Abbildungen der Seite

lavery or the holding of persons as property within said Ter-! Which was rejected-Yeas, 23; Nays, 88. itory."

After various other amendments had been offered and Upon these amendments-the one affirming the Pro- voted upon--all relating to the power of the Territorial Slavery, and the other the Anti-Slavery position, in oppo- Legislature over Slavery-Mr. Douglas moved to strike out dtion to the right of the people of the Territories to de- all relating to African Slavery, so that the Territorial Le cide the Slavery question for themselves--Mr. Douglas said: gislature should have the same power over that question

"The position that I have ever taken has been, that this, as over all other rightful subjects of legislation consistens and all other questions relating to the domestic affairs and

with the Constitution which amendment was rejeeted. domestic policy of the Territories, vught to be left to the deci. After the rejection of this amendment, the discussion was sion of the people themselves, and that we ought to be con renewed with great ability and depth of feeling in respect tent with whatever way they may decide the question, because

to the powers which the Territorial Legislature should exthey have a much deeper interest in these matters than we

ercise upon the subject of Slavery. Various propositions have, and know much better what institutions suit them than We, who have never been there, can decide for them. I would

were made, and amendments offered and rejected-all retherefore have much preferred that that portion of the bill lating to this one controverted point--when Mr. Norris, of should have remained as it was reported from the Committee New Hampshire, renewed the motion of Mr. Douglas, to on Territories, with no provision on the subject of Slavery, strike out the restriction on the Territorial Legislature in the one way or the other. And I do hope yet that that clause

respect to African Slavery. On the 31st of July this will be stricken out. I am satisfied, sir, that it gives no strength to the bill. I am satisfied, even if it did give strength to it,

amendment was adopted by à vote of 32 to 19-restoring that it ought not to be there, because it is a violation of princi

this section of the bill to the form in which it was reported ple-a violation of that principle upon which we have all from the Committee on Territories on the 25th of March. rested our defense of the course we have taken on this ques and conferring on the Territorial Legislature power over tion. I do not see how those of us who have taken the posi- "all rightful subiects of legislation consistent with the tion we have taken-that of non-intervention-and have argued

| Constitution of the United States," uithout excepting in favor of the right of the people to legislate for themselves African Slaner on this question, can support such a provision without abandoning all the arguments which we used in the Presidential

Thus terminated this great struggle in the affirmance of campaign in the year 1848, and the principles set forth by the the principle, as the basis of the Compromise Measures of honorable Senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass) in that letter 1850, so far as they related to the organization of the Terwhich is known as the 'Nicholson Leuer.' We are required ritories, that the people of the Territories should decide to abandon that platform; we are required to abandon those

the Slavery question for themselves through the action principles, and to stultify ourselves, and to adopt the opposite

of their Territorial Legislature. . doctrine and for what? In order to say that the people of the Territories shall not huve such institutions as they shall deem

This controverted question having been definitely setadapted to their condition and their wants. I do not see, sir, tled, the Senate proceeded on the same day to consider the how such a provision can be acceptable either to the people other portions of the bill, and after striking out all except of the North or the South."

those provisions which provided for the organization of the Upon the question of how many inhabitants a Territory

Territory of Utah, ordered the bill to be engrossed for a should contain before it should be formed into a political third reading, and on the next day-August 1, 1850—the community with the rights of self-government, Mr. Doug

bill was read a third time, and passed. las said:

On the 14th of August the bill for the organization of the “The Senator from Mississippi puts the question to me as to

Territory of New Mexico was taken up, and amended so what number of people there must be in a Territory before

as to conform fully to the provisions of the Utah Act in rethis right to govern themselves accrues. Without determining spect to the power of the Territorial Legislature over" all the precise number, I will assume that the right ought to rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constiaccrue to the people at the moment they have enough to con tution,” without excepting African Slavery, and was orstitute a government; and, sir, the bill assumes that there are dered to be engrossed for a third reading without a divipeople enough there to require a government, and enough to sion. an

sion; and on the next day the bill was passed-Yeas, 27; authorize the people to govern themselves...... Your bill concedes that a representative government is necessary

