1ST SESS.] Mr. Clay's Compromise Resolutions. [FEBRUARY, 1850. alcalde, without any recourse from this determina- | expunged from view. Behold this formidtion. The indemnification of which this article speaks, shall not have operation with respect to those colonists of Texas, who may have taken part in the revolution of that department. (Circulated the same day by the Minister of the Interior, and published in proclamation of the 7th.)" This act of the General Congress is a full confirmation of the Presidential decree of September, 1829, and that without reference to the meaning of the verb "queda," twice used, and which signifies literally "remains." The literal translation would be, "slavery remains abolished," &c., which would imply that it had been abolished before. I translate it idiomatically, and as equivalent to "is;" but consider it of no importance here, as the law expressly confirms the abolition decree of Guerrera. Thus far we have a decree, disputed, abolishing slavery in Mexico, and a law, not disputable, confirming that decree; and here I might stop; but the case requires me to go on, and I produce other law, and still higher than that which I have quoted. I allude to the Constitution of the Republic of Mexico of the year 1843. I have a copy of the Mexican constitution of that year-an authentic copy-printed under the license which the law requires. For, to avoid errors in the editions of that fundamental law, it is forbid, by law, to be reprinted except by the permission of the Supreme Government or of the General Congress. This copy was printed in the city of Mexico the 12th day of June, 1843-the day of the signature and promulgation of the constitution-and bears its authorization upon its title page. I consider it authentic, and produce it as such; and in article 9, title 2, of this constitution, and under the head which treats of the rights of the inhabitants of the Republic, and at the head of the enumeration of those rights, stands this declaration : "1. Ninguno es esclavo en el territorio de la nacion, y el que se introduzca se considerarà en la clase de libre, quedando bajo la proteccion de las leyes." In English: "1. No one is slave in the territory of the nation, and any introducted shall be considered free, and shall be under the protection of the laws." This is the declaration of the Constitution of Mexico, and applies both to the present and the future. It declares that there are no slaves in the territory of the nation, and if any are brought in they shall be free. This is surely enough-enough to satisfy all minds, that slavery has been abolished in Mexico, and that there is not the least ground for fearing, or hoping, that it can ever exist in California or New Mexico by virtue of Mexican law. It is enough, I think; but I have more authority yet, and will produce it, though a work of supererogation. For this is a case to multiply authorities until doubt is extinguished-to heap up and pile up-to put Pelion upon Ossauntil all beneath is crushed into atoms and VOL. XVI.-26 able quarto! [holding up a large book.] It is a Spanish law dictionary, printed in Madrid, reprinted in Mexico, gone through several editions in each country, and authority in both. It is the law dictionary of Escriche in Spain, and of San Miguel in Mexico; and here is one, and there is the other. The Spanish edition is full upon the subject of slaves and slavery: the Mexican reprint of the same work (1837) omits the definitions, and says, under the head "esclavitud," it is not necessary to occupy a couple of columns with slavery and the slave trade-that the trade was abolished by treaty with Great Britain, and slavery itself by the laws of the republic-and then speaks of Guerrera's decree of 1829, and of the confirmatory act of 1837, in these words: "El decreto de 15 de Setiembre de 1829, dió libertad á los esclavos que ya existen en la república, bajo indemnizacion à sus duenos ó poseedores para que no apareciese atacada la propiedad: y últimamente en Abril de 1837, se ha publicada nueva ley sobre abolicion de la esclavitud." In English: "The deeree of the 15th of September, 1829, gave liberty to the slaves then in the republic, with indemnity to their owners or possessors, that property might not seem to be attacked: and finally, in April, 1837, a new law had been published on the abolition of slavery." This is the historical account of the aboli tion of slavery in Mexico. The reprint was in the year 1837, and therefore could not mention the constitutional declaration of 1843. The law dictionary of Escriche, and its reprint with notes and additions by San Miguel, to adapt it to the Mexican jurisprudence, are of as high authority in Spain, and in the American States of Spanish origin, as the law dictionary of Jacob is with us. I quote no more upon this head. I think every one must see that slavery was abolished throughout the Mexican territory before the cession of