principle, and a great principle — a principle lying at the very foundation of our constitutional rights — involving, as has been remarked, our property; in one word, involving our safety, our honor, all that is dear to us, as American freemen. Well, sir, for that principle we will be compelled to contend to the utmost, and tc resist aggression at every hazard and at every sacrifice. That is the position in which we are placed. We ask no act of congress — as has been properly intimated by the senator from Mississippi — to carry slavery anywhere. Sir, I believe we have as much constitutional power to prohibit slavery from going into the territories of the United States, as we have to pass an act carrying slavery there. We have no right to do either the one or the other. I would as soon vote for the Wilmot proviso as I would vote for any law which required that slavery should go into any of the territories."
Mr. Downs, of Louisiana, said: "I must confess, that in the whole course of my life, my astonishment has never been greater than it was when I saw this (Mr. Clay's) proposition brought forward as a compromise; and I rise now, sir, not for the purpose of discussing it at all, but to protest most solemnly against it. I consider this compromise as no compromise at all. What, sir, does it grant to the south? I can see nothing at all. The first resolution offered by the honorable senator proposes to admit the state of California with a provision prohibiting slavery in territory which embraces all our possessions on the Pacific. It is true, there may be a new regulation of the boundary hereafter; but if there were to be such a regulation, why was it not embraced in this resolution? As no boundary is mentioned, we have a right to presume that the boundary established by the constitution of California was to be received as the established boundary. What concession, then, is it from the north, that we admit a state thus prohibiting slavery, embracing the whole of our possessions on the Pacific coast, according to these resolutions? As to the resolution relating to New Mexico and Deseret, if it had simply contained the provision that a constitutional government shall be established there, without any mention of slavery whatever, it would have been well enough. But, inasmuch as it is affirmed that slavery does not now exist in these territories, does it not absolutely preclude its admission there? and the resolutions might just as well affirm that slavery should be prohibited in these territories. The senator from Alabama, if I understood him aright, maintains that the proposition is of the same import as the Wilmot proviso; and, in view of these facts, I would ask, is there anything conceded to us of the south?"
Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, said: "Perhaps our northern brethren ought to understand that all the compromises that have been made, have been by concessions — acknowledged concessions — on the part of the south. When other compromises are proposed, that require new concessions on their part, whilst none are exacted on the other, the issue, at least, should be presented for their consideration before they come to the decision of their great question. If I understand it, the senator from Kentucky's whole proposition of compromise is nothing more than this: That California is already disposed of, having formed a state constitution, and that territorial governments shall be organized
