33D CONG....2D SESS.

And now, sir, as an effort in the true direction of the Constitution; in the hope of beginning the divorce of the National Government from slavery, and to remove all occasion for the proposed measure under consideration, I shall close what I have to say with a motion to repeal the Fugitive Act. Twice already, since I have had the honor of a seat on this floor, I have pressed that question to a vote, and I mean to press it again to-night. After the protracted discussion, involving the character of this enactment, such a motion seems logically to belong to this occasion, and may fitly close its proceedings.

At a former session, on introducing this proposition, I discussed it at length, in an argument, which I fearlessly assert has never been answered, and now, in this debate, I have already touched upon various objections. There are yet other things which might be urged. I might exhibit the abuses which have occurred under the Fugitive Act; the number of free persons it has doomed to slavery; the riots it has provoked; the brutal conduct of its officers; the distress it has scattered; the derangement of business it has caused; interfering even with the administration of justice, changing court-houses into barracks and barracoons, and filling streets with armed men, amidst which law is silent. All these things I might expose. But in these hurried moments, I forbear. Suffice it to say, that the proposition to repeal the existing Fugitive Act stands on adamantine grounds, which no debate in opposition can shake.

There are considerations belonging to the present period which give new strength to this proposition. Public opinion, which, under a popular Government, makes and unmakes laws, and which, for a time, was passive and acquiescent, now lifts itself everywhere in the States where the act is sought to be enforced, and demands a change. Already three States, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Michigan, by formal resolutions presented to the Senate, have concurred in this demand. The tribunals of law are joining at last with the people. The superior court of Cincinnati has denied the power of Congress over this subject. And now, almost while I speak, comes the solemn judgment of the Supreme court of Wisconsin-a sovereign State of this Union-made after elaborate argument, on successive occasions, before a single judge, and then before the whole bench, declaring this act to be a violation of the Constitution. In response to Public opinion, broad and general, if not universal at the North, swelling alike from village and city, from the seaboard and lakes-judicially attested, legislatively declared, and represented also, by numerous petitions from good men without distinction of partyin response to this Public Opinion, as well as in obedience to my own fixed convictions, I deem it my duty not to lose this opportunity of pressing the repeal of the fugitive slave act once more upon the Senate. I move, sir, to strike out all after the enacting clause in the pending bill, and insert instead thereof these words:

That the act of Congress, approved September 18, 1850, usually known as the "fugitive slave act," be, and the same hereby is, repealed.

And on this motion I ask the yeas and nays. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. President, I have no idea of irritating sectional differences. If gentlemen have the opinions which it seems the gentleman from Massachusetts entertains, be it so. I assure him I do not intend to bandy words with him. He talks as if he was disposed to maintain the Constitution of the United States; but if I were to put to him a question now, I would ask him one which he, perhaps, would not answer me honestly. Mr. SUMNER. I will answer any question. Mr. BUTLER. Then I ask you honestly now, whether, all laws of Congress being put out of the question, you would recommend to Massachusetts to pass a law to deliver up fugitives from slavery?

Mr. SUMNER. The Senator asks me that question, and I answer, frankly, that no temptation, no inducement, would draw me in any way to sanction the return of any man to slavery. But, then, I leave to others to speak for themselves. In this respect, I speak for myself.

Mr. BUTLER. I do not rise now at all to question the right of the gentleman from Massachusetts to hold his scat, under the obligation of

|

The Know-Nothings—Mr. Millson.

the Constitution of the United States, with the
opinions which he has expressed; but, if I under-
stand him, he means that whether this law, or that
law, or any other law prevails, he disregards the
obligations of the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. SUMNER. Not at all. That I never
said. I recognize the obligations of the Constitu-
tion.

Mr. BUTLER. He says he recognizes the obli-
gations of the Constitution of the United States.
I see, I know he is not a tactician, and I shall not
take advantage of the infirmity of a man who does
not know half his time exactly what he is about.
[Laughter.] But, sir, I will ask that gentleman
one question: if it devolved upon him as a repre-
sentative of Massachusetts, all Federal laws being
put out of the way, would he recommend any law
for the delivery of a fugitive slave under the Con-
stitution of the United States?

Mr. SUMNER. Never.

Mr. BUTLER. I knew that. Now, sir,
have got exactly what is the truth, and what I
intend shall go forth to the southern States. He
has chosen to speak of South Carolina's morality
and statutes; and his predecessor,[Mr. Win-
throp,] upon one occasion, brought up the same
subject. Since Mr. Winthrop first brought it up,
I have investigated it thoroughly. The former
Senator from Massachusetts brought it before us
on a letter from a Mr. Ramlett. Now, I intend
to make a commentary upon Massachusetts mo-
rality in contrast with what I think honesty would
require of anybody. As I learn the facts of the
case,
this man Ramlett, finding that himself and
his crew, three of them colored men, were going into
Charleston, took an opportunity of making some-
thing by salvage. They used the opportunity.
When the ship came into Charleston, those colored
men, his crew, were put into prison, under the
laws of South Carolina. I acknowledge that was
done under the police laws of that State. But,
sir, what do you think this New England, this
Massachusetts exponent of philanthropy did? He
left them in prison, went to Boston, and wrote a
most philanthropic letter, in which he said that
the laws of South Carolina had proscribed and
put into captivity citizens of Massachusetts! He
had in his pocket the money which those poor crea-
tures had enabled him to win, and yet he left them
in prison, when, with two dollars, he could have
reclaimed them. Yes, sir, this man, who could
have released his crew by the payment of two
dollars, left Charleston, went to Boston, and wrote
a philanthropic letter as to the rights of his crew;
and those poor creatures, who were entitled to
their freedom, were restored to it by slave owners,
gentlemen in Charleston paying the gaol fees.

