Mr. President, I did not expect to provoke a personal
assault on my course in relation to the measure before the Senate by anything
which I said this morning. I trust that I did not touch the honorable gentleman’s
[Mr. Toombs] sensibilities when I stated that I supposed his only object was to
remove what he considered a violation of the Constitution of the United states
from the Statute-book; and that that seemed to be the great to be the great
principle which he had in view in giving his support to this bill. I leave it
to the Senate to say whether I did not state with sufficient distinctness that
I wanted to know from those gentlemen who had expressed themselves so
vehemently, so loudly, and so eloquently, if you please, in favor of some great
fundamental principle which they wished to establish by this bill, what that
great principle really was? Each one said that there was a great principle in
it, which they did not risk even by voting for a proposition which their
judgments approved. I turned to the honorable Senator from Georgia, I trust in
no offensive manner, and asked what principle he wanted to establish by the
bill. He said he wished to repeal that odious or infamous restriction called
the Missouri compromise.
Mr. Toombs—I did not use the term. I said unconstitutional.
Mr. Atchison—I said infamous.
Mr. Bell.—I know some Senators spoke of it is infamous; but
it does not matter in what terms that compromise is denounced. My object was to
know what was the great principle to be established by this bill, which was so
important that honorable Senators would sacrifice their own opinions and
principles upon other questions, in order to effect that object. My honorable
friend from Missouri [Mr. Atchison] said that if the bill contained a thousand objectionable
features, they would not prevent him from voting to get rid of that infamous
Missouri compromise. If such views—if that was the only object—had been avowed
at the outset of this proceeding, how many supporters do you think the bill
would have had even from the South? I believe, though I am not certain, that
the honorable Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler] expressed the same
sentiments in his remarks upon the Nebraska bill, before it passed the Senate.
That honorable Senator, said that to repeal the Missouri compromise would be
plucking a thorn from his side which had been a long time rankling there, and
that consideration recommended the bill to his favor.
I had no idea of provoking the honorable Senator from
Georgia, with whom I have been on relations of friendship, to attack upon me
when I called upon him to know what was the great principle which he saw in the
bill. I believe he is the only Senator from the South with whom I ever
conversed, who thought that this was a good thing in itself. Of all other southern
Senators with whom I have ever conversed on the subject, I do not remember a
single one besides who did not deprecate the introduction of this measure of
repeal. But they thought that they could not go against it, presented, as it
seemed to be, from the North; though they believed no practical good would come
to the South from it.
Now, it seems that the great subject of the honorable
Senator from Georgia in supporting the bill as sent from the House of
Representatives, is to get clear of the restriction of 1820—which, by-the-by, I
will say, gave the highest renown to the authors of it which a public man in
this country can attain—which gave repose to the country and preserved the
harmony of the sections for a period of thirty years; and which has been
acquiesced in by both sections of the Union from 1820 up to a very recent
period. Now it is said to be infamous, and gentlemen say they are quite willing
to risk the boiling cauldron at the North alluded to by the Senator from
Indiana [Mr. Pettit,] in order to get released from that odious restriction.
Sir, did the honorable Senator, when he first gave his adhesion to the repeal
of the Missouri compromise, anticipate such a state of things as now exists at
the North? I did not believe myself, during the period of the initiation of
this measure, that the excitement would be so great at the North. I spoke with
northern gentlemen about it. They thought there would be a deep feeling
implanted at the North against the measure, but no great excitement would be
created, except, perhaps, at the meetings which might be got up in the populous
cities. Did any gentleman of the South, however, believe that such a state of
things as now appears to exist at the North would arise? It may be that excitement
and agitation at the North may subside. The present bubbling of the cauldron may
soon evaporate after the passage of the bill; but the cauldron certainly exhibits
a very high degree of fermentation and excitement just now.
