Chapter IV: Part 4

He was steadfast in his friendships and would stake himself for a friend, but would violate no point of public duty to please or oblige him. Of this his relations with Mr. Randolph gave a signal instance. He drew a knife to defend him in the theatre at Philadelphia, when menaced by some naval and military officers for words spoken in debate and deemed offensive to their professions; yet, when Speaker of the House of Representatives, he displaced Mr. Randolph from the head of the Committee of Ways and Means because the chairman of that committee should be on terms of political friendship with the administration--which Mr. Randolph had then ceased to be with Mr. Jefferson's. He was above executive office, even the highest the President could give; but not above the lowest the people could give, taking that of justice of the peace in his county, and refusing that of Postmaster-General at Washington. He was opposed to nepotism, and to all quartering of his connections on the government; and in the course of his forty-years' service, with the absolute friendship of many administrations and the perfect respect of all, he never had office or contract for any of his blood. He refused to be a candidate for the Vice-Presidency, but took the place of Elector on the Van Buren ticket in 1836. He was against paper money and the paper system, and was accustomed to present the strong argument against both, in the simple phrase that this was a hard-money government, made by hard-money men, who had seen the evil of paper money and meant to save their posterity from it. He was opposed to security-ships, and held that no man ought to be entangled in the affairs of another, and that the interested parties alone--those who expected to find their profit in the transaction--should bear the bad consequences, as well as enjoy the good ones, of their own dealings. He never called any one "friend" without being so, and never expressed faith in the honor and integrity of a man without acting up to the declaration when the occasion required it. Thus, in constituting his friend, Weldon N. Edwards, Esq., his testamentary and sole executor, with large discretionary powers, he left all to his honor, and forbade him to account to any court or power for the manner in which he should execute that trust. This prohibition was so characteristic, and so honorable to both parties, and has been so well justified by the event, that I give it in his own words, as copied from his will, to-wit:

"I subjoin the following, in my own handwriting, as a codicil to this my last will and testament, and direct that it be a part thereof--that is to say, having full faith in the honor and integrity of my executor above named, he shall not be held to account to any court or power whatever for the discharge of the trust confided by me to him in and by the foregoing will."

And the event has proved that his judgment, as always, committed no mistake when it bestowed that confidence. He had his peculiarities--idiosyncrasies, if any one pleases--but they were born with him, suited to him, constituting a part of his character, and necessary to its completeness. He never subscribed to charities, but gave, and freely, according to his means--the left hand not knowing what the right hand did. He never subscribed for new books, giving as a reason to the soliciting agent that nobody purchased his tobacco until it was inspected, and he could buy no book until he had examined it. He would not attend the Congress Presidential Caucus of 1824, although it was sure to nominate his own choice (Mr. Crawford); and, when a reason was wanted, he gave it in the brief answer that he attended one once and they cheated him, and he had said that he would never attend another. He always wore the same dress--that is to say, a suit of the same material, cut, and color superfine navy blue--the whole suit from the same piece, and in the fashion of the time of the Revolution; and always replaced by a new one before it showed age. He was neat in his person, always wore fine linen, a fine cambric stock, a fine fur hat with a brim to it, fair top-boots--the boot outside the pantaloons, on the principle that leather was stronger than cloth. He would wear no man's honors, and when complimented on the report on the Panama mission, which, as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, he had presented to the Senate, he would answer, "Yes, it is a good report; Tazewell wrote it." Left to himself, he was ready to take the last place and the lowest seat anywhere; but, in his representative capacity he would suffer no derogation of a constitutional or of a popular right. Thus, when Speaker of the House, and a place behind the President's Secretaries had been assigned him in some ceremony, he disregarded the programme, and, as the elect of the elect of all the people, took his place next after those whom the national vote had elected. And in 1803, on the question to change the form of voting for President and Vice-President, and the vote wanting one of the constitutional number of two-thirds, he resisted the rule of the House which restricted the Speaker's vote to a tie, or to a vote which would make a tie--claimed his constitutional right to vote as a member, obtained it, gave the vote, made the two-thirds, and carried the amendment.

And, what may well be deemed idiosyncratic in these days, he was punctual in the performance of all his minor duties to the Senate, attending its sittings to the moment, attending all the committees to which he was appointed, attending all the funerals of the members and officers of the Houses, always in time at every place where duty required him; and refusing double mileage for one traveling when elected from the House of Representatives to the Senate or summoned to an extra session. He was an habitual reader and student of the Bible, a pious and religious man, and of the "_Baptist persuasion_," as he was accustomed to express it.

