35TH CONG....1ST SESS. paratory to her admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. Peace and prosperity now prevail throughout her borders. The law under which her delegates are about to be elected is believed to be just and fair in all its objects and provisions. There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of his elective franchise. If any portion of the inhabitants, acting under the advice of the political leaders in a distant State, shall choose to absent themselves from the polls, and withhold their votes, with a view of leaving the free-State.Deinocrats in a minority, and thus securing a pro-slavery constitution, in opposition to the wishes of a majority of the people living under it, let the responsibility rest upon those who, for partisan purposes, will sacrifice the principles they profess to cherish and promote. Upon thein, and upon the political party for whose benefit and under the direction of whose leaders they act, let the blame be visited of fastening upon the people of a new State, institutions repugnant to their feelings, and in violation of their wishes. The organic act Lecures to the people of Kansas the sole and exclusive right of forming and regulating their domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject to no other limi ations than that which the Constitution of the United States imposes. The Democratic party is determined to see the great fundamental principle of the organic act carried out in good faith. present election law in Kansas is acknowledged to be fair and just. The rights of the voters are clearly defined, and the exercise of these rights will be efficiently and scrupulously protected. Hence, if the majority of the people of Kansas desire to have it a free State, (and we are told by the Republican party that nine tenths of the people of that Territory are free-State men,) there is no obstacle in the way of bringing Kansas into the Union as a free State by the votes and voice of her own people, and in conformity to the great principles of the Kansas-Nebraska aet-provided all the free-State men will go to the polls and vote their principles in accordance with their professions. If such is not the result, let the consequences be visited upon the heads of those whose policy it is to produce strife, anarchy, and bloodshed in Kansas, that their party may profit by slavery agitation in the northern States of this Union." The Governor Walker and Mr. Stanton, who are now reaping the rewards of their treachery to the South, in the adulation of their Abolition friends at the North, both repeatedly acknowledged the validity of this convention. In his inaugural address, Governor Walker says: "The people of Kansas, then, are invited by the highest authority known to the Constitution, to participate freely and fairly in the election of delegates to frame a constitution and State governinent. The law has performed its entire appropriate function when it extends to the people the right of suffrage, but it cannot compel the performance of that duty. Throughout our whole Union, however, and wherever free government prevails, those who abstain from the exercise of the right of suffrage, authorize those who do vote to act for them in that contingency, and the absentees are as much bound, under the law and constitution, where there is no fraud or violence, by the act of the majority of those who do vote, as if all had participated in the election. Otherwise, as voting must be voluntary, self-government would be impracticable, and monarchy or despotism would remain as the only alternative." He not only admits the validity of the convention, but declares that those who refuse to exercise the right of suffrage are as much bound by the act of the majority of those who do vote, as if they had participated. But, sir, it is proper for me to say that I attach no importance whatever to any position that may be assumed, or any declaration that may have been made by Robert J. Walker. When his appointment was first made, many of the friends of the Administration in the South, while they did not question the purity of the President's motives in making it, believed that he would betray his trust, throw the influence of his position against the South, and thus court the favor of those who are warring upon her institutions. His subsequent conduct shows that these apprehensions were well founded; for he had scarcely reached the Territory before he commenced to interfere in its affairs, and to dictate to the people the manner in which their constitution should be formed. And, having been rebuked by the President, and forced to resign his office by the just indignation of those whom he had betrayed, he is now leagued with the Black Republicans to defeat the passage of this bill, and to rekindle the fires of civil war in that Territory. As I said, the convention met and proceeded to form a constitution for the people of Kansas. That constitution recognizes slavery, and throws around it protecting sanction. But it is said, in reference to this constitution, that there ought to have been an enabling act, and that the Territorial Legislature had no right to call this conven Admission of Kansas-Mr. Barksdale. admission of Kansas, become a convert to the doctrine that it is necessary that there should be an enabling act in order to the admission of a new State into the Union? Why, sir, if it is necessary to have an enabling act, the Kansas-Nebraska bill is itself an enabling act. Now let me read the language of that bill. The sixth section declares that the legislative power of the Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act. That calling a convention to form a constitution, when, by a vote of the people, it had been authorized, and their interest demanded it, was a rightful subject of legislation, it seems to me, cannot be questioned; and hence, by the organic act, the amplest power was conferred on the Legislature to call the convention; and, by the fourteenth section, the people are left perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. Here, sir, was the enabling act, if one was necessary. But Kansas is a portion of the territory which we acquired from France; it is a part of the Louisiana Territory; and, by the treaty under which we acquired it, Kansas has a right to be admitted into the Union. By the third article of the convention with France, the inhabitants of the ceded Territory were to be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities, of citizens of the United States. Then, sir, two enabling acts have been passed already for the people of Kansas to form a State constitution; and, acting under this authority, the people of Kansas, through their Territorial Legislature, called a convention to organize a State government. But, sir, was