Reservoir Development - eBook PDF

Visit to download the full and correct content document:

https://ebooksecure.com/download/reservoir-development-ebook-pdf/
RESERVOIR DEVELOPMENT
This page intentionally left blank
Sustainable Oil and Gas Development Series

RESERVOIR
DEVELOPMENT
M. RAFIQUL ISLAM
Gulf Professional Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the
Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance
Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other
than as may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our
understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become
necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using
any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods
they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a
professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability
for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or
from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-0-12-820053-7

For information on all Gulf Professional publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Charlotte Cockle

Senior Acquisitions Editor: Katie Hammon
Editorial Project Manager: Leticia Lima
Production Project Manager: Manju Thirumalaivasan
Cover designer: Christian Bilbow

Typeset by STRAIVE, India

 Contents

Foreword vii 4. Unconventional reservoirs 267

4.1 Introduction 267
4.2 Unconventional oil and gas production 271
1. Introduction 1 4.3 Current potentials 275
4.4 Sustainable development of unconventional
1.1 Opening statement 1
reservoirs 337
1.2 World energy 2
1.3 Role of oil and gas 14 4.5 Improving oil and gas recovery from
1.4 Key events and future outlook of oil and gas 27 unconventional reservoirs 339
1.5 Sustainability status of current technologies 38 4.6 Reserve growth potential 437
1.6 Summary of various chapters 50 4.7 Quantitative measures of well production
variability 461
4.8 Coupled fluid flow and geomechanical stress
2. Reservoir rock and fluid model 465
characterization 53 4.9 Sustainability pathways 492
4.10 Zero-waste operations 520
2.1 Introduction 53 4.11 Greening of hydraulic fracturing 523
2.2 Unique features 61
2.3 Sustainability criteria 67
2.4 Fluid characterization based on origin 72
5. Basement reservoirs 533
2.5 Abiogenic petroleum origin theory 79
2.6 Scientific ranking of petroleum 106 5.1 Introduction 533
2.7 Characterization of reservoirs 117 5.2 World reserve 534
2.8 Reservoir heterogeneity 178 5.3 Reservoir characterization 548
5.4 Organic source of hydrocarbon 576
5.5 Nonconventional sources of petroleum
3. Complex reservoirs 185 fluids 590
5.6 Scientific ranking of petroleum 597
3.1 Introduction 185
3.2 Complex reservoirs 186
3.3 Fracture mechanics in geological scale 190 6. Reserves prediction and
3.4 Core analysis 214 deliverability 609
3.5 Modeling unstable flow 221 6.1 Introduction 609
3.6 Essence of reservoir simulation 232 6.2 Conventional material balance 615
3.7 Material balance equation 233 6.3 Analytical solutions 622
3.8 Representative elemental volume, REV 236 6.4 Inclusion of fluid memory 637
3.9 Thermal stress 238 6.5 Anomalous diffusion: A memory application 649
3.10 Reservoir geochemistry 251 6.6 Results and discussion 662
3.11 Fluid and rock properties 264 6.7 The compositional simulator using engineering
3.12 Avoiding spurious solutions 265 approach 673

v
vi Contents

7. Field guidelines 737 8. Conclusions 845

7.1 Introduction 738 8.1 Facts and fictions 845
7.2 Scaling guidelines 738 8.2 Conclusions 846
7.3 Planning with reservoir simulators 770 8.3 Recommendations 848
7.4 Uncertainty analysis 794
7.5 The prediction uncertainty 800 References 851
7.6 Recent advances in reservoir simulation 800 Index 899
7.7 Real-time monitoring 814
7.8 Sustainability analysis of a zero-waste design 817
7.9 Global efficiency calculations 831
 Foreword

Petroleum fluids are natural and have been used in harmony with nature from the dawn of
civilization. Sustainable petroleum development is inherently logical, yet for decades, the
phrase “sustainable petroleum” has become an oxymoron. Scientists are talking about “car-
bon-free energy”—a scientific oxymoron as if it is a viable alternative to today’s technological
disaster. In the name of “science,” there has been a growing trend of dogmatic solutions
forced on the world by the ruling elite. This is not new. Nearly a century ago, a prime
scholarly organization, Nature, wrote,

UNLIKE most problems concerning origins, which have but a philosophic, or academic interest, that
of the genesis of petroleum has a distinctly practical significance, for if solved, prospectors for mineral oil
would be provided with important data and chemists might learn how to produce artificially valuable
substances similar to, if not identical with, natural petroleum. Man’s fertile imagination has spun
not only an embarrassing number of speculations and hypotheses concerning the nature of the raw ma-
terial or materials from which petroleum has been derived, but also innumerable explanations of the
modus operandi of its formation.

Note how this 100-year-old article spins one out of the research trajectory by defining the
only “real” intention behind any research, and then leads one toward “settled science.” And,
what is “settled science”? It is whatever process that is most accepted by scientists, each of
whom can be bought. Among the vast majority of the “scientific” world, there is a natural
tendency to mock anyone advancing any argument against the so-called “settled science,”
irrespective of the logicality of the argument. This is then followed by anything the “scientist”
would say about anything as “fact,” no matter how egregious. Be it manufacturing cow-free
burgers and milk or dimming the sun with toxic chemicals would pass for “science,” while
anyone advancing an “alternate” explanation would be ridiculed. This is not a scholarly fo-
rum where real science can survive.a As such, this book series on sustainable petroleum de-
velopment is a remarkably courageous undertaking. It is no surprise that this book starts
challenging the sustainability criterion that in itself has seen a yo-yo motion with dozens
of definitions floating around. This book is founded on logical discourse—something that
has been missing from new science. The readership must be reminded that it is new science
that has made the following transition in the past and is poised to continue along the same
path.

a
Kraychik, R., 2019, Greenpeace Founder: Global Warming Hoax Pushed by Corrupt Scientists ‘Hooked on
Government Grants’, Breitbart. March 7

vii
viii Foreword

This book rises above new science rhetoric and prophecies of the profiteers and brings back
real science to show how petroleum reservoir engineering can become sustainable. Anyone
familiar with petroleum operations will appreciate the breadth and depth of this book.