Now, does the Senator mean to say that, merely to get rid of
that statute—the restriction of 1820—as a lover of the Union, he would risk all
the mischievious consequences which the honorable Senator from Indiana has held
up to our view as likely to arise in the North? Is there no locus poenitentia.1
Mr. Toombs—You have a right to change.
Mr. Bell—But the honorable Senator will not. I suppose that
the honorable Senator from Indiana [Mr. Pettit] would be prepared to change his
opinion in regard to the importance of establishing what he regards as a great
principle of this bill, if he were to find the consequences, which he described
to-day as likely to arise before another session of Congress, would follow the
repeal of the Missouri compromise. I do not think he would be so stubborn and
obstinate as to insist, at all hazards upon getting his great principle
established—upon furnishing that white sheet of paper, the tabula rasa,2 upon which the people of the Territory
might write what they pleased and thus inaugurate the doctrine of squatter
sovereignty, as promulgated by the Senator from Michigan, amended and improved
by the admission to the right of suffrage foreigners not Naturalized as well as
natives. Would he convulse the country for the sake of establishing such a
principle, in violation all our territorial legislation for sixty years? I
think he would not be so obstinate as the honorable Senator from Georgia; nor
do I think he would have the same vindictive feeling against others for any
change of their views on this subject. However I might have thought at first
that I should be forced under the circumstances, to support this measure,
however much I disapproved it, yet I tho’t better afterwards, and when I became
satisfied that the mischiefs were likely to be far greater that I at first
supposed they would be.
Now, sir, with regard to the constitution or anything else,
which is to be vindicated or established by this bill as it now stands, what is
the great principle involved in it? Why, sir, if you should acquire Cuba, what
is the first thing you have to do [to] conform to the doctrine proclaimed in
this bill? The first step to be taken will be to abolish slavery as a legally
established institution. How else can the great principle contended for by the
Senator from Indiana be inaugurated or established? [Freedom] in the operation
of squatter sovereignty would require that Cuba should first be made a free
territory, as you have provided in this bill that Nebraska shall be. I voted
for the amendment to which the Senator has referred. I had no idea that such a
principle was intended to be established, but still I do not say that that consideration
regulated my vote. The principle contended for, when carried out, requires that
you shall take the stylus and rub out
or eradicate everything that is written on the tablet, and leave the
inhabitants free to prescribe what shall be written upon it, untrammeled by any
existing institution. That is the great principle, in addition to the repeal of
the Missouri compromise, which the South are now so much determined upon; so
zealous and united in supporting, that they will sacrifice any other principle,
however substantial and important to the grand object. The squatter sovereignty
clause is the grand feature in the bill. What has the South to gain by all
this? But the honorable Senator from Georgia says he is not merely legislating
for the South in the advocacy of this bill.
I know he is not. But this broad principle of squatter sovereignty was
not the idea on which the repeal clause of this bill was inserted. I was
assured then that the South had some interest in it; that it would secure,
practically, a slave territory west of Missouri; that slavery would go into
Kansas when the restriction of 1820 was removed. It was not dwelt on in
argument; but my honorable friend from Missouri [Mr. Atchison] knows that that
view was taken by him, and I differed from him in regard to it. I thought
slavery could not go there; the honorable Senator though it could.
Mr. Atchison—And I still think so.
Mr. Bell.—Ay, more; the idea was diffused gradually
throughout the south that another slave state might be secured west of
Missouri. I said in my speech there would scarcely be a chance for it, as the
bill then stood, or in any shape.
It is very well for the honorable Senator from Georgia to
proclaim now that he is not legislating for any section; he certainly is not
going for the South! I think that no southern man can show that the South has
any particular interest in this bill, because it is not like the compromise of 1850;
for in New Mexico and Utah you let the territory stand legally restricted or
barred against slavery, as it was by public law. When that Territory was
brought into the Union, Mr. Calhoun and some other honorable Senators contended
that the Constitution would operate as a repeal of the Mexican law, abolishing
slavery, and give protection to the slaveholder. Some other Senators doubted on
that point. The honorable Senator from
Mississippi [Mr. Brown] can, perhaps, explain the different doctrines which
then were held in the South on this subject.
