DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Duke University Libraries https://archive.org/details/lifeofstephenado01flin [AUTHORIZED EDITION.] LIFE STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS. with His most Important Speeches and Reports. BY H. M. 'FLINT. NEW YORK: DERBY & JACKSON, PUBLISHERS. I 860 . Entebbe according to Act of Congress, in .he year I860, by DERBY & JACKSON, In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the Uuited States for tho Southern Dish let *HT New York. Ceo. Russell & Co , Print** W n. Tinson, Stereotyper. The proofs of this work haying been submitted to several of Mr. Douglas’ most judicious friends, it is believed by them to be a true and faithful exposition of the leading incidents of his career, and is by them cordially recommended as authentic and reliable. o, n- £ 4 * 7-4 CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. paob Introductory, 10 CHAPTER II. Parentage, Birth, and. early Life of Stephen A. Douglas — He Studies Law — Goes to the West — Teaches School — Admitted to Practise Law — His Success as a Lawyer, and the Causes of it — Becomes Attorney General of Illinois — Elected to the State Legislature — Electioneers for Martin Yan Buren for President, in 1840 — Makes 207 Speeches in that Year, and carries Illinois for the Democracy — Becomes a Judge of the Supreme Court — Is Elected to Congress in 1843, . . . .18 CHAPTER III. Mr. Douglas’ First Session in Congress — His Speech upon the Improve- ment by Congress of Western Rivers and Harbors — His Great Speech on the Bill to Refund General Jackson’s Fine — General Jackson’s Opinion of the Speech — Mr. Douglas Reelected to Congress, ... 20 CHAPTER IY. Speech in Favor of the Re-Annexation of Texas — Mr. Douglas reports Joint Resolutions, declaring Texas to be one of the United States — Texas Annexed, 25 ns p ■ CONTENTS . n CHAPTER Y. Speech in Vindication of the Administration — Mr. Douglas elected to Con* gress a thi-rd time, . . • 2S CHAPTER VI. Mr. Douglas Elected to the United States Senate — He opposes the Wllmot Proviso — Speech on the Ten Regiment Bill — Bill for the Establishment of the Territory of Nebraska — Pass to Gen. Santa Anna — Exertions of Mr. Douglas in procuring Grants of Land to the Illinois Central Railroad — He endeavors to extend the Missouri Compromise Line to the Pacific Ocean — The Design defeated by Northern Votes — Bill for the Admission of California — Indian Titles in the North-west — Protection to Emi- grants, 32 CHAPTER VII. Mr. Douglas supports the Compromise Measures of Henry Clay — Great Speech on the 13th and 14th of March — Speech in favor of the Omnibus Bill, June 3 — The Nicholson Letter of General Cass — Mr. Douglas re- turns to Chicago — He is Denounced by the Local Authorities — He beards the Lions in their Den — Speech to the Citizens of Chicago — Its Effect, .... 39 CHAPTER VIII. Speech in favor of making Gen. Winfield Scott a Lieutenant-General — Speech on the Eugitive Slave Law — Speech on the Foreign Policy of the United States — Retrospective View of the Course of Mr. Douglas in Congress up to this Time (1S02) — Mr. Douglas the real Author of the Compromise Measures of 1850 — Bill for the Organization of the Territo- ries of Kansas and Nebraska— Mr. Douglas opposes the Oregon Treaty with England — Opposes the Peace Treaty with Mexico — Speech on the Clayton and Bulwer Treaty — Report on the Organization of Nebraska and Kansas — The Nebraska Bill — Debate on it — The bill passed, . 47 CHAPTER IX. Mr. Douglas at Chicago, 1854, 63 CONTENTS. vii CHAPTER X. Report of Hr. Douglas on the Territorial Policy of the Government — Speech in Reply to Trumbull, and in Support of the Bill authorizing the People of Kansas to form a Constitution and State Government — Speech in Reply to Hr. Collamer — The Bill passed by the Senate — Report of Hr. Douglas on the House Bill, *72 CHAPTER XI. A Retrospect — Origin and Causes of Disagreement with the President — Xot Provoked by Hr. Douglas — Hr. Buchanan owes his Nomination at Cincinnati to Hr. Douglas — Telegraphic Dispatches — His Efforts to Elect Hr. Buchanan in 1S56 — Speech at Springfield in 1857, defending the Administration — President's Instructions to Governor Walker — Consti- tution to be Submitted — Executive Dictation — Differences of Opinion tolerated on all Subjects except Lecompton — Hr. Douglas’ Propositions for Adjustment — Resolutions of Illinois Democracy — Controversy termi- nated by the English Bill — War Renewed by the Administration — Coali- tion between the Federal Officeholders and the Abolitionists — Hr. Dou- glas’ last Speech in the Senate preparatory to Illinois Canvass, . 80 CHAPTER XII. New Aspect of Affairs at the Federal Capitol — Mr. Douglas calls on the President for Information in regard to Affairs in Kansas — Great Speech of Hr. Douglas against the Lecompton Constitution — Speech in Favor of the Crittenden-Hontgomery Amendment — Speech on the Eng- lish Bill — Speech in favor of conferring on the President Power to pun- ish British Outrages, ...» 93 CHAPTER XIII. Mr. Douglas returns to Chicago — Brilliant Reception — Hakes his Speech opening the Campaign — Lays down Principles on which he conducted it, 104 via CONTENTS. CHAPTER XIV. Hr. Douglas leaves Chicago for New Orleans — Received at St. Louis and Memphis — Brilliant Reception at New Orleans. ...” 142 CHAPTER XV. Hr. Douglas again in Washington — Experiences a Change of Atmosphere — Scene shifts — Removed from Post of Chairman of Territorial Commit- tee — His Services as Chairman — Pretext of Removal — Freeport Speech — Letter to California in reply to Dr. Gwin, 144 CHAPTER XVI. Letters to Dorr and Peyton — Speeches in Ohio, and Cincinnati Platform — Charleston Convention — Presidental Aspirants — The Harper Article — Black’s Reply — Appendix of Attorney General — Rejoinder of Senator Douglas — The Chase and Trumbull Amendments — Consistency of Sena- tor Douglas, 168 CHAPTER XVII. Great Speech of Hr. Douglas on the Harper’s Ferry Invasion — Anxiety to hear him — His Speeches in Reply to Senators Fessenden, Jeff. Davis, and Seward — The Caucus of Senators — Their Utopian Platform, . 189 CHAPTER XVIII. Conventions of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan ; also of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and New York — Claims of the North-west— Conclusion, . . . 205 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER. The object of tbe author of this book is to present to the people of the United States a truthful delineation of the character and qualities of the greatest American statesman now living. The public life of Mr. Douglas naturally divides itself into five periods. The first, from his entrance into Congress in 1843, to the close of the war against Mexico, in 1848. Second, from the close of the Mexican "War to the passage of the Compromise measures of 1850. Third, from the passage of the Compromise of 1850, to the passage of the Nebraska Bill in 1854. Fourth, from the passage of the Nebraska Bill, to the third election of Mr. Douglas to the Senate, in the fall of 1858. Fifth, from the commencement of his third Senato rial term, in March, 1859, to the meeting of the Charleston Convention in April, 1860. During the first period, Mr. Douglas appears among the most active and influential friends of the re-annexation of 1 * 10 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Texas to the United States, and causes to be run through Texas the Missouri Compromise line of 3G° 30' ; and when the war with Mexico breaks out, he is found among the ablest supporters of the administration, and one of the fore- most of our statesmen in upholding the honor of our flag and in prosecuting the war with a vigor and prudence that led to an honorable and satisfactory peace. In this period, too, Mr. Douglas is seen endeavoring to carry out in good faith the principles of the Missouri Compromise, by extending the line of 36° 30' westward through our acquisitions from Mexico to the Pacific Ocean ; in which attempt he was frus- trated by northern Freesoilers. GEEAT MEASUEES OF ME. DOUGLAS. The second period was one of the most important in the whole life of Mr. Douglas. He is seen at this time, shaping and molding for the territories of the United States, those institutions of government upon which his fame as a states- man, rests, and upon which depend the happiness of millions of American citizens, and the prosperity of a dozen new' States. In treating of this period of the life of Mr. Douglas, I have shown that he is the real author of the Compromise measures of 1850, so generally attributed to Henry Clay. In this period, too, we see Mr. Douglas coming home to his constituents, and in the presence of an infuriated mob, pro- claiming the propriety and expediency of those measures with such matchless eloquence, that the voices of faction and fanaticism were hushed, and the citizens of Chicago passed resolutions declaring their adherence to those very measures which they had the day before denounced. Toward the close of the third period, we see Mr. Douglas bringing forward the details of his great plan for the gov- ernment of the territories, in the shape of the Kansas and STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 11 Nebraska bills ; explaining and elucidating the principles upon which they are based, and urging their adoption by Congress. And when these measures were passed, we see him coming home to a constituency that refused to hear him vindicate their justice and propriety. During the fourth period, we see the evils that resulted in Kansas, from attempts to evade or disregard the principles of the Nebraska Bill. We see the President of the United States exerting the whole strength of his administration in attempting to force a constitution repugnant to their wishes on the people of Kansas ; and Mr. Douglas energetically and •with all his might resisting the tyrannical proceeding, and vindicating the right of the people of the territories in all time to come, to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. When the British also, in 1858, attacked no less than thirty-three of our vessels in the space of four weeks, and when the Senate were about to pass the customary resolutions, declaring that such acts were very annoying tc the United States, and ought not to be committed, we see Mr. Douglas urging upon Congress the instant adoption ot such energetic measures on our part as should compel Great Britain not only to cease such outrages in future, but also to make reparation for those she had committed. “ THE EETUEN FEOJI ELEA.” During this period also, we see the great campaign in the autumn of 1858, the election of a senator from -Illinois for the next six years, the gallant stand made by Mr. Douglas, and the unscrupulous efforts made by federal officials ana Abolitionists to crush him. Like Napoleon on his return from Elba, Mr. Douglas, on his return to Illinois, in- spired his numerous friends with unbounded enthusiasm. We see the momentous struggle between Mr. Douglas and the 12 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Democratic party on the one side, and the allied forces of the Republicans, Abolitionists, and office-holders on the other. We see the battles and skirmishes of the cam- paign ; in every engagement, we see the utter discomfiture of the unholy alliance, and the triumph of the right — and always, in the forefront of the battle, we hear the clarion voice of the great leader of the democracy. Finally, we see his victory over all his enemies, and witness his triumphant return to the Senate, bearing high aloft the glorious banner of the Democracy, unstained and untarnished. During the last period, we see the hostility of the Executive manifested in the removal of Mr. Douglas from the chair- manship of the Committee on Territories ; the war of the pamphlets ; the Senate proceedings following the horrible plot of John Brown; and the ridiculous attempt on the part of a few senators to make a platform for the Charleston Convention entirely incompatible with the known principles of Mr. Douglas. We see the uprising of the people all over the nation in favor of Mr. Douglas for the Presidency, the proceedings of the several State conventions, and their unanimity in designating Mr. Douglas as their choice above all other men. Finally, we see the meeting of the Charleston Convention ; and we may reasonably hope to see the nomi- nation of Judge Douglas for the Presidency, and his triumph- ant election. PERSONAL APPEARANCE. The Rev. Wm. H. Milburn, the blind preacher, in his interesting book, “ Ten Years of Preacher Life,” gives the following graphic sketch of his impressions of Mr. Douglas : “ The first time I saw Mr. Douglas was in June, 1838, standing on the gallery of the Market House, which some of my readers may recollect as situate in the middle of the square of Jacksonville. lie and Colonel John J. Hardin were engaged in canvassing Morgan County for Congress. He STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 13 tvas upon the threshold of that great world in which he has since played so prominent a part, and was engaged in making one of his earliest stump speeches. I stood and listened to him, surrounded by a motley crowd of backwood farmers and hunters, dressed in homespun or deerskin, my boyish breast glowing with exultant joy, as he, only ten years my senior, battled so bravely for the doctrines of his party with the veteran and ac- complished Hardin. True, I had been educated in political sentiments opposite to his own, but there was something captivating in his manly straightforwardness and uncompromising statement of his political prin- ciples. He even then showed signs of that dexterity in debate, and vehe- ment, impressive declamation, of which he has since become such a master. H e gave the orosy d t 110 ™lnr nf his own mood as he in terpreted their thoughts and directed their sensibilities. His first-hand knowledge of the people, and his power to speak to them in their own language, employing arguments suited to their comprehension, sometimes clinching a series of reasons by a frontier metaphor which refused to be forgotten, and his de- termined courage, which never shrank from any form of difficulty or dan- ger, made him one of the most effective stump-orators I have ever heard. “ Less than four years before, he had walked into the town of Winches- ter, sixteen miles southwest of Jacksonville, an entire stranger, with thirty-seven and a half cents in his pocket, his all of earthly fortune. His first employment was as clerk of a ‘ Yandu,’ as the natives call a sheriff’s sale. He then seized the birch of the pedagogue, and sought by its aid and by patient drilling, to initiate a handful of half-wild boys into the sub- lime mysteries of Lindley Murray. His evenings were divided between reading newspapers, studying Blackstoue, and talking politics. He, before long, by virtue of his indomitable energy, acquired enough of legal lore to pass an examination, and ‘to stick up his shingle,’ as they call putting up a lawyer's sign. And now began a series’ of official employments, by which he has mounted within five and twenty years, from the obscurity of a village pedagogue on the borders of civilization, to his present illustrious and commanding position. In the twelve or thirteen years that had elapsed from the time of his entering the State, a friendless, penniless youth, he has served his fellow-citizens in almost every official capacity, and entered the highest position within their power to confer. “No man, since the days of Andrew Jackson, has gained a stronger hold upon the confidence and attachment of his adherents, or exercised a more dominating authority over the masses of his party than Judge Douglas. Whether upon the stump, in the caucus, or the Senate, his power and suc- cess in debate are prodigious. His instincts stand him in the stead of imagination, and amount to genius. u THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF “ Notwithstanding the busy and boisterous political life which he has led with all its engrossing cares and occupations, Mr. Douglas has, neverthe less, by his invincible perseverance, managed to redeem much time for self-improvement. lie has been a wide and studious reader of history and its kindred branches. Contact with affairs has enlarged his under- standing and strengthened hisjudgment. Thus, with his unerring sagacity, his matured and decisive character, with a courage which sometimes ap- pears to be audacity, but which is in reality tempered by prudence, a will that never submits to an obstacle, however vast, and a knowledge of the people, together with a power to lead them, incomparable in this genera- tion, he may be accepted as a practical statesman of the highest order. The correspondent of the New York “Times” describes Mr. Douglas as follows : “ The Little Giant, as he has been well styled, is seen to advantage on the floor of the Senate, lie is not above the middle height ; but the easy and natural dignity of his manner stamps him at once as one born to command. His massive head rivets undivided attention. It is a head of the antique, Avith something of the infinite in its expression of power : a head difficult to describe, but better Avortli description than any other in the country. Mr. Doug- las has a brain of unusual size, covered Avith heavy masses of dark brown hair, uoav beginning to be sprinkled Avith silver. His forehead is high, open, and splendidly developed, based on dark, thick eyebrows of great width. His eyes, large and deeply set, are of the darkest and most brilliant blue. The mouth is cleanly cut, finely arched, but with something of bitter and sad experience in its general expression. The chin is square and vigorous, and is full of eddying dimples — the muscles and nerves showing great mobility, and every thought having some external reflexion in the sensitive and expressive features. Add noAV a rich, dark complexion, clear and healthy; smoothly shaven cheeks; and handsome throat; small, white ears; eyes Avhich shoot out electric fires; small Avhite hands ; small feet ; a full chest and broad shoulders ; STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 15 and with these points duly blended together, we have a pic- ture of the Little Giant. “As a speaker, Mr. Douglas seems to disdain ornament, and marches right on against the body of his subject with irresistible power and directness. His rhetorical assault has nothing of the cavalry slash in its impressiveness, rather resembling a charge of heavy infantry with lived bayonet, and calling forcibly to mind the attack of those ‘ six thousand English veterans ” immortalized by Thomas Davis : “ 1 Steady they step adown the slope, Steady they climb the hill ; Steady they load — steady they fire — Marching right onward still.’ His voice is a rich and musical baritone, swelling into occa- sional clarion-blasts toward the close of each important period. He is heard with breathless attention, except when now and again the galleries feel tempted to applaud — these demonstrations appearing to give particular uneasiness to the Administration, Secession, and Republican senators.” Mr. Douglas has been twice married. He has two little sons, the children of his first wife, who was a southern lady. In 1857, he married Miss Adele Cutts, daughter of James Madison Cutts, Esq., second Controller of the Trea- sury, a beautiful and accomplished woman, and well known in Washington for the amiability of her disposition, and the goodness of her heart. He has had one child, a daughter, since his second marriage. 16 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF CHAPTER H. Parentage, Birth, and early Life of Stephen A. Douglas — He Studies Law — Goes to the West — Teaches School — Admitted to Practise Law — Ilis Success as a Lawyer , and the Causes of it — Becomes Attorney General of Illinois — Elected to the State Legislature — Electioneers for Martin Van Buren for President, in 1840 — Makes 207 Speeches in that Year, and carries Illinois for the Democracy — Becomes a Judge of the Supreme Court — Is Elected to Congress in 1843. Stephen A. Douglas was born in the town of Branclon, Vermont, on the 23d day of April, 1813. His father was a native of the State of Hew York, and a physician of high repute. His grandfather was a Pennsylvanian by birth, and a soldier in the Revolutionary War. Pie was one of those soldiers of Washington who passed that terrible winter at Valley Forge, and was present at the surrender of Lord Corn- wallis. His great-grandfather was also an American by birth, but his ancestors came originally to this country from Scot- land. Dr. Douglas died when his little son Stephen was only three months old. From the age of ten to that of fifteen years, Stephen was sent to the common schools of the neigh- borhood. During the last two years of this term, he was noted for remai’kable aptitude for his studies, and was ex- tremely diligent and attentive. His quick perception, excel- lent memory, and determination to excel in his studies, were subjects of remark by his teachers, even at that early period. His disposition was amiable and kind, of which fact there are numerous instances related by those who were his school STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 17 fellows. His temper, however, was naturally quick and vivacious. At the age of fifteen, he expressed to his mother his earnest desire to prepare for college ; but it was decided at a family council that the expense of a collegiate education would make that idea impossible. “ Well, then,” said Stephen, “ I will earn my own living and he immediately engaged himself as an apprentice to the trade of cabinet- making, Avhich was then an excellent and lucrative business. He worked at this trade for eighteen months, and then abandoned it altogether, as it proved entirely too severe for his constitution. His master has since jocularly remarked, that during the time Stephen was with him, he displayed his greatest ingenuity in the construction of bureaus , cabi- net, s, and secretaries. At the age of seventeen, he entered the academy at Brandon, and pursued his studies there for more than a year. His mind'was extremely active at this time, and he made rapid advancement in those branches of learning to which he directed his attention. When the family removed to Canandaigua, Hew York, he attended the academy there as a student. Having decided to make the law his profession, he entered the office of Mr. Hubbell, and studied law till 1833. eap.lt life. In the spring of that year he went to the West, in search of an eligible place in which to establish himself as a lawyer. He went to a number of cities and towns in the West, among them Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, and Jackson- ville, Illinois. At Winchester, a little town sixteen miles from Jacksonville, he found there was no school, and irnme- mediately opened one. He obtained forty pupils without any difficulty, whom he taught for three mouths, at $3 00 pei 18 TIIE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF quarter. He devoted his evenings, during this time, to the prosecution of his law studies. In March, 1834, lie was admitted to practise law, by the judges of the Supreme Court of the State, lie at once opened a law office, and became remarkably successful as a legal practitioner. Within a year after his admission, and while not yet twenty-two years of age, he was elected by the legislature of Illinois, attorney-general of the State. In 1836, he was elected to the legislature by the Democrats of Morgan County, and resigned the office of attorney-general. At the time he took his seat in the legislature, he was the youngest member of that body. In 1837, he was appointed by Presi- dent Van Buren register of the land-office at Springfield, Illinois. In November of the same year, he received the Democratic nomination for Congress, although he was then under twenty-five years of age, and consequently ineligible. He attained the requisite age, however, before the day of election, which Avas in August, 1838. At this election upward of 36,000 votes were cast, of which Mr. Douglas re- ceived a majority. About twenty votes were rejected by the canvassers, because in them the name of Mr. Douglas was spelled incorrectly. The quibble was a most unworthy one, and would not stand at this day. As it Avas, the Whig can- didate was declared to be elected by a majority of only five votes ; and the election was everywhere regarded as a triumph of Mr. Douglas. ME. DOUGLAS AS A LAWTEE. Retiring now from political life, Mr. Douglas devoted himself with assiduity to the practice of his profession. He was an able and successful lawyer, and his busiuess increased rapidly. There are many persons now living, who were clients and neighbors of Mr. Douglas at this time, and who STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 19 remember well his demeanor as an advocate. He was noted, among other things, for the careful preparation of his cases, and for his tact and skill in the examination of witnesses. He never went into court with a case until he thoroughly understood it in all its bearings. His addresses to the jury were generally plain and clear statements of the matters of fact, the arguments logical and conclusive, and his manner earnest and impressive. He rarely failed to enlist the feel- ings and sympathies of a jury. In the year 1S40, Mr. Douglas entered with ardor into the celebrated “ Hard Cider and Log Cabin ” campaign, and threw the whole weight of hi? influence in favor of Martin Van Buren, the democratic candidate for President, and against the “ Tippecanoe and Tyler too ” candidates of the Whig party. During seven months of that year, he tra- versed the State of Illinois in all directions, and addressed 207 meetings of the people. General Harrison was elected President, but Illinois was carried for the Democratic candi- dates, and Mr. Douglas was mainly instrumental in bringing about this result. ME. DOUGLAS ELECTED TO CONGRESS. In December, 1840, Mr. Douglas was appointed secretary of state of Illinois. In February, 1841, he was elected by the legislature a judge of the Supreme Court of the State. This was only seven years after he had received, from the judges of that court, his license to practise law. He re- mained upon the bench of the Supreme Court for three years. In 1843 he was elected to Congress by 400 majority; and in 1844 by a majority of 1,900 votes. He was elected a representative a third time in 1846, by a majority of 3,000 votes. 20 THE LIFE AHjj SPEECHES 0 P CHAPTER III. Mr. Douglas’ First Session in Congress — His Speech upon the Improve- ment by Congress of Western Rivera and Harbors — His Great Speech on the Bill to Refund General Jackson’s Fine — General Jackson’s Opinion of the Speech — Mr. Douglas Reelected to Congress. On talcing his seat in Congress, Mr. Douglas did not at once rush into the debates of the House. He was perfectly informed concerning the interests of his constituents, over which he exercised a watchful care. But for the first session or two of Congress, he spoke rarely, and briefly ; familiariz- ing himself, by study and observation, with the rules of debate, and the usages of parliamentary bodies. When he did' rise to address the House, it was on some practical question ; and his remarks were always forcible, and to the point. IMPROVEMENT OP WESTERN RIVERS. His first speech in Congress was upon the improvement ol western lakes and harbors, delivered December 19 , 1843 . He had moved that so much of the President’s message as referred to that subject, be referred to a select committee. He insisted upon a select committee, “ because the question involved important interests requiring an accurate know- ledge of the condition of the country, its navigable streams, and the obstructions to be removed. A thorough examination of subjects so various, extensive, and intricate. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 21 and requiring so much patient labor and toil, could not be expected from those who reside at a great distance. lie desired a full, elaborate, and detailed report from those whose local positions would stimulate them. Let this be granted, and the friends of the measure would be»content to leave its policy and propriety to the judgment of the House.” While Mr. Douglas has never ceased to take a lively interest in river and harbor improvements and the protection of inland navigation, experience soon convinced him that the practice of appropriating from the federal treasury for such purposes had utterly failed to accomplish its object, and that a system of tonnage duties which he matured, and on several occasions has introduced iuto the Senate, should be substituted for Congressional appropriations. Since the sys- tem of tonnage duties has been elaborated in Congress, and is becoming understood by the public, the most enlightened friends of the navigating interests are becoming satisfied that the substitute proposed by Mr. Douglas would prove not only more economical, but more effective and beneficial in •he accomplishment of their views. In connection with this subject, it should be added, that Mr. Douglas was mainly instrumental in securing the passage of the law by which the maritime and admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts was extended over the northern lakes. SPEECH IN PAVOR OP REMITTING GEN. JACKSON’S PINE. On the 7th of January, 1S44, he delivered an eloquent speech on the bill to refund to Gen. Jackson, the fine unjustly imposed on him by Judge Hall, of Hew Orleans. From this speech we make the following extracts : “ I maintain,” said Mr. Douglas, “ that in the exercise of the power of proclaiming martial law, Gen. Jackson did not violate the Constitution, nor assume to himself any authority 22 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF not fully authorized and legalized by his position, his duty, and the necessity of the case. Gen. Jackson was the agent of the government, legally and constitutionally authorized to defend the city of New Orleans. It was his duty to do this at all hazards. It was then conceded, and is now conceded, that nothing but martial law would enable him to perform that duty. Ilis power was commensurate with his duty, and he was authorized to use the means essential to its perform- ance. This principle has been recognized and acted upon by all civilized nations, and is familiar to all who are conversant with military history. It does not imply the right to suspend the laws and civil tribunals at pleasure. The right grows out of the necessity. The principle is, that the commanding general may go as far, and no further than is absolutely necessary to the defence of the place committed to his pro- tection. There are exigencies in the history of nations, when necessity becomes the paramount law, to which all other considerations must yield. If it becomes necessary to blow up a fort, it is right to do it. If it is necessary to sink a ship, it is right to sink it. If it is necessary to burn a Ci„y, it is right to burn it.” Mr. Douglas then gave a graphic description of the state of affairs at New Orleans in December, 1814 , and January, 1815 ; concluding thus : “ The enemy, composed of disciplined troops, four times as numerous as our own force, were in the immediate vicinity^of the city, ready for the attack at any moment ; the city, filled with traitors, anxious to sur- render ; spies transmitting information to the enemy’s camp. The governor of the State, the judges, the public authorities, and all the chief citizens, earnestly entreated Gen. Jackson to declare martial law, as the only means of maintaining the safety of the city. Geu. Jackson promptly issued the order, and enforced it by the weight of his authority. The city STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 23 was saved. The country was defended by a succession of the most brilliant mili tary achievements that ever adorned the annals of any country or any age. Martial law was con- tinued no longer than the danger existed. Judge Hall him- self had advised, urged, and solicited Gen. Jackson to declare it.” ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 9 “ The last of the high crimes and misdemeanors imputed to Gen. Jackson at Hew Orleans, is that of arresting Judge Hall, and sending him beyond the limits of the city, with instructions not to return till peace was restored. The justification of this act is found in the necessity which required the declaration of martial law, and its continuance and enforcement until the enemy should have left, or the treaty of peace be ratified. Judge Hall, who was by birth an Englishman, had confederated with Louallier’s band of conspirators. Their movements were dangerous. Gen. Jackson took the responsibility, and sent the judge beyond the fines of his camp. Was this a contempt of court ?” “I envy not the feelings of the man who can calmly reason about the force of precedents in the fury of the war-cry, when ‘ booty and beauty ’ is the watchword. Talk not to me of ‘ forms, and rules of court ’ when the enemy’s cannon are pointed, at the door ! The man who could philo- sophize at such times, would fiddle while the Capitol was burning. There was but one form necessary on that occa- sion, and .that was, to point cannon and destroy the enemy.” “ I grant that the bill is unprecedented : but I desire, on this day, to make a precedent that shall command the admi- ration of the world. Besides, sir, the government has repeatedly recognized and sanctioned the doctrine, that in cases of necessity, the commander is fully justified in super— 24 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF seding the civil law; and that Congress will make remunera- tion, Avhen the commander acted with the view of promoting the public interests. The people demand this measure, and they will never be satisfied till their wishes shall have been respected, and their will obeyed.” JACKSON’S OPINION OF THIS SPEECH. The bill was passed, and the fine refunded. A year after- ward, Mr. Douglas, in company with several other members of Congress, paid their respects to the venerable hero and patriot, at the Hermitage. When Mr. Douglas was intro- duced, the old general grasped him warmly by the hand, and requested him to step with him into a private room. There, in the presence of two other gentlemen now living, and from one of whom we have received this relation, the venerable soldier, in a voice trembling with emotion, thus addressed the young statesman : “ Mr. Douglas, I read, with feelings of lively gratitude, your speech in Congress last winter, in favor of remitting the fine imposed on me by Judge Hall. I knew when I proclaimed and enforced martial law, that I was doing right. But never, until I had read your speech, could I have expressed the reasons which actuated my con- duct. I knew that I was not violating the Constitution of my country. When my life is written, I wish that speech of yours to be inserted in it, as my reasons for proclaiming and enforcing martial law in Hew Orleans.” STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 25 and requiring so much patient labor and toil, could not be expected from those who reside at a great distance. He desired a full, elaborate, and detailed report from those whose local positions would stimulate them. Let this be granted, and the friends of the measure would be content to leave its policy and propriety to the judgment of the House.” While Mr. Douglas has never ceased to take a lively interest in river and harbor improvements and the protection of inland navigation, experience soon convinced him that the practice of appropriating from the federal treasury for such purposes had utterly failed to accomplish its object, and that a system of tonnage duties which he matured, and on several occasions has introduced into the Senate, should be substituted for Congressional appropriations. Since the sys- tem of tonnage duties has been elaborated in Congress, and is becoming understood by the public, the roost enlightened friends of the navigating interests are becoming satisfied that the substitute proposed by Mr. Douglas would prove not mly more economical, but more effective and beneficial in .he accomplishment of their views. In connection with this subject, it should be added, that Mr. Douglas was mainly instrumental in securing the passage of the law by which the maritime and admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts was extended over the northern lakes. SPEECH IN FAVOR OF REMITTING GEN. JACKSON’S FINE. On the 7th of January, 1844, he delivered an eloquent speech on the bill to refund to Gen. Jackson, the fine unjustly imposed on him by Judge Hall, of New Orleans. From this speech we make the following extracts : “ I maintain,” said Mr. Douglas, “ that in the exercise of the power of proclaiming martial law, Gen. Jackson did not violate the Constitution, nor assume to himself any authority 2 26 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF not. fully authorized and legalized by his position, his duty, and the necessity of the case. Gen. Jackson was the agent of the government, legally and constitutionally authorized to defend the city of New Orleans. It was his duty to do this at all hazards. It was then conceded, and is now conceded, that nothing but martial law would enable him to perform that duty. His power was commensurate with his duty, and he was authorized to use the means essential to its perform- ance. This principle has been recognized and acted upon by all civilized nations, and is familiar to all who are conversant with military history. It does not imply the right to suspend the laws and civil tribunals at pleasure. The right grows out of the necessity. The principle is, that the commanding general may go as fir, and no further than is absolutely necessary to the defence of the place committed to his pro- tection. There are exigencies in the history of nations, when necessity becomes the paramount law, to which all other considerations must yield. If it becomes necessary to blow up a fort, it is right to do it. If it is necessary to sink a ship, it is right to sink it. If it is necessary to burn a city, it is right to burn it.” Mr. Douglas then gave a graphic description of the state of affairs at New Orleans in December, 1814 , and January, 1815 ; concluding thus : “ The enemy, composed of disciplined troops, four times as numerous as our own force, were in the immediate vicinity of the city, ready for the attack at any moment ; the city, filled with traitors, anxious to sur- render ; spies transmitting information to the enemy’s camp. The governor of the State, the judges, the public authorities, and all the chief citizens, earnestly entreated Gen. Jackson to declare martial law, as the only means of maintaining the safety of the city. Gen. Jackson promptly issued the order, and enforced it by the weight of his authority. The city STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 27 was saved. The country was defended by a succession of the most brilliant military achievements that ever adorned the annals of any country or any age. Martial law was /con- tinued no longer than the danger existed. Judge Hall him- self had advised, urged, and solicited Gen. Jackson to declare it.” “ The last of the high crimes and misdemeanors imputed to Gen. Jackson at Hew Orleans, is that of arresting Judge Hall, and sending him beyond the limits of the city, with instructions not to return till peace was restored. The justification of this act is found in the necessity which required the declaration of martial law, and its continuance and enforcement until the enemy should have left, or the treaty of peace be -ratified. Judge Hall, who was by birth an Englishman, had confederated with Louallier’s band of conspirators. Their movements were dangerous. Gen. Jackson took the responsibility, and sent the judge beyond the lines of his camp. Was this a contempt of court ?” “ I envy not the feelings of the man who can calmly reason about the force of precedents in the fury of the war-cry, when ‘ booty and beauty ’ is the watchword. Talk not to me of ‘ forms, and rules of court 5 when the enemy’s cannon are pointed at the door ! The man who could philo- sophize at such times, would fiddle while the Capitol was burning. There was but one form necessary on that occa- sion, and that was, to point cannon and destroy the enemy.” ***%*%%*% “ I grant that the bill is unprecedented : but I desire, on this day, to make a precedent that shall command the admi- ration of the world. Besides, sir, the government has repeatedly recognized and sanctioned the doctrine, that in cases of necessity, the commander is fully justified in super 28 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF seeling the civil law; and that Congress will make remunera- tion, when the commander acted with the view of promoting the public interests. The people demand this measure, and they will never be satisfied till their wishes shall have been respected, and their will obeyed.” JACKSON’S OriXION OF THIS SPEECH. The bill was passed, and the fine refunded. A year after- ward, Mr. Douglas, in company with several other members of Congress, paid their respects to the venerable hero and patriot, at the Hermitage. When Mr. Douglas was intro- duced, the old general grasped him warmly by the hand, and requested him to step with him into a private room. There, in the presence of two other gentlemen now living, and from one of whom we have received this relation, the venerable soldier, in a voice trembling with emotion, thus addressed the young statesman : “ Mr. Douglas, I read, with feelings of lively gratitude, your speech in Congress last winter, in favor of remitting the fine imposed on me by Judge Hall. I knew when I proclaimed and enforced martial law, that I was doing right. But never, until I had read your speech, could I have expressed the reasons which actuated my con- duct. I knew that I was not violating the Constitution of my country. When my life is written, I wish that speech of yours to be inserted in it, as my reasons for proclaiming and enforcing martial law in New Orleans.” STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 29 CHAPTER IY. RE-ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. Speech in Favor of the Re-Annexation of Texas — Mr. Douglas reports Joint Resolutions, declaring Texas to be one of the United States — Texas Annexed. Me. Douglas was among the earliest advocates of the annexation of Texas; on which subject he made an able speech on the Gth of January, 1845. In this speech he showed that the Texas question was not at that time a new one : that it did not originate with Mr. Tyler : that one of first acts of the administration of Gen. Jackson had been to re-open negotiations with Mexico for the annexation of Texas: that Mr. Yan Buren, then secretary of state, had addressed a long dispatch to Mr. Poinsett, our minister to Mexico, instructing him to endeavor to secure Texas, and directing him to give $5,000,000 for it : that the attempt had been renewed by President Jackson in 1S33, and again in 1835. He showed by the authority of John Quincy Adams, in his official letters, especially the one dated March 12, 1818, that the western boundary of Louisiana extended to the Rio del Norte : that the settlements made between the rivers Sabine and Rio del Norte, by La Salle, in 16S5, under the authority of Louis XIV -, king of France, together with those on the Mississippi and the Illinois, formed the basis of the original French colony of Louisiana, which was ceded to the United States in 1803 ; and quoted the language of Mr. Adams, “that the claim of the United 30 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF States to the boundary of the Rio Bravo del Norte was as clear as their right to the island of New Orleans.” He then went on to show that as the Rio del Norte was the western boundary of Louisiana, and Texas was included in the cession of 1803, all the inhabitants of that country were, by the terms of the treaty, naturalized, and became citizens of the United States ; and all who migrated there between 1803 and 1819 went there under the shield of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and with the guaranty that they would be forever protected by them; and quoted from the treaty of cession .as follows : “ The in- habitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Constitution, to the enjoy- ments of all the rights of the United States.” “ To the fulfillment of these stipulations,” said Mr. Doug- las, “ the sacred faith and honor of this nation were solemnly pledged. Yet, in violation of one of them, Texas Avas ceded to Spain by the treaty of 1819. The American Rejmblic Avas severed by that treaty, a part of its territory joined to a foreign kingdom, and American citizens Avere transformed into the subjects of a foreign despotism. Texas did not assent to the separation ; she protested against it promptly and solemnly. Thc^protest and declaration of independence of Texas, in June, 1S19, says, ‘The recent treaty betAveen Spain and the United States has dissipated an illusion, and has aroused the citizens of Texas. They see themselves abandoned to the dominion of Spain ; but, spurning the fet- ters of colonial vassalage, they resolve, under the blessing of God, to be free and independent.’ “ Most nobly have they maintained that righteous resolve ; first, against the despotism of Spain, and then the tyranny of Mexico, until, on the plains of San Jacinto, victory estab- ished their independence and made them free.” STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 31 Mr. Douglas proceeded to enumerate tlie advantages that would attend the annexation of Texas, and then went on to show that it must be done in accordance with the principles of the Constitution ; proving the doctrine to have been sane tioned and settled, that foreign territory may be annexed, organized into territories and States, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States. In con- cluding his remarks upon this point, Mr. Douglas said, “ The conclusion is irresistible that Congress, possessing the power to admit a State, has the right to pass a law of annexation. I do not say that territory cannot be acquired in any other way than by act of Congress. We may acquire it by con- quest, or by treaty, or by discovery. We claim the Oregon Territory by virtue of the right of discovery and occupation. But if we wish to acquire Texas without making war or relying upon discovery, we must fall back upon the power to admit new States, and acquire the territory by act of Con- gress, as one of the necessary and indispensable means of executing that enumerated power. Our federal system is admirably adapted to the whole continent; and while I would not violate the laws of nations, nor treaty stipulations, nor in any manner tarnish the national honor, I would exert all legal and honorable means to drive Great Britain, and the last vestiges of royal authority, from the continent of North America, and extend the limits of the Republic from ocean to ocean. I would make this an ocean-bound republic, and have no more disputes about boundaries or red lines upon maps.” The treaty for the annexation of Texas having failed in the Senate, Mr. Douglas, among others, introduced join! resolutions in the House of Representatives for the annexa- tion of Texas to the United States ; and at the next session, being chairman of the Committee on Territories, reported the bill by which Texas was declared one of the States THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 3'J of the Union, on an equal footing with the original States. In this joint resolution there was inserted, at the instance of Mr. Douglas, a provision extending the Missouri Com- promise line westward through Texas to the Rio del Norte, its western boundary. The reasons which induced Mr. Douglas to bring forward that provision are explained by. him in his speech on the Nebraska Territory, delivered January 30, 1854, and which will be found in a subsequent chapter of this work. The joint resolution as passed is as follows : JOINT RESOLUTION FOR ANNEXING TEXAS TO THE UNITED STATES. “ Resolved , by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress Assembled , That Congress doth consent that the terri- tory properly included Within, and rightfully belonging to, the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas , with a Republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in convention assembled, with the consent of the existing government, in order that the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union. “ Skc. 2. And he it further resolved , That the foregoing consent of Con- gress is given upon the following conditions, and with the following guar antics, to wit : “ First, Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by this gov- ernment of all questions of boundary that may arise with other govern- ments ; and of the constitution thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be transmitted to the President of the United States, to be laid before Congress for its final action, on or before the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. “ Second , Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks, ports, and har- bors, navy and navw-yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the public defence, belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind which may belong to, or be due or owing said STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 33 .Republic; and shall also retain all the vacant or unappropriated lands lying -within its limits, to be applied to the payment of the debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas ; and the residue of said lands, after discharging said debts and liabilities, to become a charge upon the United States. “ Third, New States of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to the said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provision of the Federal Constitution; and such States as may be formed out of that por- tion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without Slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri Compromise line, Slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited. [Walker’s Amendment — added.] “ And be it further resolved. That if the President of the United States shall, in his judgment and discretion, deem it most advisable, instead of proceeding to submit the foregoing resolution to the Republic of Texas, as an overture on the part of the United States, for admission, to negoti- ate with that Republic ; then, “ Be it resolved, That a State to be formed out of the present Republic of Texas, with suitable extent and boundaries, and with two representa- tives in Congress, until the next apportionment of representation, shall be admitted into the Union by virtue of this act, on an equal footing with the existing States, as soon as the terms and conditions of such admission, and the cession of the remaining Texan territory to the United States, shall be agreed upon by the Governments of Texas and the Un’ted States. “ And be it further enacted, That the sum of one hundred thousand dol- lars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated to defray the expenses of missions and negotiations, to agree upon the terms of said admission and cession, either by treaty to be submitted to the Senate, or by articles to be submitted lo the tw-o Houses of Congress, as the President may direct. “Approved, March 2, 1S45.” 2 * 34 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF CHAPTER Y. W A R WITH M E X I C 0 . Speech in Vindication of the Administration — Mr. Douglas elected to Con- gress a third time. Mr. Douglas vigorously supported the administration of President Polk, in the measures it adopted for the prosecu- tion of the Avar against Mexico; and on the 13th of May, 184G, made a long and able sjieech in favor of the bill making appropriations for the support of the army. The object of this speech was to vindicate our government, and to demon- strate that it had not been in the Avrong, in the origin and progress of the war. It will be remembered that the Avar Avas denounced by the Whig party as unholy and damnable, and the government of the United States Avas vilified and traduced Avithout measure, for taking the only course that could be taken, in order to preserve the national honor. Henry Clay, the great leader of the Whigs, did not, indeed, join in this shameful cry. His eldest son, Henry Clay, jr., fought gallantly in the war, and fell at Buena Vista : and the old patriot was not one of those who gave aid and comfort to the enemy. But Thomas Corwin, and others like him, de- clared in Congress that while the President could command the army, they thanked heaven that they could command the purse, and that he should have no funds to prosecute this Avar ; and called upon the Mexicans to welcome the soldiers STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 35 of the American army, with “ bloody hands and hospitable graves !” In reply to this, Mr. Douglas presented amass of evidence from official documents, showing that for years past we had had ample cause for war against Mexico, and quoting the declaration of President Jackson’s last special message, that the wanton character of the outrages upon the persons and property of our citizens, upon the officers and flag of the United States, independent of recent insults to this govern- ment and people, would justify in the eyes of nations, imme- diate war. MEXICAN OUTRAGES. “Aside from the insults to our flag,” said Mr. Douglas, “ the indignity to the nation, and the injury to our commerce, not less than ten millions of dollars are due to our citizens, for these outrages which Mexico has committed within the last fifteen years. The Committee on Foreign Relations of the U. S. Senate, said in their report in 1837, that they might ‘ with justice recommend an immediate resort to war or re- prisals and the House Committee, at the same session, re- ported that ‘ the merchant vessels of the United States have been fired into, and our citizens put to death.’ It should be borne in mind that all those insults and injuries were com- mitted before the annexation of Texas — before the proposi- tion of annexation was ever seriously entertained by this government. For offences much less aggravated, France made her demand for reparation, and proclaimed her ultima- tum from the deck of a man-of-war off Vera Cruz. Redress being denied, the French fleet opened their batteries on the Castle of San Juan de Ulloa, compelled the fortress to sur- render, and the Mexican government to accede to their de- mands, and to pay $200,000 in addition, to defray the expenses of enforcing the payment of the claim. Gur wrongs are ten 36 TUE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF fold greater than those of France, in number and enormity ; yet her complaints have been heard in tones of thunder from the mouths of her cannon. “When the question of annexation was recently agitated, Mexico gave notice to this government that she would regard the consummation of the measure as a declaration of war. She made the passage of the resolution of annexation the pre- text for dissolving the diplomatic relations between the two countries.” HOUSTON’S TREATY WITH SANTA ANNA. Mr. Douglas then briefly related the facts relative to Mr. Slidell’s appointment as minister to Mexico, the contemp- tuous reception that he met with there, and his final rejection by the government of Paredes ; and also gave a brief sketch of the early military operations on both sides. By references to the documentary archives of the government, he proved that the Rio Grande was the western boundary of Texas, and cited the fact that immediately after the battle of San Ja- cinto,. Santa Anna proposed to General Sam Houston, com- mander of the Texan army, to make a treaty of peace by which Mexico would recognize the independence of Texas with the Rio del Norte as the boundary, and that such a treaty was made, in which the independence of Texas was acknowledged by the government de facto of Mexico, and the Rio del Norte recognized as the boundary. He showed that according to the well-established principles of interna- tional law, the acts of the government de facto are binding on that nation in respect to foreign states : and concluded by a defence of the course pursued by President Polk, in order- ing General Taylor to occupy with his forces territory that was as much ours as Florida or Massachusetts. Mr. Douglas was prominent among those who, in the Ore- gon controversy with Great Britain, maintained that our STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 37 title to the whole of Oregon was clear and unquestionable. He declared in the House of Representatives, that he would never, now or hereafter, yield up one inch of Oregon, either to Great Britain or to any other foreign government. He advocated the policy of giving notice to Great Britain to ter- minate the joint occupation; of establishing a territorial government over Oregon, protected by a sufficient military force ; and of putting the country at once into a state of pre- paration, so that if war should result from the assertion of our just rights, we might drive Great Britain and the last vestige of royal authority from the continent of North America. 38 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF CHAPTER VI. THE WAR WITH MEXICO >T 847-1 848. Mr. Douglas Elected to the United States Senate — He opposes the Wllmot Proviso — Speech on the Ten Regiment Bill — Bill for the Establishment of the Territory of Nebraska — Pass to Gen. Santa Anna — Exertions of Mr. Douglas in procuring Grants of Land to the Illinois Central Railroad — lie endeavors to extend the Missouri Compromise Line to the Pacific Ocean — The Design defeated by Northern Votes — Bill for the Admission of California — Indian Titles in the Northwest — Protection to Emigrants. THE WILMOT PROVISO. Mr. Douglas hacl been reelected to Congress in 1846 ; but before Congress met, the legislature of the State of Illinois elected him a senator for six years from the 4th of March. 1847. So far as the question of slavery was involved in the orga- nization of territories and the admission of new States, Mr, Douglas early took the position that Congress ought not to interfere on either side ; but that the people of each Terri- tory and State should bo allowed to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. In accordance with this principle, he opposed the Wilmot Proviso whenever it was brought up. SPEECH ON THE TEN REGIMENT BILL. On the 30th of January, 1 848, Mr. Douglas made a speech in the Senate on the Ten Regiment Bill, which provided for the STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 39 raising, for a limited time, of an additional military force. In this speech, Mr. Douglas alluded to the fact that the war with Mexico had been in progress nearly two years. The campaign of 1846 had resulted in the most brilliant victories that ever adorned the annals of any nation. The States of California, New Mexico, Chihuahua, New Leon, and Tamaulipas, besides many towns and cities in other Mexican States, had been one after another reduced to our possession. After a defence of President Polk from the charge of changing his grounds in regard to the causes of the war and the objects of prose- cuting it, he showed that the war w r as not one of conquest, but of self-defence forced on us by Mexico ; and that the declaration of the President, that the first blood of the war was “ American blood shed upon American soil,” was the simple truth. “ That in order to compel Mexico to do us jus- tice, it was necessary to follow her armies into her territory, to take possession of State after State, and hold them until she would yield to our reasonable demands. Indemnity for the past, and security for the future, was the motive of the war.” When Mr. Douglas rose to make this speech, his desk was piled with original Mexican documents, all official, from which he proved that the Rio Grande always was the western boundary of Texas. After first defeating the Mexicans, the Texans on the 2d of November, 1836, adopted a declaration of independence, and on 17th published their constitution. In both of these documents, the Rio Grande was stated as the boundary. After the memorable victory of San Jacinto, on the 21st of April following, a treaty was made and ratified May 12th, between Santa Anna on the part of the Mexican government, and Gen. Houston on the part of Texas, which prescribed the boundary of Texas, the Rio Grande being the western line. Mr. Douglas then proceeded to show that the war had been commenced by the act of Mexico, and eited the official 40 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF instructions from President Paredes to the Mexican general commanding on the right bank of the Rio Grande, in which he says, April, 18, 184G, “It is indispensable that hostilities be commenced, yourself taking the initiative against the enemy.” In closing this speech, Mr. Douglas paid a glowing tribute to the volunteers who had so gallantly rushed to the standard of their country, and especially to the 7,000 volun- teers from Illinois. PASS TO SANTA ANNA. Gen. Santa Anna had been an exile from his country when the Mexican War began ; and, desiring to return to Mexico, he was permitted to pass through our squadron. This was done in pursuance of orders from the War Department to the .commander of our fleet in the Gulf of Mexico. The Government was violently assailed for having permitted this ; Mr. Clayton of Delaware having charged the President, by giving this pass to Santa Anna, with being guilty of a blunder worse than a crime. On the 17th of March, Mr. Douglas, in a brief, but comprehensive speech, defended the policy of the administration in this matter, and showed that the admission of Santa Anna, so far from being a blunder, was a wise and politic measure. The results of the war proved that he was right, and that Mr. Clayton was mistaken. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD. The bill granting to the State of Illinois the right of way through the lands of the United States, which had been originally introduced into the Senate by Mr. Douglas, April 10, 1848, was passed on the 31st of May : the measure owing its success mainly to his exertions. The object of the bill was to construct a railroad connecting Chicago and the STEPHEN A. HOTJGLAS. 41 great lakes of the North, with the Mississippi River at Cairo. The road was built, and it has proved to be of incal- culable benefit, not only to the State of Illinois, but to the whole country. In the debate on the bill, Mr. Douglas explained that the proposed road was to be the entire length of the State from north to south, not far from 400 miles. The bill proposed to grant the land in alternate sections, increasing the price of the other sections to double the minimum price. It was fol lowing the same system that had been adopted in reference tt improvements of a similar character in Ohio, Indiana, Alabama, Iowa, aud "Wisconsin, by which principle each alternate section of land was ceded, and the price of the alternate sections not ceded was doubled, so that the same price is re- ceived for the whole. These lands had been in the market about twenty-three years ; but they would not sell at the usual price of $1 25 per acre, because they were distant from any navigable stream. A railroad would make the lands salable at double the usual price. The road was begun by the State of Illinois in 1836, and about a million of dollars were expended upon it by the State. With the exception of. the county at the northern end of the road, more than one-half of the whole of the lands along the line were then vacant ; in most of the counties, it was so. Around the towns the land was all taken up and cultivated, but there were large prairies where the land was in all its original wildness. ITS BENEFIT TO ILLINOIS. It must be remembered that this was twelve years ago. Illinois twelve years ago was very different from the Illinois of to-day. There was then not a single mile of railroad in the State ; and the greater part of the line of the proposed railroad passed for miles and miles without coming in sight 4:2 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF of a house, or any other indication of civilized life. What a contrast now ! The proposed road built, known even in Europe as one of the most prosperous in America ; other railroads crossing it in all directions ; the reserved alternate sections of land nearly all sold, at prices ranging from two dollars and a half to seven and a quarter per acre, thus yield- ing to the government a much larger sum for one half than was before asked for the whole; the whole of the soil of Illinois, acknowledged to be the richest in the world, re- deemed from its primitive wildness, blooming and blossoming like a garden, and teeming with abundant harvests ; a mar- ket brought to every farmer’s door ; and this prosperity owing its origin and material progress to the exertions oi Mr. Douglas in securing the passage of this bill. It is but an act of simple justice to those illustrious states men to add, that John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Danie Webster, Thomas II. Benton, and Lewis Cass, seconded the efforts of Mr. Douglas by able and eloquent speeches in favor of this great measure. MISSOURI COMPROMISE REPUDIATED. In August, 1848, Mr. Douglas offered an amendment to the Oregon Bill, extending the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean, in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted in 1820, and extended through Texas in 1845. The amendment was adopted in the Senate, but was rejected in the House of Representatives by northern votes. It is important to mark well this fact. The first time that the principles of the Missouri Gompromise were even aban- doned, the first time they were ever rejected by Congress, was by the defeat of that provision in the House of Repre- sentatives, in 1848. That defeat was effected by northern STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 43 votes with Freesoil proclivities. It was that defeat which reopened the slavery agitation in all its fury, and caused the tremendous struggle of 1850. It was that defeat which cre- ated the necessity for making a new compromise in 1850. Who caused that defeat ? Who was faithless to the prin- ciples of the compromise of 1S20? It was the very men who in 1S54, insisted that the Missouri Compromise was a solemn compact that ought never to he violated. The very men who, in 1854, arraigned Mr. Douglas for a departure from the Missouri Compromise, were the men who success- fully violated it, repudiated it, and caused it to he super- seded. CALIFORNIA, INDIAN TITLES, ETC. By the time the next session of Congress assembled, Cali- fornia had been settled enterprising people, whose numbers entitled them to admission into the Union as a State. A bill “ for the admission of California as a State into the Union,” was introduced by Mr. Douglas on the 29th of Jan- uary, 1S49 ; but was not acted on till long afterward. On the 18th of December, 1849, Mr. Douglas was reelected chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories, by 33 out of 40 votes; a position to which he was constantly thereafter reelected, until December, 1858. The tribes of Indians which had, until a few years before, occupied the lands in Minnesota, Oregon, California, and Uew Mexico, had never been fully divested of their title to the same ; and their constant presence there, and their depreda- tions on the settlers, were very annoying ; so much so that the settlement of those new Territories was much impeded. In order to remove the cause of all the trouble at oime, Mr. Douglas, on the 7th of January, 1850, offered a resolution providing for the complete extinguishment of the Indian 44 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF title in the Territories above named. The resolution was debated at some length, but it was adopted ; and the mea- sures proposed have been faithfully carried out. Ample provision was made for treating the Indians with fairness and justice : and while their rights have been respected, and their comforts secured, the vast regions which they occupied hav.e been secured for all time to come for the abodes of civilized men ; and for the spread of those great fundamental principles on which our national prosperity rests. At the time that Mr. Douglas introduced his resolution, however, the emigrants to those Territories, and especially to those of Oregon and California, were annoyed and at- tacked to such an extent, by roving bands of Indians, that it was considered positively unsafe for emigrants to go any further west than the Missouri River. It was clearly the duty of the Government to afford protection to its citizens on its own soil ; and accordingly, on the 31st of January, Mr. Douglas offered a resolution, instructing the committee on military affairs to inquire into the expediency of provid- ing, on the usual emigrant line from the Missouri River to the South Pass of the Rocky Mountains, a sufficient movable military force to protect all emigrants to Oregon and Cali- fornia. To the legislation growing out of this resolution, many hundreds of families now living in comfort and even in afflu- ence in the smiling villages of Oregon, California, and Min- nesota, are indebted, not only for their safety, but their very lives. The instances of emigrant trains saved from the at- tack and spoliation of the savages, by our gallant troops on the frontier, from 1851 to 1857, are numerous and well authenticated. The settlers in those new countries owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Douglas which they will not soon forget. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 45 CHAPTER VII. COltPEOMISE OF 1 8 5 0. Mr. Douglas supports the Compromise Measures of Henry Clay — Great Speech on the 13th and 14th of March — Speech in favor of the Omni- bus Bill, June 3 — The Nicholson Letter of General Cass — Mr. Douglas returns to Chicago — He is Denounced by the Local Authorities — He beards the Lions in their Den— Speech to the Citizens of Chicago — Its Effect. When the Compromise measures of Mr. Clay were brought forward in 1850, Mr. Douglas supported them with zeal and vigor. On the 13th and 14th of March, he deli- vered a speech on the general territorial questions, which has scarcely been surpassed by any of his subsequent efforts. It was by far the ablest speech that had ever been delivered in the Senate by any western man. It was in this speech that Judge Douglas first enunciated the doctrine of which he has ever since been the most distinguished advocate, that it is the true Democratic principle in reference to the Territories, that each one shall be left to regulate its own local and do- mestic affairs in its own way. In the beginning of this great speech, Senator Douglas showed that all the acts of the Tyler administration hi refer- ence to the annexation of Texas (including the proposed treaty with Mexico for that object, and the correspondence between our secretary of state on the one part, and Mr King, minister to France and Mr. Murphy, charge d’affaires 46 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF in the republic of Texas, on the other part), had been indig- nantly and contemptuously rejected by the Senate ; and that this had been done in order to repudiate and rebuke the ad- ministration of Mr Tyler, and in order that the Democratic party might come to the support of the annexation of Texas as they did come, and consummated the annexation upon broad, national grounds, elevated far above and totally dis- connected from the question of slavery. ORDINANCE OF 1787 HAD NO EFFECT ON SLAVERY. A distinguished southern senator having said that the South had been deprived of its du£ share of the territories, Mr. Douglas responded, “ What share had the South in the territories? or the North? I answer, none at all. The ter- ritories belong to the United States as one people, and arc to be disposed of for the common benefit of all, according to the principles of the Constitution. No geographical section of the Union is entitled to any share of the territories. What -becomes of the complaint of the senator, that the Ordinance of 1787 excluded the South entirely from that vast fertile region between the Ohio and the Mississippi ? That ordinance was a dead letter. It did not make the coun- try to which it applied, free from slavery. The States formed out of the territory northwest of the Ohio, did not become free by virtue of the Ordinance, nor in consequence of it. Those States became free by virtue of their own will, re- corded in the fundamental laws of their own making. That is the source of their freedom. In all republican states, laws and ordinances are mere nullities, unless sustained by the hearts aud intellects of the people for whom they are made, and by whom they are to be executed. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 47 SLAVES IN ILLINOIS. “Tlie Ordinance of 1787 did the South no harm, and the North no good. Illinois, for instance, was a slave territory. Even in 1840, there were 331 slaves in Illinois. How came these slaves in Illinois ? They were taken there under the Ordinance, and in defiance of it. The people of Illinois, while it was a territory, were mostly emigrants from the slaveholding States. But when their convention assembled at Kaskaskia in 1818, to form the constitution of the State of Illinois, although it was composed of slaveholders, yet they had become satisfied, from experience, that the climate and productions of Illinois were unfavorable to slave labor. They accordingly made provision for a gradual system of emanci- pation, by which the State should become eventually free. These facts show that the Ordinance had no practical effect upon slavery. Slavery existed under the Ordinance ; and since the Ordinance has been suspended by the State govern- ments, slavery has gradually disappeared under the operation of laws adopted and executed by the people themselves. A law passed by the national legislature to operate locally upon a people not represented, will always remain a dead letter, if it be in opposition to the wishes and interests of those who are to be affected by it. “ In regard to the effects of the Missouri Compromise on the question of slavery, I do not think that it had any prac- tical effect on that question, one way or another : it neither curtailed nor extended slavery one inch.” A GLANCE AT TIIE FUTURE. “We recognize the right of the South, in common with eur right, to emigrate to the Territories with their property, 48 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF and there hold and enjoy it in subordination to the laws in force there. The senator from South Carolina desires such an amendment to the Constitution as shall stipulate that in all time to come, there shall be as many slaveholding States in the Union as there are States without slaves. The adop- tion and execution of such a provision would be an impossi- bility. We have a vast territory which is filling up with an industrious and enterprising population, large enough to form seventeen new States, one-half of which we may expect to see represented in this body during our day. Of these, four will be formed out of Oregon, five out of our late acqui- sition from Mexico, including the present State of California, and two out of Minnesota. Each of these will be free- Terri- tories and free Statds, whether Congress shall prohibit slavery in them or not. Where are you to find the slave territory with which to balance these seventeen free Territories ? In Texas? If Texas should be divided into five States, at least three of them will iu all probability be free.” ADMISSION OF CALIFOKNIA. Mr. Douglas then proceeded to advocate, at great length, the immediate admission of the State of California under her constitution ; and concluded his speech by declaring that “ this nation owes to the venerable senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) a debt of gratitude for his services to the Union on this occasion. The purity of his motives cannot be doubted. He has set the ball in motion which is to restore peace and harmony to the Union.” THE OMNIBUS BILL. On the 3d of June, 1850, Mr. Douglas spoke in favor of the Omnibus Bill, and in the course of his remarks said: u In STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 49 ect to African slavery, the position that I have ever n has been, that this, and all other questions relating to domestic affairs and domestic policy of the Territories, at to be left to the decision of the people themselves. I id therefore have much preferred that the bill should remained as it was reported from the Committee on Ter- ■ies, with no provision on the subject of slavery; and I ope that that clause in the bill will be stricken out. It it not to be there, because it is a violation of principle not see how we who have argued in favor of the right e people to legislate for themselves on this question, can ort such a provision without abandoning all the argu- :s which we urged in the Presidential campaign of 1848, the. principles set forth by the senator from Michigan in Nicholson letter. And, sir, is an institution to be fixed upon a people in isition to their unanimous opinion ? I, for one, think such ought not to be the case. I desire no provision ! Sever in respect to slavery in the Territories. I wish to ve the people of the Territories free to enact such laws as please. But on this one point, I am not left to follow y own judgment, nor my own desire. I am to express the ill of my constituents. My vote will be in accordance with their instructions.” Me give, in a subsequent part of this work, the Nicholson r referred to by Mr. Douglas, and commend it to the sal of our readers, It will amply repay the time thus spent, n the 6th of June, and also on the 26th, Mr. Douglas ad- sed the Senate in support of the Compromise measures. ABOLITIONISM IN CHICAGO. re Compromise measures of 1850 having been adopted by gress, and that body having adjourned, Mr. Douglas 3 50 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF proceeded to Chicago, where he had recently purchased pro- perty, with a view of making that city his permanent resi- dence. It is a well known fact that Chicago has always been the hot-bed of abolitionism, and a prominent station on the Underground Railroad. There are many men there who have never bowed the knee to the Baal of fanaticism and treason, but the majority of the people have always been abolitionists. These restless beings had been violently op- posed to the Compromise measures, and they raised a storm of execration and abuse against Mr. Douglas, because he had been prominent in procuring their adoption. The excite- ment was fierce and terrific. A venal press, and pulpits dis- graced by crazy fanatics, joined in the work of misrepresen- tation, abuse, and denunciation. The city council met, and passed resolutions denouncing the Compromise aud Fugitive Slave Law as violations of the law of God and the Constitu- tion of the United States ; enjoined the city police to disre- gard the law, and called upon the citizens not to obey it. On the next evening a meeting was held, composed of twenty- five hundred citizens, and in that meeting, in the midst of terrific applause, it was determined to defy “ death, the dun- geon, and the grave,” in resistance to the execution of the law. Mr. Douglas was then in Chicago : he knew that this meeting was to take place ; and he knew, from the character of the men who composed it, what the nature of the resolu- tions would be. He walked into the meeting, and from the stand gave notice that on the next evening he would appear there aud defend every measure of the Compromise, and especially the Fugitive Slave Law, from every objection: and he called upon the entire people of the city to come and hear him. The announcement was made in the midst of profound silence, but was immediately followed by a storm of groans and hisses. Mr. Douglas, however, calmly stood his ground till the noise subsided, and then, addressing those who had STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 51 hissed and groaned, told them that he was right and they were wrong, and that if they would come and hear him he would prove it to them. MR. DOUGLAS SPEAKS IN CHICAGO. On the next evening, in the presence of 4,000 people, with the city council and abolitionists in front of the stand, which ivas surrounded in the rear by a large body of armed negroes, including many fugitive slaves, Mr. Douglas made a speech in which he vindicated the Compromise measures and the F ugitive Slave Law, and proved that the latter was both neces- sary and constitutional ; and he answered every objection that had been urged against them. The objections relating to the right of trial by jury, to the writ of habeas corpus, to records from other States, to the fees of the commissioners, to the pains and penalties, to the “higher law” — every objec tion which the ingenuity and fanaticism of abolitionism could invent, was brought up by different persons in the meeting, and fully and conclusively answered by Mr. Douglas. What was the effect of that speech upon that meeting, comprising three-fourths of all the legal voters of the city of Chicago ? The people composing that meeting, a majority of whom had, the night previously, pledged themselves to open and violent resistance to the law, after the conclusion of the speech of Mr. Douglas, unanimously adopted a 'Series of resolutions in favor of sustaining and carrying into effect every provision of the Constitution and laws in respect to the surrender of fugitive slaves. The resolutions were written, and submitted to the meeting by Mr. Douglas, and cover the entire ground. The city council having nullified the law and denounced Mr. Douglas as a traitor, the Hon. Buckner S. Morris offered the following resolution, which was also adopted : “ Resolved , That we, the people of Chicago, repudiate the resolutions 52 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF recently passed by the Common Council of Chicago upon the subject of the Fugitive Slave Law.” EFFECT OF THE SPEECH. Ou the following evening, the city council met again, and repealed their nullifying resolutions by a vote of twelve to one. This speech of Mr. Douglas was the first one ever made in a free State in defence of the Fugitive Slave Law, and that Chicago meeting was the first public assemblage in any free State that determined to support and sustain it. In the very nest of rebellion and treason, the rebels and traitors received their first check : the fanatical spirit was rebuked, and the supremacy of the Constitution and laws asserted and main- tained. Such is the power of eloquence and the force of truth, even in modern times. In the Appendix to this work, will be found the two documents referred to by Senator Douglas in his speech of the 13th and 14th of March, 1850; namely, the official dis- patch of John C. Calhoun, secretary of state under John Tyler, to the Hon. Wm. R. King, our ambassador to Paris : and the Nicholson letter of Gen. Cass. The former is valuable as a part of the history of the Tyler administration, and as showing their views on the subject of the annexation of Texas. It is a rare document, and as curious as any State paper in the history of the country. STEPHEN A. DOUSLAS. 53 CHAPTER YH1. 1851-1854. Speech ia favor of making Gen. "Winfield Scott a Lieutenant-General — Speech on the Fugitive Slave Law — Speech on the Foreign Policy of the United States — Retrospective View of the Course of Mr. Douglas in Congress up to this Time (1S52) — Mr. Douglas the real Author of the Compromise Measures of 1S50 — Bill for the Organization of the Territo- ries of Kansas and Nebraska — Mr. Douglas opposes the Oregon Treaty with England — Opposes the Peace Treaty with Mexico — Speech on the Clayton and Bulwer Treaty — Report on the Organization of Nebraska and Kansas — The Nebraska Bill — Debate on it — The bill passed. On the 12tli of February, 1851, Mr. Douglas spoke in favor of conferring the rank of Lieutenant-General on General Winfield Scott. In the course of his remarks, he said, “ I would have preferred, however, to have seen this proposition put in a shape which would have been more consistent with the organization of the army, with reference to what may occur in the future. I think that the highest grade in the army of the United States should be always vacant in time of peace, to be filled when war should occur, by a commission to expire at the end of the war. I think that when a war occurs, the President of the United States should be at liberty to look through the whole line of the army, and through the whole line of the citizen soldiery, to select a commander-in-chief to conduct that war. I would, therefore, like to see the office of lieutenant-general created, to be 54 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF filled when a war arises, and to become vacant at its termi- nation.” SPEECH ON THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW'. On the 22d, in the debate on the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, shortly after the riot at Boston, Mr. Douglas said : “ The law r s of Illinois have always discouraged negroes from coming there. In regard to runaway slaves coming into the State, we have a law' imposing penalties at the discretion of the court, upon any citizen of Illinois who would harbor a runaway slave. It has been my fortune, in the course of my brief judicial experience, to impose severe penalties upon citizens of Illinois for a violation of that law' : it remains upon the statute book at this day. The senator from Ohio looks upon this matter of the rescue of a fugitive at Boston, as a trivial transaction. I do not. It is well known that there is a systematic organization in many of the free States of this Union, for the purpose of evading the obligations of the Con- stitution, and to prevent the enforcement of the law's of the United States in relation to fugitive slaves. It has, at its head, men of daring and of desperate purpose; and the oppo- sition to the Fugitive Slave Law' is a combined and concerted action. It is in the nature of a conspiracy against the govern- ment. I say, therefore, that these conspirators, be they in Boston or in Illinois, are responsible, for all that any of their number may do in resistance to this law. Sir, I hold wdiite men now' in my sight responsible for the violation of the law at Boston. It was done under their advice, under their teaching, under the influence of their speeches. The negroes hi the free States have been armed by the abolitionists during the last six months, for the express purpose of violating the Fugitive Slave Law. I have stood in a meeting of 2,000 men, and heard white men tell the negroes to kill the first white STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 55 man who attempted, to execute this law. I have seen the weapons that have been prepared by white abolitionists, to enable the negroes to resist. I trust the penalty will fall upon the white abolitionists.” On the 26th of August, 1S52, Mr. Sumner, of Massachu- setts, made a most violent speech against the Fugitive Slave Law, and in favor of its repeal. Mr. Douglas said in reply: “The arguments against the Fugitive Slave Law, are arguments against the Constitution of our country. Gentlemen should pass over the law, and make their assaults directly upon the Constitution of the United States, in obedience to which the law Avas passed. Let them proclaim to the world that they feel bound to make violent resistance to the Constitution which our fathers have transmitted to us. The Constitution provides that no man shall be a senator unless he takes an oath to support the Constitution. And when he takes that oath, I do not under- stand that he has a right to have a mental reservation, or entertain any mental equivocation that he excepts that clause Avhich relates to the surrender of fugitives. I know not how a man reconciles it to his conscience to take that oath to support the Constitution, when he believes that Constitution is in violation of the law of God. A man who thus belicA'es, aud yet takes the oath, commits perjury before God for the sake of the temporary honors of a seat on this lloor.” KOSSUTH. On the 11th December, 1851, A\dien the resolution giving a national welcome to Louis Kossuth, of Hungary, was pend- ing before the Senate, Mr. Douglas said : “ I regret that this resolution has been introduced, not because I do not cordially sympathize in the proposed reception, but because it cannot pass unanimously. Its discussion and a divided vote deprive 56 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF it of its chief merit. I do not deem it material whether the reception of Gov. Kossuth will give offence to the crowned heads of Europe, provided it does not violate the laws of nations, and give just cause of offence. The question with me is, whether the passage of this resolution gives just cause of offence according to the laws of nations. I would take no step which would violate the law of nations, or give just cause of offence to any power on earth. Hor do I think that a cordial welcome to Gov. Kossuth can be properly construed into such cause of offence. Shall it be said that democratic America is not to be permitted to grant a hearty welcome to an exile who has become the representative of liberal princi- ples throughout the world, lest despotic Austria and Russia shall be offended? I think that the bearing of this country should be such as to demonstrate to all mankind that America sympathizes with the popular movement against despotism. The principle laid down by Gov. Kossuth as the basis of his action, that each state has a right to dispose of her own destiny, and regulate her internal affairs in her own way, is an axiom in the laws of nations which every state ought to recognize and respect. The armed intervention of Russia to deprive Hungary of her constitutional rights, was such a violation of the laws of nations as authorized England or the United States to interfere and prevent the consummation of the deed. To say in advance that the United Statds will not interfere in vindication of the laws of nations, is to give our consent that Russia may interfere to destroy the liberties of an independent nation. I will make no such declaration. On the other hand, I will not advise the declaration in ad- vance that we will interfere. Something has been said about our alliance with England. I desire no alliance with Eng- land.” STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 57 EETEOSPECTIYE VIEW. Let us now take a brief retrospective view of the Con- gressional life of Mr. Douglas, up to this time. The first important vote he ever gave in the House of Representatives was in favor of excluding abolition petitions^ and his vote stands so recorded. His action, ever since he has been a member of the Senate, has been governed by the same prin- ciple. Whenever the slavery agitation has been forced upon Congress, he has met it fairly, directly and fearlessly, and endeavored to apply the proper remedy. When the stormy agitation arose in connection with the annexation of Texas, he originated and first brought forward the Missouri Com- promise as applicable to that territory, and had the gratifica- tion to see it incorporated in the bill which annexed Texas to the United States. He did not deem this a matter of much moment as applicable to Texas alone ; but he did conceive it to be of vast importance in view of the probable acquisition of Hew Mexico and California. His preference for the Mis- souri Compromise was predicated on the assumption that the whole people of the United States would be more easily reconciled to that measure than to any other mode of adjust- ment ; and this assumption rested upon the fact that the Missouri Compromise had been the means of an amicable settlement of a fearful controversy in 1821, which had been acquiesced in cheerfully by the people for more than a quarter of a century, and which all parties and sections of the Union respected and cherished as a fair, just and honor- able adjustment. COUESE OF ME. DOUGLAS IN CONGEESS. Mr. Douglas could see no reason for the application of the Missouri line to all the territory owned by the United Stat^ 3* 58 TIIE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF in 1821, that would not apply with equal force to its exten- sion to the Rio Grande, and also to the Pacific, as soon as we should acquire the country. In accordance with these views, he brought forward the Missouri Compromise at the session of 1845 as applicable to Texas, and had the satisfaction to see it adopted. Subsequently, after the war with Mexico had commenced, and when, in August, 1840, Mr. Wilmot first introduced his proviso, Mr. Douglas proposed to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific, as a substitute for the Wilmot Proviso. The Wilmot Proviso not only designed to prohibit slavery in the territories while they remained ter- ritories, but proposed to insert a stipulation in the treaty with Mexico, pledging the faith of the nation that slavery should never exist in the country acquired, either while it remained a territory, or after it should have been admitted into the Union as States. Mr. Douglas denounced this pro- viso as being unwise, improper, and unconstitutional: he never voted for it, and more than once declared that he never would vote for it. When California and New Mexico had been acquired without any condition or stipulation in respect to slavery, the Wilmot Proviso was disposed of for ever. At the time that the question began to be discussed, what kind of territorial governments should be established for those countries, a severe domestic affliction called Mr. Doug- las from Washington, and detained him several weeks. On his return to the Senate he supported the Clayton bill, which passed the Senate, but was defeated in the House of Representatives. Mr. Douglas then brought forward his original proposition, to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific, in the same sense and with the same understand- ing with which it was originally adopted. This proposition passed the Senate by a large majority, but was rejected, as we have seen, by the House of Representatives. Mr. Doug- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 53 las then conceived the idea of a bill to admit California as a State, leaving the people to form a constitution, and to settle the question of slavery afterward to suit themselves. This bill was introduced by Mr. Douglas with the sanction of President Polk. It recognized the right of the people of California to determine all questions relating to their domestic concerns in their own way ; but the Senate refused to pass the bill. All this took place before the Compromise measures of Mr. Clay were brought forward. During the period of five years that Mr. Douglas had been laboring for the adoption of the Missouri Compromise, his votes on the Oregon question, and upon all questions touching slavery, were given with reference to a settlement on that basis, and were consistent with it. ME. DOUGLAS THE AUTHOE OP THE COMPEOMISE OF 1 850. When Congress met, in December, 1849, Mr. Douglas was again placed by the Senate at the head of the Com- mittee on Territories, and it became his duty to prepare and submit some plan for the settlement of those mo- mentous questions, the agitation of which had convulsed the whole nation. Early in December, within the first two or three weeks of the session, he wrote and laid before the Committee on Territories, for their examina- tion, two bills: one for the admission of California into the Union, and the other containing three distinct measures ; first, for the establishment of a territorial government for Utah; second, for the establishment of a territorial govern- ment for New Mexico; and third, for the settlement of the Texas boundary. These bills remained before the Committee on Territories from the month of December, 1849, to the 25th of March, 1850. On that day Mr. Douglas reported the bills, and they were, on his motion, ordered to be printed. These 60 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF punted bills having laid on the tables of all the senators for four weeks, the Senate appointed a committee of thirteen, Henry Clay, of Kentucky, chairman. That committee took the two printed bills of Mr. Douglas, pasted them together, and reported them to the Senate as one bill, which was thenceforth known as the Omnibus Bill. Mr. Douglas made this statement to the Senate on the 23d of December, 1851, while the original Omnibus Bill was yet upon the clerk’s table. The Committee of Thirteen had drawn a black line through the words, “ Mr. Douglas , from the Committee on Territories ,” and in place of them, interlined these other words, “ Mr. Clay , from the Committee of Thirteen , reported the following bill.” The report of the committee will be found in a subsequent part of this work. Mr. Douglas supported the Omnibus Bill as a joint mea- sure ; but the Senate refused to pass the measures together. Each one, however, was passed separately ; and each one was supported by Mr. Douglas. Well might Mr. Polk remark in the House of Representatives, in April, 1852, after sjieaking of the eminent services of Mr. Douglas : “ History will cherish the record of such fearless and faithful service, and administer the proper rebuke to those who from malice or envy may seek to detract from his fair fame.” We give the material features of these bills as they were passed, as a part of the history of the times, in the Appendix. THE EIGHT OF INSTEUCTION. On the 23d of December, 1851, Mr. Douglas made a speech in the Senate, on the resolutions declaring the Com- promise measures of 1850 to be a definitive and final settle- ment of all the questions growing out of the subject of STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 61 domestic slavery, in the course of which he took a brief review of the votes he had uiven since the introduction of f O the Compromise measures, and showed that he had supported them all. In this speech he said : Mr. President : I claim no merit for having originated and proposed the measures contained in the Omnibus Bill. There was no remarkable feature about them. They were merely ordinary measures of legislation, well adapted to the circumstances, and their merit consisted in the fact that separately they could and did pass both Houses of Congress. Being responsible for these bills, as they came from the hands of the Committee on Territories, I wish to call attention to the fact that they contained no prohibition of slavery — no provision upon the subject. And now I come to the point which explains my object in stating my votes. The legislature of Illinois had passed a resolution instructing me to vote for a bill for the government of the territory acquired from Mexico, which should contain an express prohibition of slavery in that territory while it remained as territories, leaving the people to do as they pleased s r hen they became a State. The instruction was designed in order to compel me to resign my seat and give place to a Preesoiler. The legislature knew my inflexible opposition to the principles asserted in the instructions, and wished me to give place to a Freesoiler, who would come here and carry out abolition doctrines. Notwithstanding these instructions, I wrote the bills and re- ported them from the Committee on Territories without the prohibition, in order that the record might show what my opinions were ; but, lest the trick against me might fail, a Freesoil senator offered an amendment in the language of my instructions. I knew that the amendment could not prevail, even if the vote of Illinois was recorded in its favor. But if I resigned my place to an abolitionist, it wa'S almost certain that the bills w'ould fail on their passage. I came to the conclusion that duty required me to retain my seat. I was prepared to fight and defy abolitionism in all its forms, but I was not willing to repudiate the settled doctrine of my State, in regard to the right of instruction. Before the vote was taken, I defined my position. I denounced the doctrine of the amendment, declared my unalterable opposition to it, and gave notice that any vote which might be recorded in my name seemingly in its favor, would be the vote of those who gave the instructions, and not my own. Under this protest, I re- corded a vote for this and two other amendments embracing the same principle, and then renewed my protest against them, and gave notice that I should not hold myself responsible for them. Immediately on my return 62 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF home, and in a speech to my constituents, I renewed my protest against these votes, and repeated the notice to that infuriated meeting, that they were their votes, and not mine. In that speech at Chicago, I said of the territo- rial bills : 1 Theseuneasures are predicated on the great fundamental princi- ple that every people ought to possess the right of forming and regulating their own internal concerns and domestic institutions in their own wav. If those who emigrate to the territories have the requisite intelligence and honesty to enact 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 education, to determine the relation of husband and wife, of parent and child, I am not aware that it requires any higher degree of civilization to regulate the affairs of master and servant. My votes and acts have been in accordance with these views in all cases, except in the 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.’ I made a good many speeches of the same tenor, the last of which was at the capital of Illinois. A few weeks afterward the legislature of Illinois assembled, and one of their first acts was to repeal the resolution of instructions to which I have referred, and to pass resolutions approving of the course of my colleague, General Shields, and myself, on the Compromise measures. From that day Illinois has stood firm and unwavering in support of the Compromise measures, and of all the compromises of the Constitution. Mr. President, if I have said anything that savors of egotism, the Senate will pardon me. If I had omitted all that was personal to myself, my defence would have been incomplete. I am willing to be held respon- sible for all my acts, but I wish to be judged by my acts, and not by mali - cious misrepresentations. I may have committed errors ; but when I am convinced of them, I will acknowledge them like a man, and promptly correct them. The Democratic party is as good a Union party as I want, and I want to preserve its principles and its organization, and to triumph upon its old issues. I desire no new tests, no interpolations upon the old creed.” In December 1853, Mr. Douglas reported the bill to organ- ize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, which formed the issues upon which the Democratic and Republican parties became arrayed against each other. He opposed the treaty STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 63 with England in relation to the Oregon boundary, contending that England had no rights on that coast. He opposed the Trist peace treaty with Mexico upon the ground that the boun ■ daries were unnatural and inconvenient, and that the provi- sions in relation to the Indians could never be executed. The United States government has since paid Mexico ten millions of dollars to change the boundaries, and to relinquish the stipulations in regard to the Indians. He opposed the Clay- ton and Bulwer treaty, because it pledged the United States in all time to come, never to annex Central America. He declared that he did not desire to annex Central America at that time, but maintained that the isthmus routes must be kept open as highways to the American possessions on the Pacific ; that the time would come when the United States would be compelled to occupy Central America, and that he would never pledge the faith of the republic not to do in the future what its interests and safety might require. lie also declared himself in favor of the acquisition of Cuba, whenever that island can be obtained consistently with the laws of nations and the honor of the United States. We give this speech entire in a subsequent part of this work. On the 4th of January 1854, Senator Douglas made the following Report relative to the organization of the Territo- ries of Nebraska and Kansas: The Committee on Territories , to whom was referred a hill for an act to estab- lish the Territories of Nebraska, have given the same that serious and deliberate consideration which its great importance demands , and beg leave to report it back to the Senate, with various amendments^in the form of a substitute for the bill : The principal amendments which your committee deem it their duty to commend to the favorable action of the Senate, in a special report, are those in which the principles established by the Compromise measures of 1S50, so far as they are applicable to territorial organizations, are proposed to be affirmed and carried into practical operation within the limits of the uew Territory. 