it necessary that an enabling act should be passed at all? What has been the practice of the Government? Why, sir, seven out of eighteen States, which have been admitted into the Union since the foundation of the Government, came in without enabling acts: Vermont, Maine, Arkansas, Iowa, Tennessee, Michigan, Florida, and California. In the case of Tennessee, a convention was called, a constitution framed, and an application was made to Congress for the admission of that State, without any enabling act, or without any authority from Congress. And it is a fact worthy of note that General Jackson himself was a member of that convention, and that General Washington urged upon Congress the importance of admitting Tennessee into the Union without delay. What were the facts in relation to California? Acting under the authority of a military commander, an election was held, and delegates chosen to a convention to form a State constitution, when no census had been taken, when no registry of votes had been made. The inhabitants of the Territory at the time, whether Mexicans, Chilians, Frenchmen, or Dutchmen, were allowed to march up to the polls, and usurp the political sovereignty of that vast Territory. Thus it was that California, with its one thousand miles of seacoast, its one hundred and fifty thousand square miles of territory, its boundless resources, and vast treasures, was forbidden to the South, and appropriated for the purposes of free-soil. Mr. TAYLOR, of New York. I would say that Florida was admitted under a constitution adopted by the people, who were not in the State when it was admitted, but nine years prior to its admission, and against the protest of the Territory at the time when it was admitted. Mr. BARKSDALE. That is true, I believe. Why, sir, it has not been the practice of the Government to require an enabling act, nor was an enabling act necessary in the case of Kansas. But it is said, sir, that this constitution should have been submitted to the vote of the people, and that it is not their act because it was not so submitted. Sir, I would ask, have constitutions been formed in this way alone, by the people of this country in organizing States? A portion of the States have submitted their constitutions to the people after they were framed; but in eighteen States of the Union the constitutions were not HO. OF REPS. submitted. And why? Because here the people do not act en masse. They act through delegates elected by themselves. Ours is a representative Government. The convention of Kansas embodied the sovereignty of the people, carried out the will of the people, spoke the voice of the people, and was, in fact, the people. The Constitution of the United States was never submitted to a vote of the people. The delegates to the convention that framed that Constitution were not even elected by the people. They were appointed by the Legislatures of the States. And after they had finished their great work, it was indorsed and ratified, not by the people at the ballot-box, but by conventions of the States, acting for them in their Sovereign capacity. Vermont, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and Wisconsin, were admitted into the Union with constitutions that were not submitted to the people. Kentucky presented herself for admission before her constitution was formed or her convention had met; and hence was admitted into the Union without any constitution. But, sir, while this constitution was not submitted as a whole to the people of Kansas, the only question in dispute-that of slavery-was submitted. It was submitted to a vote of all the people of Kansas. It was submitted, too, in such a way as to secure a fair vote on that article of the constitution. Now, sir, what do the gentlemen on the other side of the House care about the school question, or the bank question, or the internal improvement question, in the Territory of Kansas? Has there been any agitation of these questions? I ask my friend from Illinois [Mr. HARRIS] if he is interested in these questions in that Territory? The only question in dispute was the slavery question; and that, I repeat, was submitted to a vote of all the people in that Territory. Now, I believe that that convention acted unwisely in submitting it to a vote of all the inhab itants. In my judgment, a residence of three or six months should have been required as a qualification for voting; but it was the province of the convention to prescribe the qualifications of voters, and they allowed all to vote who happened to be there on the day of election, claiming to be residents. If an individual arrived in that Territory five minutes before the polls closed, and came up with the sweat and dust of travel upon him, and claimed to be a resident of Kansas, he was allowed to vote on the question whether this sla very article in the constitution should be retained or rejected. Mr. CURTIS. The constitution says "inhabitants." Mr. BARKSDALE. All were allowed to vote, as I have already said. And what was the result? More than six thousand votes were given to the constitution with slavery, and but a few hundred against it. But it is said that the majority of the people of that Territory did not vote. That the right to vote, however, was given them, and every safeguard provided, cannot be and has not been denied. If they desired Kansas to be a free State, and did not so vote, that is their own fault. But it is said that the application of Kansas must be rejected, because a majority of the people are op posed to her admission. Where, I ask, do you ascertain that fact? Do you find it in the election returns of the 4th of January? The question had then been settled. The pro-slavery clause of the constitution had already been ratified by the people. Those who were in favor of its insertion did not vote at the election, because it was a question which had been settled, and which perished with the settlement of it. Where, then, do you find evidence that the constitution framed at Lecompton is not acceptable to the majority of the people of Kansas? Ithink I have shown that it is the constitution of the people of Kansas; that they have made it; that it is theirs; and that under it they are applying for admission into the Union. republican in form? I hardly suppose there is Now, the next question is, is this constitution publican constitution. It is founded on the will any dispute with regard to that fact. It is a reof the people. Under its provisions the Governor 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. is elected by the people; the Legislature is elected by the people; even the judiciary are elected by the people. All the officers are so elected. If the constitutions of the other States are republican in form, no objection on this ground can be