At all events, the compromise acts of 1850 left the Territory as it was
when annexed and allowed the people to interdict or establish slavery, as they
please, when they should form their state constitution. That was the doctrine
of the non-intervention then. What is it in this bill? I am in favor of the
principle of non-intervention. Such non-intervention as would have given to the
South Cuba as a slave state, should it ever be annexed to the United States; such
non-intervention as that, if there had been no compact with regard to the
admission of slave States to be carved out of Texas, would have secured to us
those slave States, independent of the compact by which the United states are
bound to admit them[.] But now, under the state of things now produced—under
the feeling of distrust and resentment getting up at the North against the
South—I predict—no, I will not predict, because it is too serious a subject—I will
state that, if this state of thing shall not change essentially, the time will
never come when a slave State can be admitted out of Texas. The
non-intervention of 1850, was to let the Territories which come into the Union
as slave territory be considered slave territory until the inhabitants
determine, when they form a State constitution, that slavery should be
abolished; and if it came in as a free territory, then the inhabitants to
restrict or adopt slavery, at their discretion, when they form a State
constitution. But by this bill you interpose to repeal the Missouri compromise,
which would restore the territory to the condition of slave territory, as it
was when annexed; but not content with that, you further interfere to make it a
free territory. You then provide, without limitation of time or numbers, that
the inhabitants shall decide in their Territorial Legislature to establish or
prohibit slavery. Well, suppose the first Legislature shall admit slavery may
not in the next abolish it, and thus keep up a perpetual struggle; while Congress,
at the same time, may be agitated again by questions of further investigation?
Yet this is a measure of peace to the country! It is to give quiet; all
agitation is to cease under it!
I have further answer to make the honorable Senator from
Georgia, though I find myself much exhausted. It was not my intention, when I
rose to-day to explain the vote I should give on the amendment of the Senator
from Maryland, [Mr. Pearce,] to provoke a debate upon the general merits or
demerits of the bill, and still less had I any design to say anything offensive
to any Senator; but the Senator from Georgia has thought proper to avail
himself of the occasion to review my course in relation to this measure in a
manner which calls for more special notice.
Several Senators. Let
us adjourn.
Mr. Bell. I will not
give way for an adjournment.
Mr. Clayton. I hope the Senator will give way.
Mr. Bell. I cannot
give way for an adjournment now. I must answer the honorable Senator. I was
inquiring of honorable Senators what the great principle of the bill really
was, which they had stated to be of so much importance to the country, but
which none of them stated distinctly. I wished to see how far they agreed, or
whether they could be reconciled, one with the other. The honorable Senator
from Georgia said I ought to know what the principles of the bill were; that I
had consultations with the friend of the measure at divers[e] times; that I met
with them, heard everything discussed, and concurred with them. I do not know
what meeting it was to which the Senator referred, and at which he supposes
that I concurred in, authorizing the Senator from North Carolina to make his
Statement.
Mr. Toombs. I said
that the southern Senators who were present authorized the Senator from North
Carolina to make the statement which he did. I did not say that the Senator
from Tennessee expressed any opinion; but he was present at the meeting.
Mr. Bell. I was
invited to attend meetings of the friends of the Nebraska bill. I went with
pleasure to hear their discussions, because I had not made up my mind as to what
course I could take upon the subject; but all the discussion which I heard at
the two meetings which I attended was to the phraseology or form in which the
Missouri compromise should be repealed or made inoperative, and the principle
of popular sovereignty recognized, or how far it should be recognized or
whether it should be recognized at all. The distinguished Senator from Michigan
[Mr. Cass,] the Senator from Mississippi, [Mr. Brown,] and the Senator from
Indiana, [Mr. Pettit,] were the principal speakers, and spoke of what they
would or would not accept. I do not like to tell tales out of school; but as I
have been arraigned, I think I may speak of such facts as may be pertinent to
my case. Those points, as I remember, were not settled at the first meeting. I
attended a second meeting, at which the differences appeared to be settled. The
discussion at the two meetings when I attend did not enlighten me in the least.