California and New Mexico to the United States, and that slavery cannot exist there now by virtue of Mexican law. This is as far as I propose to go upon that point at present. I limit myself to showing its abolishment, by Mexican law, before we acquired the countries; and that is enough, in my opinion, to show the Wilmot proviso, in relation to these countries, to be a thing of nothing-an empty provision-a cloud without rain-unless it be a rain of blood. But there is another view of this point which I mean to touch, and that is, to show that African slavery never did exist in Mexico in the form that it now exists in any State of this Unión; that there were differences in the Mexican law while it existed, and that to such a degree that it nearly prevented slavery in Mexico; and that, if that law was now in full force in New Mexico and California, not a single slaveholder in any State of this Union would carry a slave there except to set him free. These differences went to the facilities FEBRUARY, 1850.] Mr. Clay's Compromise Resolutions. and the rights of manumission, and arose from the opposite policy of the two countries; in the United States to discourage emancipation, in Mexico to promote it. To show these differences I will read from Humboldt's essay on New Spain, and from the law dictionary of Escriche. I use Humboldt first, and read from the Paris, quarto edition, of 1808: "D'ailleurs, les esclaves, qui heureusement se trouvent en très-petit nombre au Mexique, y sont, comme dans toutes les possessions espagnoles, un peu plus protégé par les lois que les nègres qui habitent les colonies des autres nations européenes. Ces lois sont toujours interprétées en faveur de la liberté. Le Gouvernement désire voir augmenter le nombre des affranchis. Un esclave qui par son industrie, s'est procuré quelque argent, peut forcer son maître de l'affranchir en lui payant la somme modique de 1,500 ou 2,000 livres. La liberté ne sauroit être refusée au nègre sous prétexte qu'il a couté le triple en l'acherant, ou qu'il possède un talent particulier pour exercer un métier lucratif. Un esclave qui a été cruellement maltraité, acquiert par la même son affranchisement d'après la loi, si toutesfois le juge embrasse la cause de l'opprimé. On concoit que cette loi bienfaisante doit être bien souvent éludée. J'ai vu cependant à Mexique même, au mois de juillet, 1803, l'example de deux négresses à qui le magistrat qui fait les fonctions d'alcalde du corte, donna la liberté, parceque leur maîtresse, une dame native des îles, les avoit couvertes de blesseures faites avec des ciseaux, des épingles et des canifs."-Page 133-'4. "Le royaume de la Nouvelle Espagne est, de toutes les colonies des Européens sous la zone torride, celle dans la quelle il y a le moins de nègres. On peut presque dire qu'il n'y a point d'esclaves. On parcourt toute la ville de Mexico sans trouver un visage noir. Le service d'aucune maison ne s'y fait avec des esclaves. Sous ce point de vue surtout, le Mexique offre un contraste bien grand avec la Havane, avec Lima et Caraccas."-Page 130. In English: "Moreover, the slaves, who happily find themselves in very small number in Mexico, are there, as in all the Spanish possessions, a little more protected by the laws than the negroes who inhabit the colonies of other European nations. The laws are always interpreted in favor of liberty. The Government desires to see the number of enfranchised augmented. A slave who, by his industry, may have procured money, can compel his master to enfranchise him by paying him the moderate sum of 1,500 or 2,000 livres.* Liberty cannot be refused a negro under the pretext that he cost the triple in purchasing him, or that he possesses a special talent for exercising a lucrative trade. A slave who has been cruelly maltreated acquires thereby his enfranchisement according to the law, provided always the judge embraces the cause of the oppressed. One may conceive that this beneficent law is often eluded. I saw, nevertheless, in Mexico itself, in the month of July, 1803, the example of two negresses to whom the magistrate who exercised the functions of alcalde of the court, gave their liberty, because their mistress, a native woman of the islands, had covered them with wounds made with scissors, pins, and knives."Page 133-'4. $300 to $400. [31ST CONG. "The kingdom of New Spain is, of all the colonies of the Europeans under the torrid zone, that in which there are the fewest negroes; one may almost say that there are no slaves. One may go all over the city of Mexico without meeting a black face. No house is there served with slaves. Under this point of view, above all, Mexico offers a great contrast with Havana, with Lima, and Caraccas."Page 130. I will now read from Escriche, who, as a law writer, is more full and precise, and shows such a multitude of cases in which a slave could easily obtain or actually force his freedom, that, under such laws, in a country where could hold them. I read from the dictionary, slaves were of any value, no man would or under the words, Esclavo, Esclavitud: "El señor hace suyo todo cuanto ganan y ad quieren por cualquier titulo sus esclavos; y si los pusiere al frente de tienda, nave ú otro cualquiera establecimiento, queda obligado á guardar y cumplir los contratos que hicieren, como si él mismo hubiese intervenido en ellos."