History of the Antislavery Measures of the Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth United States Congresses, 1861-65, by Henry Wilson, 1865.

CHAPTER V.

THE PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES.

MR. ARNOLD'S BILL. — MR. LOVEJOY'S REPORT, — MOTION TO LAY THE BILL ON THE TABLE. — MR. LOVEJOY'S SUBSTITUTE, — REMARKS OF MR. COX. MR. DIVEN, — MR. OLIN, — MR, CRISFIELD, MR. KELLEY. MR. SHEFFIELD, MR. STEVENS. — MR. THOMAS, — MR. BINGHAM. — MR. FISHER, — PASSAGE OF TBE BILL IN THE HOUSE. — IN THE SENATE. — MR. BROWNING'S REPORT. MR. BROWNING'S AMENDMENT. — MR. CARLILE'S SPEECH, — MR. WADE'S SPEECH — PASSAGE OF THE BILL AS AMENDED. — AMENDMENT OF THE SENATE CONCURRED IN.

NO question during the existence of the Republic of the United States has excited so intense arid profound an interest as the question, whether freedom or slavery should predominate in the Territories. The vast extent of the territorial possessions of the United States, the power of the rising commonwealths upon the destinies of the nation, made their territorial condition one of intense solicitude alike to the friends and enemies of slavery. Freedom and slavery have often contended for ascendency in the Territories. In these oft-repeated contests, the sentiments and opinions, the interests and passions, of vast sections have been deeply aroused, and the whole nation stirred to its profoundest depths. In these struggles, the slaveholding interests were accustomed to win decisive victories ; but, in 1860, the advocates of the freedom of the Territories achieved a national triumph in the election of a President fully and unreservedly pledged to their policy.

Page 93 In the House of Representatives, on the 24th of March, 1862, Mr. Arnold (Rep.) of Illinois introduced a bill to render, freedom national, and slavery sectional ; which was read, and referred to the Committee on Territories. On the 1st of May, Mr. Lovejoy (Rep.) of Illinois reported from the Committee on Territories Mr. Arnold's bill to make freedom national, and slavery sectional; which was read, recommitted to the Committee on Territories, and ordered to be printed,

Mr. Lovejoy, on the 8th of May, from the Committee on Territories, reported it back, with an amendment to the title, and with the recommendation that it pass the bill of the House, to render freedom national, and slavery sectional; and moved the previous question upon its engrossment and third reading. It provided, that to the end that freedom may be, and remain forever, the fundamental law of the land in all places whatsoever, so far as it lies within the powers or depends upon the action of the Government of the United States to make it so, slavery and involuntary servitude, in all cases whatsoever, shall henceforth cease, and be prohibited forever, in all the following places : 1. In all the Terri tories of the United States now existing, or hereafter to be formed or acquired in any way. 2. In all places purchased or to be purchased by the United States, with the consent of the Legislatures of the several States, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings. 3. In all vessels on the high seas, and on all national highways, beyond the territory and jurisdiction of each of the several States from which or to which the said vessels may be going. 4. In all places whatsoever where the National Government Page 94 is supreme, or has exclusive jurisdiction or power. The bill further provided, that any person now held, or attempted to be held hereafter, as a slave in any of the places above named, is hereby declared to be free ; and that the right to freedom hereby declared may be asserted in any of the courts of the United States or of the several States, in behalf of the party, or his or her posterity, after any lapse of time, upon the principle that a party once free is always free. Mr. Cox (Dem.) of Ohio moved that the bill be laid upon the table ; upon which motion Mr. Washburn (Rep.) of Illinois demand ed the yeas and nays, and they were ordered, — yeas 50, nays 64. On motion of Mr. M'Knight (Rep.) of Pennsylvania, the House adjourned.