G.V. Chilingarian
University of Southern California
 C H A P T E R

1
Introduction

1.1 Opening statement

The evolution of human civilization is synonymous with how it meets its energy needs.
Some may argue that the human race has become progressively more civilized with time.
Yet, for the first time in human history, an energy crisis has seized the entire globe and
the very sustainability of this civilization itself has suddenly come into question. If humanity
has actually progressed as a species, it must exhibit, as part of its basis, some evidence that
overall efficiency in energy consumption has improved. In terms of energy consumption, this
would mean that less energy is required per capita to sustain life today than, say, 50 years
earlier. However, exactly the opposite has happened. The oil price has been tumbled into neg-
ative territory. For the oil business, which is used to roller coaster rides in prices, this was a
new low and highlights the need for a paradigm shift in managing this valuable resource,
which is the driver of modern civilization. The scenario has become more complex by invok-
ing ‘climate change hysteria’, which is not based on science (Islam and Khan, 2019). With the
increasing politicization of fossil fuels and the ensuing global ‘climate emergency’ agenda, the
original thrust of sustainability is all but abandoned, as if petroleum resources cannot be de-
veloped sustainably. This book on Sustainable Petroleum development is all about introduc-
ing technologies that would make petroleum operations sustainable. Islam and Hossain, 2020
presented such technologies for sustainable drilling, whereas this volume is dedicated to
presenting technologies for sustainable reservoir development.
A true paradigm shift can be invoked by introducing zero-waste engineering into all as-
pects of petroleum resource development. The zero-waste mode assures that the proposed
recovery mode is sustainable under all scenarios of oil prices. In recent years, Islam and
his research group (Islam et al., 2010; Islam and Khan, 2019) have demonstrated that current
practices of oil and gas production operations are not sustainable. The principal impediment
to sustainability is the introduction of synthetic chemicals, which are introduced at various
levels of oil and gas production. Previously, it has been demonstrated that conventional ‘re-
newable’ technologies are less sustainable than conventional oil recovery and processing
schemes (Islam et al., 2018). In reservoir evaluation and reserve assessment, century-old tech-
nologies are used. Fundamental mathematical formulas and scientific descriptions of oil and

Reservoir Development 1 Copyright # 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-820053-7.00003-2
2 1. Introduction

True
Nature

MIDEAVAL PRACTICES

Non-linearity/
Complexity

Current Practices
“ Technological disaster”
Aphenomenal – Robert Curl (Chemistry Nobel Laureate)
FIG. 1.1 Schematic showing the position of current technological practices related to natural practices.

gas reservoirs have not been updated despite the advent of improved mathematical tools, res-
ervoirs and more accurate scientific models to describe fluid flow through porous media.
Fig. 1.1 shows that current technological practices are focused on short term, linearized
solutions that are also inherently unsustainable. As a result, technological disaster prevailed
in practically every aspect of the post-renaissance era. Petroleum practices are considered to
be the driver of today’s society. Here, modern development is essentially dependent on ar-
tificial products and processes. We have reviewed the post renaissance transition, calling it
the honey-sugar-saccharine-aspartame (HSSA) degradation (Khan and Islam, 2016). In this
allegorical transition, honey (with a real source and process) has been systematically replaced
by Aspartame, which has both a source and a pathway that are highly artificial. This sets in
motion the technology development mode that Nobel Laureate in Chemistry-Robert Curl
called “technological disaster.”
Sustainable petroleum operations development requires a sustainable supply of clean and
affordable energy resources that do not cause negative environmental, economic, and social
consequences. In addition, it should consider a holistic approach where the whole system will
be considered instead of just one sector at a time (Islam et al., 2010). In 2007, our research group
developed an innovative criterion for achieving true sustainability in technological develop-
ment (described in Islam, 2020). New technology should have the potential to be efficient
and functional far into the future in order to ensure true sustainability. Sustainable develop-
ment is seen as having four elements: economic, social, environmental, and technological.

1.2 World energy

Human civilization is synonymous with carbon-based fuel. The use of fossil fuels for
energy began at the onset of the Industrial Revolution. In the beginning, coal was the fuel
of choice. Shortly before the introduction of oil and gas as the fossil fuel of convenience,
 1.2 World energy 3
the scarcity of coal in the coming decades was drummed up (Zatzman, 2012). In this, coal
offered a peculiar distinction. As pointed out by Clark and Jacks (2007), despite enormous
increases in output, the coal industry was credited with little of the national productivity ad-
vance either directly, or indirectly through linkages to steam power, metallurgy, or railways.
The ‘cliometric’ account of coal in the Industrial Revolution is represented in Fig. 1.2. The hor-
izontal axis shows cumulative output since the beginning of extraction in the northeast coal
field, and the vertical axis shows the hypothetical real cost of extraction per ton, which rises
slowly as total extraction increases. However, real extraction costs are only moderately higher
at the cumulative output of the 1860s than at the cumulative output of the 1700s. In this por-
trayal, the supply of coal is elastic. When demand increased, so did output, with little increase
in price at the pithead. But the same expansion of output could have occurred earlier or later
had demand conditions been appropriate. The movement outward in the rate of extraction
was caused by the growth in the population and incomes and incomes, and by improvements
in transport and reductions in taxes which reduced the wedge between pithead prices and
prices to the final consumers.
Although the alarm that the world would run out of coal was sounded over 100 years ago,
this has not been the case. It is true all around the world, but particularly meaningful in the
USA, which achieved energy independence only in recent years.
In 1975, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published the most comprehensive national
assessment of U.S. coal resources, which indicated that, as of January 1, 1974, coal resources
in the United States totaled 4 trillion short tons. Although the USGS has conducted more rec-
ent regional assessments of U.S. coal resources, a new national-level assessment of U.S. coal
resources has not been conducted. His best estimates are published by the U.S. Energy Infor-
mation Administration (EIA), which publishes three measures of how much coal is left in the
United States. The measures are based on various degrees of geologic certainty and on the
economic feasibility of mining coal.
The EIA’s estimates of the amount of coal reserves as of January 1, 2020, by type of reserve
• The Demonstrated Reserve Base (DRB) is the sum of coal in both measured and indicated
resource categories of reliability. The DRB represents 100% of the in-place coal that could

FIG. 1.2 The cliometric account of

the coal industry in the Industrial
Revolution. From Clark, G., Jacks, D.,
2007. Coal and the industrial revolution,
1700–1869. Eur. Rev. Econ. Hist. 11,
39–72.
4 1. Introduction

be mined commercially at a given time. The EIA estimates the DRB at about 473 billion
short tons, of which about 69% is underground mineable coal.
• Estimated recoverable reserves include only the coal that can be mined with today’s
mining technology after considering accessibility constraints and recovery factors. The EIA
estimates U.S. recoverable coal reserves at about 252 billion short tons, of which about 58%
is underground mineable coal.
• Recoverable reserves at producing mines are the amount of recoverable reserves that coal
mining companies report to the EIA for their U.S. coal mines that produce more than 25,000
short tons of coal in a year. The EIA estimates these reserves at about 14 billion short tons of
recoverable reserves, of which 60% is surface mineable coal.
Fig. 1.3 shows US coal reserves in 2019. Based on U.S. coal production in 2019, of about
0.706 billion short tons, the recoverable coal reserves would last about 357 years, and recov-
erable reserves at producing mines would last about 20 years. The actual number of years
that those reserves will last depends on changes in production and reserve estimates.
Six states had 77% of the demonstrated reserve base (DRB) of coal as of January 1, 2020:
• Montana—25%
• Illinois—22%
• Wyoming—12%
• West Virginia—6%
• Kentucky—6%
• Pennsylvania—5%

FIG. 1.3 US coal reserves. From EIA, 2020.

