In this way false ideas are inculcated throughout the North. The whole scheme is full of falsehood. It would be far better for each man to look for the beam in his own eyes before he troubles himself about the mote in his neighbor's.
England, also, has been very fierce in denouncing slavery in this country, and yet we have no slavery or misery to be compared with that existing in the India provinces. It is said that in a single season two hundred thousand of her subjects were starved to death in one province of Hindostan.
I might say the same thing almost of Ireland. Two millions have died there from famine, and God knows how many more would have perished but for the relief sent from this country. I say, and I have abundant reason for saying, that I never have, and I never will, favor any of these denunciations of southern slaveholders and slavery.
Let us rather look at this subject as members of a common family—let us acknowledge our mutual faults. The slave trade was once fostered by the North. That was when it was profitable, and when large fortunes were made in that trade by northern men. When it became unprofitable the North began to denounce it, and to call it sinful. Now, we fastened this institution upon the South, cannot we permit her to deal with it as she chooses?
I do not say that there is a necessary conflict between the white and the black races, but I assert that they cannot unite—that they cannot occupy the same country upon an equality. Our free laborers of the North will not work with slaves or with blacks. I have had experience in this matter, and I know I am right. The only way we can do, is to divide the common territory—divide it fairly, honestly.
Suppose there were two sons who succeeded to a joint inheritance of lands. One says to the other, "Your family is not so moral as mine, therefore your sons shall have none of the lands." Would this be right or honest? Would any one attempt to justify it? And yet this is what extreme men of the North are practically saying to the citizens of the South.
The Missouri Compromise was intended to settle the rights of the respective sections in the territories. The line adopted was not unfair to the North. The same line will answer now. I am for adopting it and arranging this difficult subject finally.
But one and another says, "Don't let us extend slavery." To that I answer, that our action will not make one slave more or less. There is no question of humanity involved in our propositions. I cannot see what question is involved so far as the North is concerned. We need no more territory. We do not want New Mexico. We have territory enough now for one hundred and fifty millions of people, and enough for the expansion of our people for one hundred and fifty years.
If gentlemen are found here who wish to make trouble, who cannot see the peril we are in, and how easily we can avoid the danger which threatens us, I shall be much pained, but not half so much as I shall be, to see this Union broken up and the Government destroyed.
I was surprised to hear the assertion of the gentleman from Connecticut, that this was an unconstitutional assembly. I hear to-day the statement made that it is a revolutionary assembly. If these assertions were true I would not be a member of it for one moment. If revolutionary, it is either treasonable or seditious. But it is neither. These gentlemen forget the constitutional right of petition. We have the right to meet here. We have the right to do just what we are proposing to do, and the right is to be found in the Constitution.