My mind was on the question whether there was anything in those featured of the
bill which I ought to support, or which ought to be supported. I took no part
in the discussion. It is true that at the same time I thought I might be forced
to go for the measure; but the mere phraseology of the bill was then
indifferent to me. Those meetings were held, if I am not mistaken, within a few
days after the discussion opened in the Senate, and when the debate between the
Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Chase] were
having their full effect. In commencing the discussion, the Senator from
Illinois displayed admirable tact in pouring such a fire as he did upon the
Senators from Ohio, [Mr. Chase] and Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumner] and, as a
consequence, exerting from them a response in sentiment so repugnant and
offensive to southern Senators as was well calculated to stir the blood of
every southern man, and to [diffuse] the impression through the country that
the issue presented by the bill was between the advocates of southern rights
and the ultra Free Soilers and Abolitionists of the North. I repeat, that I
never saw a higher degree of parliamentary tact displayed than by the Senator
from Illinois upon that occasion. The honorable Senator knows that I happened
to see the inflammatory publication, on which he commented with such severity
in his opening speech, before he did, and called his attention to it. It was of
such a nature as to strongly incline the feelings and sympathies of southern
Senators to the support of the bill, whatever
they might think of its wisdom.
Mr. President, honorable Senators will perceive that this
obtrusion of any matter personal to myself is not volunteered by me on this
occasion. I have generally, heretofore, rested on my character, humble as it
may be, to shield me from all imputations of gross impropriety or
inconsistency, without troubling myself with attacks aliunde, or not arising
directly out of the proceedings in the body to which I belong. The honorable
Senator from Georgia has done me the honor, however, to notice me personally on
this floor, and to arraign my conduct, as did a colleague of mine, [Mr.
Churchwell,] in the other house, a few days ago. I have not the printed speech
of that member. I do not know that it has been printed. I do not know whether
his attack was so forcible, or eloquent, or so much to the satisfaction of gentlemen
who would like to see me writhing under such personal charges, as the attack of
the honorable Senator from Georgia; but I understood he was, in his manner,
quite as offensive as in the matter of his attack. He produced and read from a
paper, as I learn, which purported to be a copy of the proceedings of a meeting
of southern Whig Senators, by which it appeared that a resolution was adopted
declaring that the course of the National Intelligencer on the Nebraska bill
was in opposition to the sentiment and interest of the South, and in opposition
to the views of Southern Whig Senators; and that a committee was appointed to
remonstrate or confer with the editors upon the subject. The paper also
contained a statement of the southern Senators present, and that I was
appointed chairman of a committee of three—all certified by the secretary of
this meeting. When he was called upon for the name of the person who certified
it, he said it would appear in print.
I will state the circumstances of the meeting, so far as I
was connected to it. On the adjournment of the Senate, on the day of the
meeting, a Senator took me by the arm, and asked me to walk into the ante-room.
I asked him the object. He replied that there was to be a meeting of southern
Whig Senators, upon some motion of a Senator, (naming him.) I went into the
room with the gentlemen, and while standing with my hat in my hand, was
surprised at hearing a Senator state that he thought some step should be taken
in relation to the course of the Intelligencer, on the Nebraska bill, stating
his reasons briefly. Another Senator made a few remarks, and on the suggestion
of some one present, a resolution was drawn up, read and adopted. The voices of
two or three, perhaps, were heard in assenting to it, but no one openly
objected. Two Senators were named to be of the committee, one of whom objected,
and named me in his place. On the question put by a senator, “Should the
gentlemen named be the committee?” the proposition was acquiesced in. When the
question was put on the committee, several Senators were on their feet, and I
supposing that the meeting was over left the room. I had not taken my seat
during the meeting.
