"ART. 6. 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° 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° 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° 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°
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:--[2]

[Footnote 2: The speech of Mr. DAVIS is, I believe, the only one
delivered in the Conference which I did not hear, and of which I did
not preserve minutes more or less full. The reason for the omission
was this: The morning session was protracted until a late hour, and
the labor of reporting the remarks of the members had been very
severe. The evening session commenced with some observations of my
own; and after reporting the remarks of Mr. LOGAN, which followed
mine, I found myself in such a condition of physical exhaustion that I
was obliged to retire to my room. It was during this temporary absence
that the remarks of Mr. DAVIS were made. I was informed that his
speech was very animated and in excellent temper--that he took the
position that North Carolina was loyal to the Union, but that he fully
concurred with the Southern States in the necessity of demanding
constitutional guarantees; and that if these were not given, her
relations were such with South Carolina and the Gulf States that,
however much she might regret the necessity, she could not do
otherwise than to leave the Union and unite her future with those of
the seceded States.

I have been unable to communicate by letter with any of the members
representing the States now in insurrection. As Mr. DAVIS was the only
representative from North Carolina who entered into a general
discussion of the reports of the majority and minority of the
Committee of One from each State, I was the more desirous of securing
some report of his remarks. But in all the material which has been
furnished me, by the many members with whom I have corresponded, I
find that none of them preserved notes of his speech.]

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.

FIFTEENTH DAY.

WASHINGTON, FRIDAY, _February 22d, 1861._

The Conference was called to order by President TYLER, at 10 o'clock
A.M., and prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. SUNDERLAND.

The Journal of yesterday was read, corrected, and approved.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--It will be necessary that some plan be adopted to
defray the expenses of the Conference, and of printing the Journal. I
move the appointment, by the President, of a committee of three to
take those subjects into consideration.

The motion was adopted, and the President appointed Mr. JOHNSON, of
Maryland, Mr. POLLOCK, and Mr. GRANGER as such committee.

Mr. HITCHCOCK:--I have an amendment in three sections which I shall
offer to the report of the committee. I ask that it may be read, laid
on the table, and printed.

The motion was agreed to, and the amendment read as follows:

     Strike out Section 3, and insert the three following:

     SEC. 3. Congress shall have no power to regulate, abolish,
     or control within any State the relations established or
     recognized by the laws thereof, touching persons held to
     service or labor therein.

     SEC. 4. Congress shall have no power to discharge any person
     held to service or labor in the District of Columbia, under
     the laws thereof, from such service or labor, or to impair
     any rights pertaining to that relation under the laws now in
     force within the said District, while such relation shall
     exist in the State of Maryland, without the consent of said
     State, and of those to whom the service or labor is due, or
     making to them just compensation therefor; nor the power to
     interfere with or prohibit members of Congress, and officers
     of the Federal Government whose duties require them to be in
     said District, from bringing with them, retaining, and
     taking away persons so held to service or labor; nor the
     power to impair or abolish the relations of persons owing
     service or labor in places under the exclusive jurisdiction
     of the United States, within those States and Territories
     where such relations are established or recognized by law.

     SEC. 5. Congress shall have no power to prohibit the removal
     or transportation of persons held to labor or service in any
     State or Territory of the United States, to any State or
     Territory thereof, where the same obligation or liability to
     labor or service is established or recognized by law; and
     the right during such transportation, by sea or river, of
     touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in
     case of distress, shall exist; nor shall Congress have power
     to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to
     service or labor than on land.

     Strike out Section 7, and insert:

     SEC. 9. Congress shall provide by law, that in all cases
     where the marshal, or other officer whose duty it shall be
     to arrest any fugitive from service or labor, shall be
     prevented from so doing by violence of a mob or riotous
     assemblage, or where, after arrest, such fugitive shall be
     rescued by like violence, and the party to whom such service
     or labor is due shall thereby be deprived of the same, the
     United States shall pay to such party the full value of such
     service or labor.

Mr. TURNER:--I offer the following resolution:

     _Resolved_, That the time fixed upon to commence voting upon
     the questions before this Convention, be postponed until
     Monday, February 25th, at 12 o'clock M.

