instantaneous and effective. The heart of the country is loyal; the heart of the South is loyal, I believe. We have abundant evidence that it is not too late to rely upon the Union men in Missouri and Tennessee!

Mr. CARRUTHERS: The vote of Tennessee is entirely misunderstood.

Mr. SMITH: Perhaps so. I have no acquaintance with the people of Tennessee. But I will not occupy the time of the Conference farther. I have spoken plainly, but I have spoken what I believe to be the honest convictions of a large majority of the people of this Union. Once more I say, let us not destroy the Constitution!

Mr. CLEVELAND: I have not got up to make a speech. We have had too much speech-making here. It may be very well for gentlemen to get up and make long arguments and eloquent appeals, and show their abilities and powers, but it all does no sort of good nobody is benefited, and no opinions are changed. I shall take no such course. I want to see whether this little handful of men who meet every day in this hall, cannot get together and fix up this matter which has been so much talked about. Let us pay no attention to the great men or the politicians. They have interests of their own. Some of them have interests which are superior to those of their country.

In the common affairs of life there are always a great many differences of opinion. Some treat these differences one way some another. Foolish men go to law, and always come out worse off than when they started. Sensible men get together, and talk matters over; one gives up a little, the other gives up a little, and finally they get together. Now, friends, that is just what I want to see done here.

We are all friends friends of the Union and of each other. Nobody wants to give up the Union, or hurt Mr. LINCOLN. The South has got frightened not exactly frightened, but she thinks the Republicans, since they have got the power, are going to trample upon her rights. She wants the North to agree not to do so. Now I should like to know what objection there was to that? Who is afraid to do that? If we could go to work at this thing like sensible men, we could settle the whole matter in two hours.

Now about these propositions. I do not see any thing alarming in them. I have not set to work to pick flaws in them. Leave that to the lawyers. I don’t care much about them, nor does the North care about them. If the South will take them and be satisfied if they will stop this clamor about slavery and slavery extension, I think she had better have them. For one, I am sick of the whole subject.

Let us then go about the work like sensible men; let us stop making long speeches and picking flaws in each other. It is a matter of business, and pretty important business. Let us consider it as such, and from this moment let us throw aside all feeling, and set about coming to some understanding. We can do it to-day as well as next week. I do not know that these propositions are the best that can be made; but if they are not, let us talk the matter over like good Union men, and see what is best. When we can find that out, let us agree. If we stay here and make speeches until doomsday, we shall be no better off. I am for action, and coming to an immediate decision.

Mr. COALTER: If the vote of Missouri is to be taken as an evidence of her devotion to the Union, it must also be understood with this qualification: Her interests and her sympathies unite her closely with the South. She feels, in common with others, her share of anxiety for the future. She is devoted to the Union, and at the same time she insists that it is fair and right that these guarantees should be given.

It has been distinctly avowed on this floor that the people of certain sections of the North abhor slavery. Ought we not to be distrustful when a party entertaining such sentiments comes into supreme power? If Massachusetts abhors slavery, how long will it be before she will abhor slaveholders?

Ignorance is the source of all our difficulties. The people of the North know little of the condition of the negro in a state of slavery. We know that the four millions of blacks in the South are better off in all respects than any similar number of laborers anywhere.

But I rise only to correct a false impression in regard to Missouri. I have only besides to express my full conviction that if the North will not give us these guarantees, we are henceforth a divided people.

Mr. GOODRICH: Mr. President, the object of this Convention, assembled on the call or invitation of Virginia, is, as set forth in the preamble and resolutions of her General Assembly,

“To restore the Union and Constitution in the spirit in which they were established by the fathers of the Republic;” or, as otherwise expressed, “to adjust the present unhappy controversies in the spirit in which the Constitution was originally made, and consistently with its principles.”

This agrees, in substance, with the purpose of the Republican party, which, in the words of the Philadelphia platform, is declared to be that of “restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of WASHINGTON and JEFFERSON.”

Virginia announces to the other States that she “is desirous of employing every reasonable means,” and is “willing to unite” with them “in an earnest effort” for the accomplishment of this common end and object of that State and the Republican party; and she is moved to make this her “final effort,” by “the deliberate opinion of her General Assembly, that unless the unhappy controversy which now divides the States of this Confederacy shall be satisfactorily adjusted, a permanent dissolution of the Union is inevitable,” and by a desire to “avert so dire a calamity.”

Massachusetts, equally willing to unite with the other States in an earnest effort to further the same end, accepted the invitation of Virginia, and sent Commissioners here to represent her.

The honorable Chairman (Mr. GUTHRIE) of the committee to report a plan of adjustment, in his opening speech, advocated with earnestness and eloquence a restoration of the Constitution to the principles of the fathers. The distinguished gentleman (Mr. RIVES) from Virginia demands a “restoration of the Constitution to the landmarks of our fathers,” and his colleague (Mr. SEDDON) urges a return to the “policy of our fathers in 1787.”

This assumes that we have departed from the principles and landmarks of our fathers, and from the policy of 1787. The call of the Convention assumes this; the platform of the Republican party assumes it, and the gentlemen whose remarks I have quoted assume it, and it is true.

The particular object of a return to the principles and landmarks of the policy of 1787, as stated in the preamble and resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia, is, “to afford to the people of the slaveholding States adequate guarantees for the security of their rights.” This implies that such a return will afford these adequate guarantees. I agree that it will; and I am ready, and Massachusetts is ready, to adjust this unhappy controversy, and to give the guarantees demanded in exactly this way.

Stated in these general terms, there is a perfect agreement between us. But we find a wide difference when we go one step farther, and learn precisely what Virginia claims would be a restoration of the Constitution to the principles of the fathers, and a return to the policy of 1787. This she has told us in one of the resolutions sent out with the call for this Convention. That resolution is as follows:

“Resolved, That in the opinion of the General Assembly of Virginia, the propositions embraced in the resolutions presented to the Senate of the United States by Hon. JOHN J. CRITTENDEN, so modified as that the first article proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall apply to all the territory of the United States, now held or hereafter acquired south of latitude 36 deg. 30’, and provide that slavery of the African race shall be effectually protected as property therein during the continuance of the territorial government, and the fourth article shall secure to the owners of slaves the right of transit with their slaves between and through the non-slaveholding States and territories, constitute the basis of such an adjustment of the unhappy controversy which now divides the States of this Confederacy, as would be accepted by the people of this Commonwealth.”

It was in reference to these propositions that the gentleman (Mr. SEDDON) from Virginia, has asked us the question, “Are we not entitled to these added guarantees according to the spirit of the compact of our fathers?”

The true answer to this question is the pivot on which this whole controversy must turn. If the slave States are not entitled to these added guarantees, “according to the spirit of the compact of our fathers,” then Virginia, as I understand her Commissioners, and the resolutions of her General Assembly, does not claim them. She stands upon her rights according to that compact. And all such rights Massachusetts is ready to accord to her, fairly and fully.

By the spirit of the compact of our fathers is meant, the Constitution as they understood it, and as the people of that day understood it. And this is what is meant by the “landmarks of the fathers.” All admit that the Federal Government should be administered now, as it was administered by its framers. This is what gentlemen from the slave States, in giving utterance to their intense devotion to the Union, say.

Then, what is the Constitution, as understood by those who framed it? What does it mean when interpreted by the light of the policy of 1787? and what is the spirit of the compact which they made? This is the question we are called to consider. In my remarks I do not mean to wander from it.

So far as the Constitution touches the question out of which the present unhappy controversy has arisen, I say it means this: That slavery, as it existed or might exist within the limits of the original States, should not be interfered with to the injury of the lawful rights of slaveholders under State authority; on the contrary, that it should have the right of recaption, and a qualified protection; but that outside of those limits, otherwise than in this right of recaption, it should never exist, neither in the territories nor in the new States.

And let me say here, that when I speak of the original States, I mean the territory of those States as then bounded. Alabama and Mississippi belonged to Georgia, Tennessee belonged to North Carolina, Kentucky belonged to Virginia, Vermont belonged to New York, and Maine belonged to Massachusetts, and were parts of the thirteen original States, at the time the Constitution was adopted. When, therefore, I speak of territory outside the original States, I do not refer to territory within any of the States named.

Mr. BOUTWELL: I trust my colleague does not claim to speak for Massachusetts, when he denies the right of any State of this Union to establish and maintain slavery within its jurisdiction, or to prohibit it altogether, according to its discretion. This right was reserved to the States; and States in this Union, whether original or new, stand on a footing of perfect equality.

Mr. GOODRICH: I certainly do not claim to speak for Massachusetts, though I believe the opinion of the great majority of her people agrees with my own on this subject. However, what I claim is, that Ohio and the other States of the northwestern territory have no constitutional power to legalize slavery within their limits; that they were admitted into the Union without any such power, and that every other new State formed from territory outside the limits of the original States, according to the “spirit of the compact of our fathers,” should have been admitted without that power, or the right to acquire it. This I will now proceed to show.

On the first day of March, 1784, the northwest territory, constituting the present States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, was ceded by Virginia to the United States. The jurisdiction of the United States was then exclusive and paramount, or soon became so such other States as had claimed any right of jurisdiction having ceded it. The cession of Virginia was made by THOMAS JEFFERSON, SAMUEL HARDY, ARTHUR LEE, and JAMES MONROE, who were delegates in Congress from that State, and had been appointed Commissioners for this purpose. On the same day the cession was made, Mr. JEFFERSON, in behalf of a committee, reported a plan for temporary governments in the United States territory then and afterwards to be ceded, and for forming therein permanent governments.

That plan provided, “that so much of the territory ceded, or to be ceded, by individual States to the United States, shall be divided into distinct States.” It is obvious that this plan contemplated the possession of territory in no other way than by cession from the States. It was expected that Georgia and North Carolina would cede their western lands, now the States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, as they did some years later; and Mr. JEFFERSON’S plan was intended to embrace those lands or territories to be ceded. Consequently, the following provisions, which were part of the plan reported, were intended by him to apply to Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, viz.:

“After the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be
neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said
States, otherwise that in the punishment of crimes.”

Here the States were evidently those to be formed in United States territory. And farther on in the plan it is stated,

“That the preceding articles shall be formed into a charter of compact, and shall stand as fundamental Constitutions between the thirteen original States, and each of the several States now newly described, unalterable ... but by the joint consent of the United States in Congress assembled, and of the particular State within which such alteration is proposed to be made.”

This was a proposition to exclude slavery forever after 1800, not only from the territories which had been, and might afterwards be, ceded, but from the States to be formed in them, and to make it a fundamental Constitution between the original States and each new State. It excited a short discussion, and was postponed from time to time to the 19th of April, when Mr. SPEIGHT, of North Carolina, moved to strike it out. The motion was seconded by Mr. REED, of South Carolina. The vote by States, on the motion to strike out, was:

YEAS. Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina 3.

NAYS. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, and Pennsylvania 6.

This was under the Confederation articles, which provided that the vote on all questions should be taken by States, each State casting one vote; that no proposition could be adopted without the vote of seven States in favor of it, and that the vote of no State could be counted unless two members, at least, were present. As there were but six States in favor of the proposition to prohibit slavery after 1800, it was stricken out.

There was but one member present from New Jersey, and the vote of that State was not counted. The member present voted for Mr. JEFFERSON’S proposition. Another vote from that State would have made the required number, and carried the measure.

In North Carolina, WILLIAMSON voted for prohibition, and SPEIGHT against it. One more vote from that State would have made seven States for the proposition, and it would have been carried.

JEFFERSON voted for his own proposition to prohibit; and if one of the other two members present from Virginia had voted with him, that, too, would have made the required number of seven States.

