It has been suggested in some quarters that the President has changed his position, and deserted his original platform. This is not the first time, Sir, that such a charge has been brought against General Taylor. The Mexicans proclaimed that he had changed his plan, and deserted his post, and fled from the defence of his friends, when he made that masterly and matchless movement from Fort Brown to Point Isabel. But they discovered their error before many days were over, and found, to their cost, that they had mistaken their man. I have not the slightest authority to speak for the President, nor would it be parliamentary for me to do so, if I had; but I am strongly inclined to the belief, that those who imagine that he either has changed, or means to change, his views on this subject, will be equally disappointed.

For myself, Sir, I can truly say that I adopt this plan in a spirit of conciliation and concession, regarding it as a compromise worthy of a Southern President to offer, and worthy of both the Southern and the Northern people to accept.

I know that there have been many reproaches and criminations dealt out against some of us by the ultraists of the free States, for being willing to make even this compromise. Because we are not quite so clamorous and rampant in regard to the antislavery proviso as some of its peculiar friends, we are charged with inconsistency, desertion, and treachery. Now, Sir, I am one of those who think that Northern men can afford to be a little forbearing upon this subject, without incurring any just liability to such imputations. I am of opinion that there is ample reason to be found in the changed condition of public affairs, in the altered circumstances of the case, for the evident relaxation of the Northern sentiment on the subject of this proviso, and for the manifest willingness of the Northern mind to acquiesce in what has been called the non-action policy of the President.

Why, Sir, at the time that proviso was originally proposed, at the time it was made the subject of such ardent protestations of uncompromising devotion, what was the state of the country and of the question? We were then at war with Mexico, and with the strongest reason to apprehend that this war was to be pressed even to the extinction and absorption of the whole

Mexican Republic. A vast, undefined extension of territory was thus in prospect, upon which slavery was, or was not, to be planted and established. That war, thank Heaven, has been brought to a close. We are now at peace; and what is more, the treaty of peace has been so arranged, and the boundary line so run, that though we may hesitate to admit that Nature has everywhere settled the question against slavery, we must, yet, all perceive and acknowledge that the territory which has been acquired holds out but little comparative temptation or inducement to its introduction.

What else has occurred? Why, Sir, at the time we all committed ourselves so hotly to the support of the proviso, no government had yet been established in Oregon, and a purpose had been exhibited to insist upon the right of slavery to go there. Since then, the principles of the ordinance of 1787 have been extended, by solemn enactment, over that whole territory.

What further have we witnessed? Why, Sir, California, California, a thousand-fold the most important and valuable part of the territories acquired from Mexico, has settled the question for herself, and spontaneously dedicated the treasures of her virgin soil, and the riches of her magnificent mines, to the labor of freemen forever!

Now, I do not say that there is to be found in all this the slightest justification for an abandonment of Northern principle. But is there not, is there not, ample reason for an abatement of the Northern tone, for a forbearance of Northern urgency, upon this subject, without the imputation of tergiversation and treachery?

I think that I do not undervalue the importance of the great principles of the ordinance of 1787, and of that proviso which I prefer henceforth to associate with the great names of Thomas Jefferson, and Nathan Dane, and Rufus King, rather than with that of any public man of the present day, however distinguished or notorious he may have become. But I can never put the question of extending slave soil on the same footing with one of directly increasing slavery and multiplying slaves. If a positive issue could ever again be made up for our decision, whether human beings, few or many, of whatever race, complexion, or condition, should be freshly subjected to a system of here

ditary bondage, and be changed from freemen into slaves, I can conceive that no bonds of union, no ties of interest, no chords of sympathy, no considerations of past glory, present welfare, or future grandeur, would be suffered to interfere for an instant with our resolute and unceasing resistance to a measure so iniquitous and abominable. There would be a clear, unquestionable, moral element in such an issue, which would admit of no compromise, no concession, no forbearance whatever. We could never sanction such a policy; we could never submit to it. A million of swords would leap from their scabbards to arrest it, and the Union itself would be shivered like a Prince Rupert's drop in the shock.

But the question whether the institution of slavery, as it already exists, shall be permitted to extend itself over a hundred, or a hundred thousand, more square miles than it now occupies, is a very different question. The influences of such a policy upon the ultimate extinction of slavery, and upon the condition of its unfortunate victims as long as it lasts, may well be a subject for careful consideration. There may be two sides even to some of the moral aspects of the question. At any rate, Sir, it is not, in my judgment, such an issue, that conscientious and religious men may not be free to acquiesce in whatever decision may be arrived at by the constituted authorities of the country.

For myself, Mr. Chairman, I can truly say, that it is not with a view of cooping up slavery, as it has been termed, within limits too narrow for its natural growth; that it is not for the purpose of girding it round with lines of fire till its sting, like that of the scorpion, shall be turned upon itself; that it is not for the sake of subjecting it to a sort of experimentum crucis; that I, for one, have ever advocated the principles of the ordinance of 1787. Nor have I the slightest imagination that such would be the result of enforcing those principles, within any estimable period of time.

Why, are you aware, Sir, do Southern gentlemen remember, that what are called the slave States of this Union, Texas to the Rio Grande being included, contain about nine hundred and forty thousand square miles of territory, with a white population, by the census of 1840, of considerably less than five millions of

people? Allow, if you please, that this population has increased, during the last ten years, sufficiently to bring up the whole exist ing population, slaves included, to nine millions of people. You have then less than ten persons, black and white, bond and free, to a square mile of territory! Is there not room enough here for every degree of expansion which can be predicted, upon the largest calculation, for a century to come?

Meantime, Sir, do not forget, that the free States, with a population, by the census of 1840, of more than nine millions and a half, and which must now have run up to not less than thirteen or fourteen millions, have only about four hundred and fifty thousand square miles. In other words, the free States, at this moment, have thirty persons to a square mile, while the slave States have only ten!

I exclude all the territories in this calculation. But it is a striking fact, that if all the territories, without exception, not included within the limits of any State, were added to the free States, and a proportion were then instituted between the number of square miles occupied by the free white population of the two classes of States, it would be found that the slave States would fall but little short of their full share. And this, Sir, without making any allowance for the uninhabitable deserts and frozen wastes and mountains of rock and ice, by which these territories are so greatly curtailed in their dimensions, so far as any practical purposes of occupation or enjoyment are concerned.

I repeat, then, Mr. Chairman, it is not with the vain idea of crowding slavery out of existence, that I adhere to the principles of the ordinance of 1787.

Nor is it, Sir, upon any consideration of local power, or with any view of securing a sectional preponderance. For one, I see in the Constitution of the United States an ample security against any real aggression which either section of the Union could be tempted to commit against the other. And even if it were not so, there is a peculiar tie of common interest among the slave States, growing out of this very institution of slavery, which always has made them, and always will make them, a full match for any number of free States which may be included

within the limits of this Union. In our local competitions and party differences, they will find ample room for the exercise of a controlling influence. I am not sure that it is not their destiny always to hold the balance of power among States and between parties, and thus to be able to adopt the proud motto, præest cui adhæreo, which may be liberally interpreted "he shall be President, to whom I adhere!"

Sir, the territories which have come under our guardianship are, in my judgment, of more worth than to be made the mere make-weights in the scales of sectional equality. They are entitled to another sort of consideration, than to be cut up and partitioned off, like down-trodden Poland, in order to satisfy the longings, and appease the jealousies, of surrounding States. They are they ought certainly to be disposed of and regulated by us, with a primary regard to the prosperity and welfare of those who occupy them now, and of those who are destined to occupy them hereafter, and not with the selfish view of augmenting the mere local power or pride of any of us.

Mr. Chairman, I see in the territorial possessions of this Union, the seats of new States, the cradles of new Commonwealths, the nurseries, it may be, of new Republican empires. I see, in them, the future abodes of our brethren, our children, and our children's children, for a thousand generations. I see, growing up within their borders, institutions upon which the character and condition of a vast multitude of the American family, and of the human race, in all time to come, are to depend. I feel, that for the original shaping and moulding of these institutions, you and I, and each one of us who occupy these seats, are in part responsible. And I cannot omit to ask myself, what shall I do, that I may deserve the gratitude and the blessing, and not the condemnation and the curse, of that posterity, whose welfare is thus in some degree committed to my care?

As I pursue this inquiry, Sir, I look back instinctively to the day, now more than two hundred years ago, when the Atlantic coast was the scene of events like those now in progress upon the Pacific; when incited, not, indeed, by a love of gold, but by a devotion to that which is better than gold, and whose price is above rubies, the forefathers of New England were planting