I am as desirous as any member of the Conference can be for action.
Illinois is a Border State, and she feels, in common with the Border
States, a deep interest in the questions we are discussing here. But I
think a false issue has arisen, and that it ought to be corrected.
This issue has been forced upon us, and it will go to the country
unless corrected. Very little time has yet been occupied by Indiana,
Illinois, and Ohio, but we wish and we ought to be heard.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri, moved to lay the resolution upon the table.

The vote was taken by States, with the following result:

     AYES.--Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
     North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and
     Virginia--10.

     NOES.--Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
     Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio and
     Vermont--10.

Mr. TURNER:--I see the resolution does not meet with favor. I will
withdraw it.

Mr. CHASE:--I offer the resolution again. I wish to appeal to this
Conference in the name of peace, not to press this vote to-day. We
have been discussing general questions. There has been little or no
discussion touching the merits of the proposed amendments to the
Constitution. Do gentlemen suppose that if it is pressed through in
this way, it will meet with favor when it comes before the country?
Let me assure you, gentlemen, that you will not give the country peace
by such a course.

There is a prospect that all sections of the Union may yet be induced
to agree to a General Convention. The floor is so parcelled out that
the Western States cannot be heard. Why do you force the vote in this
manner? Two-thirds of Congress must concur, or these propositions
cannot go to the people. The same two-thirds can suspend the rule at
any time. There is no necessity for passing these propositions to-day.
I regret that the proposition of Mr. WICKLIFFE, limiting the speeches
to thirty minutes, has not prevailed. It was withdrawn.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--No! It was laid on the table by enemies.

Mr. POLLOCK:--I have the floor. I will occupy it only thirty minutes,
with the understanding that those who follow will do the same. We
still have time for six speeches.

Mr. CHASE:--I have but little more to say. When we have a rule, we
know what it is. A general understanding will amount to nothing. I
have insisted that it was inexpedient to press these matters to a
decision before the inauguration of Mr. LINCOLN; but when overruled I
have cheerfully submitted. I now appeal to gentlemen to yield, and let
us take the final vote on Monday.

One word now as to a General Convention. I have faith in that, and
believe we can agree to call one. The idea was started by Kentucky,
and promptly followed by Illinois. I have seen a copy of the
"Louisville Journal," which strongly advocates it. It is practicable,
and the country will assent to it.

Mr. HOUSTON:--The delegates from Delaware desire that the vote should
be taken to-day. We have not discussed these propositions, and do not
wish to discuss them. We want action.

Mr. BACKUS:--I concur in the views of the gentleman from Delaware.
Discussion, so far, has tended very little toward harmony or
unanimity. I am in favor of closing the general debate to-day. But I
do protest against that part of the resolution we have adopted, which
limits the discussion of an amendment to five minutes, and confines
the reply to the committee. We ought not thus to be restricted and
choked down. I will not move to amend the resolution now under
discussion. It will answer my purpose to give notice that I shall move
to amend the five-minute rule.

Mr. COOK:--We ought to have an opportunity to present the views of
Illinois. As yet we have had none. We cannot justify ourselves to our
people unless we do.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I move to lay the whole subject on the table. I want
to test the question. Debate and discussion change the mind of no one.
We have now been here eighteen days, and the country is expecting a
decision.

The vote upon Mr. WICKLIFFE'S motion was called by States, and
resulted as follows:

     AYES.--Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
     North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--9.

     NOES.--Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
     Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
     and Vermont--11.

Mr. BACKUS:--I now offer my proposition as a substitute for Mr.
CHASE'S resolution, as follows:

     _Resolved_, That the resolution heretofore passed, limiting
     debate on amendments that shall be offered to the report of
     the Grand Committee, be so amended as to allow the delegates
     who may desire, to speak not exceeding ten minutes on each
     amendment.

Mr. CHASE:--I do not wish to seem unreasonable. As my resolution meets
with objection, I will withdraw it in favor of the one adopted by my
colleague.

Mr. WICKLIFFE:--Have gentlemen calculated how many hours this will
take? It will amount to a total defeat of all action. We could not get
through by the middle of next month.

