Mr. Brooks said:Mr. Chairman: I desire to express my views upon the bill which is engrossing the thoughts of every member on this floor, and I wish to do so before the ground is altogether covered by the army of speakers who are holding themselves in reserve. Should aught of intemperance of language escape me in the remarks I am about to make, I trust that it may be regarded as directed towards principles and positions, and not to the persons from whom they proceed.

I have lived long enough to learn, that to do justice to the opinions and even prejudices of others, is the surest way to secure a just consideration of my own.

Nor, sir, does it jump with my humor or my appreciation of honor to assail those who, in obedience to a local sentiment, are averse to a resort but too common in a warmer latitude. It is a cheap display of chivalry to insult when no risk is incurred; and, for my own part, I would prefer the condition of him who bears the wound than of him by whom it is, under such circumstances, needlessly inflicted....

[Here Brooks gave a summary of the historic compromises leading up to the Nebraska Bill and offered the doctrine of popular sovereignty as the best solution to the current crisis. ]

I next approach the argument urged in opposition to the bill -- that the admission of slaves will operate to the exclusion of foreign immigrants; and I quote as my text the following paragraph of a remarkable manifesto, which invokes the outward pressure of hired letter-writers, and the "conductors of newspapers in the German and other foreign languages," upon the action of Congress:

"From the rich lands of this large Territory, patriotic statesmen have anticipated that a free, industrious, and enlightened population will extract abundant treasures of individual and public wealth. There it has been expected freedom loving immigrants from Europe, and energetic and intelligent laborers from our own land will find homes of comfort and fields of useful enterprise. If this bill shall become a law, all such expectations will turn to grievous disappointment. The blight of slavery will cover the land. The homestead law, should Congress enact one, will be worthless there. Freemen, unless pressed by a hard and cruel necessity, will not and should not work beside slaves."

I do not say that such would be the effect, but if any earthly consideration could induce me to cast my vote in favor of inflicting the Wilmot proviso upon a territorial bill, it would be the consideration that unnaturalized foreigners should be excluded as well as slaves. I revere, and with a patriotic gratitude, the memories of those illustrious characters who never became American citizens, but whose names are part of the history of American Liberty. I appreciate the worth of hundreds of meritorious citizens who first saw the light of day in foreign climes, and cherish for them all those elevated sentiments which are awakened by the word countryman. I rejoice in the equality of their social and legal rights, and am not jealous of their political advancement. And yet, sir, so firm is my conviction that the liberties and institutions all our country are in greater danger from the influx of a foreign population than from every other cause united, that I avow in my place an entire readiness so to amend the naturalization laws, and extend the period of political pupilage, as will secure a better knowledge of our theory of government, and give some promise that the privilege of citizenship will be rightly appreciated, and not abused....

Things are not as they were. In the earlier days of this Republic we needed an increase of population for the security of our own people, and the development of the resources of the country. We were then in a condition to Americanize by example and absorption. We were at a wholesome distance from European associations and policy. Our own people were less pragmatical, and foreigners less impudent.

But, sir, our danger now is not from weakness, but from unwieldy and unregulated strength. The question with the statesman is not whence to draw a population, but how to regulate and discipline that which we have; how to preserve to the people the fullest enjoyment of property, of life, and of liberty, and yet to restrain them within wholesome limits of constitutional law....

Such is the infatuation of a portion of those who oppose this bill, that, with the history of the foreign population in America fresh in their memories -- a history which, at the North, is but a succession of riots and of mobs, in which private houses have been invaded, public edifices demolished, railroads subverted, churches burned, and our citizens murdered -- that they condescend to appeal even to those outcast from the purlieus of the cities of the Old World, to bring their influence to bear upon this Federal Legislature.

In pursuance of their madness may have contributed to swell this tide of corruption, which threatens their present peace and society, and which threatens us all in prospective, by gratuitous donations of public land, to any and every foreigner, upon the sole condition of actual settlement.

