place a vulture preying on your heart-nay, you whet the dagger and place it in the hands of a portion of your population, stimulated to use it by every tie, human and divine. The envious contrast between your happiness and their misery, between your liberty and their slavery, must constantly prompt them to accomplish your destruction. Your enemies will learn the source and the cause of your weakness. As often as external dangers shall threaten, or internal commotions await you, you will then realize, that by your own procurement, you have placed amidst your families, and in the bosom of your country, a population producing at once the greatest cause of individual danger, and of national weakness. With this defect, your government must crumble to pieces, and your people become the scoff of the world.

Sir, we have been told, with apparent confidence, that we have no right to annex conditions to a state, on its admission into the Union; and it has been urged that the proposed amendment, prohibiting the further introduction of slavery, is unconstitutional. This position, asserted with so much confidence, remains unsupported by any argument, or by any authority derived from the constitution itself. The constitution strongly indicates an opposite conclusion, and seems to contemplate a difference between the old and the new states. The practice of the government has sanctioned this difference in many respects. The third section of the fourth article of the constitution says, “new states may be admitted by the congress into this Union," and it is silent as to the terms and conditions upon which the new states may be so admitted. The fair inference from this is, that the congress which might admit, should prescribe the time and the terms of such admission. The tenth section of the first article of the constitution says, "the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states NOW EXISTING shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the congress prior to the year 1808." The words "now existing" clearly show the distinction for which we contend. The word slave is no where mentioned in the constitution; but this section has always been considered as applicable to them, and unquestionably reserved the right to prevent their importation into any new state before the year 1808.

Congress, therefore, have power over the subject, probably as a matter of legislation, but more certainly as a right, to prescribe the time and the condition upon which any new state may be admitted into the family of the Union. Sir, the bill now before us proves the correctness of my argument. It is filled with conditions and limitations. The territory is required to take a census, and is to be admitted only on condition that it have 40,000 inhabitants. I have already submitted amendments preventing the state from taxing the lands of the United States, and declaring that all navigable waters shall remain open to the other states, and be exempt from any tolls or duties. And my friend (Mr. Taylor) has also submitted amendments prohibiting the state from taxing soldiers' lands for the period of five years. And to all these amendments we have heard no objection-they have passed unanimously. But now, when an amendment prohibiting the further introduction of slavery is proposed, the whole house is put in agitation, and we are confidently told it is unconstitu

tional to annex conditions to the admission of a new state into the union. The result of all this is, that all amendments and conditions are proper, which suit a certain class of gentlemen, but whatever amendment is proposed, which does not comport with their interests or their views, is unconstitutional, and a flagrant violation of this sacred charter of our rights. In order to be consistent, gentlemen must go back and strike out the various amendments to which they have already agreed. The constitution applies equally to all, or to none.

Sir, we have been told that this is a new principle for which we contend, never before adopted, or thought of. So far from this being correct, it is due to the memory of our ancestors to say, it is an old principle, adopted by them as the policy of our country. Whenever the United States have had the right and the power, they have heretofore prevented the extension of slavery. The states of Kentucky and Tennessee were taken off from other states, and were admitted into the Union without condition, because their lands were never owned by the United States. The territory northwest of the Ohio is all the land which ever belonged to them. Shortly after the cession of those lands to the Union, congress passed, in 1787, a compact, which was declared to be unalterable, the sixth article of which provides that "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment for crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted." In pursuance of this compact, all the states formed from that territory have been admitted into the Union upon various conditions, and, amongst which, the sixth article of this compact is included as one.

Let gentlemen also advert to the law for the admission of the state of Louisiana into the Union; they will find it filled with conditions. It was required not only to form a constitution upon the principles of a republican government, but it was required to contain the "fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty." It was even required, as a condition of its admission, to keep its records, and its judicial and its legislative proceedings in the English language; and also to secure the trial by jury, and to surrender all claim to unappropriated lands in the territory, with the prohibition to tax any of the United States' lands.