The vote North and South, by members, was in favor of prohibition: North, 14; South, 2 total, 16. Against prohibition, South, 7.

The majority was more than two-thirds; enough to carry it over an executive veto under the present Constitution, and yet it was defeated. And this vote was given in favor of absolute and unconditional prohibition, and that alone, without the right of reclaiming fugitive slaves, or any proposition, or any expectation to confer it. Under the Confederation, no such right existed, nor was it agreed to till more than three years afterwards, and then with the greatest reluctance, and as a matter of compromise, as I will presently show.

Such was the action of the American Congress in 1784 a unanimous vote from the North, and two in nine from the South in favor of excluding slavery forever after 1800, in all new States to be formed, in territory ceded or to be ceded, embracing Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi, in the extreme South. Nothing can be clearer than that the interdiction was to apply to all such States, and to constitute a fundamental Constitution between them and the original States, unalterable without the consent of Congress. The new State was to be deprived of all power to admit slavery. This proposition was made and voted for by JEFFERSON. But how many votes would such a proposition receive in this Convention? Not many, I fear, even from the free States. My friend and colleague, though strongly anti-slavery, and earnestly devoted to freedom in the Territories, is afraid I shall commit Massachusetts to this old Jeffersonian doctrine of no slavery, and no right to establish it in the new States.

From this time till July, 1787, the question of slavery in the Territories and new States remained open and unsettled. In 1785, RUFUS KING renewed Mr. JEFFERSON’S proposition to prohibit, and it was referred to a committee by the vote of eight States; but it never became a law, a few from the South always preventing it.

The Federal Convention to revise the old, or frame a new Constitution, assembled in Philadelphia on the second Monday of May, 1787. And here let me read a single paragraph from a lecture by Mr. TOOMBS, of Georgia, delivered in Boston in 1856. It is as follows:

“The history of the times and the debates in the Convention which framed the Constitution, show that the whole subject of slavery was much considered by them, and perplexed them in the extreme, and that those provisions which relate to it were earnestly considered by the State Conventions which adopted it. Incipient legislation providing for emancipation had already been adopted by some of the States. Massachusetts had declared that slavery was extinguished by her Bill of Rights. The African slave trade had already been legislated against in many of the States, including Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina, the largest slaveholding States. The public mind was unquestionably tending toward emancipation. This feeling displayed itself in the South as well as in the North. Some of the present slaveholding States thought that the power to abolish, not only the African slave trade, but slavery in the States, ought to be given to the Federal Government; and that the Constitution did not take this shape, was made one of the most prominent objections to it by LUTHER MARTIN, a distinguished member of the Convention from Maryland; and Mr. MASON, of Virginia, was not far behind him in his emancipation principles. Mr. MADISON sympathized to a great extent. Anti-slavery feelings were extensively indulged in by many members of the Convention, both from the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding States.”

Mr. MADISON’S testimony is important here. He was a member of the old Congress in New York, until the assembling of the Constitutional Convention, and took his seat as a member of that body.

The History of the Ordinance of 1787, by Hon. EDWARD COLES, contains the following statement, as made to him by Mr. MADISON:

“The old Congress held its sessions, in 1787, in New York, while at the same time the Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States held its sessions in Philadelphia. Many individuals were members of both bodies, and thus were enabled to know what was passing in each both sitting with closed doors and in secret sessions. The distracting question of slavery was agitating and retarding the labors of both, and led to conferences of intercommunications of the members.”

I quote this testimony now, to show that Conferences were held between the members of Congress and the Federal Convention, upon the subject of slavery. I shall quote farther from it on another point, after turning for a moment to the proceedings of Congress.

On the 9th July, 1787, the Convention having been in session about two months, the ordinance for the government of the Western Territory, which had been reported in a new draft on the 26th of the preceding April, and ordered to a third reading on the 10th May, and then postponed, was referred to a new committee, consisting of Messrs. CARRINGTON, of Virginia; DANE, of Massachusetts; R.H. LEE, of Virginia; KEAN, of North Carolina; and SMITH, of New York. Two days afterwards, July 11th, Mr. CARRINGTON reported what has since been known as the “Ordinance of 1787,” with the exception of the 6th article of compact, prohibiting slavery. When it came up the next day, the 12th, for a second reading, Mr. DANE rose and stated as follows:

“In the committee, as ever before, since the day when JEFFERSON first introduced the proposal to prohibit slavery in the territory, it was found impossible to come to any arrangement; that the committee desired to report only so far as they were unanimous; that they, therefore, had omitted altogether the subject of slavery; but that it was understood that any member of the committee might, consistently with his having concurred in the report, move in the house to amend it in the particular of slavery. He therefore moved as an amendment, to add a prohibition of slavery in the following words:

“That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”

And as a compromise, Mr. DAVIS proposed to add the following proviso:

“Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor-service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully retained and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.”

This was at once unanimously accepted by the slave States. The next day, the 13th, the ordinance was passed, every slave State present, viz.: Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and every member from those States voting for it. The same prohibition which a large majority of the South had resisted when presented alone was now, when accompanied with the proviso, unanimously agreed to.

Here was a sudden change. But the proviso giving the right of reclamation in the said territory, only partially explains it. For a full explanation we must turn again to the Convention. And the first thing is a further extract from Mr. MADISON, respecting a letter, before quoted, as follows:

“The distracting question of slavery was agitating and retarding the labors of both bodies Congress and the Convention; and led to conferences and intercommunications of the members, which resulted in a Compromise, by which the Northern, or anti-slavery portion of the country, agreed to incorporate into the ordinance and Constitution, the provision to restore fugitive slaves; and this mutual and concurrent action was the cause of the similarity of the provisions contained in both, and had its influence in creating the great unanimity by which the ordinance passed, and also in making the Constitution the more acceptable to the slaveholders.”

Mr. MADISON, also, in the Virginia Convention, urged the ratification of the Constitution for the following among other reasons, viz.:

“At present, if any slave escape to any of those States where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws; for the laws of the States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. This clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to retain them. This is a better security than any that now exists.”

General PINCKNEY, one of the delegates in the Federal Convention, from South Carolina, in a debate in the House of Representatives of that State on the Constitution, said:

“We have obtained a right to remove our slaves in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before. In short, considering all the circumstances, we have made the best terms we could, and on the whole I do not think them bad.”

In the speech made by Mr. WEBSTER on the 7th of March, 1850, he remarked that:

“So far as we can now learn, there was a perfect concurrence of opinion between those respective bodies the Congress and the Constitution and it resulted in this ordinance of 1787.”

When Mr. WEBSTER had closed his speech, Mr. CALHOUN arose, and among other things, said:

“He, Mr. WEBSTER, states very correctly that the ordinance commenced under the old confederation; that Congress was sitting in New York at the time, while the Convention sat in Philadelphia; and that there was concert of action.... When the ordinance was passed, as I have good reason to believe, it was upon a principle of compromise; first, that this ordinance should contain a provision similar to the one put in the Constitution, with respect to fugitive slaves; and next, that it should be inserted in the Constitution; and this was the compromise upon which the prohibition was inserted in the ordinance of 1787.”

This agrees with Mr. MADISON. The idea he conveys could scarcely have been more identical with Mr. MADISON if he had used MADISON’S words. When the Southern members of Congress voted unanimously for the 6th Article, or anti-slavery clause in the ordinance, with the proviso in respect to slaves escaping into the Territory, it was with the understanding that the Convention would insert a similar provision in the Constitution respecting slaves escaping from one State to another; and this its insertion in both was the compromise upon which the prohibition was inserted in the ordinance. Such is the concurrent testimony of Mr. MADISON and Mr. CALHOUN.

We will now turn to the ordinance of 1787, and see whether it applies, as the one proposed by Mr. JEFFERSON in 1784 did, to the new States as well as to the Territories, and is the basis of State as well as Territorial Governments, and was so intended. It declares as follows:

“For extending the fundamental principles of civil and religions liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions, are erected; to fix and establish these principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said Territory; to provide also for the establishment of States and permanent governments therein, and for their admission to a share in the Federal councils, on an equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as may be consistent with the general interest.

“It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid: That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said Territory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by the common consent.”

Then follows six articles of compact. Part of the fifth and the sixth are in these words:

“AR.... Whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever; and shall be at liberty to form a permanent Constitution and State Government; provided the Constitutional Government, so to be formed, shall be republican and in conformity to the principles contained in these articles.”

“AR. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.”

Such is so much of the ordinance as bears directly upon the point I am discussing. And the Convention, as if for the very purpose of giving the unequivocal sanction of the Constitution and of the country to this compromise, and of establishing it as the permanent policy of the Government, expressly provided that the “engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”

This ordinance, then, which was an unalterable compact, prohibiting slavery, and fixing and establishing freedom as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments in the Territory forever State Constitutions and Governments of course included was made valid by the Constitution itself. And on this point I refer to the highest Southern authority, the late Judge BERRIEN, who was thoroughly pro-slavery in his views, and should certainly be ranked among the ablest lawyers and statesmen Georgia has ever produced, who spoke to this precise point during the compromise discussion in the United States Senate in 1850, as follows:

“Validity was given to their act by the clause in the Constitution, which declares that contracts and engagements entered into by the Government of the Confederation, should be obligatory upon the Government of the United States established by the Constitution.”

It is the “act” of Congress in passing the ordinance referred to here. This being so, it was the same in effect as though the ordinance had been written word for word in the Constitution itself. A contract can be made valid, only by making it binding and obligatory upon the parties to it, according to its terms and meaning. To make an unalterable compact valid is to make it perpetually binding.

Having shown that the articles of compact in the ordinance were unalterable; that validity was given to them by the Constitution itself; that in express terms they applied to States as well as to Territories, and must, therefore, being made valid by the Constitution, necessarily have been understood and intended by Congress and the Convention to prohibit slavery as effectually in one as the other, I will now show very briefly that they were also so understood in all parts of the country.

Mr. WILSON, of Pennsylvania, a prominent member of the Federal Convention, and also of the State Convention for ratifying the Constitution, remarked in the latter as follows:

“I consider this clause as laying the foundation for banishing slavery out of the land.... The new States which are to be formed will be under the control of Congress in this particular, and slavery will never be introduced among them.”

Mr. WILSON speaks of the clause authorizing the prohibition of the African slave trade.

In the Massachusetts Convention to adopt the Constitution, Gen. HEATH said:

“Slavery cannot be extended. By their ordinance Congress has
declared that the new States shall be republican States, and
have no slavery.”

Colonel BLAND, a member of the Convention from Virginia, said he “wished slavery had never been introduced into America,” and that “he was willing to join in any measure that would prevent its extending farther.” To allow it in new States would not prevent its extending farther, and therefore it was prohibited in such States.

Doctor RAMSAY, a member of the Convention of South Carolina, in his History of the United States, says:

“Under these liberal principles, Congress, in organizing colonies, bound themselves to impart to their inhabitants all the privileges of coequal States.... These privileges are not confined to any particular country or complexion. They are communicable to the emancipated slave, for in the new State of Ohio, slavery is altogether prohibited.”

This compact, then, applies to State as well as Territorial governments, and was so understood in all sections of the country northern, central, and southern when the Constitution was ratified.

Let me now call attention to the very significant proviso to the sixth article. What does the word original mean, and what does the whole article mean with that word in the proviso?

“There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, &c.; Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.”

This means that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for the purpose of reclaiming such fugitives and I admit that slaves were intended as are lawfully claimed in any one of the original States. The very fact of the proviso implies that Congress understood that the right of reclamation could not exist, unless it was excepted.

