Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/letterofsenatord01doug 
 
f 7 7, 1 
 
 ~2- 9 5 G 
 
 It / 
 
 / ' * 
 
 ; ' ' 
 
 ' v' ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 " 2 -- 
 
LETTER 
 
 OF 
 
 VINDICATING 
 
 HIS CHARACTER AND HIS POSITION ON THE NEBRASKA 
 BILL AGAINST THE ASSAULTS CONTAINED IN 
 THE PROCEEDINGS OF 
 
 COMPOSED OF 
 
 TWENTY-FIVE CLERGYMEN OF CHICAGO. 
 
 WASHINGTON : 
 
 PRINTED AT THE SENTINEL OFFICE. 
 
 i 854. 
 
LETTER 
 
 OF 
 
 SENATOR DOUGLAS. 
 
 Washington, April 6 , 1854. 
 
 Reverend Gentlemen: I acknowledge your 
 kind consideration, in sending me the proceed- 
 ings of the public meeting composed of twenty- 
 five clergymen of the city of Chicago opposed 
 to the Nebraska bill. These proceedings con- 
 sist of a protest “in the name of Almighty 
 God” against the passage of the Nebraska bill, 
 and signed by yourselves “ as citizens and as 
 ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ;” and 
 also of four resolutions, which are stated to 
 have been adopted with but one dissenting 
 voice. The last of these resolutions is as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 “4th. That in the debate recently held in the 
 Senate of the United States upon the presenta- 
 tion of the memorial of the clergy of New Eng- 
 land, we greatly deplore the apparent want of 
 courtesy and reverence towards man and God, 
 manifest especially in the speeches of the sena- 
 tors from Illinois and Indiana ; and that we regard 
 the whole tone and spirit of that debate, on the 
 part of the opponents of said memorial, as an 
 outrage upon the privileges of a large and respec- 
 table body of citizens, upon the dignity of the 
 Senate, and upon the claims of the divine name, 
 word, and institutions, to which we owe pro- 
 foundest honor and reverence.” 
 
 Here I am distinctly and “especially” charged 
 with “ the apparent want of courtesy and rev- 
 erence towards man and God,” in the perform- 
 ance of my public duties in the Senate. This 
 is a grave charge, whether preferred against a 
 private individual or a public man, and one 
 which should not have been made recklessly 
 
 and without sufficient authority. If unsup- 
 ported by evidence and contradicted by the re- 
 cords, its enormity is greatly aggravated by the 
 startling fact that it emanates from “ministers 
 of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” professing to 
 speak “in the name of Almighty God,” and 
 by his authority. When you shall read, that 
 debate carefully, you will be surprised at the 
 injustice you have done me by attributing to 
 me the language which I found it necessary 
 to quote, for the purpose of comment, from the 
 protest signed by the three thousand and fifty 
 clergymen of New England. I agree that the 
 language quoted was “wanting in courtesy and 
 reverence to man and God,” and it was for 
 that reason that I called the attention of the 
 Senate and the country to the astounding fact 
 that any body of men, calling themselves cler- 
 gymen, or by any other’ name, in this age and 
 in this country, would presume to claim that 
 they were authorized by the Almighty, and in 
 his name, to pronounce an authoritative judg- 
 ment upon a political question pending before 
 the Congress of the United States. If you had 
 attribated this language to its true authors 
 and directed your censure against them, in- 
 stead of me, ■who but quoted to expose it, I 
 should have united with you in saying that it 
 did manifest an “apparent want of courtesy” 
 to the Senate and “reverence to God.” 
 
 In the latter clause of the same resolution, 
 you also say : 
 
 “ That we regard the whole tone and spirit of 
 that debate on the part of the opponents of said 
 
 307892 
 
4 
 
 meiriorial, as an outrage upon the privileges of a 
 large and respectable body of citizens,” &c. 
 
 And in the third resolution, you say : 
 
 j ator from Massachusetts has said, as to there be- 
 I ing, perhaps, no body of men in this country, three 
 thousand in number, who combine more respect- 
 ability than these clergymen.” 
 
 “ That, in our ollice as ministers, we have lost 
 none of our prerogatives-, nor escaped our respon- 
 sibibties as citizens,” &e. 
 
 It is your obvious intention in these two res- 
 olutions to convey the impression to the world 
 and induce the public to believe that I, and 
 those senators who participated with me in the 
 debate referred to, denied to the signers of that 
 protest their right “as citizens,” in consequence 
 of their profession as “ clergymen.” 
 
 Unwilling as I am to believe that you, as the 
 professed ministers of Jesus Christ, assembled 
 in His holy name, could deliberately put forth a 
 charge so unjust and unfounded, yet I am una- 
 ble to put any other construction upon your 
 language, or to conceive of any other object 
 you could have had in passing these resolutions. 
 
 In vindication of my own character against 
 the aspersions which you have so unjustly cast 
 upon it, you must permit me to say to you, with 
 the most profound respect for your “ office as 
 ministers’,” that, if you bad read the debate 
 yourselves before you pronounced judgment 
 upon it, instead of following the lead of an un- 
 scrupulous partisan press, you would have known 
 that the charge in any of its forms, and in all its 
 length and breadth, was wickedly and wanton- 
 ly untrue. So far from denying to the clergy 
 of New England, or of any other portion of 
 this country, any of their rights “ as citizens,” 
 and so far from questioning their undoubted 
 right to petition, protest, or remonstrate, in re- 
 spect, to any measure coming or pending before 
 Congress in the same manner, and by the same 
 authority as other citizens under the Constitu- 
 tion, the debate shows that each and every 
 senator against whom, you have preferred this 
 grave charge distinctly and expressly recog- 
 nised and affirmed such right. In order to 
 render my vindication .complete, and to disa- 
 buse you of the error into which you have fal- 
 len — for, in your case, it must be error merely — 
 I proceed to establish this position by extracts 
 from the debate, as it appears in the Congress- 
 ional Globe , and republished in pamphlet form, 
 at .he abolition establishment in this city. At 
 page 11 of that pamphlet, you will find that 
 Mr. Douglas said : 
 
 “ The senator from Texas says the people have 
 a right to petition. I do not question it. T do not 
 wish to deprive ministers of the Gospel of that right. 
 I do not acknowledge that there is any member 
 of this body who has a higher respect and vener- 
 ation either for a minister of the Gospel or for his 
 holy calling than I have ; but my respect is for him 
 in his culling. I will not controvert what the sen- 
 
 Permit me to inquire of you, reverend gen- 
 tlemen, whether you had read my speech, and 
 particularly this portion of it, when you charged 
 me with committing, in that debate, “an out- 
 rage upon the privileges of a large and respect- 
 able body of citizens,” (referring to the clergy- 
 men who had signed that protest,) and when, 
 in another resolution, you charged me and 
 others, by implication, with the design of de- 
 I priving you of your “prerogatives as citizens,” 
 on account of your “office as ministers!” 
 
 I now call on you, “as ministers of the Gos- 
 pel of Jesus Christ,” “as citizens,” and as hon- 
 est men, who are under a high moral and reli- 
 gious obligation to speak the truth and to do 
 justice to all men, to withdraw this charge, and 
 make an open aud public confession of the in- 
 justice you have done me! 
 