-Ley 7, tit. 21, Part. 4. "El señor que fuere mayor de catorce años puede dar libertad á su esclavo en testamento; y el que fuere mayor de veinte puede darsela en instrumento, ó ante el juez, ó bien ante amigos, con asistencia de cinco testigos; mas el minor de veinte y mayor de diez y siete puede darla ante el juez con otorgamiento de su curador, á su hijo habido en esclava, á su padre, madre, hermano y maestro, á su nodriga, á la persona que le hubiere criado, á la que hubiese criado el mismo, y á su hermano de leche, al siervo que le hubiese librado de muerte 6 de deshonra, al que quisiere hacer administrador extrajudicial de sus cosas siendo de diez y siete años, y á la esclava con quien tratare de casarse."-Ley 1, tit. 22, Part. 4. "Si dos ó mas señores tuvieren un esclavo, puede libertarlo cualquiera de ellos, dando á los otros el justo precio de la parte que á cada uno correspondiente; y aun puede comprarlo un tercero con objeto de darle libertad."-Ley 2, tit. 22, Part. 4. "Merece la libertad el esclavo en los cuatro casos siguientes: 1°. Si delatase al raptor ó forzador de muger virgen: 2. Si descubriese al que hace moneda falsa: 3°. Si descubriese al gefe militar que abandonó su puesto: 4°. Si acusare al homicida de su señor, ó vengare su muerte, ó descubriere traicion contra al rey ó el reino. En los tres primeros casos debe el rey dar el precio de esclavo á su dueño.”—Ley 3, tit. 23, Part. 4. "Si el dueño prostituyere públicamente á su esclava, queda esta libre por el mismo hecho, y no puede aquel recobrar ni tener derecho alguno sobre ella."-Ley 4, tit. 22, Part. 4. "Adquiere par fin libertad el esclavo, por el matrimonio que contrajere con persona libre, ó por las órdenes sagradas que recibiere, con noticia y consentimiento de su señor; como tambien por la prescripcion, cuando con buena fé se tratare como libre por diez años en la tierra donde mora su señor ó por veinte en otra, ó sin buena fé por espacio de treinta."—Leyes 5, 6, and 7, tit. 22, Part. 4. In English: "The master makes his own whatever his slaves gain and acquire, by whatever title; and if he puts them at the head of a shop, stall, or แ 1ST SESS.] Mr. Clay's Compromise Resolutions. other establishment whatsoever, he shall be obliged to attend to and fulfil all contracts they may make, as if himself had entered into them."-Law 7, tit. 21, Part 4. "The master who may be above the age of fourteen years may liberate his slave by testament; and he who may be above the age of twenty, may liberate him by instrument, or before the judge, or even before friends, with the aid of five witnesses; moreover, the minor of twenty and over sixteen, may give liberty, with consent of his guardian, to his child had by a slave woman, to his father, mother, brother, and teacher, or to his nurse, or to the person who shall have brought him up, or whom he shall have brought up, and to his foster-brother, to the servant who may have saved him from death or from dishonor, to him whom he may wish to make extrajudicial administrator of his goods, being of seventeen years, and to the slave woman with whom he may propose to marry."Law 1, tit. 22, Part 4. "If two or more masters have a slave, either of them may liberate him, giving to the others the just price which belongs to each; and even a third party may purchase him for the purpose of setting him free."-Law 2, tit. 22, Part 4. "The slave shall deserve his liberty in the four following cases: 1. If he shall inform on the ravisher or forcer of a virgin woman; 2. If he discovers the maker of false money; 3. If he shall discover a military chief who abandons his post; 4. If he shall inform on the murderer of his master, or shall avenge his death, or discover treason against the king or the kingdom. In the three first cases the king shall give the price of the slave to his master."-Law 3, tit. 22, Part 4. "If the master publicly prostitutes his slave woman, she is thereby freed, and he cannot recover her, or have any right over her."