My colleague [Mr. Churchwell] paraded, as I understand, a
certified transcript of the resolution adopted at the meeting, and of the order
appointing the committee, from which it would seem that all the proceedings
were in regular form. I was made prominent on the committee as its chairman. A
committee of three was certified. I know that was not true. Whoever gave the
certificate of the proceedings, or drew it up, but have been mistaken—I will
use no harsher term. I was not present at the meeting more than 10 minutes, or
fifteen at the farthest. I regarded the whole proceeding, at the time, as I
have treated it since, without feeling, and without and resentment against
honorable Senators, as having been gotten up or suggested for some other object
than the one I heard avowed. I believed that there were some present who
thought they would be doing a very great service if they could get me committed
on the Nebraska bill in such a way as to make it impossible for me to retrace
my steps; and some of those present knew that I did not consider myself
committed to the support of the bill. I suppose there were not more than seven
or eight Senators present when I went into the room. I heard no roll called; I
heard of the appointment of no secretary, no chairman. I was the last nominated
on the committee; but before that, I had made up my mind as to the probable
object of the meeting, or, at least of whoever prompted it. I know I should
soon ascertain whether I was right or wrong in my conjecture as to the object of
that meeting; but the only revenge I meditated was that no one should be the
wiser from what they might hear from me in relation to it.
I have to sate further on this point, that although I have
been almost daily associating on friendly terms with the gentlemen who attended
the meeting in question, yet not one of the number has mentioned to me anything
about the meeting since the day it took place. Not even after my colleague in
the House arraigned me on the subject, has any honorable Senator, who was
present at the meeting referred to, lisped to me anything about it. Nor was any
resolution ever put into my hand as one of the committee by a secretary or any
one else. No Senator ever inquired of me if I had executed the commission to
which I was appointed at the meeting. No one ever asked me whether there was
any change to be expected in the course of the National Intelligencer upon the
subject.
But, sir, I had sufficient confirmation, a short time after
the meeting, of the correctness of my conclusion as to the object of it. I
allude to the speech of the honorable Senator from North Carolina, [Mr. Badger.]
I am sorry that he is not now in his seat; but I will proceed, for I will not
say anything personally offensive to him in his absence. The honorable Senator
from North Carolina, who had been in that meeting of southern Whigs, when he
came to make his speech, announced, at the close of it, that however southern
Whig Senators might differ as to the reasoning on the doctrines which were
involved in the discussion, he was authorized to say they were a unit on the
main feature of the bill. Now, sir, that Senator could, by asking me, at any
stage of the discussion, have ascertained my position. Soon after the
commencement of the discussion, I was under the impression that I should be
forced to go for the measure, whether I approved it or not, because I did not
see how I could separate from my southern Whig friends and the southern
delegation in Congress. If the Senator had asked me then what my course would
be on the bill, I would have said to him frankly what I said to others, when
they made the inquiry, that though I disapproved the measure, yet I did not see
how I could separate from the southern delegation. At a later stage of the
discussion I would have replied, that I was strongly disposed to oppose the
measure; but, that still I would not commit myself to that course. The violation
of Indian treaties proposed by the provisions of the bill would, at any time,
have made it impossible that I could vote for it. The honorable Senator from
Missouri [Mr. Atchison] knows better than any other Senator, that I could not
vote for the bill with its present provisions, with any consistency of
character or principle, but at the commencement of the discussion, I supposed
that that difficulty would be removed by postponing the operation of the bill
until the President could have time to make new treaties with the Indian tribes
and, at least, qualify the wrong which was proposed to be done to them.
Mr. Atchison. I will
state now, that I understood from the honorable Senator from Tennessee, at the
last session, when this question was pending before the Senate, as well as at
the present session, that his great objections to the organization of territorial
governments in Kansas and Nebraska, were, first, that there was no necessity,
there being no white population there; and secondly, that it could not be
without greatly disturbing our Indian relations.
Mr. Bell. And then will not the honorable Senator say that I
thought the territory of west of Missouri was obliged to become a free state?
