y£2L2m l \ Tomas THE Weldon N. Edwards and Marmadeke J. Hawkins Libraries Purchased by TRINITY COLLEGE LIBRARY May. 1921 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Duke University Libraries https://archive.org/details/considerationsin01sout • 1 r I 1 r, ^ 3 G> 'V . *j . / ■ Cdu t>twJL i » )’!<• i CONSII IN FAVOR OF THE NOMINATION OP STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS BY THE CHARLESTON CONTENTION, A SOUTHERN DEMOCRAT. Differences of opinion extending as well to measures as to men have for years past divided the Democratic party. Such differences of opinion ex- isted in 1852 and in 1856, and they exist now. The Baltimore conven- tion happily adjusted those differences in 1S52, and the Cincinnati Conven- tion profited by the example in 1856. The result was, a united Democra- cy, and the election of a Democratic President. The Charleston conven- tion, if it be true to these lessons of wise experience, as it undoubtedly will be, will settle existing differences of opinion, and prepare the way for a triumph in 1800, as brilliant as the triumphs of 1852 and 1856. There never was a period in the history of the Democratic party which more im- peratively demanded than the present demands mutual forbearance and concession. Harmony can be maintained in no other way, and without harmony success will be impossible. The Opposition are more formidable in 1860 than they were in 1852 or in 1856. Whoever thinks differently is not wise, nor yet a fit counselor for the times. The' Republican party, young as it is, has made rapid strides in power, more rapid, although com fined to one section, than any political organization which has grown up in our country for the last quarter of a century. That party, compact, united, and untiring, holds to-day every northern State, except California and Oregon. Some of them it holds by a doubtful tenure, as Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and one, Illinois, by a plurality vote. That tenure may be, will be made certain, strong, and unimpeach- able, if the Charleston Convention fall short of its duty. The election of a Republican to the Presidency — which all, except the discontented spirits who would hail it as a means and an end whereby the Union may be de- stroyed, would deeply deplore, and will strive earnestly to avert — will be- come a “fixed fact,” unless that Convention shall sternly and persistently refuse to wander off from the old land-marks of the Democratic party. Its bounden duty is to harmonize the Democratic party, and give it strength, confidence, power 1 To do this, it will be necessary to discard all new tests and impracticable issues, and present to the country a candidate whom the Vlb'e.7 2 Democracy of every section can cordially support ; a candidate whose name and position will give assurance of success. The voice of the De- mocracy everywhere demands the selection of the most available candidate, and the perils which surround us forewarn us, that now, as in 1852 and 1856, all preferences and all prejudices must yield to political necessity. So believing, the writer, with no wish or intention to disparage the claims of other distinguished Democrats, ventures to present “ considerations in favor of the nomination of Stephen A. Douglas.” He trusts that they will be received by whoever may read them with the same spirit of candor and fairness in which he purposes to express them. THE PROSPECT BEFORE US. The Electorial College of 1860, assuming that Kansas will not be ad- mitted into the Union as a State prior to the Presidential election, will con sist of 303 votes', of which 152 will be necessary to a choice. These votes are apportioned among the several States as follows: . FREE STATES. Maine 8 New Hampshire 5 Vermont 5 Massachusetts 13 Rhode Island 4 Connecticut 6 New York 35 New Jersey 7 Pennsylvania 27 Ohio 23 Indiana 13 Illinois 11 Michigan 6 Wisconsin 5 Iowa 4 Minnesota 4 California 4 Oregon 3 Total, 18 States 183 SLAVE STATES. Delaware 3 Maryland 8 Virginia 15 North Carolina 10 South Carolina 8 Georgia 10 Florida 3 Alabama 9 Mississippi 7 Louisiana 6 Texas 4 Tennessee 12 Kentucky 12 Arkansas 4 Missouri 9 Total, 15 States 120 Add 18 free States 183 Whole number of votes. . . . 303 The Democratic candidate, whoever he may be, will receive the vote of every southern State, except it may be that of Ma'yland. We shall as- sume, however, that the South will vote as a unit, and give the Democratic candidate 120 of the 303 votes of the Electoral College. Of the free States, California and Oregon only can be claimed as reliably Democratic. The vote of those two States, in addition to the vote of the entire South, make the Democratic strength 127 votes— 25 less than a majority. To secure that majority the Democratic candidate must carry Pliuois with 11 votes, Indiana with 13 votes, and Minnesota with 4 votes; in all 28 votes. In that event his vote will stand — Fifteen slave States California votes. Illinois it Indiana it Minnesota it Oregon li Total \* 155 3 Thus it appears, that the loss of Maryland, Illinois, Indiana, or Min- nesota, each of which is doubtful, and the vote of each depending much upon who may be the nominee of the Charleston Convention, unless the loss could be made up elsewhere, would result in the election of the Re- publican candidate ; while the vote of Oregon only can be spared from our table. Sanguine Democrats claim, however, the 27 votes of Pennsylvania and the 7 votes of New Jersey. Add those to the States named previously, and the Democratic column will foot up 189 votes — 37 more than a ma- jority. If Pennsylvania can be counted upon for any nominee of the Charleston convention, then we can do without the votes of Illinois, Indi- ana, and Minnesota. The vote of Pennsylvania added to the 120 votes of the South, the 4 votes of California, and 3 votes of Oregon, make 154 votes, and will elect a President. And if New Jersey with 7 votes can be, as is claimed by some, relied on in any contingency, then Oregon may be lost, and the field yet be won. It matters little, indeed, so far as the de- feat of the Republicans is concerned', whose colors shall be run up at Charleston, if these suppositious statements of Democratic strength, which are hourly rung in our ears, be reliable. But unfortunately the fact stares us in the face, that of the 183 votes in the free States, there are only seven beyond dispute from our present stand-point. Hence it is vain — nay, more — it is suicidal to raise the hope, that “all is well, and victory certain;” let the Democracy nominate whom they please. It is useless to disguise — it cannot be disguised, really, that the Democratic party is in imminent dan- ger. These are not the times, therefore, for empty boasts nor for striking displays of partisan zeal. There is too much at stake. The safety of a great National Party depends, and it may be that the destiny of the Re- public will depend, upon the action of the Charleston Convention. The part of wisdom is, then, for Democrats to counsel with one another with their judgments cool, and to reason upon probabilities; not to be swayed by passion or led off by heated imaginings. Let us see what are the probabilities of Democratic success in Pennsyl- vania and New Jersey. Mr. Buchanan carried Pennsylvania by a bare majority over all others, of 657 votes; and the popular vote of New Jersey, whose electoral vote he obtained, showed a majority against him of 5,510. The Opposition carried Pennsylvania at the State election, in 1859, by over 17,000 majority, and New Jersey, by a majority of 1,600 votes. Giving all due consideration to recent indications of a change of opinion, the heavy majority by which the Opposition swept the State a year ago, when the Democracy were high in hopes, does not encourage the convic- tion that Pennsylvania will stand in 1860 where she stood in 1856. New Jersey looks much more hopeful, and may vote for the Democratic candi- date even if Pensylvania should not, although they usually vote alike. P must be borne in mind that these speculations, as to the probable result of the Presidential election, have been based so far upon the hypothesis that Mr: Douglas will not be nominated. With him, as the Democratic candidate, our views as to the vote of this or that free States would b. radically changed, because we have full faith that he can command votes enough in the free States to put his election beyond contingency. We have just as strong faith that no other candidate can certainly secure more than 127 electoral votes, although we have set down 155. There is not a single free State of the five which voted for Mr. Buchanan in 1856, ex- cept California, which it can be reasonably said the Democracy can cany with any other candidate. California, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, ana 7 4 Pennsylvania, were those five States. They gave Mr. Buchanan 82 elec- toral votes, and elected him. Here it must be remembered that three of the five States which gave him their electoral votes, cast a decided popular vote against Mr. Buchanan; California, a majority of 3,491 votes; Illinois, 28,285, and New Jersey, 5,510 votes. His majority in Indiana over Fre- mont and Fillmore was only 1,709, in an aggregate of over 235,000 votes. The loss consequently of those four States in the Electoral Col- lege, which would have been certain had the Opposition run a single can- didate with 35 votes, or the loss of the 2 7 votes of Pennsylvania, would have been Mr. Buchanan’s defeat. What man can say certainly that any other candidate than Mr. Douglas can carry any three of those five States ? Where is the candidate who can carry Illinois and Indiana, but Mr. Doug- las? Where is the candidate who would he stronger in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, or even so strong? Would he not be more likely to reconcile differences of opinion in those States than any other candi- date — more likely to cement a cordial union between disputants over the dead issues of the past, “ Lecompton” and “ Anti-Lecompton ?” Such would seem to be the conclusion of those who give judgment full play and refuse to listen to, or be guided by prejudice and passion. An impartial review of politics in the free States must satisfy intelligent men, that the Northwestern States present the most encouraging evidences of all the free States of Democratic ascendency and power. With Con- necticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, all of which are claim- ed by many as certain for the Democracy, doubtful, to say the least, with any candidate, the Northwest is the field whereon the Democracy must and will battle most hopefully. If the victory can not be won on that field, it may not be won at all ; for there is the power of the country, and there the tide of battle sets. Let us take a survey of that field on which depends so much. THE NORTHWEST. The election returns show that the. entire vote of the United States (it will be larger in November next) is 4,127,000. The entire Democratic vote is 2,096,000; of which 1,447,000 votes are given by the free States,, and 649,000 by the slave States. Of the 1,447,000 votes in the free States 701,000 are cast by the Democracy of the Northwest. Hence, it appears that the seven Northwestern States, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Min- nesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin, cast a larger Democratic vote than the entire South, and nearly as large a Democratic vote as all the other free States, This is the summary of the latest and fullest election returns in the several States — the vote being stated in round numbers — and while it proves that the Democratic masses are in the free States, it teaches ns that there is a power, and a power constantly growing, in the Northwest which cannot he overlooked, much less despised. In 1848, and again in 1852, the Democratic candidate for the Presiden- cy received the electoral vote of every Northwestern State; but in 1856, four of the then six States voted for the Republican candidate, and the pop- ular vote of a fifth — Illinois — showed, as we have seen, a- majority against Mr. Buchanan of over 28,000 votes. Of the four States which voted for Fremont, Mr. Douglas, if he be nominated at Charleston, will carry Iowa and Wisconsin, certainly, and most probably Ohio. Iowa gave Fremont 43 954 votes, Fillmore 9,180, and Buchanan 36,170 votes, in 1858, show- vu-nl 5 ing a majority against Buchanan of 16,964. The Republican majority in 1859, was 2,964 votes. Wisconsin gave Fremont 66,090 votes, Fillmore 5S0, and Buchanan 52,843 votes, in 1856, showing a majority against Buchanan of 13,82*7 votes. In 1859 the Republican majority was 3,900. Ohio gave Fremont 1S7,497 votes, Fillmore 28,121, and Buchanan 170,- 874 votes, in 1856 ; showing a majority against Buchanan of 44,744 votes. In 1859 the Republican majority was 16.600. Such is the exhibit made by the Democracy in Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin, in 1859, when they were hampered and burdened with “Lecompton,” and “anti-Lecompton,” and 'with demands for re-opening the African slave trade, and stronger demands for a Federal slave code for the Territories. Under like circumstances Min- nesota was lost by the Democrats in 1859. Now, if the Charleston Con- vention will adhere to the Cincinnati Platform, will leave the question of slavery in the Territories to be settled by the people, and finally by the ju- diciary, and then nominate Mr. Douglas, we have no doubt he will carry Iowa, and Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ohio. To sum up, with such a plat- form and Mr. Douglas, the Democracy can and will sweep Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. It will be asked, ‘‘why will not any other candidate run just as well as Mr. Douglas, in the Northwest?” The answer is obvious. Mr. Doltglas’ home is in the Northwest, and the people are proud of, and love him. Nine-tenths of the Democracy are for him to a man, heartily, and for his principles and opinions. The delegates to Charleston from every one of those States, are instructed to vote for him, and stand by him faithfully. They represent more than one-third of the Democracy of the Union. Think you, opponents of Mr. Douglas, that another candidate will be so accepta- ble to that people? Do you not think that if Mr. Douglas shall be set aside under such circumstances, the Democracy of the Northwest will re- gard it as proscription, such as was signally rebuked by the people of Illi- nois in 1858 — proscription alike of Mr. Douglas and of them? If you do not, you greatly deceive yourselves. The Northwestern States have sixty-six electoral votes, and, as we have shown, more thau 700,000 Democratic voters. Under the next apportion- ment the electoral vote of that section will nearly equal the electoral vote of the South, which, under the present apportionment, numbers one hun- dred and twenty. Illinois and Indiana will each outrank Virginia in the Presidential election of 1864 ; Michigan and Wisconsin will both be stronger in the Electoral College, then, than Mississippi or South Carolina, and Iowa will run ahead of Louisiana or Maryland, and be the equal in power, per- haps, of North Carolina, or Georgia. This powerful section of the Con- federacy has never had a President but for a single month — General Har- rison. The South and the free States of the East or Centre have always had precedence, and the only time that the Northwest was honored with the selection of one of her sons as a Democratic candidate, in 1848, he received her entire electoral vote, and yet was defeated. The South had much to do with that result. Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Loui- siana, Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee, all voted against General Cass. Six of the eight States voted, however, for Fraklin Pierce in 1852. Had they given their votes to the Democracy in 1848, Lewis Cass would have been elected President. The people of the Northwest, always divided heretofore among several candidates, are now united on one can- didate. From Ohio the largest to Minnesota the smallest of those States, the Democracy have spoken with one voice for Stephen A. Douglas, 6 Even Indiana, which turned the scale against him at Cincinnati, in 1856, has instructed the delegation to Charleston from that State to vote for him as a unit , and that, too, by an overwhelming majority in the State Convention. There is no division ; all is harmonious and enthusiastic, and whatever a handful of malignants may assert, the truth stands out boldly and unde- niably, that the Democracy of the Northwest, as a united delegation at Charleston will attest, know no other candidate, and will be content with no other candidate than Mr. Douglas. THE FREE STATES EAST OF THE OHIO. All the free States, with the exception of Oregon, perhaps, are committed to the principles of Mr. Douglas. The Democracy of a large majority of them stand squarely upon his platform, as in New England, New Jersey, and the Northwest. The Democracy of California, New York, and Pennsylvania, substantially hold the same position. With Mr. Douglas as a candidate, it stands to reason, then, that the Democracy in all the free States will be stronger than with another candidate, especially with another candidate widely differing from them on all the questions of the day. He is stronger by thousands of votes in Connecti- cut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, than any other candidate can be. The people are with him heart and soul. And, if either of these States can be carried by the Democracy, the victory must be won under his banner. No other banner heads in that direction. Such is the testi- mony of their Democracv, Why, then, hesitate to tread in the path of duty and right? Why talk or think of the nomination of a candidate where all will be at hazard, and probably lost, where a candidate may be had whose name is a tower of strength in the free States, and gives assur- ance of success ? That is the question which every southern Democrat should put to himself. That is the question which the Democracy of the free States have no dispute about. They kuow the strength of Stephen A. Douglas, and, hence, they eagerly advocate his nomination. They pre- fer Mr. Douglas to any other candidate, first, because his principles are their principles; and second, because they have confidence that with him for their leader the battle will be won. With another candidate doubt and distrust will cramp their energies. With Mr. Douglas, courage and en- thusiasm will sweil their hearts, aud nerve their arms. There is the secret of his over-shadowing popularity in the free States. MR. DOUGLAS’ STRENGTH. In the event of Mr. Douglas’ nomination by the Charleston Convention, as to which there should be no hesitation, he will receive the electoral vote of the following States : Alabama 9 Arkansas 4 California 4 Delaware 3 Florida 3 Georgia 10 Illinois 11 Indiana 13 Iowa 4 Kentucky 12 Louisiana 6 Maryland 8 Minnesota 4 Mississippi. 7 Missouri 9 North Carolina 10 Ohio 23 Oregon 3 South Carolina 8 Tennessee 12 Texas 4 Virginia 15 Wisconsin. 5 Total 187 • t 7 One hundred and eighty-seven electoral votes without counting Connec- ticut, New Jersey, New York, or Pennsylvania, Connecticut gave a ma- jority against Mr. Buchanan in 1856, of 10,395 votes. Since then the largest majority for the Opposition was 1,800 votes, and at the recent election it was reduced to 537 votes. The Democracy of that State stood firmly, as they have always stood, by the Cincinnati 'Platform, and Popu- lar Sovereignty in the Territories. So have the Democracy of New Jersey, and there, too, the Opposition strength has been broken since 1856. Then the majority against Mr. Buchanan was over 5,510, while in 1859, it was reduced to 1,800 votes. We repeat, one hundred and eighty-seven electo- ral votes will be secured for Mr. Douglas should he be nominated at Charleston. Such a result will crush Republicanism. Such a result is not only probable, but certain. The Democracy can secure that result with no other candidate, nor have, indeed, a reasonable ground of success. THE CINCINNATI CONVENTION. Inasmuch as the opposition to the nomination of Mr. Douglas comes mainly from the South, we wish to recur to the proceedings of the Con- vention which nominated James Buchanan for the Presidency. We shall there find much that is suggestive of inquiry and reflection. Those who are familiar with the proceedings of the Cincinnati Conven- tion will recollect, that, on the first ballot, Mr. Buchanan received only thirty-four votes from the South, and that the remainder were cast in the proportion of seventy-four to twelve for Mr. Pierce and Mr. Douglas res- pectively. The South was for standing by the northern candidates who had borne the banner of the Kansas-Nebraska contest, in preference to a Northern candidate whose greater availability was pressed by his friends on the ground, that he had, owing to his absence from the country, taken no part in that contest. When Mr. Buchanan obtained a majority on the 16th ballot, and Mr. Douglas’ name (in obedience to his letter to Mr. Richardson, of Illinois) was withdrawn, his vote from the South was forty-seven. While on the same ballot, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, and Texas voted solid, and Geoigia cast eight votes for Mr. Douglas — seventy-four in all. His entire Northern vote on the same ballot was only forty-nine. Thus does the record prove, that first, Mr. Pierce, and second, Mr. Douglas, were, because of their connection with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, more ac- ceptable to the South, while Mr. Buchanan was, for the opposite reason, more acceptable to the North. Mr. Avery, of North Carolina, Gov. Man- ning, of South Carolina, Mr. Gardner, of Georgia, Mr. Chapman, of Ala- bama, Mr. Clayton, of Mississippi, Mr. Harris, of Missouri, Mr. Preston, of Kentucky, Mr. Flournoy, of Arkansas, and Mr. Ward, of Texas, ail bore testimony to the fact when called on to cast the votes of their res- pective States on the 17th ballot. It is only necessary to say, that allusion is not made to these facts with any view to disparage Mr. Buchanan, but merely to fix the Southern record, so that the country may understand it. The question arises, what has Mr. Douglas done since June, 1856, when the South passed by Mr. Buchanan and cast seventy-four votes for him in the Cincinnati Convention — not coldly and grudgingly, but cordially, heartily, enthusiastically — to forfeit Southern confidence? Where is the vote, where is the speech, where the opinion on which he shall be con- demned ? Do his opinions as to the question of slavery in the Territories render him unworthy of southern support ? Then, he was unworthy of 8 southern support in 1856, for he has held the same opinions consistently from 1848 to the present day. Nor were they or have they been hid un- der a bushel. The debates in the Senate, and his public speeches, attest his devotion to the principle of Popular Sovereignty. He maintained it when the Compromise Measures of 1S50 were under discussion. He re- iterated it again and again, in the great debate in the Senate on the Kan- sas-Nebraska bill, in 1854. There is no disputing the fact; it is a part of the records of the country. The South understood these things in 1856, and yet the South strove to elevate Mr. Douglas to the Presidency. Why find fault with him now? He has not changed. He stands in 1860 where he stood in 1856 — aye, where he stood in 1854, 1850, and 1848. He stands where northern men and southern men stood in 1S4S, when they accepted the “ Nicholson Letter” of Gen. Cass, and where they stood in 1850, and 1854, and again in 1856. He stands where Mr. Buchanan stood in 1856, when he declared that “the people of a territory like THOSE OF A STATE SHALL DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER SLAVERY SHALL or shall not exist within their limits.” Yet the cry in some quarters is “ crucify him, crucify him !” Would not the bitterest of Mr. Douglas’ assailants cheerfully advocate the nomination of Daniel S. Dickinson, of New York, of John C. Breck- inridge, of Kentucky, of Howell Cobb, or Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, of James L. Orr, of South Carolina, of Judah P. Benjamin, of Louisiana, of Thomas G. Pratt, of Maryland, or Thomas L. Clinuman, of North Carolina, if not as a first, as a second choice? Does any man doubt it? Let us see what these and each of these Representative men of the Democratic party have had to say on the doctiine of Popular Sovereignty. On the 14th of December, 1 S47, Mr. Dickinson introduced resolutions in the Senate with respect to the annexation of Territory. He spoke to the resolutions on the 12th day of January, 1848. He said: “The resolution declares that the domestic policy of the people of a Territory shall be left with them; and if that power resides in Congress, as is contended, it should he delegated to the people of the Territory, and be exercised by them.” * * “Whatever power may or may not rest in Congress under the Constitution, that instrument could not take from the people of the Territories tue right to prescribe their own domestic roLicy; nor has it attempted any such office.” — Appendix Cong. Globe , vol. 19, p. 88. Extract of the speech of John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky , in the House of Representatives, March 23, 1854. “Among the many misrepresentations sent to the country by some of the enemies of this bill, perhaps none is more flagrant than the charge that it proposes to legis- late slavery into Kansas and Nebraska. Sir, if the bill contained such a feature, it would not receive my vote. The right to establish involves the correlative right to prohibit, and denying both I wovld vote for neither.” * * * * “The effect of the repeal, [of the Missouri compromise,] therefore, is neither to establish nor to exclude, slavery but to leave the f uture condition of the Territories de- pendent wholly upon the action of the inhabitants, subject only to such limitations as the Federal Constitution may impose.” * * * “It will be observed that the right of the people to regulate in their own way all their domestic institutions is left vjholly un- touched, except that whatever is done must be done in accordance with the Consti- tution — the supreme law for us all.” — App. Cong. Globe, ls< Sess., 34 th, Cong., p. 44. Extract of the speech of Howell Cobb, of Georgia , delivered at Westches- ter, Pennsylvania , September 19, 1856. “But those who hold that the Territorial Legislature cannot pass a law prohibit- ing slavery, admit that unless the Territorial Legislature pass laws for its protection. 9 slavery 'will not go there. Therefore , practically a majority of the people repre- sented in the Territorial Legislature decides the question. Whether they decide it by prohibiting it, according to the one doctrine, or by refusing to pass laws to pro- tect it, as contended for by the other party, is immaterial. The majority of the people by the action of the Territorial Legislature will decide the question ; and all must abide the decision when made.” Extract of the speech of Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia , in the House of Representatives, February 1 7, 1854. “ The whole question of slavery was to be left to the people of the Territories, whether north or south of 36° 30', or any other line. * * * . .* “It was based upon the truly republican and national policy of taking this dis- turbing element out of Congress and leaving the whole question of slavery in the Territories to the people there to settle it for themselves. And it is in vindication of that new principle — then established for the first time in the history of our Gov- ernment— in the year 1850, the middle of the nineteenth century, that we, the friends of tbe'Nebraska bill, whether from the North or South, now call upon this House and the country to carry out in good faith, and give effect to the spirit and intent of those important measures of territorial legislation.” [ Append . Cong. Globe, vol. 29, p. 195.] Again, on the 17th January, 1856, he said : “I am willing that the Territorial Legislature may act upon the subject when and how they may think proper." — Append. Cong. Globe, vol. 33, p. 62. Extract of the speech of James L. Orr, of South Carolina , in the House of Representatives, December 11, 1856. “Now, the legislative authority of a Territory is invested with a discretion to vote for or against the laws. We think they ought to pass laws in every Territory, when the Territory is open to settlement and slaveholders go there, to protect slave property. But if they decline to pass such law, what is the remedy? None, sir, if the majority of the people are opposed to the institution; and if the}' do not de- sire it ingrafted upon their Territory, all they have to do is simply to decline to pass laws in the Territorial Legislature for its protection, and then it is as well excluded as if the pjower was invested in the Territorial Legislature to prohibit it." — Cong. Globe, vol. 34, p. 103. Extract of the speech of Judah P. Benjamin, of Louisiana , in the Senate , May 25, 1854, “ We find, then, that this principle of the independence and self-government of the people in the distant Territories of the confederacy harmonize all these conflict- ing opinions, and enables us to banish from the Halls of Congress another fertile source of discontent and excitement." — Append. Cong. Globe, vol. 29, p. *167. Extract of the speech of Thomas G-. Pratt, of Maryland , in the Senate, July 30, 1850. “Mr. President: As this amendment is up, (Mr. Norris’,) I hope I may be allowed to say a few words, so that my constituents can understand my position. The great doctrine of the South, as I understand it, and the only true ground upon which the South can stand, is the doctrine of non-intervention. Now, what I understand by non-intervention is the denial of the Executive and legislative authority of the Fede- ral Government of all povier over the subject of slavery, an.yvjhere and everywhere. That is the non-intervention upon which I have been taught to rest the rights of the South. This is the non-intervention upon which I am now willing to rest them — that neither the Executive nor legislative branches of the Federal Government have the power, in ant way whatever, to interfere with the subject of domestic slavery any- where. And I am, therefore, perfectly willing that the amendment, [restricting the Territorial Legislature from passing any law establishing or prohibiting African slavery,] which was originally adopted, should be stricken out, as proposed by my friend from New Hampshire, [Mr. Norris.] 10 “But there is another reason which it seems to me must render this provision, in the eye of every one, inoperative, if it continue in the bill. You have this morning adopted an amendment by which the Territorial government establishing by this bill is not to operate, in pnesenti, within the larger portion of the territory claimed as Kew Mexico. Therefore, in consequence of that restriction, there could be no legis- lation in reference to the subject of slavery within that Territory at tile present TIME. “ AVitli regard to the other Territory, Utah, slaves are already held there; and if you give to the people of that Territory power to regulate it, which they would have if this clause is stricken out, they mould legislate in favor of the southern institution zn which we are interested. I, therefore, for one, as a southern man, standing up for the rights of the South as much as any member here, am willing that this clause should be stricken out, more particularly when it will gain some votes for the bill.” App. Cong, Globe, vol. xxii., part 2 , p. 1464. Extract of the speech of Thomas L. Clingman, of North Carolina , in the Senate , February 23, 1859. “I did not, when I got up, intend to say a word about it; but having been an ac- tor in those scenes; having read and heard many speeches on the subject, I think it proper to these gentlemen from the North to say that, so far as I know, I never heard it denied but that Congress was going to abandon to the Territories the power of leg- islation UPON THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY AND ALL QUESTIONS CONNECTED WITH IT. AA r e of the South contended that we had the right to legislate, and ought to protect; but we came to the conclusion that, on the whole, we would rather trust the Territory than Congress. Congress, we knew, was against us ; whenever the subject was up, a ma- jority were voting for the proviso — [ Wilmot] ; and we thought, further, that if a majority of the Territory were against us, any legislation here was futile. While, by sending an army to Boston you could bring away a runaway negro against the will of the people, you could not expect to enforce a system on a Territory hostile to it. I think we aeted wisely in turning it over to the Territory.” — Cong. Globe, part 2, 2d Sess., Both Cong., p. 1264. Will the South reject R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, for the opinions which he expressed in 1854, coincident with the opinions of Mr. Douglas ? Hear the Senator from Virginia in his exposition of the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska hill: Extract of a speech of R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, in the United States Senate, February 24, 1854. “The bill provides that the Legislatures of these Territories shall have power to legislate over all rightful subjects of legislation, consistently with the Constitution. And if they should assume powers which are thought to be inconsistent with the Con- stitution, the courts will decide that question wherever it may be raised. There is a difference of opinion among the friends of this measure as to the extent of the limits which the Constitution imposes upon the Territorial Legislatures. This bill proposes to leave these differences to the decision of the courts. To tliat tribunal I am willing- to leave this decision, as it was once before proposed to be left bj- the celebrated compromise of the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. Clayton,] a measure which, accord- ing to roy understanding, was the best compromise which was offered upon this sub- ject of slavery. I say, then, that I am willing to leave this point, upon which the friends of the bill are at difference, to the decision of the courts.” — Appendix Cong. Globe, lsf Sess., 33 d Cong., vol. 29, p. 224. If that be not heresy, then Mr. Douglas needs no forgiveness, for he said precisely what Mr. Hunter said in 1854, that the question of slavery in the Territories is a judicial question, to be determined by the courts. And General Lane, of Oregon, what says the South to him ? Is he sound and acceptable? He should be, aud undoubtedly is. Well, what is his. record ? Why, when the doctrine of popular sovereignty, or the right of the people in the Territories, like those in the States, “to form and 11 regulate their domestic institutions in their own way,” was generally ap- proved by the Democracy of the country, in a speech at Concord, New Hampshire, in February, 1856, he said : “ Gentlemen, I desire to say to you, that the principle incorporated in the Kansas- Nebraska bill, is the very principle in defence of which your forefathers entered the service of the country in the Revolutionary war; for the American colonies, two years previous to the Declaration of Independence, asserted this same principle we now find incorporated in the Kansas-Nebraska bill. “Upon an examination you will find that the Declaration of Rights, made October 14, 1714, asserts that the people of the several colonies ‘ are entitled to the free and ex- clusive powers of legislation in their several provincial legislatures in all eases of internal policy.’ This was refused by the Crown, but reasserted by our forefathers. Upon this issue the battles of the Revolution were fought; by the blood of our fore- fathers this principle of self-government was established. This right, refused by the King, was secured, consecrated, and established by the best blood that ever flowed in the veins of man. Would you now refuse to the people of the Territories the rights your noble sires demanded of the Crown and won by their blood, thus placing yourselves in opposition to the right of self-government in the Territories, thereby occu- pying the very position towards the Territories that George HI. did to the colonies? The simple question involved here is, ‘are the people capable of regulating their internal affairs, or must Congress regulate those affairs for them V It is strictly the doctrine of Congressional non-intep.vention. Now, if that idea is the correct one; if it is true that the American people are capable of self-government, then the principles of the Kansas- Nebraska bill are right, and opposition to that bill is wrong; consequently dangerous to the best interest of the country.” Has Mr. Douglas asserted, or does he assert, the principle more broadly ? Why, the article in Harper’s Magazine, which has been so much objected to by southern men, does but elaborate the dogma which General Lank stated in his Concord speech. Is there a southern Democrat to whom the nomination of Franklin Pierce would not be acceptable ? In his special message to Congress, on Kansas affairs, of January 24, 1S56, Mr. Pierce said: “The act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, was a manifesta- tion of the legislative opinion of Congress on two great points of constitutional con- struction, [the first has no bearing here,] ‘■that the inhabitants of any such Territory , considered as an inchoate State , are entitled, in the exercise of self-government, to decide for themselves what shall be their own domestic institutions, subject only to the Constitution, and the latvs enacted by Congress under it, and the power of the existing States to decide, according to the provisions and principles of the Consti- tution, at what time the territory shall be received, as a State, into the Union.’ ” Mr. Alfred Iverson, of Georgia, now a Senator of the United States, hut at the time a member of the House of Kepresentatives, on the 26th day of July, 1848, made a speech in that body, which is a clear exposition of the subject of slavery in the Territories. It presents it practically, and shows the folly of wrangling over rights and suppositious rights iu the Territories, when, no matter what the federal legislation, whether prohibi- tory or protective, the question of slavery depends upon the will of the peo- ple, and resolves itself into an economic question. Mr. Iverson said : “Now, Sir, whether the people in their tep.p.itorial capacity, can constitutional- ly, or rightfully, exclude slavery, I am willing to leave to the decision of the Su- preme Court, which many gentlemen contend is the proper and constitutional tribunal for its decision, or to the consideration and judgment of the people themselves., It is a principle in human nature, as powerful as universal, that political action of com- munities will be regulated and controlled by the interests of the parties concerned. If, therefore, it shall appear that slave labor may be profitably employed in these new Territories of the Union, and the people are left free to act, they will adopt the institution of slavery. If, on the other hand, it shall be found that the climate and soil are not adapted to the profitable employment of slave labor, no slaves will 12 EVER FIND TIIEIR WAY INTO TOE COUNTRY, HOWEVER WIDE TOE DOOR MAY BE OPENED FOR their admission. All that the South, 'therefore, can, or ought to ask, is that the people of the Territories be left to decide this most important question for them- selves. ****** **** “Let, therefore, this exciting, distracting, disturbing subject, be left to the judg- ment and decision of those who will be most deeply interested in it, and affected by it. There it will be coolly considered and properly decided, and, as a Southern man, I am willing to trust the decision and abide the result. Let it be kept out of the halls of Congress, for here and here only, will the exercise of this dangerous and disputed power, put this experiment of a Federal Union to the severest test." — Appendix Congressional Globe, vol. 19, p. 966. That is just Mr. Douglas’ doctrine ; no more, no less. Yet, Mr. Iverson cannot support him. Why? He has repudiated his opinions of 1848 as heretical, and demands that Mr. Douglas shall brand his with heresy also. THE DRED SCOTT CASE. But, say the assailants of Mr. Douglas, the Supreme Court decided, in the Dred Scott Case, that a Territorial Legislature has no power to exclude or inhibit slavery, directly or indirectly. The Court certainly did not so decide. There is nothing in the Opinion of the Court, nor in the separate opinions of the several judges, to warrant any such statement. The writer has read all the opinions time and again, but has never discovered that the point was decided at all. And the leading counsel in the case, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, whose argument was the basis, indeed, of the Court’s opinion, denies emphatically that the Court decided the question, or passed any opinion upon it. Why, if the Court did so decide, did Chief Justice Taney, in speaking of the different modes of governing the Territo- ries, say : “In other instances it would be more advisable to commit the powers of self-gov- ernment to the people who bad settled in the Territory, as being most competent to de- termine what ioas best for their interests.” — 19 Howard, p. 449. And why, if the decision were, as is alleged, condemnatory of Mr. Doug- las’ opinion as to the powers of the Territorial Legislature, do we find this remarkable language in the separate opinion of Mr. Justice Campbell ? “ I admit [said he] that to mark the bounds for the jurisdiction of the government within the Territory, and of its power with respect to persons and things within the municipal divisions it has created, is a work of delicacy and difficulty, and, in a great measure, is beyond the cognizance of the judicial department of that govern- ment. How much municipal power may be exercised by the people of a Territory, before their admission into the Union, the courts of justice cannot decide. This must depend for the most part on political considerations , which cannot enter a determina- tion of a case of law or equity.” — p. 514, 515. Mr. Douglas has, at no time, nor in any place, uttered a word deroga- tory of the Supreme Court, or its decision. He was one of the first to de- fend both the one and the other. He defended the decision in the “ Dred Scott case,” in a speech at Springfield, within a few months after its deliv- ery — in June, 1857. He denied then, as he denies now, that the Supreme Court decided that slavery exists in the Territories “by virtue of the Con- stitution of the United States.” He admitted then, as he admits now, that their owners have a right to take slaves into a Territory, but denies that as property slaves areeutitled to, or should receive any greater favor or pro- tection than any other species of property. He holds that all property, slaves included, is subject to the local law; and that the laws of the Terri- torial Legislature, with respect to slaves, as well as other property, are for -I o io judicial construction, and the final arbitrament of the Supreme Court, Whenever that tribunal shall decide, as it never has decided, that the Leg- islature of a Territory has not the same power in respect to slaves as prop- erty as it has over other property, Mr. Douglas will cheerfully acquiesce in the decision, and, if it need be, will exert the whole power of the Govern- ment to carry it into effect. He has so declared again and again, especially in his great speech in the Senate, on the 23d day of February, 1859. Mean- while he will stand by the principle to which the Democratic party is solemnly pledged, of “ non-intervention by Congress with slavery in State and Territory, or in the District of Columbia.” He forcibly illustrated his position in his reply to Mr. Seward, in the Senate, on the 29th day of February, 1S60. Here is what he said : “Kansas has adopted a free State constitution; New Mexico has established a slave Territory. I am context with both. If the people of New Mexico want slavery, let them have it, and I never will vote to repeal their slave code. If Kansas does not want slavery, I will not help anybody to force it on her. Let each do as it pleases. When Kansas comes to the conclusion that slavery will suit her, and promote her interest better than the prohibition, let her pass her own slave code; 1 will not pass it fob her. Whenever New Mexico gets tired of her code, she must repeal it for herself ; I will not repeal it for her. Non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Ter- ritories is the platform on which I stand.” THE LECOMPTON QUESTION. AVe shall not disturb nor revive a dead issue. Indeed, we should not allude to the Kansas controversy were it not that Mr. Douglas’ difference with the body of his party in Congress, as to the admission of Kansas un- der the Lecompton Constitution, is used by his opponents to fasten upon him the odium of a disorganizes He need not he ashamed of, nor has he any apology to offer for his part in that eventful struggle. It was an hon- est, manly, straight-forward part, was based on principle, and the result proved that he was right. It was not the Constitution of the people. It was in fraud of their rights, and they rejected it by 10,000 majority. Hear the testimony of one of the most distinguished of its supporters — Senator Hammond, of South Carolina. In a speech at Barnwell Court-House, in his State, on the 29th of October, 1858, Mr. Hammond said: “ Through the most disgusting as well as tragic scenes of force and fraud , tlie Tei-| ritory of Kansas at last came before Congress for'admission as a State, with what is known as the Lecompton Constitution, embodying slavery among its provisions. But at the same time the convention, by an ordinance, demanded of the United States some twenty-three millions of acres of land, instead of the four millions usu- ally allowed to new States containing public lands. It was almost certain that a majority of the people of Kansas were opposed to this constitution , but would not vote on it; and this additional nineteen millions, which, if allowed, would probably have kept them again from the recent polls, was what the South was expected to pay for that worthless slavery clause, which would have been annulled as soon as Kansas was admitted. “ I confess my opinion was , that the South herself should hick that constitution out of Congress. But the South thought otherwise. 'When the bill for its adoption was framed with what is called the Green Proviso, I strenuously objected to it, and felt very much disposed to vote against the whole, but again gave up to the South, which accepted it by acclamation. ****** “The only principle involved in this whole Kansas affair, if an affair so rotten from beginning to end can have a principle at all, was this: AVould Congress admit a slave State into the Union? The Senate said yes. The House, by adopting the Crittenden substitute, said yes, if we are assured that a majority of the people of the State are in favor of it. For this substitute all the opposition voted in both Houses, so that every member of Congress, of all parties, first and last, committed 14 themselves to the principle and policy that a State shoald be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, according to the will of its own people ; thus re-enacting one feature of the Kansas and Nebraska bill. I should myself have been willing to rest here and let Kausas rest also. Whatever there was of principle or honor in the mat- ter was secured by the votes already given.” And yet Mr. Douglas must be ostracised, because be opposed the Le- compton Constitution which a leading advocate declares to his own State, and to the South, was rotten from beginning to end 1 There is not, there cannot be such rank, foul, shameless injustice. POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY IN THE TERRITORIES. It is no purpose of the writer to discuss the principle of Popular Sover- eignty. Its vindication will be found in the extracts of the speeches of dis- tinguished statesmen, which have been already grouped together. It needs no better or sounder argument to support it than Daniel S. Dickinson, of New York, John 0. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, James L. Orr, of South Carolina, Alfred Iverson, of Georgia, Joseph Lane, of Oregon, Frank- lin Pierce, of New Hampshire, and President Buchanan, have presented. They have defended it as manfully as Mr. Douglas himself. So let it rest. Here we wish to call attention to a fact which is worth remembering. Popular Sovereignty has made slavery legal in New Mexico and Arizona, and extended it as high up as the latitude of 38° North. All over that wide expanse of country slavery may plant itself. And yet, in 1848 and 1850, the South only demanded its extension to 36° 30', and were willing to have it inhibited north of that line. That was the ultimatum even of the Nashville Convention. But the complaint is, that the South has lost California and Kansas — the wildest dreamer never considered it probable that Nebraska would he a slave State. Lost them; how? Neither are adapted to slave labor, aud slavery can never be a permanency anywhere except in a planting region. Cotton, the sugar-cane, rice, tobacco, and tropical productions are necessaay to slavery. Wherever these, or any one of them, can be made the staple of a country, there slavery will go and flourish. It will not advance otherwise. And, now, if there were territory, as there is not, adapted to slave labor, how could it be secured to slavery? There are not enough slaves in the South to cultivate the lands now demanding slave labor. Labor is scarce in the South to-day — • scarce because there are not slaves enough. Hence, the proposal to open the African slave trade. Why then distract and divide a great Party with issues which have no practical bearing and no utility ? It is of no im- portance whatever when the question ofj slavery shall be settled in the Ter- ritories. If the soil and climate be not adapted to slavery, it can never get a foothold; and if they be adapted to it, no human power can prevent its introduction. Kansas, adjoining a slave State, with laws for the protection of slavery as stringent as the laws of Missouri or Alabama, has never con- tained more than two or three hundred slaves, if so many, in a population of sixty or eighty thousand souls. Why? The country was not intended for or adapted to slavery. New Mexico has legalized slavery, and yet there are no slaves in New Mexico, and none will be taken there, except as house servauts. Why ? The labor of slaves, in the cultivation of the limited extent, of country fit for cultivation, cannot be made profitable. It is a grazing and mining country, not an agricultural or planting region. The finger of God is iu slavery, and has marked out its boundaries. Climate 15 and soil have been arranged for its existence in one direction, and its repression and exclusion in another. So that all the statutes ot men to extend slavery there, or prohibit it here, are vain and illusory. It depends upon natural laws which are fixed and irrepealable. REVIEW OF THE SOUTHERN OPPOSITION. We have demonstrated, that in all that relates to slavery as a political question, Mr. Douglas has been consistent and straightforward in his opin- ions, from 1848 to the present time : That the Representative men of the South generally agreed with him as to the construction of the Kansas-Ne- braska act, and the rights of slaveholders thereunder in the Territories, in 1854 and 1856: That, with these opinions, well-defined and well-under- stood, in 1856, nearly two-thirds of the southern Domocracy cast their votes for him in the Cincinnati Convention, in preference to Mr. Buchanan. Why, then, is Mr. Douglas more objectionable to the South this y^ar, than he was four years ago? Can any of his opponents or denouncers give a substantial reason, why the southern Democracy should not cheer- fully support him for the Presidency? Suppose there is a difference in some respects between his opinions and the opinions held by a portion of the South upon the judicial question which may arise as to the rights of slave-owners in the Territories? Is it any such difference of opinion, as should alienate the South from him ? Is not Mr. Douglas a just man, and a national man, and does any one believe, that he would not maintain the rights of the South under the Constitution just as resolutely and as fully as any southern man who could be put in the Presidency ? What senti- ment has he ever uttered so distasteful to the South as that of Mr. Buch- anan in his speech in the Senate on the annexation of Texas, on the 8th of June, 1844? He felt “a strong repugnance” to extend the present limits of the Union “over new slaveholding territory,” and only overcame his scruples in the belief, “ that the acquisition of Texas would be the means of limiting, and not enlarging the dominion of slavery.” Did the South question Mr. Buchanan’s integrity on that account, or asperse his name because, in his “SaDdford Letter” of August 21, 1848, lie expressed the opinion that Congress professes sovereign and exclusive power “ to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territories .” Did the southern Demo- cracy repudiate Gen. Cass because of his “Nicholson Letter,” asserting full power in the people in the Territories to legislate for themselves? Dul the southern Whigs ever desert Henry Clay with his declaration, again and again repeated, that Congress could abolish slavery in the District of Columbia or in the Territories? Did southern Democrats have the temer- ity, even, to whisper a suspicion of the great Kentuckian’s fidelity to his section ? How is it then, that Mr. Buchanan, Gen. Cass, and Mr. Clay, with opinions on slavery, equally, if not more exceptionable to the South than Mr. Douglas’, never came under the ban of Southern displeasure? Shall a new era be inaugurated in the South, and every man, however conserva- tive and patriotic he may be, who does not square his opinions to a line with extremists of every grade, be hounded and hunted down ? Has the South become so bigoted that no differences of opinion can or will be tol- erated ? Has it come to this, that no northern man can be trusted, how- ever firmly he may stand by the compromises of the Constitution, unless he will degrade himself into a political puppet? Has the South no grati- 16 tude, no manliness, that those who have fought for southern rights, through years of peril, are to be condemned and cast aside as unworthy, because, forsooth, they will not bow and bend to every changing wind of political opinion? We do not believe it; we do not believe that the South will either countenance wrong, or prove ungrateful. The southern Democracy may be misled for awhile by misrepresentation and abuse, but the sober, second thought will ultimately prevail. They will remember Mr. Douglas, the fearless advocate of the annexation of Texas ; the first northern man to denounce the Wilmot Proviso; the faithful ally of Clay, and Webster, aud Cass, in support of the Compromise Measures of 1850 ; the inflexible champion of the Kansas Nebraska act in 1854; and the best abused and most dreaded foe of Black Republicanism. Remembering these things, and that he has always advocated the acquisition of Cuba, they will neither be so false to their section nor to their party as to strike down the most efficient and powerful defender of both. There is another view of the subject which the southern Democracy racist ponder well. The number of those in the South who seek to break up the union of the States, and establish a southern confederacy, is compara- tively few. It will largely increase, however, should the National Demo- cracy be overthrown in 1860; — by national, we mean fidelity to the Consti- tution in all its provisions, aud just regard for the rights of every section. Now, the success of this great Party, which alone has the power to crush disunion at the South, aud treason in the North, is not to be promoted, much less achieved, by mistrusting and ostracising such men as Mr. Doug- las. To command success, the South must be generous, tolerant, and for- bearing ; must shun both the precept and example of the madcaps, who, distrustful of every northern man, constantly revile as “Abolitionists” those whom the Republicans scoff at as “sold to the South.” The northern De- mocracy are conservative and true ; they stand by the faith and usages of the party, and have a right to expect a cordial brotherhood of the sections without which there can be no nationality, no equality, no success. Again ; to succeed, a man of tried fidelity, of national reputation, and, by no means least, a man around whom the northern Democracy can make a defiant rally, must be the nominee of the" Charleston Convention. Neither an extremist nor a make-shift will do. The time has gone by when the country will be satisfied with either extreme, uncompromising men, or with the weak, shilly-shally in high places. The times demand firmness temp- ered with discretion, and integrity united with the highest capacity. The people will elect no man to the Presidency who has not a will of his own, and the courage, at all hazards, to “take care that the laws shall be faith- fully executed.” They want a statesman, not a politician ; a statesman whose heart and intellect will be devoted not to a section, but to the Union, and in whose ability to meet any exigency in public affairs, at home or abroad, the whole country may confidently repose. Such a man is Ste- phen A. Douglas — fit, steady, strong, courageous. Not a northern man, nor a southern man; but a national man, who “ carries the flag and keeps step to the music of the Constitction.” With him, neither sec- tion “ will cheat or be cheated ;” he will be just to all — partial to none. April, 1860. Printed by Lemuel Towers, at $1 00 per hundred copies. SPEECH OP HON. DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS, Delivered in Richmond, Virginia , July 9, 1852. Mr. Douglas visited Richmond, on the invita- tion of ihe Central Democratic Association, tender- ed him through its president and committee. He addressed the Association in the African Church — the' most capacious building of the place — on Fri- day night. A vast audience collected to hear him — filling to overflow the entire hall and galle- ries, and blocking up the doors, windows, and aisles. lie was listened to throughout with pro- found attention and respect; and his clear state- ment of facts, and cogent applications of them, have made a deep impression upon the people of Richmond . — Richmond Examiner. Mr. D. wa3 greeted with rapturous and con- tinued applause, and proceeded to address the meeting substantially as follows : Mr President : I am not insensible to the compliment conferred upon me by your kind invi- tation to address the democracy of the “ Old Do- minion” — a State which, more than any other, has the honor of having imbodied and proclaimed to the world that genuine creed of democracy which has been our text-book in all political con- tests. 1 am the more gratified at it, because I have the honor to reside in and represent a State which was once il the county or Illinois, in the /ate of Virginia.” Since that county has be- •_ ;.ne one of the sovereign States of the Union, like her illustrious mother, she has never departed from the faith, nor failed to sustain the democratic nominees at any presidential election. [Applause.] Always true to the rights of the States and to the bond of the federal Union — never departing from those great landmarks laid down by Kentucky ind Virginia in the resolutions of ’9S— ’99 — I trust that, like the Old Dominion, Illinois willaiways be found faithful not only to the principles but to the candidates of the Democratic party. [Cheers.] In the present contest we have not only a “ plat- form,” but standard-bearers which unite and har- monize the sentiments of our entire party through- out this broad land. I have heard of no democrat who repudiates the platform [Applause.] I know of no section of the party which thinks that it ought to be “ defied” or “ spit upon.” [Renewed applause.] The platform is an embodiment of the principles of the party upon all questions to which it extends, and is in perfect harmony with the whole system of principles which it is our purpose to carry into effect. We have not only been fortunate in our platform, but equally so in our candidates. [Great applause.] It is not said of the democratic convention that one section sold out their principles in order to get their man, [great applause;] for democrats hold that it is not only essential to have sound princi- ples, but to have honest and patriotic men to carry those principles into effect. No matter how pure your principles may be, if you have not men of intelligence, of honesty, of patriotism, and who understand your creed, your principles are not safe in their hands. Hence, as democrats, we invite the most rigid and strict scrutiny into the public and private character of Franklin Pierce and William R. King. [Great applause.] We lay their whole history, private and public, before the world, and challenge investigation. Take Franklin Pierce from his boyhood up. So far as his personal honor and character are //.teemed, even the breath of slander has never dared to speak against them above a whisper, and then not without looking to see what honorable j man might be present to repel the accusation. [Applause.] Take his public career in the legis- lature of his own State, in the hails of Congress, or wherever else fortune may have taken him in the ! discharge of duty, and we defy our political oppo- ; nents to point to one act of infidelity to his duty, [Great cheering.] He is not an obscure and un- known man. He has served several periods in the Congress of the United States, and voted upon ail important questions which came before him. He has served several years in the Senate of the United States in times that required the nerve and the patriotism of every man to be called into active requisition. There is his record, and we invite you to examine it. Try him by his votes, by his speeches, by his acts, and let any democrat find aught of which he can complain. Upon all of the party questions that were agitated during the ad- ministration of the immortal Jackson, or of Mr. Van Buren, covering the period in v/hich he was a member either of one or the other house of Con- gress, Franklin Pierce was found to be true to the constitution, true to the rights of the States — a national man upon all occasions, and sectional upon no question. [Great applause ] During his nine years’ service in the two houses', of Congress, he acquired an enviable reputation as a debater and a statesman. He retired from the Senate in 1842 in consequence of domestic afflictions and obligations, which a man of his sensibilities was not at liberty to disregard. During the administration of Presideiff*Polk he invited Mr. Pierce to accept a seat in his cabinet. They had been associated in the House of Repre- sentatives, and knew each other well. They had stood by Old Hickory during the war with the bank and the moneyed power; and it was natural that Mr. Polk should desire to avail himself of the services of a man whose ability, fidelity, and pa- triotism he had witnessed and seen tested on so many and such trying occasions. Mr. Pierce fell constrained to decline it from the same causes which induced him to resign his seat in the Senate. Soon afterwards the United States found them- selves engaged in a foreign war; and a call was made upon the citizen soldiery to repair to the scene of action and repel ihe insolent foe who had dared to invade their native land. Then it was that Mr. Pierce did not feel him- self at liberty to decline the call. He volunteered as a private ; but was not allowed to remain long in the ranks — being appointed colonel of his regi- ment, and subsequently a brigadier general in the army. The records of the department and the history of the war furnish satisfactory evidence that he displayed ability, skill, and gallantry of a ■high order in the performance of his military du- ties. I am aware that the whiga have been in the habit, lately, of assailing the military conduct of General Pierce. Instead of any direct charge, they deal in that cowardly mode of insinuation which is worse than direct and open calumny ; because it does not take the responsibility of bold and specific accusation. They nickname him “ The Fainting General,” and talk about his having fallen from his horse on the field of battle. ■While they do not dare openly to say that these ■acts are, evidence of cowardice on his part, yet there is no other motive for the insinuation except to instil into the minds of the American people the impression that he wa3 a coward. If that be ■true, why not have the manliness to come up openly ai d charge the fact? 1 do r,ot know how it is in the Old Dominion, but I have reason to believe that the same rule applies here as in the •great Northwest. There we hold that man com- paratively honorable who utters a calumny openly, -and boldly meets the responsibility, when con- trasted with the slanderer who will sneakingly in- sinuate that which lie dares not openly avow. [G reat cheering.] Now, fellow-citizens, I have but one answer to make to all these insinuations in reference to General Pierce’s military character ; and that an- swer is simply this: General Winfield Scott, in his official reports, under the sanction of an oath, has given the lie direct to every base slanderer who dares intimate or insinuate such an imputa- tion. [Applause.] I wish every whig to remem- ber that, if lie ever utters or repeats lilts charge, his candidate for the presidency has pronounced and proven him a calumniator; and that by making the charge he also accuses General Scott of falsehood in his official reports to the govern- ment. Do our whig friends expect to commend their candidate to tne favorable consideration of the American people by branding him with official falsehood, whilst at the head of that gallant army in which he gained all of his laurels? Either General Scott is unworthy of public confidence, or Franklin Pierce was a brave, gallant, and skilful general. [Great applause ] 1 have no charges to make against the military conduct, the gallantry and heroism of the illus- trious general whom the whiga have presented to the people of the United States as their candidate for the presidency. I will not depreciate his merits as a soldier, because truth and honor for- bid it. [Applause.] I will refrain, because, as an American, I have too much pride of country to cast the slightest shade of dishonor upon those glorious deeds which form a part of American history. The laurels of Scott, achieved while fighting the battles of his country upon the Cana- dian frontier, or in the various Indian wars, or in the more recent Mexican campaigns, are common property ; and 1 am as proud ot them as any of our whig friends, who, after having opposed each of these wars, are now striving to elevate a mili- tary chieftain to the presidency solely upon the ground that he was a gallant hero, in what they believed to be an unjust cause. [Great applause.] But, fellow-citizens, we are to deal with Gen. Scott, during this campaign, not as the general-in- chief of the American army — not in the perform- ance of his professional duties; but in a new character which he lias lately assumed — that of a partisan candidate, seeking political honors. It is of the politician that I am now to speak, and not of the general. I propose to submit to you, and to the American people, the question, whether, 1 when General Scott departs from the line of his profession, and from that course of duty in which 1 lie has acquired all his honors and his glory, it is '■ wise and patriotic to convert a good general 1 into a bad President. [Cheers ] General Scott is presented to the American peo- 1 pie by the Whig National Convention as a candi- date for the presidency. That convention, before proceeding to this nomination, formed and pro- claimed to the world a platform. Of that platform 1 have bat little to say ; for in all things, except upon the slavery question, it is a genuine whig ' concern, to which every democrat is presumed to ’ be utterly and irreconcilably opposed. So far as it I relates to the slavery question, it is a plank stolen 1 from the democratic platform for which they now I attempt to claim credit before the A merican peo- ll pie. [Applause.] After the convention had thus P proclaimed the platform, it proceeded to nominate If a -candidate for the presidency who had perti- If naciously refused on any public occasion ever to endorse the platform, or to give any assurance of | his approval of its principles. True, he wrote a letter to a member of the convention, in which he ! 3 | said, substantially, that “ if you will nominate me be, at the proper time, the substance of my reply to I will -write a letter in which I will express senti- the convention; and I now have the honor to re- : ments as strong in favor of ihe Compromise as I peat, in a more formal manner, as the occasion did to you in private.” “ I will not write a letter justly demands, that I accept the nomination, for publication now, because that would look like with the resolutions annexed.” bidding for the presidency.” [Laughter.] “But you are at liberty to show this to Jones, and Botts, and other friends.” [Great laughter.] Now, gentlemen, what do you think of the frank- ness of the old soldier? He writes no letters for publication, lest he might be suspected of elec- tioneering; but sends private notes to members of ! the convention pledging himself to make a publi- cation in favor of certain principles in the event ol* his nomination. Is this mancEuvre sanctioned by “ Scott’s Infantry Tadics ” as adopted in the arm}', or has the old soldier been taking lessons in political i tactics from Gen. Seward ? [Renewed laughter.] Well, General Scott received the nomination ! “ unanimously,” according to the official proceed- ings of the convention. [Laughter.] Fellow-citizens, did you ever hear of a unani- mous nomination which was made in defiance of the fifty-times repeated protest and remonstrance of the delegations from one half of the States of the Union represented in the convention? Every southern delegation voted against him more than fifty times, day after day, and night after night; and yet the nomination was “ unanimous.” [Great laughter.] The nomination of General Scott, : therefore, presents to the American people this extraordinary anomaly : for the first time in the history of our party contests has a sectional nom- ination ever been forced upon either of the two ; great parties. You may talk of the dangers to the American Union growing out of partisan strife and political contests — you may tremble at the scenes through which we have all recently passed, connected with the slavery agitation ; but yet there was nothing in all that so perilous to the safety of the Union as a sectional nomination for the presidency, where the North demanded the nomination of a particular man upon a sectional issue, and the delegations from every southern State, without exception, resisting the nomination as dangerous to their rights and institutions. A nomination forced upon the South by the abolition wing of the whig party north is now presented to the American people as a “ unanimous nomina- tion.” It matters not whether the North forced the nomination upon the South, or the South upon the North, the danger consists in the fact that a territorial line divided men’s opinions ; that north- ern men were one way, and southern men the other. But, after the nomination is made, we are told that it was a fair compromise, because the South received the platform, and the North ob- tained the candidate, under the direction of men who “ defy” and “ spitupon” the platform. Thus we have Winfield Scott before us as a candidate for the presidency. After mature deliberation, he proceeds to accept the nomination, and to write the letter which he had promised Mr. Archer in the private note that was found in Botts’s breechcs- pocket. [Laughter.] Let us see whether that letter is as strong as the one which he promised to write ? He says : “Not having written a word to procure this distinction,” [laughter,] “ I lost not a moment, after it had been conferred, in addressing a letter to one of your members to signify what would Now, gentlemen, I desire to know what is the meaning of the words “with the resolutions an- nexed.” Does he mean that he approves the reso- lutions ? If so, why did he not say so, as the candi- date for the vice presidency (Mr. Graham) did, in his letter of acceptance? Or, why.did he not do as . that gallant and honest man (Franklin Pierce) |did, and say, “ I accept the nomination upon the platform adopted by the convention, not because this is expected of me as a candidate, but because the principles it embraces command the approba- tion of my judgment?” There you have an honest, man speaking from an honest heart, without any equivocation, dissimulation, or mental reserva- tion. Here you find that General Scott “ accepts the nomination, with the resolutions annexed” — that is to say, using language susceptible of two constructions — one at the North, and another at the South. In the North, it will be said that he accepts the nomination, nolioiths finding the plat- form ; that he accepts it, although he “ defies” the platform ; that he accepts it, although he “ spits upon” the platform. At the South, it will be said : he accepts it, with an approval of the platform. I submit the question to you, whether that language was not framed studiously for the purpose of en- abling men, north and south, to read it one way 1 or the other, as the public pulse should beat in their particular localities. Again : I submit to you, was it the general-in-chief of the army who fought the battles in Mexico that conceived this part of the letter, or was it his commander-in- chief, General Seward, who dictated it? [Great, applause.] But I have heard it said that there is another part of this letter which helps the matter out. Here it is. Towards the conclusion of the letteiu he says: “Finally, for my strict adherence to the principles of the whig party, as expressed in the resolutions of the convention and herein suggested, with a sincere and earnest purpose to advance the greatness and happiness of the republic,” and so on, “ I can offer no other pledge or guarantee than the known incidents of a long public life, now un- dergoing the severest criticism.” He can give no other pledge “than the known incidents of a long public life, now undergoing the severest criticism.” What “incidents” are there referred to as the “pledge” for his future conduct? Certainly not his military career for forty years; for that was not an incident of his life. It constitutes the princi- pal, nay, his whole public career; and besides, that military life is not “now undergoing the severest criticism,” or any criticism. It was not, then, his military career to which he re- j ferred when he spoke of the known incidents of his life, which would afford a guarantee of his political principles and conduct. To what, then, * did he refer? His series of political letters did constitute “incidents” in his long life — well- known incidents ; and those incidents are now undergoing the severest criticism. Hence to those letters he must have referred as the only pledge he was willing to give for his political fidelity. I repeat, what are those incidents as contained in the political letters to which allusion is so pointed- 4 ly made? First, a pledge to support the annexa- tion of Canada to the American Union ; second, a pledge to the creed of the native-American party ; third, a pledge for the gradual emancipation of slavery; fourth, a pledge for the support of the bankrupt law; fifth, a pledge for a rational bank ; and so on through the whole series of federal measures, stretching out like Macbeth’s proces- sion of ghosts, some in existence, and others sup- posed to have become “obsolete ideas.” To these incidents — to the pledges contained in the-te politi- cal letters — he must be understood as referring as the only guarantee he will give to carry out the principles laid down by the whig party, and sug- gested in his letter of acceptance. We here find the principles and issues upon which this cam- paign is to be fought. It is true there are yet one or two other planks to be added to the platform ; for General Scott was not willing to “ annex ” th<- whig resolutions, arid stop there He wished to convey the idea distinctly that that was not the ground upon which he stood exclusively, if he stood upon it all. Hence we find him going fur- ther, and saying that “ the political principles and measures laid down in those resolutions are so broad that but little is /eft / nr me to add.” [Laugh- ter.] A modest man ! He accepts the nomina- tion, “ with the resolutions annexed,” and then adds a little [Renewed laughter.] Let us see what be adds. He .