64 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF The wisdom of those measures is attested, not less by theii salutary and beneficial effects, in allaying sectional agitation and restoring peace and harmony to an irritated and distracted people, than by the cordial and almost universal approbation with which they have been received and sanctioned by the whole country. In the judgment of your Committee, those measures were intended to have a far more comprehensive and endur- ing effect than the mere adjustment of difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certain great principles, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but, in all time to come, avoid the perils of similar agitation, by withdrawing the question of Slavery from the halls of Congress and the political arena, committing it to the arbitration of those who were immediately interested in, and alone responsible for, its consequences. With a view of conforming their action to what they regard as the settled policy of the government, sanctioned by the approving voice of the American people, your Committee have deemed it their duty to incorporate and perpetuate, in their Territorial Bill, the principles and spirit of those measures. If any other consideration were necessary to render the pro- priety of this course imperative upon the Committee, they may be found in the fact that the Nebraska country occupies the same relative position to the slavery question, as did New Mexico and Utah, when those Terri- tories were organized. It was a disputed point, whether slavery was prohibited by law in the country acquired from Mexico. On the one hand, it was contended, as a legal 'proposition, that slavery, having been prohibited by the enactment of Mexico, according to the laws of nations, we received the country with all its local laws and domestic institutions attached to the soil, so far as they did not conflict with the Constitution of the United States; and that a law either protecting or prohibiting slavery, was not repugnant to that instrument, as was evidenced by the fact that one-haif of the States of the Union tolerated, while the other half prohibited, the institution of slavery. On the other hand, it was insisted that, by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, every citizen had a right to remove to any Territory of the Union, and carry his property with him under the protection of law, whe- ther that property consisted of persons or things. The difficulties arising from this diversity of opinion, were greatly aggravated by the fact that there were many persons on both sides of the legal controversy, who were unwilling to abide the decision of the courts on the legal matters in dis- pute ; thus, among tlmse who claimed that the Mexican laws were still in force, and, consequently, that slavery was already prohibited in those Ter- ritories by valid enactment, there were many who insisted upon Congress \ STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 65 making the matter certain, by enacting another prohibition. In like man- ner, some of those who argued that Mexican law had ceased to have any binding force, and that the Constitution tolerated and protected slave pro- perty in those Territories, were unwilling to trust the decision of the courts upon the point, and insisted that Congress should, by direct enactment, remove all legal obstacles to the introduction, of slaves into those Ter- ritories. Such being the character of the controversy in respect to the territory acquired from Mexico, a similar question has arisen in regard to the right to hold slaves in the Territory of Nebraska, when the Indian laws shall be^./ withdrawn, and the country thrown open to emigration and settlement. By the 8th section of “ an act to authorize the people of Missouri Territory to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories,” approved March 6th, 1820, it was provided ; “ That in all that territory ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the State contem- plated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and are hereby, prohibited: Provided always , That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United States, sucli fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the persons claiming his or her labor or services as aforesaid.” Under this section, as in the case of the Mexican law in New Mexico and Utah, it is a disputed point whether slavery is prohibited in the Nebraska country by valid enactment. The decision of this question involves the constitutional power of Congress to pass laws prescribing and regulating the domestic institutions of the various Territories of the Union. In the opinion of those eminent statesmen who hold that Congress is invested with no rightful authority to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territories, the 8th section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri is null and void ; while the prevailing sentiment in large por- tions of the Union sustains the doctrine that the Constitution of the United States secures to every citizen an inalienable right to move into any of the Territories with his property, of whatever kind and description, and to hold and enjoy the same under the sanction of law. Your Committee ( do not feel themselves called upon to enter upon the discussion of these con- troverted questions. They involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of 1850. As 66 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in controversy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or j(7 an act declaratory of the true intent of the Constitution, and the extent fif the protection afforded by it to slave property in the Territories, so your Committee are not prepared to recommend a departure from the course pursued on that memorable occasion, either by affirming or repealing the 8th section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of the Constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute. Your Committee deem it fortunate for the peace of the country, and the security of the Union, that the controversy then resulted in the adoption of the Compromise measures, which the two great political parties, with singular unanimity, have affirmed as a cardinal article of their faith, and proclaimed to the world as a final settlement of the controversy and an end to the agitation. A due respect, therefore, for the avowed opinions of senators, as well as a proper sense of patriotic duty, enjoins upon your Committee the propriety and necessity of a strict adherence to the princi- ples, and even a literal adoption of the enactments of that adjustment, in all their territorial bills, so far as the same are not locally inapplicable. Those enactments embrace, among other things less material to the mat- ters under consideration, the following provisions : When admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without Slavery, as their consti- tution may prescribe at the time of their admission ; That the legislative power and authority of said Territory shall be vested in the. Governor and a Legislative Assembly ; That the legislative power of said Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, and the provisions of this act ; but no law shall be passed interfer- ing with the primary disposal of the soil ; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States ; nor shall the lands or other property of non-residents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents. Writs of error and appeals from the final decisions of said Supreme Court shall be allowed, and may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the Cir- cuit Courts of the United States, where the value of the property or amount in controversy, to be ascertained by the oath or affirmation of either party, or other competent witness, shall exceed one thousand dollars ; except only that, in all cases involving title to slaves, the said writs of error or appeals shall be allowed and decided by the said Supreme Court, without regard to the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy ; and except, also STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 67 that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court ol the United States from the decision of the said Supreme Court by this act, sr of any judge thereof, or of the district courts created by this act, or of my judge thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom ; and each of the said district courts shall have and exercise the sapre jurisdiction, in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, as is vested in thecircuit and district courts of the United States ; and the said supreme and district courts of the said territory, and the respective judges thereof, shall and may grant writs of habeas corpus, in all cases in which the same are granted by the judges of the United States in the District of Columbia. To which may be added the following proposition affirmed by the act of 1850, and known as the Fugitive Slave Law. That the provisions of the “ act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters,” approved February 12, 1793, and the provisions of the act to amend and supplementary to the aforesaid act, approved September 18, 1850, shall extend to, and be in force iu, all the organized Territories, as well as in the various States of the Union. From these provisions it is apparent that the Compromise measures of 1S50 affirm, and rest upon, the following propositions: First : That all questions pertaining to Slavery in the Territories, and the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision 6f the people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that purpose. Second: That “ all cases involving title to slaves,” and “ questions of personal freedom,” are to be referred to the adjudication of the local tri- bunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. Third : That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, in respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried into faithful execution iu all “ the original Territories,” the same as in the States. The substitute for the bill which your Committee have prepared, and which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these propositions and principles into practical operation, in the pre- cise language of the Compromise measures of 1S50. The bill thus reported was considered in Committee of the Whole, and then made the special order for the following Monday. The debate was continued Jan. 01st, Feb. 3d, 5th, and 6th. 68 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF On the 23d of January, Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Territories, reported a substitute for the original bill, in nearly the same terms, in which, after defining the limits of the territory, it was proposed to constitute it a Territory, to be afterward admitted as a State, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admis- sion. It was declared to be the true intent and meaning of the act to carry into practical operation the principles of the Compromise measures of 1850, to wit, That all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein ; and that the provisions of the Con- stitution and laws of the United States, in respect to fugitives from service, are to be carried into faithful execution in all the organized Territories. To the words “ the Constitution and all laws of the United States not localty inapplicable, shall have the same force and elfect within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States,” the substitute proposed to add these words : “ Except the 8th section of the Act for the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which was superseded by the Compromise measures of 1850, and is declared inoperative.’ DEBATE ON THE NEBRASKA BILL. On the 30th of January, Mr. Douglas made his first speech in favor of the Nebraska Bill. We give the speech in a sub- sequent part of this work. On the 15th of February, Mr. Douglas moved to strike out of his substitute the assertion that the Missouri restric- tion “ was superseded by the Compromise measures of 1850,” and insert instead the following : “ Which, 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), is hereby declared inoperative and void ; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States,” which prevailed — yeas 35, nays 10 — as follows: Yeas — for Douglass' Amendment : Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Bayard, Bell, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Cass, Clayton, Dawson, Dixon, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Hunter, John- son, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tenn, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pierce, Pettit, Pratt, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Kv.‘ Toombs, Weller. Williams — 35. Nats — against the Amendment : Messrs. Allen, Chase, Dodge of Wise., Everett, Fish, Foote, Houston, Seward, Sumner, Wade — 10. The vote on this amendment is significant, and we invite to it the attention of the reader. Here we have the em- phatic declaration of every Democratic senator, especially of every Democratic senator from the slave States, in favor of the great peace measure of non-intervention with slavery in the States and Territories, avowing “the true intent and meaning of this act to he, not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State , nor to exclude it therefrom, hut to leave the people thereof free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” How this doctrine, deemed sound, then, contrasts with the late shibboleth of the Senate caucus, that if the people of a Territory want slavery , Congress shall not interfere , but if they do not want it , Congress is to legislate it on them. Mr. Badger of N. C. moved to add to the aforesaid sec- tion : “ Provided , That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive 70 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF # or put in force an}' law or regulation which may have existed prior to the to the act of 6th of March, 1S20, either protecting, establishing, prohibit- ing, or abolishing Slavery.” Carried — yeas 35, nays 6. It had been charged by Edmund Burke, of New Hamp- shire, and other Abolition enemies of the measure at the north, that the repeal of the restriction would revive slavery in Kansas and Nebraska, by putting in force the old French laws. The object of Mr. Badger was to set this slander at rest. Every Southern Democrat voted for the proviso. The question on the engrossment of the bill was now reached, and it was carried — yeas 29, nays 12— as follows : Yu as — To engross the bill for its third reading: Mkssiis. Adams, Atchison, Badger, Benjamin, Brodhead, Brown, Butler, Clay, Dawson, Dixon, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Hunter, John- son, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tenn., Mason, Morton, Norris, Pettit, Pratt, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Stuart, Williams — 29. Nays — against the engrossment: Messrs. Chase, Dodge of AVisc., Fessenden, Fish, Foot, Hamlin, James, Seward, Smith, Sumner, Wade, Walker— 12. On the night of the 3d of March, 1854, Mr. Douglas closed the debate in a speech of great eloquence and ability. The attention of the reader is particularly directed to those passages in which Mr. Douglas speaks of the necessity for the organization of these Territories ; and to his elucidation of what had generally been called the Missouri Compromise, in which lie proves that Missouri ivas not admitted into the Union under the Missouri restriction, the Act of 1820, but under Mr. Clay’s compromise, or joint resolution, of March 2, 1821 ; and also to the broad nationality of the views of the whole speech. We give it entire in a subsequent part of the work. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 71 The vote was then taken, and the bill passed— yeas 37, nays 14. So the bill was passed, and its title declared to be “An Act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kan- sas.” The bill being approved by the President, became a law. We give it entire, in a subsequent part of this work. 72 TH5 LIFE AND SPEECHES OF CHAPTER IX. ME. DOUGLAS AT CHICAGO, 1854. It is difficult to give a full idea of the excitement that vailed at Chicago, at the time of the passage of the Nebn bill. It far surpassed the excitement in 1850, relative to Compromise measures. The ranks of the Abolition always full there, had been largely recruited during last three years : and among the new converts were n professed ministers of the Gospel. These men eagerly sc on any pretext that would give them a little notoriety, ai the public mind, that is to say, the Abolition sentimen Chicago, was already worked up to a high pitch, they ceived the idea of treating Senator Douglas as a clelinq schoolboy. Accordingly, they addressed to him, and lished in the Chicago daily papers at the same time, a : scurrilous and abusive letter, in which they impiously ; gated to themselves the authority to speak “ in the nam Almighty God,” and soundly berated Mi - . Douglas fo' course in the Senate. With admirable temper, Mr. Doi wrote them a letter, which will be found in a subsequent of this work. In the autumn of 1854, Mr. Douglas returned to Chic The city was convulsed with excitement. The Nebi Bill, and its author, were denounced in the most bittei violent manner. Neither were understood. The oppos organs, the “ Tribune,” the “Journal,” aucl the “Press, 5 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 73 for months teemed with articles written in the most savage style, in which the N ehraska Bill and its provisions had been studiously misrepresented and misquoted, and Mr. Douglas vilified and abused as the author of countless woes to genera- tions yet unborn. It is no compliment to the intelligence of the readers and supporters of these papers to state what is, nevertheless, the fact, that these statements were swallowed with eager credulity, and that Mr. Douglas was regarded by the Abolitionists as a monster in human form. In a few days after his arrival in Chicago, Mr. Douglas caused the announcement to be made that he would address the citizens in vindication of the Nebraska Bill. A meeting was accordingly appointed, to take place at North Market Hall. At the hour of meeting, the vast space in front of the Hall was filled Avith men, the crowd numbering nearly ten thousand persons. Probably one-third of the number were really desirous to hear the senator’s speech ; but by far the greater part of the crowd were violent anil radical Abolition- ists, Avho were determined that he should not, speak. HIS SPEECH THEKE. Mr. Douglas appeared before the meeting, on an open bal- cony, and commenced his address. He alluded to the excite- ment that prevailed, but asked a patient hearing, and pro- mised his auditc , to be as brief as he could be, consistently Avith a full exposition of the subject. He spoke of the sacred rights of the people of the Territories to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way ; the great prin- ciple that lay at the foundation of the Nebraska Bill. At this part of his remarks, several prominent Abolitionists com- menced to groan and hiss. Others followed the example-. The noise and tumult increased. The senator stopped speaking, and stood calmly, Avith his 4 74 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OB arms folded upon his breast, and his eye surveying the angry and excited multitude. He waited patiently till the noise sub- sided, and then, stretching forth his hand, he proceeded. He described the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and alluded to the fact that for the last ten years, he had endeavored, at every session of Congress, to have them organized. Here the groans and hisses were redoubled in violence, and came from all parts of the meeting. The most opprobrious epi- thets were applied to Mr. Douglas, and the most insulting language used to him by rowdies in the crowd. In vain se- veral gentlemen endeavored to restore order. The Aboli- tionists were determined that Mr. Douglas should not be heard ; and they succeeded. For nearly four hours after this did Mr. Douglas essay to make himself heard ; and each time did the yells and hootings of the infuriated multitude drown his voice. At last, it being Saturday night, he deliberately pulled out his watch under the gaslight, and observing that it was after twelve o’clock, he said in a stentorian voice, which was heard above the din of the crowd : “ Abolitionists of Chicago ! it is now Sunday morning. I will go to church, while you go to the devil in your own way.” A SCENE FOR A PAINTER. In her whole history, Chicago has never witnessed so dis- graceful a scene as this. There was a parallel occurrence in the life of Rienzi, the last of the Roman Tributes, thus described by the great English novelist : “ On they came, no longer in measured order, as stream after stream— from lane, from alley, from palace, and from hovel — the raging sea received new additions. On they came — their passions excited by their numbers — women and men, children and malignant age- — in all the awful array of aroused, released, unresisted physical strength and brutal wrath : ‘ Death to the traitor — death to the tyrant — death to him who has taxed the pco STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 75 pie !’ ‘ Mora T traditore che ha fatta la gabella ! — Mora !’ Such was the cry of the people — such the crime of the senator ! They broke over the low palisades of the capitol — they filled with one sudden rush the vast space — a moment before so desolate — now swarming with human beings athirst for blood ! “ Suddenly came a dead silence, and on the balcony above stood Kienzi — his face was bared, and the morning sun shone over that lordly brow, and the hair grown grey before its time, in service of that maddening mul- titude. Pale and erect he stood — neither fear, nor anger, nor menace — but deep grief aad high resolve upon his features ! A momentary shame — a momentary awe, seized the crowd. “ He pointed to the gonfalon, wrought with the republican motto and arms of Rome, and thus he began : “ ‘ I too am a Roman and a citizen ; hear me !’ “ 1 Hear him not; hear him not ! his false tongue can charm away our senses!’ cried a voice louder than his own; and Rienzi recognized Cecco del Yecchio. “ ‘Hear him not ; down with the tyrant !’ cried a more shrill and youth- ful tone; and by the side of the artisan stood Angelo Yillani. “ ‘ Hear him not; death to the death-giver!’ cried a voice close at hand, and from the grating of the neighboring prison glared near upon him, as the eye of a tiger, the vengeful gaze of the brother of Montreal. “ Then from earth to Heaven rose the roar — 1 Down with the tyrant — down with him who taxed the people 1’ “A shower of stones rattled on the mail of the senator — still he stirred not. Ho changing muscle betokened fear. His persuasion of his own wonderful powers of eloquence, if he could but be heard, inspired him yet with hope. He stood collected in his own indignant but determined thoughts ; but the knowledge of that very eloquence was now his deadliest foe. The leaders of the multitude trembled lest he should be heard ; '■and doubtless ,’ says the contemporaneous biographer, ‘had he but spoken he would have changed them all.'' ” Thus it was at the meeting at the North Market Hall. The leaders of the multitude trembled lest Douglas sho e franchise. Kentucky, Virginia, and other States have provided . a groes, or a certain class of them in those States, shall be slaves, 1 _ neither civil nor political rights. Without indorsing or condemning ■ i dom of that decision, I assert that Virginia has the same power, by irt ■ - of her sovereignty, to protect slavery within her limits as Illinois has ti > mish it forever from our borders. (“ Hear, hear,” and applause.) I a-: the right of each State to decide for itself on all these questions, and 1 not subscribe to the doctrine of my friend, Mr. Lincoln, that nity is either desirable or possible. I do not acknowledge that the States must all be free or must all be slave. . not acknowledge that the negro must have civil and political rights e c y where or nowhere. I do not acknowledge that the Chinese must ha . re same rights in California that we would confer upon him here. I d iot acknowledge that the Coolie imported into this country must v. irily be put upon an equality with the white race. I do not ac- idge any of these doctrines of uniformity in the local and domestic egui dons in the different States. (“ Bravo,” and cheers.) I us you see, my fellow-citizens, that the issues between Mr. Lincoln and . i ., as respective candidates for the U. S. Senate, as made up, are unequivocal, and irreconcilable. He goes for uniformity in our ; tic institutions, for a war of sections, until one or the other shall be hied. I go for the great principle of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, the igi ■ of the people to decide for themselves. (Senator Douglas was here iut - ipted by the wildest applause ; cheer after cheer rent the air; the band truck up “Yankee Doodle rockets and pieces of fireworks blazed i and the enthusiasm was so intense and universal that it was some efore order could be restored and Mr. Douglas resume. The scene this period was glorious beyond description.) 7 146 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF STANDS BY THE DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATION AND THE CINCIN- NATI PLATFORM. My friends, you see that the issues are distinctly drawn. I stand by the same platform that I have so often proclaimed to you and to the people of Illinois heretofore. (Cries of “ That’s true,” and applause.) I stand by the Democratic organization, yield obedience to its usages, and support its regular nominations. (Intense enthusiasm.) I indorse and approve the Cincinnati platform (renewed applause), and I adhere to and intend to carry out as part of that platform the great principle of self-government, which recognizes the right of the people in each State and Territory to decide for themselves their domestic institutions. (“ Good, good,” and cheers.) In conclusion, he denounces the “ unholy alliance Fellow-citizens, you now have before you the outlines of the propositions which I intend to discuss before the people of Illinois during the pending campaign. I have spoken without preparation, and in a very desultory manner, and may have omitted some points which I desired to discuss, and may have been less explicit on others than I could have wished. 1 have made up my mind to appeal to the people against the combination which has been made against me. (Enthusiastic applause.) The Republi- can leaders have formed an alliance, an unholy, unnatural alliance, with a portion of the federal officeholders. I intend to fight that allied army wher'ever I meet them. (Cheers.) I know they deny the alliance while avowing the common purpose ; but yet these men who are trying to divide the Democratic party for the purpose of electing a Republican senator in my place, are just as much the agents, the tools, the supporters of Mr. Lincoln as if they were avowed Republicans, and expect their reward for their services when the Republicans come into power. (Cries of “ That is true,” and cheers.) I shall deal with these allied forces just as the Rus- sians dealt with the allies at Sebastopol. The Russians when they fired a broadside at the common enemy did not stop to inquire whether it hit a Frenchman, an Englishman or a Turk, nor will I stop (laughter and great applause), nor shall I stop to inquire whether my blows hit the Republican leaders or their allies, who are holding the federal offices and yet acting in concert with the Republicans to defeat the Democratic party and its nomi- nees. (Cheers, and cries of “ Bravo.”) I do not include all of the federal officeholders in this remark. Such of them as are Democrats and show STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 147 their Democracy by remaining inside of the Democratic organization and supporting its nominees, I recognize as Democrats, but those who, having been defeated inside of the organization, go outside and attempt to divide and destroy the party in concert with the Republican leaders, have ceased to be Democrats, and belong to the allied army whose avowed object is to elect the Republican ticket by dividing and destroying the Democratic party. (Cheers ) Immediately after his reception at Chicago, Mr. Douglas entered actively on his canvass over the entire State, making more than one hundred speeches in less than four months, and enduring an unparalleled amount of physical exertion and fatigue. History fails to cite any public man who ever received such continued ovations at the hands of his people as greeted Mr. Douglas all through his Illinois campaign. Me make room for a letter which appeared in one of the Chicago papers of the day, descriptive of his journey from that city to Bloomington, to fill his first appointment, with the remark that the same demonstrations of popular enthusi- asm and manifestations of popular admiration and love met Mr. Douglas everywhere through his canvass. The picture of the correspondent does hut hare justice to the facts as they existed. SENATOR DOUGLAS AMONG THE PEOPLE PASSAGE FROM CHI- CAGO TO SPRINGFIELD GREAT ENTHUSIASM ALONG THE LINE OF THE ST. LOUIS AND ALTON RAILROAD — GLORIOUS DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE POPULAR FEELING. Bloomington, July 16, 1858. If there was- ever any doubt that Senator Douglas possessed the popular heart of the people of Illinois, that doubt has been dispelled to-day. His passage from Chicago to this place has been a perfect ovation. There was not a station or cottage that the train passed from which there was not a greeting and a “ God speed” sent forth ; and the evidences of popular feel- ing evinced in his favor are conclusive that the result in November will be one of the most glorious triumphs of the Democracy ever achieved in this State— 148 THE LIFE AJSTD SPEECHES OF Senator Douglas, as you are aware, left Chicago in the 9 o’clock train this morning, on the St. Louis, Alton and Chicago Railroad, to meet an appointment which he made at Springfield for to-morrow. The train which bore him was tastefully decorated with flags, the engine being almost hid beneath them, and banners were also displayed on the cars with the inscrip- tion “ Stephen A. Douglas, the Champion of Popular Sovereignty.” As the train passed along, the crowds who had assembled to give a parting cheer to the “Little Giant” performed their labor of love energetically and well. The train was soon out of Chicago and flying along the track ; and now Mr. Douglas, having a few moments to devote to those “ on board,” shook hands and exchanged compliments with a number of impatient pas- sengers who crowded around him, anxious to evince their respect and high admiration of the man. As the train swept through Bridgeport, the employees of the road sta- tioned there had assembled together, and greeted Senator Douglas with three hearty cheers. A little incident occurred as we passed Bridgeport which is perhaps worthy of notice. One of the flags with which the train was decorated caught on the branches of a tree, and a gentleman seeing it, exclaimed, “ See, Judge Douglas, there is one of your flags waving from that tree.” “ Yes,” replied the Judge, “and before this campaign is over, my flags will be seen waving from every tree in the State.” At every station on the road — at Brighton Course, Summit, Athens and Lockport — the people were out waiting an opportunity to testify their respect to their patriot senator ; and not a little interest was added to these demonstrations by the number of pretty girls and blooming matrons who took part in them, and testified by the waving of handkerchiefs and smiles of approval that there was one besides their lovers and husbands who had a place in their hearts. As the train approached Joliet, the shrill whistle of the engine to “ break up ” was answered by the roar of artillery from the town ; and when we reached the station, about 11 o’clock, we found some four or five hundred people awaiting us. The thunders of the guns were answered by the cheers of welcome by the crowd, who pressed around the cars anxious to get a glimpse of Senator Douglas. There being a delay at this place of twenty minutes for dinner, the senator spent it in shaking hands with and receiving the congratulations of those who had assembled to see him. The beaming countenances of the sturdy yeomanry, whose faces were lighted up with joy at meeting the man whom they delighted to lienor, showed that the heart felt what the mouth uttered. One fine looking specimen of human nature, whose strong, sturdy frame, and sunburnt STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 149 healthy cheek, bore testimony to his having spent the best part of his days - in the open air, exclaimed, after shaking hands with the senator, “ By G— d, that did me good !” At Joliet, a platform car, decorated with thirteen flags, and bearing a twelve-pounder and gun-carriage, was hitched on to the train, and after we left that town, as we approached each station, “ Popular Sovereignty,” as the gun was called, gave lively notice that we were on hand. At El- wood, a crowd was awaiting us, and as the train passed through, cheer after cheer went up, whilst two or three individuals expressed their enthu- siasm by the discharge of their revolvers. As the train approached Wilmington, “Popular Sovereignty’s” note was echoed by a piece of artillery in the town, and as we reached the station, we found the citizens, accompanied by a fine brass band, awaiting Senator Douglas. The cars had hardly stopped, when a gentleman, whose head was silvered o’er with age, jumped on the train, and seizing Senator Dou- glas by the hand, cried, “Welcome, Judge Douglas, welcome to Wilming- ton,” and then three hearty cheers, such as only the farmers of the Prairie State can give, rose in the air, and the people crowded around to shake Mr. Douglas by the hand. The train was delayed here several minutes, in order to afford the people an opportunity of seeing their senator. At ail the other stations — Stewart’s Grove, Gardner, Dwight, Odell, Cay uga, Pontiac, Book Creek, Peoria Junction, Lexington, and Towanda, tin people were out awaiting the train, and greeted Senator Douglas with lorn* hurrahs. At each of these stations large numbers got on board for Bloom ington. As we approached Bloomington, “ Popular Sovereignty” gave notice that we were about, and his roar was answered by another of wel- come from the town. About 5,000 people had assembled here to meet Senator Douglas, and the whole town and surrounding country were pre- sent on horseback, in vehicles, and on foot, to welcome his arrival. The train was overrun with people who clambered on top of the cars, and tum- bled in on all sides, and the enthusiasm manifested was similar to that shown on his arrival at Chicago on Friday last. The thunders of the guns, the music of the band, and the shouts of the multitude filled the air. The scene can better be imagined than described. The crowd closed in around the cars in an impenetrable mass, and, taking possession of Senator Doug- las, they carried him over to the platform, where he received their per- sonal welcomes. After some time spent in this manner, the senator was placed in an open carriage, provided by the Committee of Arrangements, and the escort, composed of the Bloomington Rifles, a cavalcade of horse- men, and citizens on foot, headed by the Bloomington brass band, took up its march for the London House where rooms had been engaged by 150 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF the committee for their guest. Flags were displayed from the house, and strips of muslin ran along the balconies, bearing the inscription, “ S. A. Douglas, the champion of Popular Sovereignty.” Arriving at the house, the procession was dismissed, and after giving three times three cheers for Senator Douglas, gradually dispersed, to re-assemble at o’clock, p.m., in the court-house square, for the purpose of listening to his address. At 7 o’clock, the roar of the cannon, and the firing of rockets, the ring- of the court-house bell, and the music of the band attached to the Bloom- ington Guards, who attended the meeting in uniform, gave notice to the people to assemble ; and in half an hour the large square surrounding the court-house was crowded with people, whilst Washington, Jefferson, and Madison streets were in the same condition ; and the windows and doors of the houses fronting the square were thronged with ladies and gentle- men. There were about 10,000 persons in attendance, and the committee of arrangements expected a much larger number, who were prevented from coming in from the country by the heavy rain which fell in this neighborhood all last night and to-day. The court-house was illuminated, and a stage was erected on the west side for the meeting. At about 8 