And of course it could only exist for the purpose excepted. The intention was to grant the right to the original States, but to limit it to them. It is impossible to conceive of a measure for framing the proviso as it is, if that had not been the intention. As the ordinance itself made provision for the formation of new States, such States must have been in the minds of members when acting upon it. If the object had been to authorize the reclamation of slaves escaping to this territory from other States than original States, it is certain the word “original” would have been omitted. It was intended for the purpose of limiting the right.

Now observe that this article, proviso and all, is part of an unalterable compact to which the Constitution has given validity. Nobody pretends Congress has ever had the power to alter it. Mr. TOOMBS denies any such power in express terms. A law which Congress cannot alter has substantially the force and effect of a constitutional proviso. This, then, is the only law for the reclamation of fugitive slaves in the five States of the northwest territory; and there can be no other, the Constitution having made it perpetually valid.

Such obviously is the meaning and legal effect of the fugitive slave provision in the ordinance. And the meaning of that, derived as it is not merely from the consent of the Federal and State conventions, but from their concurrent action, necessarily fixes the meaning of the provision on the same subject in the Constitution, and shows how it must have been understood. As the two were parts of the same compromise, of course neither was understood to be inconsistent with the other. The provision in the Constitution is in these words:

“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

So far as this describes, or was understood to describe, persons held to service or labor as slaves, it necessarily must also have been understood to apply only to the original States. This follows from what has already been shown. And it must have been so understood for another reason, because it was only “in” and “under” the laws of those States that persons could be held to service or labor as slaves. Under the laws of the Territories and new States, their being so held was forever prohibited. Hence, none but those escaped from one of the original States could ever be legally liable to reclamation, according to the understanding and intention of the original parties to this compact. This manifestly was the meaning of “the fathers,” when the ordinance and Constitution were framed and ratified.

The two provisions must be construed together. That in the ordinance was intended for the Territories and new States, and that in the Constitution for the original States. If that in the Constitution had been intended for the Territories, it would have read, “escaping into another State or into the Territory,” and that in the ordinance would have been entirely omitted. The proviso to the prohibition in the Missouri Compromise in 1820 is a striking confirmation of this. That was copied, word for word, from the ordinance of 1787, or original compromise, except substituting for the words “in any one of the States,” the words “in any State or Territory of the United States,” as follows:

“Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive,” &c. And in the compromise of 1820:

“Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, such fugitive,” &c.

Why say “in any State or Territory of the United States,” instead of “in any one of the original States,” as in the ordinance of 1787, unless the Congress of 1820 understood the latter to limit the right of recovering fugitive slaves to the original States, and meant by the Missouri bill to extend it to all the States and Territories? They did extend it, but in palpable violation of the “spirit of the compact of the fathers,” and of the “policy of 1787.”

Originally the Southern States committed themselves to the policy of slavery restriction, by a compact in the nature of a contract for a consideration. By their own votes, they relinquished all pretence of right to any slaves beyond the jurisdiction of the original States. Slaveholders, as such, voluntarily shut themselves out of the new States, in consideration of the right of recovering their fugitive slaves in whatever part of America they might take refuge. The object, as I have clearly shown, was to secure to slavery in the original States the right of recovering fugitives, whether their escape should be from one of those States to another, or to the Territories and new States; but to make that the limit, both of the right of recovery on one side, and of the obligation to permit or allow it, on the other.

It follows, then:

First: That as between the new States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, no right of reclamation exists, or can exist, there being no power in Congress, as the South admit, to alter the compact in the ordinance of 1787, which denies this right.

Second: That no person, escaping from those States into any other State or Territory, can be reclaimed as a fugitive slave, because no person can be held as a slave under their laws.

Third: That no slave escaping from the slave States of Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, or Florida, into Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, or Missouri, can be lawfully reclaimed as a fugitive slave, because Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida are not original States.

Fourth: If slaves escape from any State or Territory other than the original States, into the States of the northwestern territory, no lawful power can touch them. The moment they reach those States they become free, because labor or service cannot lawfully be claimed of them in an original State.

Fifth: After the Missouri Compromise of 1820, slaves escaping from Arkansas and Missouri, for example to Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota, could be reclaimed, but escaping to Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio, they could not be. And the Congress of 1820 so understood it. The particular in which the Missouri proviso was altered in copying from the ordinance of 1787, is proof enough of this.

But did the framers of the Government intend to distinguish in this manner between new and original slave States? Certainly not; and the reason is, they did not mean to have any new slave States. Otherwise they certainly did mean to make this distinction, for nothing can be clearer than that Louisiana and Missouri cannot go to Ohio to recover fugitive slaves within the meaning of this “compact of the fathers;” while Georgia can. Manifestly we have departed from the system devised by the fathers in allowing Missouri, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida to be admitted with slavery, which explains, and nothing else can, this anomalous condition of things.

There can be no escape from these conclusions, but to deny that the ordinance has ever had any validity under the Constitution; which would be scarcely less than to deny that the Constitution itself had ever been a valid instrument. Having the like unequivocal sanction of national authority, and expressing alike in the words of Mr. Toombs, “the collective will of the whole,” they must stand or fall together.

Originally the territory was not divided by the line of 36 deg. 30’, or by any other line giving part to freedom and part to slavery. It was all secured, and by consent of the South, to freedom. There is nothing, therefore, in the original compromise, to justify the remark of the Editor of the Boston Courier in a recent number of that paper, that “below the line of 36 deg. 30’, the South have the right of prescription.” Freedom has an older prescriptive right to all the Territories. The line established by the compromise, between slavery permitted and slavery prohibited, was the boundary line between the then existing States and the Territory of the United States; or the line between exclusive national jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the States. It is an erroneous assumption, therefore, that the free States, by the introduction of slavery south of 36 deg. 30’, as well as north of it, would receive more than a fair share or moiety of rights and privileges, as between States or parties entitled to equal privileges. The idea that the extension of slavery under the Federal Government can be claimed by anybody south or north as a right, is wholly inadmissible. The Courier will hold the following declarations from Mr. WEBSTER to be good authority, if others do not:

“Wherever there is a foot of land to be staid back from becoming slave territory, I am ready to assert the principle of excluding slavery.” “We are to use the first and last, and every occasion which offers, to oppose the extension of slave power.”

“I have to say, that while I hold with as much integrity, I trust, and faithfulness, as any citizen of this country, to all the original amendments and compromises in which the Constitution under which we now live was adopted, I never could, and never can persuade myself to be in favor of the admission of other States into this Union as slave States with the inequalities which were allowed and accorded to the slaveholding States then in existence by the Constitution. I do not think that the free States ever expected, or could expect, that they would be called upon to admit further slave States.... I think they have the clearest right to require that the State coming into the Union, shall come in upon an equality; and if the existence of slavery be an impediment to coming in on an equality, then the State proposing to come in should be required to remove that inequality by abolishing slavery or take the alternative of being excluded. I put my opposition on the political ground that it deranges the balance of the Constitution.”

Wherever there is a foot of land to be staid back from slavery! Every occasion to be used to oppose the extension of the slave power! New States to abolish the inequality of slavery, or be excluded! I suppose Northern conservatives of the class referred to have endorsed those doctrines and declarations of Mr. WEBSTER a thousand times, as sound, national, conservative, and constitutional. But no Republican, so far as I know, has ever proposed to go an inch beyond the line of policy they indicated. The Chicago, or Republican Platform, certainly does not. And yet that same line of policy, when advocated by Republicans, is denounced as unsound, sectional, radical, and unconstitutional.

We have a great deal said about the equality of the States; of the new with the original States. This is said to be a fundamental doctrine of the Constitution.

It is claimed that citizens of the slaveholding States have an equal right in the Territories with the citizens of the non-slaveholding States; and I admit they have. But it is also claimed that they have the same right to the protection of property in slaves as property in cotton. This I deny. There is no such doctrine of State equality in the Constitution, nor was any thing like it contemplated by its framers. On the contrary, the Constitution denied this doctrine by clear implication, certainly for the first twenty years. It withheld from Congress the power to prohibit the importation of slaves into the “existing” States till 1808, while their importation into the Territories and new States might be prohibited at once. Ohio was admitted in 1802. Congress had power to prohibit the importation of slaves into that State from that time, and did do it in effect by the very terms and conditions of her admission, which required that her Constitution and Government should not be repugnant to the ordinance of the 13th of July, 1787, which interdicted slavery. But Congress had no power to prohibit the importation of slaves into Georgia till after 1808. Georgia and Ohio, therefore, in this respect, were not political equals from 1802 to 1808.

Nor have the States been all political equals in the sense claimed, since 1808. It will surprise many to be told that there is nothing in the Constitution about State equality, and especially nothing that affirms the equality of the new with the original States, even after 1808. And yet this is true. The only passages which refer to the new States, except impliedly in the importation clause, are these: “New States may be admitted by Congress into the Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State.” There is nothing, certainly, in this language to show that the new States were to be admitted on an equality, or an equal footing with the original States.

And yet provision was made, when the Constitution was framed, for the admission of all the new States to be formed in United States Territory then possessed, “on an equal footing with the original States.” But it was a footing of equality which was in nowise inconsistent with an absolute denial of the right to establish the inequality of slavery. And this is proved by the only compact in the English language contemporaneous with the Constitution which touches the subject, namely, that part of the fifth article of compact in the ordinance of 1787 which I have already quoted. There can be no shadow of claim that any thing else secured, or pretended to secure, the right of new States to admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. That, I admit, did. It is, to repeat it, in these words:

“Whenever any of said States shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent Constitution and State Government; provided the Constitution and Government so to be formed, shall be republican in conformity to the principles of these articles,” the 6th, which prohibited slavery, included.

And this is all there is, contemporaneous with the Constitution, on the subject of the equality of the States. The very instrument, then, which secured the admission of new States, on an equal footing with the original States, itself provided that they were never to tolerate slavery.

The new States, then, neither were to have, nor have they, any political equality which the prohibition violates, as Southern gentlemen contend. Certainly those formed and admitted under the plan of Government devised by the fathers, have not. In this sense they are not political equals. The original States were, from the beginning, and have ever been, political equals in this and every sense. Not, however, because the Constitution says they are, for it says nothing on the subject; but because they were independent sovereignties, and as such, made a compact which united them under one Federal Government, with discriminating restrictions upon the subject of slavery, or upon any other subject. But the fact that the evil and inequality of slavery existed in the original States, and was tolerated from necessity, was no reason why it should be allowed in the Territories and new States, where it did not and need never exist. So the power of the Territories and new States was sufficiently restricted to secure equality in personal rights and freedom to all the “inhabitants.” Of course it cannot be pretended that the mere fact that one or more States had established, and had power to perpetuate slavery, secured to new States the right to establish and perpetuate the same enormity, as a necessary result of State equality. That would make the right or power of one State, resulting from State equality, necessarily coextensive with tolerated evil in another. Manifestly “the fathers” had no such idea as this. Theirs was the common sense and rational idea that a moral and political evil which existed in the old States, and could not be removed, need not for that reason be tolerated in new States.