 1.2 World energy 5
Twenty five other states had the remaining 23% of the DRB.

In terms of world reserves, as of December 31, 2016, EIA estimates of total world proved
recoverable reserves of coal were about 1144 billion short ton s (or about 1.14 trillion short
tons), and five countries had about 75% of the world’s proved coal reserves. The top five
countries and their share of world proved coal reserves as of 12/31/2016
• United States—22%
• Russia—15%
• Australia—14%
• China—13%
• India—10%
Table 1.1 shows fuel consumption in the world for the year 2019. This trend shows the im-
pact of the Trump era in the USA.
Growth in energy markets slowed in 2019 in line with weaker economic growth and a par-
tial unwinding of some of the one-off factors that boosted energy demand in 2018. This slow-
down was particularly evident in the US, Russia and India, each of which exhibited unusually
strong growth in 2018. China was the exception, with its energy consumption accelerating in
6 1. Introduction

TABLE 1.1 Fuel shares of primary energy and contributions to growth in 2019.
Energy Consumption Annual change Share of primary Percentage point change in
source (exajoules) (exajoules) energy (%) share from 2018
Oil 193.0 1.6 33.1
0.2
Gas 141.5 2.8 24.2 0.2

Coal 157.9
0.9 27.0
0.5

a
Renewables 29.0 3.2 5.0 0.5
Hydro 37.6 0.3 6.4
0.0
Nuclear 24.9 0.8 4.3 0.1
Total 583.9 7.7
a
Renewable power (excluding hydro) plus biofuels.
From BP, 2020. BP Annual Report. https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/investors/bp-annual-report-and-
form-20f-2020.pdf.

2019. As a result, China dominated the expansion of global energy markets—contributing the
largest increment to demand for each individual source of energy other than natural gas,
where it was only narrowly surpassed by the US. Despite the support from China, all fuels
(other than nuclear) grew at a slower rate than their 10-year averages, with coal consumption
declining for the fourth time in 6 years. Nevertheless, renewables still grew by a record in-
crement and provided the largest contribution (41%) to growth in primary energy, with
the level of renewable power generation exceeding nuclear power for the first time. The slow-
down in energy demand growth, combined with a shift in the fuel mix away from coal and
toward natural gas and renewables, led to a significant slowing in the growth of carbon emis-
sions, although only partially unwinding the unusually strong increase seen in 2018. Energy
prices fell on the whole, particularly for coal and gas where growth in production outpaced
consumption leading to a build up of inventories. Oil prices were a little lower.
Ever since the oil embargo of 1972, the world has been gripped by the fear of an ‘energy
crisis’. U.S. President Jimmy Carter, in 1978, told the world in a televised speech that the
world was in fact running out of oil at a rapid pace—a popular Peak Oil theory of the
time—and that the US had to wean itself off of the commodity. Since the day of that speech,
worldwide oil output has actually increased by more than 30%, and known available reserves
are higher than they were at that time. This hysteria has survived the era of Reaganomics,
President Clinton’s cold war dividend, President G.W. Bush’s post-9-11 era of ‘fearing every-
thing but petroleum’ and today even the most ardent supporters of the petroleum industry
have been convinced that there is an energy crisis looming and that it is only a matter of time
before we will be forced to switch to no-petroleum energy sources. During President Obama’s
time, there had been a marked shift toward so-called renewable energy and the background
of ‘only a carbon tax can fix the climate change debacle’ mantra was firmly established. Pres-
ident Trump has strived to undo much of those biases away from petroleum resources, but
the scientific community remains unconvinced. In this chapter, we deconstruct some of the
hysteria and unscientific bias that have gripped the scientific community as well as the left
leaning segment of the general public.
 1.2 World energy 7
The general public is being prepared to face an energy crisis that is perceived to be forth-
coming. Since the demand for oil is unlikely to decline it inevitably means that the price will
increase, probably quite dramatically. This crisis attributed to peak oil theory is proposed to
be remedied with (1) austerity measures in order to decrease dependence on energy, possibly
decreasing per capita energy consumption, and (2) alternatives to fossil fuels. None of these
measures seem appealing because any austerity measure can induce an imbalance in the eco-
nomic system that is dependent on the spending habits of the population and any alternative
energy source may prove to be more expensive than fossil fuel. These concerns create panic,
which is beneficial to certain energy industries, including biofuel, nuclear, wind, and others.
Add to this problem is the recent hysteria created based on the premise that oil consumption
is the reason behind global warming. This in itself has created opportunities for many sectors
engaged in carbon sequestration.
In general, there has been a perception that solar, wind and other forms of ‘renewable’ en-
ergy are more sustainable or less harmful to the environment than their petroleum counter-
parts. It is stated that renewable energy is energy that is collected from renewable resources
that are naturally replenished on a human timescale, such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides,
waves, and geothermal heat. Chhetri and Islam (2008) have demonstrated that the claim of
harmlessness and absolute sustainability is not only exaggerated, it is not supported by sci-
ence. However, irrespective of scientific research, this positive perception translated into
global public support. One such survey was conducted by Ipsos Global in 2011 that found
a very favorable rating for non-fossil fuel energy sources (Fig. 1.4). Perception does have eco-
nomic implications attached to it. The Ipsos study found 75% agreed with the slogan
“scientific research makes a direct contribution to economic growth in the UK”. However,
in the workshops, although participants agreed with this, they did not always understand
the mechanisms through which science affects economic growth. There is strong support
for the public funding of scientific research, with three-quarters (76%) agreeing that “even
if it brings no immediate benefits, research which advances knowledge should be funded
by the Government.” Very few (15%) think that “Government funding for science should
be cut because the money can be better spent elsewhere”. This is inspite of public support
for cutting Government spending overall. It is not any different in the USA, where perception

FIG. 1.4 Public perception toward energy sources (Ipsos, 2011).

8 1. Introduction

translates directly into pressure on the legislative body, resulting in improved subsidies for
certain activities.
The Energy Outlook considers a range of alternative scenarios to explore different aspects
of the energy transition (Fig. 1.4). The scenarios have some common features, such as a sig-
nificant increase in energy demand and a shift toward a lower carbon fuel mix, but differ in
terms of particular policy or technology assumptions. In Fig. 4.2, the Evolving Transition (ET)
scenario is a direct function of public perception that dictates government policies, technol-
ogy and social preferences. Some scenarios focus on particular policies that affect specific
fuels or technologies, e.g., a ban on sales of internal combustion engine (ICE) cars, a greater
policy push toward renewable energy, or weaker policy support for a switch from coal to gas
considered, e.g., faster and even faster transitions (Fig. 1.5).
In the mean time, it is predicted that the so-called decarbonization scheme is in full swing
in favor of energy sources other than fossil fuels.a The aim is to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions dramatically, ignoring the fact that non-petroleum energy sources are no less toxic
than petroleum emissions (Islam and Khan, 2019). BP (2018) predicts that electric vehicles will
play a major role in lowering emissions from transport and boasts about providing a network
of 6500 charging points across the UK, and plans to roll out ultra-fast charging on our fore-
court network. The assumption in all these is that somehow electric cars are environmentally
friendly. This is contrary to the scientific analysis conducted over a decade ago by Chhetri and
Islam (2008), who showed that electric vehicles are far more toxic to the environment and far
less efficient than regular vehicles, run on internal combustion engines. BP further predicts
that by 2040, half of Europe’s cars and one third of the world’s vehicles will avoid having

