So there was no breach of the Constitution in that matter, and especially none that can be properly laid to the charge of the Southern States, or the "Slave Power" so-called. For Mr. Jefferson under whose auspices, as President, the treaty was negotiated, was as much opposed to the Institution of Slavery, as it existed in the United States, as any man in the whole country; and, moreover, Northern States joined in carrying out the treaty and approved it as heartily as the Southern States did. So in the acquisition of Florida. The treaty with Spain by which that Territory was secured was negotiated by Mr. John Quincy Adams, who cannot be supposed to have been actuated by any undue desire to pander to the "Slave Power" in doing it, or to strengthen in any way the particular interests of the Southern States. This view of Judge Bynum about the acquisition of Louisiana, Florida and Texas, I cannot answer more pointedly than I did when the same view was presented in the House of Representatives by Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, in 1855. The answer then given him, I then thought, and still think, was conclusive upon the subject. What I then said to Mr. Campbell, I now repeat to Judge Bynum on that point:*

"To this I say, it was not the South alone that secured the acquisition of Louisiana. Nor was it alone for the benefit of the South. There were but twenty-three votes in this House against that acquisition. It was a national acquisition. Sustained by national men from all sections, there was hardly a show of opposition to it from any quarter. I should suppose that Ohio would be the last State in this Union to raise her voice against that measure, or hold that it was exclusively for the "benefit of the South. What would have become of her

* Cong. Globe, App., vol. xxxi, p. 103.

trade and commerce if Louisiana and the mouth of the Mississippi were still in the hands of Spain or France? If the fifteen millions of money, which we paid, be the grounds of the gentleman's objection, all that has been more than refunded by the sale of public lands embraced within the limits of that acquisition. These sales, up to this time, have amounted to $25,928,732.23, besides what is yet to be realized from the hundreds of thousands of square miles yet to be sold. So the fifteen millions was no bonus to the South, even if the South had carried the measure for their own benefit.

"Again, was the acquisition of that territory made to extend the southern area of the country? Let us examine this view of the subject. What extent of territory was comprised within the limits of Louisiana? It extended not only far up the Mississippi river, to Iowa and Minnesota, but westward to the Rocky Mountains, even, without now mooting the question whether Oregon was not then acquired. Grant, for the sake of this argument, that Oregon was not then acquired. The Territory of Louisiana stretched from the extreme south on the Gulf to the extreme north on parallel 49° of north latitude. All that immense domain, including Kansas and Nebraska, was part of it. Was all this Southern territory? The object of the gentleman from Ohio in alluding to this subject seemed to be to intimate that all this acquisition was for the South. But how is the fact? Let us look at it. By this acquisition, taking all the Indian Territory into account, the South acquired only 231,960 square miles, while the North got by it 667,599 square miles! Is this the way the South is to be taunted? When the very acquisition, held up as the taunt, brought more than double the extent of territory to the North than it did to the South!

"Again, in the acquisition of Florida, the gentleman from Ohio says, that the South carried that measure at a cost of $5,000,000. This is the tenor of his argument. Sir, this measure was not carried by the South, nor for the South exclusively. There was not even a division in this House on the question. As to the extent of the acquisition, if we did not get Oregon when we acquired Louisiana, we certainly acquired it when we purchased Florida. It was by the treaty then made that we got Spain's relinquishment to Oregon. The North, by this measure, got 308,052 square miles of territory, including the Territories of Oregon and Washington, while the South got only the State of Florida, 59,268 square miles. If the South carried this question by her votes, I ask, were those who gave the votes sectional in their policy? Did not the South, if that be the gentleman's argument, gain quite as much, nay, more, nay, double, nay, more than five times as much territory for the North in that acquisition, as she obtained for herself? Again, in the acquisition of Texas, considering the Mexican war as part of that proceeding, as the gentleman does, the South only secured 237,504 square miles, while the North secured 632,157 square miles, including California, New Mexico, and Utah."

In another part of the same speech I also said, what may here be very properly repeated; for it is true, that the Southern States never did appeal to the Federal Government for any aid or protection, or legislation which did not lie clearly within the stipulations of the Articles of Union. They not only did not violate any of these stipulations, but never looked to that Government for the exercise of any power with a view to the advancement of their material interests. What I then said upon that subject, and now repeat, is in these words:

"The gentleman says, in his speech, 'we are told that the South gets nothing, that the South asks nothing.' Now, sir, in my reply to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Mace,] I spoke of the great fact, well known, living, and 'fixed fact,' that the industrial pursuits of the South do not, in the main, look for the protection or fostering care of the Government, and that the general industrial pursuits of the North do. I did not say that the South gets nothing, or that the South asks nothing. I said that the South asks but few favors; and I repeat it, sir. Nor am I to be answered by being told that General Jackson and Mr. Clay-Southern men-were in favor of fostering, as far as they could by proper legislation, the interests of the North. That does not disprove the fact which I uttered, that the South does not generally look to the Government for protection, and that the North does. Sir, it rather proves the opposite, and confirms my statement. Because I stated that the industrial pursuits of the North look to the Government for protection, is that statement disproved by the fact that Southern men, or even myself, have voted to favor those interests, as far as was consistent with public duty? So far from disproving, it tends rather to establish it. What I stated on this point was in reply to the gentleman from Indiana, whose tone of argument was, that the South carried measures promotive of their interest by bluster."

The truth is they asked nothing of the sort, except the performance, in good faith, of the clearly stipulated covenants of the Constitution by all the Parties to it. I was in Congress sixteen years, and never, during that whole period, asked the passage of any law for the particular interests of my constituents, except the establishment of Post Roads, and the making of the city of Augusta a Port of Delivery. I do not mean to say that the Legislatures

of the Southern States never passed any acts which were in violation of some of the provisions of the Constisution. Far from that. Many such acts were passed by them, as by Northern States, which were set aside and declared void by the Courts, either State or Federal. But what I do mean to affirm is, that no Southern State ever did, intentionally or otherwise, fail to perform her obligations to her Confederates under the Constitution, according to the letter and spirit of its stipulated covenants, and that they never asked of Congress any action, or invoked their powers upon any subject, which did not lie clearly within the provisions of the Articles of Union.

This, Major Heister, I think is quite enough to satisfy you and even the Judge himself, upon cool reflection, that there was no breach of the Constitution in the acquisition of Louisiana, Florida, or Texas, and if there was, the breach cannot properly be laid at the door of the Southern States, and, above all, that it was not made with a view of advancing their interests exclusively-much less was it carried by the undue power of the "three-fifths representation," to which he has alluded.

On this point of the "three-fifths" representation clause of the Constitution, I should have been amazed at what Judge Bynum said, if I had not so often heard the same thing stated by others of equally high position and equally distinguished for general intelligence: but he will allow me to say, most respectfully, that it is utterly without foundation, in fact. There is no clause in the Constitution, the history or effects of which seem to be so little understood by men of note and high standing, both at the North and South, as this. It is not among the compromises, so-called, of the Constitution at all. It was not carried by any bluster, insolence, or dictation, or even demand of Southern members in the Convention.