The Constitution guarantees to each State a republican form of Government merely; but the ordinance of 1787 provides that the “Constitution and Government of each new State shall be republican.” Why this difference? In the original States slavery existed, or in most of them; and so far they were anti-republican in fact and practice, though republican in form. The framers of the Constitution, having no power to abolish this anti-republican institution of slavery in those States, did nothing more than guarantee them Governments republican in form. But having the power to exclude it from the new States, they did exclude it, and provided that their constitutions and governments should be republican. That this was the reason for the difference may be inferred from the remark of LUTHER MARTIN, a distinguished member of the Federal Convention, that “slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism,” and of General HEATH in the Massachusetts Convention, that “Congress has declared that the new States shall be republican and have no slavery.” No other reason can be given. Thus republicanism in fact, and not in form merely, was made a condition of admitting new States. This is part of the unalterable compact to which validity was given by the Constitution. The Constitution, therefore, while it guarantees a republican form of government, does in fact, by giving validity to the ordinance, guarantee republican governments to the new States. This is another very significant fact harmonizing perfectly with all the other facts in the original plan for extending the Union by admitting States from Territories.

The States are all equals, or not, according to the terms of their admission. The original States became members of the Union upon the single condition of ratifying the Constitution, which left them at liberty to tolerate slavery or not. But the States formed in the only Territory which belonged to the United States at the time the Constitution was framed, were admitted on condition that slavery should be perpetually interdicted within their limits, and as parties to an unalterable compact to that effect.

Slavery was regarded, South as well as North, when the Constitution was adopted, as a moral and political evil. This had been the general sentiment of the country many years before, and continued to be long after that period. The representatives of the extensive district of Darien in Georgia, on the 12th of January, 1775, spoke of slavery as “founded in injustice and cruelty, and highly dangerous to our liberties.” JEFFERSON pronounced it “an injustice and enormity.” The present Chief Justice of the United States, Mr. TANEY, who acted many years ago as counsel of Rev. Mr. GRUBER, who was indicted in the State of Maryland for preaching a sermon on the evils of slavery, spoke as follows in his defence:

“Mr. GRUBER did quote the language of our great act of National Independence, and insisted on the principles contained in that venerated instrument. He did rebuke those masters who, in the exercise of power, are deaf to the call of humanity, and he warned them of the evils they might bring upon themselves. He did speak in abhorrence of those who live by trading in human flesh, and enrich themselves by tearing the husband from the wife, the infant from the bosom of the mother, and this was the head and front of his offending. So far is he from being the object of punishment in any form of proceeding, that we are prepared to maintain the same principles, and to use, if necessary, the same language here in the Temple of Justice, and in the presence of those who are the ministers of the law.”

“A hard necessity, indeed, compels us to endure the evils of slavery for a time. While it continues it is a blot on our national character; and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be effectually, though it must be gradually, wiped away, and earnestly looks for the means by which the necessary object may be best obtained. And until it shall be accomplished, until the time shall come when we can point, without a blush, to the language held in the Declaration of Independence, every part of humanity will seek to lighten the galling chain of slavery, and better, to the utmost of his power, the wretched condition of the slave.”

Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland: Where did you get that?

Mr. GOODRICH: I got it from a printed sermon recently preached by Dr.
ORVILLE DEWEY, of Boston.

And Mr. CALHOUN, in the United States Senate, in 1838, said that “many in the South once believed that slavery was a moral and political evil;” and Mr. BUTLER, late a United States Senator from South Carolina, said in the Senate in 1850, that he “remembered the time when slavery was regarded as a moral evil, even in South Carolina.”

In such a state of public sentiment, it is certainly no marvel that slavery was not allowed to extend into the Territories and new States. It was not prohibited in the northwest territory, because it was supposed to be, or would become, an evil in that territory particularly, or a greater evil there than anywhere else; but because it was regarded as an evil everywhere, and therefore wrong to permit its extension anywhere, when there was power to prevent it. There can be no doubt it would have been prohibited in the Territories and new States of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee, if Georgia and North Carolina, previous to the Federal Convention, had ceded them to the United States upon the same conditions Virginia had ceded the northwest territory. Proof of this is found in the fact that the plan of territorial governments interdicting slavery forever after 1800, embraced all territory ceded, or to be ceded by individual States; and still further proof is in the fact, that the cessions by Georgia and North Carolina, after the adoption of the Constitution, were upon the express condition that slavery should not be prohibited; thereby showing that the policy of the Federal Government, as they understood it, was restrictive of slavery in the far southern latitudes as well as in the more northern, and that they expected the power to restrict would be exercised, if not withheld in the deeds of cession. A proposition was, in fact, made to apply the anti-slavery clause of 1787, to all the southern part of the Mississippi territory, now the southern parts of Alabama and Mississippi, by the act of April 7th, 1798, it being supposed at one time that it belonged to the United States; but the debate shows that the proposition was withdrawn because the jurisdiction was in Georgia, or because not five members of Congress, after the question was examined, believed otherwise. Georgia claimed absolute title and right of jurisdiction, and denied all right on the part of the United States to interfere with slavery. Congress did, however, prohibit the importation of slaves into the territory, and declare every slave so imported to be entitled to his freedom. This was probably wholly unauthorized, as it was six years before Georgia ceded it to the United States, and ten years before Congress had power to prohibit the importation of slaves into that State. But these facts show a strong disposition on the part of “the fathers” to curtail and circumscribe slavery, even in the far south, and at the hazard, too, of exercising doubtful power.

Nothing can be clearer than that the original States had a right to form a Federal Government on such terms as to themselves as they could mutually agree upon, and to fix the terms upon which they would permit new members to be admitted. The Northern States were under no obligation to protect slavery at all, not even by permitting fugitives to be reclaimed within their limits. If, then, they were willing to concede that right to the original States, only upon condition that slavery should not be allowed to extend, who will say they had not a right to make that condition, or that, if agreed to, it would not be valid and binding? With their views of slavery, believing it to be a moral and political evil, it was certainly their first and highest duty to make effectual provision against its extension, before undertaking, for any reason, to give the least protection to it. Such provision they supposed they had made, and it was this that justified them, if any thing could, in conceding the right of reclamation.

The free, or northern States, in the exercise of their admitted right in deciding upon the terms of Union, insisted on making it a fundamental and ever-binding condition that no obligation to protect slavery in Illinois should ever exist; and this was done for reasons which render it morally certain that they would have insisted on the same condition in reference to Missouri, if Missouri had been part of the original territory. It would be preposterous to suppose that while they would not consent to guarantee slavery in any manner in Illinois, because they believed it to be a moral and political evil, they meant at the same time to make a Government that could obligate them to guarantee it in the adjoining Territory or State of Missouri, either by the return of fugitive slaves, or in any other manner. They meant no such thing, nor can an honest interpretation of the terms of union bind them to such guarantee now. The right to recapture fugitive slaves could not exist without the consent of the free States; and as that consent was given upon conditions and with limitations, by necessary implication and every sound principle of construction, they reserved the right to say whether it should exist upon other conditions and with other limitations, or without either condition or limitation.

Mr. WICKLIFFE: No one from Kentucky or Virginia wishes to alter the ordinance of 1787. For GOD’S sake spare us the argument.

Mr. GOODRICH: I understand no alteration is proposed in the ordinance; nor am I arguing against any such proposition. I am showing what the policy of 1787 was, and what the compact of the fathers was. And I am doing this because it is in the spirit of that policy and compact that Kentucky and Virginia tell us they wish to have this controversy adjusted. Massachusetts and the other Northern States meant to fix, and supposed they had fixed, a limit to their connection with, and responsibility for slavery. By consenting to the clause which secured the right of reclamation, they did become responsible for it to a certain extent. So far as it was supposed, when that clause was agreed to, that its effect would be the recapture of fugitive slaves, and their return to bondage, and so far as the purpose was to make such recapture and return lawful, so far the responsibility of adding to the security of slavery was voluntarily assumed. But this was limited to the existing States by excluding slavery from all United States territory. If any part of such territory had been left for slavery enough for a single slave State it might be said that its extension from a part was for reasons applicable only to a part, and so could not be considered as establishing the principle of non-extension. But now this cannot be said. Not a foot was left for slavery.

We thus see what the state of things would have been to-day if foreign territory had not been acquired. Such acquisitions were not originally contemplated, and of course not provided for. The first Louisiana was deemed unconstitutional by Mr. JEFFERSON, and yet it was made while he was President; but with no right, “according to the spirit of the compact of the fathers,” to place the Federal Government or the States under any other relation to slavery in subsequently acquired territory than that which they sustained to it the only one they would consent to sustain in the Territories possessed at the time that compact was made.

A great deal is said about State rights. But the doctrine of State rights proves too much. Massachusetts had a clear and undoubted right originally to limit her obligations upon this subject. And she did limit them. The original compromise was “better security” to slavery in the original States, with no extension of it to the Territories and new States. This better security was the accepted consideration for waiving the right to extend, and Massachusetts may rightfully insist on this waived right to extend, so long as this “better security” is demanded of her.

Southern gentlemen in this Convention propose to be governed by the principles of the founders of the Government, and by the Constitution, or compact of union, as those founders understood it. By that they say they are willing to do as the fathers did, and adjust the present unhappy controversy by applying to new territory the same principles which the fathers applied to the old. Let me assure gentlemen from the slave States that if they are really in earnest in offering these terms of adjustment, this unhappy controversy can be settled in less than an hour’s time. Having always claimed the right to recapture fugitive slaves in territory acquired since, as well as in that acquired before the adoption of the Constitution, the slave States have ever been bound, upon every principle of honor and fair dealing, to concede the original consideration for it, that is, prohibition. A purpose secretly entertained when that compromise was made, to use the Government in the manner it has actually been used, to enlarge the area of slavery and the obligation to guarantee it, would have been dishonest and fraudulent; but the fact that this purpose was conceived afterward, as it doubtless was, does not alter the case a whit. No man possessed of the facts can honestly claim that the bargain between the North and South, interpreted according to the true interest and meaning of both parties at the time of making it, can justify the extension of slavery a rod beyond the original States, or a particle of protection to it beyond the right to recover fugitives from such States.

Having thus shown, as I think I have, that an essential element in the basis of the “more perfect Union” on the question of slavery, was the principle of non-extension, we find the first failure to assert this principle was in the omission to apply it to the Louisiana purchase. The importation of slaves into that territory was immediately prohibited. That probably cut off the only source of supply from which danger of extension was then apprehended. The policy of the Government was well understood, and no apprehension of a practical departure from it existed. There was nothing in the circumstance of the purchase, or the reasons for making it, to excite such apprehension. But it was seen on the application of Missouri for admission, that the ordinance of 1787 should have been applied to it at the time of the purchase. If it had been, Louisiana, Missouri, and Arkansas would never have become slave States (the few slaves in New Orleans and vicinity being emancipated, as they should have been, upon some equitable principle), and the Missouri Compromise, which was the second departure from the original policy, would never have been made. The third was the annexation of Texas as a slave State, and the argument to divide it into three or four more. Annexation led to the war with Mexico, and the acquisition of a large part of her territory, and to the compromise of 1850, by which it was Congressionally agreed that the States formed in that territory might be admitted with slavery, if their Constitutions should so prescribe. This was the fourth departure from the original policy of prohibition. The fifth was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise in 1850, and the attempts to subjugate and enslave Kansas. That repeal made the change from the original policy radical and total. Certainly it is high time “to restore the Union and Constitution in the spirit in which they were established by the fathers.”

