not to forbearance--I ask not for pity. I feel proud to
represent the grand old commonwealth of Virginia here, and prouder
still that I only come here to demand right and justice in her behalf.
Aye! and it is more complimentary to you to have it so. I ask for such
guarantees only as Virginia needs, and as she has the right to demand.
It is far more complimentary to you to appeal to your sense of
justice, to your sense of right, than to your forbearance or pity.

Virginia comes forward in a great national crisis. When support after
support of this glorious temple of our Government has been torn away,
she comes--proud of her memories of the past--happy in the part she
had in the construction of this great system--she comes to present to
you, calmly and plainly, the question, whether new and additional
guarantees are not needed for her rights; and she tells you what those
guarantees ought to be.

Nor does she stand alone. She is supported by all her border sisters.
The propositions she makes are familiar to the country. They were made
by a patriot of the olden time, a time near to that of the foundation
of our Government. They were such as he thought suited to the
exigencies of his time. They have since then received a larger meed of
approval, north and south, than any other plan of arrangement.

My State offers these resolutions of her Legislature as a basis for
our action here, with certain modifications acceptable to her people.
One of these modifications has since been accepted by the mover of
these resolutions himself. Most important among them is the provision
as to future territory. The gentleman seems to think that Virginia
would not insist on this provision as applicable to territory we may
never have. It behooves not me to answer such a momentous question. I
am only the mouthpiece of Virginia. She insists on the provision for
future territory. She and her sister States plant themselves upon it.
What right have I to strike out a clause which she makes specific?
What right have I to esteem it of so little weight that it may be
thrown aside and disregarded? I do not propose to give my reasons,
though they would not be troublesome to give. It was an element in the
Missouri Compromise that it should apply to future as well as to
existing territory.

Does not the gentleman assert that under the laws as they now stand,
we have the right to go north of the compromise line with our slaves?
What, then, is our position