I have a pleasure in recalling the recollections of this wise, just and good man, and in writing them down, not without profit, I hope, to rising generations, and at least as extending the knowledge of the kind of men to whom we are indebted for our independence and for the form of government which they established for us. Mr. Macon was the real Cincinnatus of America, the pride and ornament of my native State, my hereditary friend through four generations, my mentor in the first seven years of my senatorial, and the last seven of his senatorial life; and a feeling of gratitude and of filial affection mingles itself with this discharge of historical duty to his memory.

* * * * *

Mr. Benton called his sketch, which appears in his _Thirty-years' View_, "Retiring of Mr. Macon." It is well done, and interesting also because it is what one great man said of another. Yet I confess with some mortification that I have never seen it in print in North Carolina except in Benton's book.

To the foregoing admirable sketch by Benton I subjoin the following copious extracts from the _Memoir of Nathaniel Macon_ by Weldon N. Edwards, published in July, 1862:

Nathaniel Macon was born on the 17th of December, 1758, in the
county of Bute, of the then province of North Carolina, in
the part of it now Warren, within a few miles of the present
village of Warrenton, of poor and respectable parents. His
great-grandfather was a Huguenot and came over from France to
escape the persecutions consequent upon the revocation of the
Edict of Nantes, in 1685. His father, Gideon H. Macon, was born
in Virginia, whence he came to North Carolina. His mother was
a native of North Carolina and a daughter of Edward Jones, of
Shocco. He lost his father in early boyhood, and was left, with
many brothers and sisters, in the care of his widowed mother,
with such moderate means of support as to require the utmost
care and industry to get on even tolerably in the world. He
assisted in all the domestic offices and labors common with
boys at that day. He acquired the rudiments of education in the
neighborhood, at what was called an "old-field school." The
application, progress, and good habits of the boy gave such
promise of the future man that it was resolved to make every
effort to give him a thorough education, and he was accordingly
sent to Princeton College, New Jersey. His own inclinations
eagerly seconded the hopeful purpose of his friends. While
there, he prosecuted his studies with fond diligence, and sought
all the avenues to useful knowledge with unflagging zeal. Nor
did he relax his efforts in this respect after his return home,
devoting to such books as were within his reach all the time he
could spare from the ordinary duties of life; but he met with
great difficulties, owing to the scarcity of books and his own
poverty. In the latter part of his life he was often heard to
say that his eyesight failed him sooner than it otherwise would
have done, in consequence of his reading so much by firelight in
his youth and early manhood, being then too poor to buy candles,
his small patrimony having been exhausted during his minority in
his support and education.

His love for North Carolina was sincere and thorough. In all
that concerned her character, her institutions, her welfare,
he felt an ever-wakeful solicitude. Although he received his
collegiate education in a distant State, he ever after gave a
decided preference to the seminaries of his own loved North
Carolina. When his son-in-law, William Eaton, Sr., in the
year 1823 was about to send two of his sons to Cambridge, he
dissuaded him from it and advised him to send them to the
University of North Carolina, because, among other reasons, they
would there make acquaintances of many of the future men of the
State, and contract friendships that would be of service to them
in the part they were destined to act in the great drama of life.

He studied law, but never applied for a license to practice.
There is now in possession of his grandson, William Eaton,
Jr. (who shared his confidences and affections, and is a
worthy representative of his principles and virtues), an old
London-bound edition of Blackstone's Commentaries, which was
used by him, and which is highly valued as a family relic. Like
all persons of taste, he admired the classic elegance of this
celebrated work, but regarded its author as too subservient to
power, and wanting in manliness and independence. He considered
Sir Edward Coke a much better friend to English liberty. * * * *
* * * * *

Stability and consistency were strong points in Mr. Macon's
character, formed upon his uncompromising adherence to principle
and unswerving fidelity to duty. In his conversation he was
easy and unaffected, in his manners and dress a decided model
of republican simplicity, pretentious in nothing; all who
approached him felt conscious of receiving the civility and
respect demanded by the nicest sense of propriety. To these
characteristics did he owe much of that firm hold upon the
confidence and esteem of his countrymen which sustained him in
the severe trials always to be met in the great battle of life.
His was an enduring popularity; it never waned; it existed in
as much vigor and freshness at the close of his life as at any
former period; it lived after him, and it is the source of the
highest gratification to his numerous friends and admirers that
he is still often quoted as the bright exemplar of "the honest
man and the wise and virtuous statesman." * * * * * * * * *

