and thus prevent the probability of insurrection, from a want of capacity to concentrate their forces.

If, then, an occasional majority of Congress had the right, under this or any other clause of the Constitution, to say that, in their opinion, it promoted the common defense and general welfare, that slavery should not exist in certain States of the Union; a counter majority, at any other time, under the same clause of the Constitution, would have the power to declare that it comported with their views of common defense and general welfare that it should exist in all the States, and that the non-slaveholding States should admit slaves within their borders, under pain of suspension or expulsion from the Union.

How would gentlemen then stand affected?

Would they not then declare against this mighty power, exercised upon mere speculation, whether this or that measure promoted the common defense and general welfare of the nation! In point of fact there was little, if any, difference between the taking away, or forcing upon, any person or people that which they did or did not want; each was equally a violation of their rights.

Mr. Tucker, of Virginia, said: Putting aside the feelings of the people of Missouri, is it not a solid objection to this restriction, that your power to impose it is doubtful and contested? However thoroughly gentlemen on the other side may be persuaded that Congress possesses this power, they must know that a large portion of the United States are as thoroughly persuaded that it does not; that, on this question there is entire unanimity in the slaveholding States; and that, with all the motives to an opposite unanimity in the other States, there is among them, as well as among their representatives in this House, considerable diversity of opinion.

They must also recollect, that, though these circumstances do not produce conviction, they must produce some

doubt, awaken some distrust in the infallibility of human reason in every ingenuous mind.

And, Mr. Chairman, when we consider the influence of public opinion on the harmony and stability of this Union, it must always be a matter of regret that the government should exercise powers that are doubtful, or even disputed. Until habit and custom have had their wonted effect in cementing the Union, its strength and permanency must rest on the affections, the undivided affections, of the people, and nothing is more likely to weaken their attachment than a want of confidence in this House, the natural guardian of the people's rights, and their immediate representatives.

March 2. Mr. Stevens, of Connecticut, said: In this question of compromise now to be decided, I am more fortunate, I now have the floor, and must avail myself of this first opportunity to state, explicitly, that I have listened. with pain to the very long, protracted debate that has been had on this unfortunate question; I call it unfortunate, sir, · because it has drawn forth the worst passions of man in the course of the discussion. I have heard gentlemen, and I must in candor say, gentlemen on both sides of the question, boast of sectional powers, and sectional achievements; and remind gentlemen from opposite sections of the Union that they had not so fought and so conquered; or left such conclusion irresistibly to follow.

I want, and the manifest public good requires that the reverse of this language should be holden.

Let each gentleman boast the valor of the inhabitants of an opposite section of the Union, then all get the praise due them, and in a way infinitely more acceptable to gentlemen of becoming modesty; and surely if any people ever merited all the praise that has been arrogated instead of being bestowed, the American people do. But it is not the inhabitants of any section of America that exclusively

merit all their exalted praise; but the Union collectively. In casting my eye over the map of my country, I scarcely discover a spot on it but is rendered memorable as the birth-place of some sage, hero, or philosopher; if these occur most frequently in Connecticut it is very well-if most frequently in some other State, very well-it is still my country. Shall I forego every joy of my life because the immortal Washington was not born in the State, of very cir cumscribed limits, in which I was born? Preposterous thought! He was born in America.

That is enough for me. His glory reaches us, bottomed on merit, aud scorns the proffered aid of mouldering marble to perpetuate it. If the deadliest enemy this country has, or ever had, could dictate language the most likely to destroy your glory, prosperity, and happiness, would it not be precisely what has been so profusely used in this debatesectional vaunting? Most undoubtedly it would. If the fell Spirit of Discord, the prime mover of sedition and rebellion in the heavenly realms, should rack his hellish invention for the same malicious purpose, he would undoubtedly pull the cord of sectional prowess; he would magnify the valorous deeds of each particular State or party division, and distort or obliterate all the rest. The arch planner of the first sedition and rebellion must for ever despair of improving on the sad invention. But, sir, gentlemen start at the mention-Why do this? You hold your seats by the tenure of compromise. The Constitution is a creature of compromise; it originated in a compromise; and has existed ever since by a perpetual extension and exercise of that principle; and must continue to do so, as long as it lasts. When your Convention met for its formation, they immediately discovered that the general welfare, the object of their solicitude, could not be secured and perpetuated, without giving up something like particular rights; and this giving up of particular rights, to secure the great end

and object of their meeting was called a compromise What did they do? They debated some months and then came to the obviously necessary result-compromise. It was plainly seen then as now-that, to obtain the object sought, it was necessary to make some sacrifices and to assume some evils. They thus thought the good sought was worth the sacrifices necessary to obtain it; and now after thirty years' successful experience, who dare arraign their wisdom or their patriotism? Rashness itself must forever remain dumb to this demand. If gentlemen are in favor of any compromise, it is a fit time to discuss that subject, and see if any can be hit on that will give general satisfaction. I am in favor of a compromise, but have strong objections to that now under consideration. I greatly fear it would tend to perpetuate the evil we seek to remedy. The south line of Pennsylvania State and the Ohio waters now form the boundary line between the two parties. If you continue that line, by the 36° 30′ of north latitude, to the Pacific Ocean, I fear it will not prove a pacific measure. This would be to place on your records a perpetual sallying place for party. It is devoutly to be wished that such compromise might be hit on as would forever put an end to the unhappy existence of parties in their present shape. I should prefer a prohibition of the admission of slaves into that State, as a measure most likely to effect that desirable object. The number already there is not so great now as to be a subject of any great uneasiness to those most opposed to the continuance of slavery.

Few gentlemen have risen in debate on this question, without deeply lamenting (and I think with great reason) the existence of parties, designated by geographical lines and boundaries.

I also deprecate it, as being a division of the Union into parties so equal in number, wealth, intelligence, and extent of territory. Indeed, sir, there is no view of this unhappy

division of our country, but must be sickening to the patriot, and in direct violation of the dictate of wisdom and the last, though not least, important advice of the father and friend of his country. He forbids the use of the words Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western, as descriptive of the various parts of your country.

And will you forget so important an injunction from that n.an in so short a time? Was there no political wisdom in the command? If none, why has it been so long venerated? I should prefer a compromise forbidding the importation of any more slaves into the State of Missouri.

This, I think, would allay party feeling, drive into forgetfulness present feuds, and satisfy my friends to the north and east, with whom I have acted, and delight to act. In common with them, I have an hereditary dislike to slavery, strengthened by a residence all my life, to the present time, in a country where it does not exist. I honor their dislike of slavery, and firmly believe there is not a gentleman in this House but deprecates its existence. Agreeing in this all-important point, let us not separate because we cannot think precisely alike of the means best calculated to eradicate it.

Was it ever known that a body so numerous thought exactly alike throughout any one grand, all-important measure for public good, in all the detail? And is it not the circumstance of a division in sentiment in so large a body, so equal in point of number, a thing that should lead both to suspect they may be wrong? Gentlemen who have much property of this sort, I agree, are deeply interested; but candor must at the same time admit they have, from the fact of being slaveholders, much practical and useful knowledge on this subject that cannot be claimed by nonslaveholders. And this knowledge is extremely useful, not to say indispensable, especially as to the extent of the evil to the slaves, and to the community generally. This know