Mr. Atchison. Most
assuredly; but I told the honorable Senator that my opinion as to Kansas was
different.
Mr. Bell. I repeat,
that I supposed, at one time, that the difficulty on the score of Indian
compacts cold be obviated by an amendment postponing the operation of the bill
till new treaties could be formed. I consulted the Senator from Missouri on the
subject; but he said that no such amendment could be carried; that the people
could not be restrained from entering the Indian country. That was when I
supposed I should have to yield to the pressure of the storm of feeling which
was excited on the question in the Senate; and it required all the nerve I had
afterwards to resist its force.
But, sir, I was going on to say that the honorable Senator
from North Carolina, standing in the relation of a personal friend to me should
have ascertained from my own lips what course I proposed to adopt in relation
to the bill, before he made the declaration he did at the close of his speech.
He could scarcely have supposed that I was so dull and stupid as not to comprehend
the true purpose of the meeting out southern Whigs which I attended, or a test of
the bill by anything which took place there. I have said before, that I had no
unkind feelings againse the members of that meeting, for some of them told me
over and over again, that I would be dead politically, that my standing as a
public man would be utterly destroyed, if
I should vote against the bill. I was told again and again, that no
southern men could vote with the northern Abolitionists upon this bill without
losing the confidence of the South, as it was all-important that the South
should present an unbroken front on such a question. That was one reason why I
pressed so strongly to-day to know what was the great fundamental principle in
the bill so much affecting the southern interests; what was the greater and
larger principle which had loomed up to imposingly before the visions of
southern gentlemen, that every other principle or consideration of policy
should yield to it.
The honorable Senator from North Carolina is now present,
and I will repeat what I have said in relation to his statement, at the close
of his speech. I thought I had a right to complain of him, as a friend, that he
did not inquire of me what course I had determined to pursue, when I could have
done it so conveniently, before making the announcement that the southern Whigs
were a unit on the Nebraska bill. That senator and myself had occupied seats
very near each other during the whole discussion. Our relations, personally and
socially, were kind and friendly; notwithstanding, he did not think proper to
ask my opinion, but, at the close of his speech, said he was authorized to say
every Whig Senator from the south concurred in the conclusion to support the
bill.
Mr. Badger. Will the
Senator allow me to explain?
Mr. Bell. I am
willing that the Senator shall explain, but I do not wish any material
interruption for I have a great deal more to say.
Mr. Badger. My dear
sir, I do not want a statement of that kind, as to a matter of fact, to go out
without having an opportunity of stating what the fact is, as I understand it.
The Presiding Officer. (Mr. Weller is in the chair.) Unless the honorable Senator from Tennessee yields
the floor, the Senator from North Carolina is not entitled to proceed.
Mr. Bell. I yield the
floor.
Mr. Badger. The
statement which I made at the close of the remarks which I submitted to the
Senate, on the Nebraska bill, I believe was to this effect that, although I did
not hold my southern Whig friends responsible for the course of argument which
I had adopted, yet, I thought I was authorized to say, that as to the
conclusion at which I had arrived, we all stood as one man; and that I thought
I had their authority for saying so. That was the statement which I made. I
must say, sir, without going into particulars, that I thought, at that time, I
had just the same reason to suppose that my fried from Tennessee was going for
the bill, as I had to suppose that I was. In the meeting which has been alluded
to by my friend from Georgia, it was suggested that the southern Whig members
of this body were liable to this difficulty; that no vote was being taken, it
was a matter of doubt in the country, what course they would pursue in regard
to this subject, and that inconvenient consequences were resulting from that
position. It was understood that I had the floor, to speak either on that day,
or the next. I forget which, and I said: “Well, then, gentlemen, I had better
take the occasion to say, in the course of my remarks that we are all agreed in
the support of this bill.” I heard a general response: “Yes, do so by all
means.” Whether my friend from Tennessee joined in this response or not, I do
not know; because as witnesses very frequently say, when they are called upon
to state particulars, in courts of justice, as all of us know, “I cannot answer
that precisely, as I did not expect to be called upon.” [Laughter.] I certainly
thought I was requested by the meeting of Whig Senators, then and there
present, of whom my friend from Tennessee was one—not only authorized, but
requested—in order to anticipate the delay which must take place before they
could either vote or speak on the subject, that whatever course of reasoning we
might adopt in bringing us to the conclusion, in support of the bill, we were
all united.