Nays, 10. a government founded upon the principles of popular sove

These two bills were sent to the House of Representareignty and the right of a people to enact their own laws; and tives, and passed that body without any alteration in refor this reason you give them a Legislature composed of two spect to the power of the Territorial Legislatures over the branches, like the Legislatures of the different States and

subject of Slavery, and were approved by President FillTerritories of the Union. You confer upon them the right to

more, September 9, 1850. legislate on all rightful subjects of legislation,' except negroes. Why except negroes? Why except African Sla

In 1852, when the two great political parties-Whig and very? If the inhabitants are competent to govern themselves

Democratic-into which the country was then divided, asupon all other subjects, and in reference to all other descrip | sembled in National Convention at Baltimore for the purtions of property--if they are competent to make laws and pose of nominating candidates for the Presidency and determine the relations between husband and wife, and pa- Vice-Presidency, each Convention adopted and allirmed rent and child, and municipal laws affecting the rights and

the principles embodied in the Compromise Measures of property of citizens generally, they are competent also to make laws to govern themselves in relation to Slavery and

1850 as rules of action by which they would be governed in negroes."

all future cases in the organization of Territorial governWith reference to the protection of property in slaves,

ments and the admission of new States. Mr. Douglas said:

On the 4th of January, 1854, the Committee on Territo

ries, of the Senate, to which had been referred a bill for “ I have a word to say to the honorable Senator from Min

| the organization of the Territory of Nebraska, reported sissippi (Mr. Davis). He insists that I am not in favor of protecting property, and that his amendment is offered for the

the bill back, with an amendment, in the form of a substipurpose of protecting property under the Constitution. Now, I tute for the entire bill, which, with some modifications, is sir, I ask you what authority he has for assuming that? Do I now known on the statute book as the “Kansas-Nebraska pot desire to protect property because I wish to allow the Act,” accompanied by a Report explaining the principles people to pass such laws as they deem proper respecting

upon which it was proposed to organize those Territories, their righis to property without any exception ? He might just as well say that I am opposed to protecting property in

as follows: merchandise, in steamboats, in cattle, in real estate, as to say “The principal amendments which your Committee deem it that I am opposed to protecting property of any other their duty to commend to the favorable action of the Senate, in description ; for I desire to put them all on an equality, and a special report, are those in which the principles established allow the people to make their own laws in respect to the by the Compromise Measures of 1850, so far as they are appliwhole of them."

cable to territorial organizations, are proposed to be affirmed Mr. Cass said (referring to the amendments offered by

and carried into practical operation within the limits of the

new Territory. The wisdom of those measures is attested, Mr. Davis and Mr. Chase):

not less by their salutary and beneficial effects in allaying sec. “Now, with respect to the amendments. I shall vote tional agitation and restoring peace and harmony to an irriagainst them both; and then I shall vote in favor of striking tated and distracted people, than by the cordial and almost out the restriction in the bill upon the power of the Territorial | universal approbation with which they have been received and governments. I shall do so upon this ground. I was opposed,

sanctioned by the whole country. as the honorable Senator from Kentucky has declared he was,

“In the judgment of your Committee, those measures were to the insertion of this prohibition by the Committee. I con intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring sider it inexpedient and unconstitutional. I have already effect than the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising out stated my belief that the rightful power of internal legislation of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were de. in the Territories belongs to the people.”

signed to establish certain great principles, which would not After further discussion the vote was taken by yeas and

only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but, in all

time to come, avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by withnays on the amendment of Mr. Chase, and decided in the drawing the question of Slavery from the Halls of Congresg negative: Yeas, 25; Nays, 30. The question recurring on and the political arena, and commiting it to the arbitrament of the amendment of Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, it was also those who were immediately interested in and alone responsirejected: Yeas, 25; Nays, 30. Whereupon Mr. Seward

ble for its consequences. With a view of conforming their offered the following amendment:

action to the settled policy of the Government, sanctioned by

the approving voice of the American people, your Committee "Neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise have deemed it their duty to incorporate and perpetuate, in han by conviction for crime, shall ever be allowed in either their territorial bill, the principles and spirit of those of said Territories of Utah and New Mexico.