After this long practice and constant usage to annex conditions to the admission of a state into the Union, will gentlemen yet tell us it is unconstitutional, and talk of our principles being novel and extraordinary? It has been said. that if this amendment prevails, we shall have a union of states possessing unequal rights. And we have been asked, whether we wished to see such a 'checkered union?" Sir, we have such a union already. If the prohibition of slavery is a denial of a right, and constitutes a checkered union, gladly would I behold such rights denied, and such a checker spread over every state in the Union. It is now spread over the states northwest of the Ohio, and forms the glory and the strength of those states. I hope it will be extended from the Mississippi to the Pacific ocean.

Sir, we have been told that the proposed amendment cannot be received, because it is contrary to the treaty and cession of Louisiana. "Article 3. The

inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States, and in the mean time they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, their property, and the religion which they profess." I find nothing, said Mr. T., in this ar ticle of the treaty incompatible with the proposed amendment. The rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States are guaranteed to the inhabitants of Louisiana. If one of them should choose to remove into Virginia, he could take his slaves with him; but if he removes to Indiana, or any of the states northwest of the Ohio, he cannot take his slaves with him. If the proposed amendment prevail, the inhabitants of Louisiana, or the citizens of the United States, can neither of them take slaves into the state of Missouri. All, therefore, may enjoy equal privileges. It is a disability, or what I call a blessing, annexed to the particular district of country, and in no manner attached to the individual. But, while I have no doubt that the treaty contains no solid objection against the proposed amendment, if it did, it would not alter my determination on the subject. The senate, or the treaty-making power of our governmeut, have neither the right nor the power to stipulate by a treaty, the terms upon which a people shall be admitted into the Union. This house have a right to be heard on the subject. The admission of a state into the Union is a legislative act, which requires the concurrence of all the departments of legislative power. It is an important prerogative of this house, which I hope will never be surrendered.

The zeal and the ardor of gentlemen, in the course of this debate, have induced them to announce to this house, that, if we persist and force the state of Missouri to accede to the proposed amendment, as the condition of her admission into the Union, she will not regard it, and, as soon as admitted, will alter her constitution, and introduce slavery into her territory. Sir, I am not prepared, nor is it necessary, to determine what would be the consequence of such a violation of faith-of such a departure from the fundamental condition of her admission into the Union. I would not cast upon a people so foul an imputation, as to believe they would be guilty of such fraudulent duplicity. The states northwest of the Ohio have all regarded the faith and the conditions of their admission; and there is no reason to believe the people of Missouri will not also regard theirs. But, sir, whenever a state admitted into the Union shall disregard and set at naught the fundamental conditions of its admission, and shall, in violation of all faith, undertake to levy a tax upon lands of the United States, or a toll upon their navigable waters, or introduce slavery, where congress have prohibited it, then it will be in time to determine the consequence. But, if the threatened consequence were known to be the certain result, yet would I insist upon the proposed amendment. The declaration of this house, the declared will of the nation to prohibit slavery would produce its moral effect, and stand as one of the brightest ornaments of our country.

Sir, it has been urged with great plausibility, that we should spread the slaves

now in our country, and thus spread the evil, rather than confine it to its present districts. It has been said we should thereby diminish the dangers from them, while we increase the means of their living, and augment their comforts. But, you may rest assured, that this reasoning is fallacious, and that, while slavery is admitted, the market will be supplied. Our coast, and its contiguity to the West Indies and the Spanish possessions, render easy the introduction of slaves into our country. Our laws are already highly penal against their introduction, and yet it is a well-known fact, that about fourteen thousand slaves have been brought into our country this last year.

Since we have been engaged in this debate, we have witnessed an elucidation of this argument, of bettering the condition of slaves, by spreading them over the country. A slave-driver, a trafficker in human flesh, as if sent by providence, has passed the door of your capitol, on his way to the west, driving before him about fifteen of these wretched victims of his power, collected in the course of his traffic, and by their removal, torn from every relation and from every tie which the human heart can hold dear. The males, who might raise the arm of vengeance, and retaliate for their wrongs, were hand-cuffed and chained to each other, while the females and children were marched in their rear, under the guidance of the driver's whip! Yes, sir, such has been the scene witnessed from the windows of congress hall, and viewed by members who compose the legislative councils of republican America!