Here is an instance where a man who sailed
in a Massachusetts vessel, in order to earn salvage,
carried those poor creatures into the city of
Charleston, and allowed them to remain there,
while he went home in his vessel and wrote letters
on philanthropy, when the money which he had in
his pocket, derived from their exertions could
have saved them from the situation in which they
were placed. Sir, Charleston gentlemen paid the
jail fees, and released those sailors; and, if I had
been the commander of that vessel, and a dog had
been my companion, and that dog had been taken
from me, I would have perished rather than have
deserted him. I would not only have paid two
dollars for him, but I would have stood by him to
the last at any hazard. But when those com-
panions were human beings, comrades who had
drank out of the same cup, and encountered the
same common storm, I would have been the last
man to abandon them, especially when two dollars
could have saved them. This man, however,
went to Boston, and wrote philanthropic letters,
instead of paying two dollars which belonged to
his poor men.

When the gentleman talks in the way he does, I choose to rebuke him. Any man who comes up here with a philanthropy inconsistent with what is practical justice and liberty, I do not say that I scorn him-I use no such word-but by heavens sooner than quit those two negroes, who had shared my fate in difficulty and in danger, I would have gone to any hazard that might be encountered in Charlesten. I would have readily paid two dollars; but Boston philanthropy was relieved by going home and writing a letter to a Senator.

HO. OF REPS.

The Senator from Massachusetts has alluded to the act under which these men were imprisoned. That act is still in force, but we are willing to relax it; and, indeed, under my advice, the Governor of South Carolina has recommended that it shall be entirely changed. I have pitied those poor creatures. I have felt for them as humble sailors Condemned by their condition to a situation to which they ought not to be subjected; but, sir, I have never understood anything in southern philanthropy that would reconcile an honorable gentleman to desert his sailors when he could reclaim them by the payment of two dollars.

The PRESIDENT. The Chair understands the Senator from Massachusetts to ask for the yeas and nays?

Mr. SUMNER.

Yes, sir.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. FESSENDEN. Before the vote is taken I merely wish to say that the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Foor,] and the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. CLAYTON,] both being unwell, have paired off on this bill.

The question being taken by yeas and rays on the amendment offered by Mr. SUMNER, resultedyeas 9, nays 30; as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Brainerd, Chase, Cooper, Fessenden, Gillette, Seward, Sumner, Wade, and Wilson-9.

NAYS-Messrs. Auams, Badger, Bayard, Bell, Benjamin, Bright, Brown, Butler, Clay, Dawson, Douglas, Filzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Hunter, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pettit, Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Thomson of New Jersey, Toucey, Weller, and Wright-30.

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. WELLER. I move to amend the bill by inserting in line twenty-five, after the word "processes, "the words "and all "depositions which may have been legally taken in the State courts, and all records duly authenticated which may have been filed as evidence in the case, shall be received and read as if taken in the courts to which the suit is transferred."

The amendment was agreed to.

The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amendments made as in Committee of the Whole were concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and the question was stated to be "Shall the bill pass?"

Mr. SEWARD, Mr. SUMNER, and others, called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

Mr. DAWSON. I desire to state that the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. PRATT,] in consequence of the illness of one of his children, was called away to-night, and therefore paired off with the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. WALKER }

resulted-yeas 29, nays 9; as follows:
The question being taken by yeas and nays,

YEAS-Messrs. Adams, Badger, Bayard, Bell, Benjamin,
Bright, Brown, Clay, Dawson, Douglas, Fitzpatrick, Geyer,
Gwin, Hunter, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, Mallo-
ry, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pettit, Rusk, Sebastian, Shields,
Slidell, Thomson of New Jersey, Toucey, Weller, and
Wright-29.

NAYS-Messrs. Brainerd, Chase, Cooper, Fessenden, Gillette, Seward, Sumner, Wade, and Wilson-9.

So the bill was passed; and, on motion, the Senate adjourned at twelve o'clock.

THE KNOW NOTHINGS.

SPEECH OF HON. J. S. MILLSON,
OF VIRGINIA,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

February 23, 1854.

Mr. MILLSON: I have received many letters inviting an expression of my views upon the new and secret society called Know-Nothings. At this busy period of the session, I have been unable, in separate replies, to communicate my opinions upon the subject. I have, therefore, determined to avail myself of this method of doing so. My constituents, I admit, are entitled to know what I think upon a subject which is beginning to assume a national importance, and though it is not yet directly and immediately connected with the legislation of Congress, it has been several times drawn into discussion here.