Tecniches, like the give them ale to enact theirf popularsary IN

[ocr errors]

oried into practicdom of those effects in allas and Caerritory: Salutary and be peace and cord

as the ments. I shall de bil upon the power favor of strikintetional agitation" ai

urnish adfold the poslavery, log it to the alop

e: Yeas: 20 Mr. Davis, Whereupor

, upon which und

[ocr errors]

people of this


After presenting and reviewing certain provisions of the of Congress, and became the law of the land by the ap. bill, the Committee conclude as followe:

proval of the President, May 31, 1854. "From these provisions it is apparent that the Compromise

In 1856, the Democratic party, assembled in National Neasures of 1850 aflirm and rest npon the following propo

Convention at Cincinnati, declared by a unanimous vote

convenuou sitions :

of the delegates from every State in the Union, that "Pirst. -That all questions pertaining to Slavery in the Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are

“The American Democracy recognize and adopt the printo be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by ciples contained in the organic laws establishing the Territheir appropriate representatives to be chosen by them for

tories of Kansas and Nebraska as embodying the only sound tinat purpose.

and safe solution of the 'Slavery question,' upon which the **Second. That all cases involving title to slaves and ques. great national idea of the people of this whole country can tons of personal freedom, sre referred to the adjudication of repose in its determined conservatism of the Union-nonthe local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme interference by Congress with Slavery in State and Territory, Court of the United States.

or in the District of Columbia ; **Third. -That the provision of the Constitution of the "That this was the basis of the Compromises of 1850, conUnited States in respect to fugitives from service, is to be car. firmed by both the Democratic and Whig parties in National ried into faithful execution in all the organized Territories, the Conventions-ratified by the people in the election of 1862same as in the States. The substitute for the bill which your and rightly applied to the organization of the Territories in Committee have prepared, and which is commended to the 1854; That by the uniform application of this Democratic lavorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these pro principle to the organization of Territories and to the admis. positions and principles into practical operation, in the precisesion of new States, with or without domestic Slavery as they language of the Compromise Measures of 1860.""

may elect, the equal rights of all will be preserved intact-the

original compacts of the Constitution maintained in violateBy reference to that section of the “ Kansas-Nebraska -and the perpetuity and expansion of this Union insured to Act" as it now stands on the statute book, which pre its utmost capacity of embracing in peace and harmony any scribed and defined the power of the Territorial Legisla

future American State that may be constituted or annexed ture, it will be seen that it is, " in the precise language of

with a Republican form of government." the Compromise Measures of 1850," extending the legis

In accepting the nomination of this Convention, Mr lative power of the Territory " to all rightful subjects of Buchanan, in a letter dated June 16, 1856, said: legislation consistent with the Constitution," without ex- "The agitation on the question of domestic Slavery has too cepting African Slavery.

long distracted and divided the people of this Union, and It having been suggested, with some plausibility, during alienated their affections from each other. This agitation has the discussion of the bill, that the act of Congress of

| assumed many forms since its commencement, but it now

seems to be directed chiefly to the Territories and judging March 6, 1820, prohibiting Slavery north of the parallel

or the paralel from its present character, I think we may safely anticipate of 86' 30' would deprive the people of the Territory of the that it is rapidly approaching a finality. The recent legis. power of regulating the Slavery question to suit themselveslation of Congress respecting domestic Slavery, derived, as it while they should remain in a Territorial condition, and be has been, from the original and pure fountain of legitimate fore they should have the requisite population to entitlel political power, the will of the majority, promises, ere long. them to admission into the Union as a State, an amend

to allay the dangerous excitement. This legislation is founded

upon principles as ancient as free government itself, and in ment was prepared by the Chairman of the Committee,

A of the committee, accordance with them has simply declared that the people of a and incorporated into the bill to remove this obstacle to the Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves free exercise of the principle of popular sovereignty in the whether Slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." Territory, while it remained in a Territorial condition, by

| This exposition of the history of these measures shows repealing the said act of Congress, and declaring the conclusively that the authors of the Compromise Measures true intent and meaning of all the friends of the bill in of 1850, and of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, as well these words:

as the members of the Continental Congress of 1774, and “That the Constitution and all laws of the United States the founders of our system of government subsequent to which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force the Revolution, regarded the people of the Territories and

where within the United Colonies as political communities which were entitled to a States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the

free and exclusive power of legislation in their Provincial admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which being inconsistent with the principle of non-interven: Legislatures, where meir te

| Legislatures, where their representation could alone be tion by Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, as preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity. recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the This right pertains to the people collectively as a law. "Compromise Measures,' is hereby declared inoperative and abiding and peaceful community, and not to the isolated vold-it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legis.