o’clock, Allen Withers, Esq., chairman of the Committee of Arrangements, called the meeting to order. Dr. E. R. Roe, in a very elo- quent speech, welcomed Senator Douglas, and assured him, on behalf of the people of McLean County, that his course, during the last session of Congress, was fully approved by them, and that they were ready to show that approval, in a substantial manner, at the polls in November next. SPEECn AT BLOOMINGTON. Iii the course of his speech at Bloomington, Mr. Douglas referred to the Compromise measures of 1850, and the in- structions of the Illinois legislature of 1851 to carry out the same principle of self-government in the organization of new Territories, as follows : Illinois stands proudly forward as a State which early took her position in favor of the principle of popular sovereignty, as applied to the Territo- ries of the United States. When the Compromise measures of 1S50 passed, predicated upon that principle, you recollect the excitement which prevailed throughout the northern portion of this State. I vindicated those mea- sures then, and defended myself for having voted for them, upon the ground STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 151 that they embodied the principle that every people ought to have the privilege of forming and regulating their own institutions to suit them- selves — that each State had that right, and I saw no reason why it should not be extended to the Territories. When the people of Illinois had an opportunity of passing judgment upon those measures, they indorsed them by a vote of their representatives in the legislature — sixty-one in the affirmative, and only four in the negative — in which they asserted that the principle embodied in the measures was the birthright of freemen, the gift of Heaven, a principle vindicated by our Revolutionary fathers, and that no limitation should ever be placed upon it, either in the organization of a Territorial government, or the admission of a State into the Union. That resolution still stands unrepealed on the journals of the legislature of Illinois. In obedience to it, and in exact conformity with the principle, I brought in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, requiring that the people should be left perfectly free in the formation of their institutions, and in the or- ganization of their government. I now submit to you whether I have not in good faith redeemed that pledge, that the people of Kansas should be left perfectly free to form and regulate their institutions to suit themselves. (“You have,” and cheers.) And yet, while no man can rise in any crowd and deny that I have been faithful to my principles, and redeemed my pledge, we find those who are struggling to crush and defeat me, for the very reason that I have been faithful in carrying out those measures. (“They can’t do it,” and great cheers.) We find the Republican leaders forming an alliance with professed Lecompton men to defeat every Demo- cratic nominee, and elect Republicans in their places, and aiding and de- fending them in order to help them break down Anti-Lecompton men whom they acknowledge did right in their opposition to Lecompton (“ They can’t do it.”) The only hope that Hr. Lincoln has of defeating mt. for the Senate rests in the fact that I was faithful to my principles, and that he may be able, in consequence of that fact, to form a coalition with Lecompton men who wish to defeat me for that fidelity. (“ They will never do it. Never in the State of Illinois” — and cheers.) He again refers to the coalition between the federal office- holders and the abolitionists, to break down the Democratic party This is one element of strength upon which he relies to accomplish his object. He hopes he can secure the few men claiming to be friends of the Lecompton constitution, and for that reason you will find he does not say a word against the Lecompton constitution or its supporters. He is as 152 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF silent as the grave upon that subject. Behold Mr. Lincoln courting Lecomp- ton votes, in order that he may go to the Senate as the representative of Republican principles ! (Laughter.) You know that the alliance exists. I think you will find that it will ooze out before the contest is over. ( ll That’s my opinion,” and cheers.) Every Republican paper takes ground with my Lecompton enemies, en- couraging them, stimulating them in their opposition to me, and styling my friends bolters from the Democratic party, and their Lecompton allies the true Democratic party of the country. If they think that they can mislead and deceive the people of Illinois, or the Democracy of Illinois, by that sort of an unnatural and unholy alliance, I think they show very little sagacity, or give the people very little credit for intelligence. (“ That’s so,” and cheers.) It must be a contest of principle. Either the radical aboli- tion principles of Mr. Lincoln must be maintained, or the strong, constitu- tional, national Democratic principles with which I am identified, must be carried out. There can be but two great political parties in this country. The contest this year and in I860, must necessarily be between the Democracy and the Republicans, if we can judge from present indications. My whole life has been identified with the Democratic party. (Cheers.) I have devoted all my energies to advocating its principles, and sustaining its organization. In this State the party was never better united and more harmonious than at this time. (Cheers.) The State Convention which assembled on the 2d of April, and nominated Fondey and French, was regularly called by the State Central Committee, appointed by the previous State Convention for that purpose. The meetings in each county in the State for the appoint- ment of delegates to the convention, were regularly called by the county committees, and the proceedings in every county in the State, as well as in the State Convention, were regular in all respeots. No convention was ever more harmonious in its action, or showed a more tolerant and just spirit toward brother Democrats. The leaders of the party there assem- bled declared their unalterable attachment to the time-honored principles and organization of the Democratic party, and to the Cincinnati platform. They declared that that platform was the only authoritative exposition of Democratic principles, and that it must so stand until changed by another National Convention ; that in the meantime they would make no new tests, and submit to none ; that they would proscribe no Democrat, nor permit the proscription of Democrats because of their opinions upon Lecomptonism, or upon any other issue which has arisen ; but would recognize all men as Democrats who remained inside of the organization, preserved the usages of the party, and supported its nominees. (Great applause.) These bolt- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 153 ins Democrats who now claim to be the peculiar friends of the national administration, and have formed an alliance with Mr. Lincoln and the Re- publicans, for the purpose of defeating the Democratic party, have ceased to claim fellowship with the Democratic organization, have entirely sepa- rated themselves from it, and are endeavoring to build up a faction in the State, not with the hope or expectation of electing any one man who pro- fesses to be a Democrat, to office in any county in the State, but merely to secure the defeat of the Democratic nominees, and the election of Repub- licans in their places. "What excuse can any honest Democrat have for abandoning the Democratic organization, and joining with the Republi- cans (‘‘None!”) to defeat our nominees, in view of the platform estab- lished by the State Convention? They cannot pretend that they were pro- scribed because of their opinions upon Lecompton or any other question, for the Convention expressly declared that they recognize all as good De- mocrats who remained inside of the organization, and abided by the nomi- nations. If the question is settled, or is to be considered as finally dis- posed of by the vote on the 3d of August, what possible excuse can any good Democrat make for keeping up a division for the purpose of pro- strating his party, after that election is over, and the controversy has ter- minated. DEED SCOTT DECISION — NEGRO EQUALITY. But I must now bestow a few words upon Mr. Lincoln’s main objection to the Dred Scott decision. He is not going to submit to it. Not that he is going to make war upon it with force of arms. But he is going to appeal and reverse it in some way ; he cannot tell us how. I reckon not by a writ of error, because I do not know where he would prosecute that, except before an Abolition Society. (“ That’s it,” and applause.) And when he appeals, he does not exactly tell us to whom he will appeal, except it be to the Republican party, and I have yet to learn that the Republican party, under the Constitution, has judicial powers ; but he is going to appeal from it and reverse it either by an act of Congress, or by turning out the judges, or in some other way. And why ? Because he says that that decision deprives the negro of the benefit of that clause of the Constitution of the United States which entitles the citizens of each State to all the privileges and immuni ties of citizens of the several States. Well, it is very true that the decision does have that effect. By deciding that a negro is not a citizen, of course it denies to him the rights and privileges awarded to citizens of the United Stages. It is this that Mr. Lincoln will not submit to. Why ? For the palpable reason that he wishes to confer upon the negro all the righu. 154 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF privileges, and immunities of citizens of the several States. I will not quarrel with Mr. Lincoln for his views on that subject. I have no doubt that he is conscientious in them. I have not the slightest idea but that he conscientiously believes that a negro ought to enjoy and exercise all the rights and privileges given to white men ; but I do not agree with him, and hence I cannot concur with him. I believe that this government of ours was formed on the white basis. (Prolonged cheering.) I believe that it was established by white men — (applause) — by men of European birth and descended of European races, for the benefit of white men and their pos- terity in all time to come. (“ Hear, hear.’’) I do not believe that it was the design or intention of the signers of the Declaration of Independence or the framers of the Constitution to include negroes or other inferior races with white men as citizens. (Cheers.) Our fathers had at that day seen the evil consequences of conferring civil and political rights upon the negro in the Spanish and French colonies on the American continent, and the adjacent islands. In Mexico, in Central America, in South America, and in the West India Islands, where the negro, and men of all colors and all races are put on an equality by law, the effect of political amalgamation can be seen. Ask any of those gallant young men in your own county, who who went to Mexico to fight the battles of their country, in what friend Lincoln considers an unjust and unholy war, and hear what they will tell you in regard to the amalgamation of races in that country. Amal- gamation there, first political, then social, has led to demoralization and degradation until it has reduced the people below the point of capacity for self-government. Our fathers knew w r hat the effect of it would be, and from the time they planted foot on the American continent, not only those who landed at Jamestown, but at Plymouth Rock and all other points on the coast, they pursued the policy of confining civil and political rights to the white race, and excluding the negro in all cases. Still Mr. Lincoln con- scientiously believes that it is his duty to advocate negro citizenship. lie wants to give the negro the privileges of citizenship. He quotes ScripturG again, and says : “ As your Father in Heaven is perfect, be ye also per- fect,” and he applies that Scriptural quotation to all classes, not that he expects us all to be as perfect as our Master, but as nearly perfect as pos- sible. In other words, he is willing to give the negro an equali'ty under the law, in order that he may approach as near perfection or an equality with the white man as possible. To this same end he quotes the Declara- tion of Independence in these words : “We hold these truths to be self- evident that all men were created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pur- suit of happiness,” and goes on to argue that the negro was included, or STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 155 intended to be included, in that declaration by the signers of the paper. He says that by the Declaration of Independence, therefore, all kinds of men, negroes included, were created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and further, that the right of the negro to be on an equality with the white man is a Divine right conferred by the Almighty, and rendered inalienable according to the Declaration of Inde- pendence. Hence no human law or constitution can deprive the negro of that equality with the white man to which he is entitled by Divine law. (“Higher law.’’) Yes, higher law. Now, I do not question Mr. Lincoln’s sincerity on this point. He believes that the negro by the Divine law is created the equal of the white man, and that no human law can deprive him of that equality thus secured ; and he contends that the negro ought, therefore, to have all the rights and privileges of citizenship on an equality with the white man. In order to accomplish this, the first thing that would have to be done in this State would be to blot out of our State Constitution that clause which prohibits negroes from coming into this State and making it an African colony, and permit them to come and spread over these charm- ing prairies until ffnNmidday they shall look black as night. When our friend Lincoln get? all \is colored brethren around him here, he will then raise them to perfection as fast as possible, and place them on an equality with the white i\an, first removing all legal restrictions, because they are our equals by Divine law and there should be no such restrictions. He wants them to vote. I am opposed to it. If they had a vote I reckon they me, entertaining the views I do. e position he has taken on this g for them the right to vote, but Declaration of Independence, to be elected to office, to become members of the legislature, to go to Con- gress, and to become governors, or United States senators (laughter and cheers), or judges of the Supreme Court; and I suppose that when they control that court that they will probably reverse the Dred Scott decision. (Laughter.) He is going to bring negroes here, and give them the right of citizenship, the right of voting, the right of holding office and sitting on juries, and what else ? Y7hy, he would permit them to marry, would he not? and if he gives them that right, I suppose he will let them marry whom they please, provided they marry their equals. (Laughter.) If the Divine law declares that the white man is the equal of the negro woman ; that they are on a perfect equality; I suppose he admits the right of the negro woman to marry the white man. (Renewed laughter.) In other words, his doctrine that the negro by Divine law is placed on a perfect equality with the white man, and that that equality is recognized by the would all vote for him in preference to (Laughter.) But that matt^f-ifnot. Tli question not only presents him as chimin their right, under the DivineSia^aaro the 156 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Declaration of Independence, leads him necessarily to establishing negro equality under the law; but whether even then they would be so in fact, would depend upon the degree of virtue and intelligence they possessed, and certain other qualities that are matters of taste rather than of law. (Laughter.) I do not understand Mr. Lincoln as saving that he expects to make them our equals socially, or by intelligence, nor, in fact, as citizens, but that he wishes to make them equal under the law, and then say to them “as your Master in Heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect.” Well, I confess to you, my fellow-citizens, that I am utterly opposed to that system of abolition philosophy. (“ So am I,” and cheers.) MIND TOUR OWN BUSINESS AND LET TOUR NEIGHBORS ALONE — CLAT AND WEBSTER. In Kentucky they will not give a negro any political rights or any civil rights. I shall not argue the question whether Kentucky in so doing has decided right or wrong, wisely or unwisely. It is a question for Kentucky to decide for herself. I believe that the Kentuckians have consciences as well as ourselves ; they have as keen a perception of their religious, moral and social duties as we have, and I am willing that they-shall decide this slavery question for themselves, and be accountable to their God for their action. It is not for me to arraign them for what they do. I will not judge them lest I shall be judged. Let Kentucky mind her own business, and take care of her negroes, and we attend to our own affairs, and take care of our negroes, and we will be the best of friends ; but if Kentucky attempts to interfere with us, or we with her, there will be strife, there will be discord, there will be relentless hatred, there will be everything but fraternal feeling and brotherly love. It is not necessary that you should enter Kentucky and interfere in that State, to use the language of Mr. Lincoln. It is just as offensive to interfere from this State, or send your missiles over there. I care not whether an enemy, if he is going to assault us, shall actually come into our State or come along the line and throw his bomb-shells over to explode in our midst. Suppose England should plant a battery on the Canadian side of the Niagara River, opposite Buffalo, and throw bomb-shells over, which would explode in Main street, in that city, and destroy the buildings, and that when we pro- tested, she should say, in the language of Mr. Lincoln, that she never dreamed of coming into the United States to interfere with us, and that she was just throwing her bombs over the line from her owm side, which she had a right to do, would that explanation satisfy us ? (“ No “ Strike him again.”) So it is with Mr. Lincoln. He is not going into Kentucky STETHEN A. DOUGLAS. 151 Dut he will plant his batteries on this side of the Ohio, where he is safe and secure for a retreat, and will then throw his bomb-shells — his abolition documents — over the river, and will carry on a political warfare and get up strife between the North and South until he elects a sectional President, reduces the South to the condition of dependent colonies, raises the negro to an equality, and forces the South to submit to the doctrine that a house divided against itself cannot stand, that the Union divided into half slave States and half free cannot endure, that they must all be slave or they must all be free, and that as we in the North are in the majority we will not permit them to be all slave, and, therefore, they in the South must consent to the States all being free. (Laughter.) Now, fellow-citizens, I submit whether these doctrines are consistent with the peace and harmony of this Union. (“ No, no.”) I submit to you, whether they are consistent with our duty as citizens of a common confederacy ; whether they are consistent with the principles which ought to govern brethren of the same family. I recognize all the people of these States, North and South, East and AVest, old or new, Atlantic and Pacific, as our brethren, flesh of one flesh, and I will do no act unto them that I would not be willing they should do unto ns. I would apply the same Christian rule to the States of this Union that we are taught to apply to individuals, “ do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” and this would secure peace. AVhy should this slavery agitation be kept up ? Does it benefit the white man or the slave ? AA T ho does it benefit except the Kepublican politicians, who use it as their hobby to ride into office. (Cheers.) Why, I repeat, should it be continued ? Why cannot we be content to administer this govern- ment as it was made — a confederacy of sovereign and independent States. Let us recognize the sovereignty and independence of each State, refrain from interfering with the domestic institutions and regulations of other States, permit the Territories and new States to decide their institutions for themselves as we did when we were in their condition ; blot out these lines of North and South and resort back to those lines of State boundaries which the Constitution has marked out and engraved upon the free of the country; have no other dividing lines but these and we will be one united, harmonious people, with fraternal feelings and no discord or dis- sension. (Cheers.) These are my views and these are the principles to which I have devoted all my energies since 1S50, when I acted side by side with the immor- tal Clay and the godlike AVebster in that memorable struggle in which AA T higs and Democrats united upon a common platform of patriotism and the Constitution, throwing aside partisan feelings in order to restore peace and harmony to a distracted country. And when I stood beside the death 158 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF bed of Mr. Clay and beard him refer with feelings and emotions of the deepest solicitude to the welfare of the country, and saw that he looked upon the principle embodied in the great Compromise measures of 1850, the principle of the Nebraska Bill, the doctrine of leaving each State and Territory free to decide its institutions for itself, as the only means by which the peace of the country could be preserved, and the Union per- petuated, i pledged him, on that death-bed of his, that so long as I lived mv energies should be devoted to the vindication of that principle, and of his fame as connected with it. (“ Hear, hear,” and great enthusiasm.) I gave the same pledge to the great expounder of the Constitution, he who has been called the “godlike Webster.” I looked up to Clay and him as a son would to a father, and I call upon the people of Illinois, and the people of the whole Union to bear testimony that never since the sod has been laid upon the graves of those eminent statesmen have I failed on any occasion to vindicate the principle with which the last great, crowning acts of their lives were identified, or to vindicate their names whenever they have been assailed ; and now my life and energy are devoted to this great work as the means of preserving this Union. (Cheers.) This Union can only be preserved by maintaining the fraternal feeling between the North and the South, the East and the West. If that good feeling can be pre- served the Union will be as perpetual as the fame of its great founders. It can be maintained by preserving the sovereignty of the States, the right of each State and each Territory to settle its domestic concerns for itself, and the duty of each to refrain from interfering with the other in any of its local or domestic institutions. Let that be done and the Union will be perpetual; let that be done, and this republic, which began with thirteen States, and which now numbers thirty-two, which when it began only extended from the Atlantic to the Mississippi but now reaches to the Pacific, may yet expand North and South until it covers the whole conti- nent and becomes one vast ocean-bound confederacy. (Great cheering.) Then, my friends, the path of duty, of honor, of patriotism is plain. There are a few simple principles to be preserved. Bear in mind the dividing line between State rights and federal authority ; let us maintain the great principles of popular sovereignty, of State rights, and of the Federal Union as the Constitution has made it, and this republic will endure forever. UNITY OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Iii the course of Mr. Douglas’ speech at Edwardsvillc, on the 6th of August, an old Democrat sprang to his feet and STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 159 exclaimed, “These are the principles of all us Douglas Demo- crats !” To which Mr. Douglas replied : My frieud — you will pardon me for telling you that there is no such term in the Democratic Tocabulary as Douglas Democrats. Let there be no divisions in our ranks — no such distinction as Douglas Democrats, or Buchanan Democrats, or any other peculiar kind of Democrats. Let us retain the old name of Democrat, and under that name recognize all men as good Democrats who stand firmly by the principles and organization of the party, and support its regular nominations. Let us have no divisions in our ranks on account of past differences, but treating bygones as bygones let the party be a unit in the accomplishment of the great mission which it has to perform. This sentiment was received with rapturous applause. SPEECH AT WINCHESTER TOUCHING INCIDENTS. At Winchester, where he settled when he first emigrated to Illinois, in 1833, he responded to the address of welcome, thus : To say that I am profoundly impressed with the keenest gratitude for the kind and cordial welcome you have given me, in the eloquent and too partial remarks which have been addressed to me, is but a feeble expres- sion of the emotions of my heart. There is no spot in this vast globe which fills me with such emotions as when I come to this place, and recog- nize the faces of my old and good friends who now surround me and bid me welcome. Twenty-five years ago I entered this town on foot, with my coat upon my arm, without an acquaintance in a thousand miles, and with- out knowing where I could get money to pay a week’s board. Here I made the first six dollars I ever earned in my life, and obtained the first regular occupation that I ever pursued. Bor the first time in my life I then felt that the responsibilities of manhood were upon me, although 1 was under age, for I had none to advise with, and knew no one upon whom I had a right to call for assistance or for friendship, nere I found the then settlers of the country my friends — my first start in life was taken here, not only as a private citizen, but my first election to public office by the people was conferred upon me by those whom I am now addressing, and by their fathers. A quarter of a century has passed, and that pen- ICO THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF _ niless boy stands before you, with his heart full and gushing with the son timents which such associations and recollections necessarily inspire. In the midst of that portion of his speedy in which he was vindicating the doctrine of popular sovereignty, applica- ble to the Territories, one of his early friends exclaimed, in a loud voice, “ Stephen, you shall be the next President to which Mr. Douglas instantly replied : My friend, I appreciate the kindness of heart which makes you put forth that prediction, but will assure you that it is more important to this coun- try, to your children and to mine, that the great principles which we are now discussing shall be carried out in good faith by the party, than it is that I or any other man shall be President of the United States. (Three cheers.) I am also free to say to you that whenever the question arises with me whether I shall be elevated to the Presidency or any other high position, by the sacrifice of my principles, I will stand by my principles and allow the position to take care of itself. (Three cheers.) I have always admired that great sentiment put forth by the illustrious Clay, that he would rather be right than be President. (“ Good.”) I say to you that 1 have more pride in my history connected with the vindication of this great principle of popular sovereignty than I would have in a thousand Presidencies. (Three cheers.) Mr. Douglas, agaiu advocating that “ by-gones be by- gones,” when Kansas rejected the English bill, said, in a speech at Pittsfield : By the rejection of the Lecompton constitution the controversy which it caused is terminated forever, and there will be no cause for reviving it, and it never will be revived unless it is brought up in an improper and mischievous manner, for improper and mischievous purposes. I say that the controversy can never rise again if we act properly, and for this rea- son : the President of the United States, in his annual message, declared that he regretted that the Lecompton constitution had not been submitted to the people. I joined him in that regret, and thus far we agreed. Ue further declared in that message, that it was a just and sound principle to require the submission of every constitution to the people who were to live under it, and to this I also subscribed. lie then declared that, in his opinion, the example set in the Minnesota oase, wherein Congress required STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 1G1 the submission of the constitution to the people, should be followed here- after forever as a rule of action ; in which opinion I heartily concurred. So far we agreed perfectly, and were together. "Well, then, what did we differ about ? He said that while it was a sound principle that the consti- tution should be submitted to the people, and while he hoped that here- after Congress would always require it to be done, yet that there were such circumstances connected with Kansas as rendered it politic and expedient to admit her unconditionally under the Lecompton constitution. I differed with him on that one point, and it was the w'hole matter at issue between him and me, his friends and mine. That point is now decided. The peo- ple of Kansas have set it at rest forever, and I trust that he is satisfied with their decision as well as myself. That being the ease, why should we not come together in the future and stand firmly by his recommendation — that hereafter Congress shall, as in the Minnesota case, require the consti- tution of all new States to be submitted to the people in all cases ? If we only do stand by that principle in the future, another Lecompton contro- versy can never arise — the friends of self-government will then all be united, and there will be no more discord or dissensions in our ranks. Why not rally on that plank as the common plank in the platform of our party, upon which not only all Democrats, but all national men, all friends of popular sovereignty, can stand together, shoulder to shoulder. THE FREEPORT SPEECH. In the joint debate at Freeport, Mr. Lincoln propounded to Mr. Douglas a series of questions, and among them was the following, to which he desired an explicit reply : “ Can the people of a Territory of the United States in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State constitution?” To this question Mr. Douglas gave an affirmative reply, in accordance with the opinions which he had so often ex- pressed, in 1850, during the pendency of the Compromise measures, and in 1854, in support of the KansasdSTebraska Bill, and in harmony with the known opinions of the most eminent men of the Democratic party, and especially of 1G2 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF General Cass, in his Nicholson letter, and of Mr. Buchanan, in his letter accepting the Cincinnati nomination. It being a joint debate, in which his time was limited, and having a large number of other questions to answer, Mr. Douglas contented himself with a direct and unequivocal answer, without entering into any argument in support of the propositions. His reply, as published in the unreviscd report of the debate, is as follows : The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, can the people of a Territory in any lawful way against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution? I answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution. (Enthusiastic ap- plause.) Mr. Lincoln knew that I had answered that question over aud over again. He heard me argue the Nebraska Bill on that principle all over the State in 1854, in 1855 and in 1856, and he has no excuse for pre- tending to be in doubt as to my position on that question. It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract ques- tion whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the consti- tution ; the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour any- where., unless it is supported by local police regulations. (Right, right.) Those police regulations can only be established by the local legislature, and if the people are opposed to slavery they will elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the intro- duction of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, theie legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a slave Territory or a free Territory is perfect and com- plete under the Nebraska Bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my answer satis- factory on that point. MR. DOUGLAS AT ALTON — REBUKES EXECUTIVE DICTATION. And now r this warfare is made on me because I would not surrender my convictions of duty, because I would not abandon my constituency, and re- ceive the orders of the Executive authorities how I should vote in the i STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 163 Senate of the United States. (“Never do it,” three cheers, etc.) I hold that an attempt to control the Senate on the part of the Executive is sub- versive of the principles of our Constitution. (“That’s right.”) The Executive department is independent of the Senate, and the Senate is in- dependent of the President. In matters of legislation the President has a veto on the action of the Senate, and in appointments and treaties the Senate has a veto on the President. He has no more right to tell me how I shall vote on his appointments, than I have to tell him whether he shall veto or approve a bill that the Senate has passed. Whenever you recog- nize the right of the Executive to say to a senator, “ Do this, or I will take off the heads of your friends,” you convert this government from a republic into a despotism. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) Whenever you recognize the right of a President to say to a member of Congress, “ Yoto as I tell you, or I will bring a power to bear against you at home which will crush you,” you destroy the independence of the representative, and convert him into a tool of Executive power. (“ That’s so,” and applause.) I resisted this invasion of the constitutional rights of a senator, and I intend to resist it as long as I have a voice to speak, or a vote to give. Yet, Hr. Buchanan cannot provoke me to abandon one iota of Democratic principles out of revenge or hostility to his course. (“ Good, good, and three cheers for Douglas.”) I stand by the platform of the Democratic party, and by its organization, and support its nominees. If there are any who choose to bolt, the fact only shows that they are not as good Democrats as I am. (“ That’s so,” “ good,” and applause.) UNION OP NATIONAL HEN POE SAKE OF THE UNION. Hy friends, there never was a time when it was as important for the Democratic party, for all national men, to rally and stand together as it is to-day. We find all sectional men giving up past differences and com- bining on the one question of slavery ; and when we find sectional men thus uniting, we should unite to resist them and their treasonable designs. Such was the case in 1850, when Clay left the quiet and peace of his home and again entered upon public life to quell agitation and restore peace to a distracted Union. Then we Democrats, with Cass at our heau, n’elcomed Henry Clay, whom the whole nation regarded as having been preserved by God for the times. He became our leader in that great fight, and we rallied around him the same as the Whigs rallied around old Hickory in 1S32, to put down nullification. (Cheers.) Thus you see that THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 164 whilst Whigs and Democrats fought fearlessly in old times about banks, the tariff distribution, the specie circular, and the sub-treasury, all united as a band of brothers when the peace, harmony, or integ- rity of the Union was imperilled. (Tremendous applause.) It was so in 1850, when abolitionism had even so far" divided this country, North and South, as to endanger the peace of the Union ; Whigs and Democrats united in establishing the Compromise measures of that year, and restoring tranquillity and good feeling. These measures passed on the joint action of the two parties. They rested on the great principle that the people of each State and each Territory should be left perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions to suit themselves. You Whigs and we Democrats justified them on that principle. In 1854, when it became necessary to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, I brought forward a bill for the purpose on the same principle. In the Kansas- Nebraska Bill you find it declared to be the true intent and meaning of the act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom ; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. (“ That’s so,” and cheers.) I stand on that same platform in 1858 that I didin 1850, in 1854 and 1856. The AYashington “ Bnion,” pretending to be the organ of the administra- tion, in the number of the 5th of this month, devotes three columns and a half to establish these propositions: First, that Douglas, in his Freepoit speech, held the same doctrine that he did in his Nebraska Bill in 1854 ; second, that in 1854 Douglas justified the Nebraska Bill, upon the ground that it was based upon the same principle as Clay’s Compromise measures of 1850. The “ Union ” thus proved that Douglas was the same in 1858 that he was in 1856, in 1854 and in 1850, consequently argued that he was never a Democrat. (Great laughter.) Is it not funny that I was never a Democrat? (Renewed laughter.) There is no pretence that I have changed a hair’s breadth. The “ Union” proves, by my speeches, that I explained the Compromise measures of 1850 just as I do now, and that I explained the Kansas and Nebraska Bill in 1854 just as I did in my Freeport speech, and yet says that I am not a Democrat, and cannot be trusted, because I have not changed during the wdiole of that time. It has occurred to mo that in 1854 the author of the Kansas and Nebraska Bill was considered a pretty good Democrat. (Cheers.) It has occurred to me that in 1856, when I was exerting every nerve and every energy for James Buchanan, standing on the same platform then that I do now, that I was a pretty good Democrat (Renewed applause.) They now tell me that I am not a STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 165 Democrat, because I assert that the people of a Territory, as well as those of a State, have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery can or cannot exist in such Territory. Let me read what James Buchanan said on that point when he accepted the Democratic nomination for the Presidency in 1S56. In his letter of acceptance, he used the following language : “ The recent legislation of CoDgress respecting domestic slavery, derived, as it has been, from the original and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the majority, promise ere long to allay the dangerous excitement. This legislation is founded upon principles as ancient as free government itself, and in accordance with them, has simply declared that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall de- cide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits.” Dr. Hope will there find my answer to the question he propounded to me before I commenced speaking. (Vociferous shouts of applause.) Of course no man will consider it an answer who is outside of the Democratic organization, bolts Democratic nominations, and indirectly aids to put Abolitionists into power over Democrats. But whether Dr. Hope con- siders it an answer or not, every fair-minded man will see that James Buchanan has answered the question, and has asserted that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves, whether sla- very shall or shall not exist within their limits. I answer specifically, if you want a further answer, and say, that while under the decision of tho Supreme Court, as recorded in the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, slaves are property like all other property, and can be carried into a Territory of the United States the same as any other description of property ; yet, when you get them there, they are subject to the local law of the Territory just like all other property. You will find in a recent speech, delivered by that able and eloquent statesman, Hon. Jefferson Davis, at Portland, Maine, lhat he took the same view of this subject that I did in my Freeport speech. He there said : “ If the inhabitants of any Territory should refuse to enact such laws and police regu- lations as would give security to their property or to his, it would be rendered more or less valueless, in proportion to the difficulties of holding it without such protection. In the case of property in the labor of man, or what is usually called slave properly, the insecurity would be so great that the owner could not ordinarily retain it. Therefore, though the right would remain, the remedy being withheld, it would fellow that the owner would be practically debarred, by the circumstances of the case, f orn taking slave property into a Territory where the sense of the inhabitants was opposed to its introduction. So much for the oft-repeated fallacy of forcing slavery upon any com- munity.” You will also find that the distinguished speaker of the present House of Representatives, Hon. James L. Orr, construed the Kansas and Xe- 1G6 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF brasku Bill in this same way in 1856, and also that that great intellect of the South, Alex. IT. Stevens, put the same construction upon it in Con* greos that I did in my Freeport speech. The whole South are rallying to the support of the doctrine that, if the people of a Territory want slavery, they have a right to have it ; and if they do not want it, that no power on earth can force it upon them. I hold that there is no principle on earth more sacred to all the friends of freedom than that which says that no in- stitution, no law, no constitution, should be forced on an unwilling people contrary to their wishes ; and I assert that the Kansas and Nebraska Bill contains that principle. It is the great principle contained in that bill. It is the principle on which James Buchanan was made President. Without that principle he never would have been made President of the Uuited States. I will never violate or abandon that doctrine if I have to stand alone. (Hurrah for Douglas.) I have resisted the blandishments and threats of power on the one side, and seduction on the other, and have stood immovably for that principle, fighting for it when assailed by northern mobs, or threatened by southern hostility. (“That's the truth, ’» and cheers.) I have defended it against the North and the South, and I will defend it against whoever assails it, and I will follow it wherever its logical conclusions lead me. (“ So will we all,” “ hurrah for Douglas.”) I say to you that there is but one hope, one safety for this country, and that is to stand immovably by that principle which declares the right of each State and each Territory to decide these questions for themselves. (Hear him, hear him.) This government was founded on that principle, and must be administered in the same sense in which it was founded. The Democracy of Illinois determined at the opening of their campaign, in view of their relations toward the adminis- tration, to invite no speakers from abroad to participate in the labor of their canvass. In the event of any gentlemen volunteering their services, they would be most gratefully accepted. A few exceptions, however, were made to this rule, at the suggestion of friends in other States. Private letters had been received by numerous gentlemen in the State, to the effect that Vice-President Breckinridge warmly sympathized with the Illinois Democracy in their fierce strug- gle with their confederated enemy, and that his feelings were painfully exercised by the imminent dangers that environed STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 1GT the prospects of Mr. Douglas’ reelection to the Senate. In- deed, it was suggested that the Vice-President had expressed a desire to lend the weight of his great talents and exertions in the good cause ; and, if invited, would cheerfully engage in the canvass, as he had done before when himself a candi- date in the contest of 1856. Accordingly, invitations were sent to Mr. Breckinridge, and Governor Wise of Virginia, who, it was understood, warmly sympathized with Judge Douglas in his struggle, as he had done through his whole anti-Lecompton course in Congress ; to which invitations these gentlemen sent characteristic replies, which we think of suf- ficient importance to here insert. LETTER OF MR. BRECKINRIDGE. Versailles, Ky., Oct. 4, 1S5S. Dear Sir: I received this morning your letters of the 28th and 29th ult., written as chairman of the Democratic State Committee of Illinois, also one of Mr. Y. Hickox, who informs me that he is a member of the same committee. My absence from home will account for the delay of this answer. In these letters it is said that I am reported to have expressed a desire that Mr. Douglas shall defeat Mr. Lincoln in their contest for a seat in the Senate of the United States, and a willingness to visit Illinois and make public speeches in aid of such result ; and if these reports are true, I am invited to deliver addresses at certain points in the State. The rumor of my readiness to visit Illinois and address the people in the present canvass is without foundation. I do not propose to leave Kentucky for the purpose of mingling in the political discussions in other States. The two or three speeches which I delivered recently in this State rested on peculiar grounds, which I need not now discuss. The rumor to which you refer is true. I have often, in conversation, expressed the wish that Mr. Douglas may succeed over his Republican com- petitor. But it is due to candor to say, that this preference is not founded on his course at the late session of Congress, and would not exist if I sup- posed it would be construed as an indorsement of the attitude which he then chose to assume tow'ard his party, or of all the positions he has taken in the present canvass. It is not necessary to enlarge on these things. 108 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF I will only add, that my preference rests mainly on these considerations - that the Kansas question is practically ended — that Mr. Douglas, in recent speeches, has explicitly declared his adherence to the regular Democratic party organization— that he seems to be the candidate of the Illinois D • mocracy, and the most formidable opponent in that State of the Republican party, and that on more than one occasion during his public life he has defended the union of the States and the rights of the States with fidelity courage, and great ability. I have not desired to say anything upon this or any other subject abou ■ which a difference may be supposed to exist in our political family, but did not feel at liberty to decline an answer to the courteous letter of yo committee. With cordial wishes for the harmony of the Illinois Democracy, and the hope that your great and growing State, which has never yet given a sec tional vote, may continue true to our constitutional Union, I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, John C. Breckinridge. Hon. John Moore, Chairman of the Committee. LETTER OF GOVERNOR AVISE. Richmond, Va., 1S58. To Hon. John Moore," Chairman of the Democratic State Committee of Illinois: Dear Sir : I cannot express to you the emotions of my bosom, excited by your appeal to me for aid in the warm contest which your noble Dc- mocr.acy is waging with abolitionism. Every impulse prompts me to rush to your side. Your position is a grand one, and in some respects un- exampled. In the face of doubt and distrust attempted to be thrown upon your Democracy, and its gallant leader, by the pretext of pretenders that you were giving aid and comfort to the arch enemy of our country, peace, and safety, and our party integrity, I see you standing alone — isolated by a tyrannical proscription, which would, alike foolishly and wickedly, hip off one of the most vigorous limbs of national Democracy, the limb of glorious Illinois ! I see you, in spite of this imputation, firmly fronting the foe, and battling to maintain conservative nationality — against em- bittered and implacable sectionalism — constitutional rights, operating proprid vigure, and every way against all unequal and unjust federal or territorial legislation ; The right of the people to govern themselves against all force or fraud The right of the sovereign people to look at the “ returns,” and behind STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 169 “returns,” of all their representative bodies, agents, trustees, or set ants ; ae responsibility of all governors, representatives, trustees, agents, and ants, to their principals, the people, who are “the governed,” and the ce of all political power ; tter opposition to the detestable doctrine of the absolutism of coit- ions to prescribe and proclaim fundamental forms of government at : will, without submission to the sovereign people — a doctrine fit only slaves, and claimed only by legitimists and despots of the old world ; owers of any sort not expressly delegated to any man, or body of men, i expressly “ reserved to the people 3 absolute or dictatorial authority in representative bodies. The repre- ative principle as claiming submission and obedience to the will of the -tituents ; le sovereignty of the organized people supreme above all mere rcpre- ' itive bodies, conventions, or legislatures, to decide, vote upon, and rmine what shall be their supreme law ; istice and equality between States and their citizens, and between rs to elect their agents and representatives, and to ratify or reject any osed system of government; bmission to the constitution and laws of the federal Union, and strict, rvance of all the rights of the States and their citizens, but resistance *o the dictation or bribes of Congress, or any other power, to yield the enable right of self-government; ' otection in the Territories, and everywhere, to all rights of persons of property, in accordance with the rights of the States, and with the -titution and laws of the Union; Squity and uniformity in the mode of admitting new States into the n, making the same rules and ratios to apply to all alike ; e rejection of all compromises, conditions or terms which would dis- i inate between forms of republican constitutions, admitting one, with number of population, and requiring three times that number for aer form equally republican ; 1 e great law of settlement of the public domain of the United States, equal, and just, never to be “ temporized ” or “ localized ” by tem- ■v or partial expedients, but to be adjusted by permanent, uniform miversal rules of right and justice. 2! intaining these and the like principles, I deem it to be the aim of the ggle of the devoted Democracy in thi3 signal contest. And so under- - ing them, I glory in their declaration and defence. I would sacrifice • . . ft and go far to uphold your arms in this battle. I would most gladly 8 170 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF visit your people, address them, and invoke them to stand fast by the standard of their faith and freedom, and never to let go the truths for which they contend, for they are vital and cardinal, and essential, and can never be yielded without yielding liberty itself. But, sir, I am like a tied man, bound to my duties here ; and, if my office would allow me to leave it, I could not depart from the bedside of illness in my family, which would probably recall me before I could reach Illinois ; and my own state of health admonishes me that I ought not to undertake a campaign as arduous as that you propose. I know what the labors of the stump are, and am not yet done suffering bodily from my efforts for Democracy in 1S55. For these reasons, I cannot obey your call; but, permit me to add : Fight on! fight on! fight on ! — never yield but in death or victory ! And, oh ! that I was unbound and could do more than look on, throbbing with every pulse of your glorious struggle — with its every blow and breath — cheered with its hopes, and chafed by its doubts — You have my prayers, and I am, Yours truly, Henrv A. Wise. The Democracy of Illinois were not satisfied with the spirit and tone of Mr. Breckinridge’s letter, nor did they acknowledge the justice of the Vice-President’s insinuation, that their position was no better than Black Republicanism, contained in the following paragraph : I have often, in conversation, expressed the wish that Mr. Douglas may succeed over his competitor ; but it is due to candor to say, that this pre- ference is not founded on his course at the last session of Congress, and would not exist if I supposed it would be construed as an indorsement of the attitude which he then chose to assume toward his party, or of all the positions he has taken in the present canvass. The speeches of Mr. Breckinridge, in favor of the Ne- braska Bill, while that measure was pending in Congress, and in 1856, when a candidate for the Vice-Presidency, in each of which he advocated the doctrine of popular sove- reignty, in terms quite as explicit as those employed by Mr. Douglas in his Freeport speech, were too fresh in the minds of Illinoisans to permit this implied rebuke from a gen- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 171 tleman whom they had so recently aided in electing to the second office in the gift of the people to pass without hard thoughts. Nor did the Illinois Democrats exactly relish the ambiguous and equivocal languageinwhich the Vice-President gave his reasons for preferring Mr. Douglas to Mr. Lincoln. The tone and temper of the noble letter of Governor Wise, replete with fervid interest in the struggle, is in strik- ing contrast with that of Mr. Breckinridge, and the two letters appearing about the same time, produced a profound impres- sion on the minds and feelings of the Illinois Democracy. HE. DIXON’S LETTER. Pending the campaign, the Hon. Archibald Dixon, late United States senator from Kentucky, addressed a letter to the Hon. Henry S. Foote, under date of September 30, 185S, in which the public career of Mr. Douglas was referred to, his position on the Lecompton constitution sustained, and his course on the Nebraska Bill vindicated. Mr. Dixon is an Old Line Whig, and will be remembered as having first moved the repeal of the Missouri restriction in the Senate, an amendment which was modified and accepted by Mr. Douglas, and subsequently incorporated into the Nebraska- Kansas Bill. The following extract will show in what estimation Mr. Douglas is held by one of the retired statesmen of the coun- try, no longer influenced by partisan feeling and personal rivalry : Of Judge Douglas, personally, I have a few words to utter which I could not withhold, without greatly wronging my own conscience. When I en- tered the United States Senate a few years since, I found him a decided favorite with the political party then dominant both in the Senate and the country. My mind had been greatly prejudiced against him, and I felt no disposition whatever to sympathize, or to cooperate with him. It soon 172 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF became apparent to me, as to others, that he was, upon the whole, far the ablest Democratic member of the body. In the progress of time my respect for him, both as a gentleman and a statesman, greatly increased. T found him sociable, affable, and in the highest degree entertaining and instructive in social intercourse. His power, as a debater, seemed to me unequalled in the Senate. He was industrious, energetic, bold, and skill- ful in the management of the concerns of his party. He was the acknow- ledged leader of the Democratic party in the Senate, and, to confess the truth, seemed to me to bear the honors which encircled him with suffi- cient meekness. Such was the palmy state of his reputation ;.nd popularity on the day that he reported to the Senate his celebrated Kan- sas and Nebraska Bill. On examining that bill, it struck me that it was deficient in one material respect ; it did not in terms repeal the restrictive provision in regard to slavery embodied in the Missouri Compromise. This, to me, was a defi- ciency that I thought it imperiously necessary to supply. I accordingly offered an amendment to that effect. My amendment seemed to take the Senate by surprise, and no one appeared more startled than Judge Doug- las himself. He immediately came to my seat and courteously remon- strated against my amendment, suggesting that the bill wdiich he had introduced was almost in the words of the Territorial acts for the organi- zation of Utah and New Mexico ; that they being a part of the Compro- mise measures of 1850, he had hoped that I, a known and zealous friend of the wise and patriotic adjustment which had then taken place, would not be inclined to do anything to call that adjustment in question or weaken it before the country. I replied that it was precisely because I had been, and was, a firm and zealous friend of the Compromise of 1850, that I felt bound to persist in the movement which I had originated ; that I was well satisfied that the Mis- souri restriction, if not expressly repealed, would continue to operate in the Territory to which it had been applied, thus negativing the great and salutary principle of non-intervention , which constituted the most promi- nent and essential feature of the plan of settlement of 1850. AVe talked for some time amicably, and separated. Some days afterward Judge Douglas came to my lodgings, while I was confined by physical indisposi- tion, and urged me to get up and take a ride with him in his carriage. I accepted his invitation and rode out with him. During our short excur- sion we talked on the subject of my proposed amendment, and Judge Douglas, to my high gratification, proposed to me that I should allow him to take charge of the amendment and ingraft it on his Territorial Bill. I STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 173 acceded to the proposition at once, whereupon a most interesting inter* change occurred between us. On this occasion, Judge Douglas spoke to me, in substance, thus : “I have become perfectly satisfied that it is my duty, as a fair-minded national statesman, to cooperate with you as proposed in securing the repeal of the Missouri Compromise restriction. It is due to the South ; it is due to the Constitution, heretofore palpably infracted ; it is due to that character for consistency, which I have heretofore labored to maintain. The repeal, if ■we can effect it, will produce much stir and commotion in the free States of the Union for a season. I shall be assailed by demagogues and fana- tics there, without stint or moderation. Every opprobrious epithet will be applied to me. I shall be probably hung in effigy in many places. It is more than probable that I may become permanently odious among those whose friendship and esteem I have heretofore possessed. This proceed- ing may end my political career. But, acting under the sense of the duty which animates me, I am prepared to make the sacrifice. I will do it.” He spoke in the most earnest and touching manner, and I confess that I was deeply affected. I said to him in reply : “ Sir, I once recognized you as a demagogue, a mere party manager, selfish and intriguing. I now find you a warm-hearted and sterling patriot. Go forward in the pathway of duty as you propose, and though all the world desert you, I never will:' The subsequent course of this extraordinary personage is now before the country. His great speeches on this subject, in the Senate and else- where, have since been made. As a true national statesman — as an inflexible and untiring advocate and defender of the Constitution of his country — as an enlightened, fair-minded, and high-souled patriot, he has fearlessly battled for principle ; he has with singular consistency pursued the course which he promised to pursue when we talked together in Wash- ington, neither turning to the right nor to the left. Though sometimes reviled and ridiculed by those most benefi^d by his labors, he has never been heard to complain. Persecuted by the leading men of the party he had so long served and sustained, he has demeaned himself, on all occa- sions, with moderation and dignity ; though he has been ever earnest in the performance of duty, energetic in combating and overcoming the ob- stacles which have so strangely beset his pathway, and always ready to meet and to overthrow such adversaries as have ventured to encounter him. He has been faithful to his pledge ; he has been true to the South and to the Union, and I intend to bo faithful to my own pledge. I am sincerely grateful for his public services. I feel the highest admiration for 174 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF all his noble qualities and high achievements, and I regard his reputation as part of the moral treasures of the nation itself. And now, in conclusion, permit me to say that the southern people cannot enter into unholy alliance for the destruction of Judge Douglas, if they are true to themselves, for he has made more sacrifices to sustain southern institutions than any man now living. Southern men may, and doubtless have, met the enemies of the South in the councils of the nation, and sustained, by their votes and their speeches, her inalienable rights under the Constitution of our common country ; northern men may have voted that those rights should not be wrested from us ; but it has remained for Judge Douglas alone, northern man as he is, to throw himself “ into the deadly imminent breach,” and like the steadfast and everlasting rock of the ocean, to withstand the fierce tide of fanaticism, and drive back those angry billows which threatened to ingulf his country’s happiness. I have the honor to be, very respectfully and cordially, your friend and fellow-citizen, Arch. Dixon. Our limits will not allow us to refer further to the incidents of the Illinois campaign. The canvass on both sides was conducted with unparalleled spirit and energy until the day of the election. The result is well known. The Republicans were completely routed, and a Democratic legislature chosen. Mr. Douglas’ majority on joint ballot was eight, three in the Senate and five in the House. Most of the federal office- holders voted the Republican ticket, and the reason assigned for this act of treachery to the party was, that the entire Catholic vote had remained faithful to the party with which they had usually acted. The “ Chicago Herald,” the organ of the Administration, on the day after the election, explained the reasons why the Administration ticket in that city received only 215 votes, when there were 600 persons in Government employ, as fol- lows : The fact having become known on the eve of the election, that the eulire Catholic vote of this city , notwithstanding professions to the con- trary, would he thrown for Douglas , the National Democrats became exas- perated at such wholesale treachery, and despite all the efforts that could STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 175 be made to prevent it, they voted en masse for the Republican candidates, as the most effectual way of defeating Douglas. When full returns of the result had been received from all parts of the State, the Democracy celebrated their tri- umph with great eclat and rejoicing. Thousands of citizens from all quarters of the West flocked to Chicago to take part in the celebration. When the immense procession reached the front of the Tremont House, they gave nine hearty cheers for Senator Douglas, and loudly called for a speech. Mr. Douglas made his appearance on the same balcony from which he had opened the canvas four months previous, and addressed the vast assemblage as follows : Mr Friends and Fellow-Citizens : I return you my heartfelt thanks for this magnificent demonstration. The Democracy of Illinois have achieved a noble victory over the combined forces of Abolitionism and its allies. (Cheers.) You have a right to be proud of this glorious triumph. It is the triumph of the Constitution over faction ; it is the triumph of the glorious principles of the Union over fanaticism and sectionalism (ap- plause) ; it is the triumph of the principle of self-government over Con- gressional interference and Executive dictation. (Immense applause.) Four months ago, I opened the canvass in a speech from this balcony to countless thousands of my fellow-citizens ; I now appear before you to receive the congratulations of as many more thousands rejoicing over our great success. While it is right and proper that you should rejoice at the success of sound constitutional principles which insure peace and harmony to the republic, it is our duty to enjoy our victory w r ith moderation. With the result of this election let all the asperities, the excitements and angry passions which have been aroused during the contest be buried for- ever. It is neither just nor magnanimous to rejoice over a vanquished foe. (Cheers.) Let us teach our political opponents that although we have triumphed, the victory is for their good as well as ours. (Great ap- plause.) When we put sound, just and constitutional principles into prac- tical operation in this government, the Republicans enjoy the blessings thus conferred as well as the Democrats. (Good, good, and cheers.) It is right, therefore, that all should rejoice in our triumph, but it is our L76 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF duty to be kind, generous and magnanimous toward those whom we have differed with in opinion. (Cheers.) Let us remember, that while we are divided into political parties and separated from each other by antago- nistic principles, yet as citizens of a common republic we all revere the glories of our past history, and trust that our posterity will share a com- mon destiny in all time to come. (Applause.) This Union, through the Constitution, has conferred upon our country the greatest legacy that Divine Providence has ever vouchsafed to a free people. (Hear, hear.) Let that Constitution be administered as our fathers made it ; let that bond of union which binds these States together continue forever, each State retaining its sovereign rights, disposing of its own internal affairs, and regulating its own domestic institutions to suit itself. (Cheers.) Let that great principle of popular sovereignty, which underlies our republican institutions, be carried out in good faith in the States and Territories alike. (Cheers.) Let Illinois regulate her own affairs, model her institu- tions according to her own wishes, and mind her own business, permitting every other State to do the same thing (cheers), and there will then be concord and fraternal feeling among the different States of the Union. (Renewed cheering.) We must discard forever that fatal heresy which teaches that this Union, divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it, cannot endure — that false philosophy which says that these States must all become free, or all^become slave — that they must become all one thing, or all the other, should be discarded forever (applause) ; and the great principle of popular sovereignty, of State rights and State sovereignty should prevail, declar- ing the" right of the people of each State and each Territory to manage their own affairs in their own way, subject only to the Constitution. (Three cheers.) When that principle shall be recognized and proclaimed by the whole American people, North and South, there will then be peace, and harmony, and fraternity among all the States of this confederacy (good, and applause) ; but so long as that monstrous political heresy shall prevail, that the North must combine against the South to abolish slavery everywhere, and that the South must combine against the North to esta- blish it everywhere — that there must be an “irrepressible conflict” be- tween the North and the South for the ascendency, so long there will be discord, strife and hatred between the different sections of the Union. (“ That’s it,” and applause.) That great issue was directly and distinctly submitted to the people of Illinois at the recent election, and thank God, the principles of the Constitution aud the Union have triumphed. (Im- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 177 raense applause.) Illinois now stands as she has ever stood, faithful to the Constitution and the Union; Illinois now stands as she has ever stood, immovable, upon Democratic principles, maintaining the Democratic or- ganization. (Six cheers.) Every other free State in this Union at some time has wheeled out of line, except gallant Illinois. (Tremendous ap- plause.) From the day that Illinois entered this confederacy, up to this hour, she has cast her vote for Democratic candidates for the Presidency and Yice-Presidency at every succeeding election. (Renewed applause.) And yet you have been told that the only State that has never failed to stand by the Democratic organization, and vote for the Democratic candi- dates for President, is now to be read out of that party by the politicians of those States which have all gone Abolition. When this dark cloud of fanaticism, which has spread over the New England States, rolled over New York, completely overwhelmed Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, and reached in its course the Wabash River, it was there met by the invincible Democracy of Illinois, who turned back the tide and kept the flag of the Constitution and the Union floating over their beloved State. (Cheers.) The victory you are now celebrating is one never to be forgotten, for it is the triumph of Union, constitutional men over fanaticism, sectionalism, and disunion. Illinois now occupies the proud position of having fought the good fight; Illinois is now greeted all aver the Union — north and south, east and west — as the only northern State that was not over- whelmed in the recent elections. (Cheers.) To what cause do the De- mocracy of Illinois owe this triumph ? It is due to fidelity to principle. (Applause.) In Illinois the true principle of popular sovereignty has been- sustained ; in Illinois the Cincinnati platform has been strictly adhered to ; in Illinois the Democratic organization has been maintained. (Six cheers, and long continued enthusiasm.) In Illinois there have been no new tests interpolated into the Democratic platform (applause) ; in Illinois Demo- crats have never been persecuted because of differences of opinion, pro- vided they remained inside of the Democratic party and abided the usages of its organization. (Cheers.) In Illinois, a liberal, tolerant, just and generous policy has prevailed, and in Illinois a glorious triumph has rewarded that policy. (Applause.) Now, my friends, the result in this State contrasted with the disasters in others, furnishes a lesson. Let the bitterness that has been excited, let the angry passions that have been aroused, be buried with the contest out of which they arose. (Good, and cheers.) Let us meet our fellow-citizens who differed with us in politics the same as if there had been no angry 8 * 178 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF feeling engendered. It is our duty now to consolidate the party, to begin to combine our forces for the future, in order that we may present a full, united, invincible front to Abolitionism and all of its allied forces. (Cheers.) If wise and patriotic counsels now prevail, the great battle of Popular Sovereignty has been fought and the victory won forever. (Cheers.) If we expect to maintain our liberties as our fathers transmitted them to us, we must be vigilant and watchful, preserving our organization, and ever ready to present a united and irresistible front to the common enemy wherever he makes his appearance. (Cheers.) My friends, I will now renew to you my grateful and profound ac- knowledgments for the magnificent demonstrations which you have made, to-night. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS 179 CHAPTER XIV. Mr. Douglas leaves Chicago for New Orleans — Received at St. Louis and Memphis — Brilliant Reception at New Orleans — Speech at Odd Bellows Hall — Departs for New Y ork — Received by Corporate Authorities — Y oted Independence Hall in Philadelphia — Speaks at Baltimore — Receives news of his Reelection as Senator on point of starting for Washington. Soon after the close of the Illinois campaign, in November, 185S, Mr. Douglas, with his family, left Chicago for the pur- pose of making a brief visit to New Orleans, to attend to some pressing private matters which his public duties had constrained him too long to neglect. He gave no notice of his intention to make the trip, desiring to perform the jour- ney as speedily and quietly as possible. Remaining in St. Louis a day, for a boat to convey him down the river, the news of his presence soon spread through the city, and that night he was honored with a serenade by a large concourse of citizens, who assembled around the hotel and insisted on a speech. Mr. Douglas acknowledged the compliment in a few appropriate remarks, and expressed his gratification that the people of Missouri, who were so deeply interested in the institution of slavery, so justly appreciated the nature and importance of the contest through which he had recently passed in Illinois. Proceeding down the river without giving any public notice of his destination, Mr. Douglas was surprised when, nearly a hundred miles above Memphis, he was notified that ISO THE LirrfflND SPEECHES OF w the Democracy of that city had learned by telegraph of his intended visit to New Orleans, and had appointed a commit- tee of one hundred persons and chartered a steamer to pro- ceed up the river and meet him, for the purpose of inducing him to stop a day at Memphis and accept of the hospitalities of that city. Not feeling at liberty to decline so flattering- ail invitation, Mr. Douglas placed himself in the hands of the committee, and on the following day addressed a large meet- ing of the citizens of Memphis on the political topics of the day. In this speech Mr. Douglas confined himself mainly to a discussion of the points presented in the Illinois campaign, prefacing it with the declaration, that no political creed was sound which could not be proclaimed equally as -well in one State of the Union as in the other. On a comparison of the published report of this speech, as it appeared in the news- papers of the day, we find that he asserted the same views on the Territorial question in Memphis as he had done in Illinois. The cordial and enthusiastic approbation with which his audience received his speech, must have satisfied Mr. Dou- glas that Democracy w r as the same in Tennessee as in Illinois.. At New Orleans, Mr. Douglas’ reception was truly grand and magnificent. Approaching the Crescent at 9 o’clock at night, he w r as received by the city authorities, the military and the citizens, amidst the firing of cannon and in the glare of a brilliant illumination. He was escorted to the St. Charles Hotel, where he was lodged as the guest of the city, and addressed by the mayor on behalf of the municipal au- thorities, and by Hon. Pierre Soule on behalf of the citizens, in eloquent speeches of congratulation on his brilliant victory in Illinois over the enemies of the Constitution and the Union, to each of which he made an appropriate response. On the 6tli December, .he addressed the people of New STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 181 Orleans at Odd Fellows Hall, on the political topics of the day, at the request of a large number of citizens, embracing all shades of political opinions. "VVe deem this speech of sufficient importance to the reader to justify us in giving one or two extracts : Mr. President and Citizens of New Orleans : It was with much hesita- tion and no small degree of reluctance that I was induced to give my con- sent to address 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 agreeable 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. I approached your city, as I supposed, unheralded and unknown, and I was amazed at the magnificent reception 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 solicita- tions, to make a few remarks on the political topics which now agitate the public mind throughout the length and breadth of our glorious Republic, 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 cannot be proclaimed in Louisi- ana as boldly as in Illinois, must be unsound and unsafe. I shall not at- tempt 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 I am in the habit of doing before an Illinois 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, em- bittering the one against the other, under the misapprehension that there is some irreconcilable antagonism in their interests which prevents har- mony 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, 182 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 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 to 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 Federal Government to assume, or usurp, the exercise of powers not con- ferred by the federal Constitution. »**»»**** NON-INTERVENTION THE ONLY POLICY TnAT CAN SAVE TIIE UNION. The Democracy of Illinois, in the first place, accepts the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Dred Scott, as an author- itative interpretation of the Constitution. In accordance with that decision, we hold that slaves arc 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 pro- perty 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 property; 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 furnish- ing protection to any kind of property. It has simply organized the Terri- tory and established a legislature, that legislature being vested with legis- lative 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 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 183 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 pro- perty, 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 liquors into the Territory that any- body 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 Constitution of the United States ; but if you open the packages they become subject to the local law; and should the Maine law happen to prevail in the Territory, you had better travel with your liquors. Hence, if the local legislature has the same power over slave pro- perty as over every other species of property, what right have you to com- plain 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 pro- perty, you will abandon your strongest ground of defence against the as- saults of the Black Republicans and Abolitionists. If the people of a Ter- ritory are in favor of slavery they will make laws to protect it ; if opposed to slavery they will not make those laws, and you cannot 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, sla- very will exist wherever soil, climate, and productions demand it, and it will exist nowhere else. Now, if climate, and soil, and self-interest will re- gulate this question, why should we quarrel about it ? When you arrive at a certain distance to the north of the line there cannot be any doubt of the result : and so when you go to 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 except the people residing there, who have all their interest there ; who have gone there to live with their wives and children ? Any party which attempts, by a system of coercion, to force any institutions into regions not adapted 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. 184 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Practically, 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 recognized 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. FOREIGN POLICY EXPANSION THE LALY OF OUR EXISTENCE A few words more and I am done. I will only say to you, in conclusion, that if we recognize and observe this principle of State rights and self- government for the people of the Territories, there will be peace forever between the North and South, and America will fulfill the glorious destiny which the Almighty has marked out for her. She will re- main 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 con- trary, I would never permit the Federal Government to be an instrument in the hands of foreign powers to carry out their purposes upon the Amer- ican continent. Let us adopt a policy consistent with our destiny, and then bide our time. [Mr. Douglas was apparently about to bring his remarks to a close at this point, when, in response to calls of “ Cuba ! Cuba !” from the audience, he proceeded 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 Mississippi 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 occasion 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 afterward, we needed more. We acquired Louisiana and Florida, Texas and California, just as the increase in our population and our interest demanded. When, in 1P50, the Clayton- Bulwer treaty was sent to the Senate for ratification, I fought it to the STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 185 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 ob- jected to that among other clauses of it, which said that neither Great Britain nor the United States should ever buy, annex, colonize, 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 toward Mr. Soule), that Central America w r as so far off that we should never want it. I told them then, “ Tes ; a good way off' — half way to California, and on the direct 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 government concerning the affairs of the American continent. And here, without a breach 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 un- just 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 Ame- rica or Asia. But he said: “You have no interest in Asia;” “No,” answered 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 it would be just as respectful for us to ask that' pledge in re- ference 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 pow r er 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 marvellous rapidity. I do not want 186 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF territory any faster than we can occupy, Americanize, and civilize i:. 1 am no filibuster. I am opposed to unlawful 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 increase and development of our population and resources. But I am not in favor of that policy unless the great principle 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 embraced beneath our Constitution, the better. The greater the variety of productions, 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 manufactur- ing, 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 ques- tions 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 voles 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 principle established by our fathers, under Divine inspiration, as I believe, in the formation of the government. And now permit me to return my grateful acknowledgments for the kindness with which you have listened to me, and to retire. Mr. Douglas determined, at New Orleans, to take the steamer for New York, in order to secure relaxation from his recent labor. On the island of Cuba, where he stopped a few days en route , he was treated with marked attention by the authorities and people. Arriving at New York, he found that elaborate propara- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 187 tions had been made in that city by the authorities for his reception. Both branches of the Council, by a unanimous vote, had extended to him the freedom of the city, and had invited him to become its guest. PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS OP THE BOARDS OF ALDERMEN AND C OUN OILMEN OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. Whereas , Information has been received that the Hon. Stephen A. Dou- glas, United States senator from Illinois, will arrive in this city in a few days, cn route for Washington, and 117 not the tribunal to decide it ; and secondly, because, by the platform STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 211 to which the senator from Mississippi and myself both stand pledged as the rule for onr political action, it is provided that that question shall be sent to the court to test the constitutionality of the law, and we shall not come to Congress to repeal the law. "When the Ne- braska Bill was first pending in the Senate, it contained the old clause that the Territorial laws should be sent here, and, if disapproved by Congress, should be void. The discussion proceeded on the basis that we were conferring the whole power of legislation on the Terri- tory, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, with the right in the Territorial legislature “ to form and regulate their domes- tic institutions in their own way and that if any man was aggrieved by such legislation, he should have a right to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States to test its validity, but should not come to Congress to repeal the obnoxious law. When that argument was made, a distinguished senator from Ohio, not now here (Mr. Chase), asked us why we kept that clause in the bill requiring the laws of the Territory to be sent here for approval or disapproval. Me could not answer the inquiry, and hence we struck out the provision requiring the Territorial laws to be sent here for approval or disapproval, upon the avowed ground, at the time, that the Territorial legislature might pass just such laws as they wanted, with the right of appeal by any one aggrieved to the Supreme Court to test their constitutionality, but not to Congress to annul them. I undertake to say that this was the distinct understanding among the northern and southern Demo- crats at that time, and among all the friends of the Kansas Nebraska Bill. It was agreed, that while we might differ as to the extent of the power of the Territorial legislature on these questions, we would make a full grant of legislative authority to the legislature of the Territory, with the right to pass such laws as they chose, and the right of anybody to appeal to the court to decide upon the validity and constitutionality of such laws, but not to come to Congress for their annulment. Hence, if the Territorial legislature should pass the Maine liquor law, and anybody was dissatisfied with the provi- sions of that act, and thought it violated his constitutional right, he could not come to Congress for its annulment, but could appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States ; and if that court decided the law to be constitutional, it must stand, no matter how obnoxious it might be to any portion of the American people. If it was uncon- stitutional, it became void without any interference by Congress, or any other legislative body. The Kansas Nebraska Bill was thus amended for the avowed purpose, at the time, of striking out the appeal to Congress, and substituting the appeal to the court.. SUPREME COURT TO SETTLE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON TERRITORIAL POWER. After we had gone that far, a senator from New Hampshire 212 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF pointed out in the Nebraska Bill the fact, that no appeal could b<* taken to the Supreme Court of the United States unless the amount of property in controversy was $2,000 in value, and hence that a negro could not appeal for his freedom, nor could the owner of a single slave appeal to the Supreme Court to establish his title, if he thought that his rights were violated. In order to obviate that ob- jection, we amended the bill by providing that where the title to property in slaves, or any question of personal freedom was the point in issue, the right of appeal to the Supreme Court should exist with- out reference to the amount in controversy. Thus the Kansas Nebraska Bill stood, granting all rightful power of legislation on all subjects whatsoever to the Territorial legislature, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, provided they should not pass any law taxing the property of non-residents higher than that of residents, nor any law interfering with the primary dis- position of the soil, nor impose any tax on the property of the United States ; but there was no exception made as to slavery. The intent was to confer on the Territorial legislature all the power we had on the subject of slavery, to let them wield it for or against slavery ns the people of the Territory chose; and the understanding was, that we would abide by whatever laws they might make, pro- vided they did not violate the Constitution of the United States; and the Supreme Court was the only tribunal that could decide that question. STANDS BY THE NEBRASKA BILL. Now, sir, I stand on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill as it was expounded and, understood at the time, with this full power in the Territorial legislature, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court to test the validity of its laws, and no right whatever to appeal to Congress to repeal them in the event of our not liking them. I am ready to answer the inquiry of the senator from Mississippi, whether, if I believed the Maine liquor law to be unconstitutional and wrong, and if a Territorial legislature should pass it, I would vote here to annul it? I tell him no. If the people of Kansas want a Maine liquor law, let them have it. If they do not want it, let them refuse to pass it. If they do pass it, and any citizen thinks that law violates the Constitution, let him make a case and appeal to the Supreme Court. If the court sustains his objection, the law is void. If it overrules the objection, the decision must stand until the people, who alone are to be affected by it, who alone have an interest in it, may choose to repeal it. So I say with reference to slavery. Let the Territorial legislature pass just such laws in regard to slavery as they think they have a right to enact under the Consti- tution of the United States. If I do not like those laws, I will not vote to repeal them ; if you do not like them, you must not vote tu STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 213 repeal them ; but anybody aggrieved may appeal to the Supreme Court, and if they are constitutional, they must stand ; if they are unconstitutional, they are void. That was the doctrine of non-inter- vention, as it was understood at the time the Nansas-Nebraska Bill was passed. That is the way it was explained and argued in the Senate, and in the House of Representatives, and before the country. It was distinctly understood that Congress was never to intervene for or against slavery, or for or against any other institution in the Ter- ritories ; but leave the courts to decide all constitutional questions as they might arise, and the President to carry the decrees of the court into effect ; and, in case of resistance to Lis authority in executing the judicial process, let him use, if necessary, the whole military force of the country, as provided by existing laws. NON-INTERVENTION A DEMOCRATIC SHIBBOLETH. ^ I know that some gentlemen do not like the doctrine of non-inter- vention as well as they once did. It is now becoming fashionable to talk sneeringly of “your doctrine of non-intervention.” Sir, that doctrine has been a fundamental article in the Democratic creed for years. It has been repeated over and over again in every national Democratic platform — non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories. The Nebraska Bill was predicated on that idea — the Territorial legislature to have jurisdiction over all rightful subjects of legislation, not excepting slavery, with no appeal to Congress, but a right to appeal to the courts ; and the legislation to be void, if the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional ; and valid, no matter how obnoxious, if the court said it was constitu- tional. Let me call attention to the language of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. Its fourteenth section provides : “ That the Constitution and all laws of the United States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect in the said Territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act ‘ preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union,’ approved March C. 1820, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-interven- tion by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called Ihe Compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being Ihe hue intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it there- from, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate THEIR DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS IN THEIR OWN WAY. SUBJECT ONLY TO THE CONSTI- TUTION of the United States.” Thus, in the Nebraska Bill, it is declared that a Congressional en- actment on the subject of slavery was inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Ter- ritories. This same article of faith lias gone into the various Demo- cratic platforms, and especially into the Cincinnati platform. Every 214 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Democrat, therefore, is pledged, by bis platform and the organization of the party, against any legislation of Congress in the Territories for or against slavery, no matter how obnoxious the Territorial legisla- tion may be*, If it is unconstitutional, you have your remedy ; go to the court and test the question. If it is constitutional, you agreed that the people of a Territory may have it. I hold you to the agree- ment. The whole legislative power possessed by Congress over a Territory was, by that act, conferred on the Territorial legislature. There were exceptions on three points; but slavery was not one of the exceptions. I say, then, the intent was to give to the Territorial legislature all the power that we possessed ; all that could be given under the Constitu- tion ; and the understanding was, that Congress would not interfere with whatever legislation they might enact. Now, the senator from Alabama asks me whether the southern people, under the Constitution, have not the right to carry their slaves there ? I answer, yes — the same right that you have to carry any other property. Then you ask, have they not a right to hold it there when they get it there? I answer, the same right that you have to hold any other property, subject to such local laws as the local legislature may constitutionally enact. Can you hold any other property without law to protect it? No. Then, can you hold slave property without law to protect it? No, is the answer. Then, will Congress pass laws to protect other property in the Territories ? I answer, no. We have created Territorial legislatures for that pur- pose. We agreed that this government should not violate the princi- ples of our Revolution, by making laws for a distant people, regulat- ing their domestic concerns and affecting their rights of property, without giving them a representation. The doctrine that Congress is to regulate the rights of person and property, and the domestic concerns of a Territory, is the doctrine of the Tories of the Revolu- tion. It is the doctrine of George III., and Lord North, his minister. Our fathers then said that they would not consent that the British parliament should pass laws touching the local and domestic concerns of the colonies, the rights of person and property, the family relations of the people of the colonies, without their consent. The parliament of Great Britain said they had the power. We said to them, “you may have the power, but you have not the moral right; it is viola- tive of the great principles of civil liberty ; violative of the rights of an Englishman, not to be affected in his property without his consent is given through his representatives.” Because Great Britain insisted on exercising that identical power over these colonies, our fathers flew to arms, asserted the doctrine that every colony, every depen- dency, every Territory, had a right in its own domestic legislature to pass just such laws as its people chose touching their local and do- mestic concerns, recognizing the right of the imperial parliament to regulate imperial affairs, as I do the right of Congress to regulate the national and federal concerns of the people of a Territory. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 215 Sir, I am asserting, on belialf the people of the Territories, just those i-ights which our fathers demanded for themselves against the claim of Great Britain. Because those rights were not granted to our fathers, they went through a bloody war of seven years. Am I now to he called upon to enforce that same odious doctrine on the people of a Territory, against their consent? I say, no. Organize a Territorial government for them ; give them a legislature, to he elected by their own people ; give them all the powers of legislation on all questions of a local and domestic character, subject only to the Constitution ; and if they make good laws, let them enjoy their bless- ings ; and if they make bad laws, let them suffer under them until they repeal them. If the laws are unconstitutional, let those aggrieved appeal to the court — the tribunal created by the Constitution to as- certain that fact. That is the principle on which we stood in 185-i. It was on that principle and that understanding we fought the great political battle and gained the great victory of 1856. How political creed is sound or safe which cannot be proclaimed in t same sense wherever the American flag waves over American so If the North and the South cannot come to a common ground on t slavery question, the sooner we know it the better. The Democra of the North hold, at least, that the people of a Territory have the same right to legislate in respect to slavery, as to all other proper! i and that, practically, it results in this : if they want slavery, tin will have it ; and if they do not want it, it shall not be forced upon them by an act of Congress. The senator from Mississippi says that doctrine is right, unless we pass an act of Congress compelling t! people of a Territory to have slavery whether they want it or m t . The point he wishes to arrive at, is whether we are for or against Congressional intervention. If you repudiate the doctrine of nc intervention, and form a slave code by act of Congress, when t people of a Territory refuse it, you must step off the Democratic plat- form. We will let you depart in peace, as you no longer belong us; you are no longer of us when you adopt the principle of Con- gressional intervention, in violation of the Democratic creed. I sta; . 1 1 here defending the great principle of non-intervention by Congre? and self-government by the people of the Territories. That is the Democratic creed. The Democracy in the northern States have . < understood it. No northern Democratic State ever would lia voted for Mr. Buchanan, but for the fact that he was understood occupy that position. Gentlemen of the southern States, I tell you in all candor that i do not believe a Democratic candidate can ever carry any or northern Democratic State on the platform that it is the duty of the Federal Government to force the people of a Territory to have slave) . when they do not want it. But if the true principles of State right and popular sovereignty be maintained and carried out in good fait. !, 0 as set forth in the Nebraska Bill, and as understood by the people A 185G, a glorious future awaits the Democracy. CHAPTER XYI. . WAR OF THE PAMPHLETS. to Dorr and Peyton — Speeches in Ohio, and Cincinnati Platform — leston Convention — Presidental Aspirants — The Harper Article — ’s Reply — Appendix of Attorney General — Rejoinder of Senator las — The Chase and Trumbull Amendments — Consistency of Sena- ouglas. G the spring and summer of 1859, Mr. Douglas ed many letters from his personal Mends, soliciting the his name as a candidate for the Presidency before the . sston Convention, to one of which he replied as fol- lows: Washington, Wednesday, Jane 22, 1869. ear Sir : I have received your letter inquiring whether my friends Lberty to present my name in the Charleston Convention for the ntial nomination. l e 'e the question can be finally determined, it will be necessary to and distinctly upon what issue the canvass is to be condccted. If, -e full faith they will, the Democratic party shall determine, in the ntial election of 1S60, to adhere to the principles embodied in the miso measures of 1850, and ratified by the people in the Presi- election of 1852, and re-affirmed in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of ad incorporated into the Cincinnati platform in 1S5G, as expounded Buchanan in his letter accepting the nomination, and approved by 1 ;■ ople — in that event my friends will be at liberty to present my ) the Convention, if they see proper to do so. If, on the contrary, . r in; 1 become the policy of the Democratic party — which I cannot anti- cipr e — to repudiate these, their time-honored principles, on which we v 'fiiieved so many patriotic triumphs, and if, in lieu of them, the , .tion shall interpolate into the creed of the party such new issues 10 218 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF as the revival of the African slave-trade, or a Congressional slave code for the Territories, or the doctrine that the Constitution of the United States either establishes or prohibits slavery in the Territories, beyond the power of the people legally to control it as other property, it is duo to candor to say that, in such an event, I could not accept the nomination if tendered to me. Trusting that this answer will be deemed sufficiently explicit, I am, very respectfully, your friend, S. A. Douglas. To J. B. Doan, Esq., Dubuque, Iowa. The publication of this letter produced immense enthu- siasm among Mr. Douglas’ friends all over the country, and particularly throughout the Northwest, and was followed by a pressing invitation from the Democratic State Central Committee of Ohio to visit that State and address the people in their pending canvass. In consequence of the ill-health of Mr. Douglas and his family, he was only able to make three speeches in Ohio — at Columbus, Cincinnati and Wooster, in each of which places the Democracy made immense gains at the fall election, averaging one thousand votes in each county. He was met in Cincinnati by large numbers of Democrats from Kentucky, Indiana, and other adjacent States, and wherever he went was greeted with the wildest enthusiasm. We omit to insert extracts from these speeches, which are among the ablest and best of his political life, for the reason that they relate chiefly to the line of argument which has been so fully illustrated in the previous pages of this work. These speeches appeared in the columns of the New York press the morning after their delivery, having been deemed of sufficient consequence to be telegraphed entire. A marked feature of these addresses was his solemn protest against the incorporation of any new tests of faith into the Democratic creed Avhich would tend to divide and defeat the party, insisting upon “ the re-adoption of the Cincinnati platform without the addition of a word or the subtraction of a letter.” STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 219 We omitted to state, that on his way to Ohio, Mr. Douglas was induced, by the earnest entreaties of the Democrats of Pittsburg, to remain a day and address the people of that city in behalf of the regularly nominated State ticket, with a view to the pending election. It was in this speech that Mr. Douglas, in kind but firm language, rebuked those Democrats who had permitted their passions to array them in opposition to the regular organiza- tion of their party, and thus contribute to the success of the common enemy. Notwithstanding these speeches which had been so recent- ly published throughout the country, the attorney-general of the United States did not hesitate, a few weeks afterward, in an anonymous pamphlet, the authorship of which he subse- quently assumed, to call in question Mr. Douglas’ fidelity to the party and the principles of the Cincinnati platform. In reply, after arraigning J udge Black and his confederates for their unnatural coalition with the Black Republicans in the memorable Illinois campaign, Mr. Douglas thus meets and crushes his assailant in his allegation that the former intended to insist on the Charleston Convention adopting his interpre- tation of the Cincinnati platform : The administration claimed the right to “ change and interpolate the Cincinnati platform, and prescribe new and different tests while the gallant Democracy of that noble State denied “ the right of any power on earth, except a like body,” to change the Cincinnati platform or prescribe new tests ; and declared that “ they will neither do it themselves, nor per- mit it to be done by others, but will recognize all men as Democrats who stand by and uphold Democratic principles.” We were assailed and proscribed because we did stand by the Cincinnati platform ; because we would not recognize the right of any power on earth except a regularly constituted convention of the party to change the plat- form and interpolate new articles into the creed ; because we would not sanction the new issues and submit to the new tests ; because we would not proscribe any Democrat, nor permit the proscription of Democrats in ron 220 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF sequence of difference of opinion upon questions which had arisen subse- quently to the adoption of the platform ; and because we recognized all men as Democrats who supported the nominees and upheld the principles of the party as defined by the last National Convention. It was upon this issue and for these reasons that the power and patronage of the Federal Go- vernment were wielded in concert with the Black Republicans for the elec- tion of their candidates in preference to the regular nominees of the Democratic party. This system of proscription still continues in Illinois, and is being extended throughout the Union, with the view of controlling the Charleston nomination. Fidelity to the Cincinnati platform and oppo- sition to the now issues and tests prescribed by men in power, in direct conflict with the professions upon which they were elected, are deemed disqualifications for office and cause of removal. THE CHARLESTON CONVENTION — PRESIDENTIAL ASPIRANTS. The reasons for singling me out as the especial object for anathema will be found in the first page of the attorney-general’s pamphlet, where he says : “ He (Douglas) has been for years a working, struggling candidate for the Presi- dency !” Suppose it were true, that I am a Presidential aspirant ; does that fact justify a combination by a host of other Presidential aspirants, each of whom may imagine that his success depends upon my destruction, and the preach- ing a crusade against me for boldly avowing now the same principles to which they and I were pledged at the last Presidential election? Is this a sufficient excuse for devising a new test of political orthodoxy ; and, under pretext of fidelity to it, getting up a set of bolting delegates to the Charleston Convention in those States where they are unable to control the regular organization ? The time is not far distant when the Democracy of the whole Union will be called upon to consider and pronounce judgment upon this question. What authority has the attorney-general, aside from his fears and hopes, for saying that I am “ a working, struggling candidate for the Presidency ?” My best friends know that I have positively and peremptorily refused to have anything to do with the machinery of the conventions in the several States by which the delegates to the Charleston Convention are to be ap- pointed. They know that personally I do not desire the Presidency at this STEPHEN A . DOUGLAS. 