On the 9th of May, the Speaker announced as the special order of the day, the bill prohibiting slavery in the Territories. Mr. Lovejoy withdrew his demand for the previous question, and offered a substitute for the pending bill. The bill provided that slavery, in all cases whatsoever, shall henceforth cease, and be prohibited forever. In all the following places ; namely. First, In all the Territories of the United States now existing, or hereafter to be formed or acquired in any way. Second, In all places purchased or to be purchased by the United States, with the consent of the Legislatures of the several States, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings, and in which the United States have or shall have exclusive legislative jurisdiction. Third, In all vessels on the high seas beyond the territory and jurisdiction of af each of the several States from which or to which the said vessels may be going. Forth, In all places Page 95 whatsoever where the National Goverment has exclusive jurisdiction. That any person now held, or at tempted to be held hereafter, as a slave in any of the places above named, is declared to be free ; and the right to freedom may be asserted in any of the courts of the United States or of the several States, in behalf of the party, or his or her posterity, after any lapse of time. Mr. Allen (Dem.) of Illinois moved that the bill be laid upon the table, — yeas 50, nays 65.

Mr. Olin (Rep.) of New York desired to amend and debate it, Mr. Lovejoy withdrew the demand for the previous question, and moved to amend his substitute by striking out these words, "and all national high ways," " That," he said, " relieves the bill from some of the objections which have been brought against it by some gentlemen who are friends of the bill," Mr. Lovejoy moved the previous question, to test the sense of the House, whether the bill should be discussed or not. The House decided, — ayes 42, noes 61, Mr. Lovejoy then moved to recommit the bill. " I do not," he said, " propose at present to enter at any length into the discussion of this bill, It is in accordance with the uniform policy of the Government on its organization to prohibit the crime of slavery in the Territories, From the result of the vote just taken, I suppose there are gentlemen here who wish to discuss it ; and re serving to myself the right, if I shall think it necessary, to resume the floor before the debate shall close, I now give way to any one who may desire it," — "I move," said Mr. Cox of Ohio, " to add to the motion to recommit instructions, that neither this bill nor any similar bill shall be reported back to the House. I believe it Page 96 to be a suicidal bill, — a bill for the benefit of secession and Jeff. Davis. The army and the people are against all such aids to the enemy of the country. The conservative men of the House have the power, and ought to ' squelch ' out the whole negro business. They are responsible for this continuous agitation. From the very commencement of the session, we have had these bills before us in one shape or another, postponed from time to time, and delayed by dilatory motions and adjournments. Now, I want to see the conservative element of the House, if there is any such thing left here, come up and vote this thing right down, I therefore hope the House will send this back to the committee ; and, in sending it back to the committee, let us give It such a death-blow as will destroy all similar measures." Mr. Wickliffe (Dem.) of Kentucky suggested to Mr. Cox to recommit, with instructions " not to report It back until the next session, during the cold weather," Mr. Cox moved to recommit the bill, with instructions " to report it back at the next session, on the very last day," Mr. Diven (Rep.) of New York " wanted Congress to exhaust the last power it has over this institution, whenever and wherever it can be done." Mr. Wickliffe quoted at length " the decision of Justice Story on the rights of slavery, for the bene fit of the country people." Mr. Diven was of opinion, that " when we acquire land for the purpose of a navy-yard, and exclude the States ceding that land from any civil jurisdiction over it, we take it with the right to control it as we please." Mr. Thomas (Opp.) of Massachusetts called the attention of Mr. Diven to the law of 1795, by which the civil jurisdiction is given to the Page 97 States over cessions made to the General Government. Mr. Diven wanted to free the bill of all ambiguity, "and let the operation of the law extend nowhere except where slavery may exist by virtue of the Constitution and laws of the United States ; and I repeat, as I have 80 often done already, but I wish to be emphatic, that, if such a spot exists upon the broad earth, let us exercise the power to abolish slavery." Mr. Cox modified his motion by moving to postpone the bill till the first day of the next session, instead of the last. Mr. Arnold of Illinois advocated the bill and all its provisions. Mr. Olin of New York and Mr. Kellogg (Rep.) of Illinois objected to portions of the bill concerning the prohibition of slavery in the dock yards, arsenals, and forts. Mr. Olin would "be as glad as any one to see the institution of slavery at least so crippled, that it will never henceforward be a disturbing cause in the administration of the Government. I, for one, will not consent to step an inch beyond the plain guaranties of the Constitution to accomplish even that purpose. Our only justification in the eyes of the civilized world for this warfare going on in our midst is, that we stand here, in obedience to law, in defence of the Constitution and law ; and the moment we lay aside that shield of protection, and prosecute this war for other purposes, whatever result may be wrought out by the prosecution of the war, it would be a wicked war. It would be, on every principle of Christianity, an unjustifiable war. Our only defence before God, posterity, and the world, is that we fight in defence of the laws, not for their subversion. The wickedness of this Rebellion consists not in the fact Page 98 that it is treason, always held to be a crime all the world over. Its chief enormity consists in the fact, that it is treason against such a Government as this, based on the common consent of the governed, with provision in the fundamental law to alter, change, or modify that Government in a peaceful way and by forms of law. If such a Governernment can be overthrown by force and violence, there is an end to all government except that of despotism and the sword. Hence it is, that rebellion against such a Government as this is of a deeper and more damnable dye. than any other that hag yet stained the annals of history."