 Again, in your resolutions, you do not con- 
 fine your censure to myself, but you extend it 
 to Senators Mason, Butler, Pettit, Adams, and 
 Badger, including all who participated in that 
 debate in opposition to the propriety of the 
 protest. Your language is, that you regard 
 “the whole tone and spirit of that debate, on 
 the part of the opponents of said memorial, as 
 an outrage upon the privileges of d large and 
 respectable body of citizens,” &c. 
 
 Now, let us see whether your charge against 
 Mr. Mason, that he committed an “outrage” 
 on the rights of the memorialists “as citizens,” 
 be sustained by the record: 
 
 II Mr. Mason. That it is the right of the citi- 
 zens of the United States to petition Congress, or 
 either House of it, upon any subject that may be 
 presented to them, is never denied, never should 
 be denied ; and such petition, upon any subject of 
 public, interest should be received and treated 
 with the respect which is due to citizens, I trust I 
 shall never see the day when the Senate of the 
 
 1 United States will treat the authors of such pe- 
 titions, upon any subject proper for legislation 
 ! pending before the body, coming from the people 
 of the United States, with aught but respect.” 
 
 Thus it will be seeu that Mr. Mason express- 
 ly affirmed the right of every citizen, whatever 
 his profession or occupation in life, to petition 
 j Congress upon any subject pending before either 
 house. In another portion of his speech in 
 favor of tl. . glit of every class of our citizens 
 j to petition, he said : 
 
 “It is arespeetdueto them; but when they come 
 here, not as citizens, but declaring that they come 
 as ministers of the Gospel, and, as ihe honorable 
 | Senator from Texas declared them to be, vicege- 
 rents of the Almighty — so I understood hint to 
 declare, possibly he meant vice-regents, to super- 
 
5 
 
 vise and control the legislation of the country — I 
 say, when they come here as a class unknown to 
 the government, a class that the government does 
 not mean to know in any form or shape, not to 
 recommend or remonstrate, but to denounce our 
 action as a great moral wrong, because they claim 
 to be the “viceregents” of the Almighty, we are 
 bound, not from disrespect to them as citizens, 
 not from disrespect to the cloth which they do not 
 grace, but from respect to the government, from 
 respect to that sacred public trust which has been 
 committed to us — to carry out the policy of the 
 government and refuse to recognise them.” 
 
 Mr. Mason expressly recognised and vindi- 
 cated the full and equal rights of clergy- 
 men, in common with all other citizens, to pe - 
 tition government for the redress of grievances. 
 His complaint was, that the protestants have 
 r.ot approached the Senate in their capacity as 
 citizens ; that they did not claim the right un- 
 der the Constitution, or as being derived from 
 any human authority c r earthly tribunal : but, 
 •casting aside all hum a authority and consti- 
 tutional right, they claim the c!i ine prerogative 
 as the ‘‘vice-regents” of the Almighty on earth 
 to pronounce judgment in his name, and by his 
 authority, upon a legislative question, 'hich 
 had been confided by the people, in obedience 
 to the Constitution, to the decision of the Con- 
 gress of the United States. 
 
 Senator Butler’s speech comes next. Let us 
 see if your charge be well founded against 
 him: 
 
 “ Mr. Bittlep.. I have great respect, Mr. Presi- 
 dent. for the pulpit. I have such a respect for it 
 that I would almost submit to a rebuke from a 
 minister of the gospel, even in my official capacity: 
 but they lose a portion of my respect when I see 
 an organization, for, I believe, the first time in the 
 history of this government, of clergymen within a 
 local precinct, within the limits of New England, 
 assuming to be, as the Senator from Texas said, 
 the vicegerents of Heaven, coming to the Senate 
 of the United Slates, not as citizens, as my friend 
 from Virginia has said, but as the organs of God; for | 
 they do not come here petitioning or presenting 
 their views under the sanction of the obligations 
 and responsibilities of citizens under the Consti- 
 tution of the United States, but they have dared 
 to quit the pulpit, and step into the political arena, 
 and speak as the organs of Almighty God. Sir, 
 they assume to be the foremen of the jury which 
 is to pronounce the verdict and judgment of God 
 upon earth. They do not protest as ordinary citi- 
 zens do ; but they mingle in their protest what 
 they would have us believe is the judgment of the 
 Almighty. When l he clergy quit the province which 
 is assigned to them, in which they can dispense 
 the gosp< — that gospel which is represented as 
 the lamb. 101 as the tiger or the lion — when they 
 would convert the lamb into the lion, going about 
 in the form of agitaiors, seeking whom they may 
 devour, instead of meek and lowly representatives 
 
 of Christ, they divest themselves of all respect 
 which I can give them.” 
 
 Here again you find that there was no dis- 
 position to deprive ministers of the gospel of 
 1 any of their rights as citizens — no unwilling- 
 ness to receive their petitions, memorials, or 
 remonstrances, and to treat them with entire 
 respect when presented in that capacity, and 
 claiming no other or higher prerogatives than 
 those secured to their fellow-citizens by the 
 Constitution. But their divine right, emanating 
 from a power higher than the Constitution, 
 and above the sovereignty of the people and of 
 the States of this Union, to decide a legisla- 
 tive measure, and issue command to the Senate 
 in the name of the Deity, wa3 seriously but re- 
 spectfully called in question. 
 
 The speech of Senator Adams comes next in 
 order. Let us see if your charge against him 
 be sustained by the record. Did he commit 
 “an outrage upon the privileges of a large and 
 respect able body of citizens ?” Did he propose 
 to deprive you or any other body of clergymen 
 of your “prerogatives as citizens?” 
 
 Mr. Adams said : 
 
 “I concur with my friend from South Carolina 
 in regard to the petition which ha- been presented 
 and ordered to lie on the table. It is addressed to 
 the Senate and House of Representatives by a 
 body of individuals as ministers of the Gospel. I 
 trust I have as high a regard for their vocation as 
 any other individual, and as much respect for the 
 ministers of peace and good will on earth as any 
 other individual : but when they depart from their 
 high vocation, and come down to mingle in the 
 turbid pools of politics, I would treat them just as 
 I would all other citizens. I would treat their 
 memorials and remonstrances precisely as I would 
 those of other citizens. It is so unlike the apos- 
 tles and the ministers of Christ at an early day, 
 that it loses the potency which they suppose the 
 styling themselves ministers of the Gospel would 
 give to their memorials. The early ministers of 
 Christ attended to their mission, one which was 
 given to them by their Master ; and under all cir- 
 cumstances, even when the Saviour himself was 
 upon earth, and attempts were made to induce 
 him to give opinions with reference to the muni- 
 cipal affairs of the. government, be refused- These 
 men have descended from their high estate to 
 assail the action of this body.” 
 
 Where is the evidence of the truth of your 
 charge against Senator Adams, that he medi- 
 tated the design of depriving ministers of the 
 Gospel of their rights of citizenship? Do you 
 find it in the passage in which he declares that 
 “ I wouldtreattheir memorials and remonstrances 
 precisely as I would those of other citizens ?” 
 Is it “ an outrage upon their privileges ” that 
 they should be treated precisely like other citi- 
 zens ? If you think so, you will do , Mess per- 
 severe in the course which you have com- 
 
 A m 
 
 y / 
 
6 
 
 menced. It’ you think otherwise, you will 
 hasten to withdraw the unjust imputations and 
 repair the injury you have done. 
 