-Law 4, tit. 22, Part 4. I conclude this exposition of Mexican law in relation to slavery by producing the definition of that word in Spanish law. For this purpose, I quote from the same law dictionary, Escriche, where we find it thus: "Esclavitud: El estado de un hombre que es propiedad de otro contra el derecho natural." In English : 'Slavery: the condition of a man who is the property of another against natural right." I quote this definition for the purpose of showing that, under the laws of Spain, in force in Mexico, slavery was held to be against natural right-therefore not derived from nature, or divine law, but founded in municipal law, and only existing by positive enactment-and, by consequence, that no argument in favor of slavery in New Mexico or California as an institution of divine origin, or of any origin in any place, independent of positive law, can derive any countenance from Spanish law. Further [MARCH, 1850. than this I do not go at present. I limit myself to the three points, which, I believe, I have established: first, that slavery was abolished in California and New Mexico before we acquired those countries; secondly, that, even if not abolished, no person would carry a slave to these countries to be held under such law; thirdly, that no slavery can hereafter exist in either of those countries, except by virtue of positive law, yet to be passed. The practical application which I make of this exposition of law is, that the proviso of which we have heard so much is of no force whatever-unnecessary in any point of view-and of no more effect, if passed, than a piece of blank paper pasted on the statute book. Mr. RUSK then addressed the Senate for an hour mainly on the subject of the boundary of Texas, and then gave way for a motion to adjourn; and the Senate adjourned. MONDAY, March 4. The Compromise. The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the special order, being the resolutions submitted by Mr. CLAY, upon which this day had been assigned to the Senator from South Carolina, (Mr. CALHOUN.) Mr. CALHOUN. As much indisposed as I have been, Mr. President and Senators, I have felt it to be my duty to express to you my sentiments upon the great question which has agitated the country and occupied your attention. And I am under peculiar obligations to the Senate for afforded me an opportunity of being heard the very courteous manner in which they have to-day. I had hoped that it would have been in my power during the last week to have delivered my views in relation to this all-engrossing subject, but I was prevented from doing so by being attacked by a cold which is at this time so prevalent and which has retarded the recovery of my strength. Acting under the advice of my friends, and apprehending that it might not be in my power to deliver my sentiments before the termination of the debate, I have reduced to writing what I intended to say. And, without further remark, I will ask the favor of my friend, the Senator behind me to read it. Mr. MASON. It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of the honorable Senator, and to read his remarks. The honorable gentleman then read Mr. CALHOUN's remarks as follows: Mr. CALHOUN, I have, Senators, believed from the first that the agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely and effective measure, end in disunion. Entertaining this opinion, I have on all proper occasions, endeavored to call the attention of each of the two great parties which divide the country to adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster, but without success. The agi MARCH, 1850.] Mr. Clay's Compromise Resolutions. tation has been permitted to proceed, with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has reached a period when it can no longer be disguised or denied that the Union is in danger. You have thus had forced upon you the greatest and the gravest question that can ever come under your consideration: How can the Union | be preserved ? To give a satisfactory answer to this mighty question, it is indispensable to have an accurate and thorough knowledge of the nature and the character of the cause by which the Union is endangered. Without such knowledge it is impossible to pronounce, with any certainty, by what measure it can be saved; just as it would be impossible for a physician to pronounce, in the case of some dangerous disease, with any certainty, by what remedy the patient could be saved, without familiar knowledge of the nature and character of the cause of the disease. The first question, then, presented for consideration, in the investigation I propose to make, in order to obtain such knowledge, is: What is it that has endangered the Union? To this question there can be but one answer: that the immediate cause is the almost universal discontent which pervades all the States composing the southern section of the Union. This widely-extended discontent is not of recent origin. It commenced with the agitation of the slavery question, and has been increasing ever since. The next question going one step further back, is: What has caused this widely-diffused and almost universal discontent? It is a great mistake to suppose, as is by some, that it originated with demagogues, who excited the discontent with the intention of aiding their personal advancement, or with the disappointed ambition of certain politicians, who resorted to it as the means of retrieving their fortunes. On the