Though so long honored, and so many years the depositary of
public honors and public trusts, Mr. Macon's was the rare
merit of never having solicited any one to vote for him, or
even intimated a wish that he should; and though no one shared
more fully the confidence of a large circle of influential
friends, his is the praise of never having solicited the
slightest interest for his own preferment. Public honors
sought him; he prized them only as the reward of faithful and
virtuous performance, and regarded place as the means merely
of bringing him in nearer contact with public duty. He made
no popular harangues, seeking to avoid temptation of being
betrayed into promises which he could not or would not fulfill,
or into protestations which his heart would not sanction. He
was never found rambling through his Congressional District,
seeking to engineer himself into popular favor by means which
self-respect and a just sense of the rights of others forbade.
His rule was to attend punctually, once a year, if health
permitted, the first court held in each county in his district
after his return from Congress. There he met his constituents,
there he received their greetings and heard their complaints;
there, without simulation, gave a full account of his
stewardship. In his intercourse with them he was easy, frank,
and communicative, never withholding his opinion upon matters
of public concernment, and always inviting them to the exercise
of the utmost freedom of thought and of speech as the highest
privilege of freemen and the surest guard of liberty. He never
attended what, in his own characteristic language, he called "a
man-dinner," regarding all such political pageants as having too
much deceptious exterior, and as being too little calculated
to better the popular heart or enlighten the popular mind. And
when, upon his retirement from Congress, a large portion of his
old constituents tendered him the compliment of a public dinner,
he declined it in a brief note, saying that "he had never been
at such a show, and that he had already received the most
gratifying proofs of their good-will and esteem."

To shun all ostentatious display and the emptiness of pride was,
with him, a _principle_; and to do good to his fellow-men, and
to society, a rule of action which he scrupulously observed,
always abstaining, in the employment of his faculties, and
in the use of the abundant goods with which frugal industry
had blessed him, from the gratification of any passion, the
indulgence of which prudence forbade to others less favored
by fortune--thus teaching, by both precept and example, the
necessity of temperance, frugality and industry, as the surest
and best foundation for contentment and plenty.

Of generous and unsuspicious nature, he never looked with
uncharitableness on the actions of his fellow-men, but, with the
strength and armor of a well-balanced mind, gave to them the
calmest consideration and assigned to each its appropriate place
in the scale of good and evil. Of philosophic mind, subdued
temper, and great self-command, he met the incidents and
accidents of life, not with stoic indifference, but with quiet
submission--yielding nothing to passion, less to despondency,
and looking to passing events as to a school for instruction,
and deducing from them useful lessons to guide him in the
pathway of life.

Of him it may be emphatically said, that he thought for himself,
but reposing, with confidence, on his discriminating sense of
justice and integrity of purpose, he gave to all subjects the
fullest deliberation, and never jumped to conclusions in advance
of his judgment. But when he had formed an opinion he adhered to
it with a fearless and virtuous inflexibility which yielded to
no importunity or persuasion. This, with some, subjected him to
the charge of obstinacy.

"Virtue itself 'scapes not calumnious strokes."

* * * * * * * * * * *

He was chary of promises, but always punctual and exact in
performance; would give his bond or note to no man, contract no
debts, would buy nothing without paying for it. "Pay as you go"
was a law to him which he inflexibly observed. He mastered all
his wants and kept them in strict subjection to reason. He would
lend money to a friend, but never take interest. He classed
labor among the virtues, never called for help in anything he
could do himself, labored often in his fields at the head of his
slaves, during the intervals allowed from public duties, and
topped all his own tobacco, when at home at the proper season,
till the infirmities of age rendered him unable to stand the
heat of the sun. He was fond of the chase and indulged in his
favorite amusement, the pursuit of the fox and the deer, as long
as he lived.

He spoke often in Congress--seldom long. His speeches were
always to the point, strong, practical, sententious, often
furnishing materials for the rhetorical displays of others. A
most distinguished member once characterized his speeches as
"dishes of the best material served up in the best manner."
Unless prevented by bad health, he was always in his seat, voted
on every question, was punctual in attendance upon committees,
and ever ready at the call of duty.

He was fond of reading, but his favorite study was man. "He made
choice of human nature for the object of his thoughts." To this
predilection did he owe that consummate knowledge of the human
character, and those practical lessons of wisdom (of so much
consequence in the conduct of life) which gave him rank among
the "wisest and best."