 Following the order of the debate, the next 
 senator whom you have embraced in your 
 charge of an outrage upon the privileges of the 
 clergy, is Mr. Pettit. The first paragraph of 
 his speech on that occasion is in the following 
 words : 
 
 ‘■Mr. Pettit. Mr. President, I am for the 
 greatest liberty to the greatest number, and I will 
 not deny to any class of my fellow citizens, under 
 whatever name or denomination they may appear, 
 the right to petition ; and under the general term 
 of ‘petition,’ provided for in the Constitution, lam 
 willing to regard memorials and remonstrances, of 
 whatever name, kind, or description, provided al- 
 ways they are respectful to the Senate.” 
 
 In this speech you find no attempt to deprive 
 the clergy of the rights of citizenship ; no denial 
 or limitation of their privileges as citizens. 
 Their right to petition, memorialize, or remon- 
 strate, “ under whatever name or denomina- 
 tion,” is conceded and affirmed in so many 
 words. It is true, Mr. Pettit spoke in very 
 strong and decided terms upon the assumption 
 of the reverend protesters to make known the 
 mind and will of G od concerning the Nebraska 
 bill. He denied what they undertook to pro- 
 claim as a revelation by His authority, either 
 prophetically of events to happen or judicially 
 of judgments to be inflicted. But he spoke no 
 word, he made no suggestion, against their full 
 and uncontested rights, in their own names, as 
 men and ministers, to remonstrate, to protest, 
 and in the strongest terms, if respectful to the 
 Senate, to declare their opinions of the nature 
 and tendency of the legislation of which they 
 disapproved. The only remaining speech, to 
 which your censure can be supposed to apply, 
 is that of Senator Badgek. He said: 
 
 “These gentlemen clo not come here in the 
 character of petitioners. These gentlemen do not 
 come here in the character of remonstrants ; they 
 do not come here in the character of memorialists; 
 but they come as protesters, not in their own 
 name, not with the individual weight and autho- 
 rity which might be attributed to their protest on 
 the ground of their own intelligence or worth, not 
 merely with the weight and authority which might 
 be superadded to this and other considerations 
 from the fact of their being ministers of the Gos- 
 pel. It is impossible to look at this paper without 
 seeing that the honorable senator from New York 
 has specially pleaded upon the subject, and that 
 the reverend gentlemen W'ho signed it will not 
 thank him for assigning them in this paper the 
 low position in which he wishes to place them. I 
 "VVhat is it ? 
 
 “ ‘The undersigned clergymen of different reli- [ 
 gious denominations in New England, hereby, in 
 the name of Almighty God, solemnly protest.’ 
 
 ‘“In their official characters as ministers of Al- 
 mighty God, and in his name, they protest against 
 the passage of the Nebraska bill.' 
 
 “Now, sir, these are educated gentlemen. They 
 are men of experience in their vocation. They 
 ! understand the true and solemn import of the 
 i words here used; and I have not the shadow of 
 , a doubt that they meant to enter a protest, as 
 the language imports, as a protest, through them, 
 of the Almighty God himself, speaking to this 
 Senate.” 
 
 In another portion of the same speech, he 
 added : 
 
 “ Well, then, sir, the whole paper proceeds m. 
 the same name and by the same authority ; and, 
 among other things, they protest against the mea- 
 sure as a great moral 'wrong, a breach of faith 
 eminently injurious to the moral principles of the 
 community, subversive of all confidence in na- 
 tional engagements, and as exposing us to the 
 righteous judgment of the Almighty. All that is 
 announced by these gentlemen, as ministers of 
 God, affecting to speak in his name. 
 
 “ The interpretation of the paper, sir. I think it 
 is impossible to mistake ; but I have said that I 
 think too much importance has be^n attached to 
 it. Whether this is to be understood as a denun- 
 ciation of the judgments of God, or as a predic- 
 tion of his judgments, I deny the authority to de- 
 nounce, and I deny the gift of prophecy ; and 
 therefore I think we need not have troubled our- 
 selves further on the subject.” 
 
 I now pause for the purpose of inquiring of 
 each of you, reverend gentlemen, in which one 
 of these speeches was it proposed to deprive 
 you, or any other clergymen, of your “ preroga- 
 tives as citizens,” in consequence of your 
 “ office as ministers ?” In which one do you 
 find “an outrage upon the privileges of a 
 large and respectable body of citizens ?” 
 
 I have proven affirmatively and conclusively 
 that each and all of the senators against whom 
 you made this serious charge did, in the de- 
 bate to which you refer, distinctly recognise 
 and concede to all clergymen, of whatever de- 
 nomination, the undoubted right to “petition 
 government for the redress of grievances,” un- 
 der the authority of the Constitution, in the 
 same manner and with the same force as all 
 other citizens. You will therefore permit me 
 to suggest to you, with entire respect, that it is 
 due to your own character, “as ministers of 
 the gospel of Jesus Christ,” as citizens, and as 
 fair men who are bound by a high moral and 
 religious obligation to do justice to all men, to 
 withdraw the injurious imputations you have 
 made upon the reputation of these distinguished 
 senators, and to make an open and public 
 confession of the injustice you have done them 
 in connexion with myself. You must do this ; 
 you cannot fail to do it, unless you claim, by 
 virtue of your “ office as ministers,” to be in- 
 
vested with civil and political rights and pow- 
 ers not possessed by citizens as such, not 
 secured or conferred by the Constitution or any 
 other human authority, but of divine origin, 
 whereby you are empowered, “ in the name of 
 the Almighty God,” to command the Senate 
 to decide a political and legislative question in 
 the way you shall indicate! 
 
 After a careful and critical examination of 
 your protest against the Nebraska bill, and of 
 your resolutions in affirmance of your divine 
 right to denounce that measure, in the name 
 and by the authority of the Almighty, I fear 
 that it is your purpose to claim and exercise 
 this prerogative of the Deity upon legislative 
 and political questions. Let me recall your at- 
 tention to this remarkable protest : 
 
 To the honorable Senate and House of Represen- 
 tatives of the United States, in Congress assem- 
 bled: 
 
 “ The undersigned, clergymen of different reli- 
 gious denominations in the northwestern States, 
 as citizens, and as ministers of the Gospel of Je- 
 sus Christ, hereby, in the name of Almighty God, 
 and in his presence, do solemnly protest against 
 the passage of what is known as the ‘ Nebraska 
 bill,” or any repeal or modification of existing legal 
 prohibitions of slavery in that part of our national 
 domain which it is proposed_ to organize into the 
 territories of Nebraska ahd Kansas. 
 
 “ We protest against it as a great moral wrong; 
 as a breach of faith eminently injurious to the 
 moral principles of the community, and subversive 
 of all confidence in national engagements ; as a 
 matter full of danger to the peace, and even exis- 
 tence, of our beloved Union, and exposing us to 
 righteous judgments of the Almighty. 
 
 “ And your protestants, as in duty bound, will 
 ever pray.” 
 
