For my own part, I must declare that, even supposing these alleged grievances to be more real than I represent them, I think the measures of the committee dispose of them effectually and forever.  They contribute directly all that can be legitimately done by Congress, and they recommend it to the legislatures of the States to accomplish the remainder.  Why, then, is it that harmony is not restored?  The answer is, that you are not satisfied with this settlement, however complete.  You must have more guarantees in the Constitution.  You must make the protection and extension of slavery in the Territories now existing, and hereafter to be acquired, a cardinal doctrine of our great charter.  Without that, you are determined to dissolve the Union.  How stands the case, then?  We offer to settle the question finally in all of the present territory that you claim, by giving you every chance of establishing slavery that you have any right to require of us.  You decline to take the offer, because you fear it will do you no good.  Slavery will not go there.  But, if that be true, what is the use of asking for the protection anyhow, much less in the Constitution?  Why require protection where you will have nothing to protect?  All you appear to desire it for is New Mexico.  Nothing else is left.  Yet, you will not accept New Mexico at once, because ten years of experience have proved to you that protection has been of no use thus far.  But, if so, how can you expect that it will be of so much more use hereafter as to make it worth dissolving the Union?

But, if we pass to the other condition, is it any more reasonable?  Are we going to fight because we cannot agree upon the mode of disposing of our neighbor’s lands?  Are we to break up the Union of these States, cemented by so many years of common sufferings, and resplendent with so many years of common glory, because it is insisted that we should incorporate into what we regard as the charter of our freedom a proclamation to the civilized world that we intend to grasp the territory of other nations whenever we can do it, for the purpose of putting into it certain institutions which some of us disapprove, and that, too, whether the people inhabiting that territory themselves approve of it or not?

I am almost inclined to believe that they who first contrived this demand must have done so for the sake of presenting a condition which they knew beforehand must be rejected, or which, if accepted, must humiliate us in the dust forever.  In point of fact, this proposal covers no question of immediate moment which may not be settled by another and less obnoxious one.  Why is it, then, persevered in, and the other rejected?  The answer is obvious.  You want the Union dissolved.  You want to make it impossible for honorable men to become reconciled.  If it be, indeed, so, then on you, and you alone, shall rest the responsibility of what may follow.  If the Union be broken up,