Mr. Bell. In
consequence of that meeting?
Mr. Badger. I made
that remark in the conclusion of my speech. My honorable fried from Tennessee
sat immediately before me. He said nothing by way of dissent, after I had
concluded my speech, and passed out—
Mr. Bell. Passed out
where?
Mr. Badger. Right
there, just out of my seat. The Senator came to me and said: “why have you
committed me to support this bill.”
Mr. Bell. I said no
such thing.
Mr. Badger. Something
of that sort.
Mr. Bell. What I said
was: “Mr. Badger, you had no right to commit me to support of the bill.”
Mr. Badger. Probably
that was it.
Mr. Clayton. Let me
interfere between my friends?
Mr. Badger. Not
yet. I am willing to make any statement
about the language, because, as I said, I did not expect to be called upon; but
only say, a remark of that kind was made by my friend, which attracted my
attention, because I had supposed I was speaking, not only by his authority,
but at his instance, in making that remark.
Mr. Bell. On what
occasion?
Mr. Badger. This very
occasion now referred to.
Mr. Bell. That is
what I suppose, and I consider it full confirmation of my conjectures in regard
to that transaction.
Mr. Clayton. Will my
friend now give me the floor for a moment?
Mr. Bell. Certainly.
Mr. Clayton. These
are my friends, and I think I understand exactly the state of the case. There
is a misapprehension between them, that I am anxious to correct it. There is no
reason whatever for any feeling between them, and whom I have made the
explanation which I am about to make, I think they will both agree that neither
of them has any occasion whatever to complain of the other.
Mr. Badger. I have no
feeling whatever about it.
Mr. Clayton. The
facts were these. The southern Whigs in
this body were unanimous in favor of the repeal of the Missouri compromise.
They had consulted with each other, not in a caucus, but we understood from
private conversations with each other, that we all thought that the Missouri
compromise line ought to be repealed.
Mr. Badger. That we
were all in favor of the provision as it stood in the bill. That is what I
understood.
Mr. Clayton. Then the
Intelligencer paper took ground hostile to the position—
Mr. Bell. I must stop
the Senator from Delaware. I cannot admit his statement. We should soon get
into a quarrel.
Mr. Clayton. If that
is the case I will give up. I do not wish to get into a quarrel with my friend
from Tennessee.
Mr. Bell. The Senator
says we were all agreed that the Missouri compromise shold be repealed. That is
the statement of the honorable Senator from Delaware.
Mr. Clayton. Did not
the honorable Senator himself take that ground in his speech?
Mr. Bell. I never
did.
Mr. Clayton. Then I
entirely misunderstood the honorable Senator, and beg his pardon.
Mr. Bell. I know that
the honorable Senator from Delaware did not intend to misrepresent me.
Mr. Clayton. Not at
all.
Mr. Bell. But the honorable
Senator from North Carolina, though it was so easy for him to have ascertained
my opinion, spoke of the opinion of all the Southern Whigs. He did not ask me
about it.
Mr. Badger. I thought
I had the Senator’s authority already.
Mr. Bell. From
anything I ever said?
Mr. Badger. I have
already said that we had a meeting, at which the Senator from Tennessee was
present; and, when I suggested this, there was a general expression of
approbation that I should—
Mr. Bell. Do what?
Mr. Badger. That I
should state we were all agreed in support of the bill.
Mr. Bell. That all
the southern Whigs were agreed upon it?