 With the exception of the description of your 
 locality “ in the northwestern States” instead 
 “ of New England” and of the interpolation of 
 the words “ as citizens,” this protest is an ex- 
 act copy of the one presented to the Senate 
 from the clergymen of New Englanclupon which 
 the debate occurred which you have condemned. 
 After reading that debate and seeing the na- 
 ture of the objections urged to the New Eng- 
 land protest, it seems that you determined to 
 present yourselves to the Senate in a two-fold 
 capacity — the one “ as citizens” and the other 
 “ as ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” 
 Nobody questions your right ; no one denies 
 the propriety of your exercising the constitu- 
 tional right of petitioning government for re- 
 dress of grievances in your capacity as citi- 
 zens ; nor can there be any well-founded objec- 
 tion to your adding these other words, “ as 
 ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” if 
 done only as illustrative of your relations to 
 society and of your profession and occupation 
 
 in life. This was not the obnoxious feature in 
 the New England protest. The objection urged 
 to that paper was, that the clergymen who had 
 signed it, did not protest in their own names, as 
 clergymen, or citizens, or human beings, or in 
 the name of any human authority or civil right, 
 but they assumed the divine prerogative and 
 spoke to the Senate “ in the name of Almighty 
 God!” 
 
 With a full knowledge that senators in the 
 debate to which you have alluded, understood 
 the New England protest in this light — and as 
 asserting a divine power in the clergy of this 
 I country higher than the obligations of the Con- 
 I stitution, and above the sovereignty o’fthe peo- 
 j pie and of the States — to command the sena- 
 tors by the authority of Heaven and under 
 the penalty of exposing 'them “ to the right- 
 eous judgment of the Almighty,” to vote in a 
 particular way upon a given question, you 
 now readopt the protest and repeat the com- 
 mand in the identical language in which it 
 was originally issued. This looks as if it was 
 your fixed and deliberate purpose, as clergy- 
 men, to force an issue upon this point with the 
 civil and political authorities of the republic. If 
 there were room for doubt or misapprehension, 
 in this respect, on the face of the New England 
 protest, you have removed all obscurity and 
 avowed the purpose distinctly and boldly in the 
 resolutions which you adopted at the time you 
 signed your protest : 
 
 “ Resolved 1st. That the ministry is the divinely 
 appointed institution for the declaration and en- 
 forcement of God’s will upon all points of moral 
 and religious truth ; and that as such, it is their 
 duty to reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all 
 authority and doctrine.” 
 
 This resolution appears to have been adopted 
 by you at an Anti-Nebraska meeting, (com- 
 posed exclusively of clergymen, twenty-five in 
 number,) and called for the purpose of con- 
 sidering that question and none other. It was 
 adopted in connexion with the protest, and 
 forms a part of the same transaction. The 
 protest denounces the Nebraska Bill “in the 
 name of Almighty God” as “ a great moral 
 wrong ” — as a breach of faith eminently in- 
 jurious to moral principle of the community,” 
 and, “'as exposing us to the righteous judg- 
 ments of the Almighty.” The resolution de- 
 clares “ that the ministry is the divinely-ap- 
 pointed institution for the declaration and en- 
 forcement of God's will upon all points of moral 
 and religious truth 1" Do not the protest and 
 resolution refer to the same question, to wit, 
 the Nebraska bill now pending before Con- 
 gress? Surely you will not deny that such was 
 your understanding. You assembled to con- 
 
8 
 
 aider that question and none other. You acted 
 upon that subject and that alone. Your 
 resolutions were declaratory of the extent of 
 your rights and powers as clergymen, and your 
 protest was your action in conformity with 
 those assumed rights and powers. 
 
 I understand, then, your position to be this: 
 that you are “ministers of the Gospel;” that 
 “the ministry is the divinely-appointed institu- 
 tion for the declaration and enforcement of 
 God’s will upon all points of moral and reli- 
 gious truth;” that this “ divinely-appointed | 
 institution” is empowered “to declare” what] 
 questions of a civil, political, judicial, or legis- ; 
 lative character, do involve “points of moral 
 and religious truth;” that the Nebraska bill 
 does involve such “points,” and is, therefore, ] 
 one of the questions upon which it is the duty 
 of this “divinely-appointed institution” to “de- 
 clare and enforce God’s will ;” and that, clothed 
 with “all authority and doctrine,” this “divinely 
 appointed institution” proceeds to issue its 
 mandates to the Congress of the United States 
 “in the name of the Almighty God.” This 
 being your position, I must be permitted to 
 say to you, in all Christian kindness, that I 
 differ with you widely, radically, and funda- 
 mentally, in respect to the nature and extent 
 of your rights, duties, and powers, as ministers 
 of the Gospel. If the claims of this “divinely- 
 appointed institution” shall be enforced, and 
 the various public functionaries shall yield their 
 judgments to your supervision, and their con- 
 sciences to your keeping, there will be no limit 
 to your temporal power except your own wise 
 discretion and virtuous forbearance. If your 
 “divinely-appointed institution” has the power 
 to prescribe the mode and terms for the organi- 
 zation of Nebraska, I see no reason why your 
 authority may not be extended over the entire 
 continent, not only to the country which we now 
 possess, but to all which may hereafter be ac- 
 quired. 
 
 Nor do you propose to confine your opera- ] 
 tions to the supervision and direction of the I 
 action of Congress in the organization of ter- ; 
 ritorial governments and the admission of new ; 
 States into the Union. It is difficult to conceive 
 of any matter of private or public concern, 
 pending before Congress, or in the legislatures of 
 the different States, or in the judicial tribunals, 
 which does not quite as much as the Nebraska 
 bill “ involve some point of moral and religious 
 truth;” and we are informed, in your resolution, 
 that “ upon all points of moral and religious 
 truth” the “ ministry is the divinely-appointed 
 institution for the declaration and enforcement 
 of God’s will.” I do not wish to be under- 
 stood as intimating that it is your present pur- 
 
 pose, through the agency of this “ divinely-ap- 
 pointed institution,” to declare and enforce 
 God’s will” in all matters affecting our foreign 
 policy and domestic concerns, nor that you in- 
 tend to direct the movements of the political 
 parties, and control the local and general elec- 
 tions throughout the country. It is enough to 
 fil] with alarm the mind of every patriot, and 
 touring sorrow and grief to the heart of every 
 Christian, that you have asserted the right to 
 do this in all cases, and have in one case at- 
 tempted the exercise- of this divine preroga- 
 tive “ in the name of Almighty God.” It°is 
 true that, while you assert the right, in the 
 broadest terms, and propose now to establish 
 a precedent which will justify its exercise in 
 all future tin.?, in your second resolution you 
 “disclaim al! desire” to do certain things from 
 which it might be inferred, on first view, 
 that you do not intend to meddle with party 
 politics, nor attempt to control the political 
 movements of the day. This, however, turns 
 out to be illusory, on a closer examination. 
 
 “ Resolved, 2d. That while we disclaim all desire 
 to interfere in questions of war and policy, or to 
 mingle in the conflicts of political parties, it is our 
 ] duty to recognise the moral bearing of such ques- 
 tions and conflicts, and to proclaim, in reference 
 I thereunto, no less than toother departments of 
 ' human interest, the principle of inspired truth 
 i and obligation.” 
 
 You do not “desire to interfere in questions 
 of war and policy.” Thus far I heartily ap- 
 prove. I rejoice to see that you are willing to 
 leave the question of war where the Constitu- 
 tion has placed it — in the hands of Congress, 
 as the representatives of the people and the 
 States of the Union. 
 