Mr. EWING:--I favor the resolution. All should have a fair chance.

Mr. HOUSTON:--I move to amend, giving each delegate ten minutes.

Mr. WILMOT:--I object to that very strenuously. Many delegations are
divided. I hope the resolution will pass as it is.

Mr. HACKLEMAN:--I approve of the rule as it now stands. Practically,
it gives ten minutes.

Mr. RANDOLPH:--I move to lay the resolution on the table. We adopted
the rule unanimously.

Mr. WILMOT:--The motion is not in order. We have once voted not to
table the resolutions.

Mr. HOUSTON:--I will withdraw my motion, at the instance of the
gentlemen around me.

Mr. CHASE:--The question is upon the adoption of the resolution
offered by Mr. BACKUS. I have accepted it in place of the one offered
by myself.

The PRESIDENT:--It is subject, at any time, to a motion to lay on the
table.

Mr. RANDOLPH:--That is my motion.

The motion to lay the resolution of Mr. BACKUS on the table was lost
by the following vote--the vote by States being requested by Mr.
CHASE:

     AYES.--Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
     North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and
     Virginia--10.

     NOES.--Connecticut, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,
     Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, and
     Vermont--10.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I presume we all desire to know the result of our
labors. I regret to see so much feeling manifested. Perhaps some of us
had better take the benefit of the prayers of the church on Sunday.
Some of us wish to get our propositions to Congress at an early hour.
Those who oppose us--those determined to defeat action, can speak on
until the fourth of March. I hope such is not their intention.

Mr. TUCK:--If the rule is abused, the Convention will stop the abuse.

At this point there were loud calls of "question," and the President
put the question to vote, _viva voce_.

The PRESIDENT:--I think the Noes clearly have it.

Mr. CHASE:--A vote by States was called for by several members.

Mr. BARRINGER:--Is this resolution intended to give the right of
reply? If so, we shall have a half-hour speech upon every amendment.

Mr. BACKUS:--If any member wishes to divide his time, he can do so;
but he can only occupy ten minutes in all. We are called to
deliberate, as well as to act. We are asked if we wish to stave off
final action? I answer, No. I want speedy action. But at the same time
let us have deliberation. I wish to give a vote that my constituents
will approve.

The PRESIDENT:--The vote will be taken by States.

The resolution was adopted by the following vote:

     AYES.--Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
     Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
     and Vermont--11.

     NOES.--Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey,
     North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--9.

Mr. HALL offered the following, which was read, laid on the table, and
ordered to be printed:

     Amendment to Section 3 of the Committee's Report, to come in
     after the words "retaining and taking away persons so bound
     to labor:"--"but the bringing into said District of persons
     held to service for the purpose of being sold, or placed in
     depot to be afterwards transferred to any other place to be
     sold as merchandise, is forever prohibited, and Congress may
     pass all necessary laws to make this prohibition effectual;
     nor shall Congress have," &c.

The PRESIDENT:--The Conference will proceed to the order of the day,
and Mr. POLLOCK has the floor:

Mr. POLLOCK:--Brevity is always a virtue. I intend to practice that
virtue now. I would not make a single observation, if I did not feel
that by keeping silence I should neglect my duty. As it is, I do not
intend to occupy the time of the Conference more than twenty minutes.

When the committee upon the subject invited Pennsylvania to furnish a
block for the Washington Monument in this city, they asked also for a
motto, to be inscribed upon it, which should express some idea
characteristic of Pennsylvania. What was the motto selected in behalf
of that great State? Did we go to Germantown and invoke the memories
of the mighty dead? Did we ask the motto of Valley Forge? No,
brothers, no! Pennsylvania stood by the side of the grave of Penn, the
man of peace, and in his example she found her motto, and it stands
inscribed upon her contribution to that monument to the Father of his
Country to-day. There may it stand forever. "_Pennsylvania was founded
by deeds of Peace._" How noble the sentiment! How characteristic of
that Commonwealth!