FIG. 1.5 Energy outlook for 2040 as compared to 2016 under various scenarios (*Renewables include wind, solar,
geothermal, biomass, and biofuels, from BP Report, 2018).

a
Even electric cars are considered to be a product of decarbonization irrespective of the source of electrical energy.
 1.2 World energy 9
internal combustion engines (ICE). This process of ‘decarbonization’ is further accelerated by
introducing electrification using ‘renewables’, hydrogen, e-fuelb and even nuclear energy.
Clearly, the world stage is ready to accept even nuclear in favor of ‘decarbonization’. For
instance, Kann et al. (2019) indicated the nuclear option as the number one priority to cut
down on GHG emissions.
Fig. 1.6 shows the growth of various energy sources. Only renewable energy made gains.
Meanwhile CO2 emissions declined. It is tempting to conclude that the decline is due to
reduction in fossil fuel consumption. This is not scientific as each renewable technology ends
up causing greater CO2 emissions when the entire life cycle is considered.
In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic played a significant role in shaping the global energy out-
look. Because of some degree of lockdown in every country, the Covid-19 pandemic has
caused more disruption to the energy sector than any other event in recent history. The
2020 IEA World Energy Outlook (WEO) report (IEA, 2020a,b,c) examined in detail the effects
of the pandemic, and in particular how it affects the prospects for rapid clean energy transi-
tions. As shown in Fig. 1.7, the IEA assessment is that global energy demand is set to drop by
5% in 2020, energy-related CO2 emissions by 7%, and energy investment by 18%. The impacts
vary by fuel. The estimated falls of 8% in oil demand and 7% in coal use stand in sharp con-
trast to a slight rise in the contribution of renewables. The reduction in natural gas demand is
around 3%, while global electricity demand looks set to be down by a relatively modest 2% for
the year. The global COVID-19 lockdowns caused fossil carbon dioxide emissions to decline
by an estimated 2.4 billion tonnes in 2020 - a record drop according to researchers at Future
Earth’s Global Carbon Project (EurekAlert, 2020). The fall is considerably larger than previous
significant decreases - 0.5 (in 1981 and 2009), 0.7 (1992), and 0.9 (1945) billion tonnes of CO2
(GtCO2). It means that in 2020 fossil CO2 emissions are predicted to be approximately
34 GtCO2, 7% lower than in 2019. Ironically, the release of 2020s Global Carbon Budget came
just ahead of the fifth anniversary of the adoption of the UN Paris Climate Agreement, which
aims to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to limit global warming. Cuts of around 1 to
2 GtCO2 are needed each year on average between 2020 and 2030 to limit climate change in
line with its goals. However, the Trump administration was not on board with the agreement
and relaxed many of the greenhouse gas emission regulations while achieving very desirable
results.
Not surprisingly, emissions from transport account for the largest share of the global de-
crease. Those from surface transport, such as car journeys, fell by approximately half at the
peak of the COVID-19 lockdowns. By December 2020, emissions from road transport and avi-
ation were still below their 2019 levels, by approximately 10% and 40%, respectively, due to
continuing restrictions. Total CO2 emissions from human activities—from fossil CO2 and
land-use change—are set to be around 39 GtCO2 in 2020.
The emissions decrease is notably more pronounced in the US (
12%) and EU27 countries
(
11%), where COVID-19 restrictions accelerated previous reductions in emissions from coal
use. It appears least pronounced in China (
1.7%), where the effect of COVID-19 restrictions
on emissions occurred on top of rising emissions. In addition, restrictions in China occurred
early in the year and were more limited in their duration, giving the economy more time to

b
E-fuel involves synthetic fuel, made out of non-petroleum carbon and is branded as ‘carbon-free’ (Palmer, 2015).
 %

–20 –18 –16 –14 –12 –10 –8 –6 –4 –2 0

Coal

Gas

Oil

Nuclear

Renewables

Total energy demand

CO2 emissions

Energy investment

FIG. 1.6 Energy growth of various energy sources.

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Speech of Henry W. Davis, of Maryland,

On the Mission of the American Party.

Extract from Mr. Davis’s speech in the House of Representatives, on the 6th of
Jan., 1857, on the results of the recent Presidential election:—

“The great lesson is taught by this election that both the parties
which rested their hopes on sectional hostility, stand at this day
condemned by the great majority of the country, as common
disturbers of the public peace of the country.
“The Republican party was a hasty levy, en masse, of the Northern
people to repel or revenge an intrusion by Northern votes alone.
With its occasion it must pass away. The gentlemen of the
Republican side of the House can now do nothing. They can pass no
law excluding slavery from Kansas in the next Congress—for they are
in a minority. Within two years Kansas must be a state of the Union.
She will be admitted with or without slavery, as her people prefer.
Beyond Kansas there is no question that is practically open. I speak
to practical men. Slavery does not exist in any other territory,—it is
excluded by law from several, and not likely to exist anywhere; and
the Republican party has nothing to do and can do nothing. It has no
future. Why cumbers it the ground?
“Between these two stand the firm ranks of the American party,
thinned by desertions, but still unshaken. To them the eye of the
country turns in hope. The gentleman from Georgia saluted the
Northern Democrats with the title of heroes—who swam vigorously
down the current. The men of the American party faced, in each
section, the sectional madness. They would cry neither free nor slave
Kansas; but proposed a safe administration of the laws, before which
every right would find protection. Their voice was drowned amid the
din of factions. The men of the North would have no moderation, and
they have paid the penalty. The American party elected a majority of
this House: had they of the North held fast to the great American
principle of silence on the negro question, and, firmly refusing to join
either agitation, stood by the American candidate, they would not
now be writhing, crushed beneath an utter overthrow. If they would
now destroy the Democrats, they can do it only by returning to the
American party. By it alone can a party be created strong at the
South as well as at the North. To it alone belongs a principle accepted
wherever the American name is heard—the same at the North as at
the South, on the Atlantic or the Pacific shore. It alone is free from
sectional affiliations at either end of the Union which would cripple it
at the other. Its principle is silence, peace, and compromise. It abides
by the existing law. It allows no agitation. It maintains the present
condition of affairs. It asks no change in any territory, and it will
countenance no agitation for the aggrandizement of either section.
Though thousands fell off in the day of trial—allured by ambition, or
terrified by fear—at the North and at the South, carried away by the
torrent of fanaticism in one part of the Union, or driven by the fierce
onset of the Democrats in another, who shook Southern institutions
by the violence of their attack, and half waked the sleeping negro by
painting the Republican as his liberator, still a million of men, on the
great day, in the face of both factions, heroically refused to bow the
knee to either Baal. They knew the necessities of the times, and they
set the example of sacrifice, that others might profit by it. They now
stand the hope of the nation, around whose firm ranks the shattered
elements of the great majority may rally and vindicate the right of
the majority to rule, and of the native of the land to make the law of
the land.
The recent election has developed, in an aggravated form, every
evil against which the American party protested. Again in the war of
domestic parties, Republican and Democrat have rivalled each other
in bidding for the foreign vote to turn the balance of a domestic
election. Foreign allies have decided the government of the country—
men naturalized in thousands on the eve of the election—eagerly
struggled for by competing parties, mad with sectional fury, and
grasping any instrument which would prostrate their opponents.
Again, in the fierce struggle for supremacy, men have forgotten the
ban which the Republic puts on the intrusion of religious influence
on the political arena. These influences have brought vast multitudes
of foreign born citizens to the polls, ignorant of American interests,
without American feelings, influenced by foreign sympathies, to vote
on American affairs; and those votes have, in point of fact,
accomplished the present result.
The high mission of the American is to restore the influence of the
interests of the people in the conduct of affairs; to exclude appeals to
foreign birth or religious feeling as elements of power in politics; to
silence the voice of sectional strife—not by joining either section, but
by recalling the people from a profitless and maddening controversy
which aids no interest, and shakes the foundation not only of the
common industry of the people, but of the Republic itself; to lay a
storm amid whose fury no voice can be heard in behalf of the
industrial interests of the country, no eye can watch and guard the
foreign policy of the government, till our ears may be opened by the
crash of foreign war waged for purposes of political and party
ambition, in the name, but not by the authority nor for the interests,
of the American people.
Return, then, Americans of the North, from the paths of error to
which in an evil hour fierce passions and indignation have seduced
you, to the sound position of the American party—silence on the
slavery agitation. Leave the territories as they are—to the operation
of natural causes. Prevent aggression by excluding from power the
aggressors, and there will be no more wrong to redress. Awake the
national spirit to the danger and degradation of having the balance of
power held by foreigners. Recall the warnings of Washington against
foreign influence—here in our midst—wielding part of our
sovereignty; and with these sound words of wisdom let us recall the
people from paths of strife and error to guard their peace and power;
and when once the mind of the people is turned from the slavery
agitation, that party which waked the agitation will cease to have
power to disturb the peace of the land.
This is the great mission of the American party. The first condition
of success is to prevent the administration from having a majority in
the next Congress; for, with that, the agitation will be resumed for
very different objects. The Ostend manifesto is full of warning; and
they who struggle over Kansas may awake and find themselves in the
midst of an agitation compared to which that of Kansas was a
summer’s sea; whose instruments will be, not words, but the sword.
Joshua R. Giddings Against the Fugitive Slave
Law.