 You “disclaim all desire,” also, “to mingle 
 in the conflicts of political parties.” This 
 sentiment is admirable. It will meet the cor- 
 dial approbation of every patriot and Chris- 
 tian. But you immediately follow it with the 
 declaration that “ it is our duty to recognise 
 the moral bearing of such questions and con- 
 flicts!” You do not desire to engage in war 
 nor to fight the battles of your country, but 
 you do claim that it is your right, and, if you 
 please, your duty, by virtue of your office as 
 ministers, through the agency of this divinely- 
 appointed institution, to declare, in the name 
 of Almighty God, a war, in which your country 
 is engaged with a foreign power, to be immoral 
 and unrighteous, although the representatives 
 of the people and of the States, in pursuance 
 of the Constitution, have declared it to be 
 just and necessary. And this,] not in the 
 course of your ordinary pastoripl duties to 
 your several congregations, but as an organ- 
 
9 
 
 ized body speaking to the constituted authorities 
 of the nation. I cannot recognise the princi- 
 ple that., while you are protected in the enjoy- 
 ment of all your rights as citizens of all your 
 just rights as ministers, you are yet released, 
 by virtue of your office as ministers, from 
 your allegience to the country during war, and 
 from your obligation of obedience to the Con- 
 stitution and laws and constituted authorities 
 at all times. 
 
 You also say that you consider it your duty j 
 to take cognizance of “ the moral bearing of 
 the conflicts of the different political parties.” j 
 The moral bearing of the democratic party, i 
 and of the whig party, and of the abolition 
 party are each to be recognised by your divinely 
 appointed institution : and you then add that | 
 it is your duty “ to proclaim in reference there- | 
 unto the principle of inspired truth and obliga- 
 tion.” You propose, through your divinely-ap- 
 poiuted institution, to apply the test of “ in- 
 spired truth ” to each of the political organiza- 
 tions and to their respective conflicts, and “ to 
 reprove, rebuke, and exhort with all authority 
 and doctrine,” in the name of the great Jeho- 
 vah. With all due respect for you, as minis- 
 ters of the Gospel, I cannot recognise in your 
 divinely appointed institution the power either 
 of prophecy or of revelation. I have never re- 
 cognised the existence of that power in any 
 man on ea ih during my day. Only a few 
 years since, anu within the period of your own 
 vivid recollection, the priesthood of a religious 
 sect, calling themselves Latter-day Saints, claim- 
 ed for themselves the same right, by virtue of 
 their divinely-appointed institution, to declare 
 and enforce God’s will on earth in respect to 
 “all points of moral and religious truth.” They 
 also declared that it was their duty to recognise 
 “ the moral bearing of the conflicts of the po- 
 litical parties, and to “ proclaim in reference 
 thereunto the principle of inspired truth and 
 obligation.” When the Mormon prophet pro- 
 claimed the principle of inspired truth, “ in the 
 name of the Almighty God,” and through the 
 agency of his divinely-appointed institution, 
 that it was the decree of heaven that Stephen 
 A. Douglas should be beaten, and his oppo- 
 nent elected to Congress in the Quincy district, 
 the people of that portion of Illinois did not 
 acknowledge the authority of the prophet, nor 
 did the result of the election strengthen my 
 opinion in the validity of his claims. 
 
 I have wandered over distant and extensive 
 portions of the globe, during the past ear. 
 where the successor of Mahomet, proclaimed 
 and enforced God’s will on earth, accordii g to 
 the principles of inspired truth and obligation, 
 as recorded in the Koran; and, by the potency 
 
 of his divinely-appointed institution, held, in the 
 hollow of his hand, and suspended upon his 
 breath, the lives, the liberties, and the property 
 of millions of men, women, and children. When 
 within his dominions and surrounded by his 
 bayonets, I had neither the time nor the dis- 
 position to argue the question of his right to 
 “reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all author- 
 ity and doctrine,” in the name of the Almighty! 
 But, when I set foot on the shores of my native 
 land, under the broad folds of our national flag, 
 and, surrounded by the protecting genius of our 
 American institutions, I did not feel like recog- 
 nizing any such rightful authority of that di- 
 vinely-appointed institution, in temporal affairs, 
 here or elsewhere. 
 
 Your claims for the supremacy of this divine- 
 ly-appointed institution are subversive of the 
 fundamental principles upon which our whole 
 republican system rests. What the necessity 
 of a Congress, if you can supervise and direct 
 its conduct? Why should the people subject 
 themselves to the trouble and expense of elect- 
 ing legislatures for the purpose of enacting hu- 
 man laws, if their validity depends upon the 
 sanction of your divine authority ? Why sus- 
 tain a vast and complex judicial system to ex- 
 pound the laws, administer justice, and deter- 
 mine all disputes in respect to human rights, 
 if your divinely-appointed institution is invest- 
 ed with all authority to prescribe the rule of 
 decision in the name of the Deity? If your 
 pretensions be just and valid, why not dispense 
 with all the machinery of human government 
 and subject ourselves freely and unreservedly, 
 together with all our temporal and spiritual in- 
 terests and hopes, to the justice and mercy of 
 this divinely appointed institution? 
 
 Our fathers held that the people were the 
 only true source of all political power ; but 
 what avails this position, if the constituted au- 
 thorities established by the people are to be 
 controlled and directed — not by their own 
 judgment, not by the will of their constituents, 
 but by the divinely-constituted power of the 
 clergy? Does it not follow that this great 
 principle, recognised and affirmed in the con- 
 stitution of the United States and of every 
 State of this Union, is thus virtually annulled, 
 and the representatives of the people convert- 
 ed into machines in the hands of an all-con- 
 trolling priesthood? 
 
 The will of the people, expressed in obe- 
 dience to the forms and provisions of the Con- 
 stitution, is the supreme law of this land. But 
 | your office as ministers” is not provided for 
 j in the Constitution. Your divinely-appointed 
 I institution is not recognised in that instrument. 
 ' Nowhere in the Constitution or laws of any of 
 
10 
 
 the States, or of the United States, is there to 
 be found a provision constituting or recog- 
 nising you and your brethren “ the divinely- 
 appointed institution for the declaration and 
 enforcement of God’s will and therefore, in 
 your character as a body of ministers, you 
 cannot claim any political power under our 
 system of govornment. 
 
 The persecutions of our ancestors were too 
 fresh in the memories of our revolutionary fa- 
 thers for them to create, recognise, or even 
 tolerate, a church establishment in this coun- 
 try, clothed with temporal authority. So ap- 
 prehensive were they of the usurpations of 
 this, the most fearful and corrupting of all 
 despotisms, whether viewed with reference to 
 the purity of the church or the happiness of 
 the people, that they provided in the Constitu- 
 tion that “ no religious test shall ever be re- 
 quired as a qualification to any office or public 
 trust under the United States.” Still, fearful 
 that, in the process of time, a spirit of religious 
 fanaticism, or a spirit of ecclesiastical domina- 
 tion, (yet more to be dreaded, because cool and 
 calculating,) might seize upon some exciting 
 political topic, and in an evil hour surprise 
 or entrap the people into a dangerous conces- 
 sion of political power to the clergy, the first 
 Congress under the Constitution proposed, and 
 the people adopted, an amendment to guard 
 against such a calamity, in the following words: 
 
 “ Congress shall make no law respecting an 
 establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free 
 exercise thereof.” 
 