In the course of the debate on this subject, we have been told that, from the long habit of the southern and western people, the possession of slaves has become necessary to them, and an essential requisite in their living. It has been urged, from the nature of the climate and soil of the southern countries, that the lands cannot be occupied or cultivated without slaves. It has been said that the slaves prosper in those places, and that they are much better off there. than in their own native country. We have ever been told that if we succeed and prevent slavery across the Mississippi, we shall greatly lessen the value of property there, and shall retard, for a long series of years, the settlement of that country.

Sir, said Mr. T., if the western country cannot be settled without slaves, gladly would I prevent its settlement till time shall be no more. If this class of arguments is to prevail, it sets all morals at defiance, and we are called to legislate on this subject as a matter of mere personal interest. If this is to be the case, repeal all your laws prohibiting the slave-trade; throw open this traffic to the commercial states of the east; and if it better the condition of these wretched beings, invite the dark population of benighted Africa to be transplanted to the shores of republican America. But I will not cast upon this or upon that gentleman an imputation so ungracious as the conclusion to which their arguments would necessarily tend. I do not believe any gentleman. on this floor would here advocate the slave-trade, or maintain in the abstract. the principles of slavery. I will not outrage the decorum, nor insult the dignity of this house, by attempting to argue in this place, as an abstract propo. sition, the moral right of slavery. How gladly would the "legitimates of

Europe chuckle," to find an American congress in debate on such a question! As an evil brought upon us without our own fault, before the formation of our government, and as one of the sins of that nation from which we have revolted, we must, of necessity, legislate upon this subject. It is our business so to legislate as never to encourage, but always to control this evil; and, while we strive to eradicate it, we ought to fix its limits, and render it subordinate to the safety of the white population, and the good order of civil society Sir, on this subject the eyes of Europe are turned upon you. You boast of the freedom of your constitution and your laws; you have proclaimed, in the Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights—that amongst these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;" and yet you have slaves in your country. The enemies of your government, and the legitimates of Europe, point to your inconsistencies, and blazon your supposed defects. If you allow slavery to pass into territories where you have the lawful power to exclude it, you will justly take upon yourself all the charges of inconsistency; but confine it to the original slaveholding states, where you found it at the formation of your government, and you stand acquitted of all imputation.

This is a subject upon which I have great feeling for the honor of my country. In a former debate upon the Illinois constitution, I mentioned that our enemies had drawn a picture of our country, as holding in one hand the Declaration of Independence, and with the other brandishing a whip over our af frighted slaves. I then made it my boast that we could cast back upon England the accusation-that she had committed the original sin of bringing slaves into our country. I have since received, through the post-office, a letter postmarked in South Carolina, and signed "A native of England," desiring that, when I had occasion to repeat my boast against England, I would also state that she had atoned for her original sin by establishing in her slave-colonies a system of humane laws, meliorating their condition, and providing for their safety, while America had committed the secondary sin of disregarding their condition, and had even provided laws by which it was not murder to kill a slave. Sir, I felt the severity of the reproof; I felt for my country. I have inquired on the subject, and I find such were formerly the laws in some of the slaveholding states; and that even now, in the state of South Carolina, by law, the penalty of death is provided for stealing a slave, while the murder of a slave is punished with a trivial fine. Such is the contrast and the relative value which is placed, in the opinion of a slaveholding state, between the property of the master and the life of a slave.

Sir, gentlemen have undertaken to criminate, and to draw odious contrasts between different sections of our country-I shall not combat such arguments; I have made no pretense to exclusive morality on this subject, either for myself or my constituents; nor have I cast any imputations on others. On the contrary, I hold that mankind under like circumstances are alike, the world over. The vicious and unprincipled are confined to no district of country; and it is