Will it be said by Free-Soilers, in support of their philanthropy, that they desired us to provide homes for the Negro as well as for the whites? Then the proposition amounts to this, that we of the South, after being robbed of our slaves, are asked by abolitionists and Free-Soilers to relieve them of a population which they have corrupted into nuisances, by setting apart a portion of territory, of which we are joint owners, for the benefit of these very runaways and free Negroes, while our slaves and ourselves are to be deliberately excluded.

Sir, the Free-Soilers but reveal the political uses of slavery when they make their appeals to foreigners for its restriction; and they but expose their counterfeited philanthropy when they say "freemen, unless pressed by a hard and cruel necessity, will not, and should not, work beside slaves." Where, sir, is their regard for their brethren of the same color as themselves at the South, if they will fix upon us what they hold to be a "hard and cruel necessity?" This sentiment bears the earmarks of northern philanthropy, and is a pregnant commentary upon the immaculate doctrines they profess -- "to behold of every man a brother."

I know, sir, that the equality loving Free-Soilers of the North, "unless pressed by a hard and cruel necessity," refuse to work beside slaves. I know that, after seducing them from their homes of cheerfulness and comfort at the South, they are left to starve in the streets, while the "freedom-loving immigrant from Europe monopolizes every avenue of thrift and of employment; and I also know, that hundreds who are now dragging out a miserable existence, in want and in crime, would joyfully return to their former owners could they by honest labor but secure the necessary means. Let Free-Soilers come to the South, sir, and we will show them the white and the black man in a relation of friendship never dreamed of in their philosophy. We will show them slaves, devoted to the family interests, family name, and family honor of their masters. And we will show them, in every gentleman, a man who will pour out his money, and peril his life, if needs be, to protect his bondsman from cruelty and injustice. A majority of our best men, and many of our ablest men have labored side by side with their slaves, through years of enjoyment, of usefulness, and respectability.

But, sir, the humanity of Free-Soilers would exclude the poor Negro, who owes his condition to the cupidity of their ancestors, from "the rich lands of this large Territory," and surrender it, without fear or reward, to the descendants of, possibly, the very Hessians -- the minions of King George, who warred against our liberties, when the Negro, by his labor, fed the Continental Army of America.

Sir, the jealousy of the political power of slavery is not to be covered by so flimsy a veil; and let me tell those who are sincere in a morbid sympathy for the imaginary sufferings of slavery, and who, with incorrupt motives, indulge in schemes of restricting it, that a better knowledge of the workings of the institution would teach them that genuine philanthropy demands its extension.

The operations of a great system are to be learned by an observation of the operation of smaller systems. In every section where there is a scarcity of land its value is increased. The poor, who might desire to enter it, are unable to buy; and those who are there are generally tempted, by an extravagance of price, to seek their fortunes elsewhere. The men of wealth absorb the small farms into large estates, from which they are frequently absent, and the management of which is usually entrusted to agents who have no interest in them beyond their annual wages and a regard for their professional reputation. The character of this reputation is too often determined by no other consideration than the amount of the crops which are annually raised. Large gangs of Negroes are congregated upon large estates, with no social intercourse but with each other.

They are thus denied the watchful providence of the master, and the elevating influences of his association with them. Loyal to their owner, and proud of their relation to him, they are jealous of a substitute. Wanting in mental resources, imitative by nature, and conscious of a natural inferiority and dependence upon a superior race, when left to themselves, they become the prey of the wildest superstitions, and, removed from the example of their superiors, they descend in the scale of creation.

But, on the other hand, where lands are abundant they are also cheap. The poor man, when provided with a home, next looks around for something upon which he shall expand his successive annual gains, and which will bring the greatest amount of comfort and convenience to his family and himself. Should his money be invested in a Negro, he introduces it into his family circle. The same hand that prepares the daily food of the master, prepares that also of the slave. They labor in the same field, drink from the same spring of water, and worship at the same altar. The Negro is enlightened and enobled by the association, and an experienced southern eye can tell a glance, by the shining face, the more athletic form, and jaunty air, that his home is upon a small farm, and that the white man is the companion of his daily toil.