 The doctrine of our fathers was, and the 
 principle of the Constitution is, that' every hu- 
 man being has an inalienable, divinely-conferred 
 right to worship God according to the dictates 
 of his own conscience ; and that no earthly in- 
 stitution, nor any “institution” on earth, can 
 rightfully deprive him of that sacred and ines- 
 timable privilege. 
 
 However, it is no part of my purpose to in- 
 quire into the extent of your authority in 
 spiritual affairs. That is a question between 
 you and your respective congregations, with 
 which I have neither right nor wish to inter- 
 fere. 
 
 All that I have said, and all that I propose 
 to say, has direct reference to the vindication 
 of my character and position against the un- 
 justifiable assaults which you have made in re- 
 gard to my official action in the Senate. I 
 repeat that your assumption of power from 
 the Almighty, to direct and control the civil 
 authorities of this country, is in derogation of 
 the Constitution, subversive of the principles of 
 free government, and destructive of all the 
 
 guarantees of civil and religious liberty. The 
 sovereign right of the people to manage their 
 own affairs in conformity with the Constitution 
 of their own making, recedes and disappears, 
 when placed in subordination to the authority 
 of a body of men, claiming, by virtue of their 
 offices as ministers, to he a divinely-appointed 
 institution for the declaration and enforcement 
 of God’s v/ill on earth. 
 
 If your objection to the Nebraska bill con- 
 sists in the fact that it asserts the great prin- 
 ciple ’of self-government and declares the right 
 of the people to regulate their domestic con- 
 cerns in their own way, and thus, by implication, 
 denies- your right of supremacy, you are acting 
 consistently with your own principles in op- 
 posing it. 
 
 Upon a careful examination of your protest, 
 it is certain that you have acted under a total 
 misapprehension of the principles and provi- 
 sions of the bill, unless you object to it solely 
 upon the ground that it, recognises the pro- 
 priety of leaving to the people of these Ter- 
 ritories what is the undoubted right of the 
 States to govern themselves in respect to their 
 local and domestic concerns. On the supposi- 
 tion that you may have formed your opinions 
 from unreliable sources of information, in the 
 absence of the opportunity of reading the bill 
 itself, I have copied, the only provision to which 
 your protest can possibly be construed to refer : 
 
 “ Sec. 14. That the Constitution, and laws of 
 the United States which are not locally inapplica- 
 ble, shall have the same force and effect within the 
 said Territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within 
 the United States, except the eighth section of the 
 act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into 
 the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which, being 
 inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention 
 by Congress with slavery in the States and Ter- 
 ritories, ps recognised by the legislation of 1850, 
 commonly called the compromise measures, is 
 hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the 
 true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate 
 slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude 
 it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof per- 
 fectly free to form and regulate their domestic in- 
 stitutions in their own way, subject only to the 
 Constitution of the United States : Provided, That 
 nothing herein contained shall be construed to re- 
 vive or put in force any law or regulation which 
 may have existed prior to the act of 0th March, 
 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, 
 or abolishing slavery.” 
 
 If the Nebraska bill shall become the law of 
 the land, those of our fellow-citizens who may 
 emigrate to that country, will find it, in respect 
 to its jurisprudence, in precisely the same con- 
 dition as our ancestors found Plymouth rock — 
 with no code of laws, no system of political, 
 civil, social, and domestic institutions, but with 
 
11 
 
 full power and authority to enact and establish 
 for themselves such laws and institutions as 
 they shall deem wise, just, and necessary; sub- 
 ject only to such limitation as is imposed by the 
 Constitution. Do you wish to have the people 
 of this country to understand that you claim the 
 Divine authority for saying that it is “a great 
 moral wrong,” a violation “of God’s will,” and 
 an infringement of His holy law, for Congress 
 to allow the people of the Territories to enact 
 and establish for themselves their own laws 
 and institutions, in obedience to the Constitu- 
 tion their fathers have made, and to remove all 
 legal obstructions in the way of the exercise of 
 such rights? This is all that the Nebraska 
 bill proposes to do. It, therefore, you continue 
 to oppose it, you must confine your opposition 
 directly and exclusively to this great principle 
 of self-government, for you have neither pointed 
 out nor intimated in your protest the existence 
 of any other objections than those which stand 
 as obstacles in the way of carrying this princi- 
 ple into complete effect. 
 
 Perhaps you will tell me that you are in favor 
 of that principle which allows the people to 
 enact such laws as they may choose, and that 
 you oppose the bill only because it abrogates 
 the eighth section of the act of 1820, sometimes 
 called the Missouri compromise. Before you 
 assume that position, I must be permitted to 
 remind you that it is necessary, yea, absolutely 
 indispensable, to render the eighth section of 
 the Missouri act inoperative and void in order 
 to enable the people to legislate for themselves 
 freely upon all subjects touching their local in- 
 terests and domestic concerns. You must 
 therefore abandon your objection to the annul- 
 ment of that section, or persevere in your oppo- 
 sition to the principle upon which the bill is 
 founded. 
 
 In your protest, (alluding, I presume, to the 
 annulment of the Missouri restriction,) you de- 
 nounce the Nebraska bill “ as a great moral 
 wrong; as 'a breach of faith imminently inju- 
 rious to the moral principles of the community, 
 and subversive of all confidence in national 
 engagements,” and “ exposing us to the righte- 
 ous judgments of the Almighty 1” 
 
 I am rejoiced to learn that the “clergymen 
 of different denominations” in the city of Chi- 
 cago have come to the firm conclusion that “ a 
 breach of faith,” that the non-fulfillment of “na- 
 tional engagements” is “a great moral wrong,” ' 
 exposing the offenders “to the righteous judg- ! 
 ments of the Almighty !” 
 
 I remember well my feelings upon this sub- 
 ject, in October, 1850. I should then have re- j 
 joiced with exceeding great joy to have heard ij 
 from your lips, to have known that you were " 
 
 ready to proclaim in your pulpits and in pub- 
 | lie places^ the sanctity of “ national engage- 
 ments,” and the “great moral wrong” of their 
 ' non-fulfillment; and especially when contained 
 in the Constitution our fathers made for us, 
 and upon which all patriots now look as the 
 ark of our safety. I have no recollection that 
 when the common council of the city of 
 Chicago by resolutions, refused to carry into 
 effect the “ national engagements” contained 
 in the Constitution of the United States, for 
 the return of fugitives from service, when the 
 council nullified an act of Congress passed for the 
 purpose of carrying those national engagements 
 into faithful execution ; when the council called 
 upon the police to refrain from rendering any 
 assistance in executing the law ; -when public 
 meetings were held, and speeches made pro- 
 posing to defy death and the dungeon in re- 
 sistance to the fulfillment of these “ nat.onal 
 engagements 1” I say I have no recollection 
 that, on the solemn and fearful occasion re- 
 j ferred to, any one of your “divinely-appointed 
 j institution” appeared on the stand, or in the 
 j pulpit, or elsewhere to proclaim, “in the name 
 j of Almighty God,” that the non-fulfillment of 
 [“national engagements was a great moral 
 wrong, exposing us to the righteous judgments 
 j of the Almighty 1” The particulars of that 
 wild and terrific scene remain vividly impressed 
 upon my memory ; but I repeat, that I have 
 not the slightest recollection that any one of 
 you was ever suspected of a desire to see the law 
 enforced, much less to contribute even moral 
 aid to its execution. 
 