urged against that of Kansas. Then, sir, I have endeavored to answer the only questions that Congress ought to ask in the admission of new States; first, that it is the will of the people; and next, that the constitution which they present is republican in form. What, then, is the ground of the opposition to the admission of Kansas? The true ground, sir, disguise it as gentlemen may, is that her constitution recognizes slavery. I see near me the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. COLFAX,] who is one of the leaders of his party in this House, and I desire to ask him now whether, if all the people of Kansas desired to have a pro-slavery constitution, he would vote for her admission into the Union? Mr. COLFAX. The gentleman from Mississippi asks me a question. I have listened very attentively to his speech, and I desire to say to him that if I get the floor when he concludes, as I hope to, I intend to answer every point he has made in his speech. Mr. BARKSDALE. I do not know that I will be here. I should like to have the answer now. I ask you, gentlemen on the other side of the House, of the Black Republican party, would you vote for the admission of Kansas into the Union with a constitution tolerating slavery, if a hundred thousand people-there wished it? Mr. GIDDINGS. Does the gentleman ask me? Mr. BARKSDALE. I ask all of you. Mr. GIDDINGS. Then I answer the gentleman that I will never associate, politically, with men of that character, if I can help it. I will never vote to compel Ohio to associate with another slave State, if I can prevent it. Mr. BARKSDALE. I desire to ask the gentleman from Ohio if he speaks for his party? Mr. GIDDINGS. I speak for the thinking, reflecting, humane portion of mankind generally. [Laughter.] Mr. BARKSDALE. Black Republican mankind you mean. [Laughter ] I have no doubt of it. I repeat that the true ground of opposition to the admission of Kansas is, that her constitution tolerates slavery, and I now have indubitable evidence of the fact in the declaration of the gentleman from Ohio. Why, sir, gentlemen on the other side of this Hall voted for the admission of Kansas into the Union under the Topeka constitution; a constitution framed not only without authority of law, but in violation of law; a constitution which did not embody the will of the people; a constitution which, notwithstanding their professed philanthropy and devotion to the negro, as I am told by a friend near me, [Mr. KEITT,] prohibits the immigration of free negroes. Mr. BINGHAM. If the gentleman will allow me for a moment, I wish to say that the statement which I have heard made before, that the Topeka constitution excluded free negroes from Kansas, is an entire mistake. It excludes nobody from that Territory. On the contrary, so far from excluding free negroes, it provides that no person shall be transported from the State, not even for crime. Mr. BARKSDALE. Was that constitution ever submitted to the people, and voted on by them? Mr. BINGHAM. It was submitted, and I believe voted on, though the vote was not a large one. Mr. BARKSDALE. Was it ratified? Mr. BARKSDALE. The gentleman is mistaken; it had not been submitted before it was sent here. While the gentleman from Ohio is on the stand, I desire to ask him if he would vote to admit Kansas into the Union with a pro-slavery constitution if the people of that Territory all desired it ? Mr. BINGHAM. Certainly not. Mr. BARKSDALE. I repeat, then, sir, that the opposition to the admission of Kansas into the Union is based upon the ground that her constitution tolerates slavery. Mr. STANTON. I will say, if the gentleman Admission of Kansas-Mr. Moore. will allow me, that the Republican members of "Free labor has at last apprehended its rights, its inter- This, sir, is not only a-declaration that no more slave States shall be admitted into the Union, but that slavery must yield even in the fifteen slave States where it exists. He must have the whole continent. That is his declaration. And, sir, with this formal and well-considered proclamation by the leader of the Black Repub. lican party in the Senate, reiterated by chiefs and subalterns of the same party here on this floor, can there be any misapprehension as to the purposes and the inevitable end to be accomplished by this opposition to the admission of Kansas? Mr. Chairman, it is time the North and South understood each other. If this is the position of the North, we of the South desire to know it. If no more slave States are to be admitted into the Union, our people should be informed of your determination. In the language of one of the noble statesmen of the South, [Mr. TOOMBS,] delivered in the Senate a day or two ago, I, too, have counted the cost of this Union; and I think I understand something of its value. Sir, this Union was made by slaveholders. The battles of the Revolution were fought by slaveholders. A slaveholder headed your armies, and led them on to victory. Slaveholders laid deep and broad the foundations of this great Republic. The Declaration of Independence was published to the world in behalf of this teen colonies-all of them slaveholding. The Union which they afterwards formed-"the more perfect Union"-was a Union of equality, of equal rights, and of equal privileges. If you intend to deprive the southern States of their rights, it is well for us that you have so frankly and unreservedly avowed your purpose. In every period of our history, when dangers impended over us, the South has been true and loyal to the Union. When, sir, in the hour of danger, has she ever faltered? The bones of her sons are bleaching upon the very soil from which her people are excluded, and the achievements of her heroes adorn the brightest pages of your history. But, sir, that same patriotic devotion which inspired them to bare their breasts, and shed their blood for our Union when it was a glorious Union of equals, will arouse their hearts and nerve their arms to resist its aggressions upon their rights and honor. HO. OF REPS. ADMISSION OF KANSAS. SPEECH OF HON. SYDENHAM MOORE, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, [REVISED BY HIMSELF.*] The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union Mr. MOORE said: Mr. CHAIRMAN: The message of the President, the reports of the committees of the two Houses, and the many able speeches which have been already made in favor of the admission of Kansas, have fully exhausted the subject, and swept away all the flimsy pretexts and excuses of those who oppose that measure. Some have the candor to admit, what all know to be true, that if her constitution did not tolerate domestic slavery, no serious opposition would have been made to her admission. Those who advocated the adoption of the Topeka constitution, as the Black Republicans all did, cannot, without the grossest hypocrisy, pretend to have serious scruples on account of any irregularities in this of Lecompton. I should not, at this late period, have engaged in the discussion of this question, important as I regard its decision, but for the allusions which have been repeatedly made to Alabama, and more especially in the speech of the honorable gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. FARNSWORTH,] the other day, who, not satisfied with indulging in the tirade against the institution of slavery, which has been heard 'from day to day from that side of the Chamber, saw fit to single out Alabama, and, with a view to disparage her people, instituted a comparison between that State and his own. First, he says, Alabama has not increased as rapidly as Illinois in population. Is not that easily explained? The census returns show that Illinois had, in 1850, of her then population, 111,860 foreigners, while Alabama had but 7,498. The former being in close proximity to the old and densely-populated States of the North, would also account in part for this. Next, as to the number of children at school; he says, in Alabama there are 62,846 pupils and students at school; while in Illinois there were, at the same time, 182,292. Out of about 190,000 white persons between five and twenty years of age, Alabama had, in fact, 100,000 at school; while in Illinois there were 350,000 white persons between five and twenty, and of these only 140,000 at school. But the gentleman, very adroitly, dropped the comparison between Alabama and Illinois when he came to speak of the number of persons over twenty-one years who could not read or write, and then contrasts Alabama with Massachusetts. I prefer to continue the comparison which he commenced with Illinois. In 1850, there were in Alabama 33,757 persons over twenty-one who could not read or write, while in Illinois there were 40,000. In Illinois there were 978,855 acres of public land appropriated for educational purposes, while in Alabama there were 902,775; and the lands of Illinois, it is well known, were far richer. Alabama had, in 1850, 1,375 churches, while Illinois had but 1,223. The gentleman from Illinois sneeringly comments upon these results of the census as to the education of the masses in Alabama, and asserts that there are multitudes in all the slaveholding States who cannot even read their ballots, nor sign their names to a poll-book." Does he not know that a large portion of the population of many of the States, at the period of our Revolution, were unlettered men? And yet what nobler examples of heroism and intelligent appreciation of popular rights has history anywhere afforded us? Was Rome much indebted to the literary cultivation of her masses for the sturdy virtues and practical wisdom which secured to her, for so many ages, the conquest and government of the world? Did not some, even, of the feudal barons who wrested the great charter from King John make their marks, being unable to append their signatures? *For the original report, see page 1343 Cong. Globe. 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. Admission of Kansas-Mr. Moore. The gentleman ventures these sneers against the same communion table; but now the slave- !! The gentleman who has just taken his seat [Mr. THAYER] taunts us with the want of that commerce and manufacturing industry which we have so long assisted the North in establishing. It is also another illustration of our freedom in the past from sectional jealousies, as it is also of our fond illusion that we had yet a part in David, and an inheritance in the son of Jesse. And why, let me ask, should there be perpetual strife between us? Why should this relentless war be waged against the South? Does not the chief product of our slave labor keep in motion the spindles of Massachusetts, and create there an increased demand for your labor? We offer you a market for your manufactured goods, employment for your ships, and encouragement to your ship-builders. Every additional plow which is driven into the soil of Alabama, and each cargo that is landed at Mobile, gives an increased impetus to your various manufactures. | southern man felt, as he stepped his foot upon the ments. Ho. OF REPS. wage this unjust, unholy, sectional war against their own countrymen? or is it upon those who have stood up and defended their section when assailed, opposing argument to argument, meeting taunts and insults with scorn, and threats with defiance? The Abolition party was for years few in numbers, and altogether contemptible; but wicked and ambitious men united with it, and drew together in one solid mass the odds and ends of all the old parties; proclaiming for their watchword-hostil ity to the South and its institutions. They seek to array one section against the other; hoping, when that is accomplished, from being superior in numbers, to get the control of the Government, and hold us in complete subjection. To effect their unholy purposes, we are abused and misrepresented. Their orators, their presses, and even their pulpits, are employed in fomenting strife and ill-will, by continual denunciation, ridicule, taunts, and threats towards the South; a fair sample of which we have just heard from the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. THAYER.] These bad men, to gain their ends, have shown that they do not hesitate to trample under foot the Constitution, and nullify the solemn enactments of Congress made to carry out its express provis ions, and wholly indifferent to the consequences which may flow from their rashness. The President of the United States, for daring to oppose their unholy designs, notwithstanding his venerable years, his eminent position, his unsullied public and private character, is traduced and vilified, his motives aspersed, his patriotism questioned, and he openly and falsely charged with resorting to corruption and bribery to influence the legislation of Congress. The Supreme Court, too, of the United States-the highest judicial tri Our pulpits, our work-shops, our factories, our legal and medical professions, our school-houses, all were open to, and many were filled by men from the North. They often married and dwelt among us, thus adding new links to the chain that bound the Union together. Some, after being treated with kindness and hospitality, and encouragement and patronage, in their youth, have returned to the North to stir up strife and ill-will between the sections. Prominent among these is a distinguished Senator of New York, who in early life was thus kindly treated and patronized while pursuing the honorable profession of a teacher in a rural district in Georgia. But all kindly recollections of those early days, if any he ever had, have long since been effaced from his memory; and his life has been spent in fomenting sectional strife and ill-will, and in seeking to overturn the insti-bunal known in our country-composed of men tution of slavery, which, he knows, if successful, would result in ruin to the black as well as the white race, and in disruption of the ties that bind together the States of this Union. I chanced to hear him recently exulting that there was a North side and a South side in that Chamber and in this, a northern party and a southern party, and expressing the hope that he might live to see the day when the footsteps of a slave would not be seen on this continent. Sir, no love of country prompted that exultation; for he knew too well that, wherever tried, emancipation had proved to be a failure; either bringing speedy destruction and ruin upon the land where they had been thus emancipated, resulting in the massacre of both races, regardless of age or sex, or, by their slower, but not less sure decay and ruin in the lapse of time. I never see him, with his bland smile and Oily Gammon manner, that I am not reminded of Milton's description of one the fallen angels: The time was, Mr. Chairman, and at no remote period in our history, when the Representatives of the people, from the various sections of this Union, were wont to meet together to consult, to deliberate for the welfare of a common country. Party feeling might, at times, run high; differences might arise as to questions of domestic or foreign policy, or as to the true construction of the Constitution; but in these things all were agreed -namely, in recognizing the binding obligations of the Constitution in all its parts, in attachment for the Union, and in reverence for the decisions of our judicial tribunals. What a change has taken place in a few years! Now, sons of one common and glorious lineage are here seen pitted like glad-of iators, or ranged apart as delegates of hostile nations. But little has been heard during the four months of the session save violent philippics, day after day, against the South, her people, and her institutions, and occasionally recrimination and retaliation on the other side. The stormy sessions of the National Assembly of France scarcely indicated more hostile feeling between the different parties than has been manifested here. If what we see here is a reflex of the state of feeling among the masses of the North, then it requires no prophet to tell that this Union cannot much longer endure. The crusade so long preached against the South has, it seems, maddened and estranged the North, and has at last aroused the South to the dangers that menace her. A little while ago the young adventurer from the North would often seek his home in the South, and, when deserving, never failed to meet with friends, with promotion, and advancement. The distinguished gentleman who sits before me [Mr. QUITMAN]-the Chevalier Bayard," without fear and without reproach," and whose military and civil services have won for him a national famestands a shining example of this; so do the honorable gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CRAIG] and the honorable gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. MAYNARD,] and many in distinguished positions all over the South. Then the southern man and the northern man could kneel at the same altars, and meet around * "BELIAL, in act more graceful and humane ;" A few-a very few-persons, like the ill-used been extended to them, and, viper-like, turn upon their benefactors. How well it becomes that gen- What has brought about this great change to distinguished for their learning, their exalted wisdom and virtue, whose luminous decisions have added to the national reputation; whom the peo ple reverence and respect for their firmness, their impartiality, and the unsullied purity of their lives, because they will not perjure themselves and mold their decisions to suit this fanatical party, is to be annihilated, or reformed, as they say; while the individual members, including the venerable Chief Justice, are denounced as vile, corrupt, and debased. For years we of the South have patiently borne these wrongs and injuries. We have warned the people of the North of the inevitable consequences which must follow these attacks; but, with reckless indifference, they still pursue their course of madness, folly, and wickedness. They are arrogant enough to believe that we will tamely submit, and declare that if we shall resist they will "whip us into submission." The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FARNSWORTH] intimated the other day that hemp would be used to crush out this spirit of resistance, if any should be manifested. Great Britain threatened this against the thirteen colonies, all of them, be it remembered, at that time holding slaves; and the gallant Hayne, of South Carolina, was actually hung; but was the proud spirit of the colonies thereby subdued? Talk about subduing a sovereign State of this Confederacy! of whipping her into submission! What folly! What kind of a Republic would that be, I should like to know, where one portion of it had to hold the other in subjection by force? A Republic it might be in name, but in fact it would be a pure, unmitigated despotism. Mr. GILMAN begged to interrupt Mr. MOORE, by asking how it happened that all the threats of separation have proceeded from the South? Mr. MOORE. Sir, I deny the correctness of this assertion; and point to the fact of the Hartford convention, assembled during a war waged for the protection of New England citizens, and in the face of an enemy threatening our coasts. It has never been under such circumstances that the South has chosen to vindicate her violated rights. When the defense of your country, the honor and glory of your empire, were involved, you have nowhere found more obedient and more emulously patriotic citizens. Do you ask me for instances of northern insubordination? Look to the nullification of the laws of Congress by Mas sachusetts and her surrounding States. When 35TH CONG....1ST SESS. South Carolina threatened to resort to this remedy, she was to be dragooned into submission; when the boasted land of Pilgrims exerts it, it is perfectly consistent with law, order, and constitutional obligations. It is openly proclaimed that they intend, under no circumstances, to vote for another slave State. They would crib and confine us to our present limits, saying to us, "thus far shalt thou go, and no further;" knowing that ruin must thereby, if not speedily, yet sooner or later, overtake our fair land. Growing more insolent of late, they boldly proclaim that they intend to rule and govern the South; and thus allow her people none save a mere nominal participation in the administration and control of public affairs. Some, more daring than the rest, openly declare that their purpose is to destroy the institution of slavery and crush out the South, making her a dependent province; her sons "hewers of wood and drawers of water" for northern task-masters. And this is to be the doom, if their designs are consummated, not only of the slave owners, but of all the freemen of the South. James Watson Webb, who conducts one of the leading Republican presses at the North, hitherto claiming to be moderate and conservative, in his paper of February 20, says: "If any State should attempt to secede, she will be whipped into subjection. Should they continue refractory, the United States would be compelled ultimately to hold such refractory States as colonies-just as Spain and other European powers hold their slave colonics-until such time as it might be safe to rely upon their obedience." And again, listen to his fierce bombast. It is rich. He says: "If a southern State should attempt to resist, she will be made to submit, and bear herself with deference and respect thereafter to those who are morally and socially her equals, and politically and physically her superiors, and when provoked to demonstrate it, if needs be, her masters." Such is the language now employed by the Black Republican presses throughout the North-seeming to verify the old adage, "whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad." Contrast this insolent bravado with the wisdom of Edmund Burke: "Your instructions and your suspending clauses are the 7 things that hold together the great contexture of this mysterious whole. These things do not make your Government. Dead instruments, passive tools as they are, it is the spirit of the English Constitution which, infused through the mighty mass, pervades, feeds, unites, invigorates, vivifies every part of the empire, even down to the minutest member. It is the love of the people; it is their attachment to their Government-from the sense of the deep stake they have in such a glorious institution-which gives you your Army and your Navy, and infuses into both that liberal obedience without which your Army would be a base rabble, and your Navy nothing but rotten timber." That gentleman [Mr. FARNSWORTH] spoke sneeringly of the republic of Alabama. Let me tell him that Alabama has not yet decided upon her course. She has indulged in no threats; but by the unanimous voice of her Legislature has determined, in case Kansas is rejected, to hold a convention to determine what her honor, her safety, and independence may seem to require. She came into the Union as an equal, and her equality she will never surrender. Mr. PALMER wished to know by what process it was proposed that Alabama should be withdrawn from the Union. Mr. MOORE. She has decided, sir, in a contingency which involves the loss of her equality and honor, to assemble a convention to decide upon her course. It is not for me to anticipate that decision; but, if she deem it necessary to dissolve a compact, of which it is openly declared that she shall no longer participate in the advantages, I have no fear that she will not have the intelligence and unanimity to devise the means of her long deferred, reluctant, but compelled withdrawal. But she still cherishes the hope that her constitutional rights may be respected; that Kansas may be admitted, and peace and quiet restored to the country. I know the sentiments of her people, and especially of those who have honored me with a seat on this floor. They are a law-abiding though proud-spirited people, content with the Constitution and Union which were made and handed down to them by their fathers-attachment to that Union having been a cherished principle of political faith throughout the South. What Admission of Kansas-Mr. Moore. but this caused her people to submit for so many I tell these Black Republican leaders, I tell the as well in the Territories as in the States. Be- The sentiment, the conviction of the South, is By what standard do they judge us? by what examples in our past history, in that of the AngloSaxon race, do they conclude that the South will tamely submit to occupy, in this Union, the position of inferiority and degradation to which the Black Republicans would subject her? We are the descendants of that sturdy race of patriots who were willing to expose their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor," rather than submit to so much as a tax of threepence per pound on tea. But you think, perhaps, that we are degenerated. It did not appear so in the war of 1812. It did not appear so with that little band of Texans, who, in defense of their rights and liberties, bravely dared to meet the powerful armies of Mexico. What though we be few in numbers, we still possess all the elements of strength to sustain ourselves in peace or in war; and profane as well as sacred history teaches us that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. The North is as much, if not more interested "When subordinate committees oppose the decrees of the * Ho. OF REPS. the power but the hope of resistance. Their obstinacy may perhaps be mollified by turning the soldiers to free quarters, forbidding any personal cruelty or hurt." "Since the Americans have made it necessary to subdue them, may they be subdued with the least injury possible to their persons and possessions." You of the North ridicule the idea of a dissolution for any cause. So did then the ministers of England. You presume upon your strength, and our supposed weakness. So did they with the colonies. The tyrants of old England sought to tax them while they had no voice, no representation in Parliament. Our brave forefathers determined to put all to the hazard rather than submit even to the smallest tax thus imposed. The Black Republican party proclaim their de termination to rule the South by their overwhelming sectional majorities. We, it is true, might have a nominal participation in the legislation of the country, but would be powerless to protect ourselves, and the heaviest burdens might, and, judging by the past, would be imposed upon us. Would the South submit? Would freemen ever submit to occupy such a position? We do not believe that the North would submit to this under similar circumstances. We have the declaration of Mr. Fillmore that they would not, and his opinion that they ought not. I have much mistaken the proud spirit of those with whom I dwell, if they shall prove themselves more submissive. Our fathers were loyal to the mother country-so have we ever proved to this Government, discharging all of our constitutional obliga tions. The tyrants whom our fathers then opposed, sought to excite insurrection among our slavesit is so declared in the Declaration of IndependSo do these Black Republicans. See what Dr. Johnson, in the same article from which I have already quoted, said: ence. "It has been proposed that the slaves should be set free, an act which the lovers of liberty surely cannot but commend. With fire arms for their defense, utensils for hus bandry, and sculed in some simple form of government, they may be more grateful and honest than their masters." Men of the North! remember, that these words were applied to your ancestors, as well as to ours! But again, says the same author: "We are told that the subjection of America may tend to the diminution of our liberties, an event which none but very perspicacious politicians are able to foresee. If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how comes it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" Our fathers bore long the oppressions of the mother country. The minions of power fondly dreamed that, as they had submitted so long, they would never resist. So think our enemies now. Says the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. FARNSWORTH,] why do not these braggarts put their threats in execution? It is all threat and gasconade. Sir, we make no threat-it is not our aim to frighten anybody: nor can you frighten or deter us from doing our duty. In times like these, Mr. Chairman, when sectional feeling is so intensely excited, it is impossible to tell what a day may bring forth. And what does all this portend? Is it, or not, the beginning of revolution? We short-sighted mortals are not permitted to lift the vail and see what the future has in store for us. Could we do so now, it might serve to check those who are rushing headlong upon unseen dangers. If "coming events cast their shadows before"-if effects still follow causes-if history, that tells us how other republics have risen, flourished for a time, and then passed away; how empires, once hoary with age, and mighty in prowess, at last fell-if she teaches any lessons for our guidance in the story of the past, then ought not gentlemen to be warned? Our fathers met to consult in the first American Congress in 1774. They separated with no movement made for independence. Again they met, consulted, and went to their several homes, and still no serious talk of independence. Blood had then been shed, too, at Concord, Lexington, and Bunker Hill. They met again in 1776, deliberated, and at last determined on that memorable Declaration of Independence. The Abolitionists and Black Republicans repeat in our ears every day one passage contained in that instrument, and affect to believe that it was intended to include the slaves as well as whites, and therefore sustaina their nefarious purposes. I beg to call their at 35TH CONG.... 1ST SESS. tention to another passage, which has not, perhaps, wholly lost its significance: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends (for which it was created) it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new governinent, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing it in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." Our forefathers were not unsustained in the trying times of the Revolution. They had friends in England who boldly and eloquently defended their cause, and warned the British ministers of the consequences of their rashness. Among them were Lord Chatham, Burke, Fox, Pownall, and Colonel Barré. Said the latter gentleman, on the floor of Parliament: "I prophesied, on passing the stamp act, in 1765, what would happen thereon; and I now, in March, 1769, fear I can prophesy further troubles; that if the whole people were made desperate, finding no remedy from Parliament, the whole continent will be in arms iminediately, and perhaps these provinces lost to England forever." In February, 1769, said Governor Pownall, in Parliament: "The Americans do universally, unitedly, and unalterably declare, as I have before told the House, that they ought not to submit. The slightest circumstance will now, in a moment, throw everything into confusion and bloodshed. That spirit which led their ancestors to break off everything which is near and dear to the human heart, has but a slight sacrifice to make at this time; they have not to quit their native country, but to defend it; not to forsake their friends and relations, but to unite with and stand by them in one common union. They will abominate as sincerely as they now love you. In one word, if this spirit of fanaticisin should once arise upon the idea of persecuting these people, you will not, for the future, be able to govern with a rod of iron. "If it be not the humor of the House to believe this at present, I only beg that they will remember that it has been said, and that they were forewarned of it." How applicable to our own times! "When the resolution was taken in this House to tax America, I was ill in bed; if I could have endured to have been carried in my bed, so great was the agitation of my mind for the consequences, I would have solicited some kind hand to have laid me down on this floor, to have borne my testimony against it." Again spoke Lord Chatham: "America, if she falls, will fall like the strong man. She would embrace the pillars of the State, and pull down the constitution along with her." Auxiliary Guard-Mr. Goode. ern Democracy were not to be trusted. All re- A striking example in our early history is re- We of the South are represented as desirous of extending slavery to the free territory of the North. This is not so. We claim the right to carry our slaves into territory belonging alike to all the States. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. FARNSWORTH] says he admits this principle, as regards all property save that of slaves. He denies that slavery exists by the common law, but contends that it is by statute law only; and denies that this property should be taken to any of the Territories of the Union. I tell that gentleman that this is no longer a question for dispute. It is the law of the land, so Again, when he spoke those words that made pronounced by the highest judicial tribunal in our the tyrants tremble: country. It was also decided by twelve of the I know not upon what to rest the hope that the North will at last yield to wiser and more moderate counsels. All the old national parties are broken up, save the Democratic party, and that is We do not ask you to regard slavery as we reweakened by desertion and torn by divisions. I gard it. It is not suited to your northern clime, do yet fondly hope that this old party will be but it is suited to ours. We of the South believe found strong enough, patriotic and self-sacrificing that it is recognized and sanctioned by the Alenough, to meet boldly this question, upon which mighty in his revealed Word. We think its inits fate and the fate of the Union depend, and once troduction into our country has been the efficient more restore peace and quiet to a distracted coun- means of civilizing and Christianizing the African try. It has received accessions of late from the race. We know them to be happy and contented. old Whig and the American parties, and forms a Agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, have nucleus around which the conservative men of the all derived benefits incalculable from this instituwhole country may still rally. Though deserted tion. By it the world has been clothed and fed. by those once recognized as its leaders, a portion Think of it as you will, but deny to us none of of the old guard-the true-hearted northern De- our constitutional rights; cease to molest us, and mocracy-still stands firm. Though their mo- we may yet live on in peace. We are content to tives may be maligned, their names threatened assume all its responsibilities, both here and hereto be cast out as despised, and public honors de- after, and are willing to abide the enlightened pubnied them, still, unmoved, they go on to the dis- lic opinion of the world. And may we not hope charge of their duty to their country. I listened that there is sufficient virtue, intelligence, and with delight to the manly and eloquent speech of patriotism, at the North to correct this unsound the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. BISHOP] the public sentiment? or shall treason, folly, and faother day. While the spirit which he exhibited naticism, be permitted to rule the day, and this survives among the northern Democracy, though Republic, with all its present greatness, and its they may for a time be in the minority, we may glorious promises, be destroyed, merely to gratyet have hope for the perpetuity of our institu- ify the thirst for power of those Black Republican tions. All honor to them! They will yet be leaders, in whose hearts, as I believe, there lurks honored and sustained at home, cherished and treason as dark as ever actuated the blood-bound respected at the South; while they will ever be associates of Catiline's conspiracy. They, too, cheered with the pleasing consciousness of hav-meditated an insurrection of the slaves in the Ro: ing, like patriots, discharged their duty boldly, man territories, as one of their means of effecting notwithstanding the desertion of the Douglases, their unholy purposes. Cicero, after detecting the Walkers, the Forneys, the Bancrofts, and their plot and arresting their persons, boldly asked: others-once honored leaders. One of these was if they deserve praise who laid the foundation but yesterday the idol of every southern heart; the Republic, do not we also who preserved it from the hero of many a forensic contest; the example its enemies? May not those now (and I allude first on the lips to refute the charge that the north- "particularly to those residing in the North) who of HO. OF REPS. unite to restore peace to this distracted country, by preventing the triumphs of treason and rebellion in Kansas, and by thwarting the designs of the enemies of the Constitution and the Union, ask in the same spirit if they, too, have not deserved well of their country? AUXILIARY GUARD. SPEECH OF HON. W. O. GOODE, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, [WRITTEN OUT BY HIMSELF.*] The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and having under consideration the bill to establish an Auxiliary Guard for the District of Columbia Mr. GOODE said: Mr. CHAIRMAN: The few suggestions which I propose to offer will be expressed briefly as I can. I have no essay to publish. If I had the weight of character or power of language to command the attention of the House, I should not indulge in inflammatory declamation. I should employ my strength to impress the House with a just perception of the measure on which we are called to decide. Several days have passed since this question was opened for discussion. The debate has taken a wide range, and gentlemen have felt themselves called upon to go forth into the wide field of par- . tisan warfare. I shall not follow their example. I shall endeavor to call back attention to the true pending question. It was just announced from the chair. The committee are called upon to pass on the comparative merits of the bill I have proposed, and the substitute for the Senate bill offered by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. DoDD.] The general objects and provisions of these plans are nearly identical. They provide for the same force, the same number of officers, and for nearly the same expenditure of money; but the regular expenditure, under my bill, will require a sum smaller, by about $2,500, than the plan of the gen tleman from New York-and to that extent I am entitled to the argument of economy, but I admit the advantage is inconsiderable. There are, however, important differences in the two proposi tions. My bill establishes a police court, by which offenders against the law and police regulations may be summarily tried and punished, which I regard as an actual necessity in the administra tion of justice in this city. At present, the pros ecution of the most petty offenses is by a regu by the grand jury-the minimum expense being lar criminal prosecution, requiring an indictment about forty dollars, often ranging above one hundred dollars, and requiring from the Treasury an annual appropriation far exceeding one hundred thousand dollars for the prosecution of petty of fenses in the District of Columbia. A large proportion of this would be saved by the provision of my bill-a sum, perhaps, equal to the whole cost of the contemplated police force. propositions are to be found in the different modes But the distinguishing characteristics of the two of appointment. The gentleman from New York proposes to constitute a board of commissioners to organize this police force -the board to be clected by the qualified voters of the city of Wash ington. Not only to be elected, but chosen in equal numbers from contending political parties. The scheme contemplates the election of two Dem ocrats and two Know Nothings or Americans. Thus will be introduced into the organization antagonistic elements, in equal forces. The nature tude, secrecy, and energy. It is indispensable it of the service of a police force demands prompti should be directed by unity of will, and executed with concert of action. The plurality of will and antagonism of purpose or of object, are utterly indiscrepancy of views, the conflict of opinions, consistent with the efficiency of the police. The and consequent delay in the deliberations and decisions of the board must effectually destroy the usefulness of a police appointed under the scheme of the gentleman from New York. There would * For the original report, see page 1670 Cong. Globe, |