proposition which will have such a tendency, without a full guaranty or counteracting measure is connected with it."
Mr. Clay, in reply, said: "I am extremely sorry to hear the senator from Mississippi say that he requires, first, the extension of the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific, and also that he is not satisfied with that, but requires, if I understood him correctly, a positive provision for the admission of slavery south of that line. And now, sir, coming from a slave state, as I do, I owe it to myself, I owe it to truth, I owe it to the subject, to state that no earthly power could induce me to vote for a specific measure for the introduction of slavery where it had not before existed, either south or north of that line. Coming as I do from a slave state, it is my solemn, deliberate, and well-matured determination that no power — no earthly power — shall compel me to vote for the positive introduction of slavery either south or north of that line. Sir, while you reproach, and justly, too, our British ancestors for the introduction of this institution upon the continent of America, I am, for one, unwilling that the posterity of the present inhabitants of California and of New Mexico shall reproach us for doing just what we reproach Great Britain for doing to us. If the citizens of those territories choose to establish slavery, I am for admitting them with such provisions in their constitutions; but then, it will be their own work, and not ours, and their posterity will have to reproach them, and not us, for forming constitutions allowing the institution of slavery to exist among them. These are my views, sir, and I choose to express them; and I care not how extensively or universally they are known. The honorable senator from Virginia has expressed his opinion that slavery exists in these territories, and I have no doubt that opinion is sincerely and honorably entertained by him; and I would say with equal sincerity and honesty, that I believe that slavery nowhere exists within any portion of the territory acquired by us from Mexico. He holds a directly contrary opinion to mine, as he has a perfect right to do; and we will not quarrel about that difference of opinion."
Mr. William R. King, of Ala., on the question of slavery in the new territories, said: "With regard to the opinions of honorable senators, respecting the operation of the laws of Mexico in our newly-acquired territories, there may be, and no doubt is, an honest difference of opinion with regard to that matter. Some believe that the municipal institutions of Mexico overrule the provisions of our constitution, and prevent us from carrying our slaves there. That is a matter which I do not propose to discuss; it has been discussed at length in the debate upon the compromise bill, putting it on the ground of a judicial decision. Sir, I know not — nor is it a matter of much importance with me — whether that which the honorable senator states to be a fact, and which, as has been remarked by the senator from Mississippi, can only be conjectural, be in reality so or not — that slavery never can go there. This is what is stated, however. Well, be it so. If slave labor be not profitable there, it will not go there; or, if it go, who will be benefited? Not the south. They will never compel it to go there. We are misunderstood — grossly, I may say — by honorable senators, though not intentionally; but we are contending for a