individuals who may wander upon the public domain in late Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and

violation of law. It can only be exercised where there are regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only

inhabitants sufficient to constitute a government, and cato the Constitution of the United States.

pable of performing its various functions and duties &

fact to be ascertained and determined by Congress. To which was added, on motion of Mr. Badger, the fol-Whether the number shall be fixed at ten, fifteen or lowing:

twenty thousand inhabitants does not affect the principle, .“ Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be con- The principle, under our political system, is that every strued to revive or put in force any law or regulation which I distinct political Community, loyal to the Constitution may have existed prior tɔ the act of the sixth of March, 1820,

and the Union, is entitled to all the rights, privileges. either protecting, establishing, of abolishing slavery."

and immunities of self-government in respect to their In this form, and with this distinct understanding of its local concerns and internal polity, subject only to the wizue intent and meaning,” the bill pased the two houses Constitution of the United States.

[ocr errors]

ith themancient agent. This

ndition, by whether Slavery chase of a state, declared th

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

act preparator%. 1820, | Tegislatures, where



Delivered at the Cooper Institute, Monday, Feb. 27, 1860.

MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF NEW-YORK:1. In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly Convention was in session framing it, and while the old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the gene Northwestern Territory still was the only Territory ral use I shall make of them. If there shall be any owned by the United States--the same question of pronovelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, hibiting Slavery in the Territory again came before the and the inferences and observations following that Congress of the Confederation, and three more of the presentation.

" thirty-nine" who afterward signed the Constitution, In his speech, last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as were in that Congress, and voted on the question. They reported in “ The New York Times," Senator Douglas were William Blount, William Few and Abraham Baldsaid:

win; and they all voted for the prohibition-thus show “Our fathers, when they framed the Government un- ing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local der which we live, understood this question just as well, from federal authority, nor anything else, properly and even better than we do now.”

I forbids the Federal Government to control as to Slavery I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this in federal territory. This time the prohibition becamo discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes & precise a law, being part of what is now well known as the and an agreed starting point for a discussion between Ordinance of '87. Republicans and that wing of Democracy headed by The question of federal control of Slavery in the Ter. Senator Duglas. It simply leaves the inquiry : “ What | ritories, seems not to have been directly before the was the understanding those fathers had of the question Convention which framed the original Constitution; and mentioned ?"

hence it is not recorded that the “ thirty-nine," or any What is the frame of Government under which we of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed live?

any opinion on that precise question, The answer must be: “The Constitution of the United In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the antes." That Constitution consists of the original, Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance brand in 1787 (and under which the present Govern- of '87, including the prohibition of Slavery in the Northmen Arst went into operation), and twelve subsequen:ly western Territory. "The bill for this act was reported by framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed one of the “thirty-nine," Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a in 1789.

member of the House of Representatives from Pennsy! Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution ?vania. It went through all its stages wi:hout a word of I suppose the “thirty-nine" who signed the original opposition, and finally passed both branches without instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous that part of the present Government. It is almost passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether is thirty-nine" fathers who framed the original Constitutrue to say they fairly represented the opinion and sen I tion. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Wm. timent of the whole nation at that time. Their names, S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thomas being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, | Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus need not now be repeated.

King, William Patterson, George Clymer, Richard BasI take these “thirty-nine," for the present, as being sett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James "our fathers who framed the Government under which Madison. we live."

This shows that, in their understanding. no line What is the question which, according to the text, dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in those fathers understood just as well, and even better the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit than we do now?

Slavery in the federal territory ; else both their fidelity It is this: Does the proper division of local from to correct principle, and their nat

to correct principle, and their oath to support the Con. federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbidstitution, would have constrained them to oppose the our Federal Government to control as to Slavery in our prohibition. Federal Territories?