contrary all the great political influences of the section were arrayed against excitement, and exerted to the utmost to keep the people quiet. The great mass of the people of the South were divided, as in the other section, into Whigs and Democrats. The leaders and the presses of both parties in the South were very solicitous to prevent excitement and to preserve quiet; because it was seen that the effects of the former would necessarily tend to weaken, if not destroy the political ties which united them with their respective parties in the other section. Those who know the strength of party ties will readily appreciate the immense force which this cause exerted against agitation and in favor of preserving quiet. But as great as it was, it was not sufficiently so to prevent the wide-spread discontent which now pervades the section. No, some cause far deeper and more powerful than the one supposed must exist to account for discontent so wide and deep. The question then recurs: What is the cause of this discontent? It will be found in the belief of the people of the southern States [31ST CONG, as prevalent as the discontent itself, that they cannot remain as things now are consistently with honor and safety in the Union. The next question to be considered is: What has caused this belief? One of the causes is, undoubtedly, to be traced to the long-continued agitation of the slave question on the part of the North, and the many aggressions which they have made on the rights of the South during the time. I will not enumerate them at present, as it will be done hereafter, in its proper place. There is another, lying back of it, with which this is intimately connected, that may be regarded as the great and primary cause. That is to be found in the fact that the equilibrium between the two sections of the Government as it stood when the constitution was ratified and the Government put in action, has been destroyed. At that time there was nearly a perfect equilibrium between the two, which afforded ample means to each to protect itself against the aggression of the other, but, as it now stands, one section has the exclusive power of controlling the Government, which leaves the other without any adequate means of protecting itself against its encroachment and oppression. To place this subject distinctly before you, I have, Senators, prepared a brief statistical statement, showing the relative weight of the two sections in the Government under the first census of 1790 and the last census of 1840. According to the former, the population of the United States, including Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, which then were in their incipient condition of becoming States, but were not actually admitted, amounted to 3,929,827. Of this number the northern States had 1,977,899, and the southern 1,952,072, making a difference of only 25,827 in favor of the former States. The number of States, including Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, was sixteen, of which eight, including Vermont, belonged to the northern section, and eight, including Kentucky and Tennessee, to the southern; making an equal division of the States between the two sections under the first census. There was a small preponderance in the House of Representatives, and in the electoral college, in favor of the northern, owing to the fact, that, according to the provisions of the constitution, in estimating Federal numbers, five slaves count but three; but it was too small to affect sensibly the perfect equilibrium which, with that exception, existed at the time. Such was the equality of the two sections when the States composing them agreed to enter into a Federal Union. Since then the equilibrium between them has been greatly disturbed. According to the last census the aggregate population of the United States amounted to 17,063,357, of which the northern section contained 9,728,920 and the southern 7,334,437, making a difference, in round numbers, of 1ST SESS.] Mr. Clay's Compromise Resolutions. [MARCH, 1850. 2,400,000. The number of States had in- | college on the part of the North, which must creased from sixteen to twenty-six, making an take place under the next decade, will effectuaddition of ten States. In the mean time the ally and irretrievably destroy the equilibrium position of Delaware had become doubtful as which existed when the Government comto which section she properly belongs. Con-menced. sidering her as neutral, the northern States Had this destruction been the operation of will have thirteen, and the southern States time, without the interference of Government, twelve; making a difference in the Senate of the South would have had no reason to comtwo Senators in favor of the former. Accord-plain; but such was not the fact. It was caused ing to the apportionment under the census of 1840, there were 223 members of the House of Representatives, of which the northern