-ays: “I therefore barely suggest, in this place, that shou'd I, hy the par- tiality of my countrymen, be elevated to the chief magistracy of the Union, I shall be ready, in my connexion with Congress, to recommend or to approve of measures in regard to the management of the public domain so as to secure an early set- tlement of the same favorable to actual settlers, but consistent, nevertheless, with a due regard to the equal rights o the whole American people in that vast national inheritance.” A Gentleman in the meeting. “ What does he mean?” Mr. Douglas. I hear a gentleman behind me asking what does General Scott mean by this? That is precisely what I was going to ask you, gentlemen. What does he mean? I will tell you what I suppose he means. He means that, inas- much as there are two bills now pending before Congress in rela ion to the public domain radically antagonistic to each other, to wit : the homestead bill and the bill to divide and distribute the public lands among the States, and inasmuch as the new Stat' s are for one of those hills and violently against the other, and inasmuch as the old tates are for the other bill and opposed to the homestead bill, he says, “ I am for the one favorable to ac- tual settlers — that is, the homestead bill — sn as to secure the rights of the old Stales in this vast national inheritance .” [Great laughter.] In other words, “ I am for the homestead bill, so as to defeat it, and pass the distribution bill.” That is the argu- ment to be used in the old States. Or, “ 1 am for the distribution bill, so as to defeat it, and pass the homestead bill;” and this will be the argu ment in the new States. Now, I defy any living man to tell what is the real meaning of thy para- graph which I have just read, or on which side of either of these two antagonistic questions is Gene- ral Scott committed by this letter. Is he for the homestead bill, or for the distribution bill? In my State, when I go home and visit the actual cettlers upon the broad prairies, I expect to hear General Scott’s friends claim that he is the best advocate in America of the homestead bill ; and in Old Virginia, in New England, in New York, in all the old States, they will say “he is publicly committed against that ‘ vile and infamous ’ meas- ure, and in favor of distributing the lands among the old States.” They will attempt to prove each proposition in turn by the language used in hia letter of acceptance. I again submit the question, was this part of the letter the production of the | general-in-chief of the American army, or did it originate with the commander-in-chief of his political fortunes? Does it bear the marks of a K ank, honest, straightforward old soldier, or of e tricky politician ? .Again, General Scott, in this letter of accept- ance, incorporates another plank into the platform which was adopted at Baltimore and “ annexed ” at Washington. He proposes “also to recom- mend or to approve of a single alteration in our naturalization laws, suggested by my military experience, viz: Giving to all foreigners the right of citizenship who shall faithfully serve in time of war one year on board of our public ships, or in our land forces, regular or volunteer, on their re- ceiving an honorable discharge from the service.” This is the suggestion of his military experi- ence. Re oliect, that in 1841 General Scott was only hesitating between .an alteration in our nat- uralization laws, requiring a residence of twenty- one years in this country as a necessary apprentice- ship^or naturalization, and a total repeal of all laws on the subject — in other words, for incapa- citating foreigners from ever becoming citizens of this country at all — and that his “ mind then in- clined to the la ter all t rna' ive .” Recollect, that in 1841 he olaimfd to be the origina'or of the great native-Americari party — pledged himself to its support — was fired with in ignat on against those foreigners who claimed to be citizens, and to vote, and enjoy the privileges of our laws educe 1841 the only military experience of General Scott has been in Mexico, thousands of miles from the sight, hearing, and influence of American institutions. He means, iherefore, that this military experience teaches him that a year’s service in a foreign land, beyond the reach of our laws, beyond the hearing of our language, where an American newspaper never comes, where an election is an unknown and inconceivable event, where the name of the constitution is never heard, and under the martial rule which nullifies both law and con- stitution -he says that a twelve-months’ service under these circumstances fits a man for citizen- ship as well is a whole life spent here in the pur- suits of a citizen’s life, and in the daily observa- tion of the practical working of our institutions. Such is the result of his experience in the Mexi- can war. But it is a subject of doubt whether General Scott proposes this “ single alteration ’ as a sub- stitute for uur existing naturalization law, or whether he proposes it as an additional law, so that we shall have two distinct laws of naturaliza- tion. 1 am compelled to believe tliai be intends the former pro osition ; for I need not tell this audience that the constitution of the Un ted States gives Congress the power to pass “ a uniform rule of nature ization,” and power" to pass no other. If, therefore, General Scott means that we shall have two modes of naturalization — one being the existing form, and the other a year’s service in 5 he army — his proposition is unconstitutional, and mpossib'e, and an absolute absurdity. Is it pos- : ;ible that this candidate for the presidency never ead the constitution ? I am unwilling to assume he fact, and do not like to put upon his words :uck a construction. There is a difficulty indeed n construing them — they are equivocal, like all he rest of his letter. But there is this well-known ule of construction — that when a document ad- nits of two meanings, one impossible and absurd, he other consistent, intelligible, and significant, ve are bound to take the latter. Now, if this lause in the letter means that General Scott de- ires an addition to our naturalization laws which vou.d destroy their uniformity by giving unequal dvantages, and offering different modes of natu- lalization to different persons, he proposes an “ al- eration" which is impossible under the constitu- ion. But if he means that this single alteration [ hall be a substitute for all ou r laws — in other words, f he means that a year of military or naval service j hall be the sole means of naturalization — then his imposition, however inexpedient, is a proposition or a uniform law ; is consistent with the consti- ution ; is consistent with his former declarations, nd consistent with itself. Such, then, we are iound to believe his meaning to be — namely, that ■y an enlistment into our naval or land forces, and me year’s service onlyfshail an emigrant to this ountry become a citizen of the United States. 'Vhat a plank for a platform ! Is this a principle if the whig party? If it is, the country ought to mow it. Or is it only the utterance of a forked ongue — another gull-trap — constructed to catch ffative votes under one construction, and the votes if our adopted citizens under a different construc- ion. Charity even requires this construction, for hould General Scott, by any strange accident, by .ny marvellous hallucination of this people, be- ome the President of the United States — should lie in good faith strive to make the al'eration he ! uroposes, and should he succeed in doing ss — Vhat results would come of that event ! We have low an army of 10,000 men, all told. But !'50,000 foreigners come every year to these hores. If an enlistment becomes necessary to hake these people citizens, our standing army vill soon contain a million of men. Are all these migrants to be turned into the army and navy or naturalization? Or is it proposed that they .hall remain in a land of freedom, disfranchised, leprivtd of all political rights, of all participation n the civil affairs of the country, and reduced to . system of political bondage more intolerable Ihan that from which they fled in their native land ? The democratic party has ever been just and iberal to all foreigners that come here. That larty has made this country a home for the exile, ,n asylum for the oppressed of all the world. We make no distinctions among our fellow-citi- I’.ens. Uniform naturalization and equality under he law has been our principle from the bSginning, ind will be through the coming time. [Applause.] I.tis this wise, just, and honest policy that has at- ached the foreign vote to the democratic party. Aid we are willing to let them judge now between lurselves and a candidate who sets up this trans- parent blind between his present position and his heal principles, as expressed in his memorable etterof’41. If General Scott has changed his ! opinions since that day — if all the indignation which “fired” him then has melted down to love and admiration under the operation of “his mili- tary experience” — why does he not say so like a man? I am unwilling to believe that a gallant soldier would have done thus, had he written a letter himself ; but I will not undertake to say what his political file-leader would not do while he held the pen. Gentlemen, this letter of General Scott accept- ing the nomination is a fertile theme for a speech. It has manifold charms and attractions. I thought it would take me but a few moments to get through with it; but it contains so many novel and rare features, that you will bear with me for calling your attention to other portions of it. It will be remembered that the whig party, from time immemorial, have been in the habit, in every election, of charging the democracy with proscription — with proscribing honest men for opinion’s sake — turning them cut of office merely for a difference of political sentiment, and put- ting democratic partisans in their places. “ Pro- scribe proscription,” has been the whig motto. It was so when Henry Clay was the gallant standard-bearer of the whig party. Every whig in America was horror-stricken at the odious doctrine, that “ to the victors belong the spoils.” Every whig then denounced the idea of removing a man from office merely because of a difference of opinion on the subject of partisan politics. When General Taylor was the whig candidate four years ago, you were told upon every stump, in the public press, and through every vehicle of communicating intelligence to the people, that no man was to be removed in consequence of his political sentiments; that it made no difference whether he was a whig or a democrat ; if he was honest and capable, he was to be protected in the station he held. What do we find now? General Scott, in his letter of acceptance, in cunning and adroit language, solemnly pledges himself that no democrat shall ever hold office under his adminis- tration, but that abolition whigs may do so with- out the slightest hindrance ; this is my translation of that £art of his letter. Now let us recur to his own words. He says: “In regard to the general policy of the administration, if elected, I should, of course, look among those who may approve that policy for the agents to carry it into execution ; and I should seek to cultivate har- mony and fraternal sentiments throughout the whig party, without attempting to reduce its members by proscription to exact conformity to my own views.” He would seek agents from among those who approved the policy of his ad- \ ministration. As democrats do not approve, ai d I cannot approve, of the policy of such an adminis- | tration as hi3 would be, they are excluded from | ever holding office under an administration at the ! head of which General Scott may be placed. Can language be more clear and explicit, that a man differing from him in politics cannot partici- pate in the honors and emoluments which his country may have to award to merit and patriot- ism ? Proscription of all political opponents is boldly proclaimed in advance. He says, in sub- stance, “ Democrats, take notice : you do not ap- prove of my policy ; you cannot be selected as my agents ; you cannot enjoy any of the patron- age of the government ; it is to be distributed only to those who do approve the policy of the 1 administration.” But then, looking around and 6 seeing Mr. Seward and his abolition followers, he adds, “but I will cultivate harmony and fraternal sentiments throughout the whig party, without attempting to reduce its members by proscription to exact conformity to my own views.” No fra- ternal feeling is to be cultivated between him and the democracy ; no friendly sentiments are to pre- vail between him and us. This brotherhood and fraternal feeling are only to be among the members of the whig party ; and they are not required to conform to his views, if they belong to any branch of the universal whig party, and are num- bered among his supporters. This language is broad enough to let in Mr. Seward and the whole of his abolition follow- ers, at the same time that their appetite for the spoils is whetted by the assurance that no honest democrat should ever hold office under his administration, and 'herefore they may enjoy a monopoly of all the honors and patronage of the government. Gentlemen, I ask you to bear in mind that this is the first time that any candidate for the presi- dency, from the days of Washington to this mo- ment, of any political party or creed, has avowed that the entire patronage of the government should be confined exclusively to the men who sustained and supported the policy of an administration. This humiliating declaration is now made for the first time. There never has been a democratic administration in this Union that did not retain at least one-third of their political opponents in office. This was emphatically the case under the adminis- trations of General Jackson, Mr. Van Buren,and Mr. Polk, and yet the whigs have been in the habit of pointing to those as the most proscriptive of all the administrations during the history of our republic. True the most important and responsible of the offices were held by the friends of the administra- tion, yet a large portion, from one-third to one- half, of all the offices were invariably enjoyed by our political opponents. But General Scott, as the candidate of this anti-proscriptive party ^pledges himself that no office, high or low, shall ever be held by a democrat, no matter how honest, ca- pable, and useful he may have been in the public service. Whatever his services and character, he must walk the plank. Can you believe that the man of the last war, the hero of Lundy’s Lane, the victor at Chepultepec, could entertain such sentiments if he had not become the tame instru- ment of a heartless demagogue? Proscription such as he avows has never yet been heard of in this country. An old companion in arms — one, perhaps, who had stood by him in those very battles to which I have referred, where he. may have left an eye, a leg, an arm ; who may have a family dependant for bread upon his con- tinuance in office — must make room for a sleek whig or some selfish abolitionist. Such is the doctrine of this letter. I cannot believe that it is the sentiment of a soldier’s heart. 1 had rather believe that he wrote it as a king writes, through the premier who is to manage his administration. [Great applause.] But if such is to be the mo- rality, the theory and the practice of his adminis- tration, why not elect its real chief to bear the responsibility? [Cheers.] Why blot out the re- fulgent glory that now encircles the name of Scott, and wither the laurels which his profession has won him? Why repeat the story of Taylor? Ilis honor, too, knew not a stain, until you mac | J([ . him a President, with Clayton for his premier. « Why has the whig party forgotten with an olj j (|l livion so complete all that it once said about mil j ( || tary politicians? Time was when they preferre “ war, pestilence, and famine,” to the election of 1',' military chieftain, referring to General Jacksoi j #ll who did not at the time of his nomination hoi ^ any commission in the army, who never teas ‘ n soldier by profession, and who had entered th A army only in the hour of danger, as Pierce did- ^ and, like him, sheathed his sword when the ws ffi , was over. [Great applause.] j j[g We have yet to see a professional Soldier sue ^ ceed as a statesman. Washington was no militar # f ( man by profession^ following the army for u living. He was a civilian in the fullest sense c j tc the word. He was reared for civil pursuits. H ^ held civil offices both [»efore and after the Revolu | ( j tion. He was a member of the Continental Con Kl!1 gress that founded the Union, and a member o jj 0 that convention which framed our constitution ^ He knew whether naturalization laws ought to b ’ ’ uniform or not. The period during which Wash , if] ington held a commission in the army constitute! ([ indeed but a very few years of his long life. H ^ was the first of our citizen-soldiers. [Cheers am (or applause.] Andrew Jaclcton, too — 1|!( [Here Mr. Douglas was interrupted by lorn j and hearty cheers. He continued — ] ^ Gentlemen, it does my heart good to hear dem p, ocrats applaud the name of Andrew Jackson [Renewed applause.] Andrew Jackson started ii , |; - life as a poor attorney ; was United States At r torney under Washington, a senator of tlieUnitet (| j States from Tennessee, and a judge of the su preme court of his State, before he ever drevi ‘ a sword. When his country was involved it “ war, only, did he, like Washington, leave tin jj 0 pursuits of a citizen for the duties of a soldier j r and like Washington, when war was at an end he threw up his commission and went to a farm j.. Like Washington, also, he left that farm agair # j only to become the Presidentof the United States )([ He was not a member of the military profession )#( like Washington, he was never more than a citi- n zen-soldier. Of forty years of public service no (s more than five or six were spent in the army, ant ^ the rest in civil life. [Cheers.] So with Harrison He commenced his career as a young physician — )( he held many civil offices before he went into the p ( army ; he went to the army at last only as Mr. p. Pierce did, because there was war in the land : and when he was nominated for the presidency, J he had long since ceased to hold the commission j of a military officer. But next we come to the name of Taylor. Pie ( was the first, the very first professional soldier who ever became the Chief Magistrate of this ,- f countrj'. My friends, was there anything in the result of that experiment which invites you to repeat jj it ? If he had lived for one year more than he ^ did with that Cabinet about him, would this j. Union be extant at the present time? 1 believe General Taylor to have been an honest and a sin- cere man ; but at the time of his death he was a simply taking a military view of a civil question ; ^ and neither whig nor democrat, who is at all in- ^ formed upon the history of that period, will be disposed to deny that he had already committedL himself to steps which would have led inevitably u to a civil war between the federal government and 7 ''several sovereign States in oar Union, and thereby 'have rent in fragments the entire confederation. ’..J Why is it that the South American republics do not thrive — why do they have no peace — why rldo they live in a perpetual revolution ? They have -adopted our laws; they have copied our constitu- tions ; yet they do not succeed, while we do. Why .do not like causes produce like effects ? Because, jwhile between their institutions and ours there is 'a good parallel, in their administration of them "they make a grand difference. In those republics l~the commanders of their armies are invariably ''candidates for the presidency, whiie with us, such has never been the case until the present time. In ' "those republics, when a civilian is the candidate 'of one side and the commander-in-chief is set up jby the opposite party, the civilian is generally ^elected by the people; but the soldier invariably "'takes possession of ihe effi c by the sicord. Hence 'their civil wars, resulting in anarchy and despot- asm, and destroying every vestige of liberty. 'Now, we are importing this unhappy policy, tins 'Mexican policy, into the United States. We are . 'copying misfortune — borrowing a fatal fault. This ^{practice of setting up the commanders of the army Hfor the highest civil offices, 1 repeat, is an innova- tion on our theory and our practice, and the his- tory of those miserable sister States ought to settle the question of its expediency. It was the hand of Providence that saved us _ : from our first and only military administration. “'Taylor was gathered to his fathers; Fillmore gieigned in his stead — a man who, previous to that .“ftime, had never furnished such proofs of superi- ‘ijority of statesmanship as to cause him to be look- ed to as a candidate for the first office — a man of ^respectable talents, respectable character, and of ' gentlemanly deportment, who has performed no ■^great and striking act to signalize his administra- ~Tion in history. Yet, regarding his official term gin contrast with the military administration that '^preceded him, we feel — ay, all of us feel — that ^Fillmore was a real gotfse?td ! It was the calming “ of the waters when the ship was sinking in the jtempest. All, therefore, look kindly on Mr. Fill- ' more, and we like to give him all the consolation ;‘we can after the bad treatment he received at Bal- timore, because he w as a whig, and yet did no harm ; to the country ! 5, t Yet, for the simple reason that he did no harm ” to his country — ay, because he has been a national i President, and because he has kept within the bounds of his official oath — Mr. Fillmore has been ‘ repudiated by his party. Is not this so? Was not ■ ’ Mr. Fillmore defeated by the abolition sentiment and abolition party of the North, and by that . alone? Did not every southern State stick to him : to the death? Could all the whigs in the Union, except Seward and the abolition whigs, have de- feated him at Baltimore? And would Seward or any abolition whig have raised a cry upon Millard Fillmore if he had acted in office upon the principles of his Buffalo letter, instead of on the principles of the Compromise of ’50 ? But though we cannot be otherwise than grate- ful for a Fillmore administration in the place of a Taylor regency — 'and though we must admit, that on the subject of slavery Mr. Fillmore has done tolerably well for a whig; yet there is another view to be taken of the present adminis- tration’s career. It is a view of certain features in it for which the whig party is responsible, even more than Mr. Fillmore himself. If my time were not already exhausted, in'o many transac- tions r.f the present administration ! should like to inquire. I should like, for i. stance, to ask why it was that when Spain broke the stipulations of her treat}? with us and butchered fifty of our citizens without a trial, we bad to make apologies instead of Spain. It matieis not whether the parti- cipators in ihe Cuban affair were right or wrong. Admit that they were wrong. Still, under the liberal stipulations of the treaty they were entitled to a fair and open trial, with forms distinctly de- signated. But they were butchered without a chance of lav/ ; murdered in cold blond ; and then we apologized because an irresponsible mob, com- ing no one knows whence, going no one knows where, tore down a house in New Orleans. The blood of our countrymen cried from the ground, and there was no ear for the cry at Washing- ton. But for the Spanish consul’s bouse we made an humble apology ; we put our forehead in the dust before offended royalty ; and th flag of s’ars was trailed in the dust before the banner of Castile. I should like to inquire, too, into the policy adopted by the whig party relative to the South American republics and the rights of Great Britain over Central America. I should like to know why it is that the United States cannot make treaties with independent powers on our o wn con- tinent without consulting the British cabinet, and without the interference of English agents. Would the Nicaragua business have stained the page of our diplomatic history, if a uemocratic adminis- tratihn had occupied ihe depaitments of our gov- ernment during the last four years? Could any others than whig politicians have truckled, as Clayton and his associates have done throughout that transaction, to British power? I should like to have compared the expenditure of the late whig administration with that of for- mer democratic governments. 1 should like to get some explanation why it is that the expenses of this government have suddenly increased from about thirty to near sixty millions of dollars. 1 should like to know why a whig administration cost more in profound peace than a democratic administration does during a great war. I should like to hear some explanation of the way in which the whig party reconciles its pro- fessions about proscription during the last canvass with the practice of its administration since the commencement of its official term They pro- mised that none but the incapable and the dishon- est should be proscribed, and then they proscribed nearly every democrat in office. Now, are we to understand that every democrat is incapa’oie'and dishonest? Docs the whig pariy give his xpla- nation of ita conduct? Scarcely so. Yet such is the inference they would have others o m ke. Not content with depriving men of their '.ad, they turn them away with a tarnishe • o e. 1 would not complain of iheiatepioscrif.il..! r me true reason was alleged for it. But wha a .ge is too strong for the iniquity, the ii a- !• .s • unity and selfishness of me i isinua'ed slander ne.lnnd which they seek shelier? However, there will be . • v.rophuu n this score relative t<> meii present ea idi lati • m- disb.es the SW' id in . van e. H mr without quarte. fiefor h mi, ■ • u t v u in featherandepaul' W.- l my im i -n a e deluded by this ma as you w n y y ■ . all 8 that I can say is, that you deserve your fate. But I do not fear that you will or can be. We are now coming to a fair trial of the relative strength and numbers of the parties; and in such a contest when did we fail? Let us then go to work boldly Let us throw false delicacy aside, and, disregard- ing whig friends, let us expose the political con- duct of our adversaries withont fear, yet without imitating their assaults upon private character. If, in so doing, we shall be true to ourselves, neither abolitionism nor federalism will prevail against us, and the success of our principles, with the election of those who represent them, is already a foregone conclusion. [Tremendous and long-continued applause.] It was eleven o’clock when Mr. Douglas con- cluded. A vote of thanks to him for his able discourse was then proposed by the president of the association, and unanimously passed by the meeting ; and after nine rousing cheers for the “ Young Giant of the West,” the assemblage dis- persed. Subsequently, we understand, a dinner was tendered to Mr. Douglas by the Democratic Association, which he declined on account of busi- ness at Washington, which compelled him to i turn thither on Saturday night. W. W. Crump, esq , having addressed t! meeting, Robert G. Scott, esq., rose and said: B; fore we separate, Mr. President, 1 trust it w be the good pleasure of this Meeting not to pa with our honored and respected friend who hi delivered to us one of the most thrilling, beautifu and admirable addresses I have ever listened ti without at least giving some token of our n spect, our gratitude, and our thanks for that eflor I propose, therefore, that this association now ri tarn their most cordial and sincere thanks t Judge Douglas for the very cogent, able, ari eloquent address which- he has delivered thi evening. The motion was unanimously agreed io, nin cheers were given for Judge Douglas, and th- meeting adjourned. REMASKS SENATOR OP DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS, \ IN REPLY TO SENATOR COLLAMER, KANSAS ON TERRITORIAL AFFAIRS. DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 4, 1856. WASHINGTON : PRINTED AT THE UNION OFFICE. 1856 . V :li : 3 H r - v ' : - ( - VI * . . J I ■* / > l ' ■' ■ i ' V, v J ' >’■; : " : ;-v V h / i }\A r. i \ ■ : Vi A !. .’ft# f I SPEECH. Mr. COLLAMER having concluded his speech on the bill reported from the Committee on Territories to authorize the people of the Territory of Kansas to form a constitution and State government, preparatory to their admission into the Union when they have the re- quisite population — Mr. DOUGLAS said : I do not propose to go into a general discussion of this subject to- day ; but there are a few points in the course of the remarks indulged in by the senator from Vermont which it becomes my duty to notice. I do not wish to be understood as inti- mating that, in the general, the senator has not conducted the discussion in a spirit of cour- tesy and kindness ; on the contrary, I take pleasure in saying that he treated the various topics in a temper and good humor worthy of imitation. I agree with him that, in the dis- cussion of great principles of public policy, harsh terms and offensive epithets should not be indulged. But I do not perceive the relevancy of his lecture in the conclusion of his speech against the use of the terms “black republicans” and “ black republicanism,” which, he fears, is calculated to lower the standing and character of the Senate in the country, and with foreign countries. Mr. COLLAMER. I did not say that the Senator from Illinois used any term of that kind. Mr. DOUGLAS. Of course not ; neither will my remarks apply to the senator from Vermont. He has said that the word “ black republican ” has been used, and that it is not well to make the people of Europe imagine or suppose that all those gentlemen who are opposed to the Nebraska bill are black republicans. Let the senator remember that the watchword of the party with which he acts is opposition to the “ dictation and aggressions of the slave power!” The leaders of that party can find no more choice and elegant expres- sions by which to designate the democratic senators, even in debate here, than “ dough- faces and tools of the slave power!” Mr. COLLAMER. Have I said anything of that kind ? •- — - r Mr. DOUGLAS. Not at all, sir. It is said by this party that the Nebraska bill was passed through the Senate in obedience to the dictation of the slave power ; that, although it received a majority of the votes of all the senators from the North, a majority, of the South, a majority of the whig party and a majority of the democratic party in the Senate, they all acted in subserviency to the slave power? Now, would you like to have it go all over Eu- rope, and all over the world, that the Senate is governed by the slave power? _ U Mr. COLLAMER. I have said nothing of the kind. Mr. DOULASS I know that; but the gentleman has been criticising the word “black republican.” He says that he did not refer to me when he alluded to it. Then, as I am criticising the use of the word “ slave power,” and he did not use it, of course I do not refer to him. Why does he complain ? We are each speaking in general terms. Mr. COLLAMER. I used no such term. Mr. DOUGLAS. The gentleman had a right to criticise the use of the word “ black re- publican,” and he say's that he did not allude to me. Mr. COLLAMER. I do not remember to have heard the senator use the term. Mr. DOUGLAS. Then, why does the gentleman complain of my criticising the use of the word “ .-lave power,” when I do not attribute its use to him ? 1 only wish to show that when gentlemen come to read lectures to us about the courtesies of debate they had better criticise and admoni-h their own political friends. Before senators read lectures to this side of the chamber in regard to the terms which should be used in debate they had better arrest the progress of that species of vituperation and abuse which has been indulged in so freely by their own coadjutors on the other side ? These lectures will come with better grace, and we may receive them with more favor, when they shall have been applied to the senators on the other side of the chamber who may have deserved them, and who, it is to be hoped, will profit by them. Let the reformation begin at home. Let them correct their own household before they interfere with ours. However, this course shows that they are consistent with their own professions, at least on the point that they prefer “ foreign interference and officious intermeddling with other people’s business,” as illustrated by the principles of the minority report, to that other principle of “ non-intervention” which teaches every community to mind 4 their own business and let their neighbor’s alone, according to the doctrines of the majority report and the principles of the Nebraska bill? Now, sir, I desire to say a few words upon the point last discussed by the senator from Vermont, in which he assumed that the free-soilers in Kansas organized resistance to the local laws and lormed a constitution and State government only for the purpose of applying for admission into the Union, and that all their proceedings were conditional upon their “ acceptance and ratification by Congress.” The senator from Vermont seems to be under the impression that the majority of the committee in their report, and I in my speech vindicating their report, have taken the ground that it was no part of the purpose of the free-soilers in Kansas, in forming the constitution and State government, to apply for admission into the Union. Mr. COLLAMER. I understood that to be the leading feature of the report on that point. Mr. DOUGLAS. Not at all. We show that they took these proceedings with the view of applying for admission into the Union in the first instance ; and in the event of their re- jection by Congress, with the ultimate purpose of resisting the laws and subverting the gov- ernment by force and violence which Congress had established in the Territory. Their movement contemplated the two alternatives, and anticipating failure in the first, they resolved that, “ in the mean time,” they would prepare for the latter by organizing and disciplining military companies, and providing arms and munitions of war ! Hence they resolved that they would submit only for a, time, while they could try peaceable means by applying to the courts and to Congress ; and in the event of failure in the proper tribunals, which event they anticipated and provided against, they would then “ resist to a bloody issue !” This was their fixed purpose and ultimate design, as proclaimed to the world boldly and fearlessly in the resolutions and proceedings of a convention, composed of delegates from every county in the Territory, at Big Springs, on the 5th and 6th of September. How does the senator answer that point? By thrusting in the foreground their proposed application to Congress for admission, and carefully concealing the fact that they had resolved, hi the event of their application being rejected by Congress, to resist to a bloody issue! He does not deny the undeniable fact that they did resolve to resist the constituted authorities in that event. He does not deny the authenticity of the speech of Governor Reeder in the convention while accepting the nomination for Congress, (as contained in the majority re- port,) in which he said that, in the event of failure “in the proper tribunals,” then “ there is one more chance for justice ;” “ God has provided, in the eternal frame of things, redress for every wrong that “ there remains to us still the steady eye and the strong arm ;” and that “we must conquer, or mingle the bodies of the oppressors with those of THE OPPRESSED UPON THE SOIL WHICH THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE NO LONGER PROTECTS.” The language is, “ we must conquer !” Whom? Who are the enemies that Governor Reeder and his confederates propose to conquer? The “proper tribunals!” — the courts of justice for sustaining the validity of the laws— the executive officers for maintaining the supremacy of the laws — Congress for refusing to admit Kansas into the Union without one- third the requisite population, and with a constitution made by a political party, and pre- sented here with a threat of a “ bloody issue” in the event that the Senate and House of Representatives dare to reject the application! These are the “proper tribunals” whose authority is to be resisted “ with the steady eye and the strong arm.” These are the proper tribunals whose officers are to be conquered, or the free-soilers of Kansas “ will mingle the bodies of the oppressors with those of the oppressed upon the soil which the Declaration of Independence no longer protects!” Did not the senator from Vermont know of this speech of Governor Reeder? Did he not know that the sentiments contained in this speech were endorsed and affirmed in the resolu- tions of the convention which nominated Governor Reeder for Congress? Did he not know that the very persons who formed the constitution and State government at Topeka voted for Governor Reeder for Congress because of the opinions and purposes set forth in this speech, and his pledge to become their champion and abide their fate? Governor Reeder was elected to Congress upon the platform of principles embraced in this speech and the resolutions of the Big Springs convention. It was this platform, and Governor Reeder’s advocacy of it, which induced the whole free-soil party— or, as they now call themselves, free State party — to cease their opposition to Governor Reeder, and adopt him as their champion and standard- bearer. It was this platform which brought him to the House of Representatives as a dele- gate, and to this chamber as a senator, demanding admission on behalf and in the name of those who formed the constitution and State government at Topeka, resolved “to conquer, or mingle the bodies of the oppressors with those of the oppressed upon the soil which the Declaration of Independence no longer protects!” But, in the face of these facts, and with a full knowledge of them, the senator from Vermont tells us that the free State movement in Kansas did not contemplate rebellion or resistance to the authority of this government, but was all dependent upon “ the acceptance and ratification by Congress.” How does he at- tempt to sustain his proposition? First, by ignoring and excluding the proceedings of the Big Springs convention, upon the ground that it was out of the line of the history of the freo State movement. Secondly, by ignoring and suppressing the entire proceedings of the con- vention which formed the constitution at Topeka, without assigning any reason for this latter 5 omission. Were not the proceedings of the convention which formed the constitution within the line of the history of that instrument and the purposes of its makers? But the proceed- ings of the constitutional convention, as well as the territorial convention at Big Springs, must all be excluded in order to exculpate those who controlled the whole movement from being justly subjected to the consequences of organized resistance to the laws of the Terri- tory” and defiance to the authority of the federal government and its “ proper tribunals.” The senator from Vermont will listen to no other evidence — will receive none which is not to be found in the Lawrence meeting on the 14th of August, and the convention at Topeka on the 19th of September. It is true that the- Lawrence meeting was the first to propose a convention at Topeka. The preamble to the' resolution assigned as a reason that “ the people of Kansas have been since its settlement, and now are, without any law-making power.” The second step in the series of events was the adoption of a resolution by the Big Springs convention approving of the call by the Lawrence meeting, for the reason that it “ repudiated the acts of the so-called Kansas legislative assembly. " By t"is resolution the movement became general and extended all over the Territory. The Lawrence meeting was a small affair — a mere local town meeting — while the Big Springs convention was composed of c b;lr . - . T o-ates from every county in the Territory. Thus it will be seen that the movement, which I Ead its first demonstration in a town meeting at Lawrence, on the plan of treating the legis- lative assembly which Congress had established in the Territory as a nullity, became general and coextensive with \he limits of the Territor}^ by means of the Big Springs convention, iciih the distinct understanding that in the event Congress should reject their application for admis- sion they icould “resist to a bloody issue.” It also appears from the same procet dings that they so far anticipated the event, now certain to happen, that Congress would reject their application, that they determined then to prepare for “ the bloody issue” by recommending to their friends throughout the Territory “ in the mean time to organize and discipline volunteer companies, and the procurement and preparation of arms.” I now submit the question to the Senate whether the proceedings of the convention at HTg Springs — at which the ultimate purposes of the whole movement are distinctly declared in the event Congress should reject their application — in which provision is made lor organizing and disciplining military companies in every county of the Territory, and for procuring arms and munitions of war in anticipation of that probable event — are so far outside of the line of the true history of the free State movement that it is irrelevant and improper to bring them before the Senate as illustrative of the real objects and ultimate designs of those who origi- nated and controiled them ? I considered it more respectful to the Senate, and consistent with a fair and impartial exposition of the subject , to present all the material facts calculated to shed light upon its true character and ultimate objects, than to withhold and keep out of view the larger portion of them. The senator from Vermont thought otherwise, and prepared the minority report accordingly. Let the Senate decide between us. But 1 have been as much surprised at the reasons assigned by the senator from Vermont for excluding the pro-- ceedings of the Big Springs convention as I have been at the act itself. The reasons are that the convention at Big Springs, although representing every county in the Territory, was a party convention, composed of and representing- only the free State party, and hence its pro- ceedings ought not to be considered as a fair expression of the opinions of the whole people of Kansas. Was not the meeting at Lawrence on the 14th of August a party meeting in the same sense ? True, they called it a “ people's meeting.” But were there any people there except free State men or abolitionists? Were any others. invited or expected ? Was not the convention at Topeka on the 19th of September a party meeting in the same sense ? Was it not composed avowedly and exclusively of free State men with as much certainty as the Big Springs con- vention? Did it not assemble in pursuance of the call made at Lawrence, and endorsed at Big Springs, and for the well-known and avowed purpose of carrying out the objects disclosed in the proceedings of both of those meetings or conventions? How, then, can you separate them, and call the one a party meeting and the others people’s meetings, when they were composed of the same persons, and assembled for the furtherance of the same common object, although they may at times have passed under different names? Was not the convention which assembled at Topeka on the fourth Tuesday of October, and formed the constitution, also a party convention in the same sense? Was not the whole movement, in all its parts, from its incipient steps at Lawrence on the 14th of August to the organization of a bogus legis- lature and the inauguration of a mock governor at Topeka on the 4th of March, a party move- ment? If, then, the senator from Vermont is right in excluding the proceedings of the Big Springs convention upon the ground that it was a party convention, and hence disqualified from participating in the formation of a constitution and State government, he must reject and suppress the whole movement for the same reason ! But the senator from Vermont was not content with excluding the proceedings of the Big Springs convention, in order to exculpate his freesoil friends in Kansas from the crime of meditating rebellion and treason against the United States. He was enabled to brush those proceedings out of his way, upon the assumption that they were the acts and doings of a party, and not of the whole people, and, consequently, not within the true line of the history of this free State movement. But still there remains directly in his path, and staring him in the face, the pro- ceedings of the convention which formed the constitution with which he proposes to bring Kansas into the Union as a State ! The proceedings of that constitutional convention are equally fatal to the position he has assumed for exculpating the authors of these revolutionary 6 movements. Copious extracts of the-e proceedings are set out in the majority report, and were referred to the other day in my speech, for the purpose of showing that the constitution was formed expressly with the view of putting the State government in immediate operation, in conflict witli the Territorial government, without waiting for tiie action of Congress on their application for admission. The question was distinctly made upon a resolution of in- struction to the committees, and after full debate was decided in the affirmative, and the con- stitution formed accordingly. In the debate Mr. Delahay, who has since been elected to re- present the new State in Congress, opposed the proposition upon the ground that it did con- stitute an act of “ rebellion.” On the other hand, the friends of the proposition defended it as a revolutionary right, sanctioned by the example of our fathers in the Declaration of Inde- pendence, and declared that they would not “wait an hour for the action of Congress. ” In view of these facts, was it not prudent in the senator from Vermont to maintain an ominous silence in respect to the proceedings of the constitutional convention ? He could not have produced these facts either in his report or his speech without annihilating every proposition which he assumed as the basis of his defence of his freesoil friends in Kansas. lie could not have referred to these facts without betraying a consciousness that they had resolved on “re- bellion” against the authority of the United States. He could not make the excuse, as in the case of the Big Springs convention, that the proceedings of the convention which formed the constitution were outside of the line of the history of that instrument, and hence furnished no evidence of the intentions of its makers. He could avail himself of none of these modes of escape ; and, consequently, there was no other course left open to him except to pass over the proceedings of the constitutional convention in silence, and then draw conclusions directly the reverse of those to which he would have been driven had he presented the whole history ef the movement. Who can fail to admire the prudence which dictated this ominous silence on a point so important as to lie conclusive of the matter in controversy? Tiie senator from Vermont desires to know what the secret military organization had to do with the questions under discussion. I will inform him what it had to do with thorn. It will be recollected that the Big Springs convention resolved to “ resist to a bloody issue” so soon as peaceable remedies should fail, and, in anticipation of such failure, recommended to their friends throughout tire Territory , “ in the meantime,” to procure arms and munitions of war. Inasmuch as this recommendation has not been publicly executed, it was important to know by what secret means the military had been organized and disciplined, and such large quantities of Sharpe’s rifles, and cannon, powder, and lead, and other munitions of war, had been pro- vided. Flence 1 he importance of exposing this secret military organization, called the “Kan- sas Legion,” and showing the revolting and profane oaths by which all its members were bound to fight in a common cause, obey secret signs, unknown to their fellow-citizens, and to'vote at all electiqns for such candidates as the secret order should dictate, thus placing tile whole power of the Territory, civil and military, together with the lives and property of all the inhabitants, at the mercy of a secret body of armed men, who met and laid their plans in the dark hour of the night, when honest and unsuspecting men should be asleep. It illus- trates the true character of the whole movement. It shows that it possessed all the attributes of a conspiracy — that its aim was to subvert, by violence and fraud, the government which Congress had established in the Territory, instead of peaceably assembling to petition for the redress of grievances. The senator says also that there is no evidence at all that this secret military legion, which he tries to ridicule, had any connexion with the State movement whatever ; that they were not the same men. Mr. C 1 ILLAMER. I said that I did not know whether they were or not. Mr. DOUGLAS. I will tell j'ou how to ascertain it. In the charter of the legion appoint- ing persons to form new lodg-es you find the name of “ .1. K. Goodin as grand quartermas- ter.” In the Big Springs convention you find the same J. K Goodin. And again you find his name in the proceedings of the convention at Topeka ; so with many other names which figure conspicuously and alternately in the secret army and in the public meetings and con- ventions. Hence the senator could have known, if he had taken the pains to have investigated the matterj that the secret military organization and the public meetings and conventions to which 1 have had occasion to refer so often, were managed and controlled by the same body of men for the accomplishment of a common object. I now submit the question to the judgment of the Senate, whether I have not fully sustained the position that those move- ments in Kansas were revolutionary in their character, having for their object the subversion of the territorial government established by Congress by a resort to force and violence, in the event that peaceable measures should fail to accomplish their objects ? The senator from Vermont attempts to break the force of my argument, and at the same time excuse himself for withholding the most important portion of the evidence by retorting on me that I have not set out the proceedings of those meetings and conventions in full in the majority report. He does not complain that I have not given a fair abstract of the proceedings of each; but the allegation is that I have not incorporated into it all the speeches, resolutions, proclama- tions, addresses, and unimportant details, which would have made a vast mass of useless and confused matter, and swollen the report to such an extent that it would never have been cir- culated, much less read. I made a fair abstract of each case, and incorporated into the 7 report so much as was necessary to convey to the Senate and country a distinct idea of the real character and nature of the transaction. With the same view he refers to the fact that I did not set out the whole volume of laws enacted by the Kansas legislature, and which have been ordered to be printed with the other papers transmitted to the Senate by the Pre- sident. These laws alone constitute a volume as large as the one I hold in my hand, [hold- ing up a volume of the United States Statutes at Large, containing more than a thousand pages.] For what purpose would he have me incorporate those laws in the report? The report expressly states that the committee did not deem it any part of their duty to examine those laws in detail, for the reason that they were local statutes, confined in their operation to the Territory of Kansas, which the legislature of the Territory might alter or repeal at f leasure. Of that large volume of laws, affecting almost every relation and interest in life, have heard but two complained of as being either unjust or oppressive. Is it not a curious fact that none of the disturbances or violence which have occurred in Kansas have arisen under either of these laws — the election law and the slavery law — although these are con- stantly referred to as furnishing excuses for resisting other laws, with which they have no connexion? If a man is arrested for murder, and is rescued from the officer by an armed mob, the excuse is that the legislature passed an odious law upon the subject of slavery ! If a lawless person is arrested for burning his neighbor’s house, and is rescued from the officer, the justification is found in the fact that the legislature enacted an election law which the rioters did not like ! Whenever a free-soiler or a member of the secret military organization is arrested for a breach of the peace, or for crime against laws which are held to be necessary and proper in all civilized countries, and is rescued from the officer, the excuse is that the election law and slavery law are odious and oppressive ! I repeat the question, is it not a remarkable fact, that while these two laws are made the excuse for resisting all the laws in the Territory, no case has ever arisen under either of the statutes complained of — no man has ever been charged with a violation of either — no prosecution has been instituted under either of them? The reason is, that they are not. understood in the Territory to bear the construc- tion which the free-soilers here desire to place on them, in order to render them odious, for party purposes. The senator from Vermont complains that in the majority report I have inserted an extract from the address of a law and order convention held at Leavenworth in November last, and composed of men of all parties, “ whigs and democrats, free State men, and pro-slavery men,” who were in favor of suppressing violence and maintaining the supre- macy of the laws. That meeting was presided over by the governor, assisted oy a majority of the judges of the supreme court of the Territory, and the United States district attorney and marshal participated in the proceedings. I thought it more consistent with fairness and impartiality to give the construction placed on those laws by those whose duty it is to expound and execute them than to adopt the construction which is sought to be put on them here for partisan purposes. Is it not fair to presume that the judges, governor, district attorney, and marshal will expound and execute them in the same sense in which they explained them on that occasion ? What is the objection to having them expounded and executed in that mode ? None that I can conceive of, except that it deprives the anti-Nebraska party of the oppor- tunity of making political capital for the presidential election ! The construction put on those laws by those whose official duty it is to construe them authoritatively, deprives them of nearly all their objectionable features. Why not allow that construction to prevail, and thus render them harmless, if not useful? Mr. COLLAMER. I have given no construction ; I stated the laws themselves. Mr. DOUGLAS. I understand what the senator has done. He has stated a part of each of those laws and omitted the residue. He has placed a construction upon the parts stated by him directly the reverse of that given by the constituted authorities of the Territory, and by this mode of reasoning arrives at the conclusion that they are intolerably oppressive ! If his construction of them makes them so very objectionable, why not take the exposition given by the judges and governor? Let this be done, and the people of the Territory will be relieved from all apprehensions, if, indeed, they ever entertained any, that those laws would be executed in a way that would be injurious to their interests, obnoxious to their feelings, or violative of their rights. But I will not pursue that point further. There is another which I deem more important. I think I have said enough to show that this movement in Kansas is a revolutionary pro- ceeding to overthrow the territorial government in defiance of the authority of Congress. The senator from Vermont has sought to find precedents in the cases of Tennessee, Arkansas, or some other new State, under whose example he hopes to shelter his free-soil friends in Kansas. He says that these States and some others formed their constitutions without the previous assent of Congress, and were received into the Union notwithstanding that objection. That is all very true. But no one of those cases can be cited with any propriety as a prece- dent, justifying or palliating the revolutionary proceedings in Kansas. Each of those cases is reviewed in the majority report, and the facts clearly stated, which show that in every instance the proceedings were had in strict obedience and subordination to the existing territorial government, and conditioned upon the decision of Congress. I wish to be distinctly understood upon this point. Tennessee, Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, and California formed their constitutions, and took the preparatory steps to seek admission into the Union, without having first obtained the assent of Congress to do so. Of 8 these, all but California were duly organized under territorial governments established by Congress, and California had a government de facto, which was recognized by the government of the United States, and administered under its sanction and direction. In each of these cases the movement for a State government was made under the direction of the existing territorial government, and in subordination to its authority. ■ I repeat, therefore, that there is no instance in the whole history of our country which can be tortured into a precedent, with even the appearances of fairness, to justify the attempt in Kansas to set up a State government in conflict with the existing territorial government, and for the purpose of over- throwing it in defiance of the authority of Congress. Herein consists a material and fatal point of difference between the Kansas case and each and every other case which has arisen during the whole history of this republic This radical and fatal point of difference is clearly and conclusively demonstrated in the majority report, and especially pressed upon the con- sideration of the Senate, and particularly upon the senator from Vermont, in my speech the other day; in answer to which he has devoted so much of his speech to-day. Under these circumstances, is it not remarkable that he should pass over in silence this fatal point, both in his report and in his speech ? Did he forget it? Did he overlook it? Was not his atten- tion especially called to it? He cited these cases to show that other Territories had formed their constitutions without the previous assent of Congress — a fact well known to the Senate, a fact set forth in detail in the majority report and in my speech, together with this other fact, which is so fatal to his position that, in every oilier case, the Slate movement was in subor- dination to the territorial authorities. Why spend so much time, and put forth such great efforts, to prove a fact which is conceded, and to conceal from view this other fact, upon which the whole argument rests ? It is true that the senator from Vermont quotes one paragraph from the opinion of Attor- ney General Butler in the Arkansas case, to the effect that the territorial legislature possessed no authority to authorize the formation of a constitution and State government without the assent of Congress; but he might, and I think ought, in fairness, to have quoted another paragraph from the same opinion, that the people might proceed, under the Constitution of the United States, peaceably to assemble and petition government for the redress of grievances, and in their petition might include a constitution for a State government, with this important proviso, which the senator did not deem it material to bring to the attention of the Senate, but which I will now read : “ Provided, always, That such measures shall be commenced and prosecuted in a peaceable manner, in strict subordination to the existing territorial government, and i'll entire subserviency to the power of Congress to adopt, reject, or disregard them at their pleasure." Had the senator quoted this proviso in connexion with what he did say on this point’ comment from me would have been unnecessary. These extracts clearly prove, so far as the legal opinion of Benjamin F. Butler can be deemed authority, that the proceedings in Kansas are revolutionary, and, when carried to the ultimate purpose, will constitute an act of open and undisguised rebellion ! I will now pass from this point to another of still graver import. The senator from Ver- mont has repeated, with an air of seriousness, the old and exploded story that “ Kansas has been conquered and a legislature forced on her by violence!” He fancies that he has made a discovery ; that he has opened a new mine, rich with proofs ; that Kansas was invaded and conquered by large bodies of armed men from Missouri. His proofs consist in the fact that Governor Reeder caused a census to be taken in February, 1855, from which it appeared that there were a little more than 2,900 legal voters — say 3,000 in round numbers — in the whole Territory, whereas the returns of the election on the 30th of March of the same year show that about 6,200 votes were polled. From these facts he infers and gravely argues that the difference between 3,000 and 6,200 was the exact number of illegal votes cast by persons from Missouri, who composed the invading army. This is ingenious and plausible at first view, but can it be satisfactory to the mind of any impartial man who has studied the history of that transaction? It is well known that emigration to Kansas commenced in the summer of 1854. Large numbers of emigrants from the western States had gone the year previous, in anticipation of the organization of the Territory, but being stopped on the border by the Indian agents and United States troops, whose duty it was to obey the orders of the proper department in executing and enforcing the Indian-intercourse laws, which were still in force in that Territory, aud by the terms of which all emigrants and settlers were to be kept out of the country, these emigrants took up a temporary residence in the western counties of Mis- souri, waiting for the passage of the Nebraska bill. So soon as they received the news that the country was open to settlement they made their arrangements to move across the line, and to make choice of the best locations for their future homes. In the course of the sum- mer and fall others followed from Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky — in fact, from all the northwestern and southwestern States. The first companies sent out by the New England Emigrant Aid Societies arrived in July and August, and others followed at short intervals until winter set in. When winter came upon this large mass of men, and closed the navi- gation and cut off their snpplies, they found themselves without adequate shelter, and many of them without any houses or shelter to protect them against the severity of the climate, and without food or the means of subsistence for themselves or their animals. They had gone there to become settlers and permanent inhabitants ; had selected and staked out their 9 claims ; some had erected shanties or cabins in which they could stay until they could build hoiises for themselves and their families to live in ; but scarcely any of them entered the Territory early enough in the season to raise a crop, while a vast majority came too late to make adequate arrangements for shelter and food during the winter. Under these circum- stances, a large majority of the emigrants, after selecting and marking their claims to the laud upon which they intended to make their improvements, returned to their old homes, where they had left their families, in Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and other western States, with the view of going back to Kansas in the spring with their families. These facts are well known to the senators from the western States. I ask the senator from Iowa if such was not the course pursued by the emigrants from his State? Mr. JONES, of Iowa. Certainly, it was. • Mr. DOUGLAS. I might propound the same inquiry, and receive a like answer from every western senator. The tacts are well known and notorious throughout the western States. The emigrants from the eastern States and other remote portions of the Union, who could not conveniently return to their old homes to spend the winter, were under the neces- sity of seeking shelter and food in the nearest settlements and border counties of Missouri. The Emigrant Aid Societies of New England expended large sums in purchasing hotels and renting boarding houses in the border towns within the State of Missouri, with the view of furnishing accommodations for their people, whom they had sent to Kansas without the means of obtaining houses and food, and sustaining life during the first winter. These things all resulted from the necessity of the case. The emigrants had arrived in the Territory too late in the season to plant corn, sow wheat, and raise a crop. For these reasons they could not remain in the Territory during that winter, and, consequently, sought shelter and food elsewhere, with the view of returning in the spring, and becoming actual settlers and inhabi- tants of the Territory. It is not surprising, therefore, that when the governor caused a cen- sus to be taken in mid-winter — in the month of February — he found only three thousand legal voters in the whole Territory. It is more surprising that he should have found one-half of that number ; while, if he had taken the census three months earlier, or three months later, he would, in all probability, have found three times that number of legal voters — emigrants who had come to Kansas with the view of remaining and becoming permanent inhabitants, but who had been forced to leave in search of food and shelter, and who did return to the Territory and become actual settlers when the winter was over. The misfortune was that the governor should have taken the census in the middle of winter, when three-fourths of the emigrants were necessarily absent, and should have ordered the election, on a short notice, to be held on the 30th of March, before they could all return. It was also unfortunate that the first notice which the emigrants in western Missouri received of the time when the elec- tion was to be held came from Boston, through the agents of the Emigrant Aid Societies. This faet was calculated to excite suspicions that there might be a secret understanding between the governor and those societies, by which unfair advantages might be obtained by sending forward large bodies of emigrants to ascend the Missouri river on the first boats after the opening of navigation, and to arrive in Kansas just in time to vote at the election on the 30th of March. The proclamation was dated on the 8th of March, ordering the election to be held on the 30th of the same month ; thus allowing but twenty-two days for the emigrants to return and vole. A portion of them did return — probably most of those who had spent the winter in Missouri and Iowa — while many who were more remote from the scene of operations did not get the notice in time to make their arrangements and arrive in Kansas until after the election. Hence it is very probable that for two or three days previous to the election, and perhaps on the morning of that day, at certain points along the border, and particularly where the ferries crossed the river, there may have been witnessed a scene bear- ing some resemblance to an invading army rushing into Kansas to vote ; and many of them may have returned the next day, as has been alleged, to their boarding houses or their former homes, there to remain until the spring was fairly opened, when they could take their fami- lies with them to the Territory, and improve their lands which they had selected for their future homes the previous fall. But is it fair to assume, without evidence and in opposition to the known facts of the' case, that all these persons were citizens of the State of Missouri, marching into Kansas to control their elections by fraud and violence ? Would it not be well to ascertain how many of them had been sent from New England by the Emigrant Aid Soci- eties the previous year? how many were emigrants to Kansas from Pennsylvania and Ohio — from Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee? I do not hesitate to venture the opinion, from the facts which have come to my knowledge, that it would be found, on a thorough investi- gation, that every State in the Union contributed its quota to make up the bodies of men who went from Missouri into Kansas to vote at that election. There may have been, and doubt- less were, seme persons among them who were not entitled to vote, and oughffnot to have been permitted to vote, at that election — persons who had not previously been to Kansas with the view of becoming permanent settlers — but this class of persons was undoubtedly small compared to the whole number, and was divided in a greater or less degree between the two contending parties. It was not a question between free-State men and pro-slavery men, but between the abolitionists and free-soilers, rallying under the banner of the Emigrant Aid Societies on the one hand, and the advocates of non-intervention and the principles of self- government, according to the Nebraska bill, on the other. On that issue I have good autho- 10 rity for saying that a large majority of the emigrants from Illinois s and the other northwest- ern States, voted with the pro-slavery men in preference to voting with the abolitionists and Emigrant Aid party. They voted thus, not because they were in favor of making Kansas a slave State, but for the reason that they were opposed to abolitionism in all its forms and phases, and were determined that the political destinies of Kansas should never be committed to the keeping of the Emigrant Aid and abolition party by their votes. It was in this as is usually the case in all exciting struggles, that the most extreme and ultra men in each party obtained the control of their respective parties, and, in the hour of triumph, the successful party exercised its power in a manner not entirely satisfactory to those who had turned the scale and gave them the victory. Notwithstanding their disapproval of some of the acts of the Kansas legislature, the^ same men, believing the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and should be obeyed as such, would prefer another victory in the hands of the same party rather than allow the abolitionists and Emigrant Aid Societies to govern the Territory. v But I find that I am digressing from the line of my argument, and must return. I think I have adduced facts enough to satisfy every unbiased mind that the disparity between the number of legal voters returned by the census in Februarj' and the number of votes polled on the 30th of March does not raise or authorize the slightest presumption that Kansas was invaded and conquered by citizens of Missouri. There may have been illegal votes cast, and probably were, on both sides. In a few precincts or election districts the number may have been suffi- cient to have materially affected the result. The governor decided such to have been the case in seven of the eighteen districts, but not in the other eleven. The senator from Ver- mont assumes that the majority report admits the invasion and conquest as to the seven dis- tricts, and then argues that, inasmuch as those seven districts elect nine representatives out of twenty-six members of the legislature — which, being more than one-third, might sustain the governor in the proper exercise of the veto power — this fact of itself is sufficient to induce us declare the whole void and the acts of the legislature invalid. That senator labors under several mistakes in making this assumption. In the first place, we have never admitted, and do not believe, that the legal voters even in those seven districts were overpowered and sub- jugated bj' violence and intimidation as alleged. There were, doubtless, irregularities to a greater or less extent at several of the polls, and, inasmuch as the governor adjudged them all bad, and ordered new elections in those seven, while he adjudged the elections all fair and legal in the other eleven districts, I did not feel disposed to make an issue with him on a point, which could not chaDge the result, since, by the governor’s own decision, a large majority of the members of both houses of the legislature were fairly and duly elected. The senator from Vermont labors under a mistake, also, when he supposes that the setting aside the returns and ordering a new election in those seven districts changed the seats of nine members — being more than one-third of the house. He forgets that, while those seven dis- tricts elected nine representatives, three of the persons who were elected at the first election, on the 30lh of March, were re-elected at the second election, on the 24th of May, when there was no pretence of an invasion or conquest. Hence, it made no difference to them which of the two elections was held valid, for they had received a majority of the votes at both, and held the governor’s certificate under the last election. Thus the number is reduced from nine to six, which, being less than one-fourth of the whole number, could not affect the exer- cise of the veto power, and renders the objection invalid on the ground assumed by the sen- ator from Vermont. In view of these facts, I ask where is the authority for impeaching the whole legislature, or for questioning the validity of its acts? Where is the authority for saying that the people were subjugated in most of the districts? The senator from Vermont quotes Governor Reeder to prove it. 1 have quoted Governor Reeder under oath to prove the contrary. I have shown, by his official acts, that he did not believe a word of it while he was governor. He never dreamt that the people of Kansas had been subdued and conquered until after he was turned out of office for his Indian speculations. He recognised them as a legislature duly elected and organized, fully competent to enact laws which would be binding upon the people of Kansas. He awarded to ail men the privilege of contesting the election of each member before the certificate issued. Contests were had before him, and he decided each case upon the facts presented. He set aside the returns in seven districts ; he confirmed them in eleven. Hence the presumption is, that, if there had been frauds in the other eleven, somebody would have come forward with their complaints. Inasmuch as you could not find ten men to sign a remonstrance, and one man to swear to it, in the other election districts, the fair resumption is that there were no such frauds in those districts as would authorize him to set them aside. The senator from Vermont now says that the reason why the election was not contested in one of those districts was because the messenger who was sent with the protest did not reach the governor until it was an hour too late. I am much obliged to him for that state- ment. He tells us in the minority report that they were so intimidated and subdued and frightened by violence that they dared not do it. It seems that they got over their fright, and now the author of the minority report has got over his, so far as to find that they did dare to protest and contest. They did it in seven districts. They tried to do it in one more, but were an hour too late. Why did they not 11 try in the other ten districts? Evidently for the reason that there were no facts upon which they could do it. Now, let us look at the evidence. I called attention in the majority report, and also in the remarks which I made the other day, to the fact that the legislature, when it assembled at Pawnee, three months after the alleged invasion, passed a resolution authorizing any man who chose to contest the seat of any member in either house. Men did come forward to contest the seats of seven of the members then present, but they aid not contest the others. Did they not know at that time, three months subsequent to the election, that Kansas had been conquered ? Governor Reeder did not know it. Why? He addressed a message to the legislature in which he invoked the blessings of Heaven upon those very men there as- sembled while engaged in the performance of their high and patriotic duties-! He recom- mended them to pass laws on all rightful subjects of legislation. Did not the sis abolition members who were elected at the second election, and who then held seats in the house under the governor’s certificate, know that Kansas had been conquered? Did not the re- presentatives from Lawrence know it? Did not the abolition representative elected at the first election, Mr. Houston, from Pawnee, know it? Yet when you look through the re- ports, both of the majority and minority, of the legislative commiitee, you find that in that contest before the legislature there was no pretence that fraud or violence had been prac- tised outside of the seven disputed districts. Is it not singular that it should remain a pro- found secret until they determined to form a State government, and overthrow the existing territorial government established by Congress? Mr. President, I have said enough to bring back the points to the position in which I left them in my former speech. I am not going to follow the senator from Vermont through all his criticisms on the majority report. They are not of a character which call for a reply at this time, nor would it be fair to detain the Senate for that purpose at this late hour. The senator from Vermont has explained what he meant by the word “experiment” in his minority report — the natural, and perhaps unavoidable, consequence of which would be violence and bloodshed. He says he alluded ’to the experiment of the ^Nebraska bill, by which the question of slavery was, for the first time in our history, left to the decision of the people. What is the objection to leaving the decision of that, as well as all other local and domestic questions, to the people who are immediately interested in it ? His objection is that it has a tendency to bring opposing elements and inflammable ma- terials into collision from which violence may be apprehended. Does not the same objection apply to all other questions which involve the in'erests and excite the passions of men as well as the question of slavery ? Does it not apply to the Maine liquor law, to railroad contro- versies, to taxation, to schools, to the location of county seats, to r • i < • • 'tKidhu: , ; 3ft rp •i •'••• • 11 •<’ V .(• "i On -•jisteni ;njj ' : •;) i j ; ■ M , , \ i . . • . i ' W. *JliJ ,•> ij.) ■i'J ■ ■ ■ • !il : I I « ; . 1 ( ; x -1 ■;! . , ■," . / >, *'i jS» !■■■ >' . .. lit : . r ' >-i ■■■ ti.'iv i'i i . 1 oap. . ‘ ; ■ ■ 'i l t ■ , , ■ •> ■■ ■ v 1 ! : -1 ■ IJ . ;,.I -.y * ■ ■'' .'*>// .olMiiil JeOYg iniJ m i •--» ' ' ■ ' ■ ■ : ■! HH't'.hl, ■.'. I ji’ll.t'i l.i ' '■ ' ’ ' -‘r ( i: 'i-it,,; r;.!iiu/i I '.i :! .11 i:. . .in) 1 1 ■ it'll ■ : ■ .i ,,t [.ijtfintoJ •!< , 1 ... ■ i ,7 ...h i; ).| .. ■' '■ ■ ' ;■•• - ..i ■■! rr.ii.- : I ill | -• '' ■ ' :i .‘ .--I j Ilf,, ._ ill, 1. irO'{ oJ ,f i 1 Jt j • • i r.,'KU liiim; <•-. ■ ‘ 'u :. ■>.: n-i: ; . , , ,. 1 1 ' ' • 9 i i[ 1 1 : i ; i ■ , i. 'i- 'ij ■ .. . ; Ijiuw :.Yf 7 / , li.-' .li ‘■■■i'i iiOi-ji)::'.' ■■ /.'■;( n. .. hi- i ' ' '' - ; i rai ?; , i ■.■'; ; .■ ; . '■■ : . •" > • -i i .'.-ejiiij ; -,-Mi ' .'j: V '■■ V !■: r"; ; ■ • f t h ;; 1 . ■• iir * . v- . ■ Ji • - ' ...4} •■’ >< -fi ■ ■ ' i ■: 0 ,'£/{ Oli .,■ Ill ! ■ •(■|» *111,1 ; 1 . S ■■■•' ■ -i a: ! oil . 1 (tirni y-.-jj : Kyii' l! ■ : M ‘i ■ - ■' ilii •M': 1.; . f, ■■y.' I • '•-•ill' v. : .l''i'< hr. ■ 1 ■ — • ’ " ■ » • . • • J 1 ' • . • xi ' « 1 ■ ■ i 1 |' ! r. ■•■ ;r. u . wni .... ■ ■ t«q >1 : h. ,«/. . ' i .; 1 ,1 x ■; ..■■: 1 'V o . • SPEECHES ON THE OCCASION OF HIS PUBLIC RECEPTIONS £ BY THE CITIZENS OF NEW ORLEANS, PHILADELPHIA, AND BALTIMORE. WASHINGTON: PRINTED BT LEMUEL TOWERS. 1859. 6 X SPEECH OF SENATOR S. A. DOUGLAS AT THE MEETING IF ODD-FELLOWS’ HALL, FEW ORLEAFS, ON MONDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 6, 1858. Mr. President and Citizens of New Orleans: It was with much hesitation and no small degree of reluctance that I was induced to give my consent to ad- dress you on this occasion. I have just passed through a fierce conflict in my own State, which required me to perform more speaking than was either agree- able to my wishes, or consistent with my strength. When I determined to visit New Orleans, it was only on private business of an imperative character; and it was my desire to arrive and depart as quietly as possible, and without, in any way, connecting myself with politics. 1 approached your city-, as I sup- posed, unheralded and unknown, and I was amazed at the magnificent recep- tion extended to me on the levee, by so vast a concourse of people, embracing the municipal authorities, the citizens in their individual capacity, my own political friends, and men of all political parties. This was a compliment which filled my heart with gratitude, and did not leave me at liberty to decline the first request you might make of me in return. I have, therefore, yielded to your solicitations, to make a few remarks on the political topics which now agitate the public mind throughout the length and breadth of our glorious Re- public, and I have done so the more readily as I desire to know whether the prin- ciples, which are admitted to be sound and orthodox in the free States, can pass current in the slave States. So long as we live under a common Constitution, binding on the people of all the States, any political creed which can not be proclaimed in Louisiana as boldly as in Illinois, must be unsound and unsafe. 