Were Free-Soilers permitted to carry out their plans of restricting slavery to its present limits, the first effect in the South would be to expel our poor white population, who could not resist the temptation of high prices for their lands; and the second would be still lower to degrade the Negro, and more thoroughly to enslave them.

I will now proceed to the argument urged in opposition to this bill, which is drawn from the assumed immorality, tyranny, and inexpediency of slavery.

It may be convenient to attack a constitutional right by appeals to the passions, but so long as we are sustained at all points by the authority of law, we are not in very much danger from sentiment. It may be that slavery was originally morally wrong; but we know that it existed before the Christian era -- that it was sanctioned by our Saviour, who enjoined upon servants obedience to their masters -- that it was to be found in Greece and in Rome -- that it has obtained in France, England, Spain, Holland, and Brazil, and other modern States, and that the responsibility of its introduction in these States is upon those who have gone before us. It may be that the sovereignty of these States should have been surrendered to the General Government, yet it was not done.

It may be that property in slaves should have been prohibited by the Constitution; yet the importation of slaves was authorized by it until the year 1808, and import duty of $10 per head was imposed, as on other species of imported property; and constitutional provision made whereby this property might be recovered, notwithstanding "any law or regulation" to the contrary existing in the State where it may be found. It may be that the equal rights of the States to the common territory of all should have been constitutionally denied. Yet it is constitutional law. It is too late to inquire what ought to have been done at the time this Government was established -- our sole business is to know what was done.

If the appointed dispensers of ordinary statute law were permitted to question its policy and expediency we would soon be without law; and if the dispensers of constitutional law are permitted to go behind the Constitution we will soon be plunged into anarchy and disunion.

Mr. Chairman, this cant about the immorality and horrible tyranny of slavery may answer its purpose among the masses of the North, who have been systematically deceived, and for a purpose, but it is out of place here. If slavery be morally wrong, then those gentlemen who so regard it should have paused before they took the oath to support a Constitution which so thoroughly recognizes it as a right. The very grave question presents itself to them -- whether it be the greater sin to violate a moral sentiment peculiar to themselves, or to violate on oath which they have taken in the face of the country, and which is recorded in Heaven?

Abolitionists, and their "twin brothers of the same womb" -- the Free-Soilers -- are wholly exempt from the original sin of slavery. They have long since washed their hands of this "pollution," and now, with one hand on their Bible, and the other upon the price, they "make broad their phylacteries," and "thank God they are not as other men are." The responsibility of opening the Territories to slavery is with the makers of the Constitution -- the responsibility of introducing it upon the people who have their election. The responsibility of preserving the Territories in a condition in which the equal rights of all the States may be represented, and in which the unforstalled judgment of the people may be exercised upon all matters affecting themselves in their internal relations, is the responsibility of an oath as binding upon Free-Soilers as upon other men. If the decision of the new States is for slavery, their "withers are unwrung."

This universal difference of sentiment on the opposite sides of geographical lines must find its solution out of the department of morals. Good morals are the same everywhere, and undefiled religion is as pure in the planter on the banks of the Mississippi as with the Puritan descendant of New England.

I have known of too many being converted by having bought a Negro, and too many converted by having sold all of theirs, to believe in this being a question of morality.

It is, sir, a question of political power between the manufacturing and agricultural states; and this cry about liberty, humanity, and brotherhood, is but the cant of the demagogue, who rides into place by deluding his friends, and endeavors to increase the strength of his section by presenting false issues to us.