And now, sir, I propose to begin the work of “restoring the policy of 1787,” by applying the ordinance of 1787 to every foot of organized and unorganized territory, wherever situated, which now belongs to the United States, precisely as the fathers applied it to every foot of such territory at the time the Constitution was made; and I ask, in all earnestness and seriousness, what any member of the Convention can have to say against this, who sincerely desires to “restore the Union and Constitution in the spirit in which they were established by the fathers of the Republic,” and is “ready to adjust the present unhappy controversy” in the same spirit? What, I beg to know, can be said against this mode of adjustment by those who are in favor of a “restoration of the Constitution to the principles and landmarks of our fathers,” and of a “return to the policy of 1787”? Can any man doubt that that ordinance would have been extended over all these territories in 1787, if they had belonged to the United States at that time? Let slavery, then, be prohibited now precisely as the fathers prohibited it then. Copy that old ordinance word for word, and give it legal force and effect, and make it the basis of all laws, and all constitutions, and all governments in these Territories forever, because the fathers gave it such force and effect, and made it the basis of all laws, and all constitutions and all governments forever in all the Territories of the Union, in 1787. If that would not be a return to the “principles and landmarks of the fathers,” and to the “policy of 1787,” then I beg to know what would be? How is it possible I put it to you, gentlemen of the South how is it possible to persuade yourselves that the principles and policy of 1787 can be restored by adopting the resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia? By what process is it that the gentleman (Mr. SEDDON) from Virginia, has come to believe that the South is entitled, according to the spirit of the compact of the fathers, “to the added guarantees” of which he speaks? According to the spirit of that compact it is manifest the slave States are entitled to no added guarantees.

But another of the Virginia Commissioners (Mr. RIVES) tells us that this question of slavery in nowise concerns the free States. On this point I will quote from a very high authority, which Virginia, certainly, will respect. Mr. MADISON was a member of the first Congress under the Constitution. A colleague of his, Mr. PARKER, proposed a duty on the importation of slaves, and said he “hoped Congress would do all that lay in their power to restore to human nature its inherent privileges, and, if possible, wipe off the stigma under which America labors.” Mr. MADISON, in remarking on that proposition, among other things said:

“Every addition the States receive to their number of slaves tends to weaken and render them less capable of self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign nations, they will be the means of inviting attack instead of repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the General Government to protect every part of their confines against danger, as well internal as external. Every thing, therefore, which tends to increase danger, though it be a local affair, yet, if it involve national expense and safety, becomes of concern to every part of the Union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of those charged with the general administration of the Government.”

And we hear, too, a great deal about war, civil war, if this unhappy controversy is not satisfactorily adjusted, which means upon the terms proposed by the slave States. But do gentlemen mean that an appeal will be made to the sword, unless the Constitution shall be so amended as to “provide that slavery of the African race shall be effectually protected as property in all the territory of the United States, now held or hereafter acquired south of latitude 36 deg. 30’"? which is the proposition of Virginia. If that is what is meant, then let me, before I close, read an extract from one of the last speeches made by HENRY CLAY in the Senate of the United States. It is as follows:

“If, unhappily, we should be involved in war, civil war, between the two portions of this Confederacy, in which the effort upon the one side should be to restrain the introduction of slavery into the new Territories, and upon the other side to force its introduction there, what a spectacle should we present to the astonishment of mankind, in an effort, not to propagate rights, but I must say it, though I trust it will be understood to be said with no design to excite feeling a war to propagate wrongs!”

Mr. HOWARD moved an adjournment.

Mr. BRONSON objected, raising the question of order. He claimed that the Conference, by adopting the resolutions of Mr. RANDOLPH, had fixed the limits of the sessions, from 10 o’clock A.M., to 4 o’clock P.M.

The motion of Mr. HOWARD was not concurred in.

Mr. LOOMIS: I feel that this is an important crisis in the affairs of the country. Perhaps it is the most important that ever occurred in American history. The first Convention of thirteen scattered States was earnestly engaged in protecting the liberties which had been won in the Revolution. It gave us a Constitution under which, for more than seventy years, we have lived prosperously and happily. Now political contests have taken place. New questions have arisen, and one portion of the Union believes the Constitution inadequate to protect its interests. The question which we are obliged to consider is: How shall we save the country? Disguise it as we may, deceive ourselves as we may, the country is in danger in great and imminent danger. A solemn duty is imposed upon each one of us. How shall we save the country?

Virginia has invited this conference of her sister States. Pennsylvania responded to her call with all activity. Pennsylvania has responded because she understood and appreciated Virginia. There is great misapprehension in the North concerning this venerated State, as well in regard to her motives as in regard to the principles and feelings that influence her people in their intercourse with and their action toward other States of the Union. I know Virginia well. I have associated with her people. I have practiced before her judicial tribunals.

Some years ago I was greatly pressed by an abolitionist who was indicted in Virginia, to undertake his defence. He was very fearful that he would not receive an impartial trial, that the court and jury would participate in the public excitement. I told him that he need indulge in no such misapprehensions. I knew Virginia too well for that. I told him, however, that if he desired it, I would go; but it was simply to defend him, and secure him a fair trial to act as his counsel. I could not represent his sentiments, for I am not and never was an abolitionist. I assumed his defence. I told him I would go, and I went. I did find great excitement there, but it did not surprise me. Many valuable slaves had shortly before escaped, some of them through the assistance and instrumentality of my client. Judge Fry was the presiding judge of the court. His liberality, and that of all his officers, was great as great as I ever enjoyed in my own State. The sheriff of the county drew thirty-six jurymen. Of these, twelve were slaveholders, twelve were abolitionists, and twelve were non-slaveholders. When the jury was finally empannelled it consisted of nine abolitionists and three non-slaveholders.

I never saw in my whole professional life a trial conducted with greater fairness or justice. The whole of it was entirely satisfactory to myself, and I believe to my client.

I have ever since entertained a feeling of the highest respect for Virginia. Her abstractions I confess I could never understand, nor did I ever wish to. They are her exclusive property, and she never uses them to the injury of her neighbors. If she chooses to make the resolutions of ’98 a matter of importance, I do not know that anybody is injured.

I regretted to hear the imputations upon Virginia which some gentlemen have seen fit to make. Menace is not the habit of that ancient commonwealth. She does not indulge in it, and it would not become her. The gentleman from New York intimated that if a State came to him with a menace he would meet it with a menace. In this I agree with him. If Virginia came here with a menace I should meet her with defiance. But happily for us we have no occasion to consider the question in this light. If ever a State came to meet her sisters, to consult for the common good in a proper spirit, Virginia does so now.

A military chieftain once, when approaching his death, lamented that he had no children to transmit his name and his qualities to posterity. Virginia will never need to take up such a lamentation. She has children enough. She is the mother of WASHINGTON and JEFFERSON, of MADISON, MARSHALL, and CLAY. Rightly and justly she has been called the mother of States. She is the mother of States, and of millions of freemen.

I honor and respect Virginia, for she deserves it. She was among the foremost in the Revolutionary struggle; and since it was terminated, she has exhibited a continued example of patriotism and loyalty. Her sons have been among the ablest in our legislative councils, and even to-day she sets a noble example before the country, for the emulation of her sister States. Our interests are inseparably connected with her own. We will acknowledge the fact, and act in view of it. Let her remember, also, that she has a common interest with us. She will do so because she will be faithful to her old traditions as well as to her present duty.

I cannot believe that the time has come when it is necessary for us to contemplate a dissolution of the Union. The people are not prepared for such an awful event. We do not yet know how heavy sacrifices they will make to avoid it. Some States have left us I know, but I believe their absence is but temporary. We must have them back, and we will. As for the Border States leaving us in the present condition of affairs, with the present feeling of friendship for them, that I regard as an impossibility. Why should the Border States go out of the Union when three-fourths of the present Congress are ready to give them all the guarantees they ask?

But let not Pennsylvania be misunderstood in her position. She will yield a vast deal for peace. She will examine and recognize the rights of every section of the country. She believes that when this is done, it is the duty of all to stand by the Union. She believes that the Border States cannot connect themselves with a so-called Southern Confederacy without involving themselves in a vortex of ruin. The President of the Southern Confederacy already talks about the smell of gunpowder, and about battles at the North. Well! he is a brave man no doubt, but if he will invade Pennsylvania we will resist him. Pennsylvania has gold enough to calm her friends; she has iron enough to cool her enemies.

But Pennsylvania desires no war. She will do all that an honorable State can do to avoid war. In that temper she sends her delegates here, and they will do all that honorable men can do to carry out her wishes. She has no desire to be a frontier State with her four hundred miles of border, which she must guard and protect if disunion takes place on the terms suggested. She will do all she can to avoid disunion. She is now a central State the keystone of the arch. She wants no imaginary line drawn along her border, with herself on one side of it and enemies upon the other.

Pennsylvania has always kept faith with the Union. She has always performed all her duties toward the Federal Government with cheerfulness and fidelity. Her three millions of people are true to all their obligations now to the Government as well as to her sister States. Her voice is for peace. She would at all hazards avoid disunion. She would make many sacrifices to avoid civil war. Last of all, she would do all she could to save the Union; she would never permit the destruction of the country. My own position is easily defined. I fully sympathize with and endorse the position of Pennsylvania.

Mr. LOOMIS referred to the election, installation, and message of the Governor of Pennsylvania, also to various resolutions of political conventions in Pennsylvania, in confirmation of his own views of the sentiments of the people of that State, and continued:

I shall dwell but a short time upon the provisions of the proposed amendments. I can live under the Constitution as it is, or as it will be if these amendments are adopted. I shall uphold the Constitution. I shall commit myself to no opposite course. The whole amendment is connected with and concerns the question of slavery in the Territories. This has always been a fruitful source of trouble.

The character of the relation of the Government to the Territories, and the interests of the States in them, were questions raised in most of the States when the Constitution was adopted.

The compromise of 1820, it was hoped, settled one question concerning them the question of slavery. But upon the repeal of the compromise the difficulty was opened again. Pennsylvania never took as ultra ground respecting this subject as many other States. She thought its importance was magnified. It is magnified now. If the South secured the amendment proposed it would not avail her much. The granting of it would not injure the North. The territory is unfitted for the profitable employment of slave labor. That is shown by experience. In ten years scarcely ten slaves had found their way into New Mexico and Arizona.

This is a question of sectional interest, and may be one, to some extent, of political power. Examine, for a moment, the true interests of both the North and South, in the question as it is now presented. I mean the interest of the extremes, for the Border States certainly cannot have a very deep interest in it. They lay between the two sections, and to some extent sympathize with both. The valuable portion of our present territory is north of the line proposed. It is rich in agricultural and mineral resources. It will be changed in time into a number of powerful and wealthy States. Is it not desirable now to exclude slavery from them forever? Then as to the territory south. It is smaller in extent, and almost infinitely less valuable. Much of it is barren desert which can never be cultivated. Considered as a material interest, the South is asking but little. The North is giving up almost nothing, by agreeing to give the South the control of this section while it remains a territory. But the South does not ask even that. She simply asks to have those rights guaranteed, the existence of which are already practically conceded.

As to future territory, I would raise no question about it. We want no more territory north or south. Its acquisition would only be attended with new troubles. New questions would be raised to threaten the quiet of the country and the stability of our institutions. Why should we trouble ourselves about the acquisition of new territory when we have already enough for one hundred millions of people?

We may form a Constitution which will be entirely satisfactory to the nation now. We may extend our territory in such a way as to render a change indispensable. Considerations of climate and race will be constantly occurring, which will require new changes. The Federal Constitution may have been well enough adapted to the four millions of people to whom it was first applied, and it is not strange that the growth of the nation, and the new interests which have since arisen, should require some changes now. I say that we need no more territory.

What objection, then, can there be to compromising this matter, to arranging it to the satisfaction of all parties, if the rights of all can be regarded and secured? The course which I would follow in such a case, would be that indicated by traditional policy of statesmen in whom our people have had confidence the policy of such men as HARRISON and HENRY CLAY.

I do not regard the provisions relating to slavery in the District of Columbia as of any practical consequence to the North. Pennsylvania cares little about it. There would seem to be a propriety in countenancing slavery here so long as it exists in the adjoining States.