There is no surer test of merit than is found in the favorable
opinions of the wise and the good, formed in the unrestricted
freedom of social intercourse, when the seal of reserve is
unloosed, and neither the pride of ostentation nor the dread
of criticism or censure invites to concealment. Impressed with
this truth, with a view to impart deeper interest to this
sketch, by stamping the seal of verity upon the high and noble
traits it portrays, recourse is had to the correspondence of
eminent and distinguished statesmen, to whom all the avenues of
knowledge were opened by close intimacy and long association in
public life. Thomas Jefferson, whose monument is to be found in
the Declaration of Independence, and in the enduring popular
veneration which he so largely shared, but a few weeks after
his first inauguration as President of the United States, in
1801, thus writes to Mr. Macon: "And in all cases when an office
becomes vacant in your State, as the distance would occasion a
great delay, were you to wait to be regularly consulted, I shall
be much obliged to you to recommend the best characters. There
is nothing I am so anxious about as making the best possible
appointments, and no case in which the best men are more liable
to mislead us by yielding to the solicitations of applicants.
For this reason your own spontaneous recommendation would be
desirable." Thus did Mr. Jefferson stake an important portion of
his administrative duties upon his high estimate of Mr. Macon's
integrity and wisdom. Again, in another letter to Mr. Macon, the
24th of March, 1826, Mr. Jefferson says: "My grandson, Thomas
Jefferson Randolph, the bearer of this letter, on a journey to
the North, will pass two or three days, perhaps, in Washington.
I cannot permit him to do this without presenting him to a
friend of so long standing, whom I consider as the strictest
of our models of genuine republicanism. Let him be able to
say, when you are gone, but not forgotten, that he had seen
Nathaniel Macon, upon whose tomb will be written, '_Ultimus
Romanorum!_' I only ask you to give him a hearty shake of the
hand, on my account, as well as his own, assuring you he merits
it as a citizen, to which I will add my unceasing affection to
yourself." * * * * * * *

Of Mr. Macon's claims to distinction, and to take rank on the
roll of fame among the first of those who embellish the pages
of American history, that sagacious statesman, John Randolph of
Roanoke, whose perception of character was rarely at fault, in
a letter to Mr. Macon, 14th December, 1828, thus speaks: "Your
kind letter of the 10th is just now received. Many, many thanks
for it. I am truly concerned at the causes which justly occasion
you uneasiness; yet, when I reflect, I know of no man in the
United States whom I would so soon be as yourself. There is no
one who stands so fair in the public estimation; and, with the
single exception of General Washington, there is not one of your
times who will stand so fair with posterity as yourself. There
are various sorts of reputations in the world. Some are obtained
by cringing and puffing, some are actually begged for and given
as an alms to importunity, some are carried by sheer impudence.
No one has had a better opportunity of observing this than
yourself; and there is no keener observer."

Upon such testimonials as these, from such high and pure
sources, the reputation of this just and virtuous man may safely
repose. They bespeak a name and a fame which dignify humanity,
and invest his memory with a usefulness scarcely less to be
prized than his services while living.

This sketch would be imperfect did it not notice the suggestive
fact that in his latter years Mr. Macon had painful misgivings
for the future of his country. 'Tis true he did not parade his
opinions before the public gaze, preferring rather to encourage,
not to alarm, the popular mind; but often when his thoughts
were turned on what he deemed the political distempers and
proclivities of the times, did he say to a friend in his own
pregnant language: "I am afraid of all my labors have been for
nothing"--obviously referring to his hardships in the tented
field and his arduous and well-directed labors in the councils
of his country, having devoted to these patriotic offices the
greater part of a long life, commencing before manhood and
ending with its close. At one period he reposed with entire
confidence on the conviction that popular rights and public
liberty were effectually secured by the Constitution of the
United States, but this hopeful reliance failed him as early
as 1824. In a debate, at that period, in the Senate of the
United States, on the bill for a subscription to the Delaware
and Chesapeake Canal, Mr. Macon said: "I rise with a full heart
to take my last farewell of an old friend that I have always
admired and loved--the Constitution of the United States. * * *
In times of old, whenever any question touching the Constitution
was brought forward, it was discussed day after day; that time
is now passed. * * * Do a little now and a little then, and by
and by you will render the government as powerful and unlimited
as the British government was. We go on deciding these things
without looking at the Constitution; and I suppose we will,
in a few years, do as was done in England. We shall appoint a
committee to hunt for precedents. My heart is full when I think
of all this; and what is to become of us I cannot say. * * * My
fears may be groundless; they may be nothing but the suggestions
of a worn-out old man; but they are sincere, and I am alarmed
for the safety of this government."

In vain did he then, as often before, raise his warning voice
against the dangers of inroads upon the Constitution. And now
that the direst calamities are upon us, resulting from its
utter overthrow and its base prostitution by wicked men to the
worst and most wicked purposes--how loudly do they proclaim the
unerring sagacity of his gifted and far-reaching mind!

