merce and manufactures were concerned, I would not have moved in the matter at that early period.
The senator objects that many northern gentlemen voted for annexation. Why, sir, it was natural that they should be desirous of fulfilling the obligations of the constitution; and besides, what man at that time doubted that the Missouri compromise line would be adopted, and that the territory would fall entirely to the south? All that northern men asked for at that time was the extension of that line. Their course, in my opinion, was eminently correct and patriotic.
Now, Mr. President, having made these corrections, I must go back a little farther, and correct a statement which I think the senator has left very defective, relative to the ordinance of 1787. He states, very correctly, that it commenced under the old confederation; that it was afterwards confirmed by Congress; that Congress was sitting in New York at the time, while the convention sat in Philadelphia; and that there was concert of action. I have not looked into the ordinance very recently, but my memory will serve me thus far, that Mr. Jefferson introduced his first proposition to exclude slavery in 1784. There was a vote taken upon it, and I think on that vote every southern senator voted against it; but I am not certain of it. One thing I am certain of, that it vas three years before the ordinance could pass. It was sturdily resisted down to 1787; and when it was passed, as I have good reason to believe, it was upon a principle of compromise: first, that the ordinance should contain a provision similar to the one put in the constitution with respect to fugitive slaves; and next, that it should be inserted in the constitution; and this was the compromise upon which the prohibition was inserted in the ordinance of 1787. We thought we had an indemnity in that, but we made a great mistake. Of what possible advantage has it been to us? Violated faith has met us on every side, and the advantage has been altogether in their favor. On the other side, it has been thrown open to a northern population, to the entire exclusion of the southern. This was the leading measure which destroyed the compromise of the constitution, and then followed the Missouri compromise, which was carried mainly by northern votes, although now disavowed and not respected by them. That was the next step, and between these two causes the equilibrium has been broken.
Having made these remarks, let me say that I took great pleasure in listening to the declarations of the honorable senator from Massachusetts upon several points. He puts himself upon the fulfilment of the contract of Congress in the resolutions of Texas annexation, for the admission of the four new states provided for by those resolutions to be formed out of the territory of Texas. All that was manly, statesmanlike, and calculated to do good, because just. He went further; he condemned, and rightfully condemned, and in that he has shown great firmness, the course of the north relative to the stipulations of the constitution for the restoration of fugitive slaves; but permit me to say, for I desire to be candid upon all subjects, that if the senator, together with many friends on this side of the chamber, puts his confidence in the bill which has been reported here, further to extend the laws of Congress upon this subject, it will prove fallacious. It is impossible to execute any law of Congress until the people of the states shall coöperate.
I heard the gentleman with great pleasure say that he would not vote for the Wilmot proviso, for he regarded such an act unnecessary,