The Border States ask us now for these guarantees. They ask them earnestly and in a spirit of loyalty to the Union. My answer to such a request, urged in such a spirit, is, that I would give them any guarantees I could within the limits of the Constitution.

Pennsylvania forms one of the brotherhood of States. She is in the Union, and she will remain there. She is bound to it by all the memories and associations of the past, and by all the hopes of the future. She will discharge, as she always has discharged, all her duties, all her obligations to the Union. No State exceeds her in devotion to it. But, at the same time, she will not be unmindful of her duties and her obligations to the other States. She would discharge these obligations as she can afford to discharge them, in a spirit of generosity and conciliation. In that spirit she will give her assent to these propositions of amendment. I believe I have fairly represented the opinions of Pennsylvania in what I have said, and I rely upon her people my constituents for my justification.

Mr. CHITTENDEN: I will consult the pleasure of the Conference whether I shall proceed with my observations now, or during the evening session?

Mr. MOREHEAD: I think the Conference had better adjourn. I make the motion.

The motion was adopted, and the Conference adjourned to meet at half-past seven o’clock this evening.

EVENING SESSION FOURTEENTH DAY.

WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, February 21st, 1861.

The Conference was called to order at half-past seven o’clock, Mr.
ALEXANDER in the chair.

Mr. CHITTENDEN: I feel gratified by the kindness which has given me an opportunity of making a few observations to the Conference, and I shall not abuse it.

The delegates from Vermont have acted throughout the session under great embarrassment. We hold our appointments from the Executive of that State. Her Legislature was not in session when the Virginia Resolutions were adopted, and the day fixed for the meeting of the Conference was so early that no time was given to the Governor of Vermont for consultation, or for taking any other means of ascertaining the temper of the State in relation to the Virginia plan. We were summoned by telegraph myself upon an hour’s notice to come here, and we obeyed the summons.

By the rules of the Conference we are prohibited from correspondence with our constituents upon the subject of its action, and we are entirely without recent information concerning their views and wishes. But one course remains to us, and that we must inflexibly pursue. That is, to apply the propositions upon which we are called to vote, to the known and established opinions of our people upon the principles involved in them; and if these principles coincide with their opinions, to give our assent; if they do not, to withhold it. We hold it our duty to respect and obey the opinions of our constituents; and in our action here, such obedience is a pleasure.

First of all, before referring to the merits or demerits of these propositions, I wish to be informed distinctly upon one point. One section of the Union requires guarantees; the other does not. Here are two parties having different interests, proposing to themselves different courses of action. One of them proposes these guarantees in the form of what it calls a compromise. There are many subjects which, in the experience of life, we are obliged to compromise. All of us understand the meaning of the term. It implies that when two parties differ upon a subject of common interest, each is to yield something to the other, until both reach an agreement upon a middle ground, and the difference is settled. But one consequence always follows, always must follow, or it is in nowise a compromise: Both parties are bound by the agreement.

There is another way in which compromises are effected. When opposing parties cannot come to an understanding, they agree to submit the matters in difference to some tribunal that can decide between them. A like consequence always follows from such a proceeding. The parties agree to submit to the decision, to be bound by it, and mutually undertake to carry it into effect, whatever the decision may be.

There is still another way in which a political compromise may be made. Its terms may be agreed upon, and then it may be submitted to the people for adoption. When adopted, it becomes the law of the land equally binding upon all sections of the country. If it is rejected, the party which proposed it has secured its submission to the proper tribunal it has been considered, and that party should, upon every principle of law or morality, acquiesce in the result.

Except in one of these three methods I know of no way in which a compromise can be made. Let us apply these methods to the questions before us. One of them must be adopted if we compromise at all.

In fact there is one principle which forms the very foundation of our Government, and it should be kept constantly in mind. We cannot negotiate, we cannot legislate, we cannot compromise, unless all parties will acknowledge its binding force. If there is a party that does not acknowledge this, in my judgment that party has no right to be here. It is not a Republican party. I do not use this term in a party sense, but in the sense which is used in the fourth article in the Constitution, where the United States are required to guarantee to every State a republican form of Government. The principle to which I refer is this: That the will of the majority, constitutionally expressed, must control the Government, and all questions relating to it; and that will must be respected and obeyed by the minority.

Now, if the members representing the free States will accept these propositions of amendment in good faith will agree to submit them through Congress to the people of the States, and to be bound by the decision of the majority, whatever that decision may be will you, gentlemen of the slave States, do the same? I do not refer to the States which have undertaken to withdraw from the Union. I only call upon the members for the States here represented. You have the right to speak for your respective States. You are sent here for that purpose. You ask us to give our votes for proposals which are certainly unpleasant, not to say offensive to us, and to use such influence as we possess to induce Congress to submit these to the people. You express the highest degree of confidence in the result. This is your plan of compromise. If we resist it, you charge us with standing between the people and your plan of sacrificing the Union to our platform. Very well. If we will submit your propositions to the people, and agree to be bound by and to acquiesce in their decision, will you do the same? If you will, it may be of service to protract this discussion, to make these propositions as acceptable as possible. If you will not, we are wasting time. We may as well stop here. Believe me, sir, Vermont, as well as every other free State, will have too much self-respect to agree to the terms of a compromise which will bind one party and will not bind the other.

There is one thing farther which we must understand. It has been frequently referred to in debate, and I shall not enlarge upon it. Time must elapse before these propositions can be acted upon. The free States expect faithfully to observe all their duties to the General Government to keep faith with it as they always have. Will the slave States do the same? Will they not only not obstruct the Government in the execution of the laws, but will they aid the Government in executing the laws? The answer to this inquiry is as important as the other.

Now, it is useless to tell the people of the free States, that such is the present condition of the South, such is the apprehension and distrust prevailing there, that we must give them these guarantees at once, without any longer delay or discussion that if we do not they will secede. Such an argument as that, sir, is an unworthy argument; it is unfit to be used in an assembly of men met to confer upon the Constitution. This is not the way in which good constitutions are made, for one of the several parties to present its ultimatum, and then insist upon its adoption, under the threat that if it is not adopted they will go no farther. If such is the true condition of affairs in some of the States, and the gentlemen representing them are the best judges, then before proceeding to amend the Constitution to satisfy them, I think we had better try to put them into a frame of mind suitable for negotiation. A Constitution adopted in that way would be good for nothing. Let it once be understood that such claims will be recognized, and we shall have amendments to the Constitution proposed as often as any section can find a pretext for proposing them. The agreeable course to us all would be to yield to your pressing appeals. But you ask us to compromise upon most extraordinary terms. You will not give us the slightest assurance that the people of the slave States will acquiesce in the vote of the whole people upon your propositions. You even say, you will not acquiesce, if the decision is adverse. You are in doubt if they will be satisfied if the decision is in their favor; and some gentlemen frankly avow that these propositions in themselves are not satisfactory. The gentleman from Virginia, with an openness and a frankness which seems a part of his nature, tells us in substance that Virginia will not be satisfied with these; that Virginia is settled in her determination that slave property shall be respected; that it has as high a right to protection as any other property, and in some respects higher; that Virginia will have these rights acknowledged and secured under the Constitution, or she will not be satisfied. The statement that she will not be satisfied, has a very peculiar and expressive signification.

Such being our present condition, I have little hope that good can come of our deliberations. We have started wrong. We should have settled the questions first, that the Union must be preserved, the laws enforced, and the duty of every State toward the Union performed, in every contingency and under all circumstances. Having resolved this, we could then go on, carefully consider the wants of every section, and we could afford to be generous in meeting the views of our Southern friends.

I feel more diffidence than I can well express in being obliged to differ so widely from the opinions of the gentlemen who have introduced the proposals contained in the majority report, and who have advocated them with such signal ability. I have less hesitation in expressing my unqualified dissent from the representatives of the free States, who pledge the people of those States so unreservedly to the support of these propositions, if Congress will submit them to their constituents. I object to these pledges, because I know they are deceptive, that they are made without authority, and that they will never be fulfilled. The South may as well understand this now, as hereafter.

The Union is precious to the people of the free States. They look upon it with a feeling closely approaching to reverence. They have looked upon its dissolution as the greatest national calamity possible. They have been taught to regard the idea of dissolution as a sin. Now, when the subject is forced upon their attention, when Conventions are called throughout the South to discuss it, when in some of the States the process has already commenced, I am well aware they will make heavy sacrifices to preserve the Union. They will sacrifice their prosperity, political influence, friendship, social relations, yes, their lives, to secure its perpetuity. But they will not sacrifice their principles which they have conscientiously adopted. No, not even to save the Union.

But let me not be misunderstood. A Government that cannot be maintained without the sacrifice of those principles upon which all good governments are founded, is not worth preserving. Such is not the case with ours. Its preservation requires no such sacrifice; and if we made it, the sacrifice would be useless. The habit once commenced, we should be called upon to repeat it over and over again, until at length we should have a Government destitute of principle.

The people of the slave States believe that slavery is a desirable institution, that a Government founded upon it would be most desirable. It has been declared here, that it is even a missionary institution, and that the North, in attempting to overthrow it, interposes between the slaveholder and his Maker, thereby preventing him from performing a duty toward the African race which his ownership imposes upon his conscience. Well, that is a question between yourselves and your consciences. We do not wish to interfere. Keep the institution within your own State limits, and we are content that you should have all the credit, and honor, and glory that pertains to it. Over and over again the truth has been asserted here, that there never has been, and is not now, any party, or any considerable number of men in the free States, who entertain the idea of interfering with slavery in the States. The opinions of a few rash men who entertain other views, are no more respected among us than among yourselves.

But the growth and extension of slavery outside of State limits, in the Territories which are our common property, present a very different question. If the North permits it there, to that extent it becomes responsible for slavery. I do not care what term you use to describe the feeling of the North in relation to slavery. One gentleman says that the North abhors it, and the use of the term has excited much comment. I may be still more unfortunate, but it is my duty to say that you cannot present an idea more repulsive to the northern mind or the northern conscience, than that of making the North responsible for the existence, expansion, growth, extension, or any thing else relating to slavery. Right or wrong, this sentiment has taken a firm hold of the northern mind. There it is, and it must be taken into account in every proposition which depends for its success upon the action of the North. Sneering at it will do no good; abuse will only make it stronger. You cannot legislate it out of existence. From this time forward, as long as the nation has an existence, you must expect the determined opposition of the North to the extension of slavery into free territory. If your proposals of amendment involve that, we may accept them, Congress may propose them, the South may adopt them; but the answer of the North to them all will be an emphatic, a determined, No!

Mr. GRANGER: If you Republicans will let us go to the people, we will show you what they will do. I think I understand the wishes and feelings of the people of the North.

Mr. CHITTENDEN: No doubt. The gentleman says he supported the BELL and EVERETT ticket. The record of his State shows to what extent his opinions are in sympathy with those of the people of the North.

Mr. President, for a time I did expect profitable results from this Conference. As I watched it from day to day, it seemed to me that generally the States had been very fortunate in the selection of their representatives; that few of extreme opinions had been selected; and that such a body, animated by common love for the Union, and by a common desire to secure a perpetuity of its blessings, must finally come to an agreement which would satisfy all; or if not, to an agreement in which all would acquiesce. In that belief I had determined to give my assent to the most extreme propositions which might be made here, that did not run counter to the position of my State upon the question of slavery extension, if those propositions would quiet the country and settle our present difficulties.