* * * * *

In person Macon was above the middle size, of florid but fair complexion, keen blue eyes, animated but kindly countenance, not very good-looking, but possessed of a symmetrical form and strength of body. His manners were simple and unostentatious, but not without sufficient dignity and firmness.

He was married early in life to Miss Hannah Plummer, of Warren, his own county.

A good story is told of the way he won her. He proposed in her presence to his rival that they should settle their claim to her hand by a game of cards. This was agreed to and Macon lost. He then raised up his hands, and with eyes fixed on the object of his affection, exclaimed: "Hannah, notwithstanding I have lost you fairly, love is superior to honesty: I cannot give you up." He won, and was married to her October 9th, 1783.

He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1791, and served continuously until 1815, when he was elected to the Senate. He was also a trustee of the University and a justice of the peace, both of which offices he gave up in 1828, at the time he resigned his seat in the Senate.

He was not a party man, but believed in true democracy. He complained often that some of the most vital parts of the Constitution had been construed or enacted away before he left Congress. He was a strict constructionist.

He presided over the Constitutional Convention of 1835, and took part in its deliberations upon the more important questions. With Gaston, he favored religious toleration, and made a speech against the clause in the old Constitution prohibiting all but those of the Protestant religion from holding any office of trust or profit in North Carolina.

He was averse to having his picture taken. This peculiarity grew on him, until in very old age he is said to have threatened a persistent picture-maker with libel if, as he had suggested, he should take his (Macon's) picture without his knowledge. Hardly a growth so strong and rugged without some gnarls and knots. The picture of him given in this book is from a portrait by Randall, and is pronounced a good likeness by Mr. J. A. Egerton (an old neighbor) and others who knew him intimately.

He paid his physician attending him in his last illness before he died, and directed the details of his burial.

The _Life of Macon_ was written in 1840 by Edward R. Cotten; but in his book of two hundred and seventy-two pages, Cotten says comparatively little of Macon, and devotes most of his space to his own views on many subjects, Macon's opinions and acts sometimes furnishing the text. If the book was not entitled _Life of Macon_ it would be more interesting. As indicating what a Warren county gentleman of much leisure and considerable reading, of good associates and ordinary capacity, was thinking about in 1840, the book ought to be preserved.

In order to give an idea of Macon's directness and simplicity, I offer an abbreviated report of one of his speeches made in the Senate, taken almost at random from the _Abridgment of the Debates of Congress_. The time was January 20, 1820. The question was the admission of Missouri, as well as Maine, into the Union. The protected States urged an amendment restricting slavery in Missouri before it should be admitted as a State, which amendment Mr. Macon opposed with his usual sound sense. The speech is imperfectly reported, but contains the germ of almost all that could have been said on the subject from his standpoint.

SPEECH ON THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

By NATHANIEL MACON.

Mr. Macon, of North Carolina, said that he agreed in opinion with the gentleman who had declared this to be the greatest question ever debated in the Senate, and that it ought to be discussed in the calmest manner, without attempting to excite passion or prejudice. It was, however, to be regretted that while some of those who supported the motion were quite calm and cool they used a good many hard words, which had no tendency to continue the good humor which they recommended. He would endeavor to follow their advice, but must be pardoned for not following their example in the use of hard words. If, however, one should escape him, it would be contrary to his intention, and an act of indiscretion, not of design or premeditation. He hoped to examine the subject with great meekness and humility.

The debate had brought forcibly to his recollection the anxiety of the best patriots of the nation, when the present Constitution was examined by the State conventions which adopted it. The public mind was then greatly excited, and men in whom the people properly placed the utmost confidence were divided. There was then no whisper about disunion, for every one considered the Union as absolutely necessary for the good of all. But to-day we have been told by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Lowrie) that he would prefer disunion rather than that slaves should be carried west of the Mississippi. Age, Mr. Macon said, may have rendered him timid, or education may have prevailed on him to attach greater blessings to the Union and the Constitution than they deserve. If this be the case, and it be an error, it was one he had no desire to be free from even after what he had heard in this debate. Get clear of this Union and it will be found vastly more difficult to unite again and form another. There were no parties in the country at the time it was formed, not even upon this question. The men who carried the nation through the Revolution were alive, and members of the Convention. Washington was at their head. Have we a Washington now? No. Is there one in the nation to fill his place? No. His like, if ever, has been rarely seen; nor can we, rationally, expect another in our day. Let us not speak of disunion as an easy thing. If ever it shall come, it will bring evils enough for the best men to encounter, and all good men, in every nation, lovers of freedom, will lament it. This Constitution is now as much an experiment as it was in the year 1789. It went into operation about the time the French Revolution commenced. The wars which grew out of that, and the difficulties and perplexities which we had to encounter, in consequence of the improper acts of belligerents, kept the people constantly attached to the government. It has stood well the trial of trouble and of war, and answered, in those times, the purposes for which it was formed and adopted; but now it is to be tried, in time of universal peace, whether a government within a government can sustain itself and preserve the liberty of the citizen. When we hear the exclamation "Disunion, rather than slaves be carried over the Mississippi," it ought not to be forgotten that the union of the people and the Confederation carried us through the Revolutionary war (a war of which no man can wish to see the like again in this country); but, as soon as peace came, the Confederation was found to be entirely unfit for it; so unfit that it was given up for the present Constitution. Destroy this Union, and what may be the condition of the country, no man, not the most sagacious, can even imagine. It will surely be much worse than it was before the Constitution was adopted; and that must be well remembered.