It may be that, from the mystery thrown

33D CONG....2D SESS.

APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.

around this new society, I am not sufficiently
acquainted with their principles and purposes to
form an intelligent opinion about them. There
seems, however, to be little doubt as to some of
their objects, or of the means by which they seek
to accomplish them, and it is to these I shall
confine the views I propose to throw out.

The Know-Nothings, then, are understood to
be a political party whose constitution, forms of
proceedings, obligations, and resolves, are all kept
secret. Their disciples are secretly admitted, and,
it is said, are bound by oath to conform them-
selves, under certain circumstances, to the will
and dictation of others. It is said they are sever-
ally enjoined to conceal their membership, and
that they even suppose themselves at liberty-to
deny it. Of their ultimate objects I am, of course,
not informed; but it is believed they aim at the
exclusion from civil and political offices of every
citizen of foreign birth, and of all persons profess-
ing the Roman Catholic religion. From the results
of many recent elections it seems they would
even exclude those also that are neither Catholics
nor foreigners who will not aid them in their de-
signs. If, sir, in attributing to them these designs
and practices, any injustice is done them, the
blame must rest upon themselves. The secrecy
they have adopted may excuse any misconception,
which publicity would prevent or remove.

The Know-Nothings—Mr. Millson.

served censure.
tions of policy are persuaded to dissemble them,
do a wrong to society, and are subject to a de-
is indispensable to their success, is unworthy of
the advocates of the Know-Nothings that secrecy
The wretched excuse urged by
serious refutation. It would estimate the lawful-
effect the end desired. It would make success the
ness of any means not by a consideration of their
touchstone of morality. There is no crime that
intrinsic propriety, but only by their capacity to
might not be justified on such principles when its
objects.
commission would promote the success of our

ings that are supposed to excuse the employment
But what are these designs of the Know-Noth-
opposed to the habits of our people? I confess
of means so improper in themselves, and so much
listened to speeches avowedly made for the pur-
myself unable to form any definite conclusion as
to what they are. I have read newspapers and
ject as to leave me very much in doubt. Opposi-
pose of explaining them, but there has been such
a remarkable contrariety of statement upon the sub-
the burden of one; while another, disclaiming all
hostility to either, would avow his willingness to
tion to foreigners and Roman Catholics would be
suitable qualifications. Some would maintain that
vote for both Catholics and foreigners possessing
the chief object of this new association is to pre-
serve the union of the States, while others pleased
good fellowship between the North and the South.
themselves with the fancy that their mission was
Sir, I cannot help suspecting that the real object of
to suppress the slavery agitation and to restore
the greater number is to prostrate both the parties,
themselves of power and place; and that to secure
of Democrats and Whigs, that they may possess
adroitly flattered. The workingman is excited to
jeolousy of foreign competition. The fears of the
this end the various prejudices of the people are
religious Protestant are stimulated by exaggerated
ment is soothed and caressed, until, from all quar-
accounts of the spread of popery throughout the
land. In every locality each interest and senti-
nothing but a willingness to surrender the great
principles of constitutional construction which had
ters of the Union, men spring up, agreeing in
made them either Democrats or Whigs, and to
unite in a common organization, which, from the
accomplish any one of the objects professedly
sought. The greater part of what they desire
very nature of the case, must be impotent to
the little that is allowed to be brought within the
sphere of legal enactment, will fall far short of
cannot be the subject of legislation at all, while
their wishes and expectations.

Sir, I cannot conceal my regret and alarm at the effort to accomplish such purposes by such means." That honest and intelligent men should connect themselves with a political party seeking to elect its candidates without subjecting them to a public canvass of their qualifications and pretensions, would excite my surprise, whatever might be their objects, and though they were openly avowed. But that such men should, bind themselves 'to a blind submission to the will of others, though it might be in opposition to their own sense of right-that they should either actively aid, or, by inaction, suffer the elevation of unworthy or incompetent men to positions of high public trustthat they should bury the truth, by concealing, or violate it by denying their membership of such an association-and all this for the purpose of effecting results so irreconcilable with the teachings of an enlarged philanthropy, and so foreign to the spirit of Christian charity, fills me, not merely with surprise, but with sadness. Under whatever delusion they may now be acting, it is impossible it can be of long continuance. Sir, it is an instinct of our nature to utter the truth. It requires an effort, and a painful effort, to repress it, much more to violate it. It cannot be that any sophistry can permanently ingraft upon our moral code the wretched fallacy that, in our communications with one another, it is allowable to deceive, either by the express utterance of falsehoods, or But, sir, were it even otherwise, why organize by a studied concealment of facts. The road to a party for this specific purpose? May not all truth never did lie through error; and he who Whigs or Democrats, invest with authority? Can that can be effected by legislative means be safely thinks he may borrow the livery of the devil to left to the wisdom of those whom the people, as serve God in-that he may promote the cause of perience, more patriotism than may be found in religion by a sacrifice of truth, forgets that it was this new society command more talent, more exagainst this very species of falsehood, the punish-parties they have withdrawn themselves, and there ment of Ananias and his wife was intended to the existing party? Why, it is from these very warn us.