But when I heard it announced on this floor that the propositions contained in the majority report even, which do provide for the extension of slavery into the Territories, which involve a direct constitutional recognition of slavery for the first time, which place it above and beyond legislation, which take it out of the hands of posterity, which compel the North to pay for fugitives; and when I heard it stated that even these were not enough to satisfy the South, that Virginia must have something more, that she was “solemnly pledged against coercion, that she would not agree to abide by the decision of the people upon these propositions,” then hope went out from my heart! I have not since had any expectation that much good would come from our deliberations.

I have refrained from entering into the merits or demerits of slavery. I have refrained, so far as I could, from repeating what has been better said by others than I could say it. The point which I wish to press upon the Conference is this: Speaking for one State, we frankly tell you that she will not enter upon a compromise which is not fair and mutual, which does not bind both parties.

But, sir, although I have thus expressed myself, I do not at all despair of the Republic. I do not believe that a dissolution or destruction of this Government is to take place. Its origin and its existence have been characterized by too many signal interpositions of Providential favor. We cannot look into the future. I have no desire to do so. If we all conscientiously perform our prescribed duties, if we are faithful to ourselves, to our people and our Constitution, HE who rules the nations will take care of the rest. It may be that the clouds which now cover our horizon will be swept away, carrying with them all these subjects of difficulty and danger, which alone have troubled the quiet and the prosperity of the American Union.

Mr. LOGAN: Instead of dreaming, like Mr. FIELD, of news from the seat of war, and of marching armies, I have thought of a country through which armies have marched, leaving in their track the desolation of a desert. I have thought of harvests trampled down of towns and villages once the seat of happiness and prosperity, reduced to heaps of smoking ruins of battle-fields red with blood which has been shed by those who ought to have been brothers of families broken up, or reduced to poverty; of widowed wives, of orphan children, and all the other misfortunes which are inseparably connected with war. This is the picture which presents itself to my mind every day and every hour. It is a picture which we are doomed soon to witness in our own country, unless we place a restraint upon our passions, forget our selfish interests, and do something to save our country.

We feel these things deeply in the Border States. The people of these States bear the most intimate relations to each other. They are closely connected in business. They associate in their recreations and their pleasures. The members of a large number of their families have intermarried. State lines, except for legislative purposes, are scarcely thought of. The people of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, are one people, having an identity of sympathy, of feeling, and of interest.

We have in the West a section of country known as the dark and bloody ground. The historical incidents connected with it are of the most sad and mournful character. There is buried under it an ancestor of almost every family descended from the early settlers of the West. But this ground is limited in extent. If we are to plunge this country into civil war if we are to go on exasperating the sections until they take up arms against each other, then shall we make a dark and bloody ground of all the Border States. We shall desolate all their fields, and carry sorrow and mourning into every family within their limits.

Should we not have a deep interest in avoiding war? Should we not labor with, and entreat the people of all sections to help us avoid it? If it comes, we are to be the sufferers. Upon our heads the ruin must fall. We cannot and will not talk about abstractions now. We are impelled by every consideration to do all we can to settle our differences, and keep off the evil day that brings civil war upon our happy and prosperous country, and to prevent the devastation of that country.

I wish to say a few earnest words to my brother Republicans. You object to these propositions because they are pressed just now when the new administration is coming into power. You say that there is no need of them, and that they involve submission on your part, as a condition of your enjoying the fruits of the victory you have won. Let me assure you that no one labored harder for the triumph of Mr. LINCOLN than myself; I exerted what little influence I had; I paid my money to secure his election; I now wish to give him an honorable administration. I believe he will make a good President, and I wish to give him a united country to rule. This can only be done by a settlement of our troubles. No one will rejoice over that settlement more than Mr. LINCOLN.

Fellow Republicans, the only way that opens before us now to settle them is, by adopting the report of the committee; by permitting the people to adopt it. Can you, dare you, refuse to let these propositions go to the people? Dare you stand between the people and these propositions?

I would appeal to you on another ground. Remember that it is the minority that is asking for these guarantees. You are just coming into power. The country has approved of your action in the election of Mr. LINCOLN. You can afford to be liberal. Liberality is a noble trait in any character, whether it be that of an individual or political party.

There are reasons why the South should be apprehensive now. The organizations of the old Whig and Democratic parties had nothing sectional in them. There were no resolutions in their platforms which could give the South any cause of alarm. The content between these parties did not involve any sectional interests whatever. Now, it is undeniable that the organization of the Republican party was brought about by the agitation of the slavery question in its various forms.

It is not strange to me that the success of that party in the late election should be misconstrued and misunderstood by the South, and that the people there should be apprehensive for the result.

If the Missouri Compromise had not been repealed we should not have found ourselves in our present condition. It was the repeal of that compromise that brought the Republican party into power. The masses of the people do not sympathize with extremists on either side. The Republican party took the middle ground, and thus rendered itself acceptable to them.

After the repeal of the Missouri Compromise came the Kansas agitation. In this the North was right and the South was wrong. Slavery was attempted to be forced upon an unwilling people. They resisted the American people always will resist injustice. The excitement pervaded the whole country. Sympathy was excited for Kansas, and properly enough. This excitement benefited the Republican party it injured all others. It overwhelmed all other considerations. The aspect of the slavery question was remembered in Kansas; elsewhere it was forgotten.

In this way, was the Republican party brought into power. I say now that if the Union is dissolved, that party will be responsible; responsible, as that party has now the power to prevent it.

The gentleman from Vermont, who has put his argument in a very ingenious way, insists that before the North is called upon to act on these propositions, that the South ought to declare whether she will be satisfied with them. I do not think so. I am perfectly aware of the difficulties under which the Representatives of the slave States are laboring. They cannot answer this question. Let the gentleman remember, when he presses this point so hard, and with such apparent candor, that even he will not undertake to answer for New England. More than that, he denies the authority of those who undertake to answer for the North. I do not believe the gentleman is very extreme in his opinions; but let him remember that the South should be treated fairly, and that she is placed in circumstances of peculiar embarrassment. It raised the hair upon Republican heads when they were told that Virginia had presented her ultimatum. Now complaint is made that she has not done so, and that she will not say what will satisfy her.

I feel that I have no interest in this question, except the interest of a citizen. I have no special interest in it. I ask nothing of politics, but I do feel for my country. I may be wrong. I do not claim infallibility; but I cannot bring my mind to the conclusion that we ought not to adopt these proposals. I cannot see any practical injury to the North in them, and I can see much benefit to the South.

The North is vitally interested in the preservation of peace, in the preservation of her commerce, and other relations with the South. These relations cannot be broken up without great injury to the Northern people. My heart would rejoice if we could think alike upon these propositions, and adopt them with a degree of unanimity that would give them weight with the country.

I would not assail the motives of gentlemen. Doubtless there are men who honestly believe that such a proposition ought only to be considered in a General Convention. In my judgment such a Convention would be utterly useless. It would lead to endless discussion, which would not be conducted with the decorum that characterizes these proceedings. It would amount to nothing.

No, gentlemen, there is a better way than that. Let us have no General Convention, but let us induce Congress to submit our propositions at once to the people. In no other way, in my judgment, can we avoid the disunion that threatens us. In no other way can the country be saved in her present peril.

Mr. DAVIS, of North Carolina:

Mr. ORTH: Mr. President, I have thus far avoided any participation in the general discussion of questions which have claimed the attention of this Conference. My purpose has been to give a calm and careful attention to whatever may be offered for our consideration; to hear with unbiassed judgment the grievances which are the subject of complaint, and to afford redress, if redress be necessary.

Virginia, rich in her patriotism of the past, rich in her historic treasures, has called upon her sisters to convene and consult with reference to the condition of the Union, and the matters which are supposed to threaten our future peace and welfare. Indiana heard and heeded that call. To her it was as the voice of a mother to her child. It was a voice which none of the States of the great Northwest carved out of that vast domain which Virginia granted to the United States as the common property of all could fail to hear with favor. If dangers threaten the common welfare, if the future peace of this land is to be disturbed, it was well for Virginia, as in other days of danger, to sound the alarm, and invite a general council. In pursuance of that call, Indiana is here, and here to listen. She feels conscious that she has by no act of hers infringed upon the rights of any of her sister States; that she has been faithful to her constitutional obligations seeking for nothing but what was right, and ever ready to remedy any wrong. Occupying this position, her representatives on this floor would be derelict in their duty if they attempted to assume any other, or to pursue any course of action inconsistent therewith.

What, then, in all candor, are the grievances of some of our sister States, as presented by their delegated authority to this Conference? Nothing of a tangible nature calling for practical and definite action. A deliberative body ought not to act upon the fears or imaginations of those desiring such action. The mere election of President of the United States by the votes of the northern portion of this Union, affords no just ground of complaint. That election is valid, being in strict conformity with all the requirements of the Constitution. The peculiar notions or political opinions of that President cannot be the ground of a just complaint, so long as these opinions in their practical operations do not interfere with or contravene the provisions of that Constitution. The opinions and principles of the President elect, however obnoxious they may be to any portion of the people of this Union, are harmless so long as his political opponents have in their control the legislative and judicial departments of the Government. The question of slavery in the Territories, if ever any real cause of grievance to any portion of the Union, is in process of final settlement, and will be settled before the close of the present Congress in a manner acceptable to a large majority of the American people. What, then, is left? “Personal Liberty bills” in some of the States; and these are being repealed as rapidly as possible; and so far as practical results are concerned, they have been a dead letter on the statute books ever since their enactment.

The non-enforcement of the fugitive slave law. The history of the country since the year of its enactment clearly shows that no law among the national statutes has received more prompt and vigorous execution, notwithstanding its exceedingly odious features. Here, then, is the list of grievances, or I might more properly say supposed grievances; and for a failure to redress them, this Government is threatened with civil war. To justify this unnatural and diabolical resort to arms, the chimera of “State sovereignty” is invoked. And what is State sovereignty? The gentleman from North Carolina has endeavored to enforce this doctrine, and deduce from certain premises, the right of a State, when she feels herself aggrieved, to secede from her sister States, and assume an independent position and a separate nationality. The fallacy of the gentleman’s position, in fact the fallacy of the doctrine of “State rights,” and the deductions made therefrom by the school of politicians and statesmen to which the gentleman belongs, arises from confounding the terms State rights and State sovereignty, and using these as though they were convertible terms. The several States of this Union possess certain rights clearly defined, and known and understood by the reader of American political history. Subject to the restrictions of the national Constitution, they have the right to establish, regulate, and control their internal police and entire polity so far as it affects the persons and property subject to their jurisdiction; to regulate trade, commerce, contracts, marriage, the acquisition, possession, control, and disposal of real and personal property; also the assessing and collecting of taxes, and disbursement of the public revenue.

These are some of the main rights belonging to the States as such, but these do not in any just sense constitute sovereignty. The several States of the Union are not now and never have been sovereign States. They never possessed the right to declare war, to make peace, to coin money, to enter into treaty with nations, and none of them ever endeavored or attempted to exercise any such rights as these. These are attributes of sovereignty, as laid down by writers upon the laws of nations, and recognized as such by the civilized world. Examine the history of your several States, and tell me whether in any one of them any act or fact can be found which would entitle either of them at any time, past or present, to be recognized as sovereign independent nations?

Mr. RUFFIN: Will the gentleman from Indiana permit me to inform him that during the Revolutionary War, the State of North Carolina had laid the foundation of a navy, and at the close of hostilities she transferred her vessels to the United States.

Mr. ORTH: I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for the interruption, and for the allusion to the local history of his State, of which I was not before aware.