The proposed amendment is calculated to produce geographical parties, or why admonish us to discuss it with moderation and good temper? No man who has witnessed the effect of parties nearly geographical can wish to see them revived. Their acts formerly produced uneasiness, to say the least of them, to good men of every party. General Washington has warned us against them; but he is now dead, and his advice may soon be forgotten; form geographical parties and it will be discarded. Instead of forming sectional parties it would be more patriotic to do them away. But party and patriotism are not always the same. Town meetings and resolutions to inflame one part of the nation against another can never benefit the people, though they may gratify an individual. Leave the people to form their own opinions, without the aid of inflammatory speeches at town meetings, and they will always form them correctly. No town meeting was necessary to inform or inflame the public mind against the law giving members of Congress a salary instead of a daily allowance. The people formed their own opinions, disapproved it, and it was repealed. So they will always act if left to themselves. Let not parties formed at home for State purposes be brought into Congress to disturb and distract the Union. The general government hitherto has been productive enough of parties to satisfy those who most delight in them; so that they are not likely to be long wanted in it. Enough, and more than enough, has been produced by the difficulty of deciding what is and what is not within the limits of the Constitution. And, at this moment, we have difficulties enough to scuffle with without adding the present question. The dispute between the Bank of the United States and the State banks, the want of money by the government, the increase of taxes in the midst of increasing debts, and the dispute with Spain might serve for this session.

All the States now have equal rights and all are content. Deprive one of the least right which it now enjoys in common with the others, and it will no longer be content. So, if the Government had an unlimited power to put whatever conditions it pleased on the admission of a new State into the Union, a State admitted with a condition unknown to the others would not be content, no matter what might be the character of the condition, even though it was not to steal or commit murder. The difference in the terms of admission would not be acceptable. All the new States have the same rights that the old have, and why make Missouri an exception? She has not done a single act to deserve it, and why depart, in her case, from the great American principle that the people of each State can govern themselves? No reason has been assigned for the attempt at the departure, nor can one be assigned which would not apply as strongly to Louisiana. In every free country that ever existed the first violations of the principles of government were indirect and not well understood, or supported with great zeal by only a part of the people.

All the country west of the Mississippi was acquired by the same treaty, and on the same terms, and the people in every part have the same rights; but, if the amendment be adopted, Missouri will not have the same rights which Louisiana now enjoys. She has been admitted into the Union as a full sister, but her twin-sister, Missouri, under the proposed amendment, is to be admitted as a sister of the half-blood, or rather as a stepdaughter, under an unjust stepmother--for what? Because she, as well as Louisiana, performed well her part during the late war, and because she has never given the general government any trouble. The operation of the amendment is unjust as it relates to the people who have moved there from other States. They carried with them the property which was common in the States they left, secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States as well as by the treaty. There they purchased public lands and settled with their slaves, without a single objection to their owning and carrying them; but now, unfortunately for them, after they have been to the trouble and expense of building houses and clearing plantations in the new country it has been discovered that they had no right to carry their slaves with them and that they must now move and make room for those who are considered a better people. The country was bought with the money of all, slaveholders as well as those who are not; and every one knew when he bought land and moved with his property he had a perfect right to do so. And no one till last session ever said to the contrary or moved the restriction about slaves. The object now avowed is to pen up the slaves and their owners, and not permit them to cross the Mississippi to better their condition, where there is room enough for all and good range for man and beast. (And man is as much improved by moving and range as the beast of the field.) But what is still more unaccountable, a part of the land granted to the soldiers for their services in the late war was laid off in Missouri expressly for the soldiers who had enlisted in the Southern States, and would prefer living where they might have slaves. These too are now to leave the country of their choice and the land obtained by fighting the battles of the nation. Is this just in a government of law, supported only by opinion? for it is not pretended that it is a government of force. In the most alarming state of our affairs at home--and some of them have an ugly appearance--public opinion alone has corrected and changed that which seemed to threaten disorder and ill-will into order and good-will, except once, when the military was called out in 1791. Let this be compared to the case of individuals and it will not be found to be more favorable to the amendment than the real case just stated. A and B buy a tract of land large enough for both and for their children, and settle it, build houses and open plantations. When they have got it in good way to live comfortably, after ten or fifteen years, A thinks there is not too much for him and his children, and that they can, a long time hence, settle and cultivate the whole land. He then for the first time tells B that he has some property he does not like, and that he must get clear of it or move. B states the bargain. A answers that it is true he understood it so until of late, but that move he must or get clear of his property; for that property should not be in his way. The kind or quality of property cannot affect the question.