1 shall not attempt to enter upon any new views, or propound any original ideas with the view of testing the truth of this proposition, but shall simply discuss these questions now at issue in the country, in the same manner that 1 am in the habit of doiDg before an Illi- nois audience. The tendency of events during the past fifteen years, has been to force the organization of political parties on a geographical basis, to array the North against the South, embittering the one against the other, under the misapprehension that there is some irreconcilable antagonism in their interests which prevents harmony between them! For the last twenty -five years I have been in public life; fifteen years have been spent in the Congress of the United States, and the whole of my life has been devoted to the discovery and elucidation of some common ground on which Northern and Southern men might stand on terms of equality and justice. If you will take pains t® examine the history of this sectional strife which has grown up in our midst, you will find that the whole contest has arisen from an attempt on the part of the Fede- ral Government to assume, or usurp, the exercise of powers not conferred by the federal constitution. When this Government was formed, the confederacy consisted of thirteen States, twelve of which were slaveholding States, 4 ■while one was what is called a free State. Suppose the doctrine had then prevailed which was proclaimed by my opponent, Mr. Lincoln, in Illi- nois, by Mr. Seward, in New York, and by the leaders of the Abolition or Black Republican party throughout the North — the doctrine that uni- formity in the domestic institutions of the several States is necessary, that a house divided against itself cannot stand ; that this Government, divided into free and slave States, cannot endure ; that it must become all free or all slave ; that it must be all the one thing or the other — and what do you think would have been the result? Suppose that Mr. Seward himself had been a member of the Convention which framed the Constitution, and when the members came to affix their signatures to that instrument, this doctrine of uniformity had been proclaimed, declaring that the domestic institutions of the-several States must be the same, aud what would have been the effect? Would the oue free State have outvoted the twelve slave States? On the contrary would not the twelve slave States have outvoted the one free State, and thus slavery have been es- tablished in all the States forever by an irrevocable provision of the Constitu- tion? Why was this not done? Simply because the sages who formed our Govern- ment had more at heart the great principles of civil liberty than the desire of sectional power or sectional advantage — b'ecause they wished to establish the principle that each State should possess .the sovereign power of legislation over its own domestic institutions — to form them aud modify them to sun, itself, re- taining slavery as long as it might desire to retain it, and abolishing it when- ever it chose. This Government was formed on the principle of State- Rights and State Sovereignty, It is a confederacy of sovereign and independent States, having a certain common purpose, each retaining the right to manage its own affairs, and to maintain its own liberties inside of its own jurisdiction. It is a fatal heresy to proclaim the doctrine that there ought to be or can be unifoimity among the different States of this Gnion, as to their local and domestic institutions. Uniformity is neither possible nor desirable. Our fathers knew, when they made this Government for so many different commu- nities, that there must necessarily be a corresponding variety in the laws and domestic institutions adapted to the wants and characteristics of each separate locality. They knew that variety and dissimilarity of local and domestic insti- tutions was an essential element in a confederated form of Government. On this point you find a vast difference between the Abolition or Black Republican party, on the one hand. and the Democratic party on the other. Heretofore the effort has been made, principally in the North, to array the North against the South and tire South against the North, embittering them against each other, until no Southern man would vote for a northern candidate, and no northern man would trust a southern candidate, and now the Black Re- publican party is attempting to effect this result by declaring the doctrine that the Union cannot continue to exist half slave and half free, and that it must become all one thing or all the other. I can well understand how unscrupulous politicians in the North, who prefer their own aggrandizement to the peace of the country and the perpetuity of the Union can advocate this doctrine. They belong to the stronger section, and think that they will be able to overwhelm the weaker. But how long has it been since these men in the North raised this clamor? Did we of the North, whilst you were in the majority a;>d we in the minority, declare that the Uuion could not continue to exist divided into free and slave States? No! So long as the tree States were the minority section, the North adhered to the doctrine that each State should manage its own domes- tic affairs without interference from the other States or from the Federal Gov- ernment.; but when, in the progress of events the free States increased until they obtained the majority in the House of Representatives, and then a tie in the Senate, ambitious men in the North found that by organizing sectional parties, belonging as they did to the strongest section, they could ride into power The Black Republican or Abolition party is sectional in its organization, in its prin- ciples and in its whole line of policy. Every argument used by it is addressed to Northern ambition, and is directed against the southern people and southern institutions, and it naturally has a baneful influence on some of the southern 5 people, inducing them to try to form a southern party in opposition to it. Thus you see the result of the attempts made to introduce the test, not 'whether a representative is faithful to his own State and to the federal compact, but whether he is true to the North or faithful to the South. Let me remind you that the Constitution recognizes no such divisions. It recognizes no North and no South, but one Republic under one Constitution, and thirty-two independent States, bound together by one federal compact. Hence I say to you that I owe no allegiance either to the North or to the South. My allegiance is to my own State, and through that State, to the Federal Gov- ernment — and to no other power on earth, Let this principle be observed and acted upon in good faith, and there will always be peace between the North and the South, and between all the States of this glorious confederacy. When I addressed this argument to Northern men — and especially to large crowds of Abolitionists, as I have often done — I have been answered that slavery is so great and monstrous an evil, that their consciences will not permit them to be quiet in regard to it even after they have performed their whole duty in their own State. They bring forward the Declaration of Independence, and read from it with wonderful satisfaction. I can give you their dogmas, as presented in every Abolition Catechism. They take the Declaration of Independence, as I have sa*d, and read this passage, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inaliena- ble rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Then they stop and say, “ doesn’t that Declaration tell us that all men are created equal? Is not a negro a man, and is he not, therefore, the equal of the white man? Was he not made equal by his Creator, and is his equality not, there- fore, inalienable by Divine law? Then how can you reduce him to an inferior position by any human law?” By this specious, but sophistical argument, they have succeeded in imposing on some weak-minded men, and some old women and children, until they have educated a generation who really believe that the negro is their brother. And I must be permitted to tell you that many, even of your southern men, have quailed under that argument, and failed to meet it. My answer is this: When the framers of the Declaration declared that all men were equal, they had no reference whatever to the negro. They were speaking of white men — men of European birth and European descent, and had no reference to the negro or to any other inferior and dependent race. And now for the proof, as I have here- tofore submitted it at home. When the Declaration was made, the colonies were all slave-holding. Every man that signed the Declaration represented a slave-holding constituenev. Bearing these facts in mind, tell me if you believe that those men were such hypocrites as to admit the negroes belonging to them to be their equals by divine right, and yet hold those negroes in slavery the balance of their lives. Any man who asserts that the signers of the Declaration had reference to negroes in that document, declares every signer to have been a hypocrite, and worse than a hypocrite. I repeat, that this Government was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, to be administered by white men, and none others. - It is a law of humanity, a law of civilization, that whenever a man, or a race of men, show themselves incapable of managing their own alfairs, they must consent to be governed by those who are capable of performing the duty. It is on this principle that you establish those institutions of charity, for the support of the blind, or the deaf and dumb, or the insane. In accordance with this principle I assert that the negro race, under all circumstances, at all times and in all countries, has shown itself incapable of self-government. From these considerations, I arrive at the conclusion that the negro race being inferior, does not form any component element in the governing power of the American system of government. Yet, the negro is a human being, and as such is entitled to all, the privileges and immunities which can be extended to him consistent with the safety of the society in which he lives. I presume that all men, North and South, of whatever politics, religion, or prejudices, will assent to the principle that humanity compels us to extend to the negro, 6 and all other dependent races, all the privileges and immunities consistent with the good of the society in which they reside. Perhaps you will ask me, as the Abolitionists have asked me, what are these privileges and immunities — what their nature and extent? I return the same answer I have so often given them. It is a question for each State to decide for itself, independent of any other State or of the Federal Government. Illinois has decided the question for her- self. We have adopted a line of policy which has given satisfaction to us. If you do not like it, though we may regret your dislike, we must be permitted to say, with entire respect, that it is none of your business. If you do not like our laws on the subject of negro slavery, or any other domestic concern, stay at home and live under such laws as you choose to make. The law in our State now is, that a negro shall not be a citizen, nor shall he be a slave ; but during our territorial existence, when the settlers were mainly from slave-holding States, bringing their slave property with them, the Territorial Legislature, in defiance of the celebrated ordinance of 1787, established slavery in Illinois, and maintain- ed it for years. It was abolished because, from the circumstances of our climate and soil, and productions, it was found not to be profitable or conducive to our welfare. If we had lived farther south, in the districts which produce sugar, and cotton, and rice, we would have seen just as much Virtue in slave labor as you do in Louisiana. And, perhaps, if some of the more excitable of our southern friends, happened to live among the granite hills of New Hamp- shire, they would entertain very different views from those they now hold. This question of slavery is not a question of legislation at all, but of climate, soil, and self-interest. You can establish slavery nowhere by any law of Con- gress, or of a territorial legislature, or by any other power, contrary to the will of the people where it is to exist ; and, in my opinion, you should never be permitted to force it upon au unwilling people. Our kind friends over in Kentucky, when their servants became old and valueless, and a tax on their masters, showed their humanity by emancipating them and sending them into Illinois. This was also the case in other slave States, until Illinois was in danger of becoming a free negro colony, when she found it necessary to provide for her own protection by enacting that no more negroes sliquld come to Illinois to reside, whether free or slave. Having de- termined not to have slavery, she would not establish a free negro colony for your benefit. Illinois says to the slave States, take care of your own negroes, make just such laws as you choose and be responsible to God and to your pos- terity. Let us alone and we will let you alone. That is the policy of Illinois in re- gard to slavery and the negro question. If you say you do not like that it cannot be helped. Illinois has just as much right to adopt her policy as you in Louisiana have to adopt a different policy. We are prepared to make a bargain with you, or rather to maintain inviolate the bargain our fathers made in the Federal Constitution — which enjoins upon every State the duty of mind- ing its own business and letting its neighbors alone. Under that principle this Union can 1 exist forever — divided into free and slave States, each State having the right to preserve and retain slavery as long as it chooses, and abolish it whenever it pleases. That is what I mean when I say that the Democratic party is a party devoted to State Rights and popular Sovereignty, in oppo- sition to that other policy which concentrates the liberties and rights of the people in the Federal Government. The discussion of this question in the North has so far modified public opinion as to induce a willingness to acquiesce in its application to the States, but the Black Republicans deny the propriety of applying it to the Territories. On this point the Abolitionists assert the right of Congress, under the Con- stitution, to form and establish for the people of the Territories their domestic institutions, without their consent. The Democratic party deny that Congress can rightfully exercise any such authority. We hold, that for Congress to say to any people, you sh^ll or shall not have snch or such institutions, is a violation of the great principles of our Federal Government. In the discussion of these questions, I sometimes go back to the history of the revolution, and show that the same principles were involved, 7 when the British Government attempted to pass laws for the American colo- nies, without giving them a representation in Parliament. In opposition to this claim our fathers rose up and said : "We will obey these laws of Parliament, which are imperial laws, and not local laws — but we will not submit to local laws affecting our domestic institutions, and passed without giving us a fair representation in Parliament. The Democratic party now says that Congress has no right to establish or to prohibit slavery. We say that the Territories should be open to the citizens of the United States to go there with their property, subject alike to the laws, when they arrive there. But an objection is raised by some of our southern friends, and I have been asked here and at home, what I meant by the doctrine of popular sovereignty in the Territories, and whether we abide by the Dred Scott decision. In a discussion with my opponent, Mr. Lincoln, at Freeport, Illinois, the question was put to me whether, in the event of the people or Legislature of a Territory being hos- tile to slavery, there was any lawful means by which slavery could be excluded. I said yes, and proceeded to state the means. I will state them here to you. The Democracy of Illinois, in the first place, accepts the decision of the Su- preme Court of the United States in the case of Dred Scott, as an authoritative interpretation of the Constitution. In accordance with that decision, we hold that slaves are property, and hence on an equality with all other kinds of property, and that the owner of a slave has the same right to move into a Territory and carry his slave property with him, as the owner of any other property has to go there and carry his property. All citizens of the United States, no matter whether they come from the North or the South, from a free State or a slave State, can enter a Territory with their property on an equal footing. And, I apprehend, when you arrive there with your property, of whatever description, it is subject to the local laws of the Territory. How can your slave property be protected without local law, any more than any other kind of property? The Constitution gives you the right to go into a Territory and carry your slaves with you, the same as any other species of pi-operty ; but it does not punish any man for stealing your slaves any more than stealing any other kind of property. Congress has never yet passed a law providing a criminal code or furnishing protection to any kind of property. It has simply organized the Territory and established a Legislature, that Legislature being vested with legislative power over all rightful subjects of legislation, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. Hence whatever jurisdiction the Legis- lature possesses over other property, it has over slave property, no more no less. Let me ask you, as southern men, whether you can hold slaves anywhere unless protected by the local law? Would not the inaction of the local Legislature, its refusal to provide a slave code, or to punish offences against that species of property, exclude slavery just as effectually as a Constitutional prohibition? Would it not have that effect in Louisiana and in every other State? No one will deny it. Then, let me ask you, if the people of a Territory refuse to pass a slave code, how are you going to make them do it? When you give them power to legislate on all rightful subjects of legislation, it becomes a question for them to decide, and not for you. If the local Legislature imposes a tax on horses, or any other kind of proper- ty, you may think it a hardship, but how are you going to help it? Just so it is with regard to traffic in liquors. If you are dealing in liquors, you have the same right to take your liquor into the Territory that anybody else has to take any other species of property. You may pass through and take your liquors in transitu, and you will be protected in your right of property under the Con- stitution of the United States; but if you open the packages they become sub- ject to the local law ; and should the Maine law happen to prevail in the Ter- ritory, you had better travel with your liquors. Hence, if the local Legislature has the same power over slave property as over every other species of property, what right have you to complain of that equality ! But if you do complain where is your remedy? And let me say to you that if you oppose this just doctrine, if you attempt to exempt slaves from the same rules that apply to every other kind of property, you will abandon your strongest ground of defence against the assaults of the Black Republicans and Abolitionists. If the 8 people of a Territory are in favor of slavery tliey -will make laws to protect it; if opposed to slavery they -will not make those laws and you can not compel them to do it. But I will tell you when they will have it, and when slavery will find protection in a Territory. It is when the territory lies in those lati- tudes and climates which adapt it to the profitable production of rice and sugar and cotton, and where slave labor will be remunerative. Thus, slavery will exist wherever soil, climate, and productions demand it, and it will exist nowhere else. Now, if climate, and soil, and self-interest will regulate this question, why should we quarrel about it? When you arrive at a certain dis- tance to the North of the line there can not be any doubt of the result: and so when you go a certain distance South the result will be equally certain the other way. But in the great central regions, where there may be some doubt as to the effect of natural causes, who ought to decide the question ex- cept the people residing there, who have all their interests there; who have gone there to live with their wives and children? Any party which at- tempts, by a system of coercion, to force any institutions into regions not adopted to them, violates the great principles on which our Government is founded. You now have my views on the subject of slavery in the Territories. Prac- tically, they amount simply to this: If the people want slavery they will have it; if they do not want it they will not have it, and you cannot force it upon them. If these principles be recognised and adhered to, we can live in peace and harmony together; but just as surely as you attempt to force the people to have slavery, against their will, in regions to which it is not adapted, fanaticism will take control of the Federal Government. It was on the:r principles that, last winter, I resisted the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution. I have said, what I repent here, that my opposition was not based upon any provision in that constitution relating to the subject of slavery. I then said that if Kansas wanted to be a slaveholding State, she had a right to be so, and if she wanted to be a free State, she had the same right. If the Lecompton constitution was an embodiment of the peo- ple’s will, it ought to have been accepted. If it was not an embodiment of their will, it ought not to have been forced upon them. And now let me reason with you, as southern men, on this question. If we are going to live in peace together, we must act in harmony in the application of all just and fair princi- ples. Suppose that, last winter, we had had an Abolition President, an Abo- lition majority in both Houses of Congress, and that Kansas had had an Abolition Governor and authorities. Suppose that by some means — just such means as those by which the Lecompton convention was called — a convention had assembled composed of Abolitionists. Suppose the understanding to have been that the constitution was to be submitted to the people; that the conven- tion had assembled, and it was discovered that the pro-slavery men were in a majority of five to one in the Territory. Suppose, under these circumstances, the convention had refused to submit the constitution to the people, and had attempted to force an Abolition constitution down the throats of a pro-slavery people against their will. Would you, the people of the South, have submitted to such a wrong? Would you have suffered an Abolition constitution to be forced down the throats of the people of any Territory in opposition to their wishes, more especially had such a constitution contained a provision that it should not be changed for seven years, and not then except by a two-thirds vote; so that the minority having once fastened it on the people, that same minority could perpetuate it forever in opposition to the wishes of the majority. Now, if I do not mistake the southern character and southern patriotism, you would never have submitted patiently and calmly to such an attempt to violate the great principles of self-government. I am not going to enter upon a dis- cussion as to whether this constitution was the act of the people of Kansas. If it was not their act, then I was right in opposing it; if it was their act, then you can draw your own inferences. I will only say now, that it was sent back to the people of Kansas under the provisions of the English bill, which sub- mitted the question in an indirect manner, and was rejected by a vote of eight to one. Under these circumstances, who can say that it ever was the act of 9 the people of Kansas. But I am not going to re-open that question. It is now settled. Let the asperities growing out of the controversy die with the con- troversy. All I ask is, that in future we recognize the right of the people of a Territory to form a free State, or a slave State, as they may choose, and come into the Union on an equality with the other States. A few words more and I have done. I will only say to you, in conclusion, that if we recognize and observe this principle of State rights and self-govern- ment for the people of the Territories, there will be peace forever between the North and South, and America will fulfil the glorious destiny which the Al- mighty has marked out for her. She will remain an example for all nations, expanding as her people increase and her interests demand more territory. I am not in favor of the acquisition of territory by fraud, violence, or improper means of any kind; on the contrary, I would never permit the Federal Gov- ernment to be an instrument in the hands of foreign powers to carry out their purposes upon the American Continent. Let us adopt a policy consistent with our destiny, and then bide our time. [Mr. Douglas was apparentl}’ about to bring his remarks to a close at this point, when, in response to calls of Cuba! Cuba I from the audience, he pro- ceeded thus :] It is our destiny to have Cuba, and it is folly to debate the question. It naturally belongs to the American Continent. It guards the mouth of the Mis- sissippi river, which is the heart of the American Continent and the body of the American nation. Its acquisition is a matter of time only. Our Government should adopt the policy of receiving Cuba as soon as a fair and just opportunity shall be presented. Whether that opportunity occur next year or the year after, whenever the oc- casion arises and the opportunity presents itself, it should be embraced. The same is true of Central America and Mexico. It will not do to say we have territory enough. When the Constitution was formed, there was enough, yet, in a few years afterwards, vfe needed more. We acquired Louisiana and Florida, Texas and California, just as the increase in our population and our interests demanded. When, in 1850, the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was sent to the Senate for ratification, I fought it to the end. They then asked what I wanted with Central America. I told them I did not want it then, but the time would come when we must have it. They then asked what my objection to the treaty was. I told them I objected to that, among other clauses of it, which said that neither Great Britain nor the United States should ever buy, annex, colo- nize, or acquire any portion of Central America. I said I would never consent to a treaty with any foreign power, pledging ourselves not to do in the future whatever interest or necessity might compel us to do. I was then told by veteran Senators, as my distinguished friend well knows, (looking towards Mr. Soule,) that Central America was so far off that we should never want it. I told them then, “Yes; a good way off — half way to California, and on the diiect road to it.” I said it was our right and duty to open all the highways between the Atlantic and the Gulf States and our possessions on the Pacific, and that I would enter into no treaty with Great Britain or any other Govern- ment concerning the affairs of the American continent. And here, without a bceach of confidence, I may be permitted to state a conversation which took place at that time between myself and the British Minister, Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer, on that point. He took occasion to remonstrate with me that my position with regard to the treaty was unjust and untenable; that the treaty was fair because it was reciprocal, and it was reciprocal because it pledged that neither Great Britain nor the United States should ever purchase, colonize, or acquire any territory in Central America. I told him that it would be fair if they would add one word to the treaty — so that it would read that neither Great Britain nor the United States should ever occupy or hold dominion over Central America or Asia. But he said: “You have no interests in Asia “No,” an- swered I, “ and you have none in Central America.” “But,” said he, “you can never establish any rights in Asia.” “No,” said I, “ and we don’t mean that you shall ever establish any in America.” I told him 10 it would be just as respectful for us to ask that pledge in reference to Asia, as it was for Great Britain to ask it from us in reference to Central America. If experience shall continue to prove, what the past may be considered to have demonstrated, that those little Central American powers cannot maintain self-government, the interests of Christendom require that some power should preserve order for them. Hence, I maintain that we should adopt and observe a line of policy in unison with our own interests and our destiny. I do not wish to force things. We live in a rapid age. Events crowd upon each other with marvelous rapidity. I do not want territory any faster than we can oc- cupy, Americanize, and civilize it. I am no fillibuster. I am opposed to un- lawful expeditions; but on the other hand, I am opposed to this country acting as a miserable constabulary for France and England. I am in favor of expansion as fast as consistent with our interest and the in- crease and development of our population and resources. But I am not in favor of that policy unless the great principal of non-intervention and the right of the people to decide the question of slavery, and all other domestic questions, for themselves shall be maintained. If that principle prevail, we have a future before us more glorious than that of any other people that ever existed. Our Republic will endure for thousands of years. Progress will be the law of its destiny ; it will gain new strength with every State brought into the Confederacy. Then there will be peace and harmony between the free States and the slave States. The more degrees of latitude and longitude em- braced beneath our Constitution, the better.- The greater the variety of pro- ductions, the better; for then we shall have the principles of free trade apply to the important staples of the world, making us the greatest planting as well as the greatest manufacturing, the greatest commercial as well as the greatest agricultural power on the globe. These are my views in regard to our foreign relations. They are questions I had not intended to discuss; and I should not have done so if some gentleman in the crowd had not called my attention to them. My votes in Congress have always been in harmony with the line of policy I have here marked out. It matters not whether you acquire more territory, or how much or how little you wish to acquire. Expansion is the law of our existence; when we cease to grow, we commence to decline. Hence our course is onward, on the princi- ple established by our fathers, under divine inspiration, as I believe, in the formation of the Government. And now permit me to return my grateful acknowledgements for the kind- ness with which you have listened to me, and to retire. * SPEECH AT INDEPENDENCE HALL, PHILADELPHIA, > TO THE MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND CITIZENS COMMITTEE, JANUARY 4, 1859. ¥m. E. Lehman, Esq., on behalf of the citizens’ committee, introduced Sen- ator Douglas to the Mayor and Councils. He said: Mayor Henry: It -was my agreeable duty to be one of the committee ap- pointed to go to New York, and wait upon the distinguished Senator of Illinois, and extend to him a cordial invitation to visit our city. In the performance of that duty, I not only represented his personal and political friends, but, in a measure, the corporate authorities of the city. I informed Senator Douglas that the Councils of the city, without distinction of party, had unanimously tendered him the use of Independence Hall to receive his friends, and that it was your intention, as Chief Magistrate of this municipality, to welcome him. I deem it proper to state that the Senator, in his reply, consented to waive all his private arrangements, and to forego engagements of a pressing public na- ture, to accept this grateful tribute of respect. It is with great pleasure that I now introduce to you the illustrious Senator. Mayor Henry then addressed Senator Douglas in the following : Mr. Senator: The Councils of Philadelphia have tendered you, in passing through this city, the use of the Hall of Independence for the reception of your friends, and in their name I welcome you upon this occasion. This spot is the common heritage of American freemen. Within these walls, memorable for the most illustrious deed in our country’s history, hallowed more than once by the ashes of the mighty dead, cherished as the depository of the mementoes of patriots and heroes, all other sentiments merge in that of unal- loyed devotion to the Union, its prosperity and its perpetuity. I greet you, sir, as a member of those National Councils on whom devolves the guardianship of our nation’s interest and destiny ; as one whose eminent position in those councils has elicited the admiration and respect of so many of your fellow-citizens. Permit me, individually, to express my wishes for your personal welfare, and the assurance that the hospitality of Philadelphia will be well cared for by your surrounding friends. Senator Douglas’s Speech. Senator Douglas, in response, said : Mr. Mayor — It has fallen to my lot, as a public man and as a politician, to receive many testimonials from political and partisan friends, which, under the circumstances, were most grateful to my feelings; but the tender of the use of this hall voluntarily, as I am informed, by the unanimous sentiment of the corporate authorities of the city of Phila- delphia — this hall, within whose sacred precincts no thought or no sentiment can enter any citizen’s breast inconsistent with the peace of the Republic and the perpetuity of the Union — is a compliment that overwhelms me with grati- 12 tude. In tliis hall we find the pictures, and we feel the influence of the spirit, of those sages and patriots to whom we owe our independence and our constitutional form of government. Ilere that sentiment which now ani- mates all the free governments of the earth first found its authoritative ex- position and proclamation. There stands the hell which “proclaimed liberty throughout the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof;” and it seems as if the inscription it bears was directed by the hand of Divine Providence, for it was placed upon it far in advance of the period when any human brain could foresee that it was to be used to proclaim the independence of America over the nrbitary decrees of a British Parliament. A great principle proclaimed by the fathers of the Republic in this hall, was the right of the people of all the States, of all the provinces and dependencies, and of every community, to regulate its own domestic concerns and internal affairs in its own way. Pennsylvania has always been true to that cardinal principle of representative government. Pennsylvania, with her Franklin, and those congenial spirits who gave impulse to the Revolution, foresaw that the time might come, when, after having maintained her independence against the British Parlia- ment, another imperial parliament might be established on her own continent equally destructive to the liberties of the people and the rights of the citizens, and hence Pennsylvania, in her instructions to her delegates who represented her in this hall, when she anticipated the Declaration of Independence, em- powered them to give her assent to that declaration on the fundamental con- dition that Pennsylvania retained unto herself forever the right to rua age her local and domestic concerns and police regulations in her'own way, indepen- dent of any other power on the face of the globe. Sir, If we remain true to these great principles of constitutional liberty pro- claimed by our fathers in this hall, and consummated by the Constitution of the United States within the precincts of Philadelphia, this Union may last forever as our forefathers made it, each State retaining just such local and domestic institutions as it shall choose. If my devotion to these constitu- tional, conservative principles of liberty have attracted to me the attention of the constituted authorities of this vast city, it is a great reward for all of the toils that have accompanied my public life. I appreciate it a thousand times more than any partisan triumph which a transient politician may acquire in the road through life, for such a triumph must necessarily be ephemeral in its character. Mr. Mayor, discarding all partisan spirit, as you have done, I accept this honor with a grateful heart. I have not the vanity that would receive it as a mark of personal respect. I am glad to know that I have the esteem individu- ally of yourself; but it is far more grateful to me, as a public man, to know that yovr sympathy is aroused by public duties calculated to sustain and per- petuate those principles of civil and religious liberty which our fathers have transmitted to us. May we be successful in handing down to our children, and through our children to our last posterity, those immortal principles which were first proclaimed in this Hall, the witnesses of which stand now, like guar- dian angels, looking down upon our every act, and inspiring our prayers to Heaven that this Union, this Constitution, these States, as they exist, and have existed, may last forever, not only for the protection of our own people, but as a guide to the friends of freedom throughout the world. • Returning my grateful acknowledgements, I can only say that when I leave here I shall carry with me a recollection of this day which will never be effaced while life lasts, and over the memory of which, I trust, ray children will feel more proud than of any act that has heretofore marked my public life. SPEECH BEFORE THE CITIZENS OF BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, °N {V THE EVENING OF JANUARY 5, 1859, WSien Serenaded toy tl>esn at tlse Gilmore Meuse. Hr. Douglas having been introduced, said: Fellow-citizens of Baltimore: It was my expectation to have passed quietly through your city, as it has been my custom for the last fifteen years, upon my way to the National Capitol. No longer ago than yesterday, I sent a tele- graphic despatch to my family, informing them that they might expect me there to-night, when I was notified that my fellow-citizens of this beautiful city had appointed a committee to meet me half way between this and Phila- delphia, and escort me here. I did not feel at liberty to disregard their kind re- quest. I was more willing to stop and spend a night with you, and exchange my opinions with yours, for the reason that 1 desire to know whether my prin- ciples may be avowed in a slave State the same as in a free State — in the South and in the North alike, wherever the American flag waves over the American soil. So long as we live under the Constitution, any political creed which can not be avowed in the same terms, and sustained by the same arguments in every State in the Union, must be a fatal heresy. Principles to be sound must be the same in Maryland as they are in the Nortli ; the same in New Orleans as they are in New York and New England; the same in the slaveholding States as they are in the free States. We have been precipitated for the last four years into a fearful sectional struggle, in which the North has been rallied against the South, and the South rallied agaiust the North on this negro question. What I desire to know is, whether there is not a common ground of funda- mental principles under all our institutions, upon which northern and southern men can stand together, as brethren, without their surrendering any right which belongs to them under the Constitution. Equality' among the different States is a fundamental principle, and as a natural consequence from that equality' of States results equality of the citi- zens of all the States of the Union. Any political creed is wrong that threatens injustice to any section or to any State, or the inhabitants thereof, in order to benefit any other State or any other section. We have recently been told, first in Uliuois by the champion of Abolitionism, and subsequently in New York by Mr. Seward, that this Union cannot endure divided into free and slave States as our fathers made it. We have been told that these States must become all free or all slave; that they must be all one thing, or all be the other, otherwise that this Union cannot endure. In other words, Abolitionism seems to suppose that there must be uniformity in the domestic institutions of all the States. Diver- sity among the 'local and domestic institutions is the inevitable result of our political system. Uniformity is neither possible nor desirable. Our fathers, when they formed this Union, knew that, in a Republic as broad and as expen- sive as this, with such a variety of climate, soil and productions, there must necessarily be a corresponding variety in the local and domestic institutions of each State, adapted to the wants, conditions, and interests of each locality. 14 Why was this Union formed originally, with thirteen independent sovereign- ties, each with a seperate Legislature of its own, and the right to make such laws as it desired, unless it was expected that each State had interests differing from every other and requiring laws and institutions in some respect different? Our fathers knew that the laws and institutions which were well adapted to the granite hills of New England, were not well suited to the tobaceo planta- tions of Maryland. They knew that each locality required different laws adapted to its own interests ; and hence, that each State must have a Legisla- ture of its own to attend to its domestic concerns. If you will examine the history of the Revolutionary struggle, you will find that your own beloved State would not consented the Declaration of Independence except on the fun- damental condition that Maryland should retain forever the right to regulate her domestic concerns and internal affairs to suit herself, without interference from any other State or from the Federal Government. You have regulated your affairs to suit yourselves, you have prescribed what shall be the relative position of the negro and the white mau in Maryland. I shall not stop to inquire whether y T our decision is wise or unwise; that is your business, not mine. All I have to say is, you have a right to decide that ques- tion for y r ourselves, and having decided it, we have no right to meddle with that decision. If we do not like your laws all we have to do is to stay away where we will not come under their operation. So it is in the State of Illinois; she is a sovereign power as well as Maryland. We have adopted a different system of policy in some respects from yours. We have as much right to pre- scribe our policy as you have to adopt yours, and we are prepared to make a bargain with you, or rather w.e are prepared to stand by that bargain which our fathers made in the Federal Constitution, to let you attend to your own af- fairs and mind your own business, you leaving us alone to attend to our affairs and mind our business. It is none of your business whether we have negroes or not. If you want them, have them; if you do not want them, exclude them. It is none of our business whether you have slaves or not. So long as you believe it is to }’our interest to retain African slavery do so, and when you get tired of it, abolish it ; but do not humble yourselves or tarnish your sovereignty by taking advice from Congress upon that subject. That is what we north- western Democrats mean by popular sovereignty. When this Union was formed it consisted of twelve slaveholding States and one free State. Acting on this principle of popular sovereignty, each State being left to decide for itself, the New England States abolished slavery ; then New York; then New Jersey, and then Pennsylvania. Uuder what principle was it that slavery dis- appeared from those Slates, except it was that of the right of the people of each State to decide for themselves? In New England they abolished slavery when they found that it was contrary to their interests to continue it. We in Illi- nois, while a Territory, established African slavery in defiance of the ordinance of 1787, and we tried it for many years, until we came to form a constitution for admission into the Union as a State. By that time we had discovered that in our climate, with our soil and our surroundings, it was not to our interests to continue it, and therefore we abolished it. If we had found that our climate, our soil, and our productions required negro labor, we would have held on to it with the same tenacity as the other slave States. Permit me here to remark that this Slavery question rests upon laws higher than those of legislative enactment. It depends upon the laws of climate, of production, and of self-interest. Wherever cotton, and sugar, and rice, and in- digo are the staple articles, and the climate is such as to exclude white labor, the negro must take the place of the white man on the plantation. When you get into those hot climates, it is not a struggle between the negro and the white man, but a struggle between the negro and the crocodile, which shall occupy the Delta line, in those Delta lands slavery must exist, negro labor must be employed, otherwise their cultivation must be abandoned, while in those high northern latitudes, where the earth is covered with deep snows, and where there is. a severe climate, illy adapted to the constitution of the negro, and bet- ter suited to the white man, slavery can never exist, because it is not the in- 15 terest of the people to have it. The only difficulty in regard to this slavery question is that there is a medium climate, and it maybe controverted -whether such a climate is best adopted to white or black labor. Who shall decide the contest there unless it be those who live there, who have moved there with their wives and children, made it their home, and have a better opportunity of judg- ing what they want than those residing at a distance. Hence leave this ques- tion to climate, to self-interest, to the decision of the people interested, and there will be peace, harmony and fraternity, among all' the States of this Con- federacy. In accordance with this principle I brought forward the bill to blot out the Missouri Compromise line — that black line which ran across the Continent, fix- ing a stigma upon the local and domestic institutions ot half of the States of this Union — in order to substitute in its place the great fundamental principle of self-government, upon which all our free institutions rest. Now, why should not that principle prevail. Perhaps it does not suit Abolitionists and agitators, but it does suit the great mass of the people, who only want such laws as are adapted to their interests, and who best know what those laws should be. I know that there are those who believe that slavery is such a crime that it should be abolished at any risk. I hold that it is the right of the people to de- cide for themselves whether it is crime or not. Those who hold that it is, tell us that the Declaration of Independence declares all men to have been created equal, and assuming that this declaration includes the negro, demand that he shall be placed on an equality with the white man. My answer to that argu- ment is this — the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference whatever to the negro, when they declared all men to have been created equal. They were speaking of white men ; of men of European birth and descent, and nobody else, when they declared the equality of all men. This government was founded on the white basis; it was made by white men, for the benefit of white men, to be administered by white men. But it does not follow by any means that because the negro is no component part of this government, because he is not a citizen, and ought never to be a citizen, that he must necessarily be a slave. On the contrary, it does follow that you should extend to the negro, and to every other dependent race, all the rights, all the privileges, and all the immunities which can be safely given him consistent with the good of society. On that principle alone all men ought to agree. But, when you come to ap- ply the principle, you will ask me what are the rights and privileges that I would give the negro. My answer is, that is a question which the people of each State must decide for themselves. It may be proper to grant to the negro in Illinois privileges which it would not be safe to give him in Maryland, and hence it is a question for us to decide for ourselves in that State, and for you to decide for yourselves in this State. So it is with all other domestic relations; each State must decide for itself what the relation shall be, not only between master and servant, but between husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward; and, also, what shall be the banking system, the school system, the railroad system, and every other system, affecting their rights, their persons, and their property. Let these principles of State rights and State sovereignty prevail, and there will be no cause for jealousy and collision between the differ- ent States and Territoies. Let these principles be applied in good faith, and then this Government is capable of indefinite expansion, and will expand as fast as we need more territory and find it to our interest to acquire it. We are a growing nation, increasing and spreading every year; for the pre- sent, we have territory enough, but we must enlarge our borders as fast as w« fill up that territory, and must Americanize that which adjoins us. Let us then pursue a policy both foreign and domestic, consistent with the destiny which the Almighty has marked out for us. I never have and never will give a vote for a treaty which binds the American people never to do on the American con- tinent that which our interest, our honor and safety may compel us to do. I felt it my duty to resist the Clayton and Bulwer treaty when it was made. I objected especially to that clause of it which said that neither the United States or Great Britain would in all future time, annex, colonize, or exercise dominion over any portion of Central America. I was asked what I wanted with Cen- 16 tral America tlien. I replied that we did not want it then, but that the time might come when we would want it. I was told that it was so far oft’ that we could never desire it. My answer was that it was a good ways off, about half way to California, and on the direct route to it; and if California was not too far off for us, I did not see, how the half-way house could be too remote for our wishes and desires. The time may come when we shall be compelled for the sake of our own in- terests, and for that of humanity, commerce and stable government, to annex Province after Province of Mexico, and to take Cuba too, and to expand indefi- nitely, yet steadily and slowly, acquiring territory as we Americanize it and need it, until this nation shall become one ocean-bound Republic. It may not be in your lifetime nor in mine; it may not be in the lifetime of our children; but I trust that the saying applied to other countries is true of ours, that the nation never dies. I trust the American nation will survive forever. If it does, it must expand, for to increase, multiply, and grow, is the constitutional law of our existence. Hence, let us pursue a foreign policy by which we will have control of our own actions at all times with reference to the American conti- nent, and which will leave us free when the time comes to do that which we, or our children, as the case may be, may determine that onr interest and safety require us to do. But that foreign policy must be accompanied with a domestic policy, which preserves the rights and sovereignty of tne States, and protects each State in the right to decide its institutions for itself, and hence avoids any jar or collision when new States are admitted into the brotherhood. With this domestic policy there can be no occasion for strife between the free and slave States. My friends i have given you an epitome of the principles which I discussed in Illinois in the late contest with the Abolitionists and their allies, 1 appealed to the people of Blinois by their love for the American Union, to preserve sacred the fraternal feeling between the old and the new, the free and slave States; I pointed them to Bunker hill, to Bennington, to Saratoga and to Monmouth; I pointed them to King’s Mountain, Guilford Court Honse, and to Yorktown; I showed them that in the Revolution, northern and southern men stood shoulder to shoulder in a common cause, fought under the same banner, poured out their blood in common streams, and shared common graves to secure the liberty which we now enjoy. Why cannot northern and southern men live under this Con- stitution in the same spirit in which our fathers framed it. We can if we will observe between the different States, that good old rule which our mother’s taught us — mat goiueu rule which every good mother teaches her son when he goes abroad, my son remember to mind your own business and leave your neigh- bor's alone. That advice is asapplicable toStates, Territories, and communities, as it is to individuals. My friends, it has been my duty during the summer to talk more than was consistent with my strength or agreeable with my feelings. I had determined that I would proceed quietly to the Capital, without makng any more speeches, but when I found my fellow-citizens of Maryland, of this great city of Balti- more, sympathising with the people of the North in behalf of sound constitu- tional principles, I could not refrain from stopping and exchanging sentiments, in order to see if we did not advocate the same principles and entertain the same patriotic regard for the Constitution under which we live. I believe that if these principles are firmly adhered to and faithfully carried out, this glorious Union can exist forever-, divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it, each State retaining the right to have just such laws and institutions as it may choose, and to modify and change them as it may^ see proper. I renew to you my grateful acknowledgments for the kind and respectful manner in which you have listened to me, and beg to bid you good night OBSE.RVAA.TIOlSrS OS SENATOR DOUGLAS’S VXES73 OS POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, AS EXPRESSED IS HARPERS’ MAGAZINE, FOR SEPTEMBER, 1859. # WASHINGTON : THOMAS McGILL, PEINTES- 1859. PREFATORY -NOTE. The writer of these “ Observations” waited a few days after the appearance of Harpers’ Magazine for September, in the confident expectation that somebodj', with more leisure and greater ability, would fully express the almost universal dis- sent of the public mind from the views contained in Mr. Douglas’s article. He yielded to “the request of friends” only when he saw what he supposed to be a general wish for a discussion more extended than could be given of such a subject in newspaper paragraphs. Why not put the writer’s name to it? Because the truth or falsehood of what is written does not depend on the name or character of him who wrote it. lio libellum ! Let it go forth, and find what entertainment it can. Washington, Sept. 7, 1859. OBSERVATIONS. Every one knows that Mr. Douglas, the Senator from Illinois, has written and printed an elaborate essay, comprising thirty-eight columns of Harpers’ Magazine, in which he has undertaken to point out the “ dividing line between federal and local authority.” Very many persons have glanced over its paragraphs to catch the leading ideas without loss of time, and some few have probably read it with care. Those who dissent from the doctrines of this paper owe to its author, if not to his arguments, a most respectful answer. Mr. Douglas is not the man to be treated with a disdainful silence. His ability is a fact unquestioned ; his public career, in the face of many disadvantages, has been uncommonly successful; and he has been for many years a working, struggling candidate for the Presidency. He is, moreover, the Corypheus of his political sect — the founder of a new school — and his disciples naturally believe in the infallible verity of his words as a part of their faith. The style of the article is, in some respects, highly commendable. It is entirely free from the vulgar clap-trap of the stump, and has no vain adornment of classical scholarship. But it shows no sign of the eloquent Senator ; it is even without the logic of the great debater. Many portions of it are very obscure. It seems to be an unsuccess- ful effort at legal precision; like the writing of a judge, who is trying in vain to give good reasons for a wrong decision on a question of law which he has not quite mastered. Vv T ith the help of Messrs. Seward and Lincoln, he has defined accurately enough the platform of the so-called Republican party ; and he does not attempt to conceal his conviction that their doc- trines are, in the last degree, dangerous. They are, most assuredly, full of evil and saturated with mischief. The “irrepressible con- flict” which they speak of with so much pleasure between the “ op- posing and enduring forces” of the Northern and Southern States, will be fatal, not merely to the peace of the country, but to the ex- istence of the Government itself. Mr. Douglas knows this, and he knows, also, that the Democratic party is the only power which is, or can be, organized to resist the Republican forces or oppose their hostile march upon the capital. He who divides and weakens the friends of the country at such a crisis in her fortunes, assumes a very grave responsibility. Mr. Douglas separates the Democratic party into three classes, and describes them as follows : “First. Those ■who believe that the Constitution of the United States neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in the States or Territories beyond the power of the people legally to control it, but ‘ leaves the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Con- stitution of the United States.’ 4 “ Second. Those who believe that the Constitution establishes slavery in the Ter- ritories, and withholds from Congress and the Territorial Legislature the power to control it, and who insist that, in the event the Territorial Legislature fails to enact the requisite laws for its protection, it becomes the imperative duty of Congress to interpose its authority and furnish such protection. Third. Those who, while professing to believe that the Constitution establishes slavery in the Territories beyond the power of Congress or the Territorial Legisla- ture to control it, at the same time protest against the duty of Congress to inter- fere for its protection; but insist that it is the duty of the judiciary to protect and maintain slavery in the Territories without any law upon the subject.” We give Mr. Douglas the full benefit of his own statement. This is his mode of expressing those differences, which, he says, disturb the harmony, and threaten the integrity, of the American Democracy. These passages should, therefore, be most carefully considered. The first class is the one to which he himself belongs, and to both the others he is equally opposed. He has no right to come between the second and third class. If the difference which he speaks of does exist among his opponents, it is their business, not his, to settle it or fight it out. We shall therefore confine ourselves to the dis- pute between Mr. Douglas and his followers on the one hand, and the rest of the Democratic party on the other, presuming that he will be willing to observe the principle of non-intervention in all matters with which he has no concern. We will invert the order in which he has discussed the subject, and endeavor to show — 1. That he has not correctly stated the doctrine held by his op- ponents ; and, 2. That his own opinions, as given by himself, are altogether unsound. I. He says that a certain portion of the Democratic party believe, or profess to believe, that the Constitution establishes slavery in the Territories, and insist that it is the duty of the judiciary to main- tain it there without any laiv on the subject. We do not charge him with any intention to be unfair : but we assert, that he has in fact done wrong to, probably, nineteen-twentiethg of the party, by attempting to put them on grounds which they never chose for themselves. The Constitution certainly does not establish slavery in the Ter- ritories, nor anywhere else. Nobody in this country ever thought or said so. But the Constitution regards as sacred and inviolable all the rights which a citizen may legally acquire in a State. If a man acquires property of any kind in a State, and goes with it into a Territory, he is not for that reason to be stripped of it. Our simple and plain proposition is, that the legal owner of a slave or other chattel may go with it into a Federal Territory without for- feiting his title. Who denies the truth of this, and upon what ground can it be controverted ? The reasons which support it are very obvious and very conclusive. As a jurist and a statesman, Mr. Douglas ought to be familiar with them, and there was a time when he was supposed to understand t hem very well. We will briefly give him a few of them. 1. It is an axiomatic principle of public law, that a right of 5 property, a private relation, condition or status, lawfully existing in one State or country, is not changed by the mere removal of the parties to another country, unless the law of that other country be in direct conflict with it. For instance: A marriage legally solemnized in France is binding in America; children born in Ger- many are legitimate here if they are legitimate there ; and a mer- chant who buys goods in New York according to the laws of that State may carry them to Illinois and hold them there under his contract. It is precisely so with the statics of a negro carried from one part of the United States to another ; — the question of his freedom nr servitude depends on the law of the place where he came from, and depends on that alone, if there be no conflicting law at the place to which he goes or is taken. The Federal Con- stitution therefore recognizes slavery as a legal condition wherever the local governments have chosen to let it stand unabolished, and regards it as illegal wherever the laws of the place have forbidden it. A slave being property in Virginia, remains property; and his master has all the rights of a Yirginia master wherever he may go, so that he go not to any place where the local law comes in conflict with his right. It will not be pretended that the Constitution itself furnishes to the Territories a conflicting law. It contains no pro- vision that can be tortured into any semblance of a prohibition. 2. The dispute on the question whether slavery or freedom is local or general, is a mere war of words. The black race in this country is neither bond nor free by virtue of any general law. That portion of it which is free is free by virtue of some local regula- tion, and the slave owes service for a similar reason. The Consti- tution and laws of the United States simply declare that everything done in the premises by the State governments is right, and they shall be protected in carrying it out. But free negroes and slaves may both find themselves outside of any State jurisdiction, and in a Territory where no regulation has yet been made on the subject. There the Constitution is equally impartial. It neither frees the slave nor enslaves the freeman. It requires both to remain in statu quo until the statics already impressed upon them by the law of their previous domicil shall be changed by some competent local author- ity. What is competent local authority in a Territory will be else- where considered. 3. The Federal Constitution carefully guards the rights of pri- vate property against the Federal Government itself, by declaring that it shall not be taken for public use without compensation, nor without due process of law. Slaves are private property, and every man who has taken an oath of fidelity to the Constitution is reli- giously, morally, and politically bound to regard them as such. Does anybody suppose that a Constitution which acknowledges the sacredness of private property so fully would wantonly destroy that right, not by any words that are found in it, but by mere im- plication from its general principles ? It might as well be asserted that the general principles of the Constitution gave Lane and Mont- gomery a license to steal horses in the valley of the Osage. 6 4. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided the question. After solemn argument and careful consideration, that august tribunal has announced its opinion to be that a slaveholder, by going into a Federal Territory, does not lose the title he had to his negro in the State from which he came. In former times, a question of constitutional law once decided by the Supreme Court was regarded as settled by all, except that little band of ribald infi- dels, who meet periodically at Boston to blaspheme the religion, and plot rebellion against the laws, of the country. The leaders of the so-called Republican party have lately been treading close on the heels of their abolition brethren ; but it is devoutly to be hoped that Mr. Douglas has no intention to follow their example. In case hens elected President, he must see the laws faithfully executed. Does he think he can keep that oath by fighting the judiciary ? 5. The legislative history of the country shows that all the great statesmen of former times entertained the same opinion, and held it so firmly that they did not even think of any other. It was uni- versally taken for granted that a slave remained a slave, and a free- man a freeman, in the new Territories, until a change was made in their condition by some positive enactment. Nobody believed that a slave might not have been taken to and kept in the Northwest Territory if the ordinance of 1787 or some other regulation had not been made to prohibit it. The Missouri restriction of 1820 was imposed solely because it W'as understood (probably by every member of that Congress) that, in the absence of a restriction, slave property would be as lawful in the eye of the Constitution above 36° 30', as below ; and all agreed, that the mere absence of a re- striction did, in fact, make it lawful below the compromise line. 6. It is right to learn wisdom from our enemies. The Republi- cans do not point to any express provision of the Constitution, nor to any general principle embraced in it, nor to any established rule of law, which sustains their views. The ablest men among them are driven by stress of necessity to hunt for arguments in a code unrevealed, unwritten, and undefined, which they put above the Constitution or the Bible, and call it “higher law.” The ultra abolitionists of New England do not deny that the Constitution is rightly interpreted by the Democrats, as not interfering against slavery in the Territories ; but they disdain to obey what they pro nounce to be “an agreement with death and a covenant with hell.” 7. What did Mr. Douglas mean when he proposed and voted for the Kansas-Nebraska bill repealing the Missouri restriction ? Did he intend to tell southern men that notwithstanding the repeal of the prohibition, they were excluded from those Territories as much as ever ? Or did he not regard the right of a master to his slave perfectly good whenever he got rid of the prohibition ? Did he, or anybody else at that time, dream that it was necessary to make a positive law in favor of the slaveholder before he could go there with safety ? To ask these questions is to answer them ? The Kansas-Nebraska bill was not meant as a delusion or a snare. It was well understood that the repeal alone of the restriction against slavery would throw the country open to everything which the Con- stitution recognized as property. Yv 7 e have thus given what we believe to be the opinions held by the great body of the Democratic party : namely, that the Federal Constitution does not establish slavery anywhere in the Union ; that it permits a black man to be either held in servitude or made free as the local law shall decide ; and that in a Territory where no local law on the subject has been enacted, it keeps both the slave and the free negro in the status already impressed upon them, until it shall be changed by competent local authority. We have seen, that this is sustained by the reason of the thing, by a great principle of public law, by the words of the Constitution, by a solemn deci- sion of the Supreme Court, by the whole course of our legislation, by the concession of our political opponents, and, finally, by the most important act in the public life of Mr. Douglas himself. Mr. Douglas imputes another absurdity to his opponents when he charges them with insisting “that it is the duty of the judiciary to protect and maintain slavery in the Territories without any law upon the subject.” The judge who acts without law acts against law ; and surely no sentiment so atrocious as this was ever enter- tained by any portion of the Democratic party. The right of a master to the services of his slave in a Territory is not against law nor without law, but in full accordance with law. If the law be against it we are all against it. Has not the emigrant to Nebraska a legal right to the ox team, which he bought in Ohio, to haul him over the plains ? Is not his title as good to it in the Territory, as it was in the State where he got it ? And what should be said of a judge who tells him that he is not protected, or that he is main- tained, in the possession of his property “ without any law upon the subject ?” II. We had a right to expect from Mr. Douglas at least a clear and intelligible definition of his own doctrine. We are disappointed. It is hardly possible to conceive anything more difficult to compre- hend. We will transcribe it again, and do what can be done to analyze it. “Those who believe that the Constitution of the United States neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in the States or Territories beyond the power of the peopl° legally to control it, but 1 leaves the people thereof perfectly free to form and reg- ulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.’ ” The Constitution neither establishes nor prohibits slavery in the States or Territories. If it be meant by this that the Constitution does not, proprio vigore , either emancipate any man’s slave, or create the condition of slavery, and impose it on free negroes, but leaves the question of every black man’s status , in the Territories as well as in the States, to be determined by the local law, then we admit it, for it is the very same proposition which we have been trying to prove. But if, on the contrary, it is to be understood as an assertion that 8 the Constitution floes not permit a master to keep his slave, or a free negro to have his liberty, in all parts of the Union where the local law does not interfere to prevent it, then the error is not only a very grave one, but it is also absurd and self-contradictory. The Constitution neither establishes nor 'prohibits slavery in the States or Territories beyond the power of the people legally to con- trol it. This is sailing to Point-No-Point again. Of course a sub- ject, which is legally controlled, cannot be beyond the power that controls it. But the question is, what constitutes legal control, and when the people of a State or Territory are in a condition to ex- ercise it. The Constitution of the United States * * * * leaves the people perfectly free, * * * and subject only to the Constitu- tion of the United States. This carries us round a full circle, and drops us precisely at the place of beginning. That the Constitu- tion leaves everybody subject to the Constitution, is most true. We are far from denying it. We never heard it doubted, and expect we never will. But the statement of it proves nothing, defines nothing, and explains nothing. It merely darkens the subject, as words without meaning always do. But notwithstanding all this circuity of expression and conse- quent opaqueness of meaning in the magazine article of Mr. Douglas, we think we can guess what his opinions are or will be rvhen he comes to reconsider the subject. He will admit (at least he will not undertake to deny) that the status of a negro, whether of ser- vitude or freedom, accompanies him wherever he goes, and adheres to him in every part of the Union until he meets some local law which changes it. It will also be agreed that the people of a State, through their Legislature, and the people of a Territory, in the constitution which they may frame preparatory to their admission as a State, can reg- ulate and control the condition of the subject black race within their respective jurisdictions, so as to make them bond or free. But here we come to the point at which opinions diverge. Some insist that no citizen can be deprived of his property in slaves, or in anything else, except by the provision of a State constitution or by the act of a State Legislature ; while others contend that an unlimited control over private rights may be exercised by a Terri- torial Legislature as soon as the earliest settlements are made. So strong are the sentiments of Mr. Douglas in favor of the latter doctrine, that if it be not established he threatens us with Mr. Seward’s “irrepressible conflict,” which shall end only with the universal Abolition or the universal dominion of slavery. On the other hand, the President, the Judges of the Supreme Court, nearly all the Democratic members of Congress, the whole of the party South, and a very large majority North, are penetrated with a conviction, that no such power is vested in a Territorial Legis- lature, and that those who desire to confiscate private property of any kind must wait until they get a constitutional convention 9 or the machinery of a State government into their hands. We venture to give the following reasons for believing that Mr. Douglas is in error : The Supreme Court has decided that a Territorial Legislature has not the power which he claims for it. That alone ought to be sufficient. There can be no law, order, or security for any man's rights, unless the judicial authority of the country be up- held. Mr. Douglas may do what he pleases with political con- ventions and party platforms, but we trust he will give to the Su- preme Court at least that decent respect, which none but the most ultra Republicans have yet withheld. The right of property is sacred, and the first object of all human government is to make it secure. Life is always unsafe where prop- erty is not fully protected. This is the experience of every people on earth, ancient and modern. To secure private property was a principal object of Magna Charta. Charles I. afterwards attempted to violate it, but the people rose upon him, dragged him to the block, and severed his head from his body. At a still later period another monarch for a kindred offence was driven out of the coun- try, and died a fugitive and an outcast. Our own Revolution was provoked by that slight invasion upon the right of property which consisted in the exaction of a trifling tax. There is no government in the world, however absolute, which would not be disgraced and endangered by wantonly sacrificing private property even to a small extent. For centuries past such outrages have ceased to be com- mitted in times of peace among civilized nations. Slaves are regarded as property in the Southern States. The people of that section buy and sell, and carry on all their business, provide for their families, and make their wills and divide their in- heritances on that assumption. It is manifest to all who know them, that no doubts ever cross their minds about the rightfulness of hold- ing such property. They believe they have a direct warrant for it, not only in the examples of the best men that ever lived, but in the precepts of Divine Revelation itself; and they are thoroughly satis- fied that the relation of master and slave is the only one which can possibly exist there between the white and the black race without ruining both. The people of the North may differ from their fellow- citizens of the South on the whole subject, but knowing, as we all do, that these sentiments are sincerely and honestly entertained, we cannot wonder that they feel the most unspeakable indignation when any attempt is made to interfere with their rights. This sentiment results naturally and necessarily from their education and habits of thinking. They cannot help it, any more than an honest man in the North can avoid abhorring a thief or housebreaker. The jurists, legislators, and people of the Northern States, have always sacredly respected the right of property in slaves held by their own citizens within their own jurisdiction. It is a remark- able fact, very well worth noticing, that no Northern State ever passed any law to take a negro from his master. All laws for the 10 abolition of slavery have operated only on the unborn descendants of the negro race, and the vested rights of masters have not been disturbed in the North more than in the South. In every nation under heaven, civilized, semi-barbarous, or savage, where slavery has existed in any form at all analogous to ours, the rights of the masters to the control of their slaves as property have been respected ; and on no occasion has any government struck at those rights, except as it would strike at other property. Even the British Parliament, when it emancipated the West India slaves, though it was legislating for a people three thousand miles away, and not represented, never denied either the legal or the natural right of the slave owner. Slaves were admitted to be property, and the Government acknowledged it by paying their masters one hundred millions of dollars for the privilege of setting them free. Here, then, is a species of property which is of transcendent im- portance to the material interests of the South — which the people of that region think it right and meritorious in the eyes of God and good men to hold — which is sanctioned by the general sense of all mankind among whom it has existed — which was legal only a short time ago in all the States of the Union, and was then treated as sacred by every one of them — which is guaranteed to the owner as much as any other property is guaranteed by the Constitution ; — and Mr. Douglas thinks that a Territorial Legislature is competent to take it away. We say, No; the supreme legislative power of a sovereign State alone can deprive a man of his property. This proposition is so plain, so well established, and so univer- sally acknowledged, that any argument in its favor would be a mere waste of words. Mr. Douglas does not deny it, and it did not re- quire the thousandth part of his sagacity to see that it was undeni- able. He claims for the Territorial governments the right of con- fiscating private property on the ground that those governments are sovereign — have an uncontrollable and independent power over all their internal affairs. That is the point which he thinks is to split the Democracy and impale the nation. But it is so entirely erro- neous, that it must vanish into thin air as soon as it comes to be examined. A Territorial government is merely provisional and temporary. It is created by Congress for the necessary perservation of order and the purposes of police. The powers conferred upon it are ex- pressed in the organic act, which is the charter of its existence, and which may be changed or repealed at the pleasure of Con- gress. In most of those acts the power has been expressly re- served to Congress of revising the Territorial laws,- and the power to repeal them exists without such reservation. This was asserted in the case of Kansas by the most distinguished Senators in the Con- gress of 1856. The President appoints the Governor, judges, and all other officers whose appointment is not otherwise provided for, directly or indirectly, by Congress. Even the expenses of the Ter- ritorial government are paid out of the Federal treasury. The truth 11 is, they have no attribute of sovereignty about them. The essence of sovereignty consists in having no superior. But a Territorial government has a superior in the United States Government, upon ■whose pleasure it is dependent for its very existence — in whom it lives, and moves, and has its being — who has made, and can unmake it with a breath. Where does this sovereign authority to deprive men of their prop- erty come from ? This transcendent power, which even despots are cautious about using, and which a constitutional monarch never ex- ercises — how does it get into a Territorial Legislature ? Surely it does not drop from the clouds : it will not be contended, that it accompanies the settlers, or exists in the Territory before its organ- ization. Indeed it is not to the people, but to the government of a Territory, that Mr. Douglas says it belongs. Then Congress must give the power at the same time that it gives the Territorial gov- ernment. But not a word of the kind is to be found m any organic act that ever was framed. It is thus that Mr. Douglas’s argument runs itself out into nothing. But if Congress would pass a statute expressly to give this sort of power to the Territorial governments, they still would not have it ; for the Federal Government itself does not possess any control over men’s property in the Territories. That such power does not exist in the Federal Government needs no proof: Mr. Douglas admits it fully and freely. It is, besides, established by the solemn decision of Congress, by the assent of the Executive, and by the direct ratification of the people acting in their primary capacity at the polls. In addition to all this, the Supreme Court have delib- erately adjudged it to be an unalterable and undeniable rule of con- stitutional law. This acknowledgment that Congress has no power, authority, or jurisdiction over the subject, literally obliges Mr. Douglas to give up his doctrine, or else to maintain it by asserting that a power which the Federal Government does not possess may be given by Congress to the Territorial government. The right to abolish African slavery in a Territory is not granted by the Constitution to Congress ; it is withheld, and therefore the same as if expressly prohibited. Yet Mr. Douglas declares that Congress may give it to the Territories. Nay ; he goes further, and says that the want of the powrnr in Con- gress is the very reason why it can delegate it — the general rule, in his opinion, being that Congress cannot delegate the powers it possesses, but may delegate such, “ and only such, as Congress cannot exercise under the Constitution!” By turning to pages 520 and 521, the reader will see that this astounding proposition is actually made, not in jest or irony, but solemnly, seriously, and, no doubt, in perfect good faith. On this principle, as Congress cannot exercise the power to make an ex post facto law, or a law impairing the obligation of con- tracts, therefore it may authorize such laws to be made by the town councils of Washington city, or the levy court of the District. If Congress passes an act to hang a man without trial, it is void, 12 and the judges will not allow it to bo executed; but the power to do this prohibited thing can be constitutionally given by Congres to a Territorial Legislature ! We admit that there are certain powers bestowed upon the Gen- eral Government which are in their nature judicial or executive. With them Congress can do nothing, except to see that they are executed by the proper kind of officers. It is also true that Con- gress has certain legislative powers which cannot be delegated. But Mr. Douglas should have known that he was not talking about powers which belonged to either of these classes, but about a legis- lative jurisdiction totally forbidden to the Federal Government, and incapable of being delegated, for the simple reason that it does not constitutionally exist. Will anybody say that such a power ought, as a matter of policy, or for reasons of public safety, to be held by the provisional gov- ernments of the Territories? Undoubtedly no true patriot, nor no friend of justice .and order, can deliberately reflect on the probable consequences without deprecating them. This power over property is the one which in all governments has been most carefully guarded, because the temptation to abuse it is always greater than any other. It is there that the subjects of a limited monarchy watch their king with the greatest jealousy. No republic has ever failed to impose strict limitations upon it. All free people know, that if they would remain free, they must compel the gov- ernment to keep its hands off their private property; and this can be done only by tying them up with careful restrictions. Accordingly our Federal Constitution declares that “ no person shall be deprived of his property except by due process of law,” and that “ private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensa- tion.” It is universally agreed that this applies only to the exer- cise of the power by the Government of the United States. We are also protected against the State governments by a similar provision in the State constitutions. Legislative robbery is therefore a crime which cannot be committed either by Congress or by any State Legislature, unless it be done in flat rebellion to the fundamental law of the land. But if the Territorial governments have this power, then they have it without any limitation whatsoever, and in all the fulness of absolute despotism. They are omnipotent in regard to all their internal affairs, for they are sovereigns , without a constitution to hold, them in checlc. And this omnipo- tent sovereignty is to be wielded by a few men suddenly drawn together from all parts of America and Europe, unacquainted with one another, and ignorant of their relative rights. But if Mr. Douglas is right, those governments have all the abso- lute power of the Russian Autocrat. They may take every kind of property in mere caprice, or for any purpose of lucre or malice, without process of law, and without providing for compensation. The Legislature of Kansas, sitting at Lecompton or Lawrence, may order the miners to give up every ounce of gold that has been dug 13 at Pike’s Peak. If the authorities of Utah should license a band of marauders to despoil the emigrants crossing the Territory, their sovereign right to do so cannot be questioned. A new Territory may be organized, which Southern men think should be devoted to the culture of cotton, while the people of the North are equally certain that grazing alone is the proper business to be carried on there. If one party, by accident, by force, or by fraud, has a ma- jority in the Legislature, the negroes are taken from the planters ; and if the other set gains a political victory, it is followed by a statute to plunder the graziers of their cattle. Such things cannot be done by the Federal Government, nor by the governments of the States ; but, if Mr. Douglas is not mistaken, they can be done by the Territorial governments. Is it not every way better to wait until the new inhabitants know themselves and one another ; until the policy of the Territory is settled by some experience ; and, above all, until the great powers of a sovereign State are regularly conferred upon them and properly limited, so as to prevent the gross abuses which always accompany unrestricted power inhuman hands? There is another consideration, which Mr. Douglas should have been the last man to overlook. The present Administration of the Federal Government, and the whole Democratic party throughout the country, including Mr. Douglas, thought that, in the case of Kansas, the question of retaining or abolishing slavery should not be determined by any representative body without giving to the whole mass of the people an opportunity of voting on it. Mr. Douglas carried it further, and warmly opposed the constitution, denying even its validity, because other aDd undisputed parts of it had not also been submitted to a popular vote. Now he is willing that the whole slavery dispute in any Territory, and all questions that can arise concerning the rights of the people to that or other property, shall be decided at once by a Territorial Legislature, without any submission at all. Popular sovereignty in the last Congress meant the freedom of the people from all the restraints of law and order : now it means a government which shall rule them with a rod of iron. It swings like a pendulum from one side clear over to the other. Mr. Douglas’s opinions on this subject of sovereign Territorial governments are very singular ; but the reasons he has produced to support them are infinitely more curious still. For instance, he sho*ws that Jefferson once introduced into the old Congress of the Confederation a plan for the government of the Territories, calling them by the name of “New States,” but not making them anything like sovereign or independent States ; and though this was a mere experimental projet , which was rejected by Congress, and never afterwards referred to by Jefferson himself, yet Mr. Douglas argues upon it as if it had somehow become a part of our fundamental law. Again: He says that the States gave to the Federal Government the same powers which as colonies they had been willing to concede to the British Government, and kept those which as colonies they 14 had claimed for themselves. If he will read a common-school his- tory of the Revolution, and then look at Art. I, sec. 8, of the Con- stitution, he will find the two following facts fully established : 1. That the Federal Government has “power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises;” and, 2. That the colonies, be- fore the Revolution, utterly refused to be taxed by Great Britain ; and so far from conceding the power, fought against it for seven long years. There is another thing in the article which, if it had not come from a distinguished Senator, and a very upright gentleman, would have been open to some imputation of unfairness. He quotes the President’s message, and begins in the middle of a sentence. He professes to give the very words, and makes Mr. Buchanan say : “ That slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the Constitution of the United States.” What Mr. Buchanan didsay was a very different thing. Itwasihis: “It has been solemnly adjudged by the highest judicial tribunal known to our laws, that slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the Constitution of the United States.” Everybody knows that by treating the Bible in that way, you can prove the non-existence of God. The argumentum ad hominem is not fair, and we do not mean to use it. Mr. Douglas has a right to change his opinions whenever he pleases. But we quote him as we would any other authority equally high in favor of truth. We can prove by himself that every proposition he lays down in Harpers’ Magazine is founded in error. Never before has any public man in America so com- pletely revolutionized his political opinions in the course of eighteen months. We do not deny that the change is heartfelt and con- scientious. We only insist that he formerly stated his propositions much more clearly, and sustained them with far greater ability and better reasons, than he does now. When he took a tour to the South, at the beginning of last win- ter, he made a speech at New Orleans, in which he announced to the people there that he and his friends in Illinois accepted the Dred Scott decision, regarded slaves as property, and fully admitted the right of a Southern man to go into any Federal territory with his slave, and to hold him there as other property is held. In 1849 he voted in the Senate for what was called Walker’s amendment, by which it was proposed to put all the internal affairs of California and New Mexico under the domination of the President, giving him almost unlimited power, legislative, judicial, and executive, over the internal affairs of those Territories. (See 20th Cong., p. .) Undoubtedly this was a strange way of treat- ing sovereignties. If Mr. Douglas is right now, he was guilty then of most atrocious usurpation. Utah is as much a sovereign State as any other Territory, and as perfectly entitled to enjoy the right of self-government. On the 12th of June, 1857, Mr. Douglas made a speech about Utah, at Springfield, Illinois, in which he expressed his opinion strongly in 15 favor of the absolute and unconditional repeal of the organic act, blotting the Territorial government out of existence , and putting the people under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, like a fort, arsenal , dock-yard, or magazine. He does not seem to have had the least idea then that he was proposing to extinguish a sovereignty, or to trample upon the sacred rights of an independent people. The report which he made to the Senate, in 1856, on the Topeka constitution, enunciates a very different doctrine from that of the magazine article. It is true that the language is a little cloudy, but no one can understand the following sentences to signify that the Territorial governments have sovereign power to take away the property of the inhabitants : “The sovereignty of a Territory remains in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people until they shall be admitted into the Union as a Stale. In the mean time they are admitted to enjoy and exercise all the rights and privileges of self-government, in subordination to the Constitution of the United States, and in obedience to the ORGANIC law passed by Congress in pursuance of that instru- ment. These rights and privileges are all derived from the Constitution, through the act of Congress, and must be exercised and enjoyed in subjection to all the limit- ations and restrictions which that # Constitntion imposes.” The letter he addressed to a Philadelphia meeting, in February, 1858, is more explicit, and, barring some anomalous ideas concerning the abeyance of the power and the suspension of it in trust , it is clear enough : “Under our Territorial system, it requires sovereign power to ordain and estab- lish constitutions and governments. While a Territory may and should enjoy all the rights of self-government, in obedience to its organic law , it is not a sovereign power. The sovereignty of a Territory remains in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people when they become a State, and cannot be withdrawn from the hands of the trustee and vested in the people of a Territory without the consent of Congress The report which he made in the same month, from the Senate Committee on Territories, is equally distinct, and rather more em- phatic against his new doctrine : “ This committee in their reports have always held that a Territory is not a sove- reign power ; that the sovereignty of a Territory is in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people when they become a State ; that the United States, as trustees, cannot be divested of the sovereignty, nor the Territory be in- vested with the right to assume and exercise it, without the consent of Congress. If the proposition be true that sovereign power alone can institute governments, and that the sovereignty of a Territory is in abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust for the people when they become a State, and that the sovereignty cannot be divested from the hands of the trustee without the assent of Congress, it follows, as an inevitable consequence, that the Kansas Legislature did not and could not confer upon the Lecompton convention the sovereign power of ordaining a consti- tution for the people of Kansas, in place of the organic act passed by Congress.” The days are past and gone when Mr. Douglas led the fiery assaults of the opposition in the Lecompton controversy. Then it was his object to prove that a Territorial Legislature, so far from being omnipotent, was powerless even to authorize an election of delegates to consider about their own affairs. It was asserted that a convention chosen under a Territorial law could make and ordain no constitution which would be legally binding. 16 Then a Territorial government was to be despised and spit upon, even when it invited the people to come forward and vote on a question of the most vital importance to their own interests. Bat now all things have become new. The Lecompton dispute has “ gone glimmering down the dream of things that were,” and Mr. Douglas produces another issue, brand new from the mint. The old opinions are not worth a rush to his present position : it must be sustained by opposite principles and reasoning totally different. The Legislature of Kansas was not sovereign when it authorized a convention of the people to assemble and decide what sort of a constitution they would have, but when it strikes at their rights of prop- erty, it becomes not only a sovereign, but a sovereign without limitation of power. We have no idea that Mr. Douglas is not perfectly sincere, as he was also when he took the other side. The impulses engendered by the heat of controversy have driven him at different times in opposite di- rections. We do not charge it against him as a crime, but it is true that these views of his, inconsistent as they are with one another, always happen to accord with the interests of the opposition, always give to the enemies of the Con- stitution a certain amount of “ aid and comfort,” and always add a little to the rancorous and malignant hatred with which the Abolitionists re- gard the Government of their own country. Yes; the Lecompton issue which Mr. Douglas made upon the Adminis- tration two years ago is done, and the principles on which we were then opposed are abandoned. We are no longer required to fight for the lawful- ness of a Territorial election held under Territorial authority. But another issue is thrust upon us, to “ disturb the harmony and threaten the integ- rity” of the party. A few words more, (perhaps of tedious repetition,) by way of showing what that new issue is, or probably will be, and we are done. We insist that an emigrant going into a Federal Territory, retains his title to the property which he took with him, until there is some prohibi- tion enacted by lawful authority. Mr. Douglas cannot deny this in the face of his New Orleans speech, and the overwhelming reasons which sup- port it. It is an agreed point among all Democrats that 'Congress cannot inter- fere with the rights of property in the Territories. It is also acknowledged that the people of a new State, either in their constitution or in an act of their Legislature, may make the negroes within it free, or hold them in a state of servitude. But we believe more. We believe in submitting to the law, as decided by the Supreme Court, which declares that a Territorial Legislature can- not, any more than Congress, interfere with rights of property in a Terri- tory — that the settlers of a Territory are bound to wait until the sovereign power is conferred upon them, with proper limitations, before they attempt to exercise the most dangerous of all its functions. Mr. Douglas denies this, and there is the new issue. Why should such an issue be made at such a time ? What is there now to excuse any friend of peace for attempting to stir up the bitter waters of strife ? There is no actual difficulty about this subject in any Terri- tory. There id no question upon it pending before Congress or the coun- try. We are called upon to make a contest, at once unnecessary and hopeless, with the judicial authority of the nation. We object to it. We will not obey Mr. Douglas when he commands us to assault the Su- preme Court of the United States. We believe the court to be right, and Mr. Douglas wrong. SPEECH SENATOR S. A. DOUGLAS, ON A HIS REPLY TO AIK. FESSENDEN. DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OE THE UNITED STATES, JANUAEY 23, I860. The hour having arrived for the consideration of the special order, the Senate proceeded to consider the following resolution, submitted by Mr. Douglas on the 16th instant : Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary he instructed to report a hill for the protection of each State and Territory of the Union against invasion by the authorities or inhabitants of any other State or Territory; and for the suppression and punishment of conspiracies or combinations in any State or Territory with intent to invade, assail, or molest the government, inhabitants, property, or institutions of any other State or Ter- ritory of the Union. Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, on the 25th of November last, the Governor of Virginia addressed an official communication to the President of the United tates, in which he said : “I have information from various quarters, upon which I rely, that a conspiracy of formidable extent, in means and numbers, is formed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and other States, to rescue John Brown and his associates, prisoners at Charlestown, Vir- ginia. The information is specific enough to be reliable. * * * * “Places in Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, have been occupied as depots and rendezvous by these desperadoes, and unobstructed by guards or otherwise, to invade this State, and we are kept in continual apprehension of outrage from fire and rapine. I ap- prise you of these facts in order that you may take steps to preserve peace between the States.” To this communication, the President of the United States, on the 28th of November, returned a reply, from which I read the -following sentence : “ I am at a loss to discover any provision in the Constitution or laws of the United States which would authorize me to ‘ take steps’ for this purpose.” [That is, to preserve the peace between the States.] This announcement produced a profound impression upon the public mind and especially in the slaveholding States. It was generally received and regarded as an authoritative announcement that the Constitution of the United State Printed by Lemuel Towers, 2 confers no power upon tlie Federal Government to protect each of the States of this Union against invasion from the other States. I shall not stop to inquire whether the President meant to declare that the existing laws confer no authority upon him, or that the Constitution empowers Congress to enact no laws which would authorize the Federal interposition to protect the States from invasion ; my object is to raise the inquiry, and to ask the judgment of the Senate and of the House of Representatives on the question, whether it is not within the power of Congress, aud the duty of Congress, under the Constitution, to enact all laws which may be necessary and proper for the protection of each and every State against invasion, either from foreign Powers or from any portion of the United States. The denial of the existence of such a power in the Federal Government has induced an inquiry among conservative men — men loyal to the Constitution and devoted to the Union — as to what means they have of protection, if the Federal Government is not authorized to protect them against external violence. It must be conceded that no community is safe, no State can enjoy peace, or pros- perity, or domestic tranquility, without security against external violence. Every State and nation of the world, outside of this Republic, is supposed to maintain armies and navies for this precisqfpprpose. It is the only legitimate purpose for which armies and navies are maintained in time of peace. They may be kept up for ambitious purposes, for the purposes of aggression and foreign war; but the legitimate purpose of a military force in time of peace is to insure domestic tranquility against violence or aggression from without. The States of this Union would possess that power, were it not for the restraints imposed upon them by the Federal Constitution. When that Constitution was made, the States surrendered to the Federal Government the power to raise and support armies, and the power to provide and maintain navies, and not only thus sur- rendered the- means of protection from invasion, but consented to a prohibition upon themselves which declares that no State shall keep troops or vessels of war in time of peace. The question now recurs, whether the States of this Union are in that help- less condition, with their hands tied bv the Constitution, stripped of all means of repelling assaults and maintaining their existence, without a guarantee from the Federal Government, to protect them against violence. If the people of this country shall settle down into the conviction that there is no power in the Federal Government under the Constitution to protect each and every State from violence, from aggression, from invasion, they will demand that the cord be severed., and that the weapons be restored to their hands with which they may defend themselves. This inquiry involves the question of the perpetuity of the Union. The means of defence, the means of repelling assaults, the means of providing against invasion, must exist as a condition of the safety of the States and the existence of the Union. Now, sir, I hope to be able to demonstrate that there is no wrong in this Union for which the Constitution of the United States has not provided a remedy. I believe, and I hope I shall be able to maintain, that a remedy is furnished for every wrong which can be perpetrated within the Union, if the Federal Govern- ment performs its whole duty. I think it is clear, on a careful examination of the Constitution, that the power is conferred upon Congress, first, to provide for repelling invasion from foreign countries; and, secondly, to protect each State of this Uniou against invasion from any other State, Territory, or place, within the jurisdiction of the United States. I will first turn your attention, sir, to the power conferred upon Congress to protect the United States — including States, 'Territories, and the District of Columbia ; including every inch of ground within our limits and jurisdiction — against foreign invasion. In the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, you find that Congress has power — 3 “ To raise and support armies; to provide and maintain a Navy ; to make rules for the Government and regulation of the land and naval forces; to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” These various clauses confer upon Cougress power to use the whole military force of the couutry for the purpose specified in the Constitution. They shall provide for the execution of the laws of the Union ; and, secondly, suppress in- surrections. The insurrections there referred to are insurrections against the authority of the United States — insurrections against a State authority being provided for in a subsequent section, in which the United States cannot interfere, except upon the application of the State authorities. The invasion which is to be repelled by this clause of the Constitution is an invasion of the United States. The language is, Congress shall have power to “ repel invasions.” That gives the authority to repel the invasion, no matter whether the enemy shall land within the limits of Virginia, within the District of Columbia, within the Ter- ritory of Hew Mexico, or anywhere else within the jurisdiction of the United States. The power to protect every portion of the country against invasion from foreign nations having thus been specifically conferred, the framers of the Constitution then proceeded to make guarantees for the protection of each of the States by Federal authority. I will read the fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution : “The United States shall guaranty to every State id this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion ; and, on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic violence.” This clause contains three distinct guarantees: first, the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government ; second, the United States shall protect each of them against invasion; third, the United States shall, on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive, when the Legislature caunot be convened, protect them against domestic violence. How, sir, I submit to you whether it is not clear, from the very language of the Con- stitution, that this clause was inserted for the purpose of making it the duty of the Federal Government to protect each of the States against invasion from aDy other State, Territory, or place within the jurisdiction of the United States ? For what other purpose was the clause inserted ? The power and duty of protection as against foreign nations had already been provided for. This clause occurs among the guarantees from the United States to each State, for the benefit of each State, for the protection of each State, and necessarily from other States, inasmuch as the guarantee had been given previously as against foreign nations. If any further authority is necessary to show that such is the true construc- tion of the Constitution, it may be found in the forty-third number of the Fede- ralist, written by James Madison. Mr. Madison quotes the clause of the Con- stitution which I have read, giving these three guarantees ; and, after discussing the one guarantying to each State a republican form of government, proceeds to consider the second, which makes it the duty of the United States to protect each of the States against invasion. Here is what Mr. Madison says upon that subject: “A protection, against invasion is diUe from every society to the ■parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not onlv against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history both of ancient and modern confederacies proves that the weaker members of the Union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this. article.” The number of the Federalist, like all the others of that celebrated work, was- written after the Constitution was made, and before it was ratified by the States and with a view to securing its ratification ; hence the people of the several States, when they ratified this instrument, knew that this clause was intended to hear the construction which I now place upon it. It was intended to make- 4 it the duty of every society to protect each of its parts; the duty of the Fede- ral Government to protect each of the States ; and, he says, the smaller States ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article of the Constitution. Then, sir, if it be made the imperative duty of the Federal Government, by the express provision of the Constitution, to protect each of the States against invasion or violence from the other States, or from combinations of desperadoes within their limits, it necessarily follows that it is the duty of Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper to render that guarantee effectual. While Con- gress, in the early history of the Government, did provide legislation, which is supposed to be ample to protect the United States against invasion from foreign countries and the Indian tribes, they have failed, up to this time, to make any law for the protection of each of the States against invasion from within the limits of the Union. I am unable to account for this omission ; but I presume the reason is' to be found in the fact that no Congress ever dreamed that such legislation would e#r become necessary for the protection of one State of this Union against invasion and violence from her sister States. Who, until the Harper’s Ferry outrage, ever conceived that American citizens could be so forgetful of their duties to themselves, to their country, to the Constitution, as to plan an invasion of another State, with the view of inciting servile insurrec- tion, murder, treason, and every other crime that disgraces humanity? While, therefore, no blame can justly be attached to our predecessors in failing to pro- vide the legislation necessary to render this guarantee of the Constitution effec- tual ; still, since the experience of last year, we cannot stand justified in omit- ting longer to perform this imperative duty. The question then remaining is, what legislation is necessary and proper to .render this guarantee of the Constitution effectual ? I presume there will be very little difference of opinion that it will be necessary to place the whole military power of the Government at the disposal of the President, under proper guards and restrictions against abuse, to repel and suppress invasion when the hostile force shall be actually in the field. But, sir, that is not suffi- cient. Such legislation would not be a full compliance with this guarantee of the Constitution. The framers of that instrument meant more when they gave the guarantee. Mark the difference in language between the provision for pro- tecting the United States against invasion and that for protecting the States. When it provided for protecting the United States, it said Congress shall have power to “ repel invasion.” When it came to make this guarantee to the States it changed the language and said the United States shall 11 protect” each of the States against invasion. In the one instance, the duty of the Government is to repel; in the other, the guarantee is that they will protect. In other words, the United States are not permitted to wait until the enemy shall be upon your borders ; until the invading army shall have been organized and drilled and placed in march with a view to the invasion; but they must pass all laws necessary and proper to insure protection and domestic tranquility to each State and Territory of this Union agaiust invasion or hostilities from other States and Territories. Then, sir, I hold that it is not only necessary to use the military power when the actual case of invasion shall occur, but to authorize the judicial depart- ment of the Government to suppress all conspiracies and combinations in the several States with intent to invade a State, or molest or disturb its govern- ment, its peace, its citizens, its property, or its institutions. You must pun- ish the conspiracy, the combination with intent to do the act, and theD you will suppress it in advance. There is no principle more familiar to the legal pro- fession than that wherever it is proper to declare an act to be a crime, it is proper to punish a conspiracy or combination with intent to perpetrate the act. Hook upon -your statute-books, and I presume you will find an enactment to 5 punish the counterfeiting of the coin of the United States; and then another section to punish a man for having counterfeit coin in his possession with intent to pass it; and another section to punish him for having the molds, or dies, or instruments for counterfeiting, with intent to use them. This is a familiar prin- ciple in legislative and judicial proceedings. If the act of invasion is criminal, the conspiracy to invade should also be made criminal. If it be unlawful and illegal to invade a State, and run off fugitive slaves, why not make it unlawful to form conspiracies and combinations in the several States with intent to do the act? We have been told that a notorious man who has recently suffered death for his crimes upon the gallows, boasted in Cleaveland, Ohio, in a public lecture, a year ago, that he had then a body of men employed in running away horses from the slaveholders of Missouri, and pointed to a livery stable in Cleave- land which was fall of the stolen horses at that time. I think it is within our competency, and consequently our duty, to pass a law making every conspiracy or combination in any State or Territory of this Union to invade another with intent to steal or run away property ®f any kind, whether it be negroes, or horses, or property of any other description, into another State, a crime, and punish the conspirators by indictment in the United States courts and confinement in the prisons or penitentiaries of the State or Territory where the conspiracy may be formed and quelled. Sir, I would carry these provisions of law as far as our constitutional power will reach. I would make it a crime to form conspiracies with a view of invading States or Territories to control elections, whether they be under the garb of Emigrant Aid Societies of New England or Blue Lodges of Missouri. (Applause in the galleries.) In other words, this provision of the Constitution means more than the mere repelling of an invasion when the invading army shall reach the border of a State. The language is, it shall protect the State against invasion ; the meaning of which is, to use the language of the preamble to the Constitution, to insure to each State domestic tranquility against external violence. There can be no peace, there can be no prosperity, there can he no safety in any community, unless it is secured against violence from abroad. Why, sir, it has been a question se- riously mooted in Europe, whether it was uot the duty of England, a Power foreign to France, to pass laws to punish conspiracies in England agamst the lives of the princes of France. I shall not argue the question of comity be- tween foreign States. I predicate my argument upon the Constitution by which we are governed, and which we have sworn to obey, and demand that the Con- stitution be executed iu good faith so as to punish and suppress every combina- tion, every conspiracy, either to invade a State or to molest its inhabitants, or to disturb its property, or to subvert its institutions and its government. I be- lieve this can he effectually done by authorizing the United States courts in the several States to take jurisdiction of the offence, and punish the violation of the law with appropriate punishments. It cannot be said that the time has not yet arrived for such legislation. It cannot be said with truth that the Harper’s Ferry case will not be repeated, or is not in clanger of repetition. It is only necessary to inquire into the causes which produced the Harper’s Ferry outrage, and ascertain whether those causes are yet in active operation, and then you can determine whether there is any ground for apprehension that that invasion will be repeated. Sir, what were the causes which produced the Harper’s Ferry outrage? Without stopping to adduce evidence iu detail, I have no hesitation in expressing my firm and delib- erate convict’on that the Harper’s Ferry crime was the natural, logical, inevita- ble result of the doctrines and teachings of the Republican party, as explained and enforced in their platform, their partisan presses, their pamphlets and books, and especially in the speeches of their leaders in and out of Congress. (Ap- plause in the galleries.) 6 Mr. Mason. I trust the order of the Senate will he preserved. I am sure it is only necessary to suggest to the Presiding Officer the indispensable necessity of preserving the order of the Senate; and I give notice that, if it is disturbed again, I shall insist upon the galleries being cleared entirely. Mr. Douglas. Mr. President The Vice President. The Senator will pause for a single moment. It is impossible for the Chair to preserve order without the concurrence of the vast assembly in the galleries. lie trusts that there will be no occasion to make a reference to this subject again. Mr. Toombs. I hope that the Presiding Officer will place officers in the gal- leries, and put a stop to this thing. It is a very bad sign of the times. It is unbecoming this body, or the deliberations of any free people. The Vice President. The Presiding Officer has not the force at his com- mand to place office^ in the gallery. Mr. Douglas. If the Senate will pardon me for a digression an instant, I was about to suggest to the Presiding Officer that I thought it would be neces- sary to place officers in different parts of tbe gallery, with instructions that if they saw any person giving any signs of approbation or disapprobation calcu- lated to disturb our proceedings, they should instantly put the guilty person out of the gallery. The Vice President. That has been doue. Mr. Douglas. I was remarking that I considered this outrage at Harper’s Ferry as the logical, natural consequence of the teachings and doctrines, of the Republican party. I am not making this statement for the purpose of crimina- tion or partisan effect. I desire to call the attention of members of that party to a reconsideration of the doctrines that they are in the habit of enforcing, with a view to a fair judgment whether they do not lead directly to those con- sequences, on the part of those deluded persons who think that all they say is meant, in real earnest, and ought to be carried out. The great principle that underlies the Republican party is violent, irreconcilable, eternal warfare upon the institution of American slavery, with the view of its ultimate extinction throughout the land; sectional war is to be waged until the cotton field of the South shall be cultivated by free labor, or the rye fields of New York and Mas- sachusetts shall be cultivated by slave labor. In furtherance of this article of their creed, you find their political organization not only sectional in its location, but one whose vitality consists in appeals to northern passion, northern preju- dice, northern ambition against southern States, southern institutions, and south- ern people. I have had some experience in fighting this element within the last few years, and I find that the source of their power consists in exciting the preju- dices and the passions of the northern section against those of the southern section. They not only attempt to excite the North against the South, but they invite the South to assail and abuse and traduce the North. Southern abuse, by violent men, of northern statesmen and northern people, is essential to the triumph of the Republican cause. Hence tbe course of argument which we have to meet is not only repelling the appeals to nor thern passion and prejudice, hut we have to encounter their appeals to southern men to assail us, in order that they may justify their assaults upon the plea of self-defence. Sir, when I returned home in 1858, for the purpose of canvassing Illinois, with a view to a re-election, I had to meet this issue of the “ irrepressible conflict.” It is true that the Senator from New York had not then made his Rochester speech, and did not for four mouths afterwards. It is true that he had not given the doctrine that precise name and form ; but the principle was in existence, and had been pro- 7 claimed by the ablest and the most clear-headed men of the party. I will call your attention, sir, to a single passage from a speech, to show the language in which this doctrine was stated in Illinois before it received the name of' the “irrepres- sible conflict.” The Republican party assembled in State convention in June, 1858, in Illinois, and unanimously adopted Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for United States Senator. Mr. Lincoln appeared before the convention, accepted the nomination, and made a speech — which had been previously written and agreed to in caucus by most of the leaders of the party. I will read a single extract from that speech : “In my opinion, it [the slavery agitation] will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this Gov- ernment cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinc- tion ; or its advocates will push forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States — old as well as new, North as well as South.” Sir, the moment I landed upon the soil of Illinois, at a vast gathering of many thousands of my constituents to welcome me home, I read that passage, and took direct issue with the doctrine contained in it as being revolutionary and treasonable, and inconsistent with the perpetuity of this Republic. That is not merely the individual opinion of Mr. Lincoln ; nor is it the individual opin- ion merely of the Senator from New York, who four months afterwards asserted the same doctrine in different language ; but, so far as I know, it is the general opinion of the members of the Abolition or Republican party. They tell the people of the North that unless they rally as one man, under a sectional banner, and make war upon the South with a view to the ultimate extinction of slavery, slavery will overrun the whold North and fasten itself upon all the free States. They then tell the South, unless you rally as one man, binding the whole south- ern people into a sectional party, and establish slavery all over the free States, the inevitable consequence will be that we shall abolish it in the slaveholding States. The same doctrine is held by the Senator from New York in his Ro- chester speech. He tells us that the States must all become free, or all become slave; that the South, in other words, must conquer and subdue the North, or the North must triumph over the South, and drive slavery from within its limits. Mr. President, in order to show that I have not misinterpreted the position of the Senator from New York, in notifying the South that, if they wish to main- tain slavery within their limits, they must also fasten it upon the northern States, I will read an extract from his Rochester speech : “It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces; and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of South Caro- lina, and the sugar plantations of Louisiana, will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New Orleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else th» rye fields and wheat fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered by their farmers to slave culture and toYhe production of slaves, and Boston and New York become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men.” Thus, sir, you perceive that the theory of the Republican party is, that there is a conflict between two different systems of institutions in the respective classes of States — not a conflict in the same States, but an irrepressible conflict between the free States and the slave States ; and they argue that these two systems of State cannot permanently exist in the same Union ; that the sectional warfare must continue to rage and increase with increasing fury until the free States shall surrender, or the slave States shall be subdued. Hence, while they appeal to the passions of our own section, their object is to alarm the people of the other 8 section, and drive them to madness, with the hope that they will invade our rights as an excuse for some of our people to carry on aggressions upon their rights. I appeal to the candor of Senators, whether this is not a fair exposition of the tendency of the doctrines proclaimed by the Republican party. The creed of that party is founded upon the theory that, because slavery is not de- sirable in our States, it is not desirable anywhere; because free labor is a good thing with us, it must be the best thing everywhere. In other words, the creed of their party rests upon the theory that there must be uniformity in the do- mestic institutions and internal polity of the several States of this Union. There, in my opinion, is the fundamental error upon which their whole system rests. In the Illinois canvass, I asserted, and now repeat, that uniformity in the domestic institutions of the different States is neither possible nor desirable. That is the very issue upon which I conducted the canvass at home, and it is the question which I desire to present to the Senate. I repeat, that uniformity in domestic institutions of the different States is neither possible nor desira- ble. Was such the doctrine of the framers of the Constitution ? I wish the coun- try to bear in mind that when the Constitution was adopted the Union consisted of thirteen States, twelve of which were slaveholding States, and one a free State. Suppose this doctrine of uniformity on the slavery question had prevail- ed in the Federal convention, do the gentlemen on that side of the House think that freedom would have triumphed over slavery? Do they imagine that the one free State would have outvote^ the twelve slaveholding States, and thus have abolished slavery throughout the land by a constitutional provision ? On the contrary, if the test had then been made, if this doctrine of uniformity on the slavery question had then been proclaimed and believed in, with the twelve slaveholding States against one free State, would it not have resulted in a con- stitutional provision fastening slavery irrevocably upon every inch of American soil, North as well as South? Was it quite fair in those days for the friends of free institutions to claim that the Federal Government must not touch the ques- tion, but must leave the people of each State to do as they pleased, until under the operation of that principle they secured the majority, and then wield that majority to abolish slavery in the other States of the Union ? Sir, if uniformity in respect to domestic institutions had been deemed desira- ble when the Constitution was adopted, there was another mode by which it could have been obtained. The natural mode of obtaining uniformity was to have blotted out the State governments, to have abolished the State Legislatures, to have conferred upon Congress legislative power over the municipal and do- mestic concerns of the people of all the States, as well as upon Federal questions affecting the whole Union; and if this doctrine of uniformity had been enter- tained and favored by the framers of the Constitution, such would have been the result. But, sir, the framers of that instrument knew at that day, as well as we now know, that in a country as broad as this, with so great a variety of climate, of soil, and of production, there must necessarily be a corresponding diversity of institutions and domestic regulations, adapted to the wants and necessities of each locality. The framers of the Constitution knew that the laws and institutions which were well adapted to the mountains and valleys of New England were ill-suited to the rice plantations and the cotton-fields of the Caro- linas. They knew that our liberties depended upon reserving the right to the people of each State to make their own laws and establish their own institutions, and control them at pleasure, without interference from the Federal Government, or from any other State or Territory, or any foreign country. The Constitution, therefore, was based, and the Union was founded, on the principle of dissimi- larity in the domestic institutions and internal polity of the several States. The Union was founded on the theory that each State had peculiar interests, re- 9 quiring peculiar legislation, and peculiar institutions, different and distinct from every other State. The Union rests on the theory that no two States would be precisely alike in their domestic policy and institutions. Hence, I assert that this doctrine of uniformity in the domestic institutions of the different States is repugnant to the Constitution, subversive of the prin- ciples upon which the Union was based, revolutionary in its character, and leading directly to despotism if it is ever established. Uniformity in local and domestic affairs in a country of great extent is despotism always. Show me centralism prescribing uniformity from the capital to all of its provinces in their local and domestic concerns, and I will show you a despotism as odious and as insufferable as that of Austria or of Naples. Dissimilarity is the principle upon which the Union rests. It is founded upon the idea that each State must neces- sarily require different regulations ; that no two States have precisely the same interests, and hence do not need precisely the same laws ; and you cannot ac- count for this confederation of States upon any other principle. Then, sir, what becomes of this doctrine that slavery must be established in all the States or prohibited in all the States ? If we only conform to the prin- ciples upon which the Federal Union was formed, there can be no conflict. It is only necessary to recognize the right of the people of every State to have just such institutions as they please, without consulting your wishes, your views, or your prejudices, and there can be no conflict. And, sir, inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States confers upon Congress the power coupled with the duty of protecting each State against ex- ternal aggression, and inasmuch as that includes the power of suppressing and punishing conspiracies in one State against the institutions, property, people, or government of every other State, I desire to carry out that power vigorously. Sir, give us such a law as the Constitution contemplates and authorizes, and I will show the Senator from New York that there is a constitutional mode of re- pressing the “irrepressible conflict.” I will open the prison door to allow conspirators against the peace of the Republic and the domestic tranquility of our States to select their cells wherein to drag out a miserable life, as a punishment for their crimes against the peace of society. Can any man say to us that although this outrage has been perpetrated at Harper’s Ferry, there is no danger of its recurrence ? Sir, is not the Repub- lican party still embodied, organized, confident of success, and defiant in its pretensions? Does it not now hold and proclaim the same creed that it did before this invasion ? It is true that most of its representatives here disavow the acts of John Brown at Harper’s Ferry. I am glad that they do so; I am rejoiced that they have gone thus far ; but I must be permitted to say to them that it is not sufficient that they disavow the act, unless they also repudiate and denounce the doctrines and teachings which produced the act. Those doctrines remain the same; those teachings are being poured into the minds of men throughout the country by means of speeches and pamphlets and books and through partisan presses. The causes that produced the Harper’s Ferry inva- sion are now in active operation. It is true that the people of all the border States are required by the Constitution to have their hands tied, without the power of self-defence, and remain patient under a threatened invasion in the day or in the night? Can you expect people to be patient, when they dare not lie down to sleep at night without first stationing sentinels around their houses' to see if a band of marauders and murderers are not approaching with torch and pistol? Sir, it requires more patience than freemen ever should cultivate, to submit to constant annoyance, irritation and apprehension. If we expect t$ preserve this Union, we must remedy, within the Union and in obedience t6 the Constitution, every evil for which disunion would furnish a remedy. If the Federal Government fails to act, either from choice or from an apprehension ot 10 the want of power, it cannot be expected that the States will be content to re- main unprotected. Then, sir, I see no hope of peace, of fraternity, of good feeling, between the different portions of the United States, except by bringing to bear the power of the Federal Government to the extent authorized by the Constitution — to pro- tect the people of all the States against any external violence or aggression. I repeat, that if the theory of the Constitution shall be carried out by conceding the right of the people of every State to have just such institutions as they, choose, there cannot be a conflict, much less an “ irrepressible conflict,” be- tween the free and the slaveholding States. Mr. President, the mode of preserving peace is plain. This system of sec- tional warfare must cease. The Constitution has given the power, and all we ask of Congress is to give the means, and we, by indictments and convictions in the Federal courts of our several States, will make such examples of the leaders of these conspiracies as will strike terror into the hearts of the others, and there will be an end of this crusade. Sir, you must check it by crushing out the conspiracy, the combination, and then there can be safety. Then we shall be able to restore that spirit of fraternity which inspired our revolutionary fathers upon every battle-field ; which presided over the deliberations of the convention that framed the Constitution, and filled the hearts of the people who ratified it. Then we shall be able to demonstrate to you that there is no evil unredressed in the Uuion for which disunion would furnish a remedy. Then, sir, let us execute the Constitution in the spirit in which it was made. Let Congress pass all the laws necessary and proper to give full and complete effect to every guarantee of the Constitution. Let them authorize the punish- ment of conspiracies and combinations in any State or Territory against the property, institutions, people or government of any other State or Territory, and there will be no excuse, no desire, for disunion. Then, sir, let us leave the people of every State perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institu- tions in their own way. Let each of them retain slavery just as long as it pleases, and abolish it when it chooses. Let us act upon that good old golden principle which teaches all men to mind their own business and let their neigh- bors alone. Let this be done and this Union can endure forever as our fathers made it, composed of free and slave States, just as the people of each State may determine for themselves. Mr. Fessenden having replied at some length to Mr. Douglas, he made the following rejoinder: Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, I shall not follow the Senator from Maine through his entire speech, but simply notice such points as demand of me some reply. He does not know why I introduced my resolution ; he cannot conceive any good motive for it ; he thinks there must be some other motive besides the one that has been avowed. There are some men, I know, who cannot conceive that a man can be governed by a patriotic or proper motive ; but it is not among that class of men that I look for those who are governed by motives of propriety. I have no impeachment to make of his motives. I brought in this resolution because I thought the time had arrived when we should have a measure of prac- tical legislation. I had seen expressions of opinion against the power from au- thorities so high that I felt it my duty to bring it to the attention of the Senate. I had heard that the Senator from Virginia had intimated some doubt on the question of power, as well as of policy. Other Senators discussed the question here for weeks when I was confined to my sick bed. Was there anything un- reasonable in my coming before the Senate at this time, expressing my own opinion and confining myself to the practical legislation indicated in the resolu- tion ? Nor, sir, have I in my remarks gone outside of the legitimate argument 11 pertaining to the necessity for this legislation. I first showed that there had been a great outrage ; I showed what I believed to be the causes that had pro- duced the outrage, and that the eauses which produced it were still in ope- ration; and argued that, so loDg as the party to which the gentlemen belong remains embodied in full force, those causes will still threaten the country. That was all. The Senator from Maine thinks he will vote for the bill that will be proposed to carry out the objects referred to in my resolution. Sir, whenever that Sena- tor and his associates on the other side of the chamber will record their votes for a bill of the character described in my resolution and speech, I shall con- gratulate the country upon the progress they are making towards sound princi- ples. Whenever he and his associates will make it a felony for two or more men to conspire to run off fugitive slaves, and punish the conspirators by con- finement in the penitentiary, I shalj consider that wonderful changes have taken place in this country. I tell the Senator that it is the general tone of sentiment in all those sections of the country where the Republican party predominate, so far as I know, not only not to deem it a crime to rescue a fugitive slave, but to raise mobs to aid in the rescue. He talks about slandering the Republican party when we intimate that they are making a warfare upon the rights guar- antied by the Constitution. Sir, where, in the towns and cities with Republican majorities, can you execute the fugitive slave law ? Is it in the town where the Senator from New York resides? Do you not remember the Jerrey rescuers? Is it at Oberlin, where the mob was raised that made the rescue last year and produced the riot? Mr. Fessenden. I stated, and I believe it was all I said on that matter, that I was disposed to agree with the Senator in his views as to the question of power ; and that, with my views, I should go very far — far enough to accom- plish the purpose — to prevent the forming of conspiracies in one State to attack another. I did not understand the Senator to say anything about conspiracies to run away with slaves ; nor did I understand him to say anything about the fugitive slave law. How I should act in reference to that matter I do not know; I will meet it when it comes ; but I ask the Senator whether that was a part of his first speech, or whether it is a part of his reply ? Mr. Douglas. The Senator will find it several times repeated in my first speech, and the question asked : Why not make it a crime to form conspiracies and combinations to run off fugitive slaves, as well as to run off horses, or any other property? I am talking about conspiracies which are so common in all our northern States, to invade and enter, through their agents, the slave Stated, and seduce away slaves and run them off by the underground railroad, in order to send them to Canada. It is these conspiracies to perpetrate dime with im- punity, that keep up the irritation. John Brown could boast, in a public lecture in Cleveland, that he and his band had been engaged all the winter iu stealing horses and running them off from the slaveholders in Missouri, and that the livery stables were then filled with stolen horses, and yet the conspiracy to do it could not be punished. Sir, I desire a law that will make it a crime, punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, after conviction iu the United States court, to make a conspi- racy in one State, against the people, property, government, or institutions, of another. Then we shall get at the root of the evil. I have no doubt that gen- tlemen on the other side will vote for a law which pretends to comply with the guarantees of the Constitution, without carrying any force or efficiency in its provisions. I have heard men abuse the fugitive slave law, and express their willingness to vote for amendments ; but when you came to the amendments which they desired to adopt, you found they were such as would never return 12 a fugitive to Lis master. They would go for any fugitive slave law that had a hole iu it big enough to let the negro drop through and escape; but none that would comply with the obligations of the Constitution. So we shall find that side of the Chamber voting for a law that will, in terms, disapprove of unlawful expeditions against neighboring States, without being efficient in affording pro- tection. But the Senator says it is a part of the policy of the northern Democracy to represent the Republicans as being hostile to southern institutions. Sir, it is a part of the policy of the northern Democracy, as well as their duty, to speak the truth on that subject. I did not suppose that any man would have the audacity to arraign a brother-Senator here for representing the Republican party as dealing in denunciation and insult of the institutions of the South. Look to your Phila- delphia platform, where you assert the sovereign power of Congress over the Territories for their government, and demand that it shall be exerted against those twin relics of barbarism — polygamy and slavery. Mr. Fessenden. Let me suggest to the Senator that he is entirely changing the issue between him and me. I did not desire to say, and I did not say, that the Republicans of the North were not unfriendly to the institution of slavery. I admitted myself that I was; I trust they all are. It is not in that respect that I accuse the Democracy of the North of misrepresenting the posi- tion of the Republican party. It was in representing that they desired to inter- fere with the institution in the southern States. That is the ground — that they were opposed to southern rights. That they do not think well of slavery as it exists in this country, I do not undertake to deny. I do not know that southern gentlemen expect us to be friendly to it. I apprehend that they would not think very well of us if we pretended to be friendly to it. If we were friendly to the institution, we should try to adopt, we certainly should not oppose it; but what I charged upon the northern Democracy was, that they misrepresented our posi- ti m. That we were opposed to the extension of slavery over free territory, that we called it a relic of barbarism, I admit; but I do deny that the Republican party, or the Republicans generally, have ever exhibited a desire or made a move- ment towards interfering with the right of southern men, the States, or any con- stitutional rights that they have anywhere. That is the charge I made. Mr. Douglas. Mr. President, for what purpose does the Republican party appeal to northern passions and northern prejudices against southern institutions and the southern people, unless it is to operate upon those institutions? They represent southern institutions as no better than polygamy ; the slaveholder as no better than the polygamist; and complain that we should intimate that they did not like to associate with the slaveholder any better than with the polyga- mist. I can see a monstrous lowering of the flag in the Senator’s speech and explanation. I would respect the concession, if the fact was acknowledged. This thing of shrinking from position that every northern man knows to be true, and arraigning men for slander for telling the truth to them Mr. Fessenden. I know it not to be true. Mr. Douglas. You may know it down in Maine, but you do not know it in Illinois. I have always noted that those men who were so far off from the slave States that they did not know anything about them, are most anxious for the fate of the poor slave. Those men who are so far off that they do not know what a negro is, are distressed to death about the conditian of the poor negro. (Laughter.) But, sir, go into the border States, where we associate across the line, where the civilities of society are constantly interchanged ; where we trade with each other, and have social and commercial intercourse, and there you will find them standing by each other like a band of brothers. Take southern Illi- nois, southern Indiana, southern Ohio, and that part of Pennsylvania bordering 13 on Maryland, and there you will find social intercourse ; commercial intercourse; good feeling; because those people know the condition of the slave on the op- posite side of the line ; but just in proportion as you recede from the slave States, just in proportion as the people are ignorant of the facts, just in that proportion, party leaders can impose on their sympathies and honest prejudices. Sir, I know it is the habit of the Republican party, as a party, wherever I have met them, to make the warfare in such a way as to try to rally the whole North on sectional grounds against the South. 1 know that is to be the issue, and it is proven by the speech of the Senator from New York, which I quoted before, and that of Mr. Lincoln, so far as they are authority. I happen to have those speeches before me. The Senator from Maine has said that neither of these speeches justified the conclusion that they asserted, that the free States and the slave States cannot coexist permanently in the same Republic. Let us see whether they do or not. Mr. Lincoln says: “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this Government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free.” Then he goes on to say they must all be one thing or all the other, or else the Union cannot endure. What is the meaning of that language, unless it is that the L T nion cannot permanently exist, half slave and half free — that it must all become one thing or all become the other ? That is the declaration. The declaration is that the North must combine as a sectional party, and carry on the agitation so fiercely, up to the very borders of the shareholding States, that the master dare not sleep at night for fear that the robbers, the John Browns, will come and set his house on fire, and murder the women and children, before morning. It is to surround the slaveholding States by a cordon of free States, to use the language of the Senator ; to hem them in, in order that you may smother them out. The Senator avowed, in his speech to-day, their object to be to hem in the slave States, in order that slavery may die out. How die out? Confine it to its present limits ; let the ratio of increase go on by the laws of nature ; and just in proportion as the lands in the slaveholding States wear out, the negroes increase, and you will soon reach that point where the soil will not produce enough to feed the slaves ; then hem them in, and let them starve out — let them die out by starvation. That is the policy— hem them in, and starve them out. Do as the French did in Algeria, when the Arabs took to the cav- erns — smoke them out, by making fires at the mouths of the caverns, and keep them burning until they die. The policy is, to keep up this agitation along the line; make slave properly insecure in the border States; keep-the master con- stantly in apprehension of assault, till he will consent to abandon his native country, leaving his slaves behind him, or to remove them further South. If you can force Kentucky thus to abolish slavery, you make Tennessee the border State, and begin the same operation upon her. But, sir, let us see whether the Senator from New York did not proclaim the doctrine that free States and slave States cannot permanently exist in the same Republic. He said : “It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces; and it means that tbe United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a siavehold- ing nation or entirely a free-labor nation.” The opposing conflict is between the States ; the Union cannot remain as it now is, part free and part slave. The conflict between free States and slave States must go on until there is not a slave State left, or until they are all slave States. That is the declaration of the Senator from New York. The Senator from Maine tried to make the Senate believe that I had misrepresented the Senator from New York and Mr. Lincoln, of Illinois, in stating that they referred to a con- flict between States. He said that all they meant was that it was a conflict 14 between free labor and slave labor in tbe same State. Now, sir, let me submit to that man’s candor whether he will insist on that position. They both say the contest will go on until the States become all free or all slave. Then, when is the contest going to end ? When they become all slave? Will there not be the same conflict between free labor and slave labor, after every State has be- come a slave State, that there is now ? If that was the meaning, would the conflict between qlave labor and free labor cease even when every State had become slaveholding? Have not all the slaveholding States a large number of free laborers within heir limits; rnd if there is an irrepressible conflict between free labor and slave labor, will you remove that conflict by making the States all slave? Yet, the Senator from New York says they must become all slave or all free before the conflict ceases. Sir, that shows that the Senator from New York meant what I represented him as meaning. It shows that a man who knows the meaning of words, and has the heart to express them as they read, cannot fail to know that that was the meaning of those Senators. The boldness with which a charge of misrepresentation may be made in this body will not give character to it when it is contradicted by the facts. I dislike to have to repel these charges of unfairness and misrepresentation; yet the Senator began with a series of inuendos, with a series of complaints of misrepresentation, show- ing that he was afraid to meet the real issues of his party, and would make up for that by personul assaults and inuendos against the opposite party. He goes back to a speech of mine in opposition to the Lecompton constitu- tion, in which I said that if you would send that constitution back and let the people of Kansas vote for or against it, if they voted for a free State or a slave State I would go for it without caring whether they voted slavery up or down. He thinks it is a great charge against me that I do not care whether the people vote it up or vote it down. Mr. Fessenden. The Senator is mistaken as to the speech to which I referred. It was one of his speeches made on his southern tour, that I re- ferred to. Mr. Douglas. The idea is taken from a speech in the Senate — the first speech I made against the Lecompton constitution. It was quoted all over Illi- nois by Mr. Lincoln in the canvass, and I repeated the sentiment each time it was quoted against me, and repeated it in the South as well as the North. I say this : if the people of Kansas want a slave State, it is their business and not mine; if th'ey want a free State, they have a right to have it; and hence, I do not care, so far as regards my action, whether they make it a free State or not; it is none of my business. But the Senator says he does care, he has a preference between freedom and slavery. How long would this preference last if he was a sugar planter in Louisiana, residing on his estate, instead of living in Maine ? Sir, I hold the doctrine that a wise statesman will adapt his laws to the wants, conditions, and interests of the people to be governed by them. Slavery may be very essential in one climate and totally useless in another. If 1 were a citizen of Louisiana I would vote for retaining and maintaining slavery, because I believe the good of that people would require it. As a citi- zen of Illinois I am utterly opposed to it, because our interests would not be promoted by it. I should like to see the Abolitionist who would go and live in a southern country that would not get over his scruples very soon and have a plantation as quickly as he could get the money to buy it. I have said and repeat that this question of slavery is one of climate, of po- litical economy, of self-interest, not a question of legislation. Where ever the climate, the soil, the health of the country are such that it cannot be cultivated by white labor, you will have African labor, and compulsory labor at that. 15 Wherever white labor can be employed cheapest and most profitably, there African labor will retire and white labor will take its place. You cannot force slavery by all the acts of Congress you may take on one inch of territory against the will of the people, and you cannot by any law you can make keep it out from one inch of American territory where the people want it. You tried it in Illinois. By the ordinance of 1Y87, slavery was pro- hibited, and yet our people, believing that slavery would be profitable to them, established hereditary servitude in the Territory by territorial legislation, in de- fiance of your Federal ordinance. We maintained slavery there just so long as Congress said we should not have it, and we abolished it at just the moment you recognized us as a State, with the right to do as we pleased. When we established it, it was on the supposition that it was our interest to do so. When we abolished it, we did so because experience proved that it was not our interest to have it. I hold that slavery is a question of political economy, to be deter- mined by climate, by soil, by production, by self-interest, and hence the people to be affected by it are the most impartial jury to try the fact whether their interest requires them to have it or not. But the Senator thinks it is a great crime for me to say that I do not care whether they have it or not. I care just this far: I want every people to have that kind of Government, that system of laws, that class of institutions, which will best promote their welfare, and I want them to decide for themselves ; and so that they decide it to suit themselves, I am satisfied, without stopping to in- quire or caring which way they decide it. That is what I meant by that declaration, and I am ready to stand by it. The Senator has made the discovery — I suppose it is very new, for he would not repeat anything that was old, after calling me to account for expressing an idea that had been heard of before — that I re-opened the agitation by bringing in the Nebraska bill in 1854 ; and he tries to put the responsibility of the crimes perpetrated by his political friends, and in violation of the law, upon the pro- visions of the law itself. We passed a bill to allow the people of Kansas to form and regulate their own institutions to suit themselves. No sooner had we placed that law on the statute-book, than his political friends formed conspiracies and combinations in the different New England States to import a set of desperadoes into Kansas to control the elections and the institutions of that country in fraud of the law of Congress. Sir, I desire to make the legislation broad enough to reach conspiracies and combinations of that kind ; and I would also include combinations and con- spiracies on the other side. My object is to establish firmly the doctrine that each State is to do its own voting, establish its own institutions, make its own laws without interference, directly or indirectly, from any outside power. The gentleman says that is squatter sovereignty. Call it squatter sovereignty, call it popular sovereignty, call it what you please, it is the great principle of self- government on which this Union was formed, aud by the preservation of which alone it can be maintained. It is the right of the people of every State to govern themselves and make their own laws, and be protected from outside violence or interference, directly or indirectly. Sir, I confess the object of the legislation I contemplate is to put down this outside interference; it. is to repress this “ irrepressible conflict it is to bring the Government back to the true principles of the Constitution, and let each people in this Union rest secure in the enjoy- ment of domestic tranquility without apprehension from neighboring States. I will not occupy further time. SPEECH OR THE INTRODUCTION OF A RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO THE INVASION OF STATES. DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 23, I860. WASHINGTON: 1 8 6 0 . 