States had 135 and the southern States (considering Delaware as neutral) 87; making a difference in favor of the former in the House of Representatives of 48. The difference in the Senate of two members, added to this, gives to the North in the electoral college a majority of 50. Since the census of 1840 four States have been added to the Union; Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, and Texas. They leave the difference in the Senate as it stood when the census was taken, but add two to the side of the North in the House, making the present majority in the House in its favor 50, and in the electoral college 52. The result of the whole is to give the northern section a predominance in every part of the Government, and thereby concentrate in it the two elements which constitute the Federal Government—a majority of States and a majority of their population, estimated in federal numbers. Whatever section concentrates the two in itself possesses the control of the entire Government. by the legislation of this Government, which was appointed as the common agent of all, and charged with the protection of the interests of and security of all. The legislation by which it has been effected may be classed under three heads. The first is, that series of acts by which the South has been excluded from the cominon territory belonging to all of the States, as the members of the Federal Union, and which have had the effect of extending vastly the portion allotted to the Northern section, and restricting within narrow limits the por|tion left the South; the next consists in adopting a system of revenue and disbursements, by which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North; and the last is a system of political measures by which the original character of the Government has been radically changed. I propose to bestow upon each of these, in the order they stand, a few remarks with the view of showing that it is owing to the action of this Government that the equilibrium between the two sections has been destroyed, and the whole powers of the system centred in a sectional majority. But we are just at the close of the sixth decade, and the commencement of the seventh. The census is to be taken this year, which The first of the series of acts by which the must add greatly to the decided preponderance South was deprived of its due share of the terof the North in the House of Representatives ritories, originated with the Confederacy, which and in the electoral college. The prospect is, preceded the existence of this Government. also, that a great increase will be added to its It is to be found in the provision of the ordipresent preponderance in the Senate during nance of 1787. Its effect was to exclude the the period of the decade, by the addition of South entirely from that vast and fertile region new States. Two Territories, Oregon and which lies between the Ohio and the MissisMinnesota, are already in progress, and strenu-sippi Rivers, now embracing five States and one ous efforts are making to bring in three addi- Territory. The next of the series is the Mistional States from the territory recently con- souri compromise, which excluded the South quered from Mexico; which, if successful, will from that large portion of Louisiana which lies add three other States in a short time to the north of 36° 30', excepting what is included in northern section, making five States; and in- the State of Missouri. The last of the series creasing the present number of its States from excluded the South from the whole of the fifteen to twenty, and of its Senators from Oregon Territory. All these, in the slang of thirty to forty. On the contrary, there is not the day, were what are called slave territories, a single territory in progress in the southern and not free soil; that is, territories belonging section, and no certainty that any additional to slaveholding powers, and open to the emiState will be added to it during the decade.gration of masters with their slaves. By these The prospect, then, is, that the two sections in the Senate, should the efforts now made to exclude the South from the newly-acquired territories succeed, will stand, before the end of the decade, twenty northern States to twelve southern, (considering Delaware as neutral,) and forty northern Senators to twenty-four southern. This great increase of Senators added to the great increase of members of the House of Representatives and the electoral several acts, the South was excluded from 1,238,025 square miles, an extent of country considerably exceeding the entire valley of the Mississippi. To the South was left the portion of the Territory of Louisiana lying south of 36° 30', and the portion north of it included in the State of Missouri; the portion lying south of 36° 30', including the States of Louisiana and Arkansas; and the territory lying west of the latter and south of 36° 30', called the |