It

But great as its blessings would be to us, in that case, it would be in every view far more so still to the North. would even be more necessary to their safety than to ours. The very institution, which is the object of their incessant denunciation and assaults, would be the palladium of our safety. The danger to which it is exposed, and the necessity of defending it for the common safety of the whole South, would constitute a central point of interest, that would unite us with links of iron within, which no force could dissever; while it would present without, an unbroken and impenetrable front. It would do more. From the conservative character of the institution, it would prevent that conflict between labor and capital, which must ever exist in populous and crowded communities, where wages are the regulator between them,-and thereby secure and preserve with us a settled and quiet condition of things within, which can never be experienced in such communities. The North, on the contrary, would have no central point of union, to bind its various and conflicting interests together; and would, with the increase of its population and wealth, be subject to all the agitation and conflicts growing out of the divisions of wealth and poverty, and their concomitants, capital and labor, of which already there are so many and so serious. But it is not in reference to safety only, that we would be the least sufferers. We would be far less so in a pecuniary point of view. Indeed, in that respect we would be great gainers, instead of being losers. The first effect would be to establish direct trade between us and the rest of the world. Our imports, in consequence, would at once rise. from their present depression to be equal in value to our exports,-in conformity to the established principle, that imports and exports of a country must, in a series of years, balance each other, or nearly so, when fairly valued. On the same principle, their imports would fall off and sink to the level of their exports. The consequence would be that,

with the same rates of duties, our revenue from imports would more than double theirs; and, what is of great importance, all of its proceeds would be expended among ourselves, instead of the far greater part being expended, as it is, at the North, to the great increase of their wealth and diminution of ours. With this great increase of imports, and of revenue, and expenditure with us, and falling off with them, there would be with us a corresponding increase of commerce, navigation, ship-building, tonnage, seamen, and general prosperity and increase of wealth, and a corresponding falling off with the North!

Nor would we be less capable of defending and protecting ourselves than they. We would have the advantages of closer unity-a greater exemption from agitation and discord within, with a much greater revenue from imports. These are great and commanding advantages, in estimating the relative strength of communities. Nor would we be weakened, as it is generally supposed, by the possession of slaves. The most powerful people that ever existed, in proportion to numbers the Romans-were far greater slaveholders than we are, while slavery exists with us in a form much less calculated to weaken, and more calculated to strengthen, than with them. That our people possess equal courage, skill, and capacity to endure the fatigues and exposure of military life, the recent war with Mexico abundantly proves. They have, at least, equalled in all these respects troops from the North.

But notwithstanding we have so much less to fear from disunion, we are profoundly anxious to preserve the Union, if it can be done consistently with our liberty and safety. It is for you to say by your acts, whether it can be preserved on these conditions or not. I say by your acts; for we have been too often deceived to rely on promises or pledges. The only proof we can accept, is for you to desist from your agitation and assaults on our rights, and to respect the compro

mises of the constitution.

Until this is done, there can be

no security for either our liberty or safety in the Union; and until we are secure in them, we are bound by the highest obligation of duty to ourselves and our posterity, to continue our resistance to your assaults, and to adopt whatever measures may be necessary to make it successful.

REMARKS

On the Proposition to establish Territorial Governments in New Mexico and California, made in the Senate, February 24th, 1849.

[THE debate in relation to territorial governments, involving questions of great magnitude, as to the powers of the Federal Government-especially in their bearing on the subject of slavery―arose in the Senate on an amendment proposed to the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill, and continued, with much animation, for several weeks. During the discussion, Mr. Dayton of New Jersey, Mr. Hale of New Hampshire, and Mr. Webster of Massachusetts, maintained that the powers delegated to Congress did not, and were not designed to extend to the territories. In reply to Mr. Webster, Mr. Calhoun said:-]

I RISE, not to detain the Senate to any considerable extent, but to make a few remarks upon the proposition first advanced by the Senator from New Jersey-fully indorsed by the Senator from New Hampshire, and partly indorsed by the Senator from Massachusetts, that the constitution of the United States does not extend to the territories. This is the point. I am very happy, Sir, to hear this proposition thus asserted, for it will have the effect of narrowing very greatly the controversy between the North and the

South, as it regards the slavery question in connection with the territories. It is an implied admission, on the part of those gentlemen, that, if the constitution does extend to the territories, the South will be protected in the enjoyment of its property-that it will be under the shield of the constitution. You can put no other interpretation upon the proposition which the gentlemen have made,-that the constitution does not extend to the territories.

Then, the simple question is,-Does the constitution extend to the territories, or does it not extend to them? Why, the constitution interprets itself. It pronounces itself to be the supreme law of the land.

[MR. WEBSTER. What land?]

MR. CALHOUN. The land;-the territories of the United States are a part of the land. It is the supreme law, not within the limits of the States of this Union merely, but wherever our flag waves-wherever our authority goes, the constitution, in part, goes;—not all its provisions certainly, but all its suitable provisions. Why, can we have any authority beyond the constitution? I put the question solemnly to gentlemen: If the constitution does not go there, how are we to have any authority or jurisdiction whatever? Is not Congress the creature of the constitution ? Does it not hold its existence upon the tenure of the continuance of the constitution? And would it not be annihilated upon the destruction of that instrument, and the consequent dissolution of this confederacy? And shall we, the creature of the constitution, pretend that we have any authority beyond the reach of the constitution? Sir, we were told, a few days since, that the courts of the United States had decided that the constitution did not extend to the territories without an act of Congress. I confess that I was incredulous, and am still incredulous, that any tribunal, pretending to have a knowledge of our system of govern

ment, as the courts of the United States ought to have, could have pronounced such a monstrous judgment. I am inclined to think that it is an error which has been unjustly attributed to them; but, if they have made such a decision, I, for one, say, that it ought not to be, and never can be respected. The territories belong to us-they are oursthat is to say, they are the property of the thirty States of the Union; and we, as the representatives of those thirty States, have the right to exercise all that authority and jurisdiction which ownership carries with it.

Sir, there are some questions that do not admit of lengthened discussion. This is one of them. The mere statement is sufficient to carry conviction with it; and I am rejoiced to hear gentlemen acknowledge that, if the constitution is there, we are under its shield. The South wants no higher ground to stand upon. The gentlemen have placed us upon high ground by the admission that their only means of putting their claims above ours, is to deny the existence of the constitution in California and New Mexico. The Senator from Massachusetts, I said, in part indorsed the proposition. He qualified it, however, by saying that all the fundamental principles of that instrument must be regarded as having application to the territories. Now, is there a more fundamental principle than that the States, of which this Federal Union is composed, have a community of interest in all that belongs to the Union in its federative character? And that the territory of the United States belongs to the Union in that capacity, is declared by the constitution; and that there shall be, in all respects, perfect equality among all the members of the confederacy. There is no principle more distinctly set forth, than that there shall be no discrimination in favor of one section over another, and that the constitution shall have no half-way operation in regard to one portion of the Union, while it shall have full force and effect in regard to another portion. I will not dwell