Again, George Washington, another of the "thirty. Upon this, Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republi- nine,” was then President of the United States, and, as cans the negative. This affirmative and denial form an such, approved and signed the bill, thus completing its issue; and this issue-this question--is precisely what | validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his under the text declares our fathers understood better than we. | standing, no line dividing local from federal authority,

Let us now inquire whether the “thirty-nine," or any nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, Government, to control as to Slavery in federal terrihow they acted upon it-how they expressed that bet- tory. ter understanding.

No great while after the adoption of the original In 1784-three years before the Constitution—the Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal United States then owning the Northwestern Territory, Government' the country now constituting the State of and no other-the Congress of the Confederation had | Tennessee ; and a few years later Georgia ceded that before them the question of prohibiting Slavery in that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and AlaTerritory; and four of the “thirty-nine,” who afterwardbama. In both deeds of cession it was made a condition framed the Constitution were in that Congress, and by the ceding States that the Federal Government voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, should not prohibit Slavery in the ceded country. Thomas Mimin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the Besides this, Slavery was then actually in the ceded prohibition --thus showing that, in their understanding, I country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything I taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely else, properly forbade the Federal Government to con- prohibit Slavery within them. But they did interfere trol as to Slavery in Federal Territory. The other of the with it-take control of it-even there, to a certain four ---James McHenry-voted against the prohibition, extent. In 1793, Congress organized the Territory of showing tbat. for some cause, he thought it improper to | Mississippi. In the act of organization they prohibited vote for it.

I the bringing of Slaves into the Territory, froin any place



btainly therd, if, in


and freedom

was passed it, the

without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom from federal authority, or some provision or principle of to slaves so brought. This act passed both branches of the Constitu:ion, stood in the way; or they may, without Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress any such question, have voted against the p. ohibition, on were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the original what appeared to them to be sutticient g ounds of expeConstitution. They were John Langdon, George Read diency. No one who has sworn to support the Constituand Abraham Baldwin. They all, paobably, voted for tion, can conscientiously vote for what he understands to It. Certainly they would have placed their opposition be an unconst.tutional measure, however expedient he to it upon record, if, in their understanding, any line may think it; but one may and ought to vote against dividing local from federal authority, or anything in the measure which he deems constitutional, if, at the same Constitution, forbade the Federal Government time, he deerns it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be to control as to Slavery in federal territory.

unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisi- | prohibition, as having done so because, in their under. ana country. Our furmer territorial acquisitions came standing, any proper division of local from federal aufrom certain of our own States; but this Louisiana thority, or anything in the Constitution fo, bade the country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804, Federal Government to control as to Slavery in federal Congress gave a Territorial organization to that part ol territory it which now coustii utes the State of Louisiana New The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and coinpara bave discovered have left no record of their understandtively large city. There were other considerable towns ing upon the direct question of the control of Slavery in and settlements, aud Slavery was extensively and the federal te ritories. But there is much reason to bethoroughly interipingled with the people. Congress did lieve that their understanding upon that question would not, in the Territorial Act, prohibit Slavery ; but they not have appeared ditferent from that of their twentydid interfere with it-take control of it in a more marked three compeers, had it been manifested at all. and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have The substance of the provision therein mude, in relation I purposely omitted whatever understanding inay have to slaves, was :

beeu man fested, by any person, however distinguished, First. That no slave should be imported into the Ter other than the thirty-Dine fathers who framed the or.ginal ritory from foreign parts.

Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitSecond. That no slave should be carried into it who ted whatever unde standing may have been manifested had been impor ed into the United States since the first by any of the "thi ty nine" even, on any other phase of day of May, 1793.

the gene al question of slavery. If we should look into Third. That no slave shall be carried into it except by their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the the owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty foreign slave-trade, and the morality and policy of in all the cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, Slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the diand freedom to the slave.

rect question of federal control of Slavery in federal This act also was passed without yeas and Days. In territo.ies, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would the Congress which passed it, there were two of the probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. " thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin and Jona Among that sixteen were several of the most noted antithan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is slave. y men of those times -as Dr. Franklin. Alexander probable they both voted for it. They would not have Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris-while there was not allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be it, if, in their under-tanding, it violated either the line John Rutledge, of South Carolina. proper dividing local from federal authority or any pro- The sum of the whole is, that of our "thirty-nine" vision of the Constitution.

fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty. In 1819-2), came and passed the Missouri question one-a clear majority of the whole-certainly understood Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both that no proper division of local from federal authority branches of Congress, upon the various phases of the nor any part of the Constitution, fo bade the Federal general question. Two of the "thirty-nine"--Rufus King Government to control Slavery in the federal teritories, and Charles Pinckney-were members of that Congress. while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Mr. King steadily voted for Slavery prohibition ani Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily | fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the voted ag vinst Slavery prohibition and against all compro- text affirms that they understood the question better mises. By this Mr. King showed that, in his understand than we. ing, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor | But, so far, I have been considering the understanding anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress of the question manifested by the f.amers of the original prohibiting Slavery in federal territory; while Mr. Pinck-I Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode ney, by his voies, showed that in his understanding there was provided for amending it; and, as I have already was sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in stated, the present frame of Government under which that case.

I we live consists of that original, and twelve amendatory The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the articles frained and adopted since. Those who now insist "thirty-uine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, that federal control of Slavery in federal territories viowhich I have been able to discover.

lates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they in 1784, three in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1795, all fix upon provisions in these amendato y articles, and two in 1804, and two in 1819-20—there would be thirty not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in one of thein. But this would be counting John Langion, I the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fiftb Roger Sherinan, William Few, Rufus King, and George l amendment, which provides that "no person shall be de Read, each twice, and Abraham Baldwin four times. The prived of property without due process of law;" while true number of those of the thirty-niue" whom I have Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themshown to have acted upon the question, which, by the selves upon the tenth amendment, providing that the text they understood better than we, is twenty-three, | powers not granted by the Constitution, are reserved to leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in auy the States respectively and to the people.” way.

Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our " thirty. b. the first Congress which sat under th · Constitutionnine" fathers who framed the Governinent under which the identical Congress whiok passed the act al eady menWe live, who have, up in their official responsibility and | tioned, enforcing the prohibition of Slavery in the no ththeir corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which western Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, the text athirmus they understood just as well, and even | but they were the identical, same individual men, who, better thau we do now" and twenty-one of themnal at the game session, and at the same tiine within the sesclear majority of the whole “ thirty-nine"-90 acting up- sion, had under consideration, and in progress toward on it as to make thein guilty of gross political impropriety, | maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act and willful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper | prohibiting Slavery in all the Territory the nation then division betweeu local and federal authority, or anything I owned. The Constitutional amendments were introduced

onstitution they had made themselves, and sworn before, and passed after the act enforcing the Ordnance, to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as of '87; so that during the whole pendency of the act to to Sia very in the federal territories. Thus the twenty enforce the ordinance, the Constitutional amendinents one acted; and. is actions speak louder than words, so were also pending actions under such responsibility speak still louder.

l'hat Congress consisting in all of seventy-six inemTwo of the twenty-three voted against Congressional I bers, including sixteen of the frainers of the original Conprobibition of Slavery in the federal Territories in the institution, as before stated, were preëninenily our fathers stances in which they acted upon the question. But for who frained that par of the Government under willen we what reason they so voted is not known. They may have live, which is now claimed as forbiilding the Federal done so because they thought a proper division of local | Guvernient to control Slavery in the Federal Territories


any man to show that anecne And, so assuming, I section. esistence in your section-cets chat our party

to show that any tion this very years, that your prool in your secti

It is not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to licans." In all your contenticns with one another, each afirm that the two things which that Congress deliber- of you deems an unconditional condemnatioa of " Black ately framed, and carried to maturity at the sanie time, Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. Inare absolutely inconsistent with each other ! And does deed such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensanot such affirmation become impudently absurd when ble prerequisite-license, so to speak, among you to be adcoupled with the other affirmation, from the same mouth, vr.itted or permitted to speak at all. that those who did the two things alleged to be inconsis- Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to tent understood whether they really were inconsistent consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to your better than we--better than he who affirms that they are selves? inconsistent?

Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then It is surely safe to assume that the “ thirty-nine" be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify, framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an members of the Congress which framed the amendments | issue: and the burden of proof is upon you. You prothereto, taken together, do certainly include those who duce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party may be fairly called “our fathers who framed the Gov- has no existence in your section--gets no votes in your ernment under which we live." And so assuming, I section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his , the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we proper division of local from federal authority, or any should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Govern- this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? ment to coutrol as to Slavery in the federal territories. If you are, you will probably soon find that we have I go a step further. I defy any one to show that any ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your secliving man in the whole world ever did, prior to the be- tion this very year. You will then begin to discover, as

f the present century (and I might almost say the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the prior to the beginning of the last half of the present cen-issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section is a tury) declare that, in his understanding, any proper fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be division of local from federal authority, or any part of fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and rethe Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to mains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong control as to Slavery in the federal territories. To those principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong who now so declare, I give, not only " our fathers who principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you framed the Government under which we live." but with to where you ought to have started to a discussion of the them ail other living men within the century in which it right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in Was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, then,

are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as • Now, and here, let me guard a little against being mis such, Meet us, then, on the question of whether our prin

inderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow ciple, put in piactice, would wrong your section; and so implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so, would be meet it as if it were possible that something may be said to discard all the lights of current experience-to reject on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No? Then all progress-all improvement. What I do say is, that if you really believe that the principle which our fathers who we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers framed the Government under which we live thought so in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and and argument so clear, that even their great authority, again, upon their official oaths, is, in fact, so clearly fairy considered ard weighed, cannot stand; and most wrong as to demand your condemnation without a mosurely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they ment's consideration, understood the question better than we.

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning If any man, at this day, sincerely believes that a against sectional parties given by Washington in his proper division of local from federal authority, or any Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washpart of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government ington gave that warning he had, as President of the to control as to Slavery in the federal territories, he is United States, approved and signed an act of Congress enright to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful forcing the prohibition of Slavery in the northwestern Terrievidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no tory, which act embodied the policy of the Government right to mislead others, who have less access to history upon that subject, up to and at the very moment he and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that “our penned that warning; and about one year after he denned fathers, who framed the Government under which we it he wrote Lafayette, that he considered that thibition live," were of the same opinion-thus substituting false. a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argu- hope that we should sometime have a confederacy of free neut. If any man at this day sincerely believes “our States. fathers, who framed the Government under which we Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has live," used and applied principles, in other cases, which since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a ouglit to have led them to understand that a proper weapon in your hands against us, or, in our hands, against division of local from federal authority or some part of the you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the Constitution, forbids the federal government to control blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, as to Slavery in the Federal Territories, he is right to say or upon you, who repudiate it? We respect that warning 80. But he should, at the same time, brave the responsi- of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with bility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands his example pointing to the right application of it. their principles better than they did themselves ; and But you say you are conservative-eminently conservaespecially should he not shirk that responsibility by as- tive-while we are revolutionary, destructive, or someserting that they “understood the question just as well, thing of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not ad. and even better, than we do now."

herence to the old and tried, against the new and untried ? But enough. Let all who believe that “our fathers, We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the who framed the Government under which we live, under point in controversy which was adopted by our fathers stood the question just as well, and even better, than we who framed the Government under which we live; while do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon you, with one accord, reject, and scout, and spit upon that it. This is all Republicans ask-all Republicans desire- old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. in relation to Slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let | True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that subit be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be stitute shall be. You have considerable variety of new tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its propositions and plans, but you are unaniinous in rejecting actual presence among us makes that toleration and pro- and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of tection a necessity. Let all the guaranties those fathers you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade; some for a con. gave it, be not grudgingly, but fully and fairly, ipain. gressional slave-code for the Territories; some for Contained. For this Republicans contend, and with this, 80 gress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within far as I know or believe, they will be content.

their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the TerritoAnd now, if they would listen, as I suppose they will ries through the judiciary ; some for the" gur-reat pur-rinnot, I would address a few words to the southern peo- ciple" that " if one man would enslave another, no third ple.

person should object," fantastically called “Popular SeI would say to them: You consider yourselves a reason-Ivereignty :" but never a man among you in favor of fede able and a just people; and I consider that in the general ral prohibition of Slavery in Federal Territories, according qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any to the practice of our fathers who framed the Government other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, under which we live. Not one of all your various plan you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, can show a prededent or an advocate in the century with As no better than outlaws. You will grant & hearing to in which our Government originated. Consider, then pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to “Black Bepub-'whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, an,

« ZurückWeiter »