4 of a military force in time of peace is to insure domestic tranquility against violence or aggres- sion irom without. The States of this Union would possess that power, were it not for the restraints imposed upon them by the Federal Constitution. When that Constitution was made, the states surrendered to the Federal Government the power to raise and support armies, and the power to provide and maintain navies, and not only thus surrendered the means ol protection trom invasion, but consented to- a prohibition upon themselves which declares that no State shall keep troops dr vessels-of-war in time of peace. I he question now recurs, whether the States of this Union are in that helpless condition, v'.i.h their hands tied by the Constitution, stripped cf all means of repelling assaults and maintaining their existence, without a guaranty from the Federal Government, to protect them against violence. If the people of this country shall settle. d«,r» u»tw conviction that there is no power in the Federal Government under the Constitution to protect each and every State from violence, from aggression, from invasion, they will demand that the cord be severed, and that the weapons be restored to their hands with which they ma}? defend them- selves. This inquiry involves the question of the perpetuity of the Union. The means of defence, the means of repelling assaults, the means of providing against invasion, must exist as a condition of the safety of the States and the existence of the Union. Now, sir, I hope to be able to demonstrate- that there is no wrong in this Union for which the Constitution of the United States lias n*ot provided a remedy. I believe, and I hope I shall be able to maintain, that a remedy is furnished for every wrong .which can be perpetrated within the Union, if the Federal Government performs its whole duty. I think it is clear, on a careful examination of the Constitution, that the power is conferred upon Congress, first, to provide for repelling invasion from foreign countries; and, secondly, to protect each State of this Union against invasion from any other State, Territory, or place, within the jurisdiction oi tlie United States. I will first turn your attention, sir, to the power conferred upon Con- gress to protect the United States — including States, Territories, and the District of Columbia; including every inch of ground within our limits and jurisdiction — against foreign invasion. In the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, you find that Congress has power — 1 ■ To raise and support armies ; to provide and maintain a navy ; to make rules for tile Government and vegu- ! ation of the land and naval forces; to provide for calling forth fie militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” These, various clauses confer upon Congress power to use the whole military force of the country for the purposes specified in the Constitution. They shall provide for the execution of the laws of the Union ; and, secondly, suppress insurrections. The insurrections there referred to are insurrections against the authority cf the United States — insurrections against a State authority being provided for in a subsequent section, in which the United States can- not interfere, except upon the application of the State authorities. The invasion which is to be repelled by this clause of the Constitution is an invasion of the United States The lan- guage is, Congress shall have power to “ repel invasions.” That gives the authority to repe'l the invasion, no matter whether the enemy shall land within the limits of Virginia, within the District of Columbia, within the Territory of New Mexico, or anywhere else within the jurisdiction of the United States. The power to protect every portion of the country against invasion from foreign nations having thus been specifically conferred, the framers of the Con- stitution then proceeded to make guarantees for the protection of each of the Stales by Federal authority. I will read the fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution : “The United Stales shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion ; and, on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic violence.” f This clause contains three distinct guarantees : first, the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government ; second, the United States shall rotect each of them against invasion ; third, the United States shall, on application of the 5 Legislature, or of the Executive, when the Legislature cannot be convened, protect them against domestic violence. Now, sir, I submit to you Whether it is not clear, from the very language of the Constitution, that this clause %vas inserted for the purpose of making it the duty of the Federal Government to prctdtt each of the States against invasion from any other State, Territory, or place Within the jurisdiction of the United States? For what other pur- purpose was the clause inserted? The power and duty of protection-as against foreign nations had already been provided for. This clause occurs among the guarantees from the United States to each State, for the benefit of each State, for the protection of each State, and neces- sarily from other Stats s, inasmuch as the guaranty had been given previously as against foreign nations. If any further authority is necessa ry to show that such is the true construction of the-Con- -stitution, it may be found in the forty-third number of the Federalist, written by James Madison. Mr. Madison quotes the clause of the Constitution which I have read, giving these three guarantees ; and, after discussing the one guarantying to each State a republican form of government, proceeds to consider the second, which makes if the duty of the United States to protect each of the States against invasion. Here is what Mr. Madison says upon that subject : “ A protection against invasion is daf from every society to the iiarts composing it. Tile, latitude of the expres- sion here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history both of ancient and modern confederacies proves that the weaker members of the Union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article. This number of the Federalist, like all others of that celebrated work, was written after the Constitution was made, and before it was ratified by the States, and with a view to secur- ing its ratification : hence the people of the several States, when they ratified this instrument, knew that this clause was intended to bear the construction which I now place upon it. It was intended to make it the duty of every society to protect each ofits parts; the duty of the Federal Government to protect each of the States; and, he says, the smaller States ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article of the Constitution. Then, sir, if it be made the imperative duty of the Federal Government, by the express provision of the Constitution, to protect each of the Slates against invasion or violence from the other States, or From combinations of desperadoes within their limits, it necessarily follows that it is the duty of Congress to pass ail laws necessary and proper to render that guaranty effectual. While Congress, in the early history of the government, did provide legislation which it supposed to be ample to protect the United States against invasion from foreign countries andj.be Indian tribes, they have failed, to this time, to make any law for the protection of each of the States against invasion from within the limits of the Union. I am unable to account for this omission ; but I presume the reason is to be found in the fact that no Congress ever dreamed that such legislation would ever become necessary for the pro- tection of one State of this Union against invasion and violence from her sister States. Who until the Harper’s Ferry outrage, ever conceived that American citizens could be so forgetful of their dutie to themselves, to their county, to the Conti tion, as to plan an vasio anether State, with the view of inciting servile insurrection, murder, treason, and every other crime that disgraces humanity? While, therefore, no blame can justly be attached to our predecessors in failing to provide the legislation necessary to render this guaranty of the Constitution effectual; still, since the experience of last year, we cannot stand justified ir omitting longer to perform this imperative duty. The question then remaining is, what legislation is necessary and proper to render this guaranty of the Constitution effectual? I presume there will be. very little difference of 6 opinion that it will be necessary to place the whcle'vnilitary power of the Government at the dispssal of the President, under proper guards and restrictions against abuse, to repel and suppress invasion when the hostile force shall be actually in the field But, sir, that is not sufficient. Such legislation would not be a full compliance with this guaranty of the Consti- tution. The framers of that instrument meant more when they gave the guaranty. Mark the difference in language between the provision for protecting the United States against inva- sion and that for protecting the States. When it provided for protecting the United States, it said Congress shall have power to “ repel invasion.” When it came to make this guaranty to the States it changed the language and said the United States shall “ protect ” each of the States against invasion. In the one instance, the duty of the Government is to repel ; in the other, the guaranty is that they will protect. In other words, the United States are not permitted to wait until the enemy shall be upon your borders ; until the invading army shall have been organized and drilled and placed in march with a view to the invasion; but they must pass all law's necessary and proper to insure protection and domestic tranquillity to each State and Territory of this Union against invasion or hostilities from other States and Ter- ritories. » Then, sir, I hold that it is not only necessary to use the military power when the actual case of invasion shall occur, but to authorize the judicial department of the Government to suppress all conspiracies and combinations in the several States with intent to invade a State., or molest or disturb its government, its peace, its citizens, its property, or its institutions. You must punish the conspiracy, tho combination with iutent to do the act, and then you will suppress it in advance. There is no principle more familiar to the legal profession than that wherever it is proper to declare an act to he a crime, it is proper to punish a conspiracy or combination will) intent to perpetrate the act. Look upon your statute-books, and 1 pre- sume you will find an enactment to punish the counterfeiting of the coin of the United States ; and then another section to puuish a man for having counterfeit coin in his posses- sion to ilh inlent to pass it ; and another section to punish him for haviug the moulds, or dies or instruments for counterfeiting, iciik intent to use them. This is a familiar principle in legis- lative and judicial proceedings. If the act of invasion is criminal, the conspiracy to invade should also be made criminal. If it be unlawful and illegal to invade a State, and run off" fugitive slaves, why not make it unlawful to form conspiracies and combinations in the several States with intent to do the act? We have been told that a notorious man who has recently suffered death for his crimes upon the gallows, boasted in Cleveland, Ohio, in a public lecture, a year ago, that he had then a body of men employed in running away horses from the slaveholders of Missouri, and pointed to a livery stable in Cleveland which was full of the stolen horses at that time. I think 'it is within our competency, and consequently our duty, to pass a law making every conspiracy or combination in any State or Territory of this Union to invade another with intent to steal or run away property of any kind, whether it bo negroes, or horses, or property of any other description, into another State, a crime; and punish the conspirators by indictment in the United States courts and confinement in the prisons or penitentiaries of the State or Territory where the conspiracy may be formed and quelled. Sir, I would carry these provisions of law as far as our constitutional power will reach. I would make it a crime to form conspiracies with a view of invading States or Territories to control elections, whether they be under the garb of Emigrant Aid Societies of New England or Blue Lodges of Missouri. [Applause in the galleries.] In other words, this provision of the Constitu- tion means more than the mere repelling of an invasion when the invading army shall reach the border of a State. The language is, it shall protect the State against invasion ; the meaning of which is, to use the language of the preamble to the Constitution, to insure to each State domestic tranquility against external violence. There can be no peace, there Gan be no prosperity, there can be no safety in any c^jimunity, unless it is secured against 7 violence from abroad. Why, sir, it has been a question seriously mooted in Europe, whether it was not the duty of England, a Power foreign to Prance, to pass laws to punish conspira- cies in England against the lives of the princes of France. I shall not argue the question of comity between foreign States. I predicate my argument upon the Constitution by which we are governed, and which we have sworn to obey, and demand that the Constitution be executed in good faith, so as to punish and suppress every combination, every conspiracy, either to invade a State or to molest its inhabitants, or to disturb its property, or to subvert its institutions and its government. I believe this can be effectually done by authorizing the United States courts in the several States to take jurisdiction of the offence, and punish the violation of the law with appropriate punishment. It cannot be said that the time has not yet arrived for such legislation. It canuot be said with truth that the Plarper’s Ferry case will not be repeated, or is not in danger of repeti- tion. It is only necessary to inquire into the causes which produced the Harper’s Ferry outrage, and ascertain whether those causes are yet in active operation, and then you can determine whether there is any ground for apprehension that that invasion will be repeated . Sir, what were the causes which produced the Harper’s Ferry outrage ? Without stopping to adduce evidence in detail, I have no hesitation in expressing my firm and deliberate con- viction that the Harper’s Ferry crime was the natural, logical, inevitable result of the doc- trines and teachings of the Republican party, as explained and enforced In their platform, their partisan presses, their pamphlets and books, and especially in the speeches of their leaders in and out of Congress. [Applause in the galleries.] Mr. MASON. I trust the order of the Senate will be preserved. I am sure it is only ne- cessary to suggest to the Presiding Officer the indispensable necessity of preserving the order of the Senate ; and I give notice that, if it is disturbed again, I shall insist upon the galleries being closed entirely. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President— The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator will pause for a single moment. It is impossible for the Chair to preserve order without the concurrence of the vast assembly in the galleries. He trusts that there will be no occasion to make a reference to this subject again. Mr. TOOMBS. I hope that the Presiding Officer will place officers in the galleries, and put a stop to this tiling. It is a very bad sign of the times. It is unbecoming this body, or the deliberations of any free people. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Presiding Officer has not the force at his command to place officers in the gallery. Mr. DOUGLAS. If the Senate will pardon me for a digression an instant, I was about to suggest to the Presiding Officer that I thought it would be necessary to place officers in differ- ent parts of the gallery, with instructions that if they saw any person giving any signs of approbation cr disapprobation calculated tp disturb our proceedings, they should instantly put the guilty person out of the gallery. The VICE PRESIDENT. That has been done. Mr. DOUGLAS. I was remarking that I considered this outrage at Harper’s Ferry as the logical, natural consequence of the teachings and doctrines of the Republican party. I am not making this statement for the purpose of crimination or partisan effect. I desire to call the attention of members of that party to a reconsideration of the doctrines that they are in the habit of enforcing, with a view to a fair judgment whether they do not lead directly to those consequences on the part of those deluded persons who think that all they say is meant in real earnest and ought to be carried out. Tile great principle that underlies the organiza- tion of the Republican party is violent, irreconcilable, eternal warfare upon the institution of American slavery, with the view of its ultimate extinction throughout the land ; sectional war is to be waged until the cotton fields of the South shall be cultivated by free labor, or the rye fields of New York and Massachussetts shall be cultivated by slave labor. In furtherance 8 of this article of their creed, you find their political organization, not only sectional in its location, but one whose vitallity consists in appeals to northern passion, northern prejudice, northern ambition against southern States, southern institutions, and southern people, have had some experience in fighting "this element within the last few years, and I find that, the source of their power consists in exciting the prejudices and the passions of the northern section against those of the southern section. They not only attempt to excite .the North against the South, but they invite the South to assail and abuse and traduce the North Southern abuse, by violent men, of northern statesmen and the northern people, is essentia', to the triumph of the Republican cause. Hence, the course of argument which we have to meet is not only repelling- the appeals to northern passion and prejudice, but we have to en- counter their appeals to southern men to assail us, in order that they may justify their assaults upon the plea of self-defence. Sir, when I returned home in 1858 for the purpcse of canvassing Illinois, with a view to a re-election,! had to meet this issue of the “irrepressible conflict.” It is true that the Senator from New York had not then made his Rochester speech, and did not for four months after- wards. It is true that he had not given the doctrine that precise name and form ; but the principle was in existence, and had been proclaimed by the ablest and the most clear-headed men of the party. I will call your attention, sir, to a single passage from a speech, to show tile language in which this doctrine was stated in Illinois before it received the name of the “ irrepressible conflict.” The Republican party assembled in State com-enticn in June, 1858. in Illinois, and unanimously adopted Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for United Slates Senator. Mr. Lincoln appeared before the convention, accepted the nomination, and made a speech — which had been previously written and agreed to in caucus by most of the leaders of the party. I will read a single extract from that speech : “ In my opinion, it [the slavery agitation] will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. ‘ A house divided against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this government cannot endure permanently, halt slave and half free. I. do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to-be divided, rt will become ail one thing or all the ether. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its ad- vocates will push forward till it shall become alike lawful in ail the States — old as well as new, North as well as South.” Sir, the moment I landed upon the soil of Illinois, at a vast gathering of many thousands of my constituents to welcome me home, I read that passage, and took direct issue with the doctrine contained in it as being revolutionary and treasonable, and inconsistent with the per- petuity of this Republic. That is not merely the individual opinion of Mr. Lincoln ; nor is it the individual opinion merely of the Senator from New York, who four months afterwards asserted the same doctrine in different language ; but, so far as I know, it is the general opinion of the members of the Abolition or Republican party. They tell the people of the North that unless they rally as one man under a sectional banner, and make war upon the South with a view to the ultimate extinction of slavery, slavery will overrun the whole North and fasten itself upon all the free States. They then tell the South, unless you rally as one man, binding the whole southern people into a sectional party, and establish slavery all over the free States, the inevitable consequence will be that we shall abolish it in the slaveholding States. The same doctrine is held by the Senator from New York in his Rochester speech- He tells us that the States must all become free, or all become slave ; that the South, in other words, must conquer and subdue the North, or the North must triumph over the South and drjve slavery from within its limits. Y Mr. President, in order to show that I have not misinterpreted the position of the Senator from New York, in notifying the South that, if they wish to maintain slavery within their limits, they must also fasten it upon the northern States, I will read an extract from his Piochester speech : 9 ‘•'It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces ; arid it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a siaveholding nation or entirely a free-labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina, and the sugar plantations of Louisiana, will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New Orleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye fields and wheat fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered by their farmers to slave culture and to the production of slaves, and Boston arid New York become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men.” Thus, sir, you perceive that the theory of the Republican" party is, that there is' a conflict between two different systems of institutions, in the respective classes of States — not a con- flict in the same State, but an irrepressible conflict between the free States and the slave States ; and they argue that these two systems of States cannot permanently exist in the same Union ; that the sectional warfare must continue to rage and increase with increasing fury until the free States shall surrender, or the slave States shall be subdued. Hence, while they appeal to the passions of our own sections, their object is to alarm the people of the other section, and drive them to madness, with the hope that they will invade our rights as an ex- cuse for some of our people to carry on aggressions upon their rights. I appeal to the candor of Senators whether this is not a fair exposition of the tendeney of the doctrines proclaimed by the Republican party. The creed of that party is founded upon the theory that, because slavery is not desirable in our States, it is not desirable anywhere ; because free labor is a good thing with ns, it must be the best thing everywhere. In other words, the creed of their party rests upon the theory that there must be uniformity in the domestic institutions and in- ternal polity of the several States of this Union. There, in my opinion, is the fundamental error upon which their whole system rests. In the Illinois canvass I asserted, and now repeat, that uniformity in the domestic institutions of the different States is neither possible nor desirable. That is the very issue upon which I conducted the canvass at home, and it is the question which I desire to present to the Senate. I repeat, that uniformity in the domestic institutions of the different States is neither possible nor desirable. Was such the doctrine of the framers of the Constitution? I wish the country to bear in mind that when the Constitution was adopted the Union consisted of thirteen States, twelve of which were siaveholding States, and one a free State. Suppose this doctrine of uniformity on the slavery question had prevailed in the Federal convention, do the gentlemen on that side of the House think that freedom would have triumphed over slavery? Do they imagine that the one free State would have outvoted the twelve slaveholding States, and thus have abolished slavery throughout the land by a constitutional provision ? On the contrary, if the test had then been made, if this doctrine of uniformity on the slavery question had then been proclaimed and believed in, with the twelve slaveholding States against one free State, would it not have resulted in constitutional provision fastening slavery irrevocably upon every inch of American soil, North as well as South ? W as it quite fair in those days for the friends of free institutions to claim that the Federal Government must not touch the question, but must leave the people of each State to do as they pleased, until under tjie operation of that, principle they* secured the majority, and then wield that majority to abolish slavery in the other States of the Union? Sir, if uniformity in respect to domestic institutions' had been deemed desirable when the Constitution was adopted, there was another mods by which it could have been obtained. The natural mode of obtaining uniformity was to have blotted out the State governments, to have abolished the State Legislatures, to haye conferred upon Congress legislative power over the municipal and domestic concerns of the people of all the States, as well as upon Federal questions affecting the whole Union ; and if this doctrine of uniformity had been entertained and favored by the framers of the Constitution, such would have been the result. But, sir, the framers of that instrument knew at thatjday, as well as we now know, that in a country as bread as this, with so great a variety of climate, of soil, and of production, there must necessarily be a corresponding - diversity of institutions and domestic regulations, 10 adapted to tho wants and necessities of each locality. The framers of the Constitution knew that the laws and institutions which were well adapted to the mountains and valleys of New England were ill suited to the rice plantations and cotton fields of the Carolinas. They knew that our liberties depended upon reserving the right to the people of each State to make their own laws and establish their own institutions, and control them at pleasure, without inter- ference from tho Federal Government, or from any other State or Territory, or any foreign country. The Constitution, therefore, was based, and the Union was founded, on the principle of dissimilarity in the domestic institutions and internal polity of the several States. The Union was founded on the theory that each State had peculiar interests, requiring peculiar legislation, and peculiar institutions, different and distinct from every other State. The Union rests on the theory that no two States would be precisely alike in their domestic policy and institutions Hence, I assert that this doctrine of uniformity in the domestic institutions of the different States is repugnant to the Constitution, subversive of the principles upon which the Union was based, revolutionary in its character, and leading directly to despotism if it is ever established. Uniformity in local and domestic affairs in a country of great extent is despotism always. Show me centralism prescribing uniformity from the capital to all of its provinces in their local and domestic concerns, and I will show you a despotism as odious and as insufferable as that of Austria or of Naples. Dissimilarity is the principle upon which the Union rests. It is founded upon the idea that each State must necessarily require different regulations ; that no two States have precisely the same interests, and hence do not need precisely the same laws ; and you cannot account for this confederation of States upon any other principle. Then, sir, what becomes of this doctrine that. slavery must be established in all the States or prohibited in all the States? If we only conform to the principles upon which the Federal Union was formed, there can be no conflict. It is only necessary to recognize the right of the people of every State to havo just such institutions as they please, without consulting your wishes, your views, or your prejudices, and there can be no conflict. And, sir, inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States confers upon Congress the power coupled with the duty of protecting each State against external aggression, and in- asmuch as that includes the power of suppressing and punishing conspiracies in one State against the institutions, property, people, or government of every other State, I desire to carry out that power vigorously. Sir, give us such a law as the Constitution contemplates and authorizes, and I will show the Senator from New York that there is a constitutional mode of repressing the “ irrepressible conflict.” I will open the prison doors to allow con- spirators against the peace of the Republic and the domestic tranquillity of our States to select their cells wherein to drag out a miserable life as a punishment for their crimes against the peace of society. Can any man say to us that, although this outrage has been perpetrated at Harper’s Ferry, there is no danger of its recurrence? Sir, is not the Republican party still embodied, organ- ized, confident of Success, and defiant in its pretensions? Does it not now hold and proclaim the same creed that it did before this invasion? It is true that most of its representatives hero disavow the acts of John Brown at Harper’s Ferry. I am glad that they do so; lam rejoiced that they have gone thus far ; but I must be permitted to say to them that it is not sufficient that they disavow the act, unless they also repudiate and denounce the doctrines and teachings which produced tho act. Those doctrines remain the same ; those teachings are being poured into the minds of men throughout the country by means of speeches and^pam- phlets and books, and through partisan presses. The causes that produced the Harper’s Ferry invasion are now in active operation. Is it true that tire people of all the border States are required by tho Constitution to have their hands tied, without the power of self-defence, and remain patient under a threatened invasion in the day or in the night? Can you expect people to be patient, when they dare not lie down to sleep at night without first stationing sentinels 11 around their houses to see if a band of marauders and murderers are not approaching with torch and pistol ? Sir, it requires more patience than freemen ever should cultivate, to submit to constant annoyance, irritation, and apprehension. If we expect to preserve this Union, we must remedy, within the Union and in obedience to the Constitution, every evil for which disunion would furnish a remedy. If the Federal Government fails to act, either from choice or from an apprehension of the want of power, it cannot be expected that the States will be content to remain unprotected. Then, sir, I see no hope of peace, of fraternity, of good feeling between the different por- tions of the United States, except by bringing to bear the power of the Federal Government to the extent authorized by the Constitution — to protect the people 01 an iuc any external violence or aggression. I repeat, that if the theory of the Constitution shall be carried out by conceding the right of the people of every State to have just such institutions as they choose, there cannot be a conflict, much less an “ irrepressible conflict,” between the free and the slaveholding States Mr. President, the mode of preserving peace is plain. This system of sectional war r and all we ask of Congress is ‘ must cease. The Constitution has given the power, i the Federal courts of our seve- .are •.o give the means, and we, by indictments and convictions in will make such examoles of the leaders of these conspiracies as will strike f ral States, hearts of the others, and those will be atr end of this oroide. S.r, you ' * h ° crushing out the conspiracy, the e.nrbtnati.n, and then there can be saw ere that spirit of fraternity which inspire our rov.l.tto ----- «» «»«*« ° f lh0 T ° h “ - U». framed ,h. Const!- -ve shall be able to demonstrate be able to restore — ■ - -r - - nary iatners upon every battle-field ; which presided over the deliberations of the convent- P 7 tution and filled the hearts of the people who ratified it. ^ , /e gnaJi be abJe to demo nstrat to you that there is no evil unredressed m the mon o ^ whieli disunion w 0U ld furnish remedy. Then, sir, let us execute the Constitutioi gpijjfc j n ^yjjich it was made. Let Congress pass all the laws, necessary and proper to give ful] and complete effect to every guaranty cf the Constitution. Let them authorize the punishment of conspiracies and com- binations in any State or Territory against the property, institutions, people or government of any other State or 7“ l ' ritor y’ and there wil - be no excuse > no desire for disunion. Then, sir, let us leave the people o/ Sta “ perfeCtly free to form and ^gulate their domestic institutions in their own way Let e '" h of the “ /f i** . as long as it pleases, and abolish it when it chooses. Let us let up," jf° h , o!d ^ Ide r i P rincip le which teaches n , . , , . . P ''hbea s- alone. Let this be done, and this all men to mind their own business and let their nei, a e f a , . - T . . . » & of free and slave States, lust as Union can endure forever as our lathers made it, compos.. the people of each State may determine for themselves. _ ihe debate was continued by Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, to whom- - Maine throua-h his Mr. DOUGLAS replied. Mr. President, I shall not follow the Senator from '-. es not know entire speech, but simply notice such points as demand of me some reply. He ac. -emust why I introduced my resolution; he cannot conceive any good motive for it; he thinks thei. be some other motive besides the one that has been avowed. There are some men, I know, who cannot conceive that a man can be governed by a patriotic Ur proper motive ; but it is got among that class of men that I look for those who are governed by motives of propriety. I have no impeachment to make of his motives. I brought in this resolution because I thought the time had arrived when we should have a measure of practical legislation. I had seen expressions of opinion against the power from authorities so high that I felt it my duty to bring it to the attention of the Senate. I heard that the Senator from Virginia had intimated some doubt on the question of power, as well as of policy. Other Senators discussed the question here for weeks when I was confined to my sick bed. Was there anything unreasonable in my coming before the Senate at this time, expressing my own opinion and confining myself to the practical legislation indicated in the resolution ? Nor, sir, have I in my remarks gone outside of the legitimate argument pertaining to the necessity for this legislation. I first 12 showed that there had been a great outrage ; I showed what I believed to be the causes that had produced the outrage, and that the causes which produced it were still in operation ; and argued that, so long as the party to which the gentleman belongs remains embodied in full force, those causes will still threaten the country. That was all. The Senator from Maine thinks he will vote for the bill that will be proposed to carry oin the objects referred to in my resolution. Sir, whenever that Senator and his associates on the other side of the Chamber will record their votes for a bill of the character described in my resolution and speech, I shall congratulate the country upon the progress they are making to- wards sound principles. Whenever he and his associates will make it a felony for two or more men to conspire to run off fugitive slaves, and punish the conspirators by confinement in the penitentiary, I shall consider that wonderful changes have taken place in this country. I tell the Senator that it is the general tone of sentiment in all those sections of the country where the Republican party predominate, so far as I know, not only not to deem it a, crime to rescue a fugitive slave, but to raise mobs to aid in the rescue. He talks about slandering the Republican party when we intimate that they are making a warfare upon the rights guarantied by the Constitution. Sir, where, in the towns and cities with Republican majori- ties, can you execute the fugitive slave law? Is it in the town where the Senator from New York resides? Do you not remember the Jerry rescuers? Is it at Oberlin, where the mob was raised that made the rescue last year and produced the riot? Mr. FESSENDEN. I stated, and I believe it was all said on the matter, that I was dis- posed to agree with the Senator in his views as to his question of power ; and that, with my views, I should go very far — far enough to accomplish the purpose — to prevent the forming of conspiracies in one State to attack another. I did not understand the Senator to say any- thing about conspiracies to run away with slaves ; nor did I understand him to say anything about the fugitive slave law. How I should act in reference to that matter I do not know ; I will meet it when it comes ; but I ask the Senator whether that was a part of his first speech, or whether it is a part of his reply? Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator will find it several times repeated in my first speech and the question asked : "Why not make it a crime to form conspiracies and combinations to run off fugitive slaves, as well as to run off horses, or any other property? I am talking about conspiracies which are so common in all our northern States, to invade and enter, through their agents, the slave States, and seduce away slaves and run them off by the underground railroad, in order to send them to Canada. It is these conspiracies to perpetrate crime with impunity, that keep up the irritation. John Brown eouy boast, in a public lecture in Cleve- land, that he and his band had been engaged all the winter in stealing horses and running them' off from the slaveholders in Missouri, and that the livery stables were then filled with stolen horses, and yet the conspiracy to do it could not be punished. Sir, I desire a law that will make it a crime, punishable by imprisonment in the peniten- tiary, after conviction in the United States eourt, to make a conspiracy in one State, against the people, property, government, or institutions, of another. Then we shall get at the root of the evil. I have no doubt that gentlemen on the other side will vote for a law which pretends to comply with the guarantees of the Constitution, without carrying any force or efficiency in its »provisions. I have heard men abuse the fugitive slave law, and express their willingness to vote for amendments ; but when you came to the amendments which they desired to adopt, you found they were such as would never return a fugitive to his master. They would go for any fugitive slave law that iiad a hole in it big enough to let the negro drop through and escape ; but none that would comply with the obligations of the Constitution. So we shall finij that side of the Chamber voting for a law that will, in terms, disapprove of unlawful expeditions “against neighboring States, without being efficient in affording protection. Senator says it- is a part of the policy of the northern Democracy to represent the 13 Republicans as being hostile to southern institutions. Sir, it is a part of the policy of the northern Democracy, as well as their duty, to speak the truth on that subject. I did not suppose that any man would have the audacity to arraign a brother Senator here for repre- senting the Republican party as dealing in denunciation and insult of the institutions of the South. Look to your Philadelphia platform, where you asssert the sovereign power of Congress ove r the Territories for their government, and demand that it shall be exerted against those twin relics of barbarism — polygamy and slavery. Mr. FESSENDEN. Let me suggest to the Senator that he is entirely changing the issue between him and me. I did not desire to say, and I did not say, that the Republicans of the North were not unfriendly to the institutions of slavery. I admitted myself that 1 was ; I trust they all are. It is not in that respect that I accuse the Democracy of the n f. misrepresentin'!? the of the Ropuiiinn party. It was in representing that they desired to interfere with the institution in the southern States. That is itnrgruund that they were opposed to southern rights. That they do not think well of slavery as it exists in this country, I do not undertake to deny. I do not know that southern gentlemen expect us to be friendly to it. I apprehend that they would not think very well of us if we pretended to be friendly to it. If we were friendly to the institution, we should try to adopt, we certainly should not oppose it ; but what I charged upon the northern Democracy was, that they misrepresented our position. That we were opposed to the extension of slavery over free territory, that we called it a relic of barbarism, I admit ; but I do deny that the Republican party, or the Republicans generally, have ever exhibited a desire or made a movement towards interfering with the right of southern men, the States, or any constitu- tional rights that they have anywhere. That is the charge I made. Mr DOUGLAS. Mr. President, for what purpose does the Republican party appeal to northern passions and northern prejudices against southern institutions and the southern people, unless it is to operate upon those institutions? They represent southern institutions as no better tnau polygamy ; the slaveho der as no better than the polygamist ; and complain that we should intimate that they did not like to associate with the slaveholder any better than with the polygamist, I can see a monstrous iowering of the flag in the Senator’s speech and explanation. I would respect the concession, if the fact was acknowledged. This thing of shrinking from positions that every northern man knows to be true, and ar- raigning dnnder for telling the truth to them Mr. FESSENDEN. I aw-., t Mr. DOUGLAS. You may know it down in not know it in Illinois. I have always noted that those men wno were so rar off from .tie =>-• did not know anything about them, are most anxious fu the fate of the poor slave, m , who are =o far off that they do not know what a negro is, are distressed to death about the condition of the poor negro. [Laughter.] But, sir, go into the border States, where we asso- ciate across the line, where the civilities of society are constantly interenanged ; where we trade with each other, and have social and commercial intercourse and there you wil n them standing by each other like a band of brothers. Take soutaern II hnois soutnern Ind ana ■southern Ohio, and that part of Pennsylvania bordering on Maryland, and there you will social intercourse, commercial intercourse, good feeling ; because those people know the con- dition of the slave on the opposite side cf the line ; but just in proportion as you ^de from the slave States, just in proportion as the people are ignoran o ne > J nortion party leaders can impose on their sympathies and honest prejudices P Sir I know it is the habit of the Republican party, as a party, wherever I have met them, to make the warfare in such a way as to try to rally the whole North on sectiona groun against the South. I know that is to be the issue, and it is proven by the speech of tne Senator • ffom Net yI, which I quoted before, and that of Mr. Lincoln, so far as they are authority I happen to have those speeches before me. The Senator from Maine has said |at neithe 14 ’ of these speeches justified the conclusion that they asserted that the free States and the slave States cannot coexist permanently in the same Republic. Let us see whether they do or not. Mr. Lincoln says : ‘ 1 A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this Government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. Then he goes on to say they must all be one thing or all the other, or else the Union can- not endure. What is the meaning of that language, unless it is that the Union cannot per- manently exist, half slave and half free — that it must all become one thing or all become the* other? That is the declaration. The declaration is that the North must combine as a sec- tional party, and carry on the agitation so fiercely, up to the very borders of the slaveholding States, that the master dare not sleep at nfirlit for fear that the robbers, the John Browns, will come and oot hi=> lrouse on nre, and murder the women and children before morning. It is to surround the slaveholding States by a cordon of free States — to use the language ot the Senator ; to hem them in, in order that you may smother them out. The Senator avowed, in his speech to-day, their object to be to hem in the slave States, in order that slavery may die out. How die out? Confine it to its present limits ; let the ratio of increase go on by the laws of nature ; and just in proportion as the lands in the slaveholding States wear out, the negroes increase, and you will soon reach that point where the soil will not produce enough to feed the slaves ; then hem them in and let them starve out — let them die out by starva- tion. That is the policy — hem them in, and starve them out. Do as the French did in Algeria, when the Arabs took to the caverns — smoke them out, by making fires at the mouths of the caverns, and keep them burning until they die. The policy is to keep up this agitation along the line ; make slave property insecure in the border States ; keep the master constantly in apprehension of assault, till he will consent to abandon bis native country, leaving his slaves behind him, or to remove them further South. If you can force Kentucky thus to abolish slavery, you make Tennessee the border State, and begin the same operation upon her. But, sir, let us see whether the Senator from New York did not proclaim the doctrine that free States and slave States cannot permanently exist in the same Republic. He said : “ It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces ; and it means that the umica ; must and will, soouer or later, become either a slaveholding nation or entirely a free-labor nation.” The opposing conflict is between the States: th° TT -' rema ' n as now P art free and part slave. The confi^y *“ tes and slave States must go on until there o1o .._ - ~‘ v ’ untl1 1 ley are a11 s!ave Stat es. That is the declaration of the 1S -°-Vom New York. The Senator from Maine tried to make the Senate believe that I had misrepresented the Senator from New York and Mr. Lincoln, of Illinois, in stating that they referred to a conflict between States. He said that all they meant was that it was a conflict between free labor and slave labor in the same Slate. Now, sir, let me submit to that man’s candor whether he will insist on that position. They both say the contest will go on until the States become all free or all slave. Then, when is the contest goino- to end > When they become all slave? Will there not be the same conflict between free Tabor and slave labor, after every State has become a slave State, that there is now ? If that was the meaning, would the conflict betw.een slave labor and free labor cease even when every State had become slaveholding? Have not all the slaveholding States a large number of free laborers within their limits ; and if there is an irrepressible conflict between free labor and slave labor, will you remove that conflict by making .he States all slave? Yet, the Senator rom New York says that they must become all slave or ail free before the conflict ceases. Sir, that shows that the Senator from New York meant what I represented him as meaning, t slows that a man who knows the meaning of words, and has the heart to express them as ey read, cannot fail to know that that was the meaning of those Senators. The boldness 15 -with which a charge of misrepresentation may be made in this body will not give character to R when it is contradicted by the facts. I dislike to have to repel these charges of unfairness and misrepresentation ; yet the Senator began with a series of innuendoes, with a series ef complaints of misrepresentation, showing that he was afraid to meet the real issues of his party, and would make up for that by personal assaults and innuendoes against the opposite party. He goes back to a speech of mine in opposition to the Leeompton constitution in whicli I said that if you would send that constitution back and let the people of Kansas vote for or against it, if they voted for a free State or a slave State I would go for it without caring whether they voted slavery up or down. He thinks it is a great charge against me that I do not care whether the people vote it up or vote it down. Mr. FESSEN DEN. The Senator is mistaken as to the speech to which I referred. It was one of his speeches made on his southern tour that I referred to. Mr. DOUGLAS. The idea is taken from a speech in the Senate — the first speech I made against the Leeompton constitution. It was quoted all over Illinois by Mr. Lincoln in the canvass, and I repeated the sentiment each time it was quoted against me, and repeated it in the South as well as the North. I say this : if the people of Kansas want a slave State, it is their business and not mine : if they want a free State, they have a right to have it ; and hence, I do not care, so far as regards my action, whether they make it free State or not ; it is none of my business. But the Senator says he does care, he has a preference between freedom and slavery. How long would this preference last if he was a sugar plan- ter in Louisiana residing on his estate^instead of living in Maine ? Sir, I hold the doctrine that a wise statesman will adapt his laws to the wants, conditions, and interests of the people to be governed by them. Slavery may be very essential in one climate and totally useless in another. If I were a citizen of Louisiana I would vote for retaining and maintaining slaver}', because I believe the good of that people would require it. As a ciiizen of Illinois I am utterly opposed to it, because our interests would not be promoted by it. I should like to see the Abolitionist who would go and live in a southern country that would not get over his scruples very soon and have a plantation as quickly as he could get the money to buy it. I have said and repeat that this question of slavery is one of climate, of political economy, of self-interest, not a question of legislation. Wherever the climate, the soil, the health of the country aro such that it cannot be cultivated by white labor, you will have African labor, and compulsory labor at that. Whereve* white labor can be employed cheapest and most profitably, there African labor will retire and white labor will take its place. You cannot force slavery by all the acts of Congress you may make on one inch of terri- tory against the will of the people, and you cannot by any law you can make keep it out from one inch of American territory where the people want it. You tried it in Illinois. By the ordinance of 17S7, slavery was prohibited, and yet our people, believing that slavery would be profitable to them, established hereditary servitude in the Territory by territorial legislation, in defiance of your Federal ordinance. We maintained slavery there just so long as Congress said we should not have it, and we abolished it at just the moment you recognized us as a State, with the right to do as we pleased. When we established it, it was on the supposition that it was for our interest to do so. When we abolished it, we did so because experience proved that it was not our interest to have it. I hold that slavery is a question of political economy, to be determined by climate, by soil, by production, by self-interest, and hence the people to be affected by it are the most impartial jury to try the fact whether their interest requires them to have it or not. But the Senator thinks it is a great crime for me to say that I do not care whether they have it or not. I care just this far : I want every people to have that kind of government, that system of laws, that class of institutions, which will best promote their welfare, and I want them to decide for themselves ; and so that they decide it to suit themselves, I am 16 satisfied, without stopping to inquire or caring which way they decide it. That is what I mean by that declaration , and I am ready to stand by it. The Senator has made the discovery — I suppose it is very.new, for he would not repeat anything that was old, after calling me to account for expressing an idea that had been heard .of before — that I reopened the agitation by bringing in the Nebraska bill in 1854; and he tries to put the responsibility of the crimes perpetrated by his political friends, and in violation of the law, upon the provisions of the law itself We passed a bill to allow the people of Kan- sas to form and regulate their own institutions to suit themselves. No sooner had we placed that law on the statute-book than his political friends formed conspiraeies'and combinations in the different New England States to import a set of desperadoes into Kansas to control the ■ elections and the institutions of that country in fraud of the law of Congress. Sir, I desire to make the legislation broad enough to reach conspiracies and combinations of that kind ; and I would also include combinations and conspiracies on the other side.- My object is to establish firmly the doctrine that each State is to do its own voting, establish its own institutions, make its own laws without interference, directly or indirectly, from any outside power. The gentleman says that is squatter sovereignty. Call it squatter sov- ereignty, call it popular sovereignty, call it what you please ; it is the great principle of self- government on which this Union was formed, and by the preservation of which alone can it be maintained. It is the right of the people of every State to govern themselves and make their own laws, and be protected from outside violence or interference, directly or indirectly. Sir, I confess the object of the legislation I contemplate is to put down this outside interference; it is to repress this *• irrepressible "ClifliCt ; ” it IS to bring too Government back to the truer principles of the Constitution, and let each people in this Union rest secure in the enjoyment of domestic tranquillity without apprehension from neighboring States. I will not occupy further time. ADMISSION OF KANSAS UNDER THE WYANBOXX CONSTITUTION SPEECH OF HON. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, IN REPLY TO MR. SEWARD AND MR. TRUMBULL. DELIVERED IX THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY 29, 1860. Mr. President : I trust I shall be pardoned for a few remarks upon so much of the Sen- ator’s speeeli as consists in an assault on the Democratic party, and especially with re- gard to the Kansas-Nebraska bill, of which I was the responsible author. It has become fashionable now-a-days for each gentleman making a speech against the Democratic party to refer to the Kansas-Nebraska act as the cause of all the disturbances that have since ensued. They talk about the repeal of a sacred compact that bad been undisturbed for more than a quarter of a century, as if those who complained of violated faith had been faithful to the provisions of the Missouri compromise. Sir, wherein consisted the necessity for the repeal or abrogation of that act, except it was that the majority in the northern States refused to carry out the Missouri compromise in good faith ? I stood willing to extend it to the Pacific ocean, and abide by it forever, and the entire Sontb, without one exception in this body, was willing thus to abide by it; but the free-soil element of the northern States was so strong as to defeat that measure arid thus open the slavery question anew. The men who now complain of the abrogation of that aet were the very men who denounced it, and denounced all of us who were willing to abide by it so long as it stood upon the statute book. Sir, it was the defeat in the House of Repre- sentatives of the enactment of the bill to extend the Missouri compromise !o the Pacific ocean, after it bad passed the Senate on my own motion, that opened the controversy of 1850, which was terminated by the adoption of the measures of that year. We carried those compromise measures over the head of the Senator from New York and his present associates. We, in those measures, established a great principle, rebuking bis doctrine of intervention by the Congress of the United States to prohibit slavery in the Territories. Both parties, in 1852, pledged themselves to abide by that principle, and thus stood pledged not to prohibit slavery in the Territories by act of Congress. The Whig party affirmed that pledge, arid so did the Democracy. In 1854 we only carried out, in the Kansas-Nebraska act, the same principle that had been affirmed in the com- promise measures of 1850. I repeat that their resistance to carrying out in good faith the settlement of 1820, their defeat of the bill for extending it to the Pacific ocean, was the sole cause of the agitation of 1850, and gave rise to the necessity of establishing the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories. Hence I am not willing to sit here and allow the Senator from New York, with all the weight of authority he has with the powerful party of which he is the head, to arraign me and the party to which I belong with the responsibility forthat agitation which rests solely upon him and his associates. Sir, the Democratic party was willing to carry out the compromise in ffood faith. Having been defeated in that for the want of numbers, and having established the principle of non-intervention in the compromise measures a 1850, in lieu of it, the Democratic party from that day to this has been faithful to tb\ new principle of adjustment. Whatever agitation has grown out of the questior sine., has been occasioned by the resistance of the party of which that Senator is the head, to this great principle which has been ratified by the American people at two presidential elections. If he was willing to acquiesce in the solemn and repeated judgment of that American people to which lie appeals, there wouid he no agitation in this country now But, sir, the whole argument of that Senator goes far beyond the question of slavery, even in the Territories. His entire argument rests on the assumption that the negro an« self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with cer- tain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Sir, the doctrine of that Senator and of his party is — and 1 have had to meet it for eight years — that the Declaration of Independence intended to recognize the negro and the white mao as equal under the Divine law, and hence that all the provisions of the Constitution of the United States which recognize slavery are in violation of the Divine law. In other words, it is an argument against the Constitution of the United States upon the ground Printed by Lemuel Towers, at fifty cents per hundred copies. that it is contrary to the law of God. The Senator from New Tort has long held that doctrine. The Senator from New York has often proclaimed to the world, that the Con- stitution of the United States was in violation of the Divine law, and that Senator will not contradict the statement. I have an extract from one of his speeches now before hie, in which that proposition is distinctly put forth. In a speech made in the State of Ohio, in 1818, he said: “ Slavery is the sin of not some of the States only, but of them all ; of not one nationality, but of all nations. It perverted and corrupted the moral sense of mankiud deeply and universally, amf this perver- sion became a universal habit, tidbits of thought become fixed principles. No American Stale has yet delivered itself entirely from thcs% habits. We, in New York, are guilty of slavery still by withholding the right of suffrage from the race we have emancipated. You, in Ohio, are guilty in the same way by a system of black laws still more aristocratic and odious. It is written in the Constitution of the United States that five slaves shall count equal to three freemen as a basis of representation ; and it is written, also, IN VIOLATION OF DIVINE LAW, that we shall surrender the fugitive slave who takes refuge at our fireside from his relentless pursuer.” There yon find his doctrine clearly laid down, that the Constitution of the United States is “in violation of the Divine law," and therefore, is not to be obeyed. You are told that the clause relating to fugitive slaves, being in violation of the Divine law, is not binding on mankind. This has been the doctrine of the Senator from New York for years. I have not heard it in the Senate to-day for the first time. I have met in my own State, for the last ten years, this same doctrine, that the Declaration of Inde- pendence recognized the negro and the white man as equal ; that the negro and white man are equals by Divine law, and that eveiy provision of our Constitution and laws which establishes inequality between the negro and the white man, is void, because con- trary to the law of God. The Senator from New York says, in (he very speech from which I have quoted, that New- York is yet a slave State. Wliv? Not that she has a slave within her limits, but because the constitution of New York does not allow a negro to vote*on an equality with a white man. For that reason he says New York is still a slave State; for that reason every other State that discriminates between the negro and the white man is a slave State, leaving but a very few States in the Union that are free from his objection. Yet, notwithstanding the Senator is committed to these doctrines, notwithstanding the leading men of his party are committed to them, he argues that they have been accused of being in favor of negro equality, and says the tendency of their doctrine is the equality of the white man. He introduces the objection, and fails to answer it. He states the proposi- tion and dodges it, to leave the inference that he does not indorse it. Sir, I desire to see these gentlemen carry out their principles to their logical conclusion. If they will per- sist in the declaration that the negro is made the equal of the white man, and tliat any inequality is in violation of the Divine law, then let them carry it out in their legislation by conferring on the negroes all the rights of citizenship the same as on while men. For one, I never held to any snch doctrine. I hold that the Declaration of Independence was only referring to the white man — to the governing race of this country, who were in conflict with Great Britain, and had no reference to the negro race at all, when it de- clared that all men were created equal. Sir, if the signers of that declaration had understood the instrument then as the Sena- tor from New York now construes it, were they not bound on that day, at that very hour, to emancipate all their slaves? If Mr. Jefferson had meant that bis negro slaves were created by the Almighty his equals, was lie not bound to emancipate the slaves on the very day that he signed his name to the Declaration of Independence? Yet no one of the signers of that declaration emancipated his slaves. No one of the States on whose behalf the declaration was signed, emancipated its slaves until after the Revolution was over. Every one of the original colonies, every one of the thirteen original States, sanc- tioned and legalized slavery until after the Revolution was closed. These facts show conclusively that the Declaration of Independence was never intended to bear the con- struction placed upon it by the Senator from New York, and by that enormous tribe of lecturers that go through the country delivering lectures in country school-houses and basements of churches to Abolitionists, in order to teach the children that the Almighty had put. his seal of condemnation upon any inequality between the white man and the negro. Mr. President, I am free to say here — what I have said over and over again at home — that, in my opinion, this Government was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men. and by none other whatsoever. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I will ask the honorable Senator, then, why not give the Territo- ries to white men ? Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I am iu favor of throwing the Territories open to all the white men, and all the negroes, too, that choose to go, and then allow the white men to ijovern the Territory. I would not let one of the negroes, free or slave, either vote or fold office anywhere, where I had the right, under the Constitution, to prevent it. I am in favor of each State and each Territory of this Union taking care of its own negroes, free or slave. If they want slavery, let them have it; if they desire to prohibit slavery, let them do it: it is their business, not mine. We in Illinois tried slavery while we were a Territorv, and found it was not profitable; and hence we turned philanthropists and abolished it, just as our British friends across the ocean did. They established slavery 3 in all their colonies, and -when they found they could not make any more money out of it, abolished it. I hold that the question of slavery is one of political economy, governed by the laws of climate, soil, productions, and self-interest, and not by mere statutory pro- vision. I repudiate the doctrine, that because free institutions may be best, in one climate, they are, necessarily, the best everywhere ; or that because slavery may be indispensable in one locality, therefore it is desirable everywhere. I hold that a wise statesman will always adapt his legislation to the wants, interests, condition, and necessities of the people to be governed by it. One people will bear different institutions from another. One cli- mate demands different institutions from another. I repeat, then, what I have often had occasion to sa}-, that I do not think uniformity is either possible or desirable. I wish to see no two States precisely alike in their domestic institutions in this Union. Our sys- tems rests on the supposition that each State has something in her condition or climate, or her circumstances, requiring laws and institutions different from every other State of the Union. Hence I answer the question of the Senator from Wisconsin, that I am will- ing that a Territory settled by white men shall have negroes, free or slave, just as the while men shall determine, but not as the negroes shall prescribe. The Senator from New York has coined a new definition of the States of the Union — Labor States and Capital States. The capital States, I believe, are the slaveholding States ; the labor States are the non-slaveholding States. It has taken that Senator a good many years to coin that phrase and briug it into use. I have heal'd him discuss these favorite theories of his for the last, ten years, I think, and I never heard of capital States and labor States before. It strikes me that something has recently occurred up in New Eng- land that makes it politic to get up a question between capital and labor, and take the side of the numbers against the few. We have seen some accounts in the newspapers of combinations and strikes among the journeymen shoemakers iD the towns there — labor against capital. The Senator has a new word ready coined to suit their ease, and make the laborers believe that he is on tire side of the most numerous class of voters. What produced that strike amoDg the journeymen shoemakers? Why are the me- chanics of New England, the laborers and employees, now reduced to the starvation point? Simply because, by your treason, by your sectional agitation, you have created a strife between the North and the South, have driven away your southern customers, and thus deprive the laborers of the means of support. This is the fruit, of your Republican dogmas. It is another step, following John Brown, of the “irrepressible conflict.” There- fore, we now get this new coinage of “ labor States” — he is on the side of the shoemakers, (’laughter,) and “capital States” — he is against those that furnish the hides. (Laughter.) I think those shoemakers will understand this business. They know why it is that they do not get so many orders as they did a few months ago. It is not confined to the shoe- makers; it reaches every mechanic’s shop and every factory. All the large laboring es- tablishments of the North feel the pressure produced by the doctrine of the “irrepressible conflict.” This new coinage of words will not save them from the just responsibility that follows the doctrines they have been inculcating. If they bad abandoned the doctrine of the “irrepressible conflict,” and proclaimed the true doctrine of the Constitution, that each State is entirely free to do just as it pleases, have slavery as long as it chooses, and abolish it when it wishes, there would be no conflict; the northern and southern States would be brethren ; there would be fraternity between us, aud your shoemakers would not strike for higher prices. Mr. CLARK. Will the Senator pardon me for interrupting him a moment? Mr. DOUGLAS. I will not give way for a speech; I will for a suggestion. Mr. CLARK. I desire simply to make one single suggestion in regard to what the Senator from Illinois said in reference to the condition of the laboring classes in the fac- tories. I come from a city where there are three thousand operatives, and there never was a time when they were more contented and better paid in the factories than now, and when their business was better than at this present time. Mr. DOUGLAS. I was speaking of the scarcity of labor growing up in our northern manufacturing towns, as a legitimate and natural consequence of the diminution of the de- mand for the manufactured article; and then the question is, what cause has reduced this demand, except the “irrepressible conflict” that has turned the southern trade away from northern cities into southern towns and southern cities? Sir, the feeling among the masses of the South we fiud typified in the dress of the Senator from Virginia, (Mr. Mason ;) they are determined to wear the homespun of their own productions rather than trade with the North. That is the feeling which has produced this state of distress in our man- ufacturing towns. The Senator from New York has also referred to the recent action of the people of New Mexico, in establishing a code for the protection of property in slaves, and he congratulates the country upon the final success of the advocates of free institutions in Kansas. He could not fail, however, to say, in order to preserve what he thought was a striking antithesis, that popular sovereignty in Kansas meant State sovereignty in Mis- souri. No, sir ; popular sovereignty in Kansas was stricken down by unholy combination in New England to ship men to Kansas — rowdies and vagabonds — with the Bible in one hand and Sharpe’s rifle in the other, to shoot down the friends of self-government. Popular sovereignty in Kansas was stricken down by the combinations in the northern States to carry elections under pretence of emigrant aid societies. In retaliation, Mis- 4 souri formed aid societies too; and she, following your example, sent men into Kansas, and then occurred the conflict. Now, you throw the blame upon Missouri merely be- cause she followed your example, and attempted to resist its consequences. I condemn both; but I condemn a thousand-fold more those that set the example and struck the tii'st blow, than those who thought they would act upon the principle of fighting the devil with his own weapons, and resorted to the same means that you had employed. But, 6ir, notwithstanding the efforts of emigrant aid societies, the people of Kansas have had their own way, and the people of New Mexico have had their own way. Kan- sas has adopted a free State; New Mexico has established a slave Territory. I am con- tent with both. If the people of New Mexico want slavery, let them have it, and [ never will vote to repeal their slave code. If Kansas does not want slavery, I will not help anybody to force it on her. Let each do as it pleases. When Kansas comes to the con- clusion that slavery will suit her, aud promote her interest better than the prohibition, let her pass her own slave code ; I will not pass it for her. Whenever New Mexico gets tired of her code, she must repeal it for herself; 1 will not repeal it for her. Non inter- vention by Congress with slavery in the Territories is the platform on which I stand. But I want to know why will not the Senator from New York carry out his principles to their logical conclusions ? Why is there not a man in that whole party, in this body or the House of Representatives, bold enough to redeem the pledges which that party has made to the country? I believe you said, in your Philadelphia platform, that Congress had sovereign power over the Territories for their government, and that it was the duty of Congress to prohibit, in all the Territories, those twin relics of barbarism, slavery and polygamy. Why do you not carry out your pledges? Why do you not introduce your bill? The Senator from New York says they have no new measures to originate; no new movement to make; no new bill to bring forward. Then what confidence shall the American people repose in your faith and sincerity, when, having the power in one House, you do not bring forward a bill to carry out your principles? The fact is, these principles are avowed to get votes in the North, hut not to be carried into effect by acts of Congress. You are afraid of hurting your party if you bring in your bill to repeal the slave code of New Mexico; afraid of driving off the conservative men; you think it is wise to wait until after the election. I should he glad to have confidence enough in the sincerity of the other side of the Chamber to suppose that they had sufficient courage to bring forward a law to carry out their principles to their logical conclusions. I find nothing of that. They wish to agitate, to excite the people of the North against the South to get votes for the Presidential election ; but thej' shrink from carrying out their measures lest they .might throw off some conservative voters who do not like the Demo- cratic party. But, sir, if the Senator from New York, in the event that he is made President, intends to carry out his principles to their logical conclusions, let us see where they will lead him. In the same speech that I read from a few minutes ago, I find the following. Addressing the people of Ohio, he said: “You blush not at these things, because they have become as familiar as household words; and your pretended Free-Soil allies claim peculiar merit for maintaing these miscalled guarantees of slavery, which they find in the national compact. Does not all this prove that the Whig party have kept up with the spirit of the age; that it is as true aud faithful to human freedom as the inert conscience of the American people will permit it to be? What then, you say, can nothing be done for freedom, because the public conscience remains inert? Yes, much can be done, everything can be done. Slavery van be limited to its present bounds.” That is the first thing that can be done — slavery can be limited to its present bounds. What else? “ It can be ameliorated. It can and must be abollshed, and you and I can and must do it.” There you find are two propositions ; first, slavery was to be limited to the States in which it was then situated. It did not then exist in any Territory. Slavery was confined to the States. The first propositson was that slavery must be restricted and confined to those States. The second was that he, as a New Yorker, and they, the people of Ohio, must and would abolish it; that is to say abolish it in the States. They could abolish it no where else. Every appeal they make to northern prejudice and passion, is against the institution of slavery everywhere, and they would not he able to retain their aboli- tion allies, the rank and file, unless they held out the hope that it was the mission of the Republican party, if successful, to abolish slavery in the States as well as in the Territo- ries of the Union. And again in the same speech, the Senator from New York advised the people to dis- regard constitutional obligations in these words: “But we must begin deeper and lower than the composition and combination of factions or parties, wherein the strength aud security of slavery lie. You answer that it lies in the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions and laws of slaveholding States Not at all. It is in the erroneous sentiment of the American people Constitutions and laws can no more rise above the virtue of the people than the limpid stream can climb above its native spring. Inculcate the love of freedom and the equal rights of man under the paternal roof; see to it that they are taught in the schools and in the churches; ref/rm your own code; extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who lays his weary limbs at your door , and defend him as you would your paternal gods; correct your own error, that slavery is a constitional guarantee which may not be released, and ought not to be relinquished.” I know they tell us that all this is to be done according to the Constitution ; they would not violate the Constitution except so far as the Constitution violates the law of 5 God — that is all — and they are to be the judges of how far the Constitution does violate | the law of God. They say that every clause of the Constitution that recognizes property ■ in slaves, is in violation of the Divine law, and hence should not be obeyed ; ar.d with i that interpretation of the Constitution, they turn to the South and say, “We will give you all your rights under the Constitution as we explain it!” Then the Senator devoted about a third of his speech to a very beautiful homily on the glories of our Union. All that he has said, all that any other man has ever said, all [ that the most eloquent tongue can ever utter, in behalf of the blessings and the advanta- ges of this glorious Union, I fully indorse. But still, sir, I am prepared to say, that the Union is glorious only whenyhe Constitution is preserved inviolate. He eulogized the Union. I, too, am for the Union; I indorse the eulogies; but still, what is the Union worth, unless the Constitution is preserved and maintained inviolate in all its provisions? Sir, I have no faith in the Union-loving sentiments of those who will not carry out the Constitution in good faith, as our fathers made it. Professions of fidelity to the Union will be taken for naught, unless they are accompanied by obedience to the Constitution upon which the Union rests. I have a right to insist that the Constitution shall be main- tained inviolate in all its parts, not only that which suits the temper of the North, but I every clause of that Constitution, whether you like it or dislike it. Tour oath to support the Constitution binds you to every line, word, and syllable of the instrument. You have no right to say that any given clause is in violation of the Divine law, and that, therefore, you will not observe it. The man who disobeys any one clause, on the pretext that it violates the Divine law, or on any other pretext, violates his oath of office. But, sir, what a commentary is this pretext that the Constitution is a violation of the i Divine law, upon those revolutionary fathers whose eulogies we have heard here to-day. Did the framers of that instrument make a Constitution in violation of the law of God? If so, how do your consciences allow you to take the oath of office? If the Senator from New York still holds to his declaration that the clause in the Constitution relative | to fugitive slaves is a violation of the Divine law, how dare he, as an honest man, take au oath to support the instrument? Did he understand that he was defying the authority of Heaven when he took the oath to support that instrument? Thus, we see, the radical difference between the Republican party- and the Democratic i party, is this: we stand by the Constitution as our fathers made’it, aud by the decisions of the constituted authorities as they are pronounced in obedience to the Constitution. They repudiate the instrument, substitute their own will for that of the constituted au- thorities, annul such provisions as their fanaticism, or prejudice, or policy, may declare 1 to be in violation of God’s law, and then say, “We will protect all your rights under the Constitution as expounded by ourselves; but not as expounded by the tribunal created for that, purpose.” Mr. President, I shall not occupy further time in the discussion of this question to- night. I did not intend to utter a word ; and I should not have uttered a word upon the subject, if the Senator from New York had not made a broad arraignment of the Demo- ! eratic party, and especially of that portion of the action of the party for which I was ! most immediately responsible. Everybody knows that I brought forward aud helped to carry through the Kansas-Nebraska act, and that I was active in support of the compro- mise measures of 1850. I have heard bad faith attached to the Democratic party for 1 that act too long to be willing to remain silent and seem to sanction it even by tacit ac- quiescence. Mr. TRUMBULL having replied to Mr. DOUGLAS, he responded as follows: I have but a few words to say, in reply to my, colleague ; and first on the question, whether Illinois was a slave Territory or not; and whether we ever had slavery in the State. I dislike technical denials, conveying an idea contrary to the fact. My colleague well knows, and so do I, that, practically, we had slaves there while a Territory, and after we became a State. I have seen him dance to the music of a negro slave in Illinois many a time, and I have danced to the same music myself. (Laughter.) We have both had the same negro servants to black our boots and wait upon us, and they were held as slaves. We know, therefore, that slavery did exist in the State in fact, and slavery did exist in the Territory in fact ; and his denial relates exclusively to the question whether slavery was legal. Whether legal or not, it existed in fact. The master exercised his dominion over the slave, and those negroes were held as slaves until 1847, when we established the new constitution. There are gentlemen around me here, who know the fact — gentlemen who were nursed by slaves in Illinois. No man familiar with the history of Illinois will deny the fact. The quibble is, that the territorial laws authorizing the introduction of slaves were void because the ordinance of 1787 said slavery was prohibited. Notwithstanding that ordinance, the old French inhabitants, who had slaves before the ordinance, paid no attention to it, and held slaves still. Slaves were held there all the time that Illinois was a Territory; and after it became a State they were held till they all died out, and their children became emancipated under the constitution. It is a fact; we all know it. That gentleman has seen many of those old French slaves, who were held in defiance of the ordinance. Whether they were lawfully held or not, the territo- rial authorities sustained the rights of the master. Not only were slaves held by the French before the ordinance, but the Territorial Legislature passed a law in substance to this effect: any citizen might go to Kentucky, or any other State or Territory, where sense the l ,ri slaves were held, and bring slaves into the Territory of Illinois, take them to a county court, and in open court enter into an indenture by which the slave and his posterity were to serve him for ninety-nine years ; and in the event that the slave refused to enter into the indenture, the master should have a certain time to take him out of the Terrtory and sell him. The Senator now says that law was not valid. Valid or not, it was executed ; slaves were introduced, and they were held ; they were used ; they were worked ; and they died slaves. That is the fact. I have had handed to me a book showing the number of slaves in Illinois at the taking of the various censuses, by which it appears that, when the census of 1810 was taken, there were in Illinois 168 slaves; in 1820, 917 ; in 1830, 747 ; and in 1840, 831. In 1850 there were none, for the reason that, in 1847, we adopted a new con- stitution that prohibited slavery entirely, and by that time they bad nearly all died. The census shows that at one time there were as many as nine hundred slaves, and at all tinies the dominion of the master was maintained. The fact is, that the people of the Territory of Illinois, when it was a Territory, were almost all from the southern States, particularly from Kentucky and Tennessee. The southern end of the State was the only part at first settled — that part called Egypt- — because it is the land of letters and of plenty. Civilization and learning all originated in Egypt. The northern part of the State, where the political friends of my colleague now preponderate, was then in the possession of the Indians, and so were northern Indi- ana and northern Ohio; and a Yankee could not get to Illinois at all, unless he passed down through Virginia and over into Tenuessee and through Kentucky. The consequence was, that ninety-nine out of a hundred of the settlers were from the slave States. They carried the old family servants with them, and kept them. They -were told “Here is an ordinance of Congress passed against your holding them.” They said, “ What has Con- gress to do with our domestic institutions ; Congress had better mind its own business, and let us alone; we know what we want better than Congress;” and hence they passed this law to bring them in and make them indentured. Under that, they established sla- very and held slaves as long as they wanted them. When they assembled to make the constitution of Illinois, in 1818, for admission iuto the Union, nearly every delegate to the convention brought his negro along with him to black his boots, play the fiddle, wait upon him, and take care of his room. They had a jolly time there; they were dancing people, frolicsome people, people who enjoyed life; they had the old French habits. Slaves were just as thick there as blackberries. But they said “Experience proves that it is not going to be profitable in this climate.” There were no scruples about it. Every one of them was nursed by it. Ilia mother and bis father held ■slaves. They had no scruples about its being right, but they said, “We cannot make any money by it, and as our State runs way off north up to those eternal snows, perhaps we shall gain population faster if we stop slavery and invite in the north- ern population ;” and. as a matter of political policy, State policy, they prohibited slavery themselves. How did they prohibit it? Not by emancipating, setting’ at liberty, the slaves then in the State, for I believe that has never been done by any legislative body in America, and I doubt- whether any one will ever arrogate to itself the right to divest property already there ; but the}' provided that all slaves then in the State should remain slaves for life ; that all indentured persons should fulfill the terms of their indentures. Ninely-nine years was about long enough, I reckon, for grown persons at least. All persons of slave parents, after a certain time, were to be free at a certain age, and all btrn after a certain other period, were to be free at their birth. It was a gradual system of emancipation. Hence, I now repeat, that so long as the ordinance of 1787, passed by Congress, said Illinois should not have slavery, she did have it; and the very first day that our people arrived at that condition that they could do as they pleased, to wit, when they became a State, they adopted a system of gradual emancipation ; but still slavery continued in the State, as the census of i 820, the census of 1830, and the census of 1840, show, until the new constitution of 1847, when nearly all those old slaves had died out, and probably there were not a half dozen alive. That was the way slavery was introduced and expired in Illinois. Whatever quibbles there may he about legal construction, legal right, these are the facts. Look into the territorial legislation, and you will find as rigorous a code for the protec- tion of slave property as in any State ; a code prescribing the control of the master, pro- viding that if a negro slave should leave his master’s farm without leave, or in the night time, he should be punished by so many stripes, and if he committed such an offence he should receive so many stripes, and so on ; as rigorous a code as ever existed in any southern State of this Union. Not only that, but after the State came into the Union, the State of Illinois reenacted that code, and continued it up to the time that slavery died out under-the operation of the State constitution. I dislike, sir, to have a controversy with my colleague about historical facts. I suppose the Senate of the United States has no particular interest in the early history of Illinois, but it lias become obligatory on me to vindicate my statement to that extent. Now, sir, a word about the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. I have had occasion to refer to that before in the Senate, and I am sorry to have to refer to it again. My colleague arraigns me as chairman of the Committee on Territories against myself as a member of the Senate in 1854, upon the Nebraska bill. He says that, as chairman of the committee, I reported that we did not see proper to depart from the example of illeii" fferritt giving ’ But base ligM posea preeis ifiicl Is SO at lib that mao si'h tbit firs 1 jet! opi Soi iti at Hi k1 tl \I tl n l 1 c I 1 7 1S50; that as the Mexican laws were not then repealed in terms, we did not propose in terms to repeal the Missouri restriction, but — there the Senator stops, and there the es- :~7 sense of the report begins — but, the report added, this committee proposes to carry out ,-i .the principles embodied in the compromise measures of 1S50 in precise language, and then we go on to state what those principles were; and one was, that the people of a :i Territory should settle the question of slavery for themselves, and we reported a bill ■ giving then: that power. : But inasmuch as the power to introduce slavery, notwithstanding the Mexican laws, ••-> was conferred on the Territorial Legislatures under the compromise measures of 1S50, the ~_i right to introduce it into Kansas, notwithstanding the Missouri restriction, was also pro- . ; posed !o be conferred without expressly repealing the restriction. The legal effect was precisely the same. Afterwards some gentlemen said they would rather have the legal A I effect expressed in plain language. I said, ‘'if you want a repealing act, have it; it does not alter the legal effect.” I said , so at the time, as the debates show ; and hence I put in the express provision that the 1 Missouri act was thereby repealed. It did not change the legal effect of the bill ; but that variation of language has been the staple of a great many stump speeches, a great - ! many miserable quibbles of county court lawyers, a great many attempts to prove ineon- -i sistency by small politicians in the country. Be it so. The people understand that I thing. The object I had in view was to allow the people to do as they pleased. The 1- first bill accomplished that ; the amendment accomplished it. Whether that was the ob- ject of others or not, is another question. That was my object. The two bills in my : f opinion had the same legal effect; but I said if auy one doubts it, I will make it plain. - | Some said '‘we doubt whether that gives the right.” Then I made it plain and brought j it in in express terms, and he calls a change of language, without varying the legal effect, I a change of policy. My colleague is welcome to make the most out of that. I have had : that arraignment over and over again. The Senator has some doubt as to whether I am in good standing in my own party ; I whether I am a good representative of northwestern Democracy. I have nothing to say : | about that. I will allow the people to speak in their conventions on that subject. 