hensive, because, whether admitted or excluded, slaves could not be kept in the new territories. But, even if the South were right in its demand, it ought to yield for other reasons. “The South,” he said, “has had the executive government in its hands during the most part of the time since the Constitution was adopted. Its public policy has generally prevailed. The annexation of Texas, and the consequent war with Mexico, were results of Southern counsels. The very exceptionable mode of that annexation was exclusively Southern. From the commencement of the government, we had, prior to the last acquisition, obtained Louisiana, Florida, and Texas, and all these (with the exception of the least valuable part of Louisiana) were theatres of slavery, and augmented the political power arising from slavery. Large portions of the Northern population also feel and believe that their manufacturing interests have been sacrificed by Southern domination.” In consideration of all this, he thought, the South ought “magnanimously to assent” to the exclusion of slavery from the new territories.
But of what would happen, if the South refused to accept the interdiction of slavery in the territories, this was Clay's conception: “It [the interdiction of slavery] will nevertheless prevail; and the conflict, exasperated by bitter contention and mutual passions, will either lead to a dissolution of the Union, or deprive it of that harmony which alone can make the Union desirable. It will lead
