Grande. The South has not asked for it. I, as the most Southern Senator upon this floor, do not desire it. If it is a boon that is offered to propitiate the South, I, as a Southern man, repudiate it. I reject it. I will have none of it.
Mr. President, not in any spirit of unkindness—not entertaining unfriendly or ungentle feelings—I will allude here, by way of illustration, to one of the most beautiful and captivating incidents in the Holy Bible—one that shows a forgetting, and kind, and amiable, and forgiving temper, which, even under a sense of deep injuries, was willing to embrace a brother and forget the past. I need not relate to this intelligent assembly the history of Esau and Jacob. The birthright and the mess of pottage are familiar to all. The two brothers separated in anger, after Jacob had acquired the blessing which should have been given to Esau, and Jacob fled to Laban, his mother's brother, in a distant country, where he greatly prospered. Afterward, when he separated his flocks from those of his father-in-law, it became necessary for him to journey through the land of his brother Esau, who was then a man of influence, and power, and wealth. As Jacob approached, he thought it was necessary to propitiate his brother for the wrong which he had done him, and he supposed he could not do that without some atonement, or some gift. He dispatched a portion of his family, some ot his handmaidens, and children, and servants, with a drove of cattle, which he intended as an offering to his brother; and the sacred narrative says that when Esau heard that his brother was journeying toward his land, "Esau ran to meet him; and they embraced and kissed each other; and they wept." Now I do not see why the North and South, if they have been separated, might not embrace each other without any feeling of anger. But, after some colloquy had taken place between the brothers, Esau said: "What meanest thou by this drove which I met?" And Jacob said, "These are to find grace in the sight of my Lord." And Esau then made a reply worthy of a generous spirit. He said: "I have enoough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself."
So, if this is an offering to propitiate the South, the South may say, "I have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself." If this is the only offering tendered to the South, we will not ask it; we do not want it; the people will be angry if you give it, and I never want to make trouble with my friends at home. I would rather you would keep it. If you are indebted in anything to the South, all I have to say is, that you might find some other occasion when it would be more agreeable to cancel the obligation. The South, as a community, only desire their rights under the Constitution and existing compromises.
But, sir, the people are not going into abstractions to understand this subject. Nor will there be a lawyer at every point, every cross-road, every public meeting, every muster, or every court-house, to give elaborate dissertations upon the unconstitutionality of the Missouri Compromise. I care nothing about its constitutionality or unconstitutionality. Not one straw do I care about it, on account of the circumstances out of which it grew, and the benefits flowing from it. Mr. Jefferson said he could not find constitutional authority for the acquisition of Louisiana. If that was the case, even if the Compromise, based upon an unconstitutional act, to reconcile the different sections of the country, was without authority of the Constitution, it became a legitimate subject of legislation. I say legitimate, because it was an acquisition of territory which must be governed in some manner suited to the exigencies of the occasion. Hence the resort to the principle of compromise, and to legislation. Was the acquisition