In the House of Representatives, April 25, 1848.

“Why, sir, I never saw a panting fugitive speeding his way to a land
of freedom, that an involuntary invocation did not burst from my
lips, that God would aid him in his flight! Such are the feelings of
every man in our free states, whose heart has not become hardened
in iniquity. I do not confine this virtue to Republicans, nor to Anti-
Slavery men; I speak of all men, of all parties, in all Christian
communities. Northern Democrats feel it; they ordinarily bow to this
higher law of their natures, and they only prove recreant to the law of
the ‘Most High,’ when they regard the interests of the Democratic
party as superior to God’s law and the rights of mankind.
“Gentlemen will bear with me when I assure them and the
President that I have seen as many as nine fugitives dining at one
time in my own house—fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, parents,
and children. When they came to my door, hungry and faint, cold
and but partially clad, I did not turn round to consult the Fugitive
Law, nor to ask the President what I should do. I knew the
constitution of my country, and would not violate it. I obeyed the
divine mandate, to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. I fed them.
I clothed them, gave them money for their journey, and sent them on
their way rejoicing. I obeyed God rather than the President. I obeyed
my conscience, the dictates of my heart, the law of my moral being,
the commands of Heaven, and, I will add, the constitution of my
country; for no man of intelligence ever believed that the framers of
that instrument intended to involve their descendants of the free
states in any act that should violate the teachings of the Most High,
by seizing a fellow-being, and returning him to the hell of slavery. If
that be treason, make the most of it.
 “Mr. Bennett, of Mississippi. I want to know if the gentleman
would not have gone one step farther?
“Mr. Giddings. Yes, sir; I would have gone one step farther. I
would have driven the slave-catcher who dared pursue them from my
premises. I would have kicked him from my door-yard, if he had
made his appearance there; or, had he attempted to enter my
dwelling, I would have stricken him down upon the threshold of my
door.
 Robert Toombs on Slavery,

At Tremont Temple, Boston, January 24th, 1856.