 There is, however, this difference in the two 
 cases : the national ^rgagement for the return 
 of fugitives from service was incorporated 
 into the Constitution of the United States, and 
 therefore forms a part of the supreme law of 
 the land ; while the national engagements, to 
 which you refer, as constituting what has been 
 called an irrevocable compact, under the name 
 of the Missouri compromise, have no existence 
 j in fact, are unsustained by the terms of the 
 law and contradicted by the record of the trans- 
 [ action. You have, doubtless, been misled 
 by the positive statements which have been 
 solemnly put forth that the act of Congress of 
 the 6 th of March, 1820, constituted a sacred 
 and irrevocable compact between the north and 
 the south, whereby, in consideration of the ad- 
 mission of Missouri on an equal footing with 
 the original States, it was stipulated that sla- 
 very should be forever excluded from all the 
 residue of the country acquired from France 
 north of latitude 36° 30' ; and that the north 
 has always been faithful in the performance of 
 I its part of the obligations, and that the south, 
 
 ( 
 
12 
 
 having secured all its advantages, now seeks to 
 be released from its incumbrances. I have the 
 charity to believe that you have been misled 
 by this erroneous and unfounded statement, 
 which, in an imposing form, has been spread 
 broadcast throughout the free States, and is 
 now everywhere being circulated and repeated 
 for partisan purposes ; and, relying on the truth 
 of the statement, and acting under that fatal 
 delusion, you have had the misfortune to pro- 
 nounce judgment “in the name of the Almighty 
 God.” 
 
 If you will condescend to listen to human 
 authority, to legislative enactments, and con- 
 gressional journals, in derogation of your di- 
 vine testimony, you will find that Missouri was 
 never admitted into the Union, under the act 
 of the 6th of March, 1820, called the Missouri 
 compromise ; that, if the said act was an irre- 
 vocable compact, it was disavowed and repu- 
 diated by the north within eleven months from 
 its date ; that Missouri, having formed a con- 
 stitution conformable in all respects to said 
 act, was denied admission into the Union in 
 February, 1821, by northern votes; that the 
 north, by a vote of 61 to 33, on motion of Mr. 
 Mallory, of Vermont, refused to admit Mis- 
 souri into the Union, with a constitution cor- 
 responding with the precise terms of the al- 
 leged compact, unless, “in addition” thereto, 
 she would “ further provide, in and by said con- 
 stitution, that neither slavery nor involuntary 
 servitude shall ever be allowed in said State of J 
 Missouri that, in consequence of the refusalof 
 the representatives from the northern States to 
 carry into effect what is known as the compro- 
 mise of 1820, Missouri w^s compelled to sub- 
 mit to a new one, in the form of an irrevocable 
 compact between that State and the United 
 States, by the terms of which she was to be ad- 
 mitted into the Union on a new “condition,” 
 unlike anything contained in the act of 1820; 
 that this compact was entered into and ap- 
 proved on the 2d of March, 1821 ; that Mis- 
 souri complied with the condition in the month 
 of June thereafter; and that, on the 10th of 
 August, 1821, the President of the United 
 States issued his proclamation declaring the 
 fulfillment of the “condition” on the part of 
 Missouri, and the admission of such State into 
 the Union “in pursuance of the joint resolu- 
 tion” or “irrevocable compact” of March 2, 
 1821, and not in conformity , with the act of 
 1820. If there is any reliance upon human 
 testimony, if there is any faith to be attached 
 to historical and official records, these facts are 
 true. Being true, there is no provision in the 
 “national engagement,” contained in the joint 
 resolution of 1821, under which Missouri was 
 
 admitted into the Union, whereby slavery was 
 prohibited north of 36° 30k or elsewhere in the 
 Territories of the United States; nor does the 
 Nebraska bill propose to repeal, impair, or in 
 any manner affect that “irrevocable compact.” 
 Is it not manifest, therefore, according to all 
 the evidences accessible to the human under- 
 [ standing, that you have labored under a lam- 
 entable delusion in supposing that the Ne- 
 braska bill involved “a breach of faith emi- 
 nently injurious to the morals of the commu- 
 nity and subversive of all confidence in na- 
 i gagements?” 
 
 When you shall have withdrawn the un- 
 founded allegation that the bill involves “ a 
 breach of faith,” and shall have made public 
 confession of the injustice you have done the 
 Senate in this particular, perhaps you will 
 conceive it to be your d uty to persevere in your 
 opposition to its pa sage, upon the ground 
 that it renders inoperative and void the eighth 
 section of the act of 1820, in which Congress 
 assumed the right to prohibit slavery in that 
 country, not only win - it should remain a 
 territory, but in all time to come, after it shall 
 have been subdivided and admitted into the 
 Union as sovereign and independent States. 
 Reminding you again that it was necessary to 
 render that section inoperative and void in or- 
 der to recognise the great principle of self- 
 government and State equality, and to leave 
 the people free o regulate their local cor.ee • a 
 and domestic institutions in their own way, 
 you will discover that your opposition is con- 
 fined excl usively to the principle of popular 
 sovereignty. It does not vary the question in 
 any degree, that human slavery is, in your 
 opinion, a great moral wrong. If so, it is not 
 the only wrong upon which the people of each 
 of the States and Territories of this Union are 
 called upon to act and decide for themselves. 
 In the opinion of a large ant] respectable por- 
 tion of our people, the manufacture and sale 
 of ardent spirits and intoxicating drinks is a 
 monstrous wrong, eminently injurious to the 
 morals of the community. While these opin- 
 ions are honestly entertained, and vigorous 
 efforts are being made to induce the legisla- 
 tures of the different States and Territories to 
 pass laws for their enforcement, I have wit- 
 nessed no attempt to induce Congress to de- 
 clare the “ Maine law” to be in force in ail the 
 Territories of the United States, and to re- 
 main in force forever in the States to be formed 
 therefrom, regardless of the rights and wishes 
 of the people to be affected thereby. 
 
 A very large and exemplary portion of our 
 Christian community firmly believe that the 
 practice of carrying the mails, of running 
 
13 
 
 stage-coaches for the conveyance of passen- 
 gers, and of keeping open public houses and 
 bar-rooms for gain on Sunday, is a great moral 
 wrong ; yet if Congress should propose to de- 
 clare, by a fundamental and irrevocable act, 
 that, in all time tocome. such practices should 
 never be tolerated in any of the territory which 
 we now possess or may hereafter acquire, nor 
 in any new State to he formed from such terri- 
 tory, it is possible that another portion of 
 the Christian community, equally exemplary 
 and sincere, might rise up and say that it is 
 our firm conviction, after a thorough examina- 
 tion of the Holy Scriptures, that the seventh 
 day, instead of the first day of the week, is 
 the Sabbath which God has commanded us to 
 keep holy ; and that, if this law passes, you 
 exclude us and our brethren and descendants 
 forever from settling in those territories and 
 States, or compel us to conform to an article 
 of religious faith repugnant to our conscien- 
 tious belief. Although you may be of the 
 opinion, and doubtless are, that the practice 
 of performing secular duties, and attending to 
 wordly affairs on Sunday, is not in accordance 
 with the divine law as recorded in the Holy 
 Scriptures, it does not appear that you desire 
 the interference of Congress in this particular 
 to deprive the people of the Territories and 
 new States of the privilege of regulating these 
 matters in conformity with their sense of pro- 
 priety and duty. I trust that the great body 
 of the American people look upon the manu- 
 facture, sale, and use of instruments and im- 
 plements of gaming as a wrong eminently in- 
 jurious to the public morals ; yet I have heard 
 no objection to leaving the people of each 
 State and Territory free to determine that 
 question according to their sense of right, 
 and propriety. 
 
