Book Description

Excerpt from Speech of Hon. Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina: Against the Revolutionary Movement of the Anti-Slavery Party Mr. President: It is my purpose lo speak today of the condition of the country, as connected j with agitation of the slavery question. I shall do ! this with perfect frankness, and with no reserve, except what parliamentary rules and Senatorial courtesies impose. By such a course only can the real nature of the impending evil be ascertained, and a remedy suggested. Having carefully studied the subject during the greater part of my political life, and from different points of view, J intend to express my opinions seriously, and as fully as the occasion seems to require. Before sneaking directly to the merits of the Subject, I shall devote a few minutes to a preliminary question. It has been contende 1 that the Democratic party is responsible for the anti-slavery agitation of the North. A retrospect into the past will vindicate it most triumphantly from the charge. The course of the old Federal party, in the war of 1812, had brought it into discredit and disgrace with the American people. Its leaders, with a view of recovering the popular favor, and through it the control of the Government, seized upon the occasion of the application of Missouri for admission into the Union, and, by appealing to the anti-slavery feeling of the northern States, created a sectional party powerful enough to prevent, fora time, the admission of the State. During the struggle, a provision was adopted that slavery should never exist in the territory west of Missouri and north of the line of latitude of 3G 30'. Though this arrangement was distasteful to the South, and by many regarded as dishonorable and unconstitutional, it was acquiesced in fur the sake of peace. And when, in 1845, Texas was annexed to the Union, by the Democratic party mainly, this Missouri line was extended through it, and slavery, which legally existed in every part of that State, was abolished and prohibited north of the line. When, subsequently, territory was acquired from Mexico, the Democratic party, with but few exceptions, attempted to apply the same principles to it, and extend the line of 360 3(y through 1 it. The proposition was again and again brought * forward by the distinguished Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas] and others, and as often rejected by the combined vote of the entire Whig party of the North, and a portion of the Democrats of that section. After years of fruitless struggle it was abandoned, and the principle of congressional nonintervention adopted by (lie compromise measures of 1850. In other words, it was then established, in substance and effect, that the people of the Territories, free from all congressional legislation on the subject of slavery, should regulate* it for themselves, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the courts of the country. This settlement, like the proposition for the extension of the Missouri line, was resisted by the great body of the northern Whigs, who were for the Wilmot proviso and against the extension of slavery in any mode. It was also opposed by the southern friends of the Missouri line, who preferred that system to congressional non-intervention, and who still cherished the hope that it might be adopted. In the final struggle, they were reduced to a dozen southern Senators and thirty Representatives, of whom 1 was one. I call the attention of Senators to another striking fact in this connection. It is charged not only by the northern Opposition, but also by the southern opponents of the Democratic party, that it is responsible for the alleged evils of congressional non-intervention and the disturbances of so-called "squatter sovereignty"in the Territories. I affirm that, in 1650, when this system was adopted, it was sustained by the representatives of the southern Whigs with the greatest unanimit."