In 1790 there were less than seven hundred thousand slaves in the
United States; in 1850 the number exceeded three and one quarter
millions. The same authority shows their increase, for the ten years
preceding the last census, to have been above twenty-eight per cent.,
or nearly three per cent. per annum, an increase equal, allowing for
the element of foreign immigration, to the white race, and nearly
three times that of the free blacks of the North. But these legal rights
of the slave embrace but a small portion of the privileges actually
enjoyed by him. He has, by universal custom, the control of much of
his own time, which is applied, at his own choice and convenience, to
the mechanic arts, to agriculture, or to some other profitable pursuit,
which not only gives him the power of purchase over many
additional necessaries of life, but over many of its luxuries, and in
numerous cases, enables him to purchase his freedom when he
desires it. Besides, the nature of the relation of master and slave
begets kindnesses, imposes duties (and secures their performance),
which exist in no other relation of capital and labor. Interest and
humanity co-operate in harmony for the well-being of slave labor.
Thus the monster objection to our institution of slavery, that it
deprives labor of its wages, cannot stand the test of a truthful
investigation. A slight examination of the true theory of wages, will
further expose its fallacy. Under a system of free labor, wages are
usually paid in money, the representative of products—under ours, in
products themselves. One of your most distinguished statesmen and
patriots, President John Adams, said that the difference to the state
was “imaginary.” “What matters it (said he) whether a landlord,
employing ten laborers on his farm, gives them annually as much
money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them those
necessaries at short hand?” All experience has shown that if that be
the measure of the wages of labor, it is safer for the laborer to take
his wages in products than in their fluctuating pecuniary value.
Therefore, if we pay in the necessaries and comforts of life more than
any given amount of pecuniary wages will buy, then our laborer is
paid higher than the laborer who receives that amount of wages. The
most authentic agricultural statistics of England show that the wages
of agricultural and unskilled labor in that kingdom, not only fail to
furnish the laborer with the comforts of our slave, but even with the
necessaries of life; and no slaveholder could escape a conviction for
cruelty to his slaves who gave his slave no more of the necessaries of
life for his labor than the wages paid to their agricultural laborers by
the noblemen and gentlemen of England would buy. Under their
system man has become less valuable and less cared for than
domestic animals; and noble dukes will depopulate whole districts of
men to supply their places with sheep, and then with intrepid
audacity lecture and denounce American slaveholders.
The great conflict between labor and capital, under free
competition, has ever been how the earnings of labor shall be divided
between them. In new and sparsely settled countries, where land is
cheap, and food is easily produced, and education and intelligence
approximate equality, labor can successfully struggle in this warfare
with capital. But this is an exceptional and temporary condition of
society. In the Old World this state of things has long since passed
away, and the conflict with the lower grades of labor has long since
ceased. There the compensation of unskilled labor, which first
succumbs to capital, is reduced to a point scarcely adequate to the
continuance of the race. The rate of increase is scarcely one per cent.
per annum, and even at that rate, population, until recently, was
considered a curse; in short, capital has become the master of labor,
with all the benefits, without the natural burdens of the relation.
In this division of the earnings of labor between it and capital, the
southern slave has a marked advantage over the English laborer, and
is often equal to the free laborer of the North. Here again we are
furnished with authentic data from which to reason. The census of
1850 shows that, on the cotton estates of the South, which is the chief
branch of our agricultural industry, one-half of the arable lands are
annually put under food crops. This half is usually wholly consumed
on the farm by the laborers and necessary animals; out of the other
half must be paid all the necessary expenses of production, often
including additional supplies of food beyond the produce of the land,
which usually equals one-third of the residue, leaving but one-third
for net rent. The average rent of land in the older non-slaveholding
states is equal to one-third of the gross product, and it not
unfrequently amounts to one-half of it (in England it is sometimes
even greater), the tenant, from his portion, paying all expenses of
production and the expenses of himself and family. From this
statement it is apparent that the farm laborers of the South receive
always as much, and frequently a greater portion of the produce of
the land, than the laborer in the New or Old England. Besides, here
the portion due the slave is a charge upon the whole product of
capital and the capital itself; it is neither dependent upon seasons
nor subject to accidents, and survives his own capacity for labor, and
even the ruin of his master.
But it is objected that religious instruction is denied the slave—
while it is true that religious instruction and privileges are not
enjoined by law in all of the states, the number of slaves who are in
connection with the different churches abundantly proves the
universality of their enjoyment of those privileges. And a much larger
number of the race in slavery enjoy the consolations of religion than
the efforts of the combined Christian world have been able to convert
to Christianity out of all the millions of their countrymen who
remained in their native land.
The immoralities of the slaves, and of those connected with
slavery, are constant themes of abolition denunciation. They are
lamentably great; but it remains to be shown that they are greater
than with the laboring poor of England, or any other country. And it
is shown that our slaves are without the additional stimulant of want
to drive them to crime—we have at least removed from them the
temptation and excuse of hunger. Poor human nature is here at least
spared the wretched fate of the utter prostration of its moral nature
at the feet of its physical wants. Lord Ashley’s report to the British
Parliament shows that in the capital of that empire, perhaps within
the hearing of Stafford House and Exeter Hall, hunger alone daily
drives its thousands of men and women into the abyss of crime.
It is also objected that our slaves are debarred the benefits of
education. This objection is also well taken, and is not without force.
And for this evil the slaves are greatly indebted to the abolitionists.
Formerly in none of the slaveholding states was it forbidden to teach
slaves to read and write; but the character of the literature sought to
be furnished them by the abolitionists caused these states to take
counsel rather of their passions than their reason, and to lay the axe
at the root of the evil; better counsels will in time prevail, and this
will be remedied. It is true that the slave, from his protected position,
has less need of education than the free laborer, who has to struggle
for himself in the warfare of society; yet it is both useful to him, his
master, and society.
The want of legal protection to the marriage relation is also a
fruitful source of agitation among the opponents of slavery. The
complaint is not without foundation. This is an evil not yet removed
by law; but marriage is not inconsistent with the institution of
slavery as it exists among us, and the objection, therefore, lies rather
to an incident than to the essence of the system. But in the truth and
fact marriage does exist to a very great extent among slaves, and is
encouraged and protected by their owners; and it will be found, upon
careful investigation, that fewer children are born out of wedlock
among slaves than in the capitals of two of the most civilized
countries of Europe—Austria and France; in the former, one-half of
the children are thus born; in the latter, more than one-fourth. But
even in this we have deprived the slave of no pre-existing right. We
found the race without any knowledge of or regard for the institution
of marriage, and we are reproached with not having as yet secured to
it that, with all other blessings of civilization. To protect that and
other domestic ties by laws forbidding, under proper regulations, the
separation of families, would be wise, proper, and humane; and
some of the slaveholding states have already adopted partial
legislation for the removal of these evils. But the objection is far
more formidable in theory than in practice. The accidents and
necessities of life, the desire to better one’s condition, produce
infinitely a greater amount of separation in families of the white than
ever happens to the colored race. This is true even in the United
States, where the general condition of the people is prosperous. But
it is still more marked in Europe. The injustice and despotism of
England towards Ireland has produced more separation of Irish
families, and sundered more domestic ties within the last ten years,
than African slavery has effected since its introduction into the
United States. The twenty millions of freemen in the United States
are witnesses of the dispersive injustice of the Old World. The
general happiness, cheerfulness, and contentment of slaves attest
both the mildness and humanity of the system and their natural
adaptation to their condition. They require no standing armies to
enforce their obedience; while the evidence of discontent, and the
appliances of force to repress it, are everywhere visible among the
toiling millions of the earth; even in the northern states of this
Union, strikes and mobs, unions and combinations against
employers, attest at once the misery and discontent of labor among
them. England keeps one hundred thousand soldiers in time of
peace, a large navy, and an innumerable police, to secure obedience
to her social institutions; and physical force is the sole guarantee of
her social order, the only cement of her gigantic empire.
I have briefly traced the condition of the African race through all
ages and all countries, and described it fairly and truly under
American slavery, and I submit that the proposition is fully proven,
that his position in slavery among us is superior to any which he has
ever attained in any age or country. The picture is not without shade
as well as light; evils and imperfections cling to man and all of his
works, and this is not exempt from them.
 Judah P. Benjamin, of Louisiana,

On Slave Property, in U. S. Senate, March 11, 1858.

Examine your Constitution; are slaves the only species of property
there recognized as requiring peculiar protection? Sir, the inventive
genius of our brethren of the north is a source of vast wealth to them
and vast benefit to the nation. I saw a short time ago in one of the
New York journals, that the estimated value of a few of the patents
now before us in this Capitol for renewal was $40,000,000. I cannot
believe that the entire capital invested in inventions of this character
in the United States can fall short of one hundred and fifty or two
hundred million dollars. On what protection does this vast property
rest? Just upon that same constitutional protection which gives a
remedy to the slave owner when his property is also found outside of
the limits of the state in which he lives.
Without this protection what would be the condition of the
northern inventor? Why, sir, the Vermont inventor protected by his
own law would come to Massachusetts, and there say to the pirate
who had stolen his property, “render me up my property, or pay me
value for its use.” The Senator from Vermont would receive for
answer, if he were the counsel of this Vermont inventor, “Sir, if you
want protection for your property go to your own state; property is
governed by the laws of the state within whose jurisdiction it is
found; you have no property in your invention outside of the limits of
your state; you cannot go an inch beyond it.” Would not this be so?
Does not every man see at once that the right of the inventor to his
discovery, that the right of the poet to his inspiration, depends upon
those principles of eternal justice which God has implanted in the
heart of man, and that wherever he cannot exercise them, it is
because man, faithless to the trust that he has received from God,
denies them the protection to which they are entitled?
 Sir, follow out the illustration which the Senator from Vermont
himself has given; take his very case of the Delaware owner of a
horse riding him across the line into Pennsylvania. The Senator says:
“Now, you see that slaves are not property like other property; if
slaves were property like other property, why have you this special
clause in your constitution to protect a slave? You have no clause to
protect the horse, because horses are recognized as property
everywhere.” Mr. President, the same fallacy lurks at the bottom of
this argument, as of all the rest. Let Pennsylvania exercise her
undoubted jurisdiction over persons and things within her own
boundary; let her do as she has a perfect right to do—declare that
hereafter, within the state of Pennsylvania, there shall be no property
in horses, and that no man shall maintain a suit in her courts for the
recovery of property in a horse; and where will your horse owner be
then? Just where the English poet is now; just where the slaveholder
and the inventor would be if the Constitution, foreseeing a difference
of opinion in relation to rights in these subject-matters, had not
provided the remedy in relation to such property as might easily be
plundered. Slaves, if you please, are not property like other property
in this: that you can easily rob us of them; but as to the right in them,
that man has to overthrow the whole history of the world, he has to
overthrow every treatise on jurisprudence, he has to ignore the
common sentiment of mankind, he has to repudiate the authority of
all that is considered sacred with man, ere he can reach the
conclusion that the person who owns a slave, in a country where
slavery has been established for ages, has no other property in that
slave than the mere title which is given by the statute law of the land
where it is found.
 William Lloyd Garrison Upon the Slavery
Question.