A wise legislature will always consider the character, condition and feelings of those to be legislated for. In a government and people like ours this is indispensable. The question now under debate demands this consideration. To a part of the United States, and that part which supports the amendment, it cannot be important except as it is made so by the circumstances of the time. In all questions like the present, in the United States, the strong may yield without disgrace even in their own opinion; the weak cannot. Hence the propriety of not attempting to impose this new condition on the people of Missouri. Their numbers are few compared to those of the whole United States. Let the United States then abandon this new scheme, let their magnanimity and not their power be felt by the people of Missouri. The attempt to govern too much has produced every civil war that ever has been, and probably every one that ever may be. All governments, no matter what their form, want more power and more authority, and all the governed want less government. Great Britain lost the United States by attempting to govern too much and to introduce new principles of governing. The United States would not submit to the attempt, and earnestly endeavored to persuade Great Britain to abandon it, but in vain. The United States would not yield, and the result is known to the world. The battle is not always to the strong nor the race to the swift. What reason have we to expect that we can persuade Missouri to yield to our opinion that did not apply as strongly to Great Britain? They are as near akin to us as we were to Great Britain. They are "flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone." But as to kin, when they fall out they do not make up sooner than other people. Great Britain attempted to govern us on a new principle, and we are attempting to establish a new principle for the people of Missouri on becoming a State. Great Britain attempted to collect a threepenny tax on the tea consumed in the then colonies, which were not represented in Parliament; and we to regulate what shall be property when Missouri becomes a State, when she has no vote in Congress. The great English principle of no tax without representation was violated in one case, and the great American principle, that people are able to govern themselves, will be violated if the amendment be adopted. Every free nation has had some principle in its government to which more importance was attached than to any other. The English principle was not to be taxed without the consent of the people given in Parliament; the American principle is the right of the people to form their State governments in their own way, provided they be not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. If the power in Congress to pass the restriction was expressly delegated, and so clear that no one could doubt it, in the present circumstances of the country, it would still not be wise or prudent to do so; especially against the consent of those who live in the territory. Their consent would be more important to the nation than a restriction which would not make one slave less, unless indeed they might be starved in the old States.

Let me not be understood as wishing or intending to create any alarm as to the intentions of the people of Missouri. I know nothing of them. But in examining the question, we ought not to forget our own history nor the character of those who settle on our frontiers. Your easy chimney-corner people, the timid and fearful, never move to them. They stay where there is no danger from an Indian or any wild beast. They have no desire to engage the panther or the bear. It is the bravest of the brave and the boldest of the bold who venture there. They go not to return.

The settling of Kentucky and Tennessee during the war of the Revolution proves in the most satisfactory manner what they can do and will undergo, and that they will not return. The few people who first settled there had to contend, without aid from the States, against all the Indians bordering on the United States except the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations, and maintained their stations. The northern tribes, unaided by the southern, attacked the United States since the adoption of the Constitution and defeated two armies, and it required a third to conquer them. The frontier people in the Revolutionary war, as well as in the late, astonished everybody by their great exploits. Vermont, though claimed in the Revolutionary war by New Hampshire and New York, was not inferior to any of the States in her exertions to support independence.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania will pardon me for stating that that State had had some experience of its government managing a few people who would not yield obedience to its authority, though settled within its limits. They were obliged to compromise. I mean the Wyoming settlers. Again, since this government was in operation, a few people settled on the Indian lands: they were ordered to move from them, but did not obey: the military was sent to burn their cabins. The commanding officer told them his business, and very humanely advised them to move what property they had out of them. This they did, and their cabins were burnt. They waited till the troops marched, and very soon after built new cabins on the same places and to the same chimneys.

