Now, I will show that that was not Mr. Webster’s meaning—­that he was never guilty of the mistake of saying that the Missouri act of 1820 was an irrepealable law.  Mr. Webster said in that speech that every foot of territory in the United States was fixed as to its character for freedom or slavery by an irrepealable law.  He then inquired if it was not so in regard to Texas?  He went on to prove that it was; because, he said, there was a compact in express terms between Texas and the United States.  He said the parties were capable of contracting and that there was a valuable consideration; and hence, he contended, that in that case there was a contract binding in honor and morals and law; and that it was irrepealable without a breach of faith.

He went on to say: 

“Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be excluded from these Territories by a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in Texas—­I mean the law of nature—­of physical geography—­the law of the formation of the earth.”

That was the irrepealable law which he said prohibited slavery in the Territories of Utah and New Mexico.  He went on to speak of the prohibition of slavery in Oregon, and he said it was an “entirely useless and, in that connection, senseless proviso.”

He went further, and said: 

“That the whole territory of the States of the United States, or in the newly-acquired territory of the United States, has a fixed and settled character, now fixed and settled by law, which cannot be repealed in the case of Texas without a violation of public faith, and cannot be repealed by any human power in regard to California or New Mexico; that, under one or other of these laws, every foot of territory in the States or in the Territories has now received a fixed and decided character.”

What irrepealable laws?  One or the other of those which he had stated.  One was the Texas compact; the other, the law of nature and physical geography; and he contended that one or the other fixed the character of the whole American continent for freedom or for slavery.  He never alluded to the Missouri compromise, unless it was by the allusion to the Wilmot proviso in the Oregon bill, and therein said it was a useless and, in that connection, senseless thing.  Why was it a useless and senseless thing?  Because it was reenacting the law of God; because slavery had already been prohibited by physical geography.  Sir, that was the meaning of Mr. Webster’s speech. * * *

Mr. President, I have occupied a good deal of time in exposing the cant of these gentlemen about the sanctity of the Missouri compromise, and the dishonor attached to the violation of plighted faith.  I have exposed these matters in order to show that the object of these men is to withdraw from public attention the real principle involved in the bill.  They well know that the abrogation of the Missouri compromise is the incident and not the principle of the bill.