1 Whether I represent the Democracy of Illinois or not, I shall not say. The people un- ; derstand all that. I can only say that I have been in the Democratic party all my life, ; j and I know what our Democrats mean. My colleague indorsed and approved the com- j promise measures of 1850. He was a Democrat a few years ago. Even in 1856, he de- clared, I believe, that he could not vote for me, if nominated, but be would vote for Mr. Buchanan ; but, after the nomination, he did not like the platform, and he went over. I have no objection to that; it is all right enough. I never intended to taunt him with in- consistency ; but I do not think he is as safe and as authoritative an expounder of the Republican party as the Senator from New York. The Senator from New York says that a State that does not allow a negro to vote on an equality with a white man is a slave State. I read bis speech here to day. I suppose the Senator from New York is a pretty good Republican. I thought he spoke with some authority for his party. I did not sup- pose those neophytes who had just come into the party were going to unsettle and un- horse the leader and embodiment of the party so quickly, and prescribe a p!atfor?i that would rule out the Senator from New York. I must be permitted, therefore, to take the authority of the leaders of the party in preference to those who are kept in the rank and file until they have served an apprenticeship. (Laughter.) The Senator from Rew York says it is slavery not to allow the negro to vote. Well, sir, I hold that that is political slavery. If you disfranchise a man, you make bin a po- litical slave. Deprive a white man of a voice in his government, and, politically, he is a slave. Hence the inequality you create is slavery to that extent. My colleague will not allow a negro to vote. He lives too far south in Illinois for that, decidedly. He has to expound the creed down in Egypt. They have other expositions up north. The creed is pretty black in the north end of the State ; about the center it is a pretty good mulatto, and it is .almost white when you get down into Egypt. It assumes paler shades as you go south. The Democrats of Illinois have one creed, and we can proclaim it everywhere alike. The Se.ti.tor, my colleague, complains that I represent his party to be in favor of negro equality. No such thing, says he; “I tell my colleague to his teeth it is not so.” There is something very fearful in the manner in which he said it! Senators know that he is a dangerous man who says things to a man’s teeth, and I shall be very cautious bow I re- ply. But he says he does hold that by the law of God the negro and the white man are created equal; that is, he says, in a state of nature; and, therefore, he says he indorses that clause of the Declaration of Independence as including the negro as well as the white man. I do not think I misstate my colleague. He thinks that clause of the Declaration of Independence includes the negro as well as the white man. He declares, therefore, that the negro and the while mau were created equal. What does that Declaration also say : “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- ness.” If the negro and the white man are created equal, and that equality is an inaliena- ble right, by what authority is my colleague and his party going to deprive the negro of that inalienable right which he got directly from God? He says the Republican party is not in favor of according to the negro an inalienable right that he received directly from 8 his Maker. Oh, no ; he tells me to my teeth that they are not in favor of that ; they will not obey the laws of God at all. Their creed is to take away inalienable rights. Well, I have found that out before, and that is just the reason 1 complain of them, that they are for taking away inalienable rights. If they will cling to the doctrine that the Declaration of Independence conferred certain inalienable rights, among which, we are told, is equality between the white man and the negro, they are bound to make the human laws they establish conform t.o those God-given rights which are inalienable. If the}’ believe the first proposition, as honest men, they are bound to carry the principle to its logical conclusion, and give the negro his equality and voice in the Government; let him vote at elections, hold office, serve on juries, make him judge, Governor, (“Senator.”) No, they cannot make him a Senator, because the Su- preme Court has decided that he is not a citizen. The Dred Scott decision is in the way. Perhaps that is the reason of the objection to the Dred Scott decision, that a negro can- not be a Senator. 1 say, if yon hold that the Almighty created the negro the equal of the white man, and that equality be an inalienable right, you are hound to- confer the elective franchise and every other privilege of political equality on the negro. Tbs Senator from New York stands up to it like a man. His logic drove him there, arid he had the honesty. to avow the consequence of his own doctrine. That is to say, he did it before the Harper’s Ferry raid. He did not say it quite as plainly to-day; for I will 1 . 1 . . ci. ia t or f rom New York the justice to say, that iu his speech to-day, I think he most successful effort, considered as an attempt to conceal what lie meant .) He dealt in vague generalities; he dealt in disclaimers and general denials; vered it all up with a verbiage that would allow’ anybody to infer just what he ut not to commit the Senator to anything; and to let the country know that no danger from the success of the Republican party ; that they did not mean ; that if men, believing in the truth of their doctrines, did go and commit inva- ders, robberies, and treason, all they had to do was’ to disavow the men who ! enough to believe them, and they are not responsible for the consequences of action ! r. President, I wish my colleague was equally as frank as the Senator from . That Senator is in favor of the equality of the negro with the white man, would not say that the Almighty guarantied to them an inalienable right of My colleague dare not deny the inalienable rights of the negro, for if he did, ionists w'ould quit him. He dare not avow it, lest the old-line Whigs should hence he is riding double on this question. I have no desire to conceal my And I repeat that I do not believe the negro race is any part of the governing thiseountry, except as an element of representation in the manner expressly a the Constitution. This is a white man’s Government, made by white men efit of white men, to be administered by white men and nobody else; and I ■et the day that we ever allowed the negroes to have a hand in its adminie- bt that the negro is not entitled to any privileges at all; on the contrary, I lumanit.y requires us to allow the unfortunate negro to enjoy all the rights ges that he may safely exercise consistent with the good of society. We may, give them some privileges in Illinois that would not be safe in Mississippi; have hut few, while that State has many. We will take care of our negroes, pi will take care of hers. Each has a right to decide for itself what shall be l of the negro to the white man within its own limits, and no other State boa nterfere with its determination. •rinciple t!u.-e is no “irrepressible conflict;” there is no conflict at all. If we ke care of our • ,i- negroes, and mind our own business, we shall get along and we ask our southern friends to do the same, and they seem pretty well do it. Therefore, I am in favor of just firing a broadside into our Republican C there, who will keep interfering with other people’s business. That is the have of tnem. They keep holding up the negro for us to worship, and when - e power, they will not give him the rights they claim for him ; they will not s inalienable rights. New York has not given the negro those inalienable ffrage yet. The Senator from New York represents a slave State, according speech; because New York does not allow the negro to vote on an equality e man. It is true, in New York, they do allow a negro to vote, if he owns $>'oU worth of property, but not without. They suppose $250 just compensates for the difference between a rich Degro and a poor white man. (Laughter.) They allow the rich negro to vote, and do not allow the poor one; and the Senator from New York thicks that is a system of slavery. It may be; let New York decide that; it is her business. .1 do not want to interfere with it. Just let us alone. We do not want negro suffrage. We say “non-interference; hands off.” If you like the association of the negroes at the polls, that is your business; if you want them to hold office, so that they do not come here, give offices to them, if you choose; if you want them for magistrates, that is your busi- ness; but you must not send them here; because we do not allow anybody but citizens to hold seats on this floor ; and, thank God, the Dred Scott case has decided that a negro is not a citizen. Now, Mr. President, I hope I shall not be compelled to engage further in the discussion, and I apologize for the fact that I have occupied so much time. NON-I XTKRPEa E XCE BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES, SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS, DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 15 & 16, 1860. The Senate having under consideration the resolutions submitted by Mr. Davis on the 1st of March, relative to the relations’ of the States, and the rights of persons and property in the Territories, and the duty of protecting slave property in the Territories, when a necessity for so doing shall exist — Mr. DOUGLAS said : Mr. President: I have no taste and very little respect for that species of discussion which con- sists in assaults on the personal or political posi- tion of any Senator. I have no desire to elevate myself by attempting to pull down others, nor to place any Senator in a false position before his constituency. I have no assault to make upon anybody ; no impeachment of the record of any gentleman. I am willing that each Senator shall stand before the country and his own constituen- cy on the record which he has made for himself. I do not complain of so much of the speech of the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis) as arraigns my political position, for he seems to have deemed it necessary to draw a parallel between his opin- ions and my own, as we have been actors for many years in the same scenes, involving the same issue that is now presented, he taking the one side and I the other. In self-defence it may be necessary for me also to refer to the position of that Senator at various periods — with a view of illustrating my own position — by way of con- trast, as we always differed on an isolated point. I shall not indulge to-day in the discussion of any abstract theories of government, much less in the discussion of the legal questions which have lately been attempted to be forced on the Demo- cratic part}' as political issues. On a former oc- casion, when forced into a discussion by the At- torney Genetal of the United States, the law offi- cer of the Government, I did amuse myself in the discussion of certain ‘legal propositions ; not be- cause they had anything to do with the political issues before the country, but because that law officer seemed to have no official duties to occupy his time, and I had the leisure to reply to him. The principal points to which I shall direct my remarks to-day, and the sole cause of my making any speech, will be found in certain extracts from the speech of the Senator from Mississippi, a few days since. I have put three extracts upon paper together, and will send them to the Secretary’s desk, that they may be read. They will consti- tute the chief text to which my remarks will be addressed. The Secretary read the following extracts from Mr. Davis’s speech of May 7 : “ It is well known to those who have been associated with me in the two Houses of Congress that, from the com- mencement of the question, I have been the determined opponent of what is called squatter sovereignty. I never gave it countenance, and I am now least of all disposed to give it quarter. In 1S48 it made its appearance for good purposes. It was ushered in by a great and good man. 'He brought it forward because of that distrust which ho had in the capacity of the Government to hear the rude shock to which it was exposed. His conviction, no doubt, to some extent sharpened and directed his patriotism, and his apprehension led him to a conclusion to which, I doubt not, to-day he adheres as tenaciously as ever ; but from which it was my fortune, good or ill, lo dissent when his letter was read to me in manuscript; I being, together with some other persons, asked whether or not it should be sent. At the first blush, I believed it to be a fallacy — a fallacy fraught with mischief; that it escaped an issue which was upon us which it was our duty to meet; that it escaped it by a side path, which led to danger. I thought it a fallacy which would surely be exploded. I doubted then, and still more for some time afterwards, when held to a dread responsibility for the position which I occupied — I doubted whether I should live to see that fallacy ex- ploded. It has been. Let Kansas speak — the first great field on which the trial was made. What was the conse- quence? The Federal Government withdrawing con- trol, learning the contending sections, excited to the high- est point upon this question, each to send forth its army. Kansas became the battle field, and Kansas the cry which, well nigh led to civil war. TIris was the first fruit. More deadly than the fatal upas, its effect was not limited to the mere spot of ground on which the dew fell from its leaves,, but it spread 'throughout the United States ; it kindled all which had been collected for years of inflammable mate- rial. It was owing to the strength of our Government and the good sense of the quiet masses of the people that it did not wrap our oountry in one widespread conflagration. ■What right had Congress then, or what right has it now, to abdicate any power conferred upon it as trustee of the States?” * ******** “ In 1850, following the promulgation of this notion of squatter sovereignty,' we had the idea of non-intervention introduced into the Senate of the United States, and it is strange to me how that idea has expanded. It seems to have been more malleable than gold, to have been ham- mered out to an extent that covers boundless regions un- discovered by those who proclaimed the doctrine. Non- intervention then rheant, as the debates show, that Con- gress should neither prohibit nor establish slavery in the Territories. That I hold to now. Will any one suppose that Congress then meant by non-intervention that Con- gress should legislate in no regard in respect to property in slaves? Why, sir, the very acts which they passed at the time refute it. There is the fugitive slave law, and that abomination of law which assumed to confiscate the property of a citizen who should attempt to bring it into this District with intent to remove it to sell it at some other time to some other place. Congress acted then upon the subject, acted beyond the limit of its authority as I be- lieved, confidently believed ; and if ever that act comes before the Supreme Court, I feel satisfied that they will 2 declare it null and void.” ****** “By what species of legerdemain this doctrine of non- intervention has come to extend to a paralysis of the Gov- ernment on the whole subject to exclude the Congress from any kind of legislation whatever, I am at a loss to conceive. Certain it is, it was not the theory of that pe- riod, and it was not contended for in all the controversies xve had then. I had no faith in it then ; I considered it a sham ; I considered that the duty of Congress ought to be performed; that the issue was before us, and ought to be met, the sooner the better ; that, truth would prevail if pre- sented to the people; borne down to-day, it would rise up to-morrow; and I stood then on the same general plea which I am making now. The Senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas) and myself differed at that time, as I presume we do now. We differed radically then. He opposed every proposition which I made: voting against a propo- sition to give power to a Territorial Legislature to protect slave property which should be taken there ; voting against a proposition to remove the obstruction of the Mexican laws; voting fora proposition to exclude the conclusion that slavery might be taken there; voting for the proposi- tion expressly to prohibit its introduction; voting for the proposition to keep in force the laws of Mexico which ■prohibited it. Some of these votes, it is but just to him I •should say, I think he gave perforce of his instructions: hut others of them, I think it is equally fair to assert, were outside of the limits of any instructions under which he acted. “In 1854, advancing in this same general line of thought, the Congress, in enacting territorial bills, left out a provi- sion which had always before entered them, requiring the Legislature of the Territory to submit its laws to the Con- gress-of the United States. It. was sometimes assumed that this was the recognition of the power of the Territor- ial Legislature to exercise plenary legislation, as might that ol a State. It will be remembered that, when our present form of Government was instituted, there were those who believed the Federal Government should have the power of revision over the laws of a State. It was long 'and ably contended for in the convention which formed the Constitution; and one of the compromises which was made was, escaping from that, to lodge the power in the Supreme Court to decide all questions of con- stitutional law. “ But did this omission of the obligation to send here the Jaws of the Territories work this grant of power to the Ter- ritorial Legislature ? . Certainly "not; and that it did not, is evinced by the fact that, at a subsequent peri- d. the or- ganic. oet v/as revised, because the legislation of the Ter- ritory ofKai^sas was offensive to the Congress of the Uni- ted Slates. -Congress could not abdicate its authority; it could not abandon Us trust; and when it omitted the re- quirement that the laws should be sent back, it created a casus which required it to act without the official records ' being laid before it, as they would have been if the obli- gation had existed. That was all the difference.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President Mr. DAWS. With the permission of the Sen- ator from Illinois, I wish to say, that if he had submitted to me those extracts as the text upon which be was going tospeak, I should have made some verbal corrections, which would have more clearly expressed 013 ' opinion. However, as he has joined issue with me upon the report as it stands/let it be; but, with his permission, I wish to say a wordfiu relation to a point which will not at all affect his discourse, but which bears upon another. It is with regard to a gentleman referred to there as a good and great man — and I cordially believe him both; the history of the tknes has enabled every one to know that I re- ■ ferred to Mr. Cass. I wish to sa 3 ' that an omis- sion at the close of a sentence, after the word “sent,” may leave the inference that the letter was submitted to know whether it was to be sent to the person to whom it waB addressed. It would be an error if any one supposed so. It, was read to certain gentlemen to ascertain, if, in their view, it should be sent out as an expression .of... cur orpioions, as an exposition of the party creed, or the opinions of the party at that time. And so, in relation to the adhereuce of that good and great man to the opinion he then expressed, it implies, what I believe, that he adheres to that opinion as an abstract opinion still ; but I should do great injustice to him if 1 left any one to sup- pose that I thought that he, in deiiance of the decision of the .Supreme Court, still adhered to that opinion, and had not yielded his entire and implicit acquiescence in the decision which the court has given upon the point. Mr. DOUGLAS. I have yielded to the Sena- tor from Mississippi to make this explanation, and I am gratified that he has had an opportu- nity to make it. I did not submit these extracts to him, for I took it for granted that he was cor- rectly reported in the Globe, which I found on our tables. I heard no intimation from him that he had been rnisreported. Mr. DAVIS. I do not sa } 1 so. I never revise the manuscript of the reporters. Mr. DOUGLAS. I on ly desire pow to say to the Senator that, while I yielded to this explana- tion, I shall he obliged to him and to all others if the 3 ^ will allow me to go through with my re- maiks without interruption, (as I did in his case,) for the reason that I have a great deal of ground to travel over to-da}’ in this debate, which will exhaust my strength, and, I fear, your patience: and he will have an opportunity of replying to me when I shall be through. 1 intend to treat him fairly, kindly, and eourleousl}’, in all that I have to say, as 1 doubt not it ever has been his intention to treat me in debate. With this explanation, I shall proceed to re- mark, that the facts stated in the copious extracts from the Senator’s speech, which have been read, conclusively show that the doctrine of squatter sovereignt 3 q or popular sovereignty, or non-inter- vention, as the Senator has indifferently st} 7 led it in different parts of his speech, did not originate with me, in its application to the Territories of the United States; that it was distinctly pro- claimed by General Cass in what is known as his Nicholson letter, that the issue was then distinctly presented to the country in the contest of 1848 ; that General Cass became the nominee of the Democratic party with a full knowledge of his opinions upon the question of non-intervention; that he was supported by the party on that issue; that the same doctrine of non-intervention was incorporated into the compromise measures of 1850, in opposition to the views and efforts of the Senator from Mississippi, and in harmony with the views and efforts of myself; that it was reaf- firmed by the Democratic party in the Baltimore convention of 1852; that General Pierce was elected President of the United States upon this same doctrine of nofi intervention ; that it was again affirmed by the Congress of the United States, in the Kansas-Nebraska bill of 1S54; and that it had its first trial, and 3 ’ielded its first fruits, upon the plains of Kansas in 1855 and 1856. These facts are distinctly and positively affirmed by the Senator from Mississippi. These facts conclusively disprove and refute the charges so often made in the Senate Chamber within the last . year, so erroneously and so unjustly made against 3 me, that I have changed my opinions in regard to ' this question since 1856. The-Senator from Mis- sissippi has done me a service: he has searched : the records with a view to my condemnation, and the result of his researches is to produce the most 1 conclusive and incontestable evidence that this charge of having changed my opinions on this question, and which was made the pretext for my removal from the Committee on Territories, was not true. He tells you frankly, what the world knew before, that he had always opposed this doctrine of non-intervention; that” he and I always differed upon that point. He always regarded it as a fallacy; I as a sound principle. He claims that, after it has yielded its blighting effects upon the plains of Kansas, the Supreme Court has come to the rescue, and that he now is triumphantly ' sustained in his opposition to this doctrine in 1 S4S, 1850 and 1-851. Sir, whether we have heen sustained and out consistency vindicated is not so material as to find out which is right in the point at issue, then and now, between the Sena- tor from Mississippi and myself. I propose, in the first place, to invite the atten- tion of the Senate to the fact, that the doctrine of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in \ the Territories was brought'distinctly before the American people, and especially before the Dem- ocratic party, in 1847, with a view to its decision by the convention of the party that was to assem- ble at Baltimore in 1S48. The Senator has re v ferred to the letter of General Cass, known as the Nicholson letter, which bears date the 24th of December, 1847. He tells the Senate, (what most of us knew personally and privately who were here at that day,) that that letter, in manuscript, was passed around among southern and north- western Democrats, to receive their sanction be- , lore its publication. The letter was prepared, and in private circulation, for days and weeks before the date which it now bears in its publica- tion. The Senator from Mississippi informs us — and unquestionably with entire accuracy of re- collection — that he, at the time, dissented from j the doctrine of non-intervention, as stated in the Nicholson letter. Other southern Senators, now opposed to me — at any rate, other leading dis- ! tinguished politicians, I will not speak of Sena- tor; — would not he able to say that, when it was 1 submitted to them for their approval or disap- proval, they condemned it as frankly as the Sen- ator from Mississippi did. During”this period, I while this letter was being privately circulated, to see how far it would receive the sanction of the representative men of the Democratic party, the i especial friend, the right bower of General Cass I in that great contest— Mr. Daniel S. Dickinson, of hew York — presented to the Senate two resolu- tions embodying the same doctrine. I will ask my friend from Ohio to read those two resolutions/ Mr. PUGH read, as follows: “ Resolved, That true policy requires the Government of the United States to strengthen its political relations upon this continent by the annexation of such contiguous territory as may conduce to tbat end and can be justly obtained, and hat, neither in such acquisition nor in the 1 territorial organization thereof, can anv conditions be constitutionally imposed, or institutions be provided for jr established, inconsistent with the rights of the neopie : ! thereof to form a free sovereign State, with the powers and privileges of the original members of the Confederacy. "Resolved, That in organizing a territorial government for territory belonging to the United States, the principles of self-government, upon which our federative system 1 rests, will be best promoted, the true spirit and meaning of the Constitution be observed, and the Conl'ethsracy strengthened, by leaving all questions concerning tne do- mestic policy therein to the Legislature chosen by the people thereof.” — Congressional Globe, vol. IS, p. 21. Mr. DOUGLAS. It will be observed that these resolutions of Mr. Dickinson, which were pre- ; eented to the Senate on the 14th of December, 1847, assert distinctly the very doctrine which the Senator from Mississippi then denounced and I now denounces, and which I then and ever since affirmed, and now affirm. I am not aware that Mr. Dickinson and General Cass has ever modified their views, much less disclaimed the doctrine of | these resolutions and of the Nicholson, letter. . Yet my record on this question is held up to the Senate and to the country as if I stood alone in the Democratic party — a heretic then, a heretic now — and was therefore not entitled to fellowship in the regular Democratic organisation. I am aware, sir, that some of the people and some of the States of this Union now hold different doc- trines from those they formerly held upon this subject of non-intervention — or sqnttersovcreign- ty, as the Senator is pleased to call it, for he uses i them as convertible and synonymous terms — non-intervention being the shibboleth of the ’ party, and popular sovereignty, or squatter sov- ; ereignty, an incident or result only, but not the test, of political orthodoxy. j I will call attention upon this point to a resolu- 1 tion adopted by the Legislature of Florida, passed, in the Senate of that State on the 28th of Decem- ber, 1847, and in the House of Representatives on the 2!)th of December, 1841, and approved by the Governor on the 30th of December of the same year, I find these resolutions in the code of laws .. I of Florida published by authority of the Learisia- - ture of that State. I am aware that Florida stsl - - j sequently passed resolutions asserting doctrzmca inconsistent with these ; but I cite these res »1 .i- 1 ', j tions as evidence that the doctrine of non-intcrr; vention, for which I am now arraigned, was r.:t , deemed to be a political heresy at that day.. It ' may not be improper here to remark that, during . this session of Congress, I received a letter ar'onu l a State Senator in Florida inclosing resolutions which he had introduced for the repeal of those resolutions, and denouncing the resolutions, which I will read, ns being unsound, revolutionary; un-. J constitutional, dangerous to the rights of the South, and denouncing me by Aime as the great . author of all this mischief that was to strike cbwn I southern rights. I will ask my friend from Ohio 1 to read the second and third resolutions, which bear particularly on this point — for the first only i relates to the Wilmot proviso — in order to show what the Legislature of Florida thought and' said in 1847 upon this subject. Mr. PUGH read, as follows: ‘•Src.o. Re it further resolved. That, in the opinion of this General Assembly, a just and correct interpretation of ' the Constitution of the United States rests in Ihe territo- rial, as well as the State Legislature's exclusive jurisdic- tion over the persons of individuals within their respective limits; and that it would be arbitrary, unjust, and a usur- 4 pation of power on the part of Congress, to annex condi- tions to the admission of a State into the Union, or the annexing a Territory thereto, involving the right of juris- diction in Congress over this subject, which exclusively belongs to the Territory itself before its admission into the Union, and to the State afterwards. “ Sec. 8. Be it farther revolved, That it would be an ar* bitrary Usurpation of power on the part of Congress to exclude slavery from any such territory as may hereafter be acquired by the United States, either by way of indem- nity, by conquest, or by purchase; that the people of the 'Territory alone have the right to determine upon this sub- ject; and it is for them, while thev remain a Territory, and for the State, when they shall ask to be admitted asa'State, to say whether the institution of slavery shall exist within the limits of such Territorv or State; they having, by a just interpretation of the Con titution. exclusive jurisdic- tion over the subject-matter within their limits." — Laws of the State of Florida , 1S45 to 1S49, page S3. Mr. DOUGLAS. It will be observed that in these resolutions the State of Florida declared that, by a correct construction of the Constitu- tion of the United States, a Territorial Legisla- ture, while in a territorial condition, had the ex- clusive right to determine for itself whether slavery should or should not exist within the limits of such Territory. As T have already re- marked, Florida subsequently changed her policy on that subject. If, however, she solemnly pro- claimed that doctrine to the world, in the name of a sovereign State of this Union, telling the northern Democracy on what terms and condi- tions Florida would hold fellowship with them, and we accepted the doctrine, I should think she <*>uld forgive us for remaining faithful to her -creed, if we can forgive her for abandoning it. I arraign no man ; I much le^s arraign a sover- eign State. She had the right, to proclaim her •opinions; and if subsequently she came to the conclusion that they were wrong, she ought to change them ; but having proclaimed them, and then changed them, it seems to me a little indul- gence, even “quarter,” should be granted by Florida to those who stand by Florida’s original position. Florida was not the only southern State whose Democracy held these doctrines in 1847, prior to the nomination of General Cass for the Presi- dency. I find here some resolutions adopted by the Democratic State convention of Georgia, held at Hilledgevilie, in December, 1847. I have not, the entire proceedings. I have seen these resolu- tions in several Georgia papers recently, with the statement of the gentleman who either reported them or concurred in their passage, and with a further statement that these resolutions were copied and adopted hy several State conventions in other southern States at that period. On that newspaper authority, and that alone, T read these resolutions, so far as I find them published in the papers, bearing on this question. It is proper to state that in the proceedings of the convention it appears that certain gentlemen, eminent for abil- ity, eminent for their devotion to southern rights, eminent for their position in the Democratic par- ty, were present, and concurred in these proceed- ings. Among these I find F. H. Cone, R. A. L. Atkinson, Jesse Carter, W. S. Johnson, Robert Griffin, Thomas Hilliard, W. W. Wiggins, E. W. Chastain, W. J. Lawton, S. W. Colbert, and D. Phillips. I find, also, Hon. Mr. Jackson, member of Congress, and Hon. Lucius Q. C. Lamar, now a Representative in Congress from Mississippi, but then a citizen of Newton county, Georgia. I will ask my friend from Ohio to read these Georgia resolutions, which were good Democra- cy at that day, and were copied and adopted by several other southern States in their Democratic State conventions. Mr. PUGH read, as follows: “ Resolved. That Congress possesses no power under the Constitution to legislate in any way or manner in rela- tion to the institutioYof slavery. It is the constitutional right of every citizen to remove and settle with his proper- ty in any of the Territories of the United States. “ Resolved . That the people of the South do not ask of Congress to establish the institution of slavery in any of the Territories that may be acquired' by the United States ; they simply require that the inhabitants of each Terri- tory shall be. left free to determine .for themselves whether the institution of slavery shall or shall not form a part of their social system.” Mr. DOUGLAS. There again, sir, we find the doctrine of non-intervention distinctly defined by the Democratic State convention of Georgia- Two distint propositions are affirmed; one is,, that Congress has no constitutional power to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Ter- ritories. That., I should think, was pretty distinct non-intervention. You cannot legislate against it; you cannot legislate for it; you cannot touch the subject at all in the Territories. Now, sir, it may be, and unquestionably is, true that some of the eminent men who participated in that State- convention of Georgia have since changed their opinions upon this subject, and now believe just as conscientiously that it is both within the pow- er and the dutj^ of Congress to legislate for the protection of slavery in the Territories, as they then believed it was unconstitutional for Con- gress to do so. All I have to say of those emi- nent gentlemen, for whose talents I have great respect, is, that if I can forgive them for having abandoned the very doctrine that they invited us of the North to rally in support of, I think they may- pardon us for remaining faithful to that doc- trine which they and we agreed to stand by. In pursuing this subject, I am afraid that I shall become tedious to the Senate; but still I feel it my duty to present full evidence upon this point, showing that the Democratic party, from 1848 to this day, have stood pledged, as a cardi- nal article in their creed, to the doctrine of non- intervention ; and for that purpose I shall be compelled to have various- extracts, and some long ones, read, and perhaps to be somewhat te- dious in the exposition of the subject. I have already shown on high authority — southern authority — that, when the Baltimore convention assembled in May, 1S4S, to nominate a Democratic candidate for "the Presidency, and to lay down a platform for the party, the atten- tion of the country, the especial attention of the Democratic party of the southern States as welt as of the northern States, had been particularly called to this doctrine of non-intervention hy Congress with slavery in the Territories; and hence the nomination of General Cass, with his opinions as expressed in the Nicholson letter, was not the result of accident or inadvertence'; but he was chosen because his sentiments were the sentiments of the vast majority of the Democratic 5 party, North and South, I have looked into the proceedings of the convention at Baltimore in 184 S, when General Cass was nominated, and made an abstract of the votes. I find that, in the slaveholding States, General Cass received, on the first ballot for the nomination, 66 votes ; Mr. Buchanan, 19 votes; Mr. Woodbury, 15; Mr. Calhoun. 9 ; General Worth, 6 ; Mr. Dallas, S. The following are the southern States that voted for General Cass on the first ballot: Dela- ware, 3 votes; Maryland, 6 votes; Virginia, 17 votes; Mississippi, 6 votes; Louisiana, 6 votes; Texas, 4 votes; Arkansas, 3 votes; Tennessee, 7 votes; Kentucky, 7 votes; Missouri, 7 votes. These States did not then think that non-inter- vention— or squatter sovereignty, as it is now called in derision — was such a fatal heresy as to furnish sufficient cause for disrupting the Demo- cratic party, much less for dissolving the Ameri- can Union. They voted for General Cass with a knowledge of his opinions on this question; and he was their first choice. Old Virginia did not take him then as a choice of evils. She had the opportunity of voting for a southern man, illus- trious for his talents, public services, and devo- tion to southern rights. She had the opportnuity of voting at that time for Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina, on bis platform. Old Virginia then be- lieved that intervention on the subject of slavery meant disunion. Hence she rejected intervention, and gave her vote first, last, and all the time, for General Cass, the expounder, the embodiment of non-intervention. The same remark is true of Mississippi, represented now so ably by the Sen- ator who arraigned me the other day. He tells us that he always fought this doctrine of non- intervention. So he has; but at that time he had not the same power in the State of Mississippi; he had not made the same impress on that peo- ple, by his eminent talents and great public ser- vices, as he has since ; and hence he was then unable to seduce Mississippi away from the doc- trine of non-intervention. Louisiana, too, then true to the Democratic creed ; true to the doc- trine of non-intervention ; true to the mainte- : nance of the Union; hostile to intervention — because intervention led directly to disunion — rallied around General Cass as the standard- bearer in 1S48, first, last, and all the time. So of the other States which I have named. On the fburth ballot, (which was the last one, and the one on which General Cass was nomina- ted by a two-thirds vote,) in the slaveholding States, General Cass received 94 votes; Mr. Bu- chanan, 7 votes; Mr. Woodbury, 13 votes; Gen- eral Worth, 1 ; General Butler, 3. The southern States voting for General Cass were : Delaware, 3; Maryland, 6; Virginia, 17; North Carolina, 11; South Carolina, 9; Georgia, 10; Mississippi, 6; Louisiana, 6; Texas, 4; Arkansas, 3; Tennes- see, 7 ; Kentucky, 7 ; Missouri, 7. Even South Carolina, when she found that her own favorite had no chance of a nomination — so soon as she found that General Cass was the choice of a ma- jority of the party — wheeled into line, surren- dered her preference, and declared the champion of non-intervention as her next choice for the Presidency. Then she did not think this doctrine was sufficient cause either to dissolve the Union or to disrupt the Democratic party. On the first ballot the northern States gave Cass 59; Woodbury, 39; Buchanan, 32; slewing that General Cass received only 59 out*f 130 northern votes cast, New York not voting in consequence of her double delegation ; and in all the slaveholding States he received, on the first ballot, 66 out of 118 votes, being a majority of the whole number.. These facts show that Gen- eral Cass was not the choice of a majority of the northern Democracy at that time, but was the choice of a majority of the southern Democracy. Now, I shall proceed to show that these votes were cast with distinct reference to the doctrine of non-intervention as now supported by myself and affirmed by the Democratic party at Charles- ton, and as resisted by the Senator from Missis- sippi and those who seceded from the Charleston convention. General Cass, on the fourth ballot, received the nomination. The whole number of votes cast was 257 ; necessary to a choice, 170. Thereupon the record says: “Lewis Cass, of Michigan, having received two thirds of the whole number of votes east, “The chairman declared him duly nominated by the con- vention as the candidate for President. “The announcement of this result by the Chair was Al- lowed by enthusiastic and long-continued applause, the members of the various delegations almost universally springing to their feet, and uniting in one spirit-stiring shoufof approbation. “ Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut, rose simultaneously with ] Mr. Bryce, of Louisiana, to move that those States whose delegates had not voted for General Cass, might have an opportunity of changing their vote, so that the nomination might be unanimous. "This motion was agreed to, and the States whose votes had not been cast wholly for Mr. Cass, being called ” — the other States went on to change their votes and to make the nomination unanimous. They were proceeding to declare General Cass nomi- nated on the votes of two-thirds of the members present, Dot two-thirds of the whole number of votes in the electoral college. Here you find an express decision that two-thirds of those present and voting, and not two-thirds of the whole elec- toral college was the rule ; New York not voting, because she had a double delegation, and neither would consent that the other should sit with them. Then speeches were made in favor of making the nomination unamimous : “ Mr. MeCandless of the Pennsylvania delegation, Mr. Humphreys of Maryland, Mr. Wells of New Hampshire, Mr. Turney of Tennessee, Mr. Toucey of Connecticut, Mr. Carey of Maine, Messrs Kantoul and Hallett of Massachu- setts, Mr. Hibbard of New Hampshire, Mr. Pearce of Rhode Island, and Mr. R P. Thompson of New Jersey, in brief and eloquent speeches, announced the unanimous vote of their delegation for the nominee of the convention, and pledging him their cordial and united support.” These gentlemen had thus far opposed General Cass, because they preferred other men : but they felt it their duty to withdraw their opposition, and support him as the standard-bearer of the party. Th ereupon, “ Mr. Yancey, of Alabama, stated that he desired to have the platform — on which they intended to place the candi- date-erected before he would be prepared to pledge his support “ Mr. Winston, of Alabama, pledged the people of Ala- bama to sustain the nominee. “ Messrs King, J. E. Morse, Sydenham Moore, Scott, [ and Bowden, each united in the pledge given by Mr. i Winston.” 6 Some eminent names in those daj's •are here who did not think that the doctrine of non-inter- vention was such a fatal heresy as to form a suf- ficient i^tification for disrupting the Democratic party, Wen at the hazzard of a dissolution of the Union. Governor Winston, I believe, is well known in Alabama — an eminent citizen. He pledged Alabama for General Cass on this doc- trine of non intervention, carrying the Nicholson letter in his hand as the comp.ass by which his political action was to be governed. Sydenham Moore is not a name unknown to “fame” — a most worthy man, eminent in ability, and stand- ing well in Alabama, and now represents that State with ability and zeal in the House of Rep- resentatives. He did not regard this doctrine of non-intervention as a fatal blow at southern rights, and he felt authorized to pledge Alabama to the support of General Cass. “Mr. Avant, of Ten- nessee, and Mr. Magoffin, of Kentucy, spoke in favor of the nominees, pledging the support of their respective States and the next day the platform was adopted, in which the doctrine of non-intervention was affirmed in the seventh res- olution, which is so familiar that, perhaps, it is unnecessary to read it. [“Let us hear it.”] Let it be read. Mr. PUGH read, as follows: “ T. That Congress has no power under the Constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution ; that all efforts of the Abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to inter- fere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to llie most alarm- ing and dangerous consequences ; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.” Mr. DOUGLAS. In 1848, the Democratic con- vention were of the opinion that, to countenance any interference with slavery by Congress, was dangerous to the peace and harmony of the coun- try, and tended to a dissolution of the Union ; that they would not permit this interference by Abo- litionists or others. They did not regard the in- terventionist then any better than the Abolition- ist. Southern interventionists and northern in- terventionists, by the fair intendment of that platform, were put on an equality. After that platform was adopted, Mr. Yancey, of Alabama, felt it to be his duty to record his solemn protest against this dangerous, heresy of the Territorial Legislatures deciding on the slavery question. He came into the convention the next day, May 26, with an elaborate report against this dogma, this heresy promulgated by General Cass in his Nicholson letter, signed by William L. Lancey of Alabama, John 0. McGehee of Florida, and J. M. Commander of South Carolina, accompanied with a resolution. I shall ask the Senate to listen patiently to the entire report of Mr. Yancey upon that occasion, for it embraces every thought, every idea, every principle, every pretext as- signed at Charleston for withdrawing from the recent convention. In order that I may do Mr. Yancey full justice, I shall ask the Senate to lis- ten to the entire report, the resolution, and the vote thereon. It is only one column of Niles’s Register. I may here be permitted to remark, that, by anything I have said, or may say of him here, I mean no personal disrespect to Mr. Yan- cey. We are old personal friends. We met as members of Congress seventeen years ago. Our social relations have always been uninterrupted. I have as much admiration as any may living for his brilliant, his surpassing ability, for his great social qualities, and for the boldness and the nerve with which he avows his principles and follows them to their logical consequences; al- though I shrink with horror from the conse- quences to which his principles would lead this Republic. I ask my friend from Ohio to read that entire report. Mr. PUGH read, as follows : “Mr. Yancey then rose and said that be approved most cordially of the resolutions, with a single exception. He then begged to present the report of the minority of the committee, which is as follows : “ The undersigned, a minority of the committee on reso- lutions, ask leave respectfully to submit a minority report to this convention. “ Believing that the success of the Democratic party will depend solely upon the truth or untruth of the principles , avowed by this convention, and by the nominee thereof, the undersigned cannot give their assent to the report of the majority. The nominee of this convention is under- stood to entertain the opinion that Congress has no right to interfere with the question of slavery in the States or Territories, but that the people inhabiting a Territory have the exclusive right to exclude it therefrom. The majority of your committee have only adopted this principle as far as applicable to the States, and have thus refused, in the avowal of the cardinal principles of the Democracy, to express any opinion upon what is really the most exciting and important political topic now before the country, leav- ing the people to find an exposition ot the views of the great Democratic party of the Union, and of the probable course of its Representatives in Congress in the avowed opinions of their nominee for the office of President. "This course we conceive to be fundamentally wrong. It has ever been the pride of the Democracy that it has dealt frankly and honestly with the people. It has scorned to conceal its political opinions. It has made it a point of opposition to the Whigparty, that it frequently goes before the people with a mask upon its brow, and has appealed to the masses to rebuke that party for a course so offensive to truth, and so unfair to them. Our conntry’s institutions must find their surest support in an intelligent public opin- ion. That public opinion cannot be intelligently formed as to our views upon those institutions if we refuse to avow them, and dare not advocate them. " It is useless to deny that this question does not press home upon us for our decision. Ten of the sovereign non- slaveholding States have already expressed decided opin- ions upon it. This has been met by counteracting opinions in the South, first distinctly avowed by the Stale of Vir- ginia. and since followed up by nearly every State in that section of Ihe Union. “ It is idle to call the question an abstract one. If ab- stract in any sense, it is only so to the section in which have originated the avowals of aggression upon the rights of a large portion of the Union, to wit : the noD-sIavehohl- ing States— they own not a dollar of property'to be affect- ed by the ascendency of the principle at issue. They have not a single political right to be curtailed. With them, op- position to the South on I his point is purely a question of moral and political ethics. Far different is it with the South. They own the property which success of this prin- ciple will prevent them from carrying with them to the Territories. They have a common right in the Territories, from which they are to be excluded, unless they choose to go there without this property, 't hey have heretofore been considered as political equals in tiie Union, with the same power of expansion and of progress, which has here- tofore distinguished ali classes in the Union, and which has given to us all the distinctive appellation of the ‘ party of progress.’ They own, in common with their brethren I of the North, these Territories, which are to be held by | the Federal Government, as a trustee, for common uses | and common purposes. 7 If, therefore, yon refnse to meet the issue made upon the slaveholding by part of the non-slaveholding States, and permit the heretofore expressed opinions of your nominee to stand impliedly as the opinions of this conven- tion, yon pronounce, in substance, against the political equality of the people: against the community of interest in the Territories, which it is contended exists in the peo- ple: against the right of one-half of the people of the Union to extend those institutions which the fathers of the Constitution recognized as fundamental in the framing of the articles of union, and upon which rests the great and leading principles upon which taxation and political power are based. In order to obviate such a construction — in order to give assurance to the public mind of our entire country that the Democracy of the Union will preserve the compro- mises of the Constitution, not only in the States, but in the Territories; that it recognizes entire political equality to exist among the people, and their right to people, un- molested in their rights of property, the vast Territories whi h the Union holds out as a trust, until sufficiently populated to be erected into States — the undersigned have agreed to present to this body, for its adoption, the follow- ing resolution : W. L. YANCEY, of Alabama. JOHN C. McGEHEE, of Florida. J. M. COMMANDER, of South Carolina. Resolved. That the doctrine of non-interference with the rights of property of any portion of the people of this Confederation, be it in the State or in the Territories, by any other than the parties interested in them, is the true republican doctrine recognized by this body. Mr. DOUGLAS. It will be observed that, in that report, Mr. Yancey embodied the whole ar- gument in favor of intervention for protection, or for any other purpose, which we have heard repeated over and over again for so many years. I doubt whether any Senator can take his own speech and find anv one idea or argument in favor of that doctrine which is not embodied in the re- port of Mr. Yancy. The first statement there is, that it is understood that General Cass, the nom- inee, holds that a Territorial Legislature may exclude slavery from the Territory. It was not denied that General Cass held that doctrine. It was known that he did ; and he was nominated because he did hold the doctrine that the people of a Territory might either introduce or exclude, protect or prohibit, slavery at pleasure. For that reason, Mr. Yancey and histwo colleagues on the committee proceeded to put their protest on re- cord. The argument of the equality of the States, of which we have heard so much, was urged. The other argument, that the Territories are the com- mon property, and, therefore, should be open to all the citizens, independent of local authority, was used. The argument that it is not creditable to the Democratic party to go before the country dodging the question of the rights of the South in the Territories, was brought forward. It says that the convention, in the platform, had refused to express an opinion on the question whether the Territorial Legislature could prohibit slavery or not ; that it was not creditable to them to avoid expressing an opinion on the point; that it con- victed the Democratic party of double-dealing in the manner that they had charged upon the Whigs, and that what rendered it necessary to have an expression of opinion on that point was, that the candidate held that a Territorial Legis- lature could exclude slavery. Then he concludes with a resolution, which is very adroitly written, I know, but, taken in connection with the report, has a clear signification, in harmony with the report: “That the doctrine of non-interference with the rights of properly of any portion of the people of this Confeder- ation, be it in the States or in the Territories, by any other than the parties interested in them, is the true republican doctrine recognized by this body.” That is, nobody but theowner of theslavemust interfere with his right to hold him. Neither Con- gress nor a Territorial Legislature must^iterfere with tit e rights of the slaveholder in the Terri- tories to manage and control his slaves. That was the proposition Mr. Yancey presented. It was submitted to the convention — fairly and boldly met; and I will read the vote in the convention, by States, rejecting Mr. Yancey’s report and reso- lution. Mr. Yancey enforced his report with a speech, which is here reported, but which is too long to quote, and then concluded: “ I now close by offering the resolution as an amend- ment to the report of the committee. “ The question was taken on Mr. Yancey’s resolution ; and it was. by States, rejected — 36 to 216; as follows: ] “Yeas — Maryland. 1; South Carolina. 9; George, 9; I Florida, 3 : Alabama, 9 ; Arkansas, 3 ; Tennessee, 1 ; Ken- tucky, 1 — 36. “Nays — Maine, 9; New Hampshire, 6; Massachusetts, 12; Vermont. 6: Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut. 6 ; New Jersey, 7 ; New York. — ; Pennsylvania, 26 ; Delaware, 8; Maryland, 6; Virginia, 17; North Carolina.il: Missis- sippi, 6; Louisiana, 6; Texas, 4; Tennessee, 12; Ken- tucky, 11 ; Ohio, 23; Indiana, 12; Illinois, 9 ; Michigan, 5; Iowa, 4; Missouri, 7; “Wisconsin, 4—216. Here we find Virginia, North Carolina, Ken- tucky, Tennessee. Missouri voting against the incorporation of the doctrine of intervention for the protection of slavery into the platform. They voted against the doctrine of Mr. Yancey’s re- port and resolution. Those States then had the opportunity of affirming this doctrine, if they thought it ought to be any portion of the Demo- cratic creed. Not only the States I have named — the border States — voted that way, but you will find voting against this doctrine Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas — the very States that have now seceded from the Charleston convention, for the reason that this same doctrine was not incorpor- ated into the platform. In 184S, they voted against putting it into the platform ; in 1860 their delegates holt the convention because it was not put into the platform. The Senate and the coun- try will judge who has changed on this question. North Carolina, through Mr. Strange, stated her reason for voting against this doctrine ; which was that the resolutions of the platform, as it stood, covered the entire doctrine of non intervention by Congress in States and Territories. That is what he wanted; that Congress should not in- tervene, leaving it for the Territories to do as they pleased, so that they did not violate the Constitution; and the judiciary to correct their errors if they did violate the Constitution. Mr. McAllister, of Georgia, explained that George voted for the resolution because they did not think it went so far as was claimed by Mr. Yan- cey in his speech ; in effect, disavowing the doc- trine of intervention, which Mr. Yancey intend- ed to affirm. Now, Mr. President, I think I have shown conclusively that in 1S48 the Democratic ereed was non-iDtervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories, either for or against it; that Congress should not interfere either to establish or abolish it, or protect or maintain it — unquali- 8 fled non-intervention. The Democratic party was committed to the doctrine. It is true there were individual exceptions, men who did not believe in this doctrine of non-intervention, and the Senator from Mississippi was one of them. He supported General Cass under protest, making speejj^es for him, and protesting against his Nicholson letter and the doctrines contained in it. The Senator from Mississippi has a clean record, but a record outside of the Democratic party — a record at war with the Democratic platform — rebelling against its principles and acquiescing in its nomination. The Senator then, as now, granted no quarter to squatter sover- eignty, but he made speeches for the squatter sovereignty chief. I pass now, sir, to 1850, in order to show clearly by the record, as was stated by the Senator from Mississippi, that the 6ame doctrine of non-inter- vention was incorporated into the compromise measures of 1850, against his will, and on my motion. We differed then, as we differ now; he against those measures, I for them. I deem it my duty, even at the risk of being a little tedi- ous, to show that this doctrine was then tho- roughly discussed, and that, after a deliberate debate, which ran over two months, it was af- firmed by a vote of nearly two to one in the Senate, and incorporated into the compromise measures of 1850. On the 25th of March, %1 850, the chairman of the Committee on Territories of this body (Mr. Douglas) reported two bills — one for the admission of California as a State ; the other, to organize the Territories of Utah and New Mexico, and adjust the .disputed boundary with Texas. On the 19th of April, the Senate appointed the celebrated committee of thirteen, with Mr. Clay at its head, to consider the whole question. On the 8th of May, Mr. Clay, as chairman of the committee of thirteen, reported the celebrated omnibus bill to the Senate, which, as your records will show, consisted of the two printed bills previously reported by myself from the Territorial Committee, with a waferbetween them, and certain amendments interlined in writ- ing. One of the amendments, which was made in the committee of thirteen, I will point out, for it involves this distinct question now in dis- pute. The bill, as it was originally reported by myself, defined the powers of the Territorial Legislature in these words: “ And be it further enacted. That the legislative power of the Territories 'shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act; but uo law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposition of the soil,” &c. As reported from theTerritorial Committee, the bill was silent on the subject of slavery; the bill ignored the slavery question, and conferred on the Territorial Legislature power over all righ tful sub- jects of legislation consistent with the Constitu- tion, without excepting slavery. The committee of thirteen reported this amendment to it, after the clause ; “but no law shall be passed interfer- ing with the primary disposition of the soil,” by adding “nor in respect to African slavery;” so that the committee of thirteen reported against the Territorial Legislature passing any law in re speet to African slavery. Mr. Clay stated that that limitation on the Territorial Legislature had been incorporated into the bill against his will and his judgment. General Cass, in debate, made the same statement that it had been incorporated against his judgment. They were in favor of allowing the Territorial Legislature to act on all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the .- Constitution, without excepting African slavery; but a majority of the committee overruled them. When this report came in, the Senator from Mis- sissippi objected to the bill, and proposed an amendment to the very section to which I refer, which I will ask my friend to read, with the ex- planatory remarks of the Senator in offering it. Mr. PUGH. When the bill came up for action on the 1 5th of May, Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, said: “ I offer the following amendment : to strike out in the sixth line of the tenth section the words ‘ in respect to A ./- rican slavery,' and insert the words ‘ with those l ights of property growing out of the institution of African sla- very as it exists in any of the States of the Union.' The object of the amendment is to prevent the Territorial Le- gislature from legislating against the rights of property growing out of the institution of slavery.” * * * “It will leave to the Territorial Legislatures those rights and powers which are essentially necessary, not only to the preservation of property, but to the peace of the Territory. It will leave the right to make such police regulations as are necessary to prevent disorders, and which will be ab- solutely necessary with such property as that to secure its beneficial use to its owner. With this brief explanation I submit the amendment.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Thus it will be seen that the Senator from Mississippi objected to the bill, be- cause it did not contain a prohibition on the Le- gislature of the Territory against legislating in a manner hostile to slavery. He wished the Ter- ritorial Legislature to have the power to protect, but not the power to prohibit. That was his po- sition. I give him the credit of having been con- sistent on that point. 1 wished to give the Terri- torial Legislature power over all rightful subjects of legislation, leaving slave property and horse property and every other species of property on an exact equal footing; leaving the people to make their own regulations as they pleased so that they did not violate the Constitution. The Senator from Mississippi desired an exception as to slavery, to the effect that they might protect it, but should not adopt unfriendly legislation to it, taking sla- very out of the category of other property. Mr. Clay among other things said, in reply to the Sen- ator from Mississippi, what will now be read. Mr. PUGH read, as follows: “Mr. Clay.” * * * “The clause itself was Intro- duced into the bill by the committee for the purpose of ty- ing up the hands of the Territorial Legislature in respect to legislating at all, one way or the other, upon the subject of African slavery. It was intended to leave the legisla- tion and the law of the respective Territories in the con- dition in which the act will find them. I slated on a former occasion that I did not, in committee, vote for the amend- ment to insert the clause, though it was proposed to be in- troduced by a majority of the committee. I attached very little consequence to it at the time, and I attach very little to it at present. It is perhaps of no particular importance whatever. Now, sir, if I understand the measure propos- ed by the Senator from Mississippi, it aims at the same thing. I do not understand him as proposing that if any one shall carry slaves into the Territory — although by the laws of the Territory he cannot take them there — the leg- islative hands of the territorial governments should be so tied a3 to prevent it saying he shall not enjoy the fruits of their labor. If the Senator from Mississippi means to say that 9 “ Mr. Davis. I do mean to say it. “Mr. Clat. If the object of the Senator is to provide j that slaves may be introduced into the Territory contrary to the lex loci, and being introduced, nothing shall be done j by the Legislature to impair the rights of owners to hold the slaves thus brought contrary to the local laws, I cer- tainly cannot rote for it. In doing so, I shall repeat again the expression of opinion which I announced at an early period of the session.” Mr. DOUGLAS. There it will be found that a distinct issue was made up between Mr. Clay and the Senator from Mississippi. The Senator from Mississippi insisted that the legislation of Congress should be so framed as to recognize the right of the slaveholder to go into the Territory and hold his property in defiance of the local law. Mr. Clay said that he would never agree to the recognition of the doctrine that you could carry slaves to a Territory and hold them against the lex loci , in defiance of the local law. On this dis- tinct issue it was that the Senator from Missis- sippi and the illustrious Kentuckian differed. Mr. Clay was against the Wilmot proviso ; but he was against repealing by Congress the Mexi- can laws that were adverse to slavery. He was against the recognition by Congress of the alleged right to carry slaves there, and hold them in vio- lation of the local law. He was against auy act that would prevent the people of the Territories from deciding for themselves whether they would have slavery or not. In other words, Mr. Clay supported and sustained every vote which the Senator from Mississippi brings in judgment against me, except one; and that one was given under instructions, as the Senator from Missis- sippi is well aware. This debate shows clearly that the compromise measures of 1850 were intended to assert the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories, leaving the people to do as they pleased, so that they did not violate the Constitution, and leaving the courts to ascer- tain whether they did violate it or not. Mr. GREEK. Will the Senator allow me ? Mr. DOUGLAS. I cannot yield for interrup- tion. Mr. GREEK. Very welL Mr. DOUGLAS. I ask my friend (Mr. Pugh) to continue the extracts from that debate, on both sides, a little further, in order to put them on the record. Mr. PUGH read as follows: “Mr. Davis.” * * * “ We are giving, or proposing to give, a government to a Territory, which act rests upon the basis of our right to make such provision. We sup- pose we have a right to confer power. If so, we may mark out the limit to which they may legislate, and are bound not to confer power beyond that which exists in Congress. If we give them power to legislate beyond that, we commit a fraud or usurpation, as it may be done openly, covertly, or indirectly.” To which Mr. Clay replied : “Now, sir, I only repeat what I had occasion to say be- fore, that while I am willing to stand aside and make no legislative enactment one way or the other— to Rty off the Territories without the Wilmot proviso, on the one hand, with which I understand we are threatened, or without an attempt to introduce a clause for the introduction of slavery iu the Territories — while I am for rejecting both the one and the other, I am content that the law as it ex- ists shall prevail ; and if there be any diversity of opinion as to what it means, I am willing that it shall be settled by the highest judicial authority of the country. While I am content thus to abide the result, I must say that I cannot vote for any express provision recognizing the right to carry slaves there.” To which Mr. Davis rejoined that — “ It is said onr Revolution grew out of a preamble ; and I hope we have something of the same character of the hardy men of the Revolution who first commenced the war with the mother country: something of the spirit of that bold Yankee who said be had a right to go to Con- cord, and that go he would ; and who, in the maintenance of that right, met his death at the hands of a British sen- tinel. Now, sir, if our right to carry slaves in these Ter- ritories be a constitutional right, it is our first duty to maintain it.” Mr. DOUGLAS. These extracts confirm tbe statement that the issue was precisely as I have stated it, and that the Senator from Mississippi then took the ground that he now maintains; but that Mr. Clay, the champion of the compromise measures of 1S50, took the opposite ground. Mr. Clay, in that very speech, answered the objection about there being two constructions of this doe- trine of non-intervention. He was for non-inter- vention by Congress ; no restriction upon tbe Territorial Legislature; and then leaving it to the courts to decide whether the territorial enact- ments were constitutional or not. That was the position of Mr. Clay; that was the position of the champion of those measures. The Senator from Mississippi asserted his right to go with his property, in violation of the local law, and said he was going to act upon the doc- trine of the sergeant at LexiDglon, who said that he had a right to go to Concord, and was going. The Senator from Mississippi modified his amend- ment so as to make the language more palatable ; but not to change the principle, to wit: that the Territorial Legislature might legislate to protect slavery, but not legislate in hostility to it. In th^t shape, his amendment was rejected. Then Mr. Chase, of Ohio, offered the counterpart, to restrict the power, so that the Territorial Legis- lature might prohibit slavery, but not protect or tolerate it. That was rejected by precisely the same number of votes as the proposition of the Senator from Mississippi. By these votes, the Senate showed that the object of the bill was to leave the Territorial Legislature to do as it pleas- ed, subject to the Constitution, with the courts to ascertain when it violated it; but not to put auy restriction on the Territorial Legislature, except that which the Constitution imposed. Now, sir, I am compelled, in this connection, ! to do what I dislike to do — quote from my own speeches, to show that I then took the position I do now in vindication of the ground taken by Mr. Clay, and in opposition to that assumed by the Senator from Mississippi. I will ask the Sen- ator from Ohio to read that extract. Mr. PUGH. Upon these amendments — the one affirming the pro-slavery and the other the anti- slavery position, in opposition to the right of the people of tire Territories to decide the slavery question for themselves — Mr. Douglas said : “The position that I have ever taken has been that this and all other questions relating to the domestic affairs and domestic policy of the Territories, ought to he left to the decision of the people themselves ; and that we ought to be content with whatever way they may decide the question, because they have a much deeper interest in these matters than we have, and know much better what institutions suit them than we, who have never been there, ean decide for them. I would therefore have much pre- 10 ferred that that portion of the bill should have remained as it was reported from the Committee on Territories, with no provision on the subject of slavery, the one way or the other. And I do hope yet that that clause 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, that it ought not to be there, because it is a violation ofprin- | ciple— a violation of that principle upon which we have all rested our defence of the course we have taken on this question. I do not see how those of us who have taken the position we have taken— that of non-intervention — and have argued in favor of the right of the people to leg- islate for themselves on this question, can support such a provision without abandoning all the arguments which we used in the presidential campaign in the year 1848, and the principles set forth by the honorable Senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass) in that letter which is known as the ‘ Nicholson letter.’ We are required to abandon that plat- form ; we are required to abandon those principles, and to stultify ourselves, and to adopt the opposite doctrine — and for what? In order to say that the people of the Ter- ritories shall not have such institutions as they shall deem adapted to their conditions and their wants. I do not see, sir, how such a provision can be acceptible either to the people of the North or the South.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, it is unneces- sary for ine to add one word to the extract from my own speech, to show that I took precisely the position then that I take now. I will next ask my friend to read a brief extract from the speech of General Cass in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi, and also to the amendment of Mr. Chase, of Ohio, and in favor of the same doctrine that I am now advocating. Mr. PUGH. Mr. Cass said, (referring to the amendment offered by Mr. Davis and Mr. Chase:) “Now, with respect to the amendments, I shall vote against them both; and then I shall vote in favor of striking out the restriction in the bill upon the power of the Terri- torial governments. I shall do so upon this ground : I was opposed, as the honorable Senator from Kentucky has declared he was, to the insertion of this prohibition by the committee ; I consider it inexpedient and unconsti- tutional. I have already stated my belief that the rightful power of internal legislation in the Territories belongs to the people.” Mr. DOUGLAS. As I have already said, the vote was taken on these two amendments — the one offered by the Senator from Mississippi; the other by the former Senator from Ohio — and each of them was rejected by T a vote of, yeas 25, nays SO; there being precisely the same majority against each. Having thus rejected the two propositions, the one, affirming the right and power of the Territories to protect slavery, but not to prohibit it; and the other affirming the power and duty to prohibit, but not to protect, the record shows that Mr. Douglas moved to strike out all in the bill concerning slavery, so that the people of the Territories might do as they pleased, without any other restriction than the Constitution. That motion was voted down when made by myself ; but subsequently, after the debate had gone at great length, Mr. Clay, from his seat at the corner of the Chamber, passed to mine, and said: “If you will renew your motion to strike out that limitation, it will now be carried, and we shall save this bill.” I stated to him that my friend, the Senator from Hew Hampshire, (Mr. Norris,) now no more, would not vote for the bill, unless those words were out; and I thought, out of courtesy, I would let him make the motioD, as I had once made it, aud I would see him. At the request of Mr. Clay, I went to Mr. Norris. He made the motion to strike it out. It was carried by a vote of 82 in the affirmative to 19 in the negative; thus re- jecting the doctrine of the Senator from Missis- sippi, aud sustaining the position advocated by myself. Now, sir, I am free to say to that Senator, that he and I did differ in that contest. I advocated non-intervention then, as I do now. He fought it then gallantly, as he always fights; but he was defeated by a vote of nearly two to one ; and I was sustained; and my proposition, and not his, became the basis of those measures. Congress adjourned immediately after the passage of those measures, in the midst of a terriffie excitement, North aud South. Northern agitators had in- flamed the passions and prejudicesof the northern people, by representing those compromise meas- ures as being measures for the extension of sla- very. The southern opponents of the measures had inflamed the passions of the southern people into the belief that the compromise measures were a sacrifice of southern rights and southern honor. Appeals were made to the people, North and South, by northern interventionists and southern interventionists, against those measures that had been passed by the majority — the one represent- ing them as sacrificing northern rights and north- ern honor; the other representing them as sacri- ficing southern lights and southern honor. That was the issue. I went to my own State to make' my appeal to my own people in vindication of my course. The country knows — history has recorded — the mode in which I was received when I landed in Chi- cago. The City Council, filled with Abolitionists, had passed resolutions annulling the fugitiveslave law, instructing the police to withhold any’ assist- ance in the execution of the law, proclaiming it to be a violation of the law of God aud of the Constitution. The standard of rebellion was raised. The public passions were inflamed. A fugitive slave was about to be arrested, and civil war was anticipated by every man. It was not a pleasant task to me to go into a public meeting thus inflamed and excited and infuriated, and tell those people that they’ had been deceived about the character of those measures; that the fugitive slave law was right; that it was an act required by the Constitution of the country, which we were bound to support; that the com- promise measures were, all of them, founded on correct and sound principles. History records the fact that I met that infuriated populace, composed of honest and intelligent, but mis- guided men, and that I defended each and every one of those measures before that people, and procured from them a resolution that the fugitive slave law should be executed, and the compro- mise measures of 1850 sustained. I mu9t trouble my friend to read a passage from my own speech before that meeting at Chicago, in vindication of those measures — a speech made under such cir- cumstances that my’ best friends warned me that my life would pay the forfeit — and then you will see on what principle I defended them. Mr. PUGH read as follows: “ These measures are predicated on the great funda- mental principle that every people ought to possess tira risrht of for mine: and regulating their own internal con- cerns and domestic institutions in their own way. It was j supposed that those of our fellow-citizens who emigrated I to the shores of the Pacific and to our other Territories, I were as capable of self-government as their neighbors and kindred whom they left behind them; and there was no reason for believing that they had lost any of their intelli- gence or patriotism by the wayside, while crossing the isthmus or the plains. It was also believed, that after their arrival in the country, when they had become fami- liar with its topography, climate, productions, and re- sources, and had connected their destiny with it, they were fully as competent to judge for themselves what kind of laws and institutions were best adapted to their condition and interests, as we were who never saw the country, and knew very little about it. To question their competency to do this, was to deny their capacity for self-government". If they have the requisite intelligence and honesty to be intrusted with the enactment of laws for the government of white men, I know of no reason why they should not be deemed competent to legislate for the negro. If they ' are sufficiently enlightened to make laws for the protec- ! tion of life, liberty, and property — of morals and educa- tion— to determine the relations of husband and wife, of parent and child, I am not aware that it requires any I higher degree of civilization to regulate the affairs of mas- j ter and servant. These things are all confided by the Con- stitution to each State to decide for itself, and I know of no reason why the same principle should not be extended to the Territories. My votes and aeis have been in ac- cordance with these views in all cases, except (he instances in which I voted under your instructions. Those were your votes, and not mine. I entered my protest against them at the time — before and after they were recorded— and shall never hold myself responsible for them.” Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President after that speech, made under the circumstances to which I have referred, more than half a million copies were circulated throughout the country by order of tire great national committee of New York, which became alarmed lest the Union should be dissolved — a speech which was laid on the tables of Senators at the opening of the session, and re- ceived a wider circulation and more approval than any speech of my whole life. In view of these facts, I submit whether it is fair to charge me with having for the first time at Freeport, in 1858, asserted the doctrine that the people of a Territory can decide this question for them- selves? I told the people of Chicago, in 1850, that the compromise measures rested on the great fundamental principle that every people ought to possess the right to manage their own domes- tic concerns in their own way; that the people of the States possessed the power, and the people of the Territories ought to have it ; that all my votes had been cast in accordance with that principle, except when acting tinder their instruc- tions ; that those votes were the votes of those who instructed me, and not my own, and that I would never hold myself responsible for them. Is it fair for Senators to quote those votes, given under those circumstances ? The Legislature of Illinois was elected a short time afterwards. "When they assembled, they passed resolutions approving of the compromise measures of 1850, and instructing the Senators from thatJptate, in all new territorial organizations, to incorporate the principle that the people of the Territory should decide the slavery question for themselves. Thus, sir, I was sustained in my appeal to my own people in justification of my opposition to the views of the Senator from Mississippi. IIow was if. with his appeal to his people? The coun- try has not forgotten, and will not soon forget, with what anxiety all America looked to Missis- sippi, to Alabama, to Georgia, to South Carolina, to know whether or not the submissionists — as the friends of those measures were sneeringly called — were to he sustained and the Union saved, or whether the ideas now proclaimed and then held by the Senator from Mississippi were to become the rule of action in the southern States. I know not what he meant; but the country understood and believed, so far as I know, that the fate of the Union depended upon the r suit of those States agreeing to acquiesce or not acquiesce. I do not doubt the attachment of the Senator from Mississippi to this Union; I do not doubt his devotion to his country. His services in the field and in the Cabinet and in the Senate, have proved his attachment; but I do believe, that if he had been sustained in his appeal to the people of Mississippi against the compromise measures of 1850, the Union could not have been preserved. He appealed to Mis- sissippi. General Foote was the standard-bearer of the friends of the compromise measures of 1850; the Senator (Mr. Davis) the st.andard- beai'er of his own views as he has expressed them in the Senate. The world knows the result. Mississippi decided against the Senator, (Mr. Da- vis,) and in favor of his opponent. Mississippi rebuked the doctrine of intervention, and placed her Foote upon it. How was it in Alabama? There Yancey led off, and was sustained by the same body of men that lately attempted to breakup the Charleston convention. The same Yancey who avowed the same doctrine of intervention at Baltimore in 1848, when it was voted down by his own party, that same Yancey boldlv bore the flag of the in- terventionists of Alabama against the compro- mise measures of 1850; but Alabama, like Mis- sissippi, told Mr. Yancey and his co-intervention- ists to obey the laws of the land and acquiesce in the principle of non-intervention as affirmed in the measures of 1850. In Georgia, too, the battle raged all along the line, as the Senator from that State (Mr. ToOmbs) can bear testimony. He found it necessary to form a union of Union men against the oppo- nents of the compromise measures of 1850. The battle waged fiercely and savagely. You, sir, (addressing Mr. Toombs,) and your associates, were denounced as submissionists because you sustained the principle of non-intervention, as affirmed in the compromise measures of 1850. They were not going to submit — no, not they; but when the election came, Georgia decided against them, and in favor of the compromise measures, if I recollect right, by about twenty- one thousand majority. Then, instead of being the fire-eaters, they themselves in turn became the submissionists; but they submitted by com- pulsion of their own people. The people of Georgia told the Senator before my eye (Mr. Iverson) that he must submit to the doctrines which he taught in his speech of 1848, when General Cass was the candidate for the Presi- dency. So in South Carolina. Your Rhett-s led the forces there against the compromise measures. The gallant and patriotic Butler, who, although 12 he had opposed the measures as a Senator, feel- ing that it was his duty to sustain the constitu- ted authorities, on the other hand, led those who were in favor of acquiescing in the action of Congress. And South Carolina herself decided against those men who were going to break up parties and the Union on this question of inter- vention and non-intervention. Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. President Mr. DOUGLAS. I prefer not to yield. Mr. HAMMOND. One single word. Mr. DOUGLAS. Well. Mr. HAMMOND. At the time of the passage of the compromise measures, Mr. Kkett was not in the Senate. Mr. DOUGLAS. I know he was not. Mr. HAMMOND. The question that arose Mr. DOUGLAS. I must say to my friend The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Fitzpat- rick.) Does the Senator from Illinois yield the floor to the Senator from South Carolina? Mr. DOUGLAS. I cannot. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina will resume his seat. Mr. DOUGLAS. I am aware that Mr. Rhett was not in the Senate at that time; but Mr. Rhett’s opinions were known then as well as they are now; and he led the men who were not willing to submit to the compromise measures of 1850, and was rebuked by his own people, and he became a submissionist perforce. Here you have the verdict of the American people, North and South, in favor of the doctrine of non-inter- vention. The southern interventionists, who had been defeated and overthrown at home, at last came to the conclusion that they, too, would sub- mit, not from choice, but because they could not help it; and they said then to us, “Let us reu- nite the Democratic party, and present a united front against the Abolitionists of the North.” We said to them: “Gentlemen, although you have erred ; although you have erred egregi- ously on this question, in resisting Don-interveu- tion, we will forgive you, if you will come up to Baltimore and acquiesce in a resolution estab- lishing non-intervention for the future.” We re- ceived the Senator from Mississippi on the terms, as we supposed, of acquiescence in the compro- mise measures of 1850, and the affirmance of non- intervention as the rule of the party in the fu- ture. We granted him “quarter” after he had been condemned, and was ready for execution — Mr. DAVIS. I scorned it then, and scorn it now. Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir; as I scorned his threat not to grant “ quarter” the other day. I like the spirit that animates him to scorn “quar- ter.” But, sir, the convention at Baltimore, nevertheless, did ratify and confirm these com- promise measures as containing the rule of action of the party. He will not deny that the conten- tion, by a unanimous vote, decided in favor^of the compromise measures; that General Pierce was nominated for President on that issue; that he was elected on that issue and none other; that he never would have been elected but for that issue; and the Senator from Mississippi became Secretary of War by virtue of the same issue. These are stubborn facts. He never could have been Secretary of War if the Democratic nomi- nee had not been elected. General Pierce could never have been elected or nominated if he had not stood upon the issue of non intervention by Congress with slavery in States and Territories. When the party came together, we, the friends 1 of the compromise measures of 1850; we, the friends of non-intervention, were magnanimous and tolerant. We made no issues upon those who had differed with us ; we were generous and forgiving ; we did not remind them of their faults, nor of their humiliation. We recognized them as our equals. We never expected to be told that we were to be pursued to the death ; and that “ no quarter” was to be granted to us when- ever you got the accidental power to inflict re- venge. We are tolerant. If we succeed now, we do not propose to proscribe anybody because of a difference of opinion, so long as he remains in the Democratic organization and supports its nominees. Mr. President, having shown that General Pierce was nominated and elected on this princi- ple of non-intervention ; that he stood pledged by every dictate of honor and fidelity to carry it out in good faith, I will now proceed to show how it was carried out in the enactment of the Kansas- Nebraska bill. At that time the Senate of the United States had a chairman of the Committee on Territories who did unquestionably reflect the sentiments of the body, and of the Democratic party in the body. It having become necessary to organize the Territories of Kansas and Ne- braska, the Committee on Territories, through me, as its chairman, on the 4th of January, 1854, made a report to this body, accompanied by a bill. In this report we set forth distinctly the princi- ples upon which it was proposed to organize these Territories. I will ask my friend from Ohio to read an extract from that report, to show what wefe those principles. Mr. PUGPI read, as follows: “ In the judgment of your committee, those measures ftiio compromise measures of 1S50J were intended to have a far more compreben-ive and enduring effect than the mere ad- justment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certain great principles, which would not only furnish adequate reme- dies for existing evils, but, in ail time to come, avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by withdrawing the question of slavery from the Halls of Congress and the political arena, and com- mitting i: to the arbitrament of those who were immediately in- terested in, and alone responsible for, its consequences. With a view of conforming their action to tire settled policy ot the Government, sanctioned by tire approving voice of the American people, your committee have deemeipt t l»eir duty to incorporate and perpetuate, in their territorial bill, the principles and spirit of those measures.” After presenting and reviewing certain provi- sions of the bill, the committee conclude as fol- lows: “ Fro^ these provisions it is appatent that the compromise measures of 1850 affirm and rest upon the following propositions - “ First. That all questions pertaining to slavery in the Ter ritories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that pur- pos*e, “ Second. That all cases involving title to slaves, and ques- tions of personal freedom, are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals; with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. “ Third. That the provision of the Constitution of the United 13 States in respect to fugitives from service is to be carried into faithful execution in ail the organized Territories the same as in the States. The substitute for the bill which your committee have prepared, and which is coir, mended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these propositions and princi- ples into practical operation, in the precise language of the compromise measures of JS50.” Mr. DOUGLAS. It appears, from these ex- tracts from the report of the Committee on Terri- tories, that we did not propose to mislead any man, or to permit any man to he misled, in re- gard to the principle on which the proposed ter- ritorial action was to be based. The principles were distinctly set forth: first, that the slavery question was to be banished forever from the Halls of Congress, and remanded to the people of the Territories who were immediately interested : secondly, that all questions involving the title to slaves, and matters of personal freedom, were re- ferred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Here non-intervention was established as an invariable rule of action ; the Territories were to legisla' e as they pleased, so that they did not violate the Constitution ; and if they passed any law impairing, or injurious to, the rights of property in slaves, suit should he brought in the local court of the Territory, with a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States; and that we would abide the result of such decisions. Then the fugitive slave law was to be faithfully executed and carried into ef- fect. Can any man have an excuse for not know- ing that the true intent and meaning of the Kan- sas-Uebraska act was, that Congress renounced forever all right or pretext for interfering with slavery in the Territories, either to establish, pro hibit, or protect ? Remember, the questions to he referred to the courts were such questions as should arise under the territorial enactments, and the cases all were to go into the local courts, with a right of appeal. Certainly, if gentlemen did not understand the provisions of the hill, it was not the fault of the committee that reported it. I insist that the terms of the bill are still more explicit on this point. Having given notice, in the report, of what we intended to do, and how we intended to do it, and for what purpose we put the provision in the bill itself in language so plain that he who runs may read, there can be no excuse for not understanding it. In the four- teenth section of the bill we provided: “ That the Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory 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-in- tervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 18o0, commonly called the * compromise measures,’ is hereby declared inoperativeand void : it being the true iftient and meaning of this act not i "legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regu- late their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” There you find several distinct propositions affirmed in the body of the bill — that is the pro- vision of the bill which the late Colonel Benton denounced as being a mere stump speech; because the drafter of the hill was careful enough to in- corporate the distinct propositions which it was intended to carry out. We did not mean to leave it in doubt. In the first place, the principle an- nounced was, that we repealed the Missouri com- promise because it was inconsistent with the prin- ciple of non intervention by Congress with slavery- in the States and Territories, as affirmed in the compromise measures of 1850. There is the as- sertion, that the compromise measures were in- consistent with intervention for any purpose; that it was necessary to establish non-intervention, without any exception or any qualification, in order to carryout the principle of the compromise measures of 1850; and we repealed the Missouri compromise merely for the purpose of applying that principle and banishing the slavery question from Congress, and remanding it to the people of the Territories. That was the object, the only object, for which we ever repealed it. Every Senator who voted for the Kansas-Nebraska bill declared by his vote that non intervention was the rule in the compromise measures of 1850. He is estopped from denying it; and it was well un- derstood, at the time, that we were making an indorsement of the principle of the compromise measures of 1850 ; and we insisted that we would never repeal the Missouri restriction until we had that recognition. I remember well that when southern Senators, who had opposed the compro- mise measures of 1850, came to me and asked me to strike out the words “being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures,” I asked them why ? They told me they had voted against the measures of 1850, and this seemed to stultify . them, by compelling them to affirm them. I said, in these consultations, “You have agreed to with- draw your opposition and acquiesce, and I must have it inserted in the bill, that we repeal the Missouri restrict ion only 7 for the purpose of car- rying out the principle of non-intervention ;” and there are men within the hearing of my 7 voice to whom these reasons were given. It was con- sidered as rather a bitter pill to those who had opposed the compromise measures of 1850; but we insisted that they should swallow it as the only condition on which we would pass such a bill. We had the recognition of the principle, and we had the pledge of honor of every Senator who voted for the Kansas-Uebraska act, that he would stand by the doctrine of non intervention in all time to come. The Journal shows it. We took his bond, and recorded it on the Journal; it still exists, and will be imperishable. What else is asserted? 44 It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Slate or Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom.” That does not tell what the intent was, but what was not the intent. What was the intent? 41 But to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and legulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” That was the intent. Every man who voted for the bill declared, on his oath, that that was the intent: non-intervention by Congress; the people left free to do as they pleased, so that they did 14 not violate the Constitution, am] the courts to : find out whether they violated the Constitution of j the United States or not; but Congress never to j interfere in any case. That is the way we agreed to this bill. The record shows it. I have no con- troversy with any man who was not a member of the body at the time the bill passed, nor with any man who has changed his opinions since and will avow the change; but I assert that, beyond cavil, beyond dispute, beyond pretext, the object was, as avowed in the bill itself — non-interven- tion by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories; and I cannot permit it to be said, without reply, that non-intervention meant only that Congress should not establish or prohibit slavery, and did not mean that it should not pro- tect it. Sir, the record shows that it did mean that Congress should never interfere for any pur- ; pose, either to protect, prohibit, or abolish. That very question was raised bj T a Senator , from Michigan, Mr. Stewart, while the bill was pending, after this proposition which I have read had been voted in. He said that while we had stated the principle correctly, still the effect of the bill would be, by repealing the Missouri com- promise, to revive the old French laws protecting slavery, and that thus we should have intervened in the very act of non-intervening, by reviving a law for the protection of slavery. That was his opinion. Mr. Stuart laid down the proposi- tion as a lawyer that to repeal a repealing act revived the former act;' and hence, when we re- ! pealed the Missouri compromise we revived the j French law that had become void when that ' compromise was established. That eminent law- yer and jurist, Mr. Badger, of Forth Carolina, replied that Mr. Stewart had properly stated the common law rule on that subject; but that the civil law rule was different, that where ever the civil law existed, if you repealed a repealing act, it did not revive the former act, and hence that no amendment was necessary on that, point. After consultation, an amendment was prepared, which is known to the country as the Badger amend- ment, the object of which was to declare that Congress should not protect slavery itself, nor do any act by which it should be protected, con- trary to the will of the people; that Congress would not only not protect it, but would not, do anything that would cause a revival of any law that would protect it, the object being to leave the Territories a white sheet of paper, with no- thing but the Constitution upon it, and to say to the people, “Go and write on it what, you please; slavery, if you want it; and no slavery, if you do not want it.” It was to be, in the classic lan- guage of that day, a clean tabula rasa. The way we understood it. the way the people understood it, was the way it reads now. Let me call your attention to the Badger amendment, to show that, that proviso was put in for the express purpose of declaring that Congress would not even permit any old law which would protect slavery to be revived. That amendment first was in the very language that it should not revive any law which would protect or establish slavery. It was mod- ified so as to read in these words: "Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be con strned to revir e or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of the 6th of March, U'20, either protecting , establishing, or. abolishing slavety.” That is to say, Congress will do neither; each is inconsistent with Don-intervention. These propositions were all in the bill. I well remem- ber the history of the Badger amendment. When I found it necessary to put it in, to satisfy the scruples of some men as to whether the repeal of the Missouri restriction would not revive the old French law, I, as chairman of the committee, having charge of the bill, went to every Senator in the body friend^ to the measure, who was then present, to know whether it was satisfac- tory, and that, too, after the debate; and every single Senator, North and South, who was then present, and friendly to the hill, agreed to that amendment in those precise words. I remember the last one whom I consulted. I saw Mr. Badger entering from the door of the cloak room at the corner. He had been out, and I went to consult him. He said, “Yes, it is right.” I suggested to him that I had seen every Senator, going over all the names, who was friendly to the hill, and everyone had agreed to it. “Certainly,” said he. “ Now,” said I, “who shall offer it?” Said he, “It ought to come from a southern man. A northern man brought forward the repeal, and a southern man ought to bring forward the proviso against reviving the old laws for the protection of slavery.” I asked him if he would do it? “Certainly, sir,” said he. He walked right to his desk and offered it. Pending the vote on the amendment, two or three southern Senators came in, who w r ere not aware of the agreement, and they voted in the negative; and those were the only negative votes, according to my recollec- tion, against the Badger amendment. I say, then, the Badger amendment was put in for the pur- pose, and the only purpose, of declaring that, while Congress would not interfere, it would not permit, as a consequence of its act, any law to be revived that would either protect or abolish slavery, or deprive the people of the right to do as thej" pleased on that question. Mr. President, the record is so full, so explicit on this matter, that there is no room for miscon- struction. The only point on which anybody differed, so far as I know, was the simple one of the extent of the limitation imposed by the Con- stitution on the Territorial Legislature. That was the point referred to the courts. Slavery was banished forever from Congress; the people were to do as they pleased, so that they did not vio- late the Constitution ; and, if they did, the courts were to determine the extent of the limitations imposed by the Constitution on their action. That was stated to he the object in the report accompanying the bill. That is shown to be the object in the judiciary clauve of the bill; giving jurisdiction to the territorial courts in all cases touching the title to slaves, or personal freedom without regard to the amount involved in con- troversy, as in other cases. I could take up the debates and show that it was understood at that time, and by eminent southern men, that that was the onlj* point referred to the courts. I will trouble the Senate only with one authority on 15 that point, and I quote him simply because of ' | his eminent character and the respect this body and the country have for him — I mean Mr. Hun- tee, of Virginia. Mr. PUGH read the following extract from Mr. Hunter’s speech of February 24, 1854: “ The bill provides that the Legislatures of these Territories shall have power to legislate over all rightful subjects of legisla- |j tion consistently with the Constitution. And, if they should | j assume powers which are thought to be inconsistent with the j Constitution, the courts will decide that question wherever it ! j may be raised. There is a difference of opinion among ■ the 'j friends of this measure as to the extent of the limits which jj the Constitution imposes upon the Territorial legislatures 1 This bill proposes to leave these differences to the decision of i the courts. To that tribunal 1 am willing to leave this decision. ! as it was once before proposed to be left by the celebrated com- j promise of the Senator from Delaware, ( iVI r. Clayton) — a measure which, according to my understanding, was the best, ii compromise which was offered upon this subject of slavery. I say, then, that I am willing to leave this point, upon which the ' friends of the bill areai difference, to the decision of the courts ” jl Appendix to Congressional Globe, first session Thirty- third Congress , vol. 29, p. 224. Mr. DOUGLAS. There Mr. Hunter states the ! object of the bill as explicitly and as clearly as jj it is possible for any man holding my opinions to |j state it. The only point referred to the courts ! was the extent of the limitation imposed by the I Constitution on the authority’ of the Territorial j i Legislature. I could cite more than half the j body, perhaps, to this one point, but it would only be multiplying authority- on a point that is | too clear to be disputed. I have been quoting thus far only- senatorial authority as to the meaning of this act. I wish | to show now that the people of the country — yea, j the southern people — understood the Kansas-,! Nebraska bill at that time as I do now, and as I explained it then. I will quote the resolutions of one sovereign State, the empire State of the! South, a State that took the lead in 1850-51 in ! putting down the heresy of congressional inter j vention for the protection of slavery. I will ask my friend from Ohio to read the resolutions of ; the Legislature of Georgia approving of the prin- ciples contained in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, relative to- the subject of slavery. Mr. PUGH read as follows: Resolution in relation to the Territory of Nebraska. i The State of Georgia, in solemn convention, having firmly fixed herself upon the principle of the compromise measures of 1850, relating to the subject of slavery in the Territories of the | L T nited States, as a final settlement of the agitation of that ques- j tion, its withdrawal from the Halls of Congress and the political ! arena and its reference to the people of the Territories inter | ested therein; and distinctly recognizing in those compromise measures the doctrine that it is not competent for Congress to impose any restrictions as to the existence of slavery among them, upon the citizens moving into and settling upon the Ter rir.ories of the Union, acquired, or to be hereafter acquired, but that the question whether slavery shall or shall not form a part of their domestic institutions, is for them alone to determine for themselves; and her present Executive having reiterated and affirmed the same fixed policy in his inaugural address : Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives j of the State of Georgia in General Assembly met , That t he Legislature of Georgia, as the representatives of the people, speaking their will, and expressing their feelings, have had their confidence strengthened in the settled determination of the great body of the northern people, to carry out, in good faith, those principles in the practical application of them to the hills report- ed by Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Territories, in the United States Senate, at the present session, proposing the organization of a territorial government for the Territory of Nebraska. And be it further resolved, Thai our Senators in Congress be, and they are hereby, instructed, and our Representatives requested, to vote for and support those principles, and to use all proper means in their power for carrying them out. either as applied to the government of the Territory of Nebraska, or in any other bill for territorial government which may come before them. Resolved further, That his excellency the Governor be re- quested lo transmit a copy of these resolutions to each of our denatots and Representatives in Congress. JOHN E. WARD, Speaker of the House of Representatives. JOHN D. rfTELL, President of the Senate. In Senate, agreed to, February 17, J854. HUGH M. MOORE, Secretary of the Senate. In House of Representatives, concurred in, February 17, 1854. WILLIAM T. WOFFORD, Clerk of House of Representatives . Approved, February 20, 1854. HERSCHEL V. JOHNSON, Governor . Mr. DOUGLAS. These resolutions were adopt- ed by the State of Georgia pending the Kansas- Nebraska bill in the Senate when its provisions were well known, its features well understood; and the Legislature then stated, in the preamble, the principles which are embodied in the bill, and which were embodied in the compromise measures of 1850. They give a construction to the celehrated Georgia platform, which was the withdrawal of the question of slavery from the Halls of Congress and the political arena, and its reference to the people of the Territories inter- ested therein — almost the precise language of my report as chairman of the Committee on Territo- ries when the bill was introduced. Georgia ap- proved of the policy of withdrawing the question, from the Halls of Congress, and referring it to the people of the Territories. She approved of that provision which distinctly recognized the com- promise measures of 1850, and provided that the question whether slavery should, or should not, form a part of their domestic institutions, was for them alone to determine for themselves. Georgia having stated that these principles were affirmed by the compromise measures of 1850 — that she approves of these principles — instructs her Sen- ators to vote for the Kansas-Nebraska bill intro- duced by myself, as chairman of the Committee on Territories. It is undeniable that Georgia understood the Kansas-Nebraska bill as I under- stand it. She understood the compromise meas- ures of 1850 as I understand them. These Geor- gia resolutions are as good a platform as I want. I am willing to take the preamble and resolutions adopted by the State of Georgia in 1854, without the dotting of an i, or the crossing of a t, and de- clare them to be the Democratic platform. I hear men behind me say they are not. I am. I will take t.he Georgia platform with its own interpre- tation, not mine. I could not use language to express niy own opinions more clearly and une- quivocally than I find them standing on the statute-book of Georgia at this day as instructions to her Senators. . The country then understood this measure as I now explain it; and I will show you that the House of Representatives, as well as t.he Senate, understood it in the same way. It will be recol- lected that Colonel Pdchardson, of Illinois, was chairman of the Committee on Territories, and, as such, reported the Kansas-Nebraska bill in the 16 House of Representatives. He explained it then as I do now. The reputation that he made dur- ing that session in the passage of this great meas- ure, so commended him to southern Democrats, that when the next Congress assembled they pre- sented his name as the Democratic candidate for Speaker, against the Republican candidate, Mr. Banks, of Massachusetts. Pending that election for Speaker, the southern Opposition members charged Mr. Richardson with not being sound on the slavery question, because he held to this odious doctrine of non-intervention, or squatter sovereignty, as polite gentlemen are in the habit of terming it. General Zollicoffer propounded questions for the candidates for Speaker to an- swer. These questions were read from the Clerk’s table, and Mr. Richardson, as well as the other candidates, proceeded to answer. I will ask my friend to read the answer of Governor Richardson. Mr. PUGH read, as follows: Mr. Richardson. The Constitution does not, in my opinion, carry the institution of any States into the Terri- tories; but it affords the same protection there to the insti- tutions of one State as to another. The citizen of Virginia is as much entitled, in the common territory, to the pro- tection of his property, under the Constitution, as the citizen of Illinois; both are dependent upon the legislation of the territorial government for laws to protect their prop- erty, of whatever kind il may be. Thus it will be seen, that though there may be upon this point a difference theoretically — involving questions for judicial decision — yet there is none, practically, among the friends of non- intervention by Congress, as the practical result is to place the decision of the question in the hands of those who are most deeply interested in its solution, namely: the people of the Territory, who have made it their home, and whose interests are most deeply involved in the character of the institutions under which they are to live .” — Congressional Globe , vol. 32, part 1, p. 222. Mr. DOUGLAS. Subsequently, but on the same day, January 12, 1856, in reply to a ques- tion by Mr. Bingham, Colonel Richardson said : “I said in my remarks this morning, that, in my opin- ion, the people of a Territory have the right either to es- tablish or prohibit African slavery. I think that is an answer to the gentleman's question.” — Ibid., p. 22T. That was the answer of Colonel Richardson when a candidate for Speaker, and questioned, by southern as well as northern men, as to his opinions on this very question. I was not here at the time. I was prostrate upon a sick bed, in Indiana, with very little prospect of ever seeing the Capitol again. When Colonel Richardson’s answer was read to me, I was rejoiced to hear that he had given a clear and explicit explana- tion of the true meaning of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, as we understood it. The Journals show that, upon this answer being given, the House, on the same day, proceeded to the one hundred and eighth ballot for Speaker, and I ask my friend from Ohio to read the names of the men voting for Mr. Richardson after this answer was made: Mr. PUGH read, as follows: “ For Mr. Richardson — Messrs. Aiken, Allen, Barclay, Barksdale, Bell, Hendley S. Bennelt, Bncock, Bowie, Boyce, Branch, Burnett, Cadwalader, Carutbers, Caskie., Clingman, Howell Cobb, W. R. W. Cobb, Craige, David- son, Denver, Dowdell, Edmundson. Elliot, English, Faulk- ner, Florence, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Goode, Greenwood, Augustus Hall, Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L Harris, Herbert, Hickman. Houston, .Jewett, George W. Jones, Keitt, Kelly. Kidwell, Letcher, Lumpkin, S. S. Marshall, Maxwell, McMullin, McQueen, Smith Miller, Millson, Mordecai, Oliver, Orr, Peck, Phelps, Powell, Quitman, Ruffin, Rust. Sandidge, Savage, Samuel A. Smith, William Smith, Stephens, Sfewart. Talbott, Vail, Warner, Wat- kins, Winslow, Daniel B. Wright, and John V. Wright. ” — Congressional Globe, vol. 32, part 1, p. 228. Mr. DOUGLAS. The conntry will not hesi- tate to recognize distinguished names on that list which they have been in the habit of regarding with great favor and confidence. Every southern Democrat, without exception, as shown by the Journal, recorded his vote for Governor Richard- son for Speaker after that explanation of the Kan- sas-Nebraska bill. If my memory serves me, a distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, and others now present, had refused to vote for Richardson before this explanation was made, and this explanation, declaring himself in favor of non-intervention, in favor of the rights of the people of the Territories to do as they pleased, was so perfectly satisfactory to the members from South Carolina and other southern States, that they all voted for him on the next ballot. (Laugh- ter, and applause in the galleries.) Who ever expected that, in less than five years from that day, jmu would find these same gen- tlemen making a test against a man because he held the identical sentiments which were then affirmed? I reckon I am about as sound on this question as Governor Richardson. He and I agree precisely in our construction of the act. He was the chairman of the Territorial Committee in one House, and I in the other; and less than five years ago you affirmed, either that you ap- proved of Richardson’s construction, or that his. entertaining those views constituted no objection to him. Who has changed since that time? Is it I, who now avow the principles I did then; or those who now denounce me for holding the same opinions which they then seemed to sanction by their votes? I make no tests with gentlemen. If they have honestly changed their opinions since that time, they should frankly avow the change. No man should cherish such a pride for consist- ency as to cling to error one moment after he is convinced of it; but a man, whenever he changes his opinions, ought to avow it, and give the rea- sons for the change, so as to remove the scales from our eyes also. If I can forgive all these honorable gentlemen for having changed their position, is it asking, too much of them to forgive me for my fidelity to principles of action to which they and I were solemnly committed within so short a period? But, Mr. President, I want to add a little more authority on this point. It will be remembered that in 1848 Alabama took the lead at the Balti- more convention in asserting the doctrine of con- gressional intervention in the Territories. It will be remembered that in 1856 she took the lead in demanding of the Cincinnati convention, as an ultimatum, the repudiation of the doctrine of intervention, and the adoption in its place of the doctrine of non-intervention. The Alabama State convention which appointed delegates to Cincin- nati in 1856, happened to be in session when the contest for Speaker took place between Colonel Richardson and Mr. Banks. The Democracy of Alabama were looking to Washington for the re- sult of that contest with intense anxiety. There stood the gallant Richardson, the author of the 17 Lansas-Xebrasba bill so far as the House was oncerned, the nominee of his party, proclaiming iO the world in bold language its true meaning; .nd every Democrat in Alabama heartily sympa- hized with him, and hoped that Richardson, the lefender of southern rights, might be elected Speaker. The State convention, then in session, I'epresenting the Democracy of Alabama, felt so leeply upon this subject, that they deemed it '.heir duty to go out of the usual routine, and lass a resolution of approval. I ask my friend o read that resolution. Hr. PUGH read, as follows; “ Resolved , That the course pursued by the gallant men of he South and North, in their efforts to organize the present ilongressof the United States, by the election of Mr. Richard ion as Speaker, receives our hearty approval. They have acted j vise* in holding out against the designs of the fanatical ma- ] arity to force a Free-Soil organization upon them; that in , | heir hands we can safely trust the rights of the South and the rue principle of conservative nationality, with the confidence J hat they will never abandon them in any trial, even amidst the l;onfasion and terrors of disorganization.” Hr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I have only to iay upon th ; s point that it seems the Alabama State convention, in 1S56, did not regard Colo- 1 lel Richardson’s construction of the Kansas-Ne- praska bill as so monstrous a heresy as to dis- qualify every man for office who held his opin- ons. It seems so from the fact that they indorsed ; die gallant Richardson and the faithful southern- ers who voted for him. This inference is con- firmed by the fact that the same convention nstrueted their delegates to the Cincinnati con- vention to insist upon the express recognition of [the doctrine of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories as the only con- dition upon which Alabama would consent to be [represented at Cincinnati. This was the ultima- tum of the Alabama Democracy in 1856. I ask my friend from Ohio to read that part of the resolutions. Hr. PUGH read, as follows; “ 8. That it. is expedient that we should be represented in the Democratic national convention, upon such conditions as are Iheretnafter expressed. “ 9. That the delegates to the Democratic national conven- tion, to nominate a President and Vice President, are hereby laxpressly instructed to insist that the said convention shall adopt 'a platform of principles, as the basis of a national organization, prior to the nomination of candidates, unequivocally asserting, *n substance, the following propositions: 1. The recognition and approval of the principles of non-intervention by Congress npon the subject of slavery in the Territories. 2. That no restric- tion or prohibition of slavery, in any Territory, shall hereafter be made by any acl of Congress. 3. That no State shall be irefused admission into the Union because of the existence of (slavery therein. 4. The faithful execution and maintenance of the fugitive slave law. “ JO. That if said national convention shall refuse to adopt the propositions embraced in the preceding resolution, our delegates to said convention are hereby positively instructed to i withdraw therefrom.” Mr. DOUGLAS. There is some very sound and wholesome doctrine contained in these in- structions. The Alabama delegates were to de- mand that the platform be made first, and that the platform should expressly affirm the doctrine jof non-intervention. The Cincinnati convention .acceded to the demands of the Alabama Democ- racy. I indorsed those propositions; I am will- ing to abide by them now. They are a fair ex- position of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. They are identical with the Cincinnati platform. The Charleston convention indorsed those identical propositions, and Alabama seceded because the convention did so! Alabama went into the Cin- cinnati convention demanding non intervention as the condition on which she would remain. She got it. She went into the Charleston con- vention demanding the reverse of non-interven- tion as the only condition on which she would remain. She did not get it, and she went out. Alabama led the bolt at Charleston solely for the reason that the majority of the convention adopted the Alabama ultimatum of 1856 ! I re- cognize the right of the Democracy of Alabama to change their opinions just as often as they please. Very few men live who have not changed many opinions. Men who have more regard for truth than consistency will change whenever con- vinced of their error. Hence I do not condemn Alabama for bolting now for the very reason that she assigned for going in the Cincinnati conven- tion in 1856; but it is not to be expected that we who accepted her ultimatum then, and have ever since observed it in good faith, should be satisfied to be denounced as enemies to the South, for holding fast to the same principles which she then proclaimed. I repeat, that I am willing now to stand by those terms and conditions that Alabama pre- scribed as her ultimatum in 1856 I must do this justice to the Democracy of Alabama: I do nqt believe the Democracy of that State indorse or approve of this attempt to break up the Demo- cratic party of the Union because the party would not change the platform. I believe the people of Alabama are now as much attached to the principles of the Democratic party, as they understood them themselves and proclaimed them to the world, as they were in 1856. I do not believe that Alabama will follow Mr. Yancey now in his mad scheme to break up the Demo- cratic party in quest of Congressional interven- tion any more than she did in 1S48, when he attempted the same thing. At this point, the honorable Senator yielded to a motion to adjourn. WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1860. Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. Preseident, I feel that it is due to the Senate to express my sincere thanks for the courtesy they extended to me yesterday, in postponing the remainder of my remarks until to day, when it was evident that I was physically exhausted. I fear that I shall be under the ne- cessity of claiming the indulgence of the body also for the desultory manner in which I shall present my views to day, and possibly for my in- ability to say all that I would like to have pre- sented to the Senate on this question. A recur- rence of a severe disease of the throat, which I contracted some years ago, in discussions in tire open air in vindication of the principle of non- intervention against the assaults of the Republi- can party, has severely affected my voice and impaired my physical strength. However, I will proceed as best I may, to conclude what I have to say upon the question. In the first place, I will answer some objections 18 that have been made to my course, and some of the evidences that have been adduced to convict] me of having given a wrong construction to the Kansas-Nebraska bilL The first one is the action of the Senate, my own vote included, upon what was known as the Chase amendment to the Kan sas-Nebraska act, at the time of its passage. It will be recollected that after the Senate had adopted the provision in the fourteenth section of the bill, which declared the true intent and meaning of the act to be “not to legislate slavery ! into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof per fectly free to form and regulate their domestic 1 institutions ip their own way, subject onlv to the Constitution of the United States,” Mr. Chase, of Ohio, offered the following additional amendment, to insert the words: “ Under which the people or ihe Territory, through their i appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the ! existence of slavery therein. “ It wi 1 be observed that that amendment was precisely the same in its legal effect as the one ; which Mr. Chase submitted to the compromise i measures of 1850, by which the people of a Ter- ritory should have the power to prohibit slavery ; but not the power to introduce and protect it. The amendment which he offered to the Kansas- j Nebraska bill was intended to have precisely th& \ same effect, and was the counterpart of the propo- sition of the Senator from Mississippi, offered as an amendment to the compromise measures of j 1850, that the Territorial Legislature should have the power to protect, but not to exclude or i prohibit slavery. MVh§n this amendment was offered by Mr. Chase it stood in the position of j an amendment to an amendment. The record j shows that Mr. Pratt, of Maryland, appealed to ] Governor Chase to accept an additional amend- ment, by inserting the words “or introduce” after the word “prohibit*” so that it would read that the people of a Territory might prohibit or introduce slavery. Governor Chase’s amendment being an amendnmet to an amendment, the propo- sition of Mr. Pratt was out of order. Mr. Sew- ard, of New York, made the point of order, which was sustained by the Chair, and conse- quently Governor Chase having refused to accept the words “or introduce,” it was not in order to move the amendment. I will have an extract read from the speech of Governor Pratt, of Maryland, on that occasion, showing what was the understanding at the time of the object of Mr. Chase’s amendment. Mr. PUGH read, as follows: “ Mr. Pratt said : Mr. President, the principle which the Senator from Ohio adopts as the principle of his amendment is. that the question shall he left entirely and exclusively to the people, whether they will prohibit slavery or not. Now, for the purpose of testing the sincerity of the Senator, and for the purj>ose of deducing the principle of his amendment correctly, I propose to amend it by inserting after the word ‘ prohibit ’ the words ‘ or introduce;' so that, if my amendment be adopted, and the amendment of the Senator from Ohio, as so amended, be introduced as a part of the bill, the principle which he says he desires to have tested will be inserted in the bill — that the people of the Territories shall have power to prohibit or intro dace slavery as they may see proper. I suppose the question will he taken on the amendment which I offer to the amend ment.” Mr. DOUGLAS. As I remarked, Mr. Seward, of New York, objectedto Governor Pratt’s amend- ment to insert the words “or introduce,” by which he was deprived of the opportunity of having a vote on it; and Governor Chase having refused to accept that amendment, it left the Senate to vote simply on the question whether they would so amend the bill as to give the power to pro- hibit without the power to introduce and protect slavery. That amendment was rejected because the words offered by Governor Pratt were not ac- cepted. And yet, sir, in the face of these facts, my vote against this Chase amendment has been cited as evidence that I myself was unwilling to allow the people to act either for or against slavery in the Territories. The debate on this amendment shows clearly and conclusively that the understanding of the framers of the bill was, that we were to allow the people to act as they pleased, so that they did Dot violate the Consti- tution, for or against slavery as they choose; and if their territorial enactments were inconsistent with the Constitution, the courts were to apply the remedy, but not Congress. The record shows that Mr. Shields, then my colleague, appealed to Governor Chase to accept of the amendment of Mr. Pratt. Mr. Shields said : “ If ihe honorable Senator will permit, I will suggest to him, if he wishes to test that proposition, to pot the converse as sug- gested by the honorable Senator from Maryland, and then it will be a fair proposition. Let 'he Senator from Ohio accept the amendment of the Senator front Maryland tor the pnrpose of testing the qnestion.’* I will ask my friend from Ohio also to read what Mr. Senator Badger, of North Carolina, then said in respect to this Chase amendment. Mr. PUGH read as follows: “Mr. President, I have understood, I find, correctly, the purport of the amendment offeied by the honorable Senator from Ohio. The purpose of the amendment and the effect of the amendment, if adopted by the Senate, and standing as it does, are clear and obvious. The effect of the amendment, and the design of the amendment , are to overrule and shbvert the very proposition . introduced into the bill upon the motion of the chairman of the Committee on Territories. [Mr. Dougla9.J Is not that clear? The position as it stands, is an unre- stricted and. unreserved reference to the territorial authori- ties. or the people themselves, to determine upon the question of slavery; and, therefoie, by the very terms, as well as by the I obvious meaning and legal operations of that amendment, [of Mr. Pratt,] to enable them either to exclude, or to I introduce, or to allow slavery. If, therefore, the amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio were appended to the bill in the connec'ion in which he introduces it, the ne- cessary and inevitable effect of it would be to control and limit ihe language which the Senate has just put into the bill, and to give it this construction ; that though Congress leaves them to regulate their own domestic institutions as they please, yet, in regard to the subject matter of slavery, the power is confined to the exclusion or prohibition of it. 1 say this is both the legal effect and the manifest design of the amendment. The legal effect is obvious upon the statement; the design is obvious upon ihe refusal of the gentleman to incorporate in his amend- ment what was suggested by my honorable friend from Mary- land. the propriety and fairness of which were instantly seen by my friend from Illinois, [Mr. Shields. J * * * * * * * * * “ T have no hesitation, therefore, in saying that I shall vote against the amendment of the Senator from Ohio. The clause as it stands is ample. It submits the whole authority to the Territory to determine for itself That, in my judgment, is the place where it ought to be put. If the people of these Territories choose to exclude slavery . so far from considering it a wrong done to me. or to my constituents , I shall not complain of it. It is their own business .” Mr. DOUGLAS. I now ask that the vote ou rejecting the Chase amendment, for the reasons assigned in the debate which I have quoted, may be read. Mi "T v ■' ■! U tin. fi,j; l!u' }!<•' 51 ilie jetf act to pro the h- t.’i thi me me pn eti 1? ha in to h t IS 6! hi fi: v Si t ti 2' j< 0 In L it a 1 1 § I a i ( t 1 19 Mr. Pl GH read as follows: " “ The qoes i; oa being taken by yeas and nays on the amen 1- | .g ^ent of Mr. Chase, i f -esc bed— yeas 10. nays 3'». , " 1 K as — M essrs. Chase, Do I^e of Wisconsin, F^ss^nden. | '! ? ish. Foote. H^nilin. Seward, Smith, Snmner, and Wade — 10. L - “ Nays — M essrs. Adams. Atchison. Badger, Bell. Benja- r.:n. B r o Ihead. H r own. Bntler, Ciav, Clav f on. Dawson. Dixon. ? 0 odge ot Iowa. Doug'a?. Fvans. Fitzpatrick. Gwin. Houston. ! .lunter. Johnson. Jo: :s ot Iowa, Jones of Tennessee. Mason. " Horton, No r:s. P • . Pratt. Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell. j ■: ?tnan, Toncey. Walker, Weller, and Williams — 86. Mr. DOUGLAS. Thus it will be seen, from the record, that the Chase amendment was re- j ; 1 ! eeted because it did not leave tbe people free to j ; act on tbe subject, either for or against slaverv, :o introduce, protect, or prohibit, as they saw i proper; and that these reasons were assigned at , 3 (the time by southern men — Pratt of Maryland, ! : Badger of North Carolina, and others — for voting | against the Chase amendment. If those who cited this amendment, and my votes upon it, against j me, had read the debate as well as the amend- - ment itself, they would have found that it proved • precisely the reverse of that for which it was cited against me. ? The amendment offered by my colleague, in 1S56, to the Toombs hill, and my vote against it, 1 have been cited as evidence that it was not the j intention or the understanding of any of us, wheu the Kansas- Nebraska bill passed, to allow the people to act on this quesiion. I will ask that j the Trcmeull amendment he also read. The bill to which that amendment was offered was a hill | .known as the Toombs hill, to authorize the peo- ple of Kansas to form a constitution and come 1 into the Union as a State. It was not offered as an amendment to a territorial bill, hilt to a State ] hill; and, as an amendment to a State hill, was I | fixing a construction to a territorial bill which was to cease to operate by the admission of a State under the hill which we were then passing. , Mr. PUGH read as follows: . Ci .ind be it further macled That the provision in tbe act I * to organize the Territories of Kansas anil Nebra>ka,* which ! declares it to he * the true intent and meaning of said act nor to 1 1 legislate slavery info any Territory or State, or ro exclude it' 1 therefrom ; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form { and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. sub ; : ject only to the Construtkm of he United States.* teas inter. / i ed to an i iloes confer upon or leave to the ■people of the Terri terry of Kansas fa . power at any time through its Territorial . Legislature to exclude s'arern/ from said Territory, or to . recognize or regulate it therein.'' Mr. DOUGLAS. Thus it will be seen that the j amendment of my colleague was to declare, in . the hill for the admission of a State into the j Union, that it was the intent of the act of Con- j : gress organizing that Territory, to allow the j people of the Territory either to introduce or ex- clude slavery, as they saw proper. This auiend- i ment was rejected by the Senate on two grounds. | One was, that it was irrelevant to append it to a State bill, when it was declaring the intent of a I territorial hill. The other ground was, that it I was an act of usurpation for the Congress of the i | United States to attempt to adjudicate the mean- j ing of that territorial bill ; that the question what its true intent and meaning was after it passed, I belonged to the courts, and not to the Senate or House of Representatives: and the attempt of I Congress thus to expound it was an act of usur- j pation. To prove that such was the case, I will ask to have read brief extracts from various speeches which I have collected, showing the grounds on which the Trumbull amendment was opposed. I will remark, that no man intimated, pending that debate, that tbe Trumbull amend- ment did not contain the true meaning of the bill; hut they said, we will not by act of Con- gress attempt to expound a territorial act. Mr. PUGH read as follows: ‘‘ Mr Cass said : Now. in respect to myself. I suppose tha Senare knows cle-trly my views. I believe the original act gave the Territorial Legislature of Kansas full power to exclude or allow slavery ** * * * * “ This being my vi-*w. I shall vote against the amendment. “ Mr. Douglas said : The reading of the amendment in- clines my mind to the belief that, in its legal effect, it is pre- c sely the same with the original act. and almost, rn tbe words of that act. Hence, I should have no hesitancy in voting for it. except that it is purring' on this hill a matter that does uot belong to it.** ****** “Mr. Bigler sail : Now. sir. ] am not prepared to say what the intention of the Congress of Id-54 was, hecanse I was no' a member of that Congress. I will not vote on this amend- ment. because T should not know rhat my vote was expressing the truth. I agree, too. with rhe Senaror ‘ - :om Michigan [Mr. Cass] and the Senator from Illinois. [Mr. Douglas. j that this is substantially the law as it now exists.** “ Mr. Toccey said: Now. I object to th : s amendment as 5 cp?riInoas. negatory; worse then that, as giving grounds for mis-epresentarion. It leaves the subject precisely where it is left in the Kansas Nebraska bill.*’ * * * * “Mr Bayard said : T have no objection to the amendment proposed by the honorable Senator from Illinois, [\Ir. Trum- bull.] which to me would be perfectly sufficient, independent of any other : and that is. it is nothin* more or less than an attempt to rive a judicial exposition by the Congress of the United States to the Constitution ; and I hold that they have no right to usurp judicial power." Mr. DOUGLAS. I will ask the reading of the vote on the reasons assigned in debate for giving the vote. Mr. PUGH read as follows: tl The question being taken by yeas and nays on the amend- ment. resulted — yeas I J . riavs3€, as fol tows: ® “ Yeas — Messrs. Allen, Beil of New Hampshire. Collamer, D : k??. Fessenden. Foote, Foster, Hide, Reward, Trumbull, and Wade — 1 1. “Nays — Messrs. Adams, Bayard. Benjamin. Bggs. Bigler, Bright, Brodheat. Brown. Cass. Clay, Crittenden. Dodge, Douglas. Evans Fitzpatrick. Geyer, Hunter Iverson. Johnson, J mes of Iowa. Mallory. Mason Prau. Pugh Re ’. Sebastian, i Slidell, Stuart Thompson of Kentucky, Toombs, Toncey, I Weller, Wright, and Yulee — 34. Mr. DOUGLAS. Thus it appears from the ! record that all who voted for the Trumbull amend- ment declared by their votes that it was the true I intent and meaning of the act not to legislate I slaverv into a Territory or out of it, bet to leave i the people thereof to do as they pleased, subject j to the Constitution. It appears from the debates, i however, that all who voted against it assigned | as a reason for the negative vote either that it was ; irrelevant, or that it was a usurpation of judicial j power; but no one of them intimated or pretended i it was not a true explanation of the bill. Mr. | Bayard said in his remarks that — j l ' It is nothing more or less than attempt to g : ve a judi- cial exposition, by the Congress of the United States, to the : Constitution : aud I hold that they have no right to usurp ju- dicial power.” Now what act was it that was to he a usurpa- tion of judicial power ? It was the proposition of Cougress to declare that, under the Nebraska bill, and the Constitution of the United States, the people of the Territory had the power to intro- duce or exclude slavery. Mr. Bayard said that was an act of usurpation, an act beyond the con- 20 stitutional authority of the Senate; and yet we have resolutions now under debate, by which the Senate is called upon to adjudicate that identical question. The resolutions on j’our table provide that neither Congress nor a Territorial Legisla- ture have a right to exclude slavery from a Ter- ritory. That is the substance of them. The object of these resolutions is to ask the Senate to decide this very judicial question, which Mr. Bayard, in 1856, denounced as beyond your con- stitutional authority to do. He denounced it as an act of attempted usurpation, and every one of you stood here silent and heard Mr. Bayard give that denunciation to the proposition to expound the meaning of the Constitution on this question by an act of the Senate. You are now called upon by these resolutions to perform that very act of usurpation, and decide that very judicial question which, by the Kansas-Nebraska act, was to be referred to the courts and banished from Congress forever; and which you pledged your- selves by that act never to decide in Congress. There is the record. I hold you to your pledges that you will leave this question to the courts, where the Constitution leaves it, where vou agreed to leave it, and banish it from the Halls of Congress, as you agreed to banish it, forever. The Senator from Virginia. (Mr. Hunter,) it will be remembered, in the extract that I read yesterday, declared that the understanding of the Nebraska bill was that one point was referred to courts, and that was the extent of the limitations of the Constitution on the authority of a Terri- torial Legislature. That was the point, the only point that was agreed to bi left to the courts. The Senator from Virginia not only made that speech in 1S54 on the' Nebraska bill when it was pending, but last year, when a debate arose be- tween the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Brown) and myself, on the 23d of February, the Senator from Virginia arose and made an explanation, and quoted that very extract as a true exposition of the meaning of the bill, and reaffirmed it as his existing sentiments. Now the Senate is called upon, in violation of the meaning and pledges of the Nebraska act, as defined by the Senator from Virginia, to decide that very question by resolu- tions of the Senate, which was to be referred to the courts and banished from Congress forever. I submit whether this is carrying out the true in- tent and meaning of that act. I submit whether this is banishing the subject from the Halls of Congress ; whether it is referring it to the people immediately interested in it, subject to the limita- tions of the Constitution, and leaving the court to ascertain the extent of those limitations. In the debate growing out of this Toombs bill, my colleague put the question to me after it had been answered over and over again in previous speeches, whether or not a Territorial Legislature had the power to exclude slavery. lie had heard my opinion on that question over and over again. I did not choose to answer a question that had been so often responded to, but referred him to the judiciary to ascertain whether the power ex- isted. I believe the power existed ; others be- lieved otherwise ; we agreed to differ; we agreed to refer it to the judiciary ; we agreed to abide by the politic with s is an e: ft judiig 1 comprcn (Jebrash the ft jaesti of D Mr. FOG itree The scope doubt. ireof peHec: lions io thei United Si The mea attack at it constit (ally destitt itimagio ante, whet ann 3 ctol ere were m lacbtotbc enacltnei denounce niplele it aied no t: jmselvs. i Ul their decision; and I, true to my agreeme referred my colleague to the courts to find . whether the power existed or not. The fact t. I referred him to the courts has been cited as t dence that I did not think individually that power existed in a Territorial Legislature. Ai e the evidences 1 produced yesterday, and the bate just read upon the Trumbull amendme no man who was an actor in those scenes has excuse to be at a loss as to what my opinion w But it was not my opinion that was to govern was the opinion of the courton the question arisi under a territorial law after the territory shoi have passed a law upon the subject. Bear mind that the report introducing the bill was tl these questions touching the right of property slaves were referred to the local courts, to territorial courts, with a right of appeal to Supreme Court of the United States. When tL case shall arise, and the court shall pronounce judgment, it will be binding on me, oil you, and on every good citizen. It must be carri out in good fa"ith; and all the power of this Go ernment — the Army, the Navy, and the militia- all that we have — must be exerted to carry decision into effect in good faith, if there be resis ance. Do not bring the question back here Congress to review the decision of the court, for Congress to explain the decision of the co The court is competent to construe its own dec' siuns, and issue its own decrees to carry its dec sions into effect. We are told that the court has already decide the question. If so, there is an end of the co troversy. You agreed to abide by it ; I did. it has decided it, let the decision go into effecl*'® 11 there is an end of it ; what are we quarrelin about? Will resolutions of the Senate give additional authority to the decision of the preme Court of the United States ? Does it nee an indorsement by the Charleston convention give it validity ? If the decision is made, it is th at Pi law of the land, and we are all bound by it. 1 it, spei the decision is not made, then what right hav populs you to pass resolutions here prejudging the que: le “in< tion, with a view of influencing the views of th k woi court? If there is a dispute as to the true intei iitwe; pretation and meaning of the decision of the corn feed who can settle the true construction except th id, as court itself, when it arises in another case? Ca: (kip’ you determine by resolutions here what the dc ime-t cision of the court is, or what it ought to be, o incip: what it will be? It belongs to that tribunal. Th - reigot Constitution has wisely separated the politica i thos from the judicial department of the Government itkel The Constitution has wisely made the courts f Hen coordinate branch of the Government; as inde imar! pendent of us as we are of them. Sir, you hav< rraig no right to instruct that court how they shal kith decide this question in dispute. You have nc fid tl right to define their decision for them. Wber lab that decision is made, they will issue the propel ie p process for carrying it into effect ; and the Exe- itimi cutive is clothed with the Army, the Navy, and loci the militia, the whole power of the Government, iere to execute that decree. All I ask, therefore, ol base you is Don-intervention; hands off. In the lan- uk guage of the Georgia resolutions, let the subject jeaclior ;akened t ciple of pleof tl It ii no odes the islii entisexi ty. The a r socei telligeno illot box 1 Mr.Di 21 banished forever from the Halls of Congress the political arena, and referred to the Terri- ■ies, with a right of appeal to the courts ; and -ere is an end to the controversy. Having shown conclusively what the under- nding of Congress was upon this question of 3 3 compromise measures of 1850, and the Kan- s-Nebraska bill, I will proceed now to show w the President of the United States who ■ned the bill understood it. I will ask to have ad an extract irom the message of President erce of December, 1855. AMr. PUGH read, as follows: ‘ The scope and effect of the language of repeal were not . in doubt. It was declared, in terms, to be the * true intent bl meaning of this act not lo legislate slavery into any Terri- y or State, nor exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people reof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic insti- '^ions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of United States.’ • The measure could not be withstood upon its merits alone. ; was attacked with violence, on the false or delusive pretext cl it it constituted a breach of faith. Never was objection more erly destitute of substantial justification. When, before, .3 it imagined b 3 T sensible men, that a regulative or declarative 'tute, whether enacted ten or forty years ago, is irrepealable; r iit an act of Congress is above the Constitution ? If, indeed, ^1‘re were in the facts any cause to impute bad faith, it would Jach to those only who have never ceased, from the time of enactment of the restrictive provision to the present day, ^denounce and condemn it; who have constantly refused to frpnplete it by needful supplementary legislation ; who have Itred no exertion to deprive it of moral force; who have 2 >mselves. again and again, attempted its repeal by the enact- nt of incompatible provisions; and who, by the inevita- reacrionary effect of their own violence on the subject, akened the country to perception of the true constitutional nciple of leaving the matter involved to the discretion of the ople of the respective existing or incipient States.” “ It is not pretented that this principle, or any other, pre- . ides the possibility of evils in practice, disturbed as political nion is liable to be by human passions. No form of govern- i >nt is exempt from inconveniences ; but in this case they are result of the abuse, and not of the legitimate exercise, of powers reserved or conferred in the organization of a Terri- •. They are not to be charged to the great principle of pup- ir sovereignty ; on the contrary, they disappear before the elligence and patriotism of the people, exerting through the , Hot box their peaceful and silent but irresistible power.” : Mr. DOUGLAS. There you will find thatPresi- i :nt Pierce, who signed the Kansas-Nebraska bt, speaks of it as adopting the great principle of >opular sovereignty” in the States, and also in ■SLe “incipient” States. What did he mean by e word “incipient” States? Not the States at were then in the Union. He unquestionably ferred to the Territories as “ incipient States," ■..fid, as such, were entitled to the benefits of the 'ineiples of self-government in respect to their >>mestic concerns. Hence you find the word incipient” States, and the words “popular sov- eignty,” as embracing the rights of the people those incipient States, or Territories, as we are the habit of designating them. Here I must be permitted to comment upon a mark of the Senator from Mississippi, in his •raignment of this doctrine of non-intervention, hich he chose to call squatter sovereignty. He id that this doctrine had its first trial on the ains of Kansas; that it bore its first fruits on le plains of Kansas; and he described its le- timate fruits as resulting in anarchy, violence, .oodshed, and every imaginable evil. President ierce, in this message, says that those acts were mses of the principle of popular sovereignty, violation of the principle of the act; and that the principle itself is by no means responsible for those abuses. I answer that allegation of the Senator from Mississippi by the authority of his own chief, the President of the United States, under whom he held the high and distinguished office of Secretary of War. Nor is it improper here for me to express my amazement that the Senator from Mississippi would cite the abuses, the acts of violence, and of fraud, that occurred in violation of this principle under the Adminis- tration of which he was a ruling spirit, as evi- dences that the principle that brought that Ad- ministration into existence was a vicious and dan- gerous principle. I had supposed that the Sena- tor from Mississippi had given in his adhesion to this doctrine of non-intervention. I had sup- posed that he looked with pleasure upon the pas- sage of the Kansas-Nebraska act. I had sup- posed that he considered that as a great measure of relief to the southern States of this Union, and that he would have been the first to defend it, as in duty bound, having held office under the Administration that glories in the passage of the act. Now we find he takes pleasure in citing those very abuses in justification of his course when he fought the principle, and as a verifica- tion of what he told us before the southern States agreed to acquiesce in the principle. I was not prepared to hear this from the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. DAVIS. You do not pretend to quote it? Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not pretend to quote the language. I pretend only to say that, in sub- stance, he did declare that this principle had its first trial on the plains of Kansas, and bore its first fruits upon the plains of Kansas ; that it was accompanied with unmitigated and untold evils, and produced all sorts of mischief ; and the in- ference was that these results justified him in his original opposition to the principle. I now pass to the next chapter in the history of this principle of non-intervention, which you will find in the proceedings of the national con- vention, held at Cincinnati, in 1856. You all remember that Alabama sent her delegates to Cincinnati, demanding that the usages of the party should be reversed, and that a platform should be first made, and then furnishing the ul- timatum which, if not acceded to, must be the cause for an instant withdrawal of the Alabama delegates from that convention. That ultimatum was that the convention, in its platform, should recognize the principle of non intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories. The convention yielded to the Alabama ultimatum. The convention incorporated that principle into the platform in language so explicit that no one can misunderstand it. I ask to have so much of the Cincinnati platform read as announced this doctrine of non-intervention. Mr. PUGH read, as follows: ‘‘ The American Democracy recognize and adopt the prin- ciples contained in the organic laws establishing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the ‘ slavery question,’ upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union — non-interfer- ence by Congress with slavery in the State and Territory, or in the District of Columbia. 22 “That tin's was the basis of the compromise of 1850, con firmed by both the Democratic and Whiff parties in national convention, ratified by the people in the election of 185*2, and rightly applied to the organization of Territories in 1854. That by the uniform application of this Democratic prin- ciple to the organization of Teriitories. and to the admission of new States, with or without domestic slavery, as they may elect— -t he equal lights of all the States will be preserved intact — the original compacts of the Constitution maintained inviolate — and the perpetuity and expansion of this Union insured to its utmost capacity ol embracing, in peace and harmony, every future State that may he constipated or annexed, with a repub- lican form of government.” Mr. DOUGLAS. There it will be found that the Democratic party affirmed, at Cincinnati, in language too explicit to admit of any possible misconstruction, the doctrine of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States or Terri- tories, and in the District of Columbia. I only call attention to it now so far as relates to non- intervention in the Territories. The platform also declared that the same principle of non-interven- tion was affirmed by both parties at Baltimore, in 1852 ; showing that, the Democratic party under- stood in 1856 that the convention which nomi- nated General Pierce — upon which nomination General Pierce was elected President — did affirm this doctrine of non-intervention. It declared that both parties (Whig and Democratic) had affirmed the doctrine. " It declared, also, that this principle was correctly applied in the Kan sas-Nebraska bill ; and that it was the great con- servative principle upon which alone the peace and perpetuity of this Union could he sustained. I wish it also to be borne in mind that the plat- form of principles was declared at Cincinnati unanimously, the votes being taken by States, and every delegation, from every State in the Union, was unanimous in its vote in favor of the princi- ple. There was no' one man in Mississippi then protesting against it; no one man in Alabama protesting against it; no one man in South Caro- lina protesting against it; none in Georgia; none in any southern State of this Union. Are we now to be told that a platform adopted by the unanimous vote of every delegation, from every State in the Union, in 1856, is so unsound and so rotten fonr years after, as to justify the very States who dictated it then in breaking up the party, because we insist upon adhering to it now? But, sir, not only did the party unanimously affirm this doctrine in 1856, but your candidates nominated at that time accepted the nomination on that platform, with a construction which they then put upon it for themselves. I will now show you that they then put upon that platform the identical construction which I have ever placed upon it. I ask to have read an extract from the letter of acceptance of Mr. Buchanan, on the 16th of .Tune, 1856. Mr. PUGH read, as follows: “The agitation on the question of domestic slavery has too long distracted and divided the people of this Union, and alienated their affections from each other. This agi- tation has assumed many forms since its commencement, but it now seems to be directed chiefly to the Territories; and judging from its present character, I think we may safely anticipate that it is rapidly approaching ‘a finality.’ The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic slavery, derived, as it has been, from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the ma- jority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous excite- ment. This legislation is founded upon principles as an- cient as free government itself; and in accordanci them has simply declared that the people of a Ter like those of a State, shall decide for themselves w) slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits.” veil Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. Buchanan not onl cepted the Cincinnati platform, but he was enough to tell the people of the United S what it meant, and that it meant that the p, of a Territory, like those of a State, shoult cide for themselves whether slavery short! should not exist within their limits. The 11 nothing equivocal in this language. It is sc ter sovereignty in its broadest sense, as the ator from Mississippi uses that term. The p< of a Territory, like those of a State, shall d for themselves whether slavery shall exist or Mr. Buchanan told the people that slavery c not exist in a Territory unless the people Territory said so; it should exist if they sai and not otherwise. Mr. Buchanan was ek on that construction of the platform. I dc ask that you shall now give it that’ construe I Only ask that you readopt the platform, let it construe itself. But Mr. Buchanan perfectly sound on that platform in 1856, wi ii construction identical with that which is denounced as a heresy. The distinguished tleman who was nominated and elected President on the same ticket with Mr. Bucha understood the platform in the same way Mr. Buchanan did. After his nomination at cinnati, he returned to his home in Lexing and his neighbors assembled, as might have t expected, where they had such devotion to t distinguished fellow-citizen, and congratul him on his good fortune in receiving the n< nation, and Mr. Breckinridge, in reply to congratulation, made them a speech, which published at the time, from which I will prei 1 an extract, showing you how he understood Kansas-Nebraska bill and the Cincinnati form. Mr. PUGH read as follows: id the luting. ipeecl iver t KB »' liras and fhe vo land IV!, ■ lory o lelliei IWa ill*! when lemoe r< live n heir “Upon the distracting question of domestic slavery, posiiion is clear. The whole power oi* the Democratic o nation is pledged to the following propositions : that Co shall not intervene upon this subject in the States, in the tories, or in the District of Columbia; that the people of Territory shall determine the question for themselves, an admitted into the Union upon a footing of perfect equality the original States, without discrimination on account of allowance or prohibition of slavery.” Mr. DOUGDAS. It seems that the Dei cratic party, in its whole organization, pledged to the proposition of non-intervent by Congress, and referring the question to people of the Territories. That is the wa; understand it. I stand upon that platform n< [ have great difficulty with my political frie: in harmonizing upon platforms, and have dered them various propositions. I have dered them the Florida platform of 1847, they would not take it; the Georgia pi atforrr 1854, and they would not take it; the Alaba ultimatum of 1856, and they would not take I tender them now Mr. Buchanan’s letter of ceptance in 1S56; let it construe itself, and if we cannot harmonize on that; or I tender Breckinridge's speech of acceptance in Lexit ton, in 1856, and let it construe itself. I will Mr qut says 3 ill rail peo; sof it c nan. '• Did y h an i or cross a t. Gentlemen, will you take : own language wlien you accepted and con- i'’ 'd the platform ? I am willing to be aeeorn- viting. I do not insist on a platform from . peeekes or my writings. I can pick one up ver the Senate, all over the country, from i speeches and writings of those who now ar- l me as not being sound on the slavery ques- s (Applause in the galleries.) : ~en after the election in 1856, the same prin- :;i was emphatically announced and affirmed; ' n Mr. Buchanan’s inaugural address, he de- # !d: I have recently passed through a presidential contest, in i the passions of our fellow citizens were excited to the ft degree by questions of deep a Ad vital importance ; but the people proclaimed their will, the tempest at once sub- 7 and all was calm. 'lie voice of the majority, speaking in the manner pre d by the Constitution, was heard, aud instant submission red. Our own country could alone have exhibited so , and striking a spectacle of the capacity of man for self- nment. V T hat a happy conception, then, was it for Congress to ap his simple rule — that the will of the majority shall govern — ; * settlement of the question of domestic slavery in the cries! Congress is neither to ‘legislate slavery into any ory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom ; but to leave the b thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic irions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution t United States.’ As a natural consequence, Congress so prescribed that, when the Territory of Kansas shall be ted as a State, ‘it shall be received into the Union, with :hoot slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the of iberr admission.’ i difference of opinion has arisen in regard to the point of when the people of a Territory shall decide this question emselves. This is happily a matter of but little practical dance. ” What a happy conception,” be says, “ for gresS to apply this simple rule — that the will majority shall govern — to the settlement of question of domestic slavery in the Territo- I” And, having applied it to the Territories, •ays, that, “as a natural consequence, Con- s has prescribed that when the Territory of sas shall be admitted as a State, it shall he ived into the Union, w T ith or without slavery, leir constitution may prescribe at the time of r admission!” So it seems that the right of people to decide the slavery question at the > of admission was “a natural consequence” he right of the people to decide the same ;tion in their territorial condition. “The t of time” when the people of a Territory dd decide the slavery question was deemed but little practical importance” by Mr. Bu- lan. Yet the very point of time which was ned of little practical importance, is now ?d by his professed friends as sufficient for iking up the Democratic party, and endan- ng the existence of the Union! speak of these things with entire respect. I mt bring them up for the purpose of eondem- on, or to place any man in a false position, oese geDtlemen stand now where they did in 5, I am with them. If they do not, the ques- arises, who has changed? If they have aged, I do not complain of them for it. If r have had new light, if they have studied subject more maturely, and have honestly e to the conclusion that they were then in r, they were bound as honest men to change, if that be the case, I think I have the right to ask that they will furnish me with those argu- ments and reasons which induced the change in their minds, in order that I may correct my er- rors too, if indeed I am in error. I do not think there is any wisdom in the declaration ths^; you have never changed an opinion. While I claim a very consistent record as a public man, I have often had occasion to say that I have modified my opinions on many questions, and take more pleasure iu retracting an error than in persever- ing in it. All I ask is, if it be true that gentle- men have taken a step in advance or a step back- ward, that they will excuse me for not following them until they convince me that they ought to have taken that step. The country has been informed that I was re- moved from the post of chairman of the Com- mittee on Territories, iu 1858, because I uttered at Freeport, Illinois, the identical sentiments contained in the speeches and letters of accep- tance of Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Breckinridge in 1856. My heresy consisted in uttering the satne sentiment then that the Senator from Mississippi bears testimony that I held and uttered in 1850; that it has been shown that I uttered, during the debate on the Kansas-Nebraska hill, in 1854, and in the debates of 1856, and which I was known to have held for many years. I do not complain of my removal from the committee. I acknowl- edge that, if it be true that my opinions were so heretical, that I did not fairly and honestly rep- resent the sentiments of the Senate on these great questions, it was right to displace me, and put a man there who did. I have no complaints to make. But when you displace me for that reason, do not charge that I have changed, when the fact is, that you have changed your own opinions. You, did elect me chairman of that committee, in 1847, with a knowledge of my J opinions. You re-elected me each year for eleven years, by a unanimous vote in caucus, with a full knowledge of those opinions. At the end of eleven years, you removed me for holding the identical opinions that I held when you had unanimously selected me. I do not complain of this; hut I do think that fairness requires that the facts should have been stated truly ; and you should have said, “We have got tired of this doctrine of non-intervention ; it does not work to suit U3 ; it has not yielded such practical fruits on the plains of Kansas as we anticipated; we have concluded to abandon it all, and go back to the old doctrine proclaimed by Yancey, at Baltimore, in 1S43, and rejected by the con- vention by an almost unanimous vote.” Now, sir, there is a difference of opinion, it seems, on this question, between me and a ma- jority of the Democratic Senators. I regret that difference. It would have afforded me sincere and genuine satisfaction if I could have continued to hold the same relations on this question that I did formerly. It was painful to me to find that this difference of opinion had grown up, and that they had determined to make this new test by which my orthodoxy was to be questioned, and I was to be branded as a heretic. While I regret- ted that determination on the part of some politi- cal friends here, I cannot recognize, and do not 24 now recognize, the right of a caucus of the Senate, or of the House, to prescribe new tests for the Democratic party. Senators are not chosen for the purpose of making party platforms. That is no part of their duty. Under our political sys- tem th^'e has grown up an organization known as a national convenlion, composed of delegates elected fresh from the people, to assemble once in four years to establish a platform for the party and select its nominees. The Cincinnati platform was the only authoritative exposition of Demo- cratic faith until the Charleston convention met. I have stood firmly, faithfully by the Cincinnati platform, and have looked confidently to the Charleston convention to find it reaffirmed. You gentlemen who differ with me, agreed to appeal to Charleston as the grand council that should de- cide all differences of political opinion between you and me. T agreed, also, to look to the Charles- ton convention as the representatives of the party assembled from every State in the Union, and af- ter great deliberation, three days’ debate in com- mittee, and a very elaborate and able debate in full convention, the party determined, by an over- whelming majority, in favor of the readoption of the Cincinnati platform. I have told you all the time during the exist- ence of these differences of opinion, that I was in favor of the Cincinnati platform without the dot- ting of an i, or the crossing of a t. The Charles- ton convention affirmed the same platform. I am no longer a heretic. I am no longer an outlaw from the Democratic party. I am no longer a rebel against the Democratic organization. The Charleston convention repudiated this new test, contained in the Senate caucus resolutions, by a majority of twenty-seven, and affirmed the Cin- cinnati platform in lieu of it. Then, so far as the platform is concerned, I am sustained by the party — the only authority on earth which, according to Democratic usages, can determine the Demo- cratic creed. The question now is whether my friend from Mississippi will again acquiesce in the decisions of his party upon the platform which they have adopted, or is he going to retire from the party, bolt its nominations, break it up, because the party has concluded not to change from its position of 1856. Are my friends around me here going to * desert the party because the party has not changed as suddenly as they have? The country has often been told that I and my friends in Illinois were not acting in harmony with the Democratic organization. We have said, in reply to that accusation, “ We will appeal to the national convention at Charleston and ascertain who constitute the Democratic party in Illinois, whether it be the regular organization that sus- tains me, or the Federal officeholders that acted, with the Republicans, against me.” The Federal officeholders sent their delegates to Charleston, i The regular Democratic organization, known as I the Douglas organization — the same organization that returned me to the Senate; the same organi- zation that beat the Republicans and the Federal officeholders combined in 1858 — sent their dele- gates to Charleston, and the convention proceed- ed with great deliberation and impartiality and integrity to decide between them, and decided, by a unanimous vote, that the Federal officeho ^ ers of Illinois do not belong to the Democra non . party — (laughter) — rejected them by a una jy, d mous vote. So far, therefore, as these “natioi |( j p r0 Democrats” of Illinois, who, in order to carry < B jtii Democratic principles, sustained the Aboiiti oll ij candidates, are. concerned, the party has una Xj mouslv decided, at Charleston, that they do i qj^] belong to the party. The party decided at Charleston also, by an ^ jority of the whole electoral college, that I w f ,bj the choice of the Democratic party of Ameri L for the Presidency of the United States, givi al ([ me a majority of fifty votes over all the oth ^ candidates combined ; and yet my Democracy ; j$ , questioned. (Laughter.) So far as I am in< ne ' ( vidually concerned, I want no further or high se ’ c( indorsement. I have arraigned r.o man. I ha 3 y|, attempted to proscribe no man for differing wi ,j n | me in opinion. I have at all times said tha was willing to appeal to the grand council of t !( |„ party assembled in national convention, to c ^ i cide these differences of opinion. They ha )n | decided them ; decided in my favor on all poir , r| ,j[ — the platform, the organization, and, least of a ;ert the individual. That is the least of all ; for n ^ friends who know me best know that I had ! a '; personal desire or wish for the momination; kno ^ ; that I prefer a seat in the Senate for six years (ert being President, if I could have the nominati< s , 1 and be elected by acclamation ; and know th ^ my name never would have been presented af v Charleston, except for the attempt to proscril { (( me as a heretic, too unsound to be the chairm; , of a committee of this body, where I have he , , a seat for so many years without a suspicion res , (f ing on my political fidelity. , ltl I was forced to allow my name to go there . )a|j self-defence; and I will now say that had ar ja , gentleman, friend or foe, received a majority | t that convention over me, the lightning wou ,,i; have carried a message withdrawing my nan from the convention. I have not lust enoua for office to desire to be the nominee against tl !e known wishes and first choice of a majority , £ my party. In 1852, the instant Franklin Pierrj had a majority vote, the telegraph carried m message congratulating him as the choice of tl ]B party; and it was read in the convention befo: ^ the vote was announced. In 1856, the instai y Mr. Buchanan received a majority vote, theligh ning carried my message that James Buchanai ^ having received a majority of the votes of tl i party, in my opinion, was entitled to the nom i' nation, and that I hoped my friends would gh j him the requisite two-thirds, and then make tl ) ( vote unanimous. Sir, I would scorn to be tb ;» standard-bearer of my party when I was not tb 11 choice of the party. All the honors that a n; tional convention can confer are embraced in th ■< declaration that I am the first choice of the pa; as their standard-bearer, repeated on fifty-seve i ballots. I ask nothing more. The party wi s go on and do what its own interest and its ow integrity may require. But, sir, I do rejoice that this good old Derm cratic party, the only organization now left suff ciently national and conservative in its principle 25 d great in its numbers to preserve this Union, Legislators, and statesmen. I have no time to enlarge, but to s determined to adhere to the great principle ' " “* 1 non-intervention by the Federal Government 4 th the domestic affairs of distant Territories d provinces. It is a pleasing duty to me to de- Ld this glorious old party against those who >uld destroy it because the party will not ! ~ mge its platform to suit their purposes. The j suggest merely. In haste, yours, &c. f W. L. YANCEY. Mr. DOUGLAS. That letter, it is due to Mr. Yancey to state, was intended as a private letter to his friend, Mr. Slaughter, and was published without his authority. Having been republished and severely commented upon by the editor of dership at Charleston, in this attempt' to di- ' tlae Richmond South, Mr. Yancey addressed a i . 1 . , 1/nffar* r*+ OT7-\lQTiotirm f n All’ Pdvad in tt’ Kinli a % le and destroy the Democratic party, was in ; isted to appropriate hands. No man possessed i ability, or the courage, or the sincerity in his ect, for such a mission, in a higher degree, n the gifted Yancey. He has a right to feel oud of his achievements at Charleston. In 13, at Baltimore, he proclaimed the same doc- ne, and failed to get a State to stand by him “ seceding; there his doctrines were repudiated. Idly and fearlessly he put his protest on record ainst the doctrine of non intervention, and -fthheld his assent to the support of the nomi- :e, because he conscientiously believed that the -nth ought to insist on the doctrine of interven- n by Congress in support of slavery in the - rritories when the people did not want it. " erruled by five or ten to one in Baltimore in . -IS, overruled unanimously at Baltimore ini ■ a 52, in 1856 he concluded that perhaps he would .ke a virtue of necessity, and submit to non- ervention; and he got up instructions in favor non-intervention, and succeeded in putting it the platform, before the nomination of the letter of explanation to Mr. Pryob, in which be declared that it wa3 a private letter, written in the freedom and carelessness of private confi- dence, and was subject to hostile criticism. Therefore, he proceeded to explain more fully what his views were upon the question. I have endeavored to obtain an entire and perfect copy of this letter to Mr. Pryor, without success. I find, however, a long extract, embodying proba- bly the whole of its material parts, in the Na- tional Intelligencer of September 4, 1858, which, I have no doubt, gives a fair representation of Mr. Yancey’s opinions. Finding it in the Intelli- gencer, a newspaper so proverbial for its accu- racy and its fairness, I doubt not that the extract does full justice to the writer. In the forepart of the letter, Mr. Yancey proceeds to say that, “ bo be candid, I place but little trust in such States as Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri.” He has but little confidence in them. He then proceeds to give his reasons why he cannot trust them. Delaware he regards as nominally a slave State, but substantially anti- rights of the South under the Constitution, came to the conclusion that it was time to titute some other organization for the main- ance of southern rights. That he was con- ~ antious and sincere in his views, I do not doubt ; t that they lead directly, inevitably, to a dis- ution of the Union, and the formation of a --ithern confederacy, if carried out, I think is rond all question. Doubtless many Senators -veseen the letter of Mr. Yancey to Mr. Slaugh- , of the date of June 15, 1858, upon the sub- ' ; of “ PRECIPITATING THE COTTON STATES INTO olction.” In order that the Senate and the tntry may see that I do Mr. Yancey full justice, ! hall have the whole letter read. Air. PUGH read, as follows: Montgomery, June 15, 1858. ear Sir : Your kind letter of the 35th is received, hardly agree with yoa that a general movement can be lie that will clear out the Angean stable- If the Democracy e overthrown, it would result in giving place to a greater hungrier swarm of flies. he remedy of the South is not in such a process. It is in a ;ent organization of her true men for the prompt resistance oe next aggression. It must come in the nature of things, national party can save us ; no sectional party can ever do But if we could do as our fathers did — organize “ commit- of safety ” all over the cotton States (and it is only in them . we can hope for any effective movement) — we shall fire southern heart, instruct the southern mind, give courage to 1 other, and, at the proper moment, by one organized, con r. ed action, we can precipitate the cotton States into a revo- r 0D -. ■’he idea ha3 been shadowed forth in the South by Mr. Ruf- has been taken up and recommended by the Advertiser, er the name of “ League of United Southerners,'’ who, - ping up their old party relations on all other questions, will l the southern issue paramount, and will influence parties, ididate, in 1856. But very soon be came to ! s \ av . et T - . On that he differs in opinion from the ~ ! conclusion that this great Democratic party jj distinguished Senator Ron 1 Delaware, (Mr. Bay- not competent to preserve and maintain ard,) who thinks that Delaware has such an in- - - - - - - • terest in slavery that it is worth while to break up the Democratic party on account of slavery. (Laughter.) But Mr. Yancey has not much faith in Delaware and Maryland. He cannot trust Maryland because, he says, she keeps Abolition- ists in Congress. Then, he says, he cannot trust Missouri, because she, for a long time, sustained a Free-Soiler in the Senate, and afterwards in the House of Representatives — alluding to Colonel Benton. Then, he says, he cannot trust Tennes- see, because she kept an Abolitionist here in the Senate so long, and reelected him ; and besides, he says Tennessee never bad his confidence since; a i Methodist conference refused to expunge certain anti-slavery opinions which John Wesley had inserted into the ritual. He cannot trust Ken- tucky, because Kentucky, for so many years, sustained sucli Free-Soilers as Clay and Critten- den! (Laughter.) He then says: “ I did not name Virginia. It is trne I did not discriminate between Virginia and the other border States. My purpose did not call for it.” After giving bis reasons why he could not trust the border slaveholding States which I have named, and why he proposed to plunge the cot- ton States into revolution, separating them from the border slave States, he proceeds as follows : Mr.. PUGH read the following: “ It is equally true that I do not expect Virginia to take &ny initiative steps towards a dissolotion of the Union, when that exigency shall be forced npon the Sonth. Her position as a border S3ta r e, and a well considered southern policy, (a policy which has been digested and understood, and approved by the ablest men in Virginia, as you yourself must be aware,) would seem to demand that, when such movement lakes place by any considerable number of southern States, Virginia and the other border Slates should remain in the Union, where, by their posi lion and their counsels, thev could prove more effective friends, than by moving out of the Union, and thus giving to the south ern confederacy a long abolition hostile bolder (o watch. Tti the event of the movement being successful, in time, Virginia, and the oilier border States that desired it, could join the south- ern confederacy, and be protected by the power of its arms and its diplomacy. “ Vour charge that T designed to, and did, impeach the fideli- ty of Virginia, is nntrue, however much of truth there may be in it with reference to those border States that I have named.” Mr. DOUGLAS. So it seems that, in 185S, a well-digested plan had been matured and ap- proved by many of the ablest men of the South, and even in Virginia; and that by that plan it was not expected that Virginia, and these other unsound border States, were to go out of the Union when the South was forced to dissolve — using the word “ forced.” One would suppose that if there was any such injustice to the slave- holding States as to force the South out, in de- fence of her constitutional rights, Virginia would be expected to be as tenacious of them as any oilier. State; but he did not expect that. Vir- ginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware,' were expected, by that plan, to remain in the Union, for the reason that, by so re- maining, they could render more service to those who went out than they could if they went out with them. A very enviable position Mr. Yancey puts the Old Dominion in ! He wishes to retire from you, and asks you to remain with us, in or- der that you may annoy and distract and betray us, for the benefit of those that go out ; and he holds out the assurance that, in the course of time, perhaps, Virginia and Maryland, and Ken- tucky and Tennessee, and Missouri, may become sound enough to be admitted into the southern confederacy. He is going to keep you on proba- tion awhile, guarding a long abolition frontier, for the benefit of the cotton States ; and after awhile, perhaps, if you do good service, and so act as to be entitled to his respect, and confidence, then he will admit you into this southern con- federacy of the cotton States! Mr. Yancey tells us of the “well-digested plan.” It was not to be executed at once; and in the mean time all the men in the plan must preserve their relations in the Democratic party, so as to influence public men and public measures, and thus be ready to have more influence in pre- cipitating this result on the party, and breaking it up. Part of the plan was to pretend still to be members, keep in the party, go into fellowship with us, seem anxious to preserve the organiza- tion, and at the proper time plunge the cotton States into revolution. What was the proper time, to which lie alluded? Was it at the Charleston convention? Was that to be the au- picious moment? The history of the event shows that Mr. Yancey there acted- up to his programme announced in his letters to Slaughter and Pryor. He preserved his relations with his party with a view of exercising influence on pub- lic men and measures, over northern as well as southern men, and finally proposed an interven- tion platform, reversing the creed of the party, and “at the proper time” he did precipitate the cotton States into revolution, and led them out non, rpose it Ilia ildio 'top 1st! itopl of the convention. The programme was ci out to the letter; and he did leave in the co tion those unsound States that lie could not, lorn such as Virginia and Tennessee and Ken and Missouri and North Carolina and Del and Maryland. Part of Delaware, I believ lowed him; but they came to the conclusio Delaware was not big enough to divide. (L ter.) Her champion returned back into the l Jnion ern confederacy. Was it to keep wat-cb guard an abolition frontier for the ben< the cotton States ? Is Delaware to be ret into Mr. Yancey’s southern confederacy a ir y, while? Will he consent to allow Virgil come? Will North Carolina be accepted by- Will Tennessee be permitted to come that she has got rid of her Free-Soil Sen Will he allow Kentucky to join, when such litionists as Clay and Crittenden have cea represent her? I beg the pardon of the S< [ from Kentucky for repeating his name i connection. The gallant Senator from Ken an Abolitionist ! A Free-Soiler! A man fame is as wide as civilization, whose patii whose loyalty to the Constitution was questioned by men of any party! (Appla the galleries.) Oh, with what devotion cc thank God if every man in America wa such an Abolitionist as Henry Clay and Jc Crittenden! (Renewed applause.) The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Fo Order! Mr. DOUGLAS. I wish to God that the American people were just such Abolitioni Clay and Crittenden. (Applausein the gall The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Ch obliged to say that a repetition of the o from the galleries must be followed by an for the clearance of the galleries forthwith. Chair gives this notice to nil persons occu seats in the galleries on the assumed autlqjj and direction of the Senate itself. My DOUGLAS. I do not say that Mr. Y and his associates at Charleston mean disi I have no authority for saying any more appears in the publication of his matured Sir, it was said with truth that the order o tie issued at Cerro Gordo by General Scott befoye the battle, was a complete history triumph after tire battle was over, so were his arrangements, so exact wa3 the ci ance with his orders. The programme Yancey-, published two years ago, is a tr history of the secession movement at Chari I have not the slightest idea that all those fW ( came under his influence in maturing his urea, concurred in the ends to which these ures inevitably led ; but what were Mr. uey's measures? He proposed to insist u platform identical in every feature with tin s j f cus resolutions which we are now asked to a Tiie Yancey platform at Charleston, knoi the majority report from the committee on lutions, in substance and spirit and legal was the same as the Senate caucus resolu ,f , the same a3 the resolutions now under sion, and upon which the Senate iA called to vote. ajs Terr foi lit ral i l€ ils t let sep: live ,; :I o not suppose that any gentleman advocat- - ais platform in the Senate, means or desires ' ion. I acquit each and every man of such rT pose ; but I believe, in my conscience, that : a platform of principles, insisted upon, will ' L directly and inevitably to a dissolution of V ‘nion. This platform demands congressional -vention for slavery in the Territories in cer- events. What are these events? In the :fi ; that the people of a Territory do not want ; ry, and will not provide by law for its in- lotion and protection, and that fact shall be -7 tained judicially, then Congress is to pledge : : to pass laws to force the Territories to have '- s this the non-intervention to which the - tcratic party pledged itself at Baltimore and ■ nnati? So long as the people of a Territory - slavery, and say so in their legislation, the ‘fixates of the caucus platform are willing to rem have it, and to act upon the principle , - ’- Congress shall not interfere. They are for - - nterference so long as the people want sla- so long as they will provide by law for its , Auction and protection; but the moment x eople sav the}' do not want it, and will not y it, then Congress must intervene and force istitution on an unwilling people. On the hand, the Republican party is also for non- vention in certain contingencies. The Re- cans are for non-intervention just so long as eople of the Territories do not want slavery, 7 ay so by their laws. So long as the people j ‘—Territory prohibit slavery, the Abolitionists ‘ : or non-intervention, and will not interfere ; but whenever the people of the Territo- :a ay by their legislation that they do want ~ d provide b} T law for its introduction and Action, then the Republicans are for inter- - ;:I g and for depriving them of it. Each of _ s for intervention for your own section, and - st it when non-intervention operates for section. There is no difference in principle ; : - een intervention North and intervention - .. Each asserts the power and duty of the ! •a! Government to force institutions upon | : willing people. Each denies the right of ( overniuent to the people of the Territory! : [' their internal and domestic concerns. Each -- ! .ls to the passions, prejudices, and ambition j ■ ; own section, against the peace and harmony ! i whole country. ■ 1 let this doctrine of intervention North and i 7 ;;- ention South become the rallying point of J- 1 ' jreat parties, and you will find that you two sectional parties, divided by that line separates the free from the slaveholding '7 «. Whenever this shall become the doctrine s two parties, you will find a southern inter- 8 )n party for slavery, and a northern inter- t- 1 ' >n party against slavery ; and then will - the ‘'irrepressible conflict” of which we : heard so much. We have had an illustra- - f what kind of intervention you will get : ' - ever you recognize the right of Congress to r ene on this subject. The House of Repre- ;ives sent us a bill, the other day, repealing ave code which was unanimously adopted e Legislature of New Mexico, and fastening the Wilmot proviso upon that Territory against the will of that people. That bill is now pend- ing on your/table, and awaiting the action of this .body, side by side with a resolution of one of the Senators frpm Mississippi (Mr. Brown) to repeal the prohibition of slavery in Kansas Territory, with a view to force them to have the institution, whether they want it or not. I tell you that the doctrine of the Democratic party, as proclaimed in 1848 and in 1852 at Bal- timore, in 1856 at Cincinnati, and in 1860 at Charleston, is that we must resist, with all our energies, both these propositions for interven- tion. So long as the people of Kansas do not want slavery, you shall never force it on them, by any act of Congress, if I can prevent it. So long as the people of New Mexico do want sla- very, you on the other side of the Chamber shall □ ever deprive them of it, if I can prevent it. You, gentlemen in the Northeast or in the North- west, do not know what kind of laws and insti- tutions the people of New Mexico desire as well as they do themselves. Your people in the Gulf States, or in those cotton States that are to be plunged into revolution, do not know what kind of laws and institutions are adapted to the wants and interests and happiness of the people of Ne- braska, so well as the settlers in that Territory do. Our doctrine — the doctrine of the Demo- cratic party as proclaimed at Charleston — is non- interference by the Federal Government with the local concerns and domestic affairs of the people, either in the States or in the Territories. But, we are told that the necessary result of this doctrine of non-intervention, which gentle- men, by way of throwing ridicule upon, call squatter sovereignty, is to deprive the South of all participation in what they call the common Territories of the United States. That was the ground on which the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis) predicated his opposition to -the compromise measures of 1850. He regarded a refusal to repeal the Mexican law as equivalent to the Wilmot proviso; a refusal to recognize by an act of Congress the right to carry a slave there as equivalent to the Wilmot proviso; a refusal to deny to the Territorial Legislature the right to exclude slavery as equivalent to an ex- clusion. He believed at that time that this doe- trine did amount to a denial of southern rights; and he told the people of Mississippi so; but they doubted it. Now, let us see how far his predictions and suppositions have been verified. [ infer that he told the people of Mississippi so, for as he makes it a charge in his bill of indict- ment against me, that I am hostile to southern rights, because I gave those votes. Now, what has been the result? My views were incorporated into the compromise measures of 1850, and his were rejected. Has the South been excluded from all the territory acquired, from Mexico? What says the bill from the House of Representatives now on your table, repealing the slave code in New Mexico established by the people themselves? It is part of the history of the country that under this doctrine of non-in- tervention, this doctrine that you delight to call squatter sovereignty, the people of New Mexico Lave introduced and protected slavery in the whole of that Territory. Under this doctrine, they have converted a tract of free territory into slave territory, more than five times the size of the State of tiew York. Under this doctrine, slavery has been extended from the Rio Grande to the Gulf of Californio, and from the line of the Republic of Mexico, not only up to 36° 30', but up to 38° — giving you a degree and a half more slavery territory than you ever claimed. In 1848 and 1849 and 1850 you only asked to have the line of 36° 30'. The Nashville conven- tion fixed that as its ultimatum. I offered it in the Senate in August, 1848, and it was adopted here but rejected in the House of Representa- tives. You asked only up to 36° 30', and non- intervention has given you slave territory up to 38°, a degree and a half more than you asked; and yet you say that that is a sacrifice of south- ern rights! These are the fruits of this principle, which the Senator from Mississippi regards as hostile to the rights of the South. Where did you ever get any other fruits that were more palatable to your taste, or more refreshing to your strength ? What other inch of free territory has been converted into slave territory on the American continent, since the Revolution, except in New Mexico and Arizona, under the principle of non-intervention affirmed at Charleston? If it be true that this principle of non-intervention has conferred upon you all that immense Territory; has protected slavery in that comparatively northern and cold region where you did not expeet it to go, cannot you trust the same principle further South when you come to acquire additional territory from Mexico? If it be true that this principle of non- intervention has given to slavery all New Mex- ico which was surrounded on nearly every side by free Territory, will not the same principle protect you in the northern States of Mexico when they are acquired, since they are now sur- rounded by slave territory; are several hun- dred miles further South ; have many degrees of greater heat; and have a climate and soil adapted to southern products? Are you not satisfied with these practical results? Do you desire to appeal from the people of the Territories to the Congress of the Unit ed States to settle this question in the Territories? When you distrust the people and appeal to Congress, with both Houses largely against you on this question, what sort of pro- tection will you get? Whenever you ask a slave code from Congress to protect your institutions in a Territory where the people do not want it, you will get that sort of protection which the wolf gives to the lamb; you will get that sort of friendly hug that the grizzly bear gives to the infant. Appealing to an anti-slavery Congress to pass laws of protection, with a view of forc- ing slavery on an unwilling and hostile people! Sir, of all the mad schemes that ever could be devised by the South or by the enemies of the the South, that which recognizes the right of Congress to touch the institution of slavery either in States or Territories, beyond the single case provided in the Constitution for the rendition of fugitive slaves, is the most fatal. folnre, le to Mr. President, this morning, before I star heDie ei for the Senate Chamber, I received a newspa mar pri This gifted sons upon this question of non-interv nml)n( tion. I allude to one of the brightest intelh ailian. that this nation has ever produced; one of S®*! most useful public men ; one whose retirem from among us created universal regret throu jerritor out the whole country. You will recognize shah" once that I mean Alexander H. Stephens, 8 ” r<1 Georgia. Since the adjournment of the Char ton convention, Mr. Stephens has responded tie iu” Ilf 00 li counsel of a patriot- — to the party and the coL ja try in this emergency. In the letter he revii (mii the doctrine of non-intervention, and shows t he was originally opposed to it, but submitter " it because the South demanded it; that it ha es, ine southern origin ; is a southern doctrine; was i Bl®! tated to the North by the South ; and he accep ‘ e ” r J a it because the South required it. He shows t under t the same doctrine was incorporated in the K Unerir. sas-Nebraska bill, that it formed a compact f clai “ honor between northern and southern men efer lo i which we were all bound to stand. He give pidm Ilia! the one I gave to you yesterday, without km ing that he had written such a letter. Mr. after phens has a right to speak as to the meaning ® rla __ . Mill He No man m the rlo[ s .j. the Kansas Nebraska bill. of Representatives exerted more power and dkjthi fluence in securing its passage than Alexander Stephens. I ask that the whole of his letter, li as it is, be read, for it covers the entire grou esuljc and speaks in the voice of patriotism, counsel ““i 1 . . 1 . — verv i the only course that can preserve the Democri " r) ’ ng Ion party and perpetuate the union of these StaUt»o* Mr. PUGH read, as follows: omlil toils Crawfordville, Georgia, May 9, 186' i Gentlemen : Yonr letter of the 5th instant was reeei 1 last night, and I promptly respond to your call as ele and fully as a heavy press of business engagements ^ permit. I shall endeavor to be no less pointed and , 1 1 plicit than candid. You do not, in my judgment, O' , estimate the importance of the questions now press Y, upon the public mind, growing out of the disruptioi . the Charleston convention. While I was not greatly pirn prised at that result, considering the elements of its .. position, and the general distemper of the times— sti Y deeply regret it, and with you, look with intense inte “ . to the consequences. What is done, cannot be undon- yj amended; that must remain irrevocable. It would, th ' l fore, be as useless, as ungracious, to indulge in any rel tions as to whose fault the rupture was owing to. Perh and most probably, undue excitement and heat of pass in pursuit of particular ends, connected with the eleva )i; or overthrow of particular rivals lor preferment, n " than any strong desire, guided by cool judgment, so Y' 1 cessary on such occasions to advance the public good, , the real cause of the rupture. Be that as it may, howe ! f what is now to be done, and what is the proper cours . be taken ? To my mind, the course seems to be clear, , 1 1 «[i It a i-v uc wcai. ^ A State convention should be called at an early day— i m c ' that convention should consider the whole subject call ^ and dispassionately, with u the sober second thought,” determine whether to send a representation to Iiichm< ( | W or to Baltimore. The correct determination of this qi vj tion, as I view it, will depend upon another; and tha whether the doctrine of non-intervention by Congress v slavery in the Territories ought to be adhered to or ah B wi doned by the South. This is a very grave and seri 0uy r question, and ought not to be decided rashly or intemp w ately. No such small matters as the promotion of thi: 8 * ay e that individual, however worthy or unworthy, ough ^ndi enter into its consideration. It is a great subject of pf a ° 1 lie policy, aJfecting the vast interests of the present 29 'attire. It may be unnecessary, and entirely useless, te to obtrude my views upon this question in advance e meeting of such convention, upon whom its decis- oay primarily devolve. I cannot, however, comply your request without doing so to a limited extent, at This 1 shall do. In the first place, then, I assume, unquestioned and unquestionable fact, that non-in- ntion , as stated, has been for many years received, ;nized, and acted upon, as the settled doctrine of the By non-intervention, I mean the principle that ress shall pass no law upon the subject of slavery in - "erritories, either for or against it, in any way — that " shall not interfere or act upon it at all — or, in the ex- i words of Mr. Calhoun, the great southern leader, Congress shall “leave the whole subject where the titution and the great principles of self-government it.-’ This has been eminently a southern doctrine, is announced by Mr. Calhoun in his speech in the te on the 2Tth of June, 1S48; and, after two years of ssion. it was adopted as the basis of the adjustment ■ y made in 1S50. It was the demand of the South, put t by the South, and, since its establishment, has been and again affirmed and reaffirmed as the settled ' y of the South, by party conventions and State Legis- ts, in every form that a people can give authoritative ■ssion to their will and wishes. This cannot now be ter of dispute. It is history, as indelibly fixed upon ■j^cord as the fact that the colony of Georgia was set- “ tnder the auspices of Oglethorpe, or that the war of K meriean Revolution was fought in resistance to the t claim of power on the part of the British Parlia- fer to this matter of history connected with the sub- : inder consideration, barely as a starting point — to how we stand in relation to it. It is not a new ques- lt has been up before, and whether rightly or wrong- las been decided — decided and settled just as the asked that it should be — not, however, without effort and a prolonged struggle. The question now "jail the South abandon her own position in that de- 1 and settlement? This is the question virtually pre- l by the action of the seceders from ihe Charleston ntion, and the grounds upon which they based their or, stated in other words, it amounts to this : er the southern States, after all that has taken place subject, should now reverse their previous course, jfemand congressional intervention for the protection Very in the Territories, as a condition of their re- Tag longer in the Union ? For I take it for granted would be considered by all as the most mischievous make the demand, unless we intend to push the to its ultimate and legitimate results-. Shall the then, make this demand of Congress, and when in case of failure to obtain it, shall she secede from lion, as a portion of her delegates (some under in- ns, and some from their own free will) seceded he convention, on their failure to get it granted s stands the naked question, as I understand it, pre- by the action of the seceders, in its full dimensions ngth, breadth, and depth, in all its magnitude, presented, not to the Democratic party alone; it is convention of that party may first act on it, but it is ted to ihe country, to the whole people of the South, ® [parties. And men of all parties should duly and ^consider it, for they may all have to take sides on iier or later. » ses in iranortance high above any party organiza- the present day, ai d it may, and ought to, if need eep them all from the board. My judgment is the demand. If it were a new question, presented ^resent light for the first time, my views upon ir be different from what they are. It is known to d the country that the policy of non-intervention , olished at the instance of the South, was no favor- of mine. As to my position upon it, and the doc- ow revived, when they were original and open ns, as well as my present views, I will cite you to act of a speech made by me in Augusta, in July taking final leave of my constituents. I could not them more clearly or more briefly. In speaking of, dewing this ‘matter, I then said : 1. a? you all know, it (non-intervention) came short 1 1 wished. It was, in my view, not the full meas- our rights — that required, in my judgment, the ent by Congress of all needful laws for the protec- slave property in the Territories, so long as the ter- condition lasted. an overwhelming majority of the South was icT|| . against that position. It was said that we who maintained it, yieided the whole question by yielding the jurisdiction — and that, if we conceded the power to protect, we neces- sarily conceded with it the power to prohibit. This by no means followed, in my judgment. But such was the pre- vailing opinion. And it was not until it was well ascer- tained that a large majority of the South would not ask for, or even vote for, congressional protection, that those of us who were for it yielded to non-intervention, becanse, though it came short of our wishes, yet, it contained no sacrifice of principle, had nothing aggressive in it, and se- cured, for all practical purposes, what was wanted, that is, the unrestricted right of expansion over the common public domain, as inclination, convenience, or necessity may require on the part of our people.” * * * ‘‘Thus the settlement was made; thus the record stands, and by it I am still willing to stand, as it was ful- ly up to the demands of the South, through her representa- tives at the time, though not up to my own; and, as by it, the right of expansion to the extent of population and capacity is amply secured.” In this you clearly perceive what I think of the proper course now to be taken on the same subject. "While in the beginning of this controversy I was hot favorable to the policy adopted, yet I finally yielded my assent. It was yielded to the South — to the prevailing sentiment of my own section. But it never would have been yielded if I had seen that, any of our important rights, or any principle essential to our safety or security, could, by possibility, result from its operation. Nor would I now be willing to abide by it, if I saw in its practical workings any serious injury to the South likely to arise from it. 'All parties in the South, after tlie settlement was made, gave it the sanc- tion of their acquiesence, if not cordial approval. What, then, has occurred since to cause us to change our posi- tion in relation to it? Is it that those of the North who stood by ns in the struggle from 1848 to 1S50, did after- wards stand nobly by us in 1854, in taking off the old con- gressional restriction of 1S20, so as to have complete non- intervention throughout the length and breadth of the common public domain ? Was this heroism on their part, in adhering to principle, at the hazard and peril of their political lives and fortunes, the cause of present complaint? This cannot be ; for never was an act of Congress so gen- erally and so unanimously hailed with delighfat the South as this one was — I mean the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1S54? It was not only indorsed by all parties in Georgia, but every one who did not agree to its just provisions, upon the subject of slavery, was declared to be unfit to bold party associations with any party not hostile to the inter- ests of the South. What, then, is the cause of complaint now? Wherein has this policy worked any injury to the Sonth, or wherein is it likely to work any? Tlie only cause of complaint I have heard is, that non- intervention, , as established in 1S50, and carried out in 1S54, is not understood at the North as it is at the South ; that, while we hold that, in leaving “the whole subject where the Constitution and the great principles of self- government place it,” the common Territories are to re- main open for settlement by southern people, with their slaves, until otherwise provided by a State constitution. The friends and supporters of the same doctrine at the North maintain that, under it. the people of an organized Territory can protect or exclude slave property before the formation of a State constitution. This opinion or con- struction of theirs is what is commonly dubbed “squatter sovereignty ” Upon this point of difference in construc- tion of what are “the great principles of self-government,” under the Constitution of the United States, a great deal has been said and written. We have heard it in the social circle, in the forum, on the hustings, and in the halls of legislation. The newspapers have^literally groaned with dissertations on it. Pamphlets have been published for and against the respective sides. Congress has spent months in its discussion, and may spend as many years as they have months, without arriving at any more definite or satisfactory conclusion in relation to it than Milton’s perplexed spirits did upon the abstruse questions on which they held such high and prolonged debate when they rea- soned — “ Of Providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate — Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge, absolute — And found no end, in wandering mazes lost.” It is not my purpose now to enter the list of these dis- putants. My own opinions upon the subject are known ; and it is equally known that this difference of opinion, or construction, is no new thing in the history of this subject. Those who hold the doctrine that the people of the Terri- 30 tones, according to the great principles of self-govern- ment, under the Constitution of the United States, can exclude slavery by territorial law, and regulate slave pro- perty as all other property, held the same views they now do, when we agreed with them to stand on those terms. This fact is also historical. The South held that, under the Constitution, the Territorial Legislatures could not exclude slavery — that this required an act of sovereignty to do. Some gentlemen of the North held, as they now do, that the Territorial Legislatures could control slave property as absolutely as they could any other kind of pro- perty, and by a system of laws could virtually exclude slavery from amongst them, or prevent its introduction, if they chose. That point of difference it was agreed, by both sides, to •leave to the courts to settle. There was no cheat, or swin- dle, or fraud, or double-dealing in it. It was a fair, hon- orable, and constitutional adjustment of the difference. No assertion or declaration by Congress, one way or the other, could have affected the question in the least degree ; for, if the people, according to “the great principles of self-government” under the Constitution, have the right contended lor by those who espouse that side of the argu- ment, then Congress tould not and cannot deprive them ol it. And, if Congress did not have, or does not have, ihe power to exclude slavery from a Territory, as (hose on our side contended, and still contend they have not, then they could not and did not confer it upon the Territorial Legis- latures. We of the Sout'i held that Congress had not the power to exclude, and could not delegate a power they did not possess — also, that the people had not the power to exclude under the Constitution, and therefore the mutual agreement was to take the subject out of Congress, and leave the question of the power of the people where the Constitution had placed it— with the courts. This is the whole of it. The question in dispute is a judicial one, and no act of Congress, nor any resolution of anv party con- vention can in any way affect it, unless we first abandon the position of non-inter veution by Congress. But it seems exceedingly strange to me, that the people of the South should, at this late day, begin to find fault with this northern construction, as it is termed — especially since the decision of the Suprenje Court in the case of Dred Scott. In this connection I may be permitted to say that I have read with deep interest the debates of the Charleston con- vention, and particularly the able, logical, aud eloquent speech of lion. William L. Yancey, of Alabama. It was, decidedly, the strongest argument I have seen on bis side of the question. But its greatest power was shown in its complete answer to itself. Never did a man with greater clearness demonstrate that “squatter sovereignty,” the bug- bear of the day, is not in the Kansas bill, all that has been said to the contrary notwithstanding. This he put beyond the power of refutation. But he stopped not there; he went on, and by reference to the decision of the Supreme Court alluded to, he showed conclusively, in a most pointed and thrilling climax, that this most frightful doctrine could not. by possibility, be in it, or in any other territorial bill — that it is a constitutional impossibility. With the same master-hand he showed that the doctrine of “squatter sov- ereignty” is not in the Cincinnati platform; then, why should we of the South now complain or non-intervenUon, or ask a change of platform? What else have we to do but to insist upon our allies to stand to their argeement? Would it not have been much more natural to look fur flinching on their side than on ours ? Why should we desire or want any other platform of prin- ciples than that adopted at Cincinnati? If those who stood with us on it, in the contest of 1856, are willing still to stand ou it, why should we not be equally willing? For my life I cannot see, unless we are determined to have a quarrel with the North anyhow on general account. If so, in be- half of common sense, let us put it upon more tenable grounds 1 These are abundant. For our own character's sake, let us make it upon the aggressive acts of our enemies, rather than any supposed shortcomings of our friends, who have stood by ns so steadfastly in so many constitutional struggles. In the name of patriotism and honor, let us not make it upon a point which may so directly subject us to the charge of breach of plighted faith. Whatever may be- fall us, let us ever be found, by friend or foe, as good as our word. These are my views, frankly and earnestly given. The great question then is, shall we stand by our prin- ciples, or shall we, cutting loose from our moorings, where we have been saiely anchored so many years, launch out again into unknown seas, upon new and perilous adven- tures, under the guide and pilotage of those who prove themselves to have no more fixedness of purpose, or sta- bility as to objects or policy, than the shifting winds by which we shall be driven? Let this question be decide by the convention, and decided with that wisdom, coolnes and forecast which become statesmen and patriots. ^ As f< myself, I can say, whatever may be the course of futu: events, my judgment in this crisis is, that we should star by our principles “ through woe” as well as “ through weal and maintain them in good faith, now and always, if ne( be, until they, we, and the Republic perish together in common ruin. I see no injury that can possibly arise to 1 from them — not even if the constitutional impossibility their containing “squatter sovereignty” did not exist, has been conclusively demonstrated. For, if it did exi in them, and were all that its most ardent advocates clai for it, no serious practical danger to us could result from ! Even according to their doctrine, we have the unr stricted right cYexpansion to the extent of populatio They hold that slaver)* can and will go, under its operatio wherever the people want it. Squatters carried it to Te nesssee, Kentucky, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, ai Arkansas, Avithout any laAv to protect it, and to Tex against a law prohibiting it, and they will carry it to countries where climate, soil, production, and populati- These are the natural laws that will rcgulh will alloAV. These are the natural laws that will rcgulh it under non-intervention , according to their constructs and no act of Congress can carry it into any Territo against these laws, any more than it could make the riv< gust run to the mountains, instead of the sea. If avc have n ^ enough of the right sort of population to compete long . -J 4-T-. i Vv .. XT ^ *- T . - — nl « n i n T* n A«.r ^Pavi.I f n 1 1 with the North in the colonization of neAV Territories a States, this deficiency can never be supplied by any su tail; act of Congress as that now asked for. Tiie attempt wojj • be ? s vain as that of Xerxes to control the waters of t ,‘ b Hellespont by whipping them in his rage. The times, as you intimate, do indeed portend evil. B L have no fears for the institution of slavery, either in t [j oa Union or out of it, if our people are but true to themsel vc > true, stable, and loyal to fixed principles and settled polic . and if they are not thus true, I have little hope of anyth! decii good, whether the present Union lasts or a new one formed. There is, in my judgment, nothing to fear fr< , the “irrepressible conflict,” of which we hear so itmi 11 Slavery rests upon great truths, which can never be si beet cessfnliy assailed by reason or argument. It has gro' stronger in the minds of men the more it has been discu6S< I fin and it will still groAV stronger as the discussion procee and time rolls on. Truth is omnipotent, and must prev; see [ We have only to maintain the truth with firmness, a JJ wield it aright. Our system rests upon an impregnable 1 sis, that can and will defy all assaults from Avithout. 1 greatest danger. We have grown luxuriant in the exl Iha! ii beranees of our well-being and unparalleled prosperity. c j£ ,m There is a tendency everyAvhere, not only at the Nor 0 ^ but at the South, to strife, dissension, disorder, and i uona archy. It is against this tendency that the sober-mint Ml and reflecting inen everywhere should ooav be called uj to guard. , . My opinion, then, is, that delegtaes ought to be sent 01 l,)i the adjourned convention at Baltimore. The demand mi have at Charleston b) r the seceders ought not to be insisted up an ,} c Harmony being restored on this point, a nomination i v . doubtless be made of some man Avhom the party evej 111 ^' where can support, with the same zeal and the same ar Deni;, with which they entered and waged t he contest in 11 olutio when the same principles were involved. i , If, in this, there be a failure, let the responsibility “p 1 rest upon us. Let our hands be clear of all blame. ' there be no cause for casting censure at our door. If States the end, the great national Democratic party — the str _ i . , ligament, which has so long bound and held the Union. ‘ ’ gether, shaped its policy and controlled its destinies, been] to which Ave have so often looked with a hope that selc v/iatt failed, as the only party North on which to rely in the n ^ trying hours when constitutional rights were in peril, down — let it not be said to us, in the inidst of the disas Cflr,, y; that may ensue, “you did it!' 1 In any and every ev State t let not the reproach of Punic faith rest upon our name.' ^ , everything else has to go down, let our untarnished ho V , at least, survive the wreck. ” ^ ALEXANDER H. STEPHEN! reii??,,j thatv, Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. Stephens h as . giver o 0ll ^ true, veritable history of the compromise mc 0 f ^ ures of 1850 and of the Ivansas-Nebraeka bill, understood by the supporters of the measure when they 7 were passed. Pie has stated fairly ( truly the points of difference between us, wh points were to be left to the courts to decide ; and be has said, what I think he was bound to say as a patriot and a Democrat, that the Cincinnati platform is all that the South ought to ask or has a right to ask, or that her interest? require in this emergency. On that platform the party can re- main a unit, and present an invincible and irre- sistible front to the Republican or Abolition pha- lanx at the North. So certain as you abandon non-intervention and substitute intervention, just so certain you yield a power into their hands that - will sweep the Democratic party from the face of the globe. j , Sir, I believe that the safety, the peace, the - highest interests of this country require the pres- ■ ervation intact of the Democratic party on its old I creed and its old platform. Whenever you depart from that platform, which was adopted unani- ' raously, you never will get unanimity in the form- ■ ation of another. The only objection I have - heard urged against that platform is that it is susceptible of two constructions, when, in point . of fact, there are no two constructions — there can be none on any one of the political issues con- tained in it. The only difference of opinion aris- ing out of that platform is on the judicial ques- tion, about which we agreed to differ — which we i never did decide; because, under the Constitu- tion, no tribunal on earth but the Supreme Court could decide it. We differ only as to what the -j decision of the court will be; not as to whether : we will obey- it when made. How can you de- . iermiue that question by a platform? It has : been suggested that this difficulty was all to be - beconciled by the adoption of a resolution which 5 f find in the papers under the title of the Tennes- ,ee platform. Will my friend read it? Mr. PUGH read, as follows: “ Resolved , That all citizens of the United Slates have an x^nal right to settle with riieir property in the Territories, and r.hat under the decisions of the Supreme Court, which we re cognize as an exposition of the Constitution, neither their rights >f person or property can be destroyed or impaired by congres donal or territorial legislation ” . Mr. DOUGLAS. We have had predictions that the party was to be reunited by the adoption >f iat resolution. The only objection that I rave to it is that it is liable to two constructions, ind certainly and inevitably will receive two, Ijlirectly the opposite of each other, and each will le maintained with equal pertinacity. The res- dution contains, in my opinion, two trueisms, Lind, fairly considered, no man can question them. They are: first, that every citizen of the United itates has an equal right in the Territories ; that vhatever right the citizen of one State has, may i>e enjoyed by the citizens of all the States; that vhatever property the citizen of one State mav arry there, the citizens of all the States may tarry ; and on whatever terms the citizens of one State can hold it and have it protected, the citi- zens" of all States can hold it and have it protect- ed, without deciding what the right is, which still •euiains for decision. The secoud proposition is, hat a right of person or property secured by the Constitution caunot be taken away either by act if Congress or of the Territorial Legislature, yho ever dreamed that either Congress or a Ter- |Jitorial Legislature, or any other legislative body on earth, could destroy or impair any right guar- antied or secured by the Constitution? No man that I know of. This resolution leaves the same point open that remains open for the courts under the Cincinnati platform, and under the Ivansas- Nebraska bill. My objection is that it bears upon its face the evidence that if. is to be construed in two opposite ways in the different sections of the Union. I want no double dealing or double con- struction. I am willing to stand on the Cincin- nati platform, as you agreed to it, and as it was reenacted at Charleston. I will give it the same construction I have always given to it; you may give it yours. We differ only on a law point; let the court decide that, and I only ask that you will bow to the decision of the court with the same submission that I shall, and carry it out with the same good faith. I want no new issue. [ want no new test. I will make none on you, and I will permit you to make none on me. We are told that the party must be preserved. I agree that the best interests of the country re- quire that it should be preserved in its integrity. How can that be done, except by abiding by its decisions? The party has pronounced its author- itative voice on the very points at issue between you and me. The party rejected your caucus platform by twenty-seven majority on a fair vote. The party affirmed the Cincinnati platform almost unanimously. Hence it becomes the duty of every Democrat, every man who expects to re- main a Democrat, to acquiesce in the decision of the party, and support its nomination when it shall be made. In ho other way can the party be united or preserved. Can you preserve the party by allowing a minority to overrule and dictate to the majority ? Is the party to be pre- served by abandoning the fundamental articles of its creed, and adopting intervention in lieu of non intervention? Shall the majority surrender to the minority? Will that re=tore harmony? Will that produce fraternity? Suppose that the majority should surrender to you, the minority — should justify the seceders and bolters — will that reunite us? You tell us that if we do this, you will grant no quarter on the point in dispute. The test is to be kept, up by the minority against the majority; by bolters against the regular or- ganization; by seceders against those whose po- litical fidelity would not permit them to bolt; and the regular organization is required to sur- render at discretion to the seceders, with notice served, that no “ quarter” is to be granted. That is the conciliation that is tendered! That is the olive branch that is extended to us! You will permit us to vote for your candidate, if we will only allow a minority to nominate him ! You will permit us to vote for a candidate on a plat- form that the minority dictates and the majority has rejected ! Suppose the minority should get their platform and candidate, and they should go before the country appealing to the Democratic masses to rally in their majesty around the Democratic or- ganization, and support its nominations — a mi- nority candidate forced on the majority’, asking our votes, with notice, “ if you vote for me I will grant no quarter, I will put you to the sword ; 32 there is not a man of you that is fit to be chair- man of a committee, or a member of a Cabinet, or a collector of a port, a postmaster, a light- house-keeper!” These are the terms of concila- tion extended by a minority to the regular or- ganization of the party. Grant no quarter! Big talk for seceders, after they have been overruled. "VVhat man would desire your nomination on such terms? Who would be mean enough to ask and expect the support of men that he had mark- ed as victims of vengeance so soon as the knife was put in his hands by them? Who would de- grade himself so low as to ask or accept votes on term? so disreputable? On the contrary, sir, we, the Democratic par- ty, speaking through its regular organization, and by authority of the party, say to you, erring men as you are, that we will grant quarter ; we submit to no test, and make none; we are willing to fight the battle now on the same principles and the same terms that we have fought it on since 1848; on the same platform, and with the same fraternal feeling. If you differ from us, we recognize your right to differ without impairing your political standing, so long as you remain in the regular organization, and support the nomi- nees. I care not whether you agree or differ with m'e on the points of law that have divided us. If you should happen to be right, and I wrong, it would not prove that you were a bet- ter Democrat than I ; but that you were a better lawyer than I am, so far as that one branch of law is concerned. I should not have much pride of opinion on the point of law, but for the fact that you have got ih the habit of calling me “Judge,” (laughter;) having among my youthful indiscretions, accepted that office and acquired the title; and I do claim that, with that title, I have a right to think as I please on a point of law until the court decides that I am wrong. Mr. President, I owe an apology to the Senate for detaining them so long. I present my pro- found acknowledgments for the courtesy and kindness that have been extended to me. I would not have claimed so much of your time but for the fact that I believe that the principle involved in this discussion involves the fate o the American Union. Whenever you ineorporati intervention by Congress into the Democrat! creed, as it has become the cardinal principle o the Republican creed, you will make two section al parties, hostile to each other, divided by thi line that separates the free from the slaveholdint States, an^ present a conflict that will be irre pressible, and will never cease until the one shal subdue the other, or they shall agree to divide in order that they may live in peace. God gran' that there shall never be another sectional parti in the United States. Why cannot we live to gether in peace on the terms that have bourn and held us together so long? Why cannot w. agree on this great principle of non-interventioi by the Federal Government with the local am domestic affairs of the Territories, excludim slavery and all other irritating questions, an< leaving the people to govern themselves, so fa as the Constitution of the United States impose: no limitation upon their authority. Upon tha principle there can be peace. Upon that princi pie you can have slavery in the South as long a you want it, and abolish it whenever you an tired of it. On that principle we can have it o: not, as our interests, our prosperity, our owl sense of what is due to oursel vee, isktvll procKjril^l On that principle, you on the Pacific coast cai shape your own institutions so that they will b> adapted to your own people. On that principle there can be peace and harmony and fraternity between the North and the South, the East ant the West, the Pacific and the Atlantic. Win cannot we now reaffirm that principle as we dit in 1852? Then, the Whig party adopted it as i cardinal article in their creed, and so did the De mocraej'. Let your Whigs, your Democrats — al conservative men who will not be abolitionizet or sectionalized — rally under the good old ban ner of non-intervention, so that the Constitutioi may be maintained inviolate, and the Union las forever. Intervention, North or South, mean disunion ; non-intervention promises peace, fra ternity, and perpetuity to the UnioD, and to al our cherished institutions. Printed by Lem. Towees, Washington, D. C., at $2 per hundred copies. I ,