FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1085   1086   1087   1088   1089   1090   1091   1092   1093   1094   1095   1096   1097   1098   1099   1100   1101   1102   1103   1104   1105   1106   1107   1108   1109  
1110   1111   1112   1113   1114   1115   1116   1117   1118   1119   1120   1121   1122   1123   1124   1125   1126   1127   1128   1129   1130   1131   1132   1133   1134   >>   >|  
y, neither California, New Mexico, nor Utah. They were rather ultra-American, as I thought. They were far from us, and I saw that they might lead to a political conflict, and I voted against them all, against the treaty and against the peace, rather than have the territories. Seeing that it would be an occasion of dispute, that by the controversy the whole Union would be agitated, Messrs. Berrien, Badger, and other respectable and distinguished men of the South, voted against the acquisition, and the treaty which secured it; and if the men of the North had voted the same way, we should have been spared all the difficulties that have grown out of it. We should have had peace without the territories. Now there is no sort of doubt, Gentlemen, that there were some persons in the South who supposed that California, if it came into the Union at all, would come in as a slave State. You know the extraordinary events which immediately occurred, and the impulse given to emigration by the discovery of gold. You know that crowds of Northern people immediately rushed to California, and that an African slave could no more live there among them, than he could live on the top of Mount Hecla. Of necessity it became a free State, and that, no doubt, was a source of much disappointment to the South. And then there were New Mexico and Utah; what was to be done with them? Why, Gentlemen, from the best investigation I had given to the subject, and the reflection I had devoted to it, I was of the opinion that the mountains of New Mexico and Utah could no more sustain American slavery than the snows of Canada. I saw it was impossible. I thought so then; it is quite evident now. Therefore, when it was proposed in Congress to apply the Wilmot Proviso to New Mexico and Utah, it appeared to me just as absurd as to apply it here in Western New York. I saw that the snow-capped hills, the eternal mountains, and the climate of those countries would never support slavery. No man could carry a slave there with any expectation of profit. It could not be done; and as the South regarded the Proviso as merely a source of irritation, and as designed by some to irritate, I thought it unwise to apply it to New Mexico or Utah. I voted accordingly, and who doubts now the correctness of that vote? The law admitting those territories passed without any proviso. Is there a slave, or will there ever be one, in either of those territories? Why, there is not a man in
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   1085   1086   1087   1088   1089   1090   1091   1092   1093   1094   1095   1096   1097   1098   1099   1100   1101   1102   1103   1104   1105   1106   1107   1108   1109  
1110   1111   1112   1113   1114   1115   1116   1117   1118   1119   1120   1121   1122   1123   1124   1125   1126   1127   1128   1129   1130   1131   1132   1133   1134   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Mexico

 

territories

 
thought
 

California

 

Gentlemen

 

treaty

 

Proviso

 
source
 

mountains

 

slavery


immediately

 

American

 

evident

 

doubts

 
proposed
 

Congress

 

proviso

 

Therefore

 

impossible

 

reflection


devoted

 

correctness

 
investigation
 
subject
 
opinion
 

Canada

 
Wilmot
 

sustain

 
eternal
 
capped

climate
 

passed

 
profit
 
support
 

countries

 

regarded

 
admitting
 
designed
 

irritate

 
appeared

expectation

 

absurd

 

irritation

 

Western

 

unwise

 

occurred

 
respectable
 

distinguished

 
acquisition
 

Badger