There, then, we have a single instance of one of the States taking one step toward sovereignty, by the establishing of a navy. I believe this is the only instance now remembered, and this instance affords the strongest argument in favor of the position I assume and am endeavoring to enforce. North Carolina, it seems, had taken one step toward sovereignty; and yet upon the adoption of our national Constitution, upon the creation of the only sovereign Government in this Union, the Government of the Union, she transfers to that sovereign her infant navy; she relinquishes her only attribute of sovereignty if such it be to the United States, and merges herself with her sister States into that Union of States which has hitherto been our boast and pride, as well as the admiration of the world.

The several propositions now pending before us do not meet my approbation, and cannot receive my support. They are in the shape of amendments to the Constitution, and are all in the interest of slavery, seeking to strengthen that institution, and to give it an importance far beyond what the fathers were willing to concede. While the North is willing to recognize and enforce the requirements of the Constitution touching the various aspects of the slavery question, so nominated in the bond, they feel unwilling to grant new guarantees to a system which the civilized world is beginning to hold in detestation, and which is inimical to free institutions, and the only subject of contention that will ever seriously disturb the peace and prosperity of the Union. I am opposed to the proposition before us: First, because the grievances complained of are not of that serious character requiring any amendment of our fundamental laws. Secondly, because I am in favor of the Constitution as it is, firmly believing that no good reason exists for its change, and that an honest adherence to its wise provisions is our surest guarantee for real or supposed grievances, and that the present of all times is the most unpropitious moment to attempt any change or modification. Party politics in all their embittered madness rule the hour, but calm times and cool heads will be required whenever the American people desire to enter upon so hazardous an experiment. Let the Constitution remain; it has hitherto been, and will continue to be, the palladium of our rights, the sheet anchor of our safety. Thirdly, under no state of circumstances that can possibly arise among us as a people, will I ever consent, by word, thought, or deed, to do any thing to strengthen the institution of slavery. I regard it as an evil which all good men should desire to see totally eradicated; and I hope for the day to dawn speedily when, throughout the length and breadth of the land, freedom shall be enjoyed by every human being, without reference to caste, color, or nationality. While I am willing to tolerate its existence where it now is, I am unwilling to extend its boundaries a single inch, and will not give it any guarantee, protection, or encouragement, save what it can exact by the strict letter of the fundamental law. Beyond that I will never go; beyond that Indiana will never go; and to this, gentlemen from the other side had as well become reconciled. It is the ne plus ultra of the American people, and to that they will adhere through all coming time. If, in consequence of this position, the foundations of society are to be broken up, civil war inaugurated, and the destruction of the Government attempted, you must remember we are standing upon the Constitution, in favor of sustaining the laws of the land, denying the existence of any real grievance; and standing thus with that consciousness of strength which integrity imparts, you must strike the first blow, cross the Rubicon, commit the foul and damning crime of treason, and bring upon your people ruin, devastation, and destruction, and call down upon your guilty heads the curses of your children and the disapprobation of the civilized world!

Mr. BRONSON: For what purpose was this Conference called? Why have we come here? I suppose we are here to do something, to accomplish something. If we are only here to make speeches, and not to arrive at conclusions, our mission is useless. The greater portion of the debate hitherto has been made up of set speeches, all like the circumlocution office in one of Dickens’ novels, showing “how not to do it.” I am not in favor of pursuing this course any longer. Let us talk the subject over like business men, in a sensible way, and then come to a vote. I think we may do something which will prove effectual, and I hope we shall. My political opinions are well known. For more than forty years I have belonged to one political party. I did not come here to speak. I did not intend to speak at all, and shall now only submit a few observations.

I hail from the old Democratic party. The most of you are members of the opposition. I do not know how or why I was selected as one of the delegates from New York. I do not even know how the vote of that delegation will stand on these proposals of amendment. I suppose the dominant party has taken care to send a majority of its members. If I was a mere politician, I do not know but I should be in favor of breaking up the Conference, and of doing nothing; but being only a Democrat, I desire to transmit to posterity the blessings of a good Constitution and a good Government.

The country has become disquieted. Its peace has been disturbed by the acts of politicians. Many have become disgusted with the present condition of affairs, and are unwilling to act or vote. A large portion of our people have become alarmed. They think their rights have been invaded. Some of the States have gone. GOD knows whether they will ever come back again. If we act wisely, perhaps they may. But there is occasion enough for alarm. I have felt alarmed for a long time. One way suggested to get these States back is by conquest. But what are we to do with a conquered State? Shall we establish a military despotism over it?

We all have the right to express our opinions, and I will express mine. There are eight other slave States whose condition is to be considered. If we do not act here, will they not leave us and join their sisters? I hope they will not. I would not raise my voice in this Conference, if it were not for the purpose of inducing them to stay.

Virginia, that noble old Commonwealth, has invited us together. She proposes the CRITTENDEN resolutions, and asks us to consider them. Now she is charged with standing in the way of the Government. This is not true. Blessed are the peacemakers, and the position of Virginia in this matter is that of a peace-maker. I thank her for bringing us together.

Two-thirds of the speeches here have been made by those of a political party to which I never belonged. I do not understand either their purposes or wishes. Perhaps I may be behind the times. I have not been actually engaged in politics for more than twenty-five years. During a large part of that time I have been engaged, in my humble way, in the administration of justice in the State I here in part represent. I do not know but I may be falling into the common fault of making a speech. If I do, you must check me. Again I say, I thank Virginia for her invitation. Why should we not confer together? Six or seven States no matter which are gone. If nothing is done, eight or nine others will follow, and other divisions will come as a matter of necessity. Rhode Island patriotic Rhode Island will not go with New England in this Conference. She will not separate from her southern sisters. Connecticut, I think, will not stay, and New York, I believe, will stand with the South.

How is it, or why is it, that we should do nothing? Why should we break up and go home? Have not all the States asked us to come here and do this work? Why did their legislatures take the trouble to send us here? All this circumlocution might have better been done at home.

Will a Convention answer the purpose, when another Confederacy has been formed in our very midst? It would be two years at least before any thing could be accomplished by a Convention, and then it would be too late. We all know how delegates to such a Convention are elected. We all know how much time would be consumed before the Convention could meet. I say we cannot bear the delay. I ask the gentleman (Mr. BALDWIN) of Connecticut whether he thinks it would be safe to delay.

Mr. BALDWIN: I think it is always safe to follow the Constitution. I think we can follow the example of Kentucky.

Mr. CLAY: I would suggest to the gentleman from Connecticut that the representatives of Kentucky are here to speak for her.

Mr. BRONSON: Kentucky has sent delegates to this Convention since she passed the resolutions to which the gentleman refers. I think we cannot stand upon the ground taken in these resolutions. I do not believe Kentucky herself would be satisfied with them now.

It is strange to see gentlemen so cool and apathetic under such circumstances. Is no one alarmed for the safety of the old flag about which so much is said? Can the Border States stay with us when their brethren are gone? If the action of the North in relation to slavery is such as to drive out South Carolina, can Delaware and the other Border States remain? For one, I do not wish to put this Constitution into the hands of a General Convention. Who can tell what such a convention would do with the Constitution; what it would do with the decisions of the Supreme Court, under which so many of the vexatious questions have been settled? It would be worse than attempting to settle our differences in a town meeting. I would hesitate long before I would submit such questions to a convention. Before they could be settled in that way, the Union would be gone forever. The process would be too slow. I have nothing to gain in this matter. My only wish is to spend my few remaining days in the United States, and to transmit the blessings of our Government to my children.

Some of the Republican members here subordinate their platform to their country. I commend them for it; these are noble sentiments. Men should abandon platforms when they tend to destroy the country. I concur in the sentiments of the gentleman from Illinois, uttered this morning. They also are noble sentiments.

I venerate our Constitution. When made, it was equal to any ever framed. Nothing short of Almighty Wisdom could have framed a better. But was it given to human wisdom, to WASHINGTON and MADISON, to foresee all the events of the future? The Constitution has held us together for three-fourths of a century; that is a wonder in itself; but its makers did not foresee this day a day when Freedom itself was in danger of perishing.

Why this hesitation about amending the Constitution? New York accepted it reluctantly, and only ratified it upon the assurance that it should be amended as she proposed. It is not so holy a thing now, that it may not be amended. WASHINGTON, you must remember, signed the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793, as well as the Constitution.

We are told by gentlemen from New York and Connecticut (Mr. NOYES and Mr. BALDWIN), that the action proposed here is unconstitutional. It does not become these gentlemen to raise this objection. There was never an amendment of the State Constitutions, in either of the States they represent, adopted, that was not brought before the people in substantially the same way.

Much has been said here about modern civilization and the spirit of the age. It is said that these are hostile to slavery. Suppose they are? What have we to do with them? The example of England, also, has been referred to, as well as that of France. True, they have abolished slavery by name, but they have imported apprentices from Africa, and Coolies from Asia, and have placed them under the worst form of slavery ever known. England tolerates slavery in her mining districts to-day in a worse form than that existing in the Southern States. She has millions in India worse off than slaves. She has been the greatest land robber on the earth. She has contributed to the support of the Juggernaut, and has forced the Chinese at the point of the bayonet to eat opium. Do you forget that she ruined the capitol in this city, and blew it up, in 1814? I do not deny her virtues, but I do not care to follow her example.

Our fathers said slavery was strictly a State institution, and they would not meddle with it by the Constitution. Their doctrine is true now. The Union cannot be preserved if we interfere with the institutions of the States.

I will not stop to refer to the Missouri Compromise, or the compromises of 1850 and 1854. I will only say that the North understood these to settle the slavery question, and professed to agree not to meddle with slavery hereafter in the States. But the cry of freedom was raised, and its new apostles, during the last campaign, went through the land preaching destruction to slavery. What did they mean but that slavery was to be assailed at every possible point? This doctrine was involved in their platforms, and advocated in their speeches. They collected all the bad things ever said about slavery, whether true or untrue, and published them. The purpose to assail the institution was everywhere owned.

I wish to say a word about the Territories. What great harm would be done if all the Territories were thrown open to slavery? By the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, they are open already. But in the greater part of them slavery cannot exist at all. New Mexico has a slave code. So have the Cherokee and other Indian tribes; and yet slavery does not and cannot flourish among them. It cannot make head against the obstacles which oppose it, and yet you will attack it even there. If you do so, civil war is inevitable.

But what mischief is done if slavery does go into the Territories? It will not add another to the degraded race of Africans. It is a blessing to the slave if he may be permitted to go with his master into these new Territories. In the old slave States he is compelled to work in gangs under the whip of a driver, with no one to look after his health or comfort. Take him into one of these new Territories, and there are one hundred white men and women to protect each individual of his race, and to see that he suffers no wrong. It is a blessing to take him out of the plantation gangs, and to place him in a new country. Then why not let him go there and live in peace? Your zeal to exclude slavery from the Territories only injures the African race. If there is a good substantial reason for this exclusion I shall be glad to hear it. Up to this time I have heard no good reason stated. Although I have declared myself a Democrat, in this Conference I am no party man. Show me any good reason for not adopting these proposals of amendment and I will oppose them. But until that reason is shown they will receive my support. So far as I can judge, no argument has been proposed here against these propositions which is not of a partisan character.

The rights which the slave States now ask to have us recognize, are guaranteed to them by the Constitution as it now stands. We are giving them nothing new. Every lawyer is familiar with the rule of constitutional construction, that all the rights not expressly granted to the General Government are reserved to the States. Let us carry this principle into effect now. It is all that we are asked to do. Let us do something. Let us amend these propositions; make them as unobjectionable as we can, and send them to Congress. Let us urge Congress and the country to adopt them. In their adoption there is safety; there is great danger in their rejection.

Mr. POLLOCK obtained the floor, and at twelve o’clock the Conference adjourned to ten o’clock to-morrow.