221 time — that I prefer a seat in the Senate for the next six years, with the chance of a reelection, to being President for four years, at my period of life They know that I will take no steps to obtain the Charleston nomi- nation, that I will make no sacrifice of principle, no concealment of opi- nions, no concession to power for the purpose of getting it. They know, also, that I only consented to the use of my name upon their earnest repre- sentations that the good of the Democratic party required it, and even then, upon the express condition that the Democratic party shall determine in the Presidential election of 1S60, as I have full faith they will, to adhere to the principles embodied in the Compromise measures of 185C, and approved by the people in the Presidential election of 1852, and incorporated into tho Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, and confirmed by the Cincinnati platform, and ratified by the people, in the Presidential election of 1856. Nor can the attorney-general pretend to be ignorant of the fact that the public were informed long since, that, “ If, on the contrary, it shall become the policy of the Democratic party, which I cannot anticipate, to repudiate these their time-honored principles, on which we have achieved so many patriotic triumphs, and in lieu of them the convention shall interpolate into the creed of the party such new issues as the revival of the African slave trade, or a Congressional slave code for the Territories, or the doctrine that the Constitution of the United States either establishes or prohibits slavery in the Territories beyond the power of the people legally to control it, as other property, it is due to candor to say that in such an event I could not accept the nomination if tendered to me.” Is this the language of a man who is working and struggling for the Presidency upon whatever terms, and by the use of whatever means it could be obtained ? Or does this language justify that other charge, that I am making new issues and prescribing new tests in violation of the Cincinnati platform ? "WOULD VOTE FOR DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, THOUGH NOT STANDING ON HIS PLATFORM While I could have no hesitation in voting for the nominee of my own party, with whom I might differ on certain points, in preference to the can- didate of the Black Republican party, whose whole creed is subversive of the Constitution and destructive of the Union, I am under no obligation to become a candidate upon a platform that I would not be willing to carry out in good faith, nor to accept the Presidency on the implied pledge to carry into effect certain principles, and then administer tho government in direct conflict with them. In other words, I prefer tho 222 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF position of senator, or even that of a private citizen, where I would be ai liberty to defend and maintain the well-defined principles of the Demo- cratic party, to accepting a Presidential nomination upon a platform in- compatible with the principle of self-government in the Territories, or the reserved rights of the States, or the perpetuity of the Union under the Constitution. In harmony with these views, I said in those very speeches in Ohio, to which Judge Black refers in his appendix, that I was in favor of conducting the great struggle of 1860 upon “the Cincinnati platform without the addition of a word or the subtraction of a letter." Yet, in the face of all these facts, the attorney-general does not hesitate to repre- sent me as attempting to establish a new school of politics, to force new issues upon the party, and prescribe new tests of Democratic faith. In conclusion, I have only to suggest to Judge Black and his confede- rates in this crusade, whether it would not be wiser for them, and more consistent with fidelity to the party which placed them in power, to exert their energies and direct all their efforts to the redemption of Pennsylvania from the thralldom of Black Republicanism, than to continue their alliance with the Black Republicans in Illinois, with the vain hope of dividing and defeating the Democratic party in the only western or northern State which has never failed to cast her electoral vote for the regular nominee of the Democratic party at any Presidential election. Washington, October, 1S59. PROTECTION TO NATURALIZED CITIZENS AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE. Mr. Peyton, of Virginia, formerly of Chicago, having ad- dressed a letter to Mr. Douglas, in which he informed him that his views in respect to the rights of naturalized citizens and the reopening of the African slave trade were the sub- ject of misrepresentation in the Old Dominion, Mr Douglas replied : Washington, Aug. 2, 1859. Colonel John L. Peyton, Staunton, Ya. : My dear Sir: You do me no more than justice in your kind let- ter, for which accept my thanks, in assuming that I do not concur with the administration in their views respecting tha rights of naturalized citi- zens, as defined in the “ Le Clerc Letter,” which, it is proper to observe, have since been materially modified. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 223 Under our Constitution there can be no just distinction between the rights of native-born and naturalized citizens to claim the protection of our government, at home and abroad. Unless naturalization releases the. person naturalized from all obligations which he owed to his native coun- try, by virtue of his allegiance, it leaves him in the sad predicament of owing allegiance to two countries, without receiving protection from either, a dilemma in which no American citizen should ever be placed. Neither have you misapprehended my opinions in respect to the Afri- can slave trade. That question seriously disturbed the harmony of the convention which framed the federal Constitution. Upon it the delegates divided into two parties, under circumstances which, for a time, rendered harmonious action impossible. The one demanded the instant and uncon- ditional prohibition of the African slave trade, on moral and religious grounds, while the other insisted that it was a legitimate commerce, in- volving no other consideration than a sound public policy, which each State ought to be permitted to determine for itself, so long as it was sanc- tioned by its own laws. Each party stood firmly and resolutely by its own position until both became convinced that this vexed question would break up the convention, destroy the federal Union, blot out the glories of the Revolution, and throw away all its blessings, unless some fair and just compromise could be formed on the common ground of such mutual concessions as were indispensable to the preservation of their liberties, Union, and independence. Such a compromise was effected and incorporated into the Constitution, by which it was understood that the African slave trade might continue as a legitimate commerce in those States whose laws sanctioned it until the year 1808, from and after which time Congress might and would pro- hibit it forever, throughout the dominion and limits of the United States, and pass all laws which might become necessary to make such prohibition effectual. The harmony of the convention was restored, and the Union saved by this compromise, without which the Constitution could never have been made. I stand firmly by this compromise, and by all the other compromises of the Constitution, and shall use my best efforts to carry each and all of them into faithful execution, and in the sense and with the understanding which they were originally adopted. I am irreconcilably opposed to the revival of the African slave trade, in any form and under any circum- stances. I am, with great respect, yours truly, S. A. Douglas. 224 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF THE HARPER ARTICLE. In the September (1859) number of “Harper’s Magazine,” Mr. Douglas published over his own name, an article entitled “ Popular Sovereignty in the Territories : The Dividing Line between Federal and Local Authority.” This article was read with avidity by the public, and for some days after its appearance, nothing else was talked of in political circles. It is a clear elucidation of the line that divides the authority of the Federal Government from that of local authorities; and of the great principle that every distinct political community, loyal to the Constitution and the Union, is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities of self-government in respect to their local concerns and internal polity, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. lie exposes the erroneous views entertained by the “Republican” party on these points : shows 'that the courts in a Territory derive all their powers from the Territorial legislature : that all powers conferred on Congress by the Constitution, must be exercised by Congress in the manner prescribed in the Con- stitution ; but that Congress may establish local governments, and invest them with powers which Congress itself cannot constitutionally exercise. He shows by the records of the provincial legislature of Virginia, that in 1'7'72, the Virginians were unwilling to have slavery forced upon them : that in 1 '7'76, the inhuman use of the royal negative, in refusing the colony of Virginia per- mission to exclude slavery from her limits by law, was one of the reasons for separating from Great Britain : and that in all the thirteen colonies, slavery was regarded as a domestic question, to be considered and determined l y each colony to suit itself, without the intervention of the British parliament. He proves that the principle of popular sovereignty was at STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 225 the very foundation of the causes that led to the Revolution : showing that the patriots of 1 *7 76 fought for the inalienable right of local self-government, with the clear understanding that when the despotism of the British parliament was thrown off, no Congressional despotism was to be substituted for it. He proves by a citation of Jefferson’s plan for the govern- ment of the first Territory ever orvned by the United States, that by it, the right of Congress to bind the people of the Territories without their consent was emphatically ignored ; and the people therein recognized as the source of all local power : that in forming the Constitution of the United States in 1787, the Convention took the British constitution for their model, conferring upon the Federal Government the same powers which, as colonies, they had been willing to concede to the British government, and reserving to the States and to the people, the rights for which the Revolution had been fought. lie shows that the clause in the Constitu- tion which gives to Congress “ power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations for the Territory ” — refers exclusively to property, in contradistinction to persons and communities ; but does not authorize Congress to inter- pose or interfere with the internal polity of the people who may reside upon lands which the United States once owned. He alludes to the erroneous views that have been put forth in regard to the Dred Scott case ; and shows that the slavery question was not included in the class of prohibited powers to which the Constitution alluded. He describes the steps by which the Compromise measures of 1850 were formed, and the principles on which they were based ; and shows that they are the same principles upon which the Nebraska Bill of 1S54 was formed. We give a few extracts from the article, which possesses a permanent historical value, in the Appendix to this Work. 10 * 226 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF The appearance of the Harper article caused, as has been stated, the most profound sensation in political circles. The exposition of the question produced consternation and dismay in the camp of the assailants of Judge Douglas. Their hope was to secure the confidence and favor of the South by conceding their right to plant slavery in the Terri- tories in opposition to the wishes of the people, and in de- fiance of the Territorial authorities ; and at the same time, satisfy the North by withholding all legislative protection and judicial remedies, without which the right becomes a naked, useless, worthless possession. The exposure of Mr. Douglas opened their eyes to the dangers of their perilous position, aud made it obvious, even to their comprehension, that they could no longer successfully maintain the ground they then occupied. Afraid to advance and pursue their doctrines to their logical consequences, and ashamed to re- treat and return to the impregnable position of popular sovereignty, which they had so recently abandoned, they began to look about for some new expedient to relieve themselves from the awkward dilemma into which they had been driven by one short article in “ Harper’s Magazine.” Accordingly Judge Black w T as deputed to frame an answer to the masterly paper of Mr. Douglas. The attorney-general’s reply to the Harper article ap- peared in the “ Washington Constitution,” the central organ of the assailants of Judge Douglas, in October. A few days after, Mr. Douglas made a speech at Wooster, in which he replied to the pamphlet of the attorney-general. The latter functionary published an appendix to his former article, and on the 17th of November, Mr. Douglas published a rejoin- der, from which we make the following extracts : In my reply to Judge Black I produced and quoted the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the following STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 227 propositions were solemnly and authoritatively established as the law of the land : 1st. That the state of slavery is a mere municipal regulation, founded upon and limited to the range of Territorial laws. 2d. That the laws of one State or country can have no force 01 effect in another without its consent , express or implied. 3d. That, in the absence of any positive rule upon the subject, affirming or denying or restraining the operation of the foreign law or laws of one State or country in their application to another, the courts will presume the tacit adoption of them by the government of the place where they are sought to be enforced, unless they are repugnant to its policy, or prejudicial to its interests. The attorney-general neither admits nor denies the correctness of these propositions, nor does he either admit or deny that the courts have so decided. To admit their correctness would necessarily involve an abandonment of his position and a confession that he had been wrong from the beginning. To deny them would bring him in direct contiict with the authority of the court and expose him to an inevitable conviction by the record. $ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Judge Black has not attempted to reconcile his opinion with the decision of the court. No man in his senses can fail to perceive that if the court is right, Judge Black is inevitably wrong. Although the whole legal controversy between Judge Black and myself turns on this one point, I did not choose, in my reply, to offset my individual opinion against his, or to bring the two into comparison. As the question at issue could only he determined by authority, I said : “ Of course I express no opinion of my own, since I make it a rule to acqui- esce in the decisions of the courts upon all legal questions.” And again, in concluding what I had to say on the legal points at issue, I added : In all that I have said, I have been content to assume the law to be as de- cided by the Supreme Court of the United States, without presuming that my individual opinion would either strengthen or invalidate their decisions.” If Judge Black could reconcile it with his dignity and sense of duty to act on the same assumption, there could be no controversy between him and me in regard to the law of the case. According to the doctrine of the court, a white man, with a negro wife and mulatto children, under a marriage lawful in Massachusetts, on re- moval into a Territory, could not maintain that interesting “ private relation,” under the laws of Massachusetts, without the consent or tacit adoption of the Massachusetts law by the Territorial govern- ment. On the contrary, if Judge Black’s view of the axiomatic prin- TIIE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 223 ciple of public law be correct, this disgusting and demoralizing system of amalgamation may be introduced and maintained in the Territories under the law of Massachusetts, in defiance of the wishes of the people and in contempt of all Territorial authority, until “they get a constitutional convention or the machinery of a State government in their hands.” It is true that Judge Black limits this right to those places where there is no law “ in direct conflict with it but he also says in the same pamphlet that the Territories “ have no attribute of sovereignty about them,” and, therefore, are incapable of making any law in conflict with this “private relation” which is lawful in Massachusetts. According to the doctrine of the court, a Turk, with thirteen wives, under a marriage lawful in his own country, could not move into the Territories of the United States with his family and main- tain his marital rights under the laws of Turkey without the consent or tacit adoption of the Turkish law by the Territorial government. In accordance with the Black doctrine (I use the term for conve- nience and with entire respect), polygamy may be introduced into all the territories, maintained under the laws of Turkey, “ until the people of the Territory get a constitutional convention or the ma- chinery of a State government into their hands,” with competent authority to make laws in conflict with this “ private relation.” According to the doctrine of the court, the peddler with his clocks, the liquor-dealer with his whiskies, the merchant with his goods, and the master with his slaves, on removal to a Territory, can- not hold, protect, or sell their property under the laws of the States whence they came, respectively, without the consent or tacit adoption of those laws by the Territorial government. According to the Black doctrine, however, any one person, black or white, from any State of the Union, and from any country upon the globe, may remove into the Territories of the United States, and carry with him the law of the State or country whence he came, for the protection of any “ right of property, private relation, condition, or status, lawfully existing in such State or country,” without the consent and in defiance of the authority of the Territorial govern- ment, and maintain the same “ until they get a constitutional con- vention or the machinery of a State government into their hands.” This is the distinct issue between Judge Black and the Supreme Court of the United States. It is not an issue between the attor- ney-general and myself, for in the beginning of the controversy I announced my purpose “to assume the law to be as decided by the court, without presuming that my individual opinion would either strengthen or invalidate their decisions.” * ^ ^ * But if it be true, as contended by Judge Black, that the Territories cannot legislate upon the subject or slavery, or any other right of property, private relation, condition, or status , lawfully existing in STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 229 another State or country, it necessarily results that the Territorial le- gislature cannot adopt the laws of other States or countries for the protection of such rights and institutions, and consequently that the courts cannot presume the tacit adoption of such laws by the Territo- rial government in the absence of any power to adopt them. Here, again, we see that the doctrine of Judge Black, if it does not con- clusively establish a right without the possibility of a remedy, is certainly equivalent to the Wilinot Proviso in its practical results, so far as the institution of slavery is concerned. I demonstrated this proposition to him in my “ reply ” so conclusively that he did not venture to deny it, much less attempt to answer the argument in his “ rejoinder.” I do not deem it necessary to notice in detail the many strange and unaccountable misrepresentations in his “ rejoinder ” of the mat- ters of fact and law set forth in my “reply,” to which he was pro- fessing to respond. One or two instances will suffice as specimens of the manner in which the attorney-general is in the habit of dis- posing of authorities which stand as insuperable obstacles in the path of his argument. In my “ reply ” I quoted the following paragraph from Judge Story’s “ Conflict of Laws,” to show that he, at least, thought the law was precisely the reverse of what Judge Black sup- posed it to be : “ There is a uniformity of opinion among foreign jurists nndforeign tribunals in giving no effect to the state of slavery of a party, whatever it may have been in the country of his birth, or that in which he had been previously domiciled, unless it is also recognized by the laws of the country of his actual domicil , and where he is found, and it is sought to be enforced.' [After citing various au- thorities, Judge Story proceeds :] In Scotland the like doctrine has been solemly adjudged. The tribunals of France have adopted the same rule, even in relation to slaves coming from and belonging to their own colonies. This is also the undisputed law of England.” How for Judge Black’s reply to these passages from Judge Story : “ These passages (will the reader believe it ?) merely show that a slave becomes free when taken to a country where slavery is not toleeated l>y lM> /” Substituting the words “not tolerated by law ” forthe words “unless it is also recognized by law,” Judge Black reverses Judge Story’s meaning, and makes that learned jurist declare the law to b z precisely the reverse of what Judge Story stated it to be! “ Will the reader helieve it?" Hot content with changing the language and reversing the meaning, and citing it, in its altered form, as evidence that I had misapplied the quotation, the attorney-gen- eral has the audacity to exclaim in parenthesis, for the purpose of giving greater emphasis to his allegation, “will the reader believe it ?” Judge Black cannot avoid the responsibility which justly attaches to such conduct by the pretence that slavery was prohibited by law in Scotland, England and France, for the reason that the reports of the cases show that the laws of those countries were silent upon the subject, and that the decisions were made upon the disdncl 230 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ground that there was no law recognizing slavery, and not upon tha ground that it was prohibited by law. ■i* ^ 'H *1* ^ I will now devote a few words to a more pleasing and agreeable duty, by presenting to the public some of the beneficial results of this discussion. The attorney-general has been forced, by the exi- gencies of the controversy, step by step and witli extreme reluctance, to make several important confessions, which necessarily involve an abandonment, on the part of his clients, of various pernicious heresies with which the country has been threatened for the last two years. First, that slavery exists in the Territories by virtue of the Consti- tution of the United States. . . . Hence, we find on the second page of Judge Black’s pamphlet these emphatic words: “ The Con- stitution certainly does not establish slavery in the Territories or any- where else. Nobody in this country ever thought or said so.” This confession is ample reward for all the labor that the article in “Harper’s Magazine” cost me, protesting, however, that I am ac- quainted with no rule of Christian morality which justifies gentlemen in saying “that nobody in this country ever thought or said so,” in the face of Mr. Buchanan's Silliman letter and Lecompton message. This confession is presumed to have the sanction of the President and his cabinet, and therefore may be justly regarded as an official and authoritative abandonment of the pernicious heresy with which the country has been irritated for the last two years, that slavery exists in the Territories by virtue of the Constitution of the United States. Another political heresy, which is in substance, although not in terms, abandoned in Judge Black’s rejoinder, is '■'•that the Territories have no attribute of sovereignty about them.” It will be recollected that in my Harper article I drew a parallel between our Territories and the American Colonies, and showed that each possessed the exclusive power of legislation in respect to their internal polity ; that, according to our American theory, in contradistinction to the European theory, this right of self-govern- ment was not derived from the monarch or government, but was inherent in the people. ❖ 5^ ifc >jc & In reply, Judge Black argued that this claim involved the posses- sion of sovereignty by the people of the Territories; that “they have no attribute of sovereignty about them that “they are public cor- porations established by Congress to manage the local affairs of the inhabitants, like the government of a city established by a State le- gislature;” that “there is probably no city in the United States whose powers are not larger than those of a federal Territory ;” and in fact, adopting the Tory doctrine of the Revolution, that all political power is derived from the crown or government, and not inherent iu the people. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 231 In my reply I showed that the people of the Territories do pass laws for the protection of life, liberty and property, and, in pursuance of those laws, do deprive the citizen of life, liberty and property, whenever the same become forfeited by crimes ; that they exercise the sovereign, power of taxation over all private property within their limits, and divest the title for non-payment of taxes ; that they exercise the sovereign power of creating corporations, municipal, public and private; that they possess “legislative power” over “ all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution and the organic act;” and I quoted the language of Chief Justice Mar- shall, in delivering the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, that “ all legislative powers appertain to sovereignty .” Now let us see with what bad grace and worse manners, and yet how completely the attorney -general lades down fromhis main po- sition, that the Territories “ have no attribute of sovereignty about them “ Every half-grown boy in the country who has given the usual amount of study to the English tongue, or who has occasionally looked into a dictionary, knows that the sovereignty of a government consists in its uncontrollable right to exercise the highest power. But Mr. Douglas tries to clothe the Territories with the ‘ attributes of sovereignty,’ not by proving the supremacy of their jurisdiction in any matter or thing whatsoever, but merely by showing that they may be, and some of them have been, authorized to legislate within cer- tain limits, to exercise the right of eminent domain , to lay and collect taxes for territorial purposes, to deprive a citizen of life, liberty or property, as a pun- ishment for crime, and to create corporations. All this is true enough, but it does by no means follow that the provisional government of a Territory is, therefore, a sovereign in any sense of the word.” ABSURDITIES OF BLACK’S ARGUMENTS. So he surrenders at last. This discussion furnishes a single exam- ple of what perseverance can accomplish. It has taken a long time to drive the attorney-general into the admission that the people of a Territory are clothed with the law-making power; with the right “to legislate within certain limits” (that is to say, upon “ all right- ful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution ’’) ; with “ the right of eminent domain, to lay and collect taxes for Territorial purposes, to deprive a citizen of life, liberty, and property, as a pun- ishment for crime, and to create corporations.” 1 am not quite sure that “every half-grown boy in the country who has given the Usual amount of study to the English tongue, or has occasionally looked into a dictionary,” does know that these powers are all “ attri- butes of sovereignty ;” but I am very confident that no respectable court, jurist, or lawyer, “ on this side of China ” (Judge Black alone excepted), ever exposed their ignorance by questioning it, much less had the audacity to deny it. Since the fact is admitted, that the Territories do possess and may rightfully exercise those “legislative powers ” which are recognized throughout the civilized world as the 232 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF very highest attributes of sovereignty — the power over life, liberty and property — I shall not waste time in disputing with the attorney- general about the name by which lie chooses to call them . It is sufficient for my purpose that I have at last forced him into the ad- mission that the law-making power over all rightful subjects of legis- lation appertaining to life, liberty, and property, resides in, and may be rightfully exercised by the Territories, subject only to the limita- tions of the Constitution. This brings to my notice another important confession in Judge Black’s rejoinder, intimately connected with the preceding, which is: That it is an insult to the American people to suppose that the people of any organized Terp.itory would abuse tiie right of self-government if it were conceded to them. This last confession, taken in connection with the previous admis- sion of the power, removes the last vestige of any substantial objec- tion to the doctrine of popular sovereignty in the Territories. Unable to make any plausible argument against it in theory and upon prin- ciple, as explained in “ Harper’s Magazine,” Judge Black expended all the powers and energies of his intellect in his first pamphlet to render the doctrine odious and detestable upon the presumption of its probable practical results. He argued that it might result in “legis- lative robbery that “ 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 that “ they may order the miners to give up every ounce of gold that has been dug at Pike’s Peak that they may “ license a baud of marauders to despoil tiie emigrants crossing the Territory.” These were the arguments employed by the attorney-general, in the beginning of this controversy, to render the doctrine of popular sovereignty odious and detestable in the eyes of all honest men, and to prepare the minds of the people for the favorable reception of his new doctrine, that property in the Territories must be protected under the laws of the State whence the owner removed. Very soon, however, the lawyers began to amuse themselves and the public by exposing the folly and absurdity of the pretence that the Territo- rial courts could apply the judicial remedies prescribed by the legislature of Kentucky, or of any other State. Becoming ashamed of his position, Judge Black wrote an appendix to his pamphlet, in which lie declared that while the “title which the owner acquired in the State ” from wheuce he removed must be respected in the Terri- tory, “ the absurd inference which some persons have drawn from it is not true , that the master also takes with him the judicial reme- dies which were furnished him at the place where his title was ac- quired,” and that “the respective rights and obligations of the parties must be protected and enforced by the law prevailing at the place where they are supposed to be violated.''’ By this time it was my turn to reply, when I showed that his doc- trine, if true, established a RiGm? without a remedy, and if the STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 2 ?>: people of the Territories could not he trusted in the management of their own affairs, and in the protection of life, liberty, and property, they could not be relied upon to provide the remedies! This reply was made in eood faith, and believed to he pertinent to the issue and fatal to his position. Instead of receiving it in good temper, obviating the force of it by fair argument, if it were possible for him to do so, "he flies into a rage and denies that he “ said that an emi- grant to a Territory had a right to his property without a remedy and that “it is an insult to the American people to suppose that any community can be organized within the limits of our Union who will tolerate such a state of things Listen to his patriotic indignation at the bare suggestion that the people of the Territories cannot be trusted to guard and protect the rights of property and provide the remedies : “ I never said that an immigrant to a Territory liad a right to his property without a remedy ; but I admit that he must look for his remedy to the law of his new domicil. It is true that he takes his life, his limbs, his reputation, and his property, and with them lie takes nothing but his naked right to keep them and enjoy them. He leaves the judicial remedies of his previous domicil behind him. It is also true that in a Territory just beginning to be settled, he may need remedies for the vindication of his rights above all things else. In his new home there may be bands of base marauders, without conscience or the fear of God before their eyes, who are ready to rob and murder, and spare nothing that man or woman holds dear. In such a time it is quite possible to imagine an abolition legislature whose members owe their seats to Sharpe’s rifles and the money of the Emigration Aid Society. Very possibly a legisla- ture so chosen might employ itself in passing laws unfriendly to the rights of honest men and friendly to the business of the robber and the murderer. I concede this, and Mr. Douglas is entitled to all the comfort it affords him. Eat it is an insult to the American people to suppose, that any community can be organized within the limits of our Union, who will tolerate such a state of things.” Why did Judge Black insult the American people by supