extend it. The whole of Louisiana was open to the introduction of slaves. Slavery nominally existed there. But beyond the limits of the State of Missouri, north of 36° 30′, the territory was nearly uninhabited. The compromise invaded no right. It was no act of abolition or emancipation; but it prohibited the extension of slavery to areas over which, without such a prohibition, it would have been extended. How widely different is this proposition? It is to extend slavery where, without the sanction of the public authority, direct or indirect, it cannot go or exist. It is a proposition to establish slavery by law in a district of country more than two hundred thousand square miles in extent, equal to the entire area of France or the Spanish peninsula. On every principle of justice and right I shall be opposed to it: justice to ourselves, to our national character, and to the future millions who are to occupy the great Pacific, or maritime valley of California-literally the Italy of America, in all but the monuments and classical recollections of the other. Let us look at this question practically. The proposed compromise would carry out the line of 36° 30′ to the Pacific, and prohibit slavery north of it. Let us see the geographical divisions it would make. It would divide New Mexico just above Santa Fé, leaving that city and two thirds of the entire state or territory to the South. How is the distinction between free and slave territory to be maintained? Are we to have two territories with separate political organizations, or only one with an astronomical line separating the bond from the free? Passing New Mexico, the compromise line would cross the Sierra Madre, or Rocky-Mountain chain, and enter a district but little explored, but, so far as known, barren and almost worthless, leaving a strip of three parallels of latitude to the South. It would next graze the great basin of California - one of the most remarkable features in the geographical conformation of this continent-represented by Frémont as Asiatic rather than American in its character. It is five hundred miles in extent in all directions, enclosed by mountains, the Sierra Madre on one side, and the Sierra Nevada on the other, and has its own systems of lakes and rivers. It is for the most part sterile, but with numerous and in some cases extensive tracts capable of cultivation. Passing the great basin without touching it, the compromise line would cross the Sierra Nevada, and enter the maritime valley of California, five hundred miles in length and one hundred and fifty in width from the summit of the mountain chain, which forms its eastern boundary, to the coast range on the Pacific. This valley the finest in the western hemisphere —is represented by Frémont as bearing a close resemblance to Italy in extent, in climate, and in its capacity for production. It is the natural region of the vine and the olive, and of the infinite variety of grains and fruits which the earth brings forth in tropical climates. Though much farther north, it has all the mildness of the tropical regions on the eastern face of this continent. The compromise line would sever this noble valley latitudinally, leaving four hundred miles to the North and one hundred to the South. It yields nothing to the production of which slave labor is necessary. Slavery would go there as a bane and a hindrance, rather than as an aid, even to production. Why, then, seek to introduce it, when no good purpose is to be answered, when it can only prove an element of unmixed evil? Why sever a region which nature designed for unity in its geographical conformation, its climate, soil, and capacity for production? How is the social distinction which the compromise line would introduce to be preserved inviolate? Will you have two governments, or one with an imaginary line to define the boundary between slavery and freedom? Sir, this whole scheme of division is wrong in all its elements, - geographically, politically, morally wrong, - and I will have no part in it. Such, Mr. President, would be the Missouri compromise line, applied to New Mexico and California. Bad as it would be, the bill reported by the committee is still worse. It leaves all open it surrenders all. It will dedicate the whole of this noble valley to slavery, and exclude from it the freemen of the North, who will not go where their labor is to be degraded by mingling it with the labor of blacks. Sir, there were gallant bands from the North and West, who "coined their hearts and dropped their blood for drachmas " on the ensanguined plains of Mexico to make this acquisition. They are gone beyond the reach of sympathy on the one hand, or injustice on the other. But against their fathers and their children, you will by this act put forth an edict of perpetual exclusion from an inheritance purchased by filial and paternal blood. There is another consideration which ought not to be overlooked. We have been accused, for the last two years, of making war on Mexico to obtain territory for the extension of slavery. We have denied the truth of these imputations. We have resented them as doing injustice to our intentions. And yet, sir, the treaty is hardly ratified before we are engaged in a struggle in the American Senate to extend slavery to the territory we have acquired. How can we stand up, in the face of the civilized world, and deny these imputations, if the proposition of leaving these territories open to the introduction of slaves is consummated? I say I do entreat our Southern friends earnestly, solemnly, not to press this measure upon us: I mean that of insisting on the right to carry slaves into New Mexico and California. to you in sincerity and with the deepest conviction of the truth of what I say, that the Northern feeling can go no further in this direction. I appeal to you, through the memory of the past, to do us the justice we have rendered to you. You asked for Florida. You said it shut you out from the Gulf of Mexico. It was It was an inlet for political intrigue and social disorganization. It was necessary for your safety. We united with you to obtain it. Our blood, our treasure was freely shared with you in making the acquisition. We gave it up to you without reserve. You - asked for Texas. It was said to be in danger of falling under the control of your commercial rivals. It was necessary to your safety. You said it would become a theatre for the intrigues of abolitionism. Your slave population might be endangered without it. We united with you again, and gave you back, by legislation and arms, what you had lost a quarter of a century before by diplomacy. We have now acquired free territory. We ask only that it may remain free. Do not ask us to unite with you in extending slavery to it. We abstain from all interference with slavery where it exists. We cannot sanction its extension, directly or indirectly, where it does not exist. And if the authority of the United States is exerted for this purpose, if slavery is carried into and established, as it will be by this bill, in the territory we have acquired, — I am constrained to say, — I say it in sorrow, the bond of confidence which unites the two sections of the Union will be rent asunder, and years of alienation and unkindness may intervene before it can be restored, if ever, in its wonted tenacity and strength. Not that I have any present fears for the integrity of the Union. I have not. It is capable of sustaining far ruder shocks. than any possible settlement of this question can give. But what I fear is that the current of reciprocal kindness and confidence, which runs through every portion of the community, pervading, refreshing, invigorating all, may be turned out of its course, and forced into channels to which the common feeling is alien, and in which it may be converted into a fountain of bitterness and strife. I conjure you, then, to avoid all this. Ask us not to do what every principle we have been taught, and taught by your fathers, to venerate, condemns as unnatural and unjust. TRADE WITH CANADA. THE following speech was delivered by Mr. Dix on the 23d of January, 1849, in support of a bill providing for reciprocal trade with Canada, in certain enumerated articles. The subject had been for several years before Congress, and though the proposition did not finally succeed until some years later, the light shed upon it by the debate of 1849 no doubt contributed largely to its success. MR. PRESIDENT: Since this bill was taken up for discussion I have been unable, from indisposition and other causes, to bestow upon it the reflection which is due to the importance of the subject. But I will proceed, nevertheless, with such preparation as I have been able to make, to explain the objects of the measure and its probable effects; and I will endeavor, at the same time, to answer some of the leading objections which have been made to it. If I entertained the belief that the operation of the bill would be prejudicial to the interest of any portion of the Union, I should not be its advocate. The first object of all public legislation is to advance the general welfare of the country; but this object ought certainly not to be sought for at the expense of any particular section, or indeed of any single interest. I believe this bill is entirely free from objection in this respect, that it will be eminently advantageous both to the United States and Canada, and do no wrong or injury in any quarter. Before I proceed to examine the practical operation of the measure upon the commercial interests of the two countries, I wish to notice a preliminary objection which has been raised. |