"I denounce this bill," said Mr. Crisfield (Opp.) of Maryland, " as a palpable violation of the rights of States, and an unwarrantable interference with the rights of private property. I denounce it as a fraud upon the States which have made cessions of land to this Government, a violation of the Constitution, and a breach of the pledges which brought the dominant party into power. I denounce it as an usurpation and a tyrannical exercise of power, destructive of the peace of the country. Sir, I denounce it in this House, and to the American people. I denounce it before the civilized world. I declare that those who seek to accomplish the great wrong this bill perpetrates seek the ruin of all constitutional government on this continent, and are the foes of regulated liberty every where." — "What is this institution of slavery," asked Mr. Kelley (Rep.) of Pennsylvania, "that it should claim our special regard and care ? How has it blessed us, and what measure of gratitude do we, owe it? Sir, it is saturating every acre of Southern land with the Page 99 best blood of the North. It is filling our villages and towns with widows and orphans. The names of the marshes and barren fields of the slave States are sanctified to tens of thousands of Northern mothers and wives as the places of the rude burial of the tom and mangled remains of their loved ones. Tens of thousands ff those, who, approaching manhood, were warmed by generous hope and just ambition, and upon whom widowed mothers or aged fathers hoped to lean in their declining years, will move through our streets the mutilated victims of the system of slavery. The scars and wounds of these brave youth will bear honorable testimony to their devotion to constitutional law, and proclaim to the coming generation the character and the cause of the war in which they were received. The Rebellion is the result of slavery, and follows naturally enough a defeated attempt to over throw by enigmatical legislation and judicial chicanery the well and long settled laws, principles, and habits of the land. I say, therefore, that in the interest of future peace, and in the interest of freedom and justice, we are called upon to pass this bill. The Constitution does not create it ; the Constitution does not in terms recognize it : it only tolerates it ; and this law does not propose to interfere with that toleration. It does not propose to abolish slavery anywhere. ' It only proposes to say to the slave-owner, "Keep your slaves out of these places as employes: do not interfere with the system of free labor, and attempt to force the free mechanic into companionship with your slaves, or we will protect his dignity and interests by making free men of your instruments.' " Mr. Fessenden (Rep.) of Page 100 Maine declared, that, " when this Union is restored, we want to see the rights of the North guaranteed to us as well as the rights of the South guaranteed to them." Mr. Sheffield (Dem.) of Rhode Island had no tender ness with reference to this matter of slavery. " I say here, now, and always, I hate that institution. I think that freedom is the common law of the Territories, and that nothing but positive law can carry slavery there-; and we might as well here undertake to re-enact the Decalogue as to enact this law." Mr. Stevens (Rep.) of Pennsylvania said, "This bill proposes that there shall be no slavery hereafter in the navy and dock yards of the United States, or in any other places where the United States have exclusive jurisdiction. Now, every argument which can be used against this bill would apply with equal force against the bill which we have lately passed, and which has received the sanction of the Executive, abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. I cannot possibly see how any gentleman, who. could not possibly see a constitutional objection in the one case, can see it in the other." Mr. Thomas of Massachusetts asked Mr. Stevens " to call to mind the fact, that the bill for emancipation in the District of Columbia provided a reasonable compensation, while this bill provides none whatever."' — " I did not," replied Mr. Stevens, " suppose, indeed I have hardly heard, that anybody doubted the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, without compensation." Mr. Thomas called the attention of Mr. Stevens " to the fifth of the amendments to the Constitution, which provides that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Page 101 Mr. Stevens did not know "that the gentle man held that doctrine. It is so rare a doctrine in the free States, that I did not know that any one from that quarter held it. I supposed, in reference to the question of slavery, that, wherever the Government had exclusive power, they had the right to do with it as the States did with it, — abolish it, without compensation. Does any man doubt that the States have that right ? " — "Yes, sir," replied Mr. Thomas. "Then," said Mr. Stevens, "there is one doubter that will not be damned for that." Mr. Wickliffe asked, "Where has slavery been abolished without Compensation?" Mr. Stevens answered, " In Pennsylvania, in New York ; and he thought Massachusetts had never trade any compensation. ... I do not believe," he said, "there is any man from the free States, except the gentleman from the Boston district, who ever doubted that the legislative power of any locality, where they have the exclusive jurisdiction, have the right to abolish slavery, without compensation '. and this is the first time I ever heard the opposite idea suggested by a man from a free State, and I trust in God it is the last ; for it is no credit to a free State to entertain such an idea." — " To whom," asked Mr. Hooper (Rep.) of Massachusetts, "does the gentleman refer as 'from the Boston district'?" Mr. Stevens replied, "I carried him as near Boston as I could ; for I did not like to say from the Quincy district, for that would seem such a humiliation ! " Mr. Thomas said, "The gentleman need not trouble himself about that. The position is this : that if the law of this District, as it existed at the time of the passage of that bill, recognized a right in a person which Page 102 was capable of valuation, then the provision of the Constitution to which I have referred applies ; and you could not have taken that property, if it is property, or that right which is capable of computation, without furnishing that just compensation." Mr. Bingham (Rep.) of Ohio said that the bill abolishing slavery in the District " showed conclusively upon its face that it was a matter of pure election upon the part of the United States what compensation they should give, or whether they should give any at all ; and for this reason it was that Congress gave a gratuity, graduating the amount so that it should not exceed in the aggregate three hundred dollars each. No one knows better than the learned gentleman from Massachusetts, that such legislation as that, under the general provision of the Constitution which protects property, is absolutely inadmissible. The Congress of the United States cannot be the judge of the value under that clause of the Constitution at all, and it never was." Mr. Stevens declared " that the liberation of slaves in any locality where any legislature has exclusive jurisdiction is a political question, and it is a question of the organization of society, and in no sense of the word the taking of private property. It is a police and a political question, which the supreme legislature of any locality has a right to decide as it chooses ; and to say that that is not constitutional, is to inaugurate a new, a strange, and an awful doctrine, especially to come from the district of the sage of Quincy." — "Will the gentleman allow me," said Mr. Thomas, " to say that the sage of Quincy to whom he alludes, and for whom his respect is not more profound than mine, affirmed, when Page 103 he was at Ghent negotiating the treaty of peace, in his correspondence with the British commissioners, not only that there was property in slaves, but that the effort of the British officers and soldiers to seduce slaves from their masters was in violation of the laws of nations? And I will say further, that Mr. Adams never voted for the emancipation of slaves in the District of Columbia, though his very honorable successor felt it his duty to do so." — "'The sage of Quincy,'" replied Mr. Stevens, "has declared more than twenty times, and half that number of times within ray hearing, the entire competency of Congress to abolish slavery, wherever Congress has exclusive jurisdiction, without compensation." — "Within your hearing?" inquired Mr. Thomas. "I have often," replied Mr. Stevens, "heard him make the declaration; and I have heard Henry Clay make the same declaration." — "I can only," said Mr. Thomas, "say that Mr. Adams's entire public record Is to the contrary,"