When, sir, a northern man meets me with manly frankness, and tells me that slave and free labor cannot coexist, or that our three fifths representation is unequal or unjust, I can reason with him with patience, and, if proper, agree to disagree. I would say to him, sir, it is as impossible for you to judge correctly of the institution of slavery as for a blind man to judge of colors. Your prejudices were formed before your judgment had matured. They have been fostered through life by association, misrepresentation, and remoteness. You know nothing of the Negro character, or of his intimate and inseparable connection with the moral, social, and political condition of the South. If you wish either of us well let us alone. If you would not crowd a ship already full, give us our constitutional rights in the Territories. The laws of God will regulate this matter between us. He has given us products which the multiplied wants of a rapidly increasing population imperatively demand, and has restricted their production to sections in which you will not, and generally could not, live.

The incompatibility of free and slave labor is only a northern notion. It is not so at the South. You object to having three-fifths of our Negroes represented, because of the political power it gives us. If they were free the whole would be represented, as at the North, and the political power of the slave States would be increased to the extent of the remaining two fifths.

But, sir, when the positions assumed, and the drift of the argument deduced, is, by necessary implication, to charge my people with the blackest offenses in the catalog of crime, I meet it with scorn and detestation.

The history of the African contains proof upon every page of his utter incapacity for self-government. His civilization depends upon his contact with and his control by the white man. Though elevated and educated by this association, taught by experience the blessings of law, and provided with all of the machinery of government ready to his hand, when he is left to his own government, he descends to the level of the brute. Let Free-Soilers read the history of the blacks on the Island of Jamaica since their emancipation, and if one drop of genuine philanthropy runs in their veins, they will guard a population, of which they are par excellence the champions, from the evils of such a liberty.

The institution of slavery, which it is so fashionable now to decry, has been the greatest of blessings to this entire country. At the North it has served as a vent for fanaticism, communism, and all those secretions of a morbid sentimentality, which, without this safety-valve, would long since have resulted in a social explosion; and which will be as cruel to the pure and the good, when it does come, as is certain in the future. From Maine to Texas the slaves have been the pioneers of civilization. The forest has bowed before their march, the earth yielded its rich harvests to their labor, and given us a commerce which excites the admiration and jealousy of the world. The power of commerce is greater than that of armies and navies. England saw wherein our strength lay, and endeavored to shave us of our power, by her experiment in the West Indies, which involved the loss of millions of dollars to herself, and the miserable degradation of the very race which, with hypocritical philanthropy, she professed a desire to elevate and benefit.

Every section of this Confederacy is now in the enjoyment of the rich rewards of the labor of the slave. He gives employment to the shipping interest of the East, wealth to the manufacturer of the North, and a market for the hemp and live-stock of the West.

The market of the slave States is the best and most varied upon earth. In whenever section either of the great Southern staples are grown, that particular staple is grown to the exclusion of the others. If raised in Virginia, cotton and rice are to be bought; if in the Carolinas in Georgia, tobacco and sugar; if in the extreme South and Southwest, rice and tobacco. We, of the South, are compelled to secure by exchange one or the other of even these few staples; while, by an injudicious policy, the slave States are dependent for every other article in the wide field of commerce upon other sections than our own. Not only do our slaves secure to the free States the best home market upon earth, but, sir, they are at this moment paying, by the fruits of their labor, full two-thirds of the revenue of this Government....

How much of Southern produce is manufactured at the North and exported as northern products -- such as the cotton, which they export in their wool, and in fur, in hats, and cordage, and flax, and thread, and saddlery, and wearing apparel, and umbrellas, and sun shades, and in books and maps &c., &c., such as spirits from molasses -- it is as impossible for me as for the purchaser to ascertain. But enough has been shown to prove the indebtedness of every quarter of the Union to the humble slaves.

But, sir, I propose to show that other debts of gratitude are due from the North to the institution of slavery.... If there be any truth in the doctrine that the producer of exports pays in reality the duties upon the imports, although the imports be credited to northern ports, the account between the two sections will stand thus: That while the Southern States produce two-thirds of the entire domestic productions of the country, we collect but one ninth of the duties on imports. Nor is this all; for, according to the record, it appears that four fifths of the public monies thus collected have been appropriated to the non-slaveholding States for Government purposes and internal improvements, (including bounties to fishermen, to light-houses, buoys, river and harbor improvements, custom-house expenditures, public buildings, mail routes, &c., &c.)