“Tyrants! confident of its overthrow, proclaim not to your vassals,

that the American Union is an experiment of freedom, which, if it
fails, will forever demonstrate the necessity of whips for the backs,
and chains for limbs of people. Know that its subversion is essential
to the triumph of justice, the deliverance of the oppressed, the
vindication of the brotherhood of the race. It was conceived in sin,
and brought forth in iniquity; and its career has been marked by
unparalleled hypocrisy, by high-handed tyranny, by a bold defiance
of the omniscience and omnipotence of God. Freedom indignantly
disowns it, and calls for its extinction; for within its borders are three
millions of slaves, whose blood constitutes its cement, whose flesh
forms a large and flourishing branch of its commerce, and who are
ranked with four-footed beasts and creeping things. To secure the
adoption of the constitution of the United States, first, that the
African slave trade—till that time a feeble, isolated, colonial traffic—
should, for at least twenty years, be prosecuted as a national interest,
under the American flag, and protected by the national arm;
secondly, that slavery holding oligarchy, created by allowing three-
fifths of the slaveholding population to be represented by their
taskmasters, should be allowed a permanent seat in congress;
thirdly, that the slave system should be secured against internal
revolt and external invasion, by the united physical force of the
country; fourthly, that not a foot of national territory should be
granted, on which the panting fugitive from slavery might stand, and
be safe from his pursuers, thus making every citizen a slave-hunter
and slave catcher. To say that this ‘covenant with death’ shall not be
annulled—that this ‘agreement with hell’ shall continue to stand—
that this refuge of lies shall not be swept away—is to hurl defiance at
the eternal throne, and to give the lie to Him that sits thereon. It is
an attempt, alike monstrous and impracticable, to blend the light of
heaven with the darkness of the bottomless pit, to unite the living
with the dead, to associate the Son of God with the Prince of Evil.
Accursed be the American Union, as a stupendous, republican
imposture!”

“I am accused of using hard language. I admit the charge. I have

been unable to find a soft word to describe villainy, or to identify the
perpetrator of it. The man who makes a chattel of his brother—what
is he? The man who keeps back the hire of his laborers by fraud—
what is he? They who prohibit the circulation of the Bible—what are
they? They who compel three millions of men and women to herd
together like brute beasts—what are they? They who sell mothers by
the pound, and children in lots to suit purchasers—what are they? I
care not what terms are applied to them, provided they do apply. If
they are not thieves, if they are not tyrants, if they are not men
stealers, I should like to know what is their true character, and by
what names they may be called. It is as mild an epithet to say that a
thief is a thief, as to say that a spade is a spade. Words are but the
signs of ideas. ‘A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.’
Language may be misapplied, and so be absurd or unjust; as for
example, to say that an abolitionist is a fanatic, or that a slaveholder
is an honest man. But to call things by their right names is to use
neither hard nor improper language. Epithets may be rightly applied,
it is true, and yet be uttered in a hard spirit, or with a malicious
design. What then? Shall we discard all terms which are descriptive
of crime, because they are not always used with fairness and
propriety? He who, when he sees oppression, cries out against it—
who, when he beholds his equal brother trodden under foot by the
iron hoof of despotism, rushes to his rescue—who, when he sees the
weak overborne by the strong, takes his side with the former, at the
imminent peril of his own safety—such a man needs no certificate to
the excellence of his temper, or the sincerity of his heart, or the
disinterestedness of his conduct. Or is the apologist of slavery, he
who can see the victim of thieves lying bleeding and helpless on the
cold earth, and yet turn aside, like the callous-hearted priest or
Levite, who needs absolution. Let us call tyrants, tyrants; not to do
so is to misuse language, to deal treacherously with freedom, to
consent to the enslavement of mankind. It is neither amiable nor
virtuous, but a foolish and pernicious thing, not to call things by their
right names. ‘Woe unto them,’ says one of the world’s great prophets,
‘that call evil good, and good evil;’ that put darkness for light, and
light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.”
 Theodore Parker Against the Fugitive Slave
Law.

His Protest Against the Return of Simms by the U. S. Commissioner

at Boston.
“Come with me, my friends, a moment more, pass over this
golgotha of human history, treading reverent as you go, for our feet
are on our mother’s graves, and our shoes defile our father’s
hallowed bones. Let us not talk of them; go farther on, look and pass
by. Come with me into the inferno of the nations, with such poor
guidance as my lamp can lend. Let us disquiet and bring up the awful
shadows of empires buried long ago, and learn a lesson from the
tomb.” “Come, old Assyria, with the Ninevitish dove upon thy
emerald crown! what laid thee low? ‘I fell by my own injustice.
Thereby Nineveh and Babylon came with me also to the ground.’”
“Oh, queenly Persia, flame of the nations, wherefore art thou so
fallen, who troddest the people under thee, bridgest the Hellespont
with ships, and pouredst thy temple-wasting millions on the world?
Because I trod the people under me, and bridged the Hellespont with
ships, and poured my temple-wasting millions on the western world,
I fell by my own misdeeds.” “Thou muse-like Grecian queen, fairest
of all thy classic sisterhood of states, enchanting yet the world with
thy sweet witchery, speaking in art and most seductive song, why
liest thou there, with beauteous yet dishonored brow, reposing on
thy broken harp? ‘I scorned the law of God; banished and poisoned
wisest, justest men; I loved the loveliness of thought, and treasured
that in more than Parian speech. But the beauty of justice, the
loveliness of love, I trod them down to earth! Lo, therefore have I
become as those barbarian states—as one of them!’” “Oh, manly and
majestic Rome, thy seven-fold mural crown all broken at thy feet,
why art thou here? It was not injustice brought thee low; for thy
great book of law is prefaced with these words—justice is the
unchanged, everlasting will to give each man his right! ‘It was not the
saint’s ideal; it was the hypocrite’s pretense.’ I made iniquity my law.
I trod the nations under me. Their wealth gilded my palaces—where
thou mayest see the fox and hear the owl—it fed my courtiers and my
courtesans. Wicked men were my cabinet counselors, the flatterer
breathed his poison in my ear. Millions of bondsmen wet the soil
with tears and blood. Do you not hear it crying yet to God? Lo, here
have I my recompense, tormented with such downfall as you see! Go
back and tell the new-born child who sitteth on the Alleghanies,
laying his either hand upon a tributary sea, a crown of thirty stars
upon his youthful brow—tell him that there are rights which states
must keep, or they shall suffer wrongs! Tell him there is a God who
keeps the black man and the white, and hurls to earth the loftiest
realm that breaks his just, eternal law! Warn the young empire, that
he come not down dim and dishonored to my shameful tomb! Tell
him that justice is the unchanging, everlasting will to give each man
his right. I knew it, broke it, and am lost. Bid him know it, keep it,
and be safe.”