Mr. Roscoe Conkling (Rep.) of New York remarked, that, " about a week ago, this House, with great unanimity so far as this side of the House is concerned, upon deliberation, raised a select committee, and to that committee committed this very subject, — this whole subject of confiscation and emancipation everywhere -within the jurisdiction of the United States, I under stand that committee is now ready to report. My sug gestion is, that, that committee being nearly ready to give an account to the House of its stewardship, — quite ready, some gentleman says, — it would be well, perhaps courtesy toward them, to commit this bill to that committee, and let it re-appear, if it is to appear Page 104 at all, when they shall have given us their work, and we have an opportunity to see whether this present pur pose Is within the scope of the two bills which I under stand they mean to report." Mr. Fisher (Union) of Delaware took the floor, and the House adjourned to Monday, the 12th of May, when it resumed the con sideration of the bill. Mr. Fisher said, "I am sure there is no man in this House who can possibly desire more than I do to see our country rid of the great curse of slavery. No man is more profoundly penetrated with the conviction, that It would have been far better for the harmony of our Union, as well as for the welfare and prosperity of the States, if slavery had never been known among us. It is hardly necessary at this day to discuss these points. The terrible and exhausting civil war in which we are now engaged will tell to future generations the sorrowful story of the effect of the institution upon the peace and harmony of our Union. Sad and satisfactory proof may also be found in the debates even of the Continental Congress, which de clared the independence of the United Colonies, that the great and almost the only trouble the patriots of that immortal body had to meet was just such as one as we, their descendants, are engaged in discussing here from day to day. The Ink with which the Declaration of Independence was written had scarcely dried, when, upon the question as to how the taxes necessary to maintain it should be levied, the subject of slavery came up to trouble and distract the national councils. It stood with defiant boldness upon the very threshold of the hall in which was debated and adopted the old Articles of Confederation in 1783 ; and again in 1787,