But again: the total value of the domestic and foreign exports of the United States, in the year 1852, was $209,658,386, and the total value of foreign imports $212,945,442, making an aggregate of $422,603,808. In the carriage of this amount of goods to and from foreign countries, were employed 8,887 American vessels, with a capacity of 3,230, 590 tons, employing 115,253 men and 1,780 boys....

Sir, I venture to declare the opinion that slavery has been the strongest bond of union between these States. Every section of the Confederacy has reaped its blessings, and the people of the North have been too long accustomed to levy blackmail upon it now to deny themselves too fruitful a source of thrift and of profit. The South has been the goose of the golden egg to the North, which Free-Soilers, in their mad cupidity and fanatical tamperings, are threatening to destroy.

If by some convulsion of nature the slave States could be sunken beneath the level of the waters, it would involve millions of the inhabitants of the North in bankruptcy, and ruin, and inutterable miseries.

Your lordly merchant and fattened manufacturer, your omnibus men and porters, mall, with truth, exclaim --

"Othello's occupation's gone!"

Your cities, now your pride and strength, would dwindle into towns; your crowded harbors grow empty and wild; and thousands who now live in contentment and comfort would beg for bread.

Reverse the picture, and suppose the free States blotted from creation. Why, sir, the fact would be felt only by our railroad conductors, captains of steamboats, and a few politicians with national aspirations. Our harbors would be filled with foreign shipping; our marine towns grow into cities, rivaling in their magnificence and prosperity the present condition of those of the North. Every kind of manufactory would spring up over our streams; our revenue would be collected and expended among the people who now bear an unequal burden in supporting the Government, and who are unequally protected by it.

Mr. Chairman, the cry that the Union is in danger has been so often raised that men have ceased to regard it. But sir, disunion may come while we are sleeping in security. Before God, I believe that if this bill -- which simply establishes the principle that the people, in their condition of sovereign States, should be permitted to decide for themselves upon all matters affecting their internal government -- fails to pass this House, we will be in greater danger of disunion than at any time since the formation of this Government.

I make no threat of disunion. The failure of the passage of this bill may not so result. But, sir, our young men are becoming familiar with the sound of a word which was breathed by their sires only in secrecy, or forced from their lips by the agony of accumulated wrong. The South is now united, and she is sustained by the intelligent and gallant spirits of the West. The Southern backsliders of 1850 have vanished before the breath of popular indignation like "clouds before a Biscay gale," and their seats have been filled by true men.

I tell you, sir, it is a dangerous season to preach constitutional heresies, and more dangerous to enact them. I use the word danger because I feel it, and I am not unwilling to entertain the emotion whenever the stability of this Government is threatened. I know, sir, that there are thousands at the South who, goaded by repeated acts of unequal legislation, thirst for disunion as the hart pants for the water brook. But, sir, I am not of them yet; and it is my fervent desire that no circumstance may occur which will drive me into their ranks. We have too great a country for me to contemplate its dismemberment without solicitude and pain. We have a country great in its history and its institutions; great in its science and arts; great in its statesmen and warriors; great in its wealth and the variety of its resources. We will continue to have a great country, a country continuing and increasing in greatness, if we are but true to the principles of the Constitution. It is distinct in letter and equitable in spirit. It is sanctified by the blood and the wisdom of patriots, and has stood the surest of all tests -- the test of time. I call upon the good and the true men of every section to array themselves before it, and tell the assailants it is a sacred thing, and not to be polluted by their fanatical touch. The South asks for nothing more.

If the natural laws of climate and of soil exclude us from the territory of which we are the joint owners we should not and we will not complain. But, sir, when a coalition of tenants in common attempt a monopoly, and, by laws at once unconstitutional and unjust, endeavor to restrict us, and by a surveyors line, to a part of these United States, while they are permitted to walk the whole domain, we cannot and we will not submit to so odious a distinction.