1850. Jefferson Davis, on January 29, 1850,
said upon that compromise:
' ' That I may be understood on this ques-
tion, and that my position may go forth to
the country in the same columns that convey
the sentiments of the Senator from Kentucky,
I here assert that never will I take less than the
Missouri Compromise line extended to the Pa-
cific Ocean, with a specific recognition of the
right to hold slums in the Territories below that
line; and that, before such Territories are
admitted into the Union as States, slaves may
be taken there from any of the United States
at the option of their owners."'
To which Henry Clay replied:
"I am extremely sorry to hear the Senator
from Mississippi say that be requires, first, the
extension the Missouri Compromise line to
the Pacific; and also that he is not satisfied
with that, but requires, if I understand him
correctly, a positive provision for the admis-
sion of slavery south of that line. And now,
sir, earning from a slave State as I do, I owe
it to myself, I owe it to truth, I owe it to the
subject, to state that no earthly power could
induce me to vote for a specific measure fur
the introduction of slavery where it had not
before existed, either south or north of that
line. Coming as I do from a slave State, it
is my solemn, deliberate, and well-matured
determination that no power—no earthly
power—shall compel me to vote for the posi-
tive introduction of slavery either south or
north of that line. Sir, while you reproach
—and justly, too—our British ancestors for
the introduction of this institution upon the
continent of America, I am, for one, unwill-
ing that tine posterity of the present inhabit-
ants of California and New Mexico shall re-
proach us for doing just what we reproach
Great Britain for doing to us."
This shows the position of the two great
leaders at that time. Henry Clay, were he to
utter these sentiments to day, would be called
an abolitionist. In fact, he would be an
abolitionist with the rest of us, were he now
living.
From that period the vexed question has
been before the people, politically as well as
morally and religiously, and out of it directly
and as a sequence of its agitation, arose this
war. There was no possible way of satisfy-
ing the South but by giving up the whole
point at issue. They had educated them
selves into the belief that a trifling show of
fight on their part would secure to them the
power they demanded, the power to curse
with their iniquity every foot of virgin soil
over which the standard of the nation waived,
the guaranty of protection to all peoples;
they fired upon that flag, and they or their
empire will perish beneath its folds.
And now, sir, in view of the above hastily
suggested considerations, and in view of the
more elaborate and more able presentations
of the question by others on this floor, and |
in view of the thorough canvass of the whole
subject before the people of the State, I for
one am ready to declare, that "hereafter in
this State there shall be neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude, except in punishment
of crime, whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted; and all persons held to ser-
vice or labor as slaves are hereby declared
free."
It is a favorite mode of the gentlemen op-
posing the adoption of this article, to quote
incessantly words spoken by men now living,
never mentioning the circumstance that their
words now might be far different from those
littered even a year or two ago.
If they would appeal to our reason at all
on behalf of the position they assume, they
ought, at least out of respect or courtesy, to
pay some attention to the fact that we are in
the midst of an awful crisis; that the fate of
our country depends upon the arbitrament of
battle; that as the chances of war vary, we
are necessarily obliged to change our views.
It seems so useless to go into an argument
to show why this is necessary, that. I can
scarcely notice it with patience. However, I
will say this much: At the outset of this
war, before the war commenced; in fact, from
the formation of our Government—(have
the gentlemen forgotten?)—it has been
the desire, the earnest effort of all Union
loving citizens to yield up to the slaveholders
almost all that they demanded, until further
concession would have been equivalent to in-
famy.
So it was, that in 1861 and 1862, resolu-
tions were passed such as have been quoted.
But they would listen to no terms but their
own Does not the gentleman remember who
it was that defeated the Crittenden resolu-
tions in the Senate? It was the slaveholders,
by dodging the vote, that defeated the resolu-
tions, and they fully intended that it should
be so.
Another argument is that it is detrimental to
the material interests of the State; and very
many comparisons have been made. There
is one point which has been altogether over-
looked When the gentleman referred to New
Hampshire and Vermont, he forgot to mention
that there were other reasons why these States
did not prosper us well as some others. Let
me take a case with which I am very familiar
—the case of Old Virginia, right across our
BORDER=0—and Ohio. They are contiguous
States, containing nearly the same amount of
territory; and what is the statement? Ohio
was settled in 1788 by 47 persons from Massa-
chusetts, Rhode island, and Connecticut.
Two years after, it contained 3,000 inhabit-
ants. Thus they started in the race. The
population of Virginia in 1790, I cannot
find; but in 1800, Ohio contained 45,365 in-
habitants, and Virginia 880,200. In 1820,
Ohio contained 937,637, and Virginia 1,211,-
405. In 1860, Virginia had 1,596,318, Ohio |