 I will not trouble you further with this class 
 of cases, having cited enough to illustrate the 
 principle. The entire criminal code of each 
 State and Territory of the Union, and every 
 section and provision thereof, is supposed to re- 
 late to some great moral wrong which the peo- 
 ple in their sovereign capacity have deemed it 
 their duty to prohibit, and, if possible, prevent 
 by penalties and punishments. Inasmuch as 
 you are willing to leave these questions, and all 
 others which are supposed to be injurious to 
 the morals of the community and prejudicial to 
 the best interests of society, in the hands of the 
 people of the respective States and Territories, 
 would it not be better and wiser to entrust the 
 slavery question to the arbitrament of the same 
 authority, rather than to violate the great prin- 
 ciple of self-government which lies at the foun- 
 dation of all our free iustitutions? If I correctly 
 
 understand your position, you do not object to 
 permitting the people of the Territories, in the 
 same manner as in the States, to exercise all 
 rightful power and authority in all matters 
 affecting the rights, interests, and happiness of 
 white men. If the people are capable of self- 
 government,! do not understand that it requires 
 any higher degree of intelligence, virtue, or 
 civilization, to legislate for the negro than for 
 the white man. It will not be pretended thatthe 
 legislature of any Territory or State would or 
 could, under the Constitution, deprive any free- 
 man, black or white, of his liberty, except for 
 crime ; nor will it be insisted that Congress has 
 the power to confer any such authority. Hence 
 there is no possibilityof a free man beingreduced 
 to slavery, or of the number of slaves in the 
 United Slates being increased by the passage 
 of the Nebraska bill. The only effect it could 
 possibly have in respect to the slave is, that, in 
 a certain contingency, he might he permitted 
 to enter the country, and remain there as such, 
 and in a certain other contingency he could 
 not. If a slave should be removed from Ken- 
 tucky to Nebraska, the effect would be to re- 
 duce the number on the east side of the Mis- 
 sissippi to the same extent that it was increased 
 on the west, without enlarging the political 
 power of the master or producing any injurious 
 consequences to the slave; while, by the mere 
 fact of his removal from an old country to a 
 new one, from poor lands to rich ones, from a 
 scarcity to an abundance of provisions, his 
 temporal condition would be improved and his 
 physical comforts increased. His presence in 
 the new Territory could not in any mode or 
 degree affect or injure any human being in any 
 other Territory or State. If his presence should 
 be offensive or injurious to any body it would 
 be to the people of the Territory or State where 
 he was located. Then, why not leave it to the 
 people of such Territory or State to decide for 
 themselves whether he shall be permitted to 
 come or not? No body else has any interest 
 in it ; no other State or Territory would be af- 
 fected by it. It is purely a question of domes- 
 tic concern, which, for weal or for woe, affects 
 the people of such Territory or State, and no 
 body else. You think that you are abundantly 
 competent to decide this question now and for- 
 ever. If you should remove to Nebraska, with 
 the view of making it your permanent home, 
 would you be any less competent to decide it 
 when you should have arrived in the country? 
 
 Thus, you see that the principle of the Ne- 
 braska bill is purely a question of self-govern- 
 ment, involving the right and capacity of the 
 people to make their own laws and manage 
 their own local and domestic concerns. This 
 
14 
 
 is the only controverted principle involved in 
 the bill. I am- unwilling to believe that, upon 
 mature reflection, and with all the advantages 
 which your Christian character and experience 
 may enable you to summon to your assistance, 
 you will sanction the declaration that a propo- 
 sition to carry this principle into effect is “a 
 great moral wrong, exposing us to the right- 
 eous judgments of the Almighty.” 
 
 It is the principle upon which the thirteen 
 colonies separated from the imperial govern 
 ment. It is the principle in defence of which 
 the battles of the Revolution were fought. It is 
 the principle to which all our free institutions 
 owe their existence, and upon which our entire 
 republican system rests. This great principle 
 is recognised and affirmed in tire Constitution 
 and bill of rights of every State in this Union 
 as the corner-stone in the temple of our liberties. 
 It was under the operation of this principle 
 that slavery retired from the New England 
 States. It was in obedience to its potential 
 influence that slavery disappeared from New 
 York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. It was 
 by virtue of this principle that California came 
 into the Union with her free constitution. It 
 is in obedience to this principle that slavery is 
 excluded from all the free States of this Union; 
 and I trust that, whenever, in God’s provi- 
 dence, it shall cease in the States where it now 
 exists, it may cease under the operation of this 
 principle, and none other! 
 
 In conclusion, reverend gentlemen, permit 
 me to say to you, in all kindness and sincerity, 
 that it is with extreme reluctance that I sub- 
 mit this vindication of my character and posi- 
 
 tion against the assaults which, I conceive, you 
 have so unjustly made upon them. My respect 
 for your holy calling would induce me to sub- 
 mit, in silence, even to an unmerited rebuke, 
 in preference to engaging in a controversy with 
 ministers of the Gospel in any case where 
 duty did not compel me to speak. The acts 
 for which you have arraigned me were a part 
 of my official duty, in the performance of a 
 high public trust, for which I am responsible 
 to my State, to the Constitution, and to my 
 God. The principle which it has been my aim 
 to carry into effect, and for the support of 
 which I have incurred your displeasure, is the 
 one to which all the institutions of my State, 
 and of each othey State of this confederacy, owe 
 their existence, and for the protection and pre- 
 servation of which the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States was formed. With my conscientious 
 convictions of the nature of the trust confided 
 to my hands, I cannot doubt that fidelity to that 
 principle and fidelity to that Constitution will 
 carry with it the blessings of Heaven. 
 
 I have the honor to be. very respectfully, 
 your obedient servant, 
 
 S. A. DOUGLAS. 
 
 To the Reverend Messrs. A. M. Stewart, Henry 
 Klamer, A. Kengon, James E. Wilson, C. 
 Wenz, Geo. L. Mnlfinger, Timpson Guyer, 
 R. H. Richardson, S. Bolles, T. V. Watson, 
 W. A. Nichols, Joseph H. Leonard, J. Mc- 
 Namara, J. M. Weed, J. Sinclair, E. M. 
 Gammon, John C. Holbrook, A. IT. Eggles- 
 ton, Paul Anderson, Harvey Curtiss, John 
 Clark, R. F. Shinn, Luther Stone, A. W. 
 Henderson, and Fitch. 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 MAY 1 ’47 _ 
 
 
 
 
 1 j 
 
 ^ 1), 
 
 
 
 CAkREL n 
 
 Oftl 
 
 
 
 JVL 6 Td 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' J ** 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Form 335— 35M— 9-34— C. P. Co. 
 
977.5 Z99B v.l Nos. 1-22 
 
 307892