Page 105 when the framers of our present form of government, intended for a more perfect Union of the States, assembled at Annapolis, its ghastly form again stalked in to disturb and distract the deliberations of those good and great men ; and, from that day to the present, this evil genius of our destiny has from time to time returned to embarrass and impede our onward progress in power, and to position among the nations of the earth, until now it has culminated in the production, in the freest and best Government the world ever knew, of the most gigantic, causeless, and wicked Rebellion of which history furnishes any record."

Mr. Lovejoy modified his substitute, so that it read, —

"To the end that freedom may be and remain for ever the fundamental law of the land in 'all places whatsoever, so far as it lies within the powers or depends upon the action of the Government of the United States to make it so, there fore —

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That slavery or involuntary servitude, in all cases whatsoever (other than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted), shall henceforth cease, and be prohibited for ever, in all the Territories of the United States now existing, or hereafter to be formed or acquired in any way."

Mr. Cox moved to lay the bill on the table. Mr. Lovejoy demanded the yeas and nays ; and they were ordered, — yeas 49, nays 81, The substitute was then agreed to, Mr. Lovejoy moved to amend by striking out the preamble, on which he called the previous question. Mr. Cox " would like to amend that by inserting Page 106 the words, 'to carry out the Chicago Platform, and to dissolve the Union.' " The amendment striking out the preamble was agreed to ; and the bill was ordered to be engrossed, and read a third try. Mr. Lovejoy moved the previous question on the passage of the bill ; and it was ordered. Mr. Allen of Illinois demanded the yeas and nays on the passage of the bill. The question was taken ; and it was decided in the affirmative, — yeas 85, nays 50, — as follows : —

Yeas. — Messrs. Aldrich, Alley, Arnold, Ashley, Babbitt, Baker, Baxter, Beaman, Bingham, Francis P, Blair, Samuel S, Blair, Blake, Buffinton, Campbell, Chamberlin, Clark, Colfax, Frederick A. Conk ling, Roscoe Conkling, Cutler, Davis, Dawes, Delano, Diven, Duell, Dunn, Edgerton, Edwards, Eliot, Ely, Fenton, Fessenden, Franchot, Frank, Gooch, Granger, Hale, Harrison, Hickman, Hooper, Horton, Hutchins, Julian, Kelley, William Kellogg, Lansing, Loomis, Lovejoy, M'Knight, M'Pherson, Mitchell, Moorhead, Anson P. Morrill, Justin S. Morrill, Olin, Pike, Porter, Potter Alexander H. Rice, John H, Rice, Riddle, Edward H, Rollins, Sargent, Sedgwick, Shanks, Sheffield, Shellabarger, Stevens, Stratton, Benjamin F, Thomas, Train, Trimble, Trowbridge, Van Horn, Verree, Wall, Wallace, Charles W. Walton, E. P, Walton, Washburne, Wheeler, Albert S. White, Wilson, Windom, and Worcester, — 85.