Animated by the same sentiment, filled with the same spirit, herself
asking nothing, requiring nothing, Pennsylvania comes into this
Conference and says to every delegate here, "_Peace, Brothers,
Peace._" She is not for war. She believes that the power of kindness
is far greater than that of the sword; that in the affection of
brother toward brother there is greater strength than in all the iron
contained in all her thousand hills and mountains. She comes here at
the instance of a sister. She heard the voice of that sister asking
for consultation, and she obeyed it. She is here, and in the right
spirit.

A word now as to the motive of Virginia in calling the States
together. Some object that Virginia comes bearing the olive branch on
the point of the bayonet. Not so, sir. She is placed in a peculiar
position, and I appreciate it. She does not make use of threats. These
exist only in the imagination of gentlemen. I am willing to meet her
here upon the very ground she takes, and unite with her in saying,
"Our Union as it is, now and forever." We are here taking counsel, not
with traitors, not with secessionists, but with lovers of the Union.

The people love the Union; they will not give it up. They are true. My
heart almost leapt from my bosom when that telegraph message was read
from Missouri a few days ago. Tennessee has taken up the cry, "Union
for ever," The nation is troubled. All nations are, at times. But our
troubles are not insurmountable. We are all here together to settle
them. Why not settle them, and give peace to the Union, and joy to the
hearts of the people?

We can settle our difficulties. The right feeling animates gentlemen
from both sections. Where was the heart in this Conference that did
not start with emotion, when, some days ago, that glorious old patriot
from North Carolina (Mr. RUFFIN) told us of his devotion to the Union?
Who did not honor and respect him? Old men and young men wept as they
listened. Friends! Countrymen! I come here from a Border State. These
States have a vital interest in the result, therefore we speak
earnestly. Let us say to the angry passions of the country, "Peace, be
still!"

The Border States are united; they have common interests. Beside the
hearthstones of each, sit wives, and children, and families, connected
with each other by ties of blood, of interest, of social intercourse.
We are one. Is Maryland or Delaware ready to say that either will
part company from Pennsylvania? No! We are brethren--come weal, come
wo, we will stand by each other, and we will stand by the Union.

Gentlemen say there will not be war, if we do not agree. I wish I
could think so, but I cannot. But if war should come, let me ask the
gentlemen from New York who think principles are standing in their
way, will you take the risk? Will you see the soil of Pennsylvania
drenched with blood? Can you risk all this hereafter, when you can
avoid it by accepting a proposition that involves no sacrifice of
principles? Never in my whole life have I felt the weight of official
responsibility as I feel it now. God grant that war may be averted
from the country!

Let the lightning this day flash to the extreme limits of the Union,
the glad tidings that we have settled these questions. The message
would be received with gratitude and thanksgiving. Our friends in the
Border States say, "We love the Union, we wish to stay in it; we do
not wish to be driven out." Can you not, will you not, do something
for them? Let us trust this matter to the people. I am not afraid to
trust the people of Pennsylvania. New York and Massachusetts, trust
yours!

We talk calmly of war, but we forget its calamities. Let us remember
that we should not sacrifice one life for this paltry abstraction. Let
us remember how great are the miseries of war. Let us think of the
rush of angry armies, of the widows and orphans, of the sorrow and
desolation that war always leaves in its path.

Christian men! remember that our great Saviour was a Prince of
Peace--that he came to conquer with peace, not with the sword. "The
Lord God omnipotent reigneth."

Disunion is a crime against every thing. Above all, it is a crime
against GOD. Christians, pause and reflect. Let me entreat you to help
us save this country from disunion.

I speak earnestly. We Pennsylvanians are upon the border. Our soil
must be the battle ground. Upon us will the heavy trouble fall. Once
more I say, let us trust the people. They are always right. They will
do something; and honest men, sincere men, tell us that unless
something is done, the border slave States cannot be retained in the
Union.

I am not here as a party man, but as an American citizen, and a
citizen of Pennsylvania. I am here to perform my duty to the whole
country, if I can find out what that duty is.

