Now, Sir, this amendment has been attached to this bill by a strong majority of the Senate.  That majority had the right, as it had the power, to pass it.  The House disagreed to that amendment.  If the majority of the Senate, who attached it to the bill, are of opinion that a conference with the House will lead to some adjustment of the question, by which this amendment, or something equivalent to it, may be adopted by the House, it is very proper for them to urge a conference.  It is very fair, quite parliamentary, and there is not a word to be said against it.  But my position is that of one who voted against the amendment, who thinks that it ought not to be attached to this bill; and therefore I naturally vote for the motion to get rid of it, that is, “to recede.”

So much for the parliamentary question.  Now there are two or three political questions arising in this case, which I wish to state dispassionately; not to argue, but to state.  The honorable member from Georgia,[2] for whom I have great respect, and with whom it is my delight to cultivate personal friendship, has stated, with great propriety, the importance of this question.  He has said, that it is a question interesting to the South and to the North, and one which may very well also attract the attention of mankind.  He has not stated any part of this too strongly.  It is such a question.  Without doubt, it is a question which may well attract the attention of mankind.  On the subjects involved in this debate, the whole world is not now asleep.  It is wide awake; and I agree with the honorable member, that, if what is now proposed to be done by us who resist this amendment is, as he supposes, unjust and injurious to any portion of this community, or against its constitutional rights, that injustice should be presented to the civilized world, and we, who concur in the proceeding, ought to submit ourselves to its rebuke.  I am glad that the honorable gentleman proposes to refer this question to the great tribunal of Modern Civilization, as well as the great tribunal of the American People.  It is proper.  It is a question of magnitude enough, of interest enough, to all the civilized nations of the earth, to call from those who support the one side or the other a statement of the grounds upon which they act.

Now I propose to state as briefly as I can the grounds upon which I proceed, historical and constitutional; and will endeavor to use as few words as possible, so that I may relieve the Senate from hearing me at the earliest possible moment.  In the first place, to view the matter historically.  This Constitution, founded in 1787, and the government under it, organized in 1789, do recognize the existence of slavery in certain States then belonging to the Union, and a particular description of slavery.  I hope that what I am about to say may be received without any supposition that I intend the slightest disrespect.  But this particular description of slavery does not, I believe,