Mr. Badger. Yes. That
is what I understood. It was a meeting of the southern Whigs.
Mr. Bell. I could not
make such a declaration. Did the honorable Senator from Delaware hear such a
proposition?
Mr. Clayton. I was
proceeding to explain, but the Senator would not permit me.
Mr. Bell. I pronounce
that there was no such question put. The honorable Senator from North Carolina
is mistaken.
Mr. Badger. I do not
say there was any question put.
Mr. Bell. Nor was it
asked in my hearing.
Mr. Badger. As we
were breaking up, the suggestion was thrown out that it was uncertain in the
country, how southern Whig Senators stood on this bill; and I then suggested
that, as I was to make a speech, it would perhaps be well for me to take the
occasion of saying we were all agreed. I think my friend from Louisiana [Mr.
Benjamin,] was at that meeting, and he can say whether I am right or not. There
was a general declaration, “By all means do it!”
Mr. Bell. Then I was
not at that meeting.
Mr. Badger. I will
not say the Senator from Tennessee was there but I thought he was.
Mr. Bell. Now, sir, the honorable Senator from North
Carolina could easily have ascertained my sentiments at any moment.
Mr. Badger. I thought
I knew these already.
Mr. Bell. I say that
no such question as that stated by the honorable Senator was asked at that
meeting when I was present. If it were, it was out of my hearing. I have before referred to the course of one
of my colleagues in the House [Mr. Churchwell] on this subject. My colleagues
stated that I was the chairman of the committee appointed at the meeting of the
southern Whig Senators, and, as I was present and did not object, he very
naturally and rationally inferred that I was in favor of the repeal of the
Missouri compromise at that time, so upon no other supposition would I have
undertaken such a commission to remonstrate with the editors of an independent
journal against their course on the Nebraska bill. I therefore have no feeling
against him on that ground; but I have some faults to find with him on the same
ground that I found with the honorable Senator from North Carolina.
The honorable gentleman to whom I allude had my confidence, and
was well informed as to my views and opinions on the subject of the Nebraska
bill from the time of its introduction in the Senate. He professed to be my
personal friend during the whole period of the pendency of the bill in the
Senate; and conferred with me frequently on the subject before the meeting of
the southern Whig Senators, and afterwards. In one of those conferences he was
pleased to say that he had more confidence in my judgment, on questions of this
description than in that of any other public man he knew; and that he should
defer very much to my views, though he did not say he would be guided by them.
Some few days, or a week, after the discussion on the bill
commenced, he came to my seat in the Senate, while the debate was going on, and
asked me if I had made up my mind on the question. I replied that I had not. He
then said that he was going home for his family, and, as the people would be
making inquiries of him as to my course on the subject, he wished to know what
to say to them and he wished to know on his own account. I then told him that I
would not decide on my course until he returned, unless the bill should be
brought to a vote before he got back. During his absence, in my conversations
with other colleagues of mine in the House, I told them repeatedly that if I
took ground in opposition to the measure, I thought I might rely on having our
colleague [Mr. Churchwell] with me; and I told them, confidentially, the
grounds upon which my confidence was based. After he returned I met him, and
told him that I had determined to oppose the bill, and I then asked him what he
thought he should do. He said he would reserve his decision as long as he
could; perhaps until the close of the debate in the House.
I do not think that I would be mistaken in stating that not
more than three or four days or a week elapsed, from that time until he made
his speech in the House, without my having some conversation with him, as to
the course he proposed to take on the Nebraska bill, and I was left in doubt as
to what it would be until the evening before he made his speech when he
informed me that he would vote for the bill. I said to him: “You are surely not
sincere?” He replied that he was.”
At this point the honorable Senator yielded, at the
solicitation of several Senators, and the Senate adjourned.
_______________
1 Place
of repentance.
2 Clean slate.
SOURCE: “Speech of
Hon. John Bell of Tennessee,” The
Tennessean, Nashville, Tennessee, Tuesday, June 13, 1854, p. 2