The same speaker protests against the return of Simms.

“Where shall I find a parallel with men who will do such a deed—
do it in Boston? I will open the tombs and bring up most hideous
tyrants from the dead. Come, brood of monsters, let me bring up
from the deep damnation of the graves wherein your hated memories
continue for all time their never-ending rot. Come, birds of evil
omen! come, ravens, vultures, carrion crows, and see the spectacle!
come, see the meeting of congenial souls! I will disturb, disquiet, and
bring up the greatest monsters of the human race! Tremble not,
women! They cannot harm you now! Fear the living, not the dead!”
Come hither, Herod, the wicked. Thou that didst seek after that
young child’s life, and destroyed the innocents! Let me look on thy
face! No, go! Thou wert a heathen! Go, lie with the innocents thou
hast massacred. Thou art too good for this company! “Come, Nero;
thou awful Roman emperor, come up! No, thou wast drunk with
power! schooled in Roman depravity. Thou hadst, besides, the
example of thy fancied gods. Go, wait another day. I will seek a worse
man.
 “Come hither, St. Dominic! come, Torquemada; fathers of the
Inquisition! merciless monsters, seek your equal here. No; pass by.
You are no companion for such men as these. You were the servants
of the atheistic popes, of cruel kings. Go to, and get you gone.
Another time I may have work for you—now, lie there, and persevere
to rot. You are not yet quite wicked and corrupt enough for this
comparison. Go, get you gone, lest the sun goes back at sight of ye!
“Come up, thou heap of wickedness, George Jeffries! thy hands
deep purple with the blood of thy fellow-men. Ah! I know thee, awful
and accursed shade! Two hundred years after thy death men hate
thee still, not without cause. Look me upon thee! I know thy history.
Pause, and be still, while I tell to these men. * * * Come, shade of
judicial butcher. Two hundred years, thy name has been pillowed in
face of the world, and thy memory gibbeted before mankind. Let us
see how thou wilt compare with those who kidnap men in Boston.
Go, seek companionship with them. Go, claim thy kindred if such
they be. Go, tell them that the memory of the wicked shall rot; that
there is a God; an eternity; ay, and a judgment, too, where the slave
may appeal against him that made him a slave, to Him that made
him a man.
“What! Dost thou shudder? Thou turn back! These not thy
kindred! Why dost thou turn pale, as when the crowd clutched at thy
life in London street? Forgive me, that I should send thee on such an
errand, or bid thee seek companionship with such—with Boston
hunters of the slave! Thou wert not base enough! It was a great bribe
that tempted thee! Again, I say, pardon me for sending thee to keep
company with such men! Thou only struckest at men accused of
crime; not at men accused only of their birth! Thou wouldst not send
a man into bondage for two pounds! I will not rank thee with men
who, in Boston, for ten dollars, would enslave a negro now! Rest still,
Herod! Be quiet, Nero! Sleep, St. Dominic, and sleep, O Torquemada,
in your fiery jail! Sleep, Jeffries, underneath ‘the altar of the church’
which seeks, with Christian charity to hide your hated bones!”
 William H. Seward’s Speech on the Higher
Law.

In the U. S. Senate, March 11, 1850.

“But it is insisted that the admission of California shall be attended
by a COMPROMISE of questions which have arisen out of SLAVERY! I
am opposed to any such compromise in any and all the forms in
which it has been proposed. Because, while admitting the purity
and the patriotism of all from whom it is my misfortune to differ, I
think all legislative compromises radically wrong, and essentially
vicious. They involve the surrender of the exercise of judgment and
the conscience on distinct and separate questions, at distinct and
separate times, with the indispensable advantages it affords for
ascertaining the truth. They involve a relinquishment of the right to
reconsider in future the decision of the present, on questions
prematurely anticipated. And they are a usurpation as to future
questions of the providence of future legislators.
“Sir, it seems to me as if slavery had laid its paralyzing hand upon
myself, and the blood were coursing less freely than its wont through
my veins, when I endeavor to suppose that such a compromise has
been effected, and my utterance forever is arrested upon all the great
questions, social, moral, and political, arising out of a subject so
important, and yet so incomprehensible. What am I to receive in this
compromise? Freedom in California. It is well; it is a noble
acquisition; it is worth a sacrifice. But what am I to give as an
equivalent? A recognition of a claim to perpetuate slavery in the
District of Columbia; forbearance towards more stringent laws
concerning the arrest of persons suspected of being slaves found in
the free States; forbearance from the PROVISO of freedom in the
charter of new territories. None of the plans of compromise offered
demand less than two, and most of them insist on all these
conditions. The equivalent then is, some portion of liberty, some
portion of human rights in one region for liberty in another.”
“It is true indeed that the national domain is ours. It is true it was
acquired by the valor and the wealth of the whole nation. But we
hold, nevertheless, no arbitrary power over it. We hold no arbitrary
power over anything, whether acquired by law or seized by
usurpation. The constitution regulates our stewardship; the
constitution devotes the domain to union, to justice, to welfare and
to liberty. But there is a higher law than the constitution, which
regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same
noble purpose. The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part of the
common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of
the universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust,
as to secure in the highest attainable degree their happiness. This is a
State, and we are deliberating for it, just as our fathers deliberated in
establishing the institutions we enjoy. Whatever superiority there is
in our condition and hopes over those of any other ‘kingdom’ or
‘estate,’ is due to the fortunate circumstance that our ancestors did
not leave things to ‘take their chances’ but that they ‘added
amplitude and greatness’ to our commonwealth ‘by introducing such
ordinances, constitutions, and customs as were wise.’ We in our turn
have succeeded to the same responsibilities, and we cannot approach
the duty before us wisely or justly, except we raise ourselves to the
great consideration of how we can most certainly ‘sow greatness to
our posterity and successors.’
“And now the simple, bold, and awful question which presents
itself to us is this: shall we, who are founding institutions, social and
political, for countless millions; shall we, who know by experience
the wise and just, and are free to choose them, and to reject the
erroneous and unjust; shall we establish human bondage, or permit
it by our sufferance to be established? Sir, our forefathers would not
have hesitated an hour. They found slavery existing here, and they
left it only because they could not remove it. There is not only no free
State which would now establish it, but there is no slave State which,
if it had had the free alternative, as we now have, would have
founded slavery. Indeed, our revolutionary predecessors had
precisely the same question before them in establishing an organic
law, under which the States of Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin,