non-intervention; hands off, In the language | lence, bloodshed, and every imaginable evil. of the Georgia resolutions, let the subject be banished forever from the Halls of Congress or the political arena, and referred to the Territories, with a right of appeal to the courts; and there is an end to the controversy. Having shown conclusively what the understanding of Congress was upon this question of the compromise measures of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska bill, I will proceed now to show how the President of the United States who signed the bill understood it. I will ask to have read an extract from the message of President Pierce of December, 1855. Mr. PUGH read, as follows: "The scope and effect of the language of repeal were not President Pierce, in this message, says that those acts were abuses of the principle of popu lar sovereignty, in violation of the principle of the act; and that the principle itself is by no means responsible for those abuses. I answer that allegation of the Senator from Mississippi by the authority of his own chief, the President of the United States, under whom he held the high and distinguished office of Secretary of War. Nor is it improper here for me to express my amazement that the Senator from Mississippi would cite the abuses, the acts of violence, and of fraud, that occurred in violation of this principle under the Administration of which he was a ruling spirit, as evidences that the principle that brought that Administration into exist ence was a vicious and dangerous principle. I had supposed that the Senator from Mississippi had given in his adhesion to this doctrine of non-intervention. I had supposed that he looked "The measure could not be withstood upon its merits with pleasure upon the passage of the Kansasalone. It was attacked with violence, on the false or delusive Nebraska act. pretext that it constituted a breach of faith. Never was I had supposed that he consiobjection more utterly destitute of substantial justification. dered that as a great measure of relief to the When, before, was it imagined by sensible men, that a regu-southern States of this Union, and that he would lative or declarative statute, whether enacted ten or forty years ago, is irrepealable; that an act of Congress is above the Constitution? If, indeed, there were in the facts any cause to impute bad faith, it would attach to those only who have never ceased, from the time of the enactment of the restrictive provision to the present day, to denounce and condemn it; who have constantly refused to complete it by needful supplementary legislation; who have spared no exertion to deprive it of moral force; who have themselves, again and again, attempted its repeal by the enactment of incompatible provisions; and who, by the inevitable reactionary effect of their own violence on the subject, awakened the country to perception of the true constitutional principle of leaving the matter involved to the discretion of the people of the respective existing or INCIPIENT STATES." left in doubt. It was declared, in terms, to be 'the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.' "It is not pretended that this principle, or any other, precludes the possibility of evils in practice, disturbed as political action is liable to be by human passions. No form of government is exempt froni inconveniences; but in this case they are the result of the abuse, and not of the legitimate exercise, of the powers reserved or conferred in the organization of a Territory. They are not to be charged to the great principle of popular sovereignty; on the contrary, they disappear before the intelligence and patriotism of the people, exerting through the ballot-box their peaceful and silent but irresistible power." Mr. DOUGLAS. There you will find that President Pierce, who signed the Kansas-Nebraska act, speaks of it as adopting the great principle of "popular sovereignty" in the States, and also in the "incipient" States. What did he mean by the word "incipient" States? Not the States that were then in the Union. He unquestionably referred to the Territories as "incipient States," and, as such, were entitled to the benefits of the principles of self-government in respect to their domestic concerns. Hence you find the word "incipient" States, and the words "popular sovereignty,' as embracing the rights of the people in those incipient States, or Territories, as we are in the habit of designating them. Here I must be permitted to comment upon a remark of the Senator from Mississippi, in his arraignment of this doctrine of non-intervention, which he chose to call squatter sovereignty. He said that this doctrine had its first trial on the plains of Kansas; that it bore its first fruits on the plains of Kansas; and he described its legitimate fruits as resulting in anarchy, vio have been the first to defend it, as in duty bound, having held office under the Administration that glories in the passage of the act. Now we find he takes pleasure in citing those very abuses in justification of his course when he fought the principle, and as a verification of what he told us before the southern States agreed to acquiesce in the principle. I was not prepared to hear this from the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. DAVIS. You do not pretend to quote it. Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not pretend to quote the language. I pretend only to say that, in substance, he did declare that this principle had its first trial on the plains of Kansas, and bore its first fruits upon the plains of Kansas; that it was accompanied with unmitigated and untold evils, and produced all sorts of mischief; and the inference was that these results justified him in his original opposition to the principle. I now pass to the next chapter in the history of this principle of non-intervention, which you will find in the proceedings of the national convention, held at Cincinnati, in 1856. You all remember that Alabama sent her delegates to Cincinnati, demanding that the usages of the party should be reversed, and that a platform should be first made, and then furnishing the ultimatum which, if not acceded to, must be the cause for an instant withdrawal of the Alabama delegates from that convention. That ultimatum was that the convention, in its platform, should recognize the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories. The convention yielded to the Alabama ultimatum. The convention incorporated that principle into the platform in language so explicit that no one can misunderstand it. I ask to have so much of the Cincinnati platform read as announced this doctrine of non-intervention. Mr. PUGH read, as follows:- "The American Democracy recognize and adopt the prin ciples contained in the organic laws establishing the Terri tories of Kansas and Nebraska, as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the 'slavery question,' upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union-NONINTERFERENCE BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY IN THE STATE AND TERRITORY, OR IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. "That this was the basis of the compromise of 1850, confirmed by both the Democratic and Whig parties in national convention, ratified by the people in the election of 1852, and rightly applied to the organization of Territories in 1854. That by the uniform application of this Democratic principle to the organization of Territories, and to the admission of new States, with or without domestic slavery, as they may elect the equal rights of all the States will be preserved intact-the original compacts of the Constitution maintained inviolate-and the perpetuity and expansion of this Union insured to its utmost capacity of embracing, in peace and harmony, every future State that may be constituted or annexed, with a republican form of government." Mr. DOUGLAS. There it will be found that the Democratic party affirmed, at Cincinnati, in language too explicit to admit of any possible misconstruction, the doctrine of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States or Territories, and in the District of Columbia. I only call attention to it now so far as relates to non-intervention in the Territories. The platform also declared that the same principle of non-intervention was affirmed by both parties at Baltimore, in 1852; showing that the Democratic party understood in 1856 that the convention which nominated General Pierce-upon which nomination General Pierce was elected President-did affirm this doctrine of non-intervention. It declared that both parties (Whig and Democratic) had affirmed the doctrine. It declared, also, that this principle was correctly applied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill; and that it was the great conservative principle upon which alone the peace and perpetuity of this Union could be sustained. I wish it also to be borne in mind that the platform of principles was declared at Cincinnati unanimously, the vote being taken by States, and every delegation, from every State in the Union, was unanimous in its vote in favor of the principle. There was no one man in Mississippi then protesting against it; no one man in Alabama protesting against it; no one man in South Carolina protesting against it; none in Georgia; none in any southern State of this Union. Are we now to be told that a platform adopted by the unanimous vote of every delegation, from every State in the Union, in 1856, is so unsound and so rotten four years after as to justify the very States who dictated it then in breaking up the party because we insist upon adhering to it now? But, sir, not only did the party unanimously affirm this doctrine in 1856, but your candidates nominated at that time accepted the nomination on that platform, with a construction which they then put upon it for themselves. I will now show you that they then put upon that platform the identical construction which I have ever placed upon it. I ask to have read an extract from the letter of acceptance of Mr. Buchanan, on the 16th of June, 1856. Mr. PUGH read, as follows: "The agitation on the question of domestic slavery has too long distracted and divided the people of this Union, and alienated their affections from each other. The agitation has assumed many forms since its commencement, but it now seems to be directed chiefly to the Territories; and, judging from its present character, I think we may safely anticipate that it is rapidly approaching a finality. The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic slavery, derived, as it has been, from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the majority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous excitement. This legislation is founded upon principles as ancient as free government itself, and in accordance with them has simply declared that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. Buchanan not only accepted the Cincinnati platform, but he was kind enough to tell the people of the United States. what it meant, and that it meant that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, should decide for themselves whether slavery should or should not exist within their limits. There is nothing equivocal in this language. It is squatter sovereignty in its broadest sense, as the Senator from Mississippi uses that term. people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall exist or not. Mr. Buchanan told the The people that slavery could not exist in a Territory unless the people of a Territory said so; it Mr. Buchanan was elected on that construction should exist if they said so, and not otherwise. of the platform. I do not ask that you shall now give it that construction. I only ask that you readopt the platform, and let it construe itself. But Mr. Buchanan was perfectly sound on that platform in 1856, with a construction identical with that which is now denounced as a heresy. The distinguished gentleman who was nominated and elected Vice-President on the same ticket with Mr. Buchanan understood the platform in the same way that, Mr. Buchanan turned to his home in Lexington, and his neighdid. After his nomination at Cincinnati, he rebors assembled, as might have been expected, where they had such devotion to their distin guished fellow-citizen, and congratulated him on his good fortune in receiving the nomination, and Mr. Breckinridge, in reply to that congratu lation, made them a speech, which was published at the time, from which I will present an extract, showing how he understood the Kansas-Nebraska bill and the Cincinnati platform. Mr. PUGH read, as follows: "Upon the distracting question of domestic slavery, their position is clear. The whole power of the Democratio organization is pledged to the following propositions: that Congress shall not intervene upon this subject in the States, in the Territories, or in the District of Columbia; that the people of each Territory shall determine the question for themselves, and be admitted into the Union upon a footing of perfect equality with the original States, without dis crimination on account of the allowance or prohibition of slavery." I Mr. DOUGLAS. It seems that the Democratic party, in its whole organization, was pledged to the proposition of non-intervention by Congress, and referring the question to the people of the Territories. That is the way I understand it. I stand upon that platform now. have great difficulty with my political friends in harmonizing upon platforms, and have tendered them various propositions. I have tendered them the Florida platform of 1847, and they would not take it; the Georgia platform of 1854, and they would not take it; the Alabama ultimatum of 1856, and they would not take it. I tender them now Mr. Buchanan's | not, the question arises, who has changed? If letter of acceptance in 1856; let it construe itself, and see if we cannot harmonize on that; or I tender Mr. Breckinridge's speech of acceptance in Lexington, in 1856, and let it construe itself. I will not dot an i or cross a t. Gentlemen, will you take your own language when you accepted and construed the platform? I am willing to be accommodating. I do not insist on a platform from my speeches or my writings. I can pick one up all over the Senate, all over the country, from the speeches and writings of those who now arraign me as not being sound on the slavery question. [Applause in the galleries.] Even after the election in 1856, the same principle was emphatically announced and affirmed; for in Mr. Buchanan's inaugural address, he declared :— "We have recently passed through a presidential contest, in which the passions of our fellow-citizens were excited to the highest degree by questions of deep and vital importance; but when the people proclaimed their will, the tempest at once subsided, and all was calm. they have changed, I do not complain of them for it. If they have had new light, if they have studied the subject more maturely, and have honestly come to the conclusion that they were then in error, they were bound as honest men to change. But if that be the case, I think I have the right to ask that they will furnish me with those arguments and reasons which induced the change in their minds, in order that I may correct my errors too, if indeed I am in error. I do not think there is any wisdom in the declaration that you have never changed an opinion. While I claim a very consistent record as a public man, I have often had occasion to say that I have modified my opinions on many questions, and take more pleasure in retracting an error than in persevering in it. All I ask is, if it be true that gentlemen have taken a step in advance or a step backward, that they will excuse me for not following them until they convince me that they ought to have taken that step. The country has been informed that I was "The voice of the majority, speaking in the manner pre- removed from the post of chairman of the Comscribed by the Constitution, was heard, and instant sub-mittee on Territories, in 1858, because I uttered mission followed. Our own country could alone have exhibited so grand and striking a spectacle of the capacity of man for self-government. "What a happy conception, then, was it for Congress to apply this simple rule-that the will of the majority shall govern-to the settlement of the question of domestic slavery in the Territories! Congress is neither to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. As a natural consequence, Congress has also prescribed that, when the Territory of Kansas shall be admitted as a State, It shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at the time of their "A difference of opinion has arisen in regard to the point admission.' of time when the people of a Territory shall decide this question for themselves. This is happily a matter of but little practical importance." at Freeport, Illinois, the identical sentiments contained in the speeches and letters of acceptance of Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Breckinridge in 1856. My heresy consisted in uttering the same sentiment then that the Senator from Mississippi bears testimony that I held and uttered in 1850; that it has been shown that I uttered during the debate on the Kansas-Nebraska bill, in 1854, and in the debates in 1856, and which I was known to have held for many years. I do not complain of my removal from the committee. I acknowledge that, if it be true that my opinions were so heretical that I did not fairly and honestly represent the sentiments of the Senate on these great questions, it was right to displace me, and put a man there who did. I have no complaints to make. But when you displace me for that reason, do not charge that I have changed, when the fact is, that you have changed your own opinions. You did elect me chairman of that committee, in 1847, with a knowledge of my opinions. You re-elected me each year for eleven years, by a unanimous vote "What a happy conception," he says, "for Congress to apply this simple rule-that the will of a majority shall govern-to the settlement of the question of domestic slavery in the Territories!" And, having applied it to the Territories, he says, that, "as a natural consequence, Congress has prescribed that when the Territory of Kansas shall be admitted as a State, it shall be received into the Union, with or with-in caucus, with a full knowledge of those opiout slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission!" So it seems that the right of the people to decide the slavery question at the time of admission was "a natural consequence" of the right of the people to decide the same question in their territorial condition. "The point of time" when the people of a Territory should decide the slavery question was deemed of "but little practical importance" by Mr. Buchanan. Yet the very point of time which was deemed of little practical importance, is now urged by his professed friends as sufficient for breaking up the Democratic party, and endangering the existence of the Union! I speak of these things with entire respect. I do not bring them up for the purpose of condemnation, or to place any man in a false position. If these gentlemen stand now where they did in 1856, I am with them. If they do nions. At the end of eleven years, you removed me for holding the identical opinions that I held when you had unanimously selected me. I do not complain of this; but I do think that fairness requires that the facts should have been stated truly; and you should have said, "We have got tired of this doctrine of non-intervention; it does not work to suit us; it has not yielded such practical fruits on the plains of Kansas as we anticipated; we have concluded to abandon it all, and go back to the old doctrine proclaimed by Yancey, at Baltimore, in 1848, and rejected by the convention by an almost unanimous vote." Now, sir, there is a difference of opinion, it seems, on this question, between me and a majority of the Democratic Senators. I regret that difference. It would have afforded me sincere and genuine satisfaction if I could have continued to hold the same relations on this ques gates to Charleston. The regular Democratic organization, known as the Douglas organization, the same organization that returned me to the Senate, the same organization that beat the Republicans and the Federal officeholders combined in 1858,-sent their delegates to Charleston, and the convention proceeded, with great deliberation and impartiality and integrity, to decide between them, and decided, by a unanimous vote, that the Federal officeholders of Illinois do not belong to the Democratic party[laughter]-rejected them by a unanimous vote. So far, therefore, as these "national Democrats" of Illinois, who, in order to carry out Democratic principles, sustained the Abolition candidates, are concerned, the party has unanimously decided, at Charleston, that they do not belong to the party. tion that I did formerly. It was painful to me to find that this difference of opinion had grown up, and that they had determined to make this new test by which my orthodoxy was to be questioned, and I was to be branded as a heretic. While I regretted that determination on the part of some political friends here, I cannot recognize, and I do not now recognize, the right of a caucus of the Senate, or of the House, to prescribe new tests for the Democratic party. Senators are not chosen for the purpose of making party platforms. That is no part of their duty. Under our political system there has grown up an organization known as a national convention, composed of delegates elected fresh from the people, to assemble once in four years to esta blish a platform for the party and select its nominees. The Cincinnati platform was the only authoritative exposition of Democratic faith until the Charleston convention met. I have stood firmly, faithfully by the Cincinnati platform, and have looked confidently to the Charleston convention to find it reaffirmed. You gentle-giving me a majority of fifty votes over all the men who differ with me agreed to appeal to Charleston as the grand council that should decide all differences of political opinion between you and me. I agreed, also, to look to the Charleston convention as the representatives of the party assembled from every State in the Union, and, after great deliberation, three days' debate in committee, and a very elaborate and able debate in full convention, the party determined, by an overwhelming majority, in favor of the readoption of the Cincinnati platform. The party decided at Charleston also, by a majority of the whole electoral college, that I was the choice of the Democratic party of America for the Presidency of the United States, other candidates combined; and yet my Democracy is questioned. [Laughter.] So far as I am individually concerned, I want no further or higher endorsement. I have arraigned no man. I have attempted to proscribe no man for differing with me in opinion. I have at all times said that I was willing to appeal to the grand council of the party assembled in national convention to decide these differences of opinion. They have decided them; decided in my favor on all points, -the platform, the organization, and, least of all, the individual. That is the least of all; for my friends who know me best know that I had no personal desire or wish for the nomination; know that I prefer a seat in the Senate for six years to being President, if I could have the nomination, and be elected by acclamation; and know that my name never would have been pre proscribe me as a heretic, too unsound to be the chairman of a committee in this body, where I have held a seat for so many years without a suspicion resting on my political fidelity. I have told you all the time during the existence of these differences of opinion, that I was in favor of the Cincinnati platform without the dotting of an i or the crossing of a t. The Charleston convention affirmed the same platform. I am no longer a heretic. I am no longer an outlaw from the Democratic party. I am no longer a rebel against the Democratic organiza-sented at Charleston, except for the attempt to tion. The Charleston convention repudiated this new test, contained in the Senate caucus resolutions, by a majority of twenty-seven, and affirmed the Cincinnati platform in lieu of it. Then, so far as the platform is concerned, I am sustained by the party,-the only authority on earth which, according to Democratic usages, can determine the Democratic creed. The question now is whether my friend from Mississippi will again acquiesce in the decisions of his party upon the platform which they have adopted, or is he going to retire from the party, bolt its nominations, break it up, because the party has concluded not to change from its position of 1856. Are my friends around me here going to desert the party because the party has not changed as suddenly as they have? I was forced to allow my name to go there in self-defence; and I will now say that had any gentleman, friend or foe, received a majority of that convention over me, the lightning would have carried a message withdrawing my name from the convention. I have not lust enough for office to desire to be the nominee against the known wishes and first choice of a majority of my party. In 1852, the instant Franklin Pierce had a majority vote, the telegraph carried my message congratulating him as the choice of the party; and it was read in the convention before the vote was announced. In 1856, the instant The country has often been told that I and my Mr. Buchanan received a majority vote, the lightfriends in Illinois were not acting in harmony ning carried my message that James Buchanan, with the Democratic organization. We have having received a majority of the votes of the said, in reply to that accusation, "We will ap- party, in my opinion, was entitled to the nomipeal to the national convention at Charleston and nation, and that I hoped my friends would give ascertain who constitute the Democratic party him the requisite two-thirds, and then make the in Illinois, whether it be the regular organiza-vote unanimous. Sir, I would scorn to be the tion that sustains me, or the federal officeholders that acted with the Republicans against The federal officeholders sent their dele me. standard-bearer of my party when I was not the choice of the party. All the honors that a national convention can confer are embraced in the declaration that I am the first choice of the party | ganize "committees of safety" all over the cotton States (and as their standard-bearer, repeated on nfty-seven ballots. I ask nothing more. The party will go on and do what its own interest and its own integrity may require. But, sir, I do rejoice that this good old Democratic party, the only organization now left sufficiently national and conservative in its principles and great in its numbers to preserve this Union, has determined to adhere to the great principle of non-intervention by the Federal Government with the domestic affairs of distant Territories and provinces. It is a pleasing duty to me to defend this glorious old party against those who would destroy it because the party will not change its platform to suit their purposes. The leadership at Charleston, in this attempt to divide and destroy the Democratic party, was intrusted to appropriate hands. No man possessed the ability, or the courage, or the sincerity in his object, for such a mission, in a higher degree than the gifted Yancey. He has a right to feel proud of his achievements at Charleston. In 1848, at Baltimore, he proclaimed the same doctrine, and failed to get a State to stand by him in seceding; there his doctrines were repudiated. Boldly and fear lessly he put his protest on record against the doctrine of non-intervention, and withheld his assent to the support of the nominee, because he conscientiously believed that the South ought to insist on the doctrine of intervention by Congress in support of slavery in the Territories when the people did not want it. Overruled by five or ten to one in Baltimore in 1848, overruled unanimously at Baltimore in 1852, in 1856 he concluded that perhaps he would make a virtue of necessity, and submit to non-intervention; and he got up instructions in favor of non-intervention, and succeeded in putting it in the platform, before the nomination of the candidate, in 1856. But very soon he came to the conclusion that this great Democratic party was not competent to preserve and maintain the rights of the South under the Constitution. He came to the conclusion that it was time to institute some other organization for the maintenance of southern rights. That he was conscientious and sincere in his views, I do not doubt; but that they lead directly, inevitably, to a dissolution of the Union, and the formation of a southern confederacy, if carried out, I think is beyond all question. Doubtless many Senators have seen the letter of Mr. Yancey to Mr. Slaughter, of the date of June 15, 1858, upon the subject of "PRECIPITATING THE COTTON STATES INTO REVOLUTION." In order that the Senate and the country may see that I do Mr. Yancey full justice, I shall have the whole letter read. Mr. PUGH read, as follows: MONTGOMERY, June 15, 1858. DEAR SIR: Your kind letter of the 15th is received. I hardly agree with you that a general movement can be made that will clear out the Augean stable. If the Democracy were overthrown, it would result in giving place to a greater and hungrier swarm of flies. The remedy of the South is not in such a process. It is in a diligent organization of her true men for the prompt resistance to the next aggression. It must come, in the nature of things. No national party can save us; no sectional party can ever do it. But if we could do as our fathers did-or ment)-we shall fire the southern heart, instruct the south it is only in them that we can hope for any effective move ern mind, give courage to each other, and, at the proper moment, by one organized, concerted action, we can precipitate the cotton States into a revolution. The idea has been shadowed forth in the South by Mr. Ruffin; has been taken up and recommended by the Adver tiser, under the name of "League of United Southerners," who, keeping up the old party relations on all other ques tions, will hold the southern issue paramount, and will influ ence parties, legislatures, and statesmen. I have no time to enlarge, but to suggest merely. In haste, yours, &c., W. L. YANCEY. Mr. DOUGLAS. That letter, it is due to Mr. Yancey to state, was intended as a private letter to his friend Mr. Slaughter, and was published without his authority. Having been republished and severely commented upon by the editor of the Richmond South, Mr. Yancey addressed a letter of explanation to Mr. PRYOR, in which he declared that it was a private letter, written in the freedom and carelessness of private confidence, and was subject to hostile criticism. Therefore, he proceeded to explain more fully what his views were upon the question. I have endeavored to obtain an entire and perfect copy of this letter to Mr. PRYOR, without success. I find, however, a long extract, embodying probably the whole of its material parts, in the National Intelligencer of September 4, 1858, which, I have no doubt, gives a fair representation of Mr. Yancey's opinions. Finding it in the Intelligencer, a newspaper so proverbial for its accuracy and its fairness, I doubt not that the extract does full justice to the writer. In the forepart of the letter, Mr. Yancey proceeds to say that, "to be candid, I place but little trust in such States as Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri." He has but little confidence in them. He then proceeds to give his reasons why he cannot trust them. Delaware he regards as nominally a slave State, but substantially anti-slavery. On that he differs in opinion from the distinguished Senator from Delaware, [Mr. BAYARD,] who thinks that Delaware has such an interest in slavery that it is worth while to break up the Democratic party on account of slavery. [Laughter.] But Mr. Yancey has not much faith in Delaware and Maryland. He cannot trust Maryland, because, he says, she keeps abolitionists in Congress. Then, he says, he cannot trust Missouri, because she, for a long time, sustained a Free-Soiler in the Senate, and afterwards in the House of Representativesalluding to Colonel Benton. Then, he says, he cannot trust Tennessee, because she kept an abolitionist here in the Senate so long, and reelected him; and besides, he says Tennessee never had his confidence since a Methodist conference refused to expunge certain anti-slavery opinions which John Wesley had inserted into the ritual. He cannot trust Kentucky, because Kentucky, for so many years, sustained such Free-Soilers as Clay and CRITTENDEN! [Laughter.] He then says: "I did not name Virginia. It is true I did not discrimi nate between Virginia and the other border States. My pur pose did not call for it." After giving his reasons why he could not trust the border slaveholding States which I have named, and why he proposed to plunge the cottor |