These facts are stated to show that a contest with a people who believe themselves right and one with a government are very different things. It would have been very gratifying to me to have been informed by some one of the gentlemen who support the amendment what is intended to be done if it be adopted, and the people of Missouri will not yield, but go on and form a State government (having the requisite number of inhabitants agreeably to the ordinance), as Tennessee did, and then apply for admission into the Union. Will she be admitted, as Tennessee was, on an equal footing with the original States, or will the application be rejected as the British government did the petitions of the old Congress?

If you do not admit her, and she will not return to the territorial government, will you declare the people rebels, as Great Britain did us, and then order them to be conquered for contending for the same rights that every State in the Union now enjoys? Will you for this, order the father to march against son and brother against brother? God forbid! It would be a terrible sight to behold these near relations plunging the bayonet into each other for no other reason than because the people of Missouri wish to be on equal footing with the people of Louisiana. When Territories they were equal. Those who remember the Revolution will not desire to see another civil war in our land. They know too well the wretched scenes it will produce. If you should declare them rebels and conquer them, will that attach them to the Union? No one can expect this. Then do not attempt to do that for them which was never done for others, and that which no State would consent for Congress to do for it. If the United States are to make conquests, do not let the first be at home. Nothing is to be got by American conquering American. Nor ought we to forget that we are not legislating for ourselves, and that the American character is not yielding when rights are concerned. But why depart from the old way, which has kept us in quiet, peace and harmony, every one living under his own vine and fig-tree and none to make him afraid? Why leave the road of experience, which has satisfied all and made all happy, to take this new way, of which we have no experience? This way leads to universal emancipation, of which we have no experience. The Eastern and Middle States furnish none. For years before these States emancipated their slaves they had but few, and of them a part were sold to the South. We have no more experience or book-learning on this subject than the French Convention had which turned the slaves of Santo Domingo loose. Nor can we foresee the consequences which may result from this new motion clearer than the Convention did in their decree.

A clause in the Declaration of Independence has been read declaring that "all men are created equal." Follow that sentiment, and does it not lead to universal emancipation? If it will justify putting an end to slavery in Missouri, will it not justify it in the old States? Suppose the plan followed and all the slaves turned loose, and the Union to continue, is it certain that the present Constitution would last long? The rich would in such circumstances want titles and hereditary distinctions, the negro food and raiment, and they would be as much or more degraded than in their present condition. The rich might hire these wretched people, and with them attempt to change the government by trampling on the rights of those who have only property enough to live comfortably. Opinions have greatly changed in some of the States in a few years. The time has been when those now called slaveholding States were thought to be the firm and steadfast friends of the people and of liberty. Then they were opposing an administration and a majority in Congress supported by a sedition law; then there was not a word heard, at least from one side, about those who actually did most toward changing the administration and the majority in Congress, and they were from slaveholding States. And now it would be curious to know how many members of Congress actually hold seats in consequence of their exertions at the time alluded to. Past services are always forgotten when new principles are to be introduced.

It is a fact that the people who move from the non-slaveholding to slaveholding States, when they became slaveholders, by purchase or marriage, expect more labor from them than those do who are brought up among them.

To the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Burrill) I tender my hearty thanks for his liberal and true statement of the treatment of slaves in the Southern States. His observations leave but little for me to add, which is this, that the slaves gained as much by independence as the free. The old ones are better taken care of than any poor in the world, and treated with decent respect by their white acquaintances. I sincerely wish that he and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Roberts) would go home with me, or some other Southern member, and witness the meeting between slaves and owner and see the glad faces and hearty shaking of hands. This is well described in General Moultrie's _Memoirs of the American Revolution_, in which he gives the account of his reception by his slaves the first time he went home after he was exchanged. He was made prisoner at the surrender of Charleston. Could he (Mr. Macon) have procured the book in the city he intended to have read it to show the attachment of the slave to his owner. A fact shall be stated. An excellent friend of mine--he too, like the other characters which have been mentioned in the debate, was a Virginian--had business in England which made it necessary that he should go to that country himself or send a trusty agent. He could not go conveniently, so he sent one of his slaves, who remained there near a year. Upon his return he was asked by his owner how he liked the country, and if he would have liked to stay there? He replied that to oblige him he would have stayed; the country was the finest he ever saw; the land was worked as nice as a square in a garden; they had the finest horses and carriages, and houses, and everything; but that the white servants abused his country. What did they say? They said we owed them (the English) a heap of money, and would not pay; to which he added, their chief food was mutton; he saw very little bacon there. The owner can make more free in conversation with his slave and be more easy in his company than the rich man, where there is no slave, with the white hireling who drives his carriage. He has no expectation that the slave will, for the free and easy conversation, expect to call him fellow-citizen or act improperly.