Nays, — Messrs. Allen, Ancona, Joseph Baily, Biddle, Jacob B. Blair, George H. Browne, William G, Brown, Calvert, Casey, Clements, Cobb, Cox, Cravens, Crisfield, Crittenden, Dunlap, English, Grider, Haight, Hall, Harding, Holman, Johnson, Kerrigan, Knapp, Law, Lazear, Leary, Lehman, Mallory, Maynard, Menzies, Morris, Noell, Odell, Perry, John S. Phelps, Richardson, Robinson, Segar, John B. Steele, William G. Steele, Francis Thomas, Vibbard, Voorhees, Wadsworth, Ward, Webster, Wickliffe, and Woodruff, — 50.

So the bill was passed by the House of Representatives. Mr. Lovejoy moved to amend the title by striking it out, and inserting in lieu thereof as follows : "An act to secure freedom to all persona within the Territories of the United States ; " and this amendment was agreed to.

Page 107 In the Senate, on the 15th of May, Mr. Browning (Rep.) of Illinois, from the Committee on Territories, to whom was referred the bill to secure freedom to all persons within the Territories of the United States, reported it with an amendment.

On the ninth day of June, Mr. Wade (Rep.) of Ohio moved to take up the bill from the House prohibiting slavery in the Territories. Mr. M'Dougall (Dem.) of California demanded the yeas and nays, — yeas 20, nays 15. So the motion was agreed to ; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to Consider the bill to secure freedom to all persons within the Territories of the United States. The Committee on Territories reported the bill with an amendment, to strike out all after the enacting clause, and to insert the following in lieu thereof: " That, from and after the passage of this act, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the Territories of the United States now existing, or which may at any time hereafter be formed or acquired by the United States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." The amendment was agreed to, the bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendment was concurred in. Mr. Carlile said, "I should like to make an inquiry of those who have this bill in charge, whether this bill will interfere with the right of the Indians in the Indian Territory to their slaves. I have been looking into the treaty stipulations with the Choctaws and Seminoles and other tribes that are settled now in what we call the Indian Territory, and those treaties expressly se cure to the Indians the entire legislative control of that Page 108 country. I suppose it is not the intention of the Senate to violate any treaty stipulations with the Indian tribes." Mr. Wade did " not intend to say that it would interfere with an unorganized Territory belonging to the United States, it does not interfere with them now; but whenever a Territory of the United States is organized there, then I have no doubt this bill, if it should become a law, would prohibit slavery in that Territory, In my judgment, it would not interfere with any of their rights there now." The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time. It was read a third time ; and on the question, " Shall the bill pass ? " Mr. Carlile called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered; and, being taken, resulted — yeas 28, nays 10 — as follows : —

Yeas. — Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Cowan, Dixon, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Harris, Howard, Howe, King, Lane of Indiana, Pomeroy, Rice, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, and Wilson of Massachusetts, — 28.

Nays. — Messrs. Carlile, Davis, Kennedy, Latham, M'Dougall, Nesmith, Powell, Saulsbury, Stark, and Wright, — 10.

So the bill was passed in the Senate.

In the House of Representatives, on the 17th of June, the bill was taken up, and Mr. Lovejoy moved the previous question on concurring in the amendment of the Senate. The previous question was seconded, and the yeas and nays ordered on motion of Mr. Phelps (Dem.) of Missouri. The question was taken on concurring in the Senate amendment, — yeas 72, nays 38. So the Senate amendment, reported by Mr. Browning from the Committee on Territories to the House bill originally introduced by Mr. Arnold, and reported with Page 109 amendments by Mr. Lovejoy from the Committee on Territories, was concurred in. The bill passed, and was approved by the President on the 19th of June, 1862. This act prohibits forever slavery in all the territory of the United States now existing, or that may hereafter be acquired ; thus closing forever the long contest between freedom and slavery for the vast Territories now in possession of the United States.

Source: Wilson, Henry. History of the Antislavery Measures of the Thirty-Seventh and Thirty-Eighth United States Congresses, 1861-1865, Boston: Walker, Fuller, & Co., 1865.