Our friends say there is great apprehension at the South that the
Republican party meditates unconditional interference with Southern
rights. I do not believe for a moment that there is any ground for
such an apprehension. But, nevertheless, it exists. Acting upon it,
several States have withdrawn from the Union. We must deal with it in
the best way we can. If we can satisfy our southern brethren, in the
name of peace let us do it. I labored for the election of Mr. LINCOLN,
but I never understood that hostility to slavery was the leading idea
in the platform of his party. Pennsylvania had other interests--other
reasons very powerful, for supporting him. There was the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise--ruinous discriminations in the Tariff--the
corruption of the Government--the villanous conduct of its high
officers; these and other considerations gave Mr. LINCOLN more
strength in Pennsylvania than the slavery question.

There are sentiments and opinions at the North that must be respected.
There are sentiments and opinions at the South that must be respected;
but there are no differences that cannot be honorably adjusted. The
only practicable way that I can discover is to adopt the plan reported
by the committee, and secure its submission to the people.

How can we do greater honor to this glorious day, which gave the
immortal WASHINGTON to his country and to the world, than by marking
it on the calendar as the day that secured the safety and perpetuity
of the American Union?

Mr. SUMMERS:--The Committee on Credentials have examined the case of
Mr. J.C. STONE, who is commissioned as a delegate from Kansas, and are
of opinion that he is duly accredited.

Mr. FIELD:--I understand that he was appointed by Mr. BEEBE, the
Secretary of the Territorial Government.

Mr. CLAY:--There is a provision in the Kansas Act authorizing the
Secretary to perform all the duties of the Governor in his absence.

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--I represent an old and honored Commonwealth. I
speak, remembering the maxing that "a soft answer turneth away
wrath." But I should disregard my duty if I did not reply to what was
said a few days ago, in arraignment--in unfair and improper
arraignment, of Virginia.

Virginia occupies no menacing position, no attitude of hostility
toward the Union or her sister States. Virginia knows that "eternal
vigilance is the price of liberty." She knows, too, that there is good
policy in the maxim, "in peace prepare for war." Her action is only
such as is dictated by a prudent foresight. How unkind, then, are such
taunts against Virginia, the mother of us all. She comes here in a
paternal spirit; she desires to preserve the Union; she disdains to
employ a menace; she knows that she never can secure the cooperation
of brave men by employing menaces. No! She wishes to use all her
efforts to perpetuate the reign of peace.

Another says we are seeking to secure an amendment of the Constitution
by the employment of unconstitutional means, and that this meeting is
a revolutionary mob--that these eminent men of the country assembled
here, constitute a mob. No, sir! No!

Mr. BALDWIN:--If the gentleman from Virginia refers to me, he quite
misunderstood me. I said only that the action proposed here was not
contemplated by the Constitution, and was revolutionary in its
tendency.

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--I cannot for my life so consider it. This is
merely an advisory body. We are here to devise an adjustment, and to
lay it before Congress. We are exercising the right of petition, and
that is a sacred right. Is this revolutionary? No, sir! You would
insist that Congress should _receive_ a petition, although that body
had no right to act upon it. If so, how much more should our petition
be received, when we seek to preserve the Union, and when the
Constitution expressly authorizes Congress to act in such a case.

The gentleman from Vermont said last evening, that a pledge from the
South to abide by the result would be a condition precedent to the
submission of the proposition at all, and yet he says he cannot pledge
Vermont. Why, then, does he ask us to pledge Virginia?

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--I am not willing to be misunderstood. I thought my
language was plain. What I said was, that no one could pledge the
free States for or against these propositions; but I did say we could
pledge them _to abide by the Union, whatever_ the result might be.
_That_ is the pledge we ask from the South.

Mr. BROCKENBROUGH:--Well, that is a pledge we have no authority to
give. We cannot accept these propositions as a boon from any section.
We must have them as a right, or not at all.

But let me address myself at once to the momentous question. It seems
that we can agree upon every thing but this question of slavery in the
Territories. So far as that subject is concerned, Virginia has
declared that she will accept the Crittenden resolutions. She and her
southern sisters will stand upon and abide by them. If gentlemen will
come up to this basis of adjustment with manly firmness, the electric
wires will flash a thrill of joy to the hearts of the people this very
hour. Why not come up to it like men?

The Supreme Court has already established the rights of the South, so
far as this question is concerned, upon a basis which is satisfactory.
Under the Dred Scott decision, the people of the South have the right