When I see upright, worthy, pious men-I do not mean your mere men of honor; I speak of far nobler characters, men of honesty and conscienceyielding to these horrid delusions, plotting, caballing, prevaricating, deceiving, my whole moral nature receives a shock, and I almost become a skeptic in the existence of human virtue. I am, therefore, most reluctant to believe that such obligations are assumed, or that such practices prevail. For the sake of our common humanity, I hope they do not. position that the general charge against them is I speak only upon the sup correct. If it be not, my animadversion does not apply to them; but who shall say they are not justly subject to it, if it be true?

But, sir, it is not less a duty to confess, to avow, to publish the truth, than to abstain from its violation. No man has a right to conceal his principles. It is by an interchange of views that truth is elicited; and the obligation is almost as great to save others from error as to adopt right principles for ourselves. Opinions often borrow just weight from the personal character of those who profess them; and they who, from whatever considera

confided to men entertaining opinions in accord-
can surely be no ground for their apprehension
that the public interests will be neglected because
ance with their own upon other subjects of great
national concernment.

which the Democratic and Whig parties were or-
It is a grave error to suppose that the purposes for
the most important questions of party antagonism
ganized have been accomplished, and that they may
have been settled; but it was not for these, or for
now be safely disbanded. It is true that some of
any other especial objects that the two parties have
been called into being. The difference between
questions do not arise invoking the application of
them is organic, and must, from its very nature,
be perpetual. Scarcely a day now passes in which
hold their ancient doctrines in so little reverence
the distinctive principles of the two great parties.
Can it be possible that the Whigs of the country
ganization? Will they abandon principles which,
as to be willing to surrender them to this new or-
from the foundation of the Government, divided
the American mind, and been dignified by the
however erroneous we may deem them, have,
advocacy of such illustrious names as those of
Hamilton, Marshall, and Webster? Will they

247

HO. OF REPS.

consent to the dissolution of such a party, or
constitutional construction?
rary objects, and founded on no principles of
ing from a temporary occasion, devoted to tempo-
allow it to be absorbed in an association, spring-

ing injustice of any persecution or proscription
political elections. I speak not now of the glar-
Let them reflect, too, upon the mischiefs likely
tendency, from the known laws and sympathies
to spring from a canvass of religious creeds in our
on account of religious faith. I speak not of its
of the Roman Catholic be attacked, is it to be sup-
of prudence, of policy, of wisdom. If the creed
of our nature, to help the very cause attempted to
be exterminated. I present it as a mere question
cation? Will not the doctrines of the Protestant
posed he will content himself with simple vindi-
churches be assailed in turn? And by whom, sir,
the Reformation by the mere force of argument and
subject. If Martin Luther, standing alone against
are they to be defended? Now, I entertain no fear
all the powers of Church and State, established
of the results of enlightened discussion upon this
reason; if that Reformation has spread through-
as to the results of a fair, open, intelligent dis-
out the world until it numbers its supporters by
hundreds of millions, I can feel no sort of doubt
sir, as a Protestant, and a member of a Protestant
church, I protest against confiding this charge to
cussion of its claims to universal acceptance. But,
defense of my religion to the worldling, who,
perhaps, looks upon all forms of religious faith
the mere politician, who knows as little as he
cares about even the rudiments of the faith he is
set up to defend. I protest against confiding the
further knowledge of God than as a phrase to give
knows nothing more of the errors of the Church
with equal indifference or contempt, and has no
of Rome than that it is his part, as a Know-Noth-
point to his profanity. I protest against confiding
the defense of Protestantism to the demagogue who
intelligently than Dickens's raven, which chat-
ing, to profess opposition to them, and who can
much appreciation of congruities. If our religious
discuss the doctrines of the Reformation not more
tered about "Protestant kettles" with quite as
tenets are to be drawn into argument on the hust-
Wilberforces and Soame Jenynses competent to
maintain them against the keen assaults of our
ings-if political elections are to turn upon the
conclusions of voters concerning them-I fear we
shall find among the laymen of the country few
into the political arena to defend Protestant Chris-
opponents. And though a minister of the gospel
may here and there be found, willing to come down
fess I think it safer to depend on the Barrows
tianity, and his own title to popular favor, I con-
and Adam Clarks.
and the Stillingfleets, the Jonathan Edwardses

ture of our Government than any attempt to con-
State? In most countries nearly all the transactions
But, sir, what can be more opposed to the struc-
erty, liberty, religion, industry, are matters of
nect questions of conscience with the affairs of
governmental control. The rights of the subject
of life are subject to the general regulation. Prop-
made a wide departure from these old systems.
are concessions to him from his rulers, not reser-
vations from his grants to them.
government of a majority-not the government of
But we have
We have determined on self-government-not the
good order of the State, and self-control is relin-
self government. Each man retains the very largest
quished only in a few well defined cases, in which
others, or government by others, but, emphatically,
the public welfare demands that the will of the
sum of his personal rights consistent with the
majority shall prevail. Among the rights thus
reserved from the interference of all others-and
gious faith and religious profession has been ex
not merely reserved, but guarded and fortified-is
pressly stipulated. We thought this an improve-
that of liberty of conscience. Freedom of reli-
example has not been without its effect in miti-
ment upon the systems of the Old World. Other
gating the rigors of their religious establishment.
nations, too, seem to have thought so, as our
of social powers. They would reëstablish the
But a large portion of our people appear to be of
a different opinion. They would diminish the
sum of personal rights and increase the mass

!

33D CONG....2D SESS.

dependence of religion upon government. They would sit in judgment upon the creeds of others, and apply all the penalties the laws leave them free to inflict. They would supply the absence of constitutional tests by a popular exclusion hardly less rigorous.

The State of Parties, &c.-Mr. Yates.

indicate, as I think, the manner in which it will happen. It will not be from design or choice, but unsought and unexpected. Once in every period of It comes at four years this danger must recur. every election for President. Any disastrous failure, by the electors first, and by the House of RepreWill it be said that the aim of the Know-Noth-sentatives afterwards, to choose a President of the ings is not so much to assail the religious creed of United States, would dissolve the Government, and produce a catastrophe for which the Constitution the Catholic, as to guard against the dangers resulting from his supposed allegiance to a foreign makes no provision. In such an event, so much to be deplored-and which few would not submit Potentate? Sir, were such allegiance admitted, our to almost any sacrifice to avert-it would be diffiexisting laws are entirely adequate to punish the treason it might prompt. For mere opinion they cult, if not impossible, for the States to agree upon new conditions of Union. Should the present Conapply no penalty, but opinion, when it induces crime, is never allowed to bar the punishment stitution ever be lost, I fear it would not be practicable to agree upon another. Of one thing; sir, I which the crime itself provokes. A Congress of feel assured, that it would never be by enlarging, Know-Nothings could not frame more rigorous but rather by greatly diminishing, the powers now laws than our statute-book already contains, for every case of disobedience to the rightful author- delegated to the General Government. ity of our own Government.

Another object, sir, attributed to the Know-Noth
ings is a repeal or modification of the laws admitting
foreigners to naturalization, and the exclusion of
foreign-born citizens from civil and political office.
As to the first point, I cannot but express my
regret that any attempt should be made to control
its decision by invoking prejudices, on the one
side or the other. It is a simple question of ordi
nary statesmanship and governmental policy, de
pendent upon the number, habits, character, and
condition of foreign emigrants; and no man should,
in advance, announce any fixed determination on
a subject which, from its very nature, must be
governed by shifting circumstances. Nor would
it be more wise to apply an unbending rule to the
election or appointment of persons of foreign birth
to the various offices of the country. Shall it be
said, that in a contest between an honest, worthy,
and well-qualified foreigner, and a native citizen
of opposite character, the latter must always be
preferred? Is there any occasion for jealousy or
alarm, when the people, or the Government, in a
case of superior merit or qualification, select as
their agent a foreign-born citizen competent to
render the service, exacted for their own good
rather than for his? I should dislike to see it
made a common practice to bestow the offices of
the country upon foreigners, and no sensible
foreigner would desire it should be done. There
are some offices, indeed, such as that of represent-
ative of our country at a foreign court, in which I
do not wish to see them at any time. But I think
these things may be safely left to the ordinary
control and management of the people. They do
not demand or justify the formation of a new party,
when there is no reason to doubt that the people
of all parties entertain just views upon the sub-
ject.

I must not, however, forbear to mention that
many editors and politicians, who are now zeal
ous defenders of the Know-Nothing organization,
warmly supported the Nebraska bill, which allows
unnaturalized foreigners to exercise the privilege
both of voting and holding office. To me, this
provision of the bill was a serious objection, and
desired, as did many others, to confine these
rights to citizens of the United States alone.
some of those who loudly complain of a foreign
influence in the country, and are, at this time, in
high favor with the Know-Nothings, first voted to
cut off all opportunity of amendment or change,
and then gave their votes for the bill in the form
in which it passed.

But

The preservation of the Union is said, sir, to be
one of the objects of the Know-Nothings. This,
indeed, is sometimes claimed as the chief merit, if
not the prominent design, of the society. To be
sure, this is a very praiseworthy purpose, in
which, I trust, they will not be alone; but their
active agency is as unnecessary, as it is likely to
prove mischievous. I know no greater danger
that threatens the Union than the organization of
I have no fear
this Know-Nothing party itself.
of a dissolution of the Union from a voluntary
secession of any of its members. There never
was a time when I myself would have consented
to secession, as there has never been an occasion
that, in my opinion, justly provoked it.

And yet, sir, there are dangers to the Union-re-
curring at periodical intervals, exciting no apprehen-
sions-but which, if dissolution should ever come,

It will be seen at a glance, that as new parties
are formed in the country, and as new States are
added to the Union, the danger of a failure to
choose a President is greatly augmented. When
the people and their representatives are divided
into only two parties the danger is scarcely appre
ciable; but the risk is fearfully enhanced by the
addition of a third. The number of candidates
will increase with the increase of parties. Each
will be supported by his retainers and advocates,
and the people, broken into factions, will so divide
their suffrages as not to secure a majority of votes
to any. Ambition, hatred, pride, revenge, stimu-
lated by a struggle in which the fiercest passions
might be called into exercise, would disincline all
to yield; and the failure to make a choice-hardly
possible in a contest between only two competi
tors would thus precipitate the very calamities
which it is the boasted object of this new party to
prevent.

In every aspect, then, in which I view this new
society-its origin, progress, objects, doctrines,
practices, and results-there is much to awaken the
most melancholy reflections. It is one of the many
prodigies that have appeared in these remarkable
times. Sir, is it not strange that this age of unequaled
enlightenment should, at the same time, be one of
unexampled credulity? The wonderful discov-
eries of science, in seeming to remove every barrier
to human progress, may, perhaps, have led us to
reject all notions of impossibility, and we believe,
too easily, that what may be, is. Superstition and
philosophy go hand in hand, because we will not
distinguish between the actual and the possible.
But we should not have supposed this had we not
so many evidences of its truth. One would think
that these sublime discoveries in physical science
would liberalize and elevate the mind. One would
think that the contemplation of the glories revealed
to us by astronomy would rebuke every narrow
prejudice, unite us in one common brotherhood,
and incline us to a common worship of the Creator.
Let us think of them a moment. Standing on this
little globe-so small that we are hardly more
remote than eight thousand miles from any part
of its surface-we see the planets of our system
revolving round the sun, at distances of hundreds
of millions of miles; and beyond them-suns of
other worlds, centers of other systems-the innu-
merable hosts of stars, distant from us countless
millions of millions of miles. We burn with intense
desire to know something of these bright orbs.
We wonder whether-as some philosophers, rea-
soning from the strong analogies of nature, main-
tain-they are the abode of beings like ourselves;
or whether, as the sterner logic of some others
would almost force us to conclude, they are a
dreary chaos; and we are impatient of the restraints
that bind us to our narrow home.

From such contemplations as these, we turn
our eyes to the petty globe we inhabit-a mere
speck, an atom, not filling, in the comparison, the
space of the point of the finest needle-and see man,
repulsing his fellow as an alien and a foreigner,
and grudging him even the poor privilege of learn-
ing something more of his own little earth.

Sir, it is when beholding these solecisms in human conduct, we feel most perplexed as to the ultimate designs of the Creator; and with a just appreciation of our own nescience, each one of us is ready to exclaim with Socrates, "I know nothing-all that I know is, that I KNOW NOTHING.

THE STATE OF PARTIES, THE CONDITION OF
THE UNION, AND A PUBLIC POLICY.
SPEECH OF HON. RICHARD YATES,
OF ILLINOIS,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
February, 28, 1855.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union

Mr. YATES said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: Some time ago, when the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STEPHENS] addressed the committee on the Nebraska question, and the result of the last fall elections on that question, I was anxious to have obtained the floor for the purpose of a reply, and took notes for that purpose. 1, however, did not succeed in getting the floor. I had not wholly abandoned my purpose of reply. ing, when, on last night, the debate sprang up afresh, and the positions assumed by the gentleman from Georgia were in substance assumed by other gentlemen, and I determined, if I could get the floor, to give my views upon the subject. By your good favor, Mr. Chairman, I now have the floor, and shall proceed, not very methodically, I fear, to express my views.

I was surprised to hear the gentleman from Georgia say, that the result of the elections returning to the next Congress an overwhelming majority opposed to the repeal of the Missouri compromise, was no test of the popular sentiment of the free States on that subject; when, in fact, in the whole history of legislation, from the first present time, no public measure ever met with dawnings of our national existence down to the such withering and blasting popular condemnation as did the Nebraska bill, and its authors and abettors. This condemnation has swept over that measure and its authors like a sirocco, wasting and destroying, to stand forever, I trust, an effectual and perpetual admonition to politicians, that sacred compromises are not to be trampled on with impunity; that the great inalienable and eternal principles of freedom and humanity are not to be sacrificed to the moloch of ambition, and crushed beneath the iron heel of tyrannical those elections, American freedom has proudly legislative majorities. Yes, sir, by the results of capable of rising superior to the domination of and nobly vindicated herself, and shown herself I repeat, sir, I was astounded at the attempt of political parties and aspiring political leaders. the honorable gentleman from Georgia to evade the force of this popular condemnation by the plea, that the elections were no test of the popular sentiment of the country. The speech was absolutely novel in this fruitless adventure to gloss over a defeat so palpable and glaring. It took the House by surprise, and was interesting for its very boldness and novelty. Ohio elected her antiNebraska Governor with a popular majority of eighty thousand, and sent her unbroken delegation of twenty-four members opposed to the Nebraska bill. Pennsylvania did almost the same; Indiana, Iowa, New York, and other States almost the same; and yet, sir, the gentleman from Georgia asserted the Nebraska question "had nothing to do with it." Now, sir, it so happens, it is a part of the history of the times-and history of such recent occurrence, that to deny it is strange indeed, -that almost the only question discussed in all these elections was the Nebraska bill. Every political paper teemed with its columns full, pro and con., on this question. The old questions of tariff and internal improvement were lost sight of, and the contest was fought, hand to hand and hilt to hilt, upon the bill of Judge DOUGLAS and the Administration to repeal the law of 1820, which had forever consecrated the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska to freedom. That other matters were brought collaterally into the contest, as they are in every election, I do not deny; but that the Nebraska question was the great, the controlling, the dominant question, no man can truthfully deny. The issue had been made up in the Senate and the House at the last session. It was made by the Senator from Illinois, who all the time proclaimed that he was ready to go before the people upon the merits of his bill.

33D CONG....2D SESS.

State of Illinois in spite of the ordinance of 1787, and of its so far insinuating itself into the interests of that young people as to array in its favor a respectable minority at the formation of our State constitution. It was in vain we urged the fact that it required but a few slaves, in the first instance, to establish the character of the Territory for slavery; that a few slaves in New Orleans had made Louisiana a slave State; a few slaves in St. Louis had made Missouri a slave State; that twenty slaves landed from a Dutch man of war on the coast of Virginia, had darkened with the curse of slavery that old mother of States from that time to this. It was in vain that we referred to the aggressive spirit of slavery, that she wanted more territory, more States, more Senators and Representatives, more political power, to nationalize slavery, to make it the dominant and ascendant policy of the Government. By such and numerous other arguments we endeavored to point out the strong probabilities of Kansas becoming a slave State under the operation of that clause in the Nebraska bill which left the people of the Territory" perfectly free to regulate their institutions in their own way.'

But, sir, we were met by our opponents, and the idea that slavery would go there was laughed at as an absurdity; it could not get there; and if it did, the people would exclude it." And not only this, they went still further, and contended, that the repeal of the Missouri compromise would be the means of establishing freedom, not only in Kansas, but also south of the line of 360 30'; for these gentleman had not the candor to tell the people that the Missouri compromise did not, in the slightest degree, effect the territory south of 360 30', either for freedom or slavery. And, sir, for pointing out these dangers of the extension of slavery, we were denounced as agitators, as the allies of Abolitionists and fanatics, as the enemies of freedom and self-government, while our opponents claimed that they were the peculiar friends of the freedom of Kansas and all south of 360 30', and the true friends of the country and the Union. I now repeat, sir, had the people of the State of Illinois been impressed with the serious conviction that the effect of the Kansas bill would have been to ingraft slavery on the young limbs of that infant Territory, I believe, sir, she would not have returned a single member to Congress known to favor that bill.

And now, sir, what has been the result? Scarce two months had elapsed, and the designs of the South were made clearly manifest. Kansas now has her Delegate on this floor, whose views, 1 believe, are well known to be favorable to making that Territory a slave State. The second highest functionary in the Government, the acting Vice President of the United States, was, as we are informed, but a few months since upon the confines of that Territory, making harangues to the people in favor of carrying out his darling project of southern institutions in Kansas, and erecting there, where free labor was to have had her home, and freedom to have erected her temples, another altar to the God of human bondage. There, sir, has been illustrated and displayed to the gaze of Christendom the beautiful workings of that system of self-government, which elicited the eulogies of the Senator from Illinois and the gentleman from Georgia. There, sir, if reports be true, the great question of human freedom has been decided in the Territory of Kansas, not by the people of the Territory who were to govern themselves, but by the people of another State.

Ah! sir, did the gentleman from Georgia, at the last session of Congress, when silence reigned along these aisles, and the people's Representatives gathered around him, and listening ears bent over these parapets, and beauty's bright eye flashed from the galleries upon that eloquent Georgian, did he dream that before the moon had waxed and waned three times, we should have such a practical delineation of the great principles of popular sovereignty for which he contended? The materials of our own country were not sufficient. The musty records of the past were scarce ample enough to afford scope for his illustrations of the grandeur and greatness of the great principles of popular sovereignty. He stood in Parliament where the younger Pitt stood when he thundered against Lord North and the tyranny of the

The State of Parties, &c.—Mr. Yates.

British Crown towards the infant Colonies. He
ranged himself by the side of Webster, when,
driven from Faneuil Hall, he planted himself
upon the compromises, the Constitution, and the
Union. Ah! sir, here was the mistake of the
gentleman; he fought, not as Pitt did, for universal
freedom, for the God-given, natural and inalienable
rights of all men, for the right of every people to
govern themselves, but he fought for the right of
a people to govern others; not for freedom, but for
an extension of that sort of despotism which
sullies our national escutcheon, and concerning
which Jefferson said he "trembled for his coun-
try when he knew that God was just."

I say the result is known. Kansas is on the road
to slavery. Some gentlemen may say Kansas will
still be free. Deceive not yourself. Without the
interposition of Congress, Kansas is doomed, and
doomed forever, to slavery.

When, on the 23d day of January, 1854, the bill for the territorial government of Nebraska was amended in two important particulars, one for the repeal of the Missouri compromise, and the other for the creation of two Territories instead of one, it was not difficult to divine what had been the deliberations of caucuses and committee rooms; it was not difficult to know that freedom had yielded to slavery, and that two Territories were to be created upon the principle of compromisethat Kansas was to be slave, and that Nebraska might stand her chance for freedom. The South will never consent that a free State shall come into the Union without a slave State is also admitted as a countervailing force. For every star of light and freedom which is to shine in our political constellation, she must have her corresponding orb of darkness and slavery.

HO. OF REPS.

those fair regions-not free men-not human beings in the full proportions and God-like image of free men; but with the limping, halting gate of slaves and bondmen. This, sir, is the great national movement of the age. It was the boast of the Irish orator, that the moment a slave put his foot upon British soil, his chains and shackles fall, and he breathed the air of emancipation; but it is to be our boast, it is to be the ensign of our progress, that we have set aside the law which made our soil forever free, and given full license on that soil to establish slavery. The gentleman's progress is a fearful step backwards. Washington, and Jefferson, and many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and many of the framers of the Constitution were slaveholders, but they were the purest minded men of any age or clime-the picked men of the world, and seeing the wrong and evils of slavery, they denounced it as the supreme curse of the country, and they left on record an imperishable monument of their detestation of slavery. They imposed a duty on the importation of slaves, and provided for its prohibition altogether in a limited period after the adoption of the Constitution; and from the first territory acquired by the United States, and from all the territory then owned, they prohibited slavery by the ordinance of 1787.

But, sir, Washington, and Jefferson, and Franklin, were, I suppose, all Old Fogies; and, not understanding the great principles of self-government or squatter sovereignty, in their blindness, deprived the people of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, of the great blessings of that peculiar self-government for which Young America, in this age of Christian and enlightened progress, now contends. The error of the gentleman from Georgia consists in the confounding of right and wrong, and in denying to one class all rights, natural and civil. I maintain that, as slavery is a violation of natural right, of every law, human and divine, and involves the great wrong of giving to one man the labor of another, sunders the dearest of human ties, separates the husband from the wife, and the father from the child; therefore, I say that to insist upon the right to establish slavery as an act of self-government is the veriest absurdity, and that the exercise of such a right, so far from being the act of self government, is the act of absolute despotism.

Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of giving the people the broadest latitude in deciding every question for themselves, consistent with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the well-defined principles of free government. And, sir, if Kansas were a separate empire, in no way connected with us, or bound to us, then, according to our policy of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations, while we might deeply deplore, we could not interpose against, the establishment of slavery, the existence of polygamy, or the legalization of any institution however variant from our form of government, at war with human rights or the genius of our civilization. But these Territories are united to us by the closest relations. They belong to us-the people of all the States-and they propose to come in as partners in our great American partnership, and as States in our great brotherhood of confederated Commonwealths. And is it nothing to us what institutions they may have? Is it nothing to us that they propose to establish an institution which places the weak in the power of the strong, an institution which, from the beginning of our national existence to the present hour, has been, and still continues to be, almost the only element of

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia, in a sort of rhapsody, declared the Nebraska bill "a great national movement" as "a grand step in the progress which characterized the age.' One would infer, from such extravagant eulogy, that some new principle in political economy had been discovered, which was to constitute an epoch in our national progress, and to ameliorate the condition of the world. What does he mean? The right of a people to establish slavery if they desire it? This is his great national movement; it can be nothing else; for the right of a people to govern themselves, in the true sense of self govern ment, can certainly be no new principle to Amercans. This right was consecrated by the blood of Bunker Hill, is proclaimed in the Declaration of American Independence, is secured in the Constitution of the United States, and is now enjoyed by every State of the Union. Does he mean to say, that a prohibition of slavery in a Territory is the denial of a right of self-government? As well might he say that a prohibition of orders of nobility was a deprival of the right of self-government. Will the people of Indiana, or Illinois, admit that they were deprived of the blessings of self-government, simply because they were interdicted by the ordinance of 1787 from establishing slavery? The argument of the gentleman is, that every system of self-government is, and has been, incomplete which deprived the people of the Territories of the right to hold their fellow beings in bondage. No, sir, it is a misnomer. The gentleman misnames, as self government, what is no less than a denial of the first principles of justice, right, and humanity. His self-government means not, that one class of people may govern themselves, but that they shall have the control of others, that the labors and burdens of society shall be borne by one class and its advantages and blessings enjoyed by another. Tell it not in Washington, not to the Rep-antagonism and of disturbance in our midst, and resentatives of a free people, not beneath the stars and stripes which float from the dome of our Capitol, that our systems of self-government in the great Northwest have all been incomplete, because they have been prohibited from establishing slavery there. This great national movement of the gentleman, then, is self government for the Terrilories; which, according to that gentleman, means to govern others, not ourselves. Under the sacred name of liberty we establish slavery; under the sacred plea of self-government we darken the bright domains of Kansas and Nebraska-upon which the stars of Heaven have, for six thousand years shined as free territory-with the pall of slavery. We ask for the right to send men into

which statesmen look forward to as the only rock upon which our noble ship of State may be stranded.

Gentlemen seem to forget that the Territories are not sovereign, that the Constitution imposes upon the General Government the paternal duty of providing for their wants, and supervising their legislation, until the sovereignty of Congress ceases, and that that sovereignty ceases only with the admission of the Territories into the Union as States. Thus, and thus only, the power of the General Government ceases, and State sovereignty rests and then the State, in the full exercise of that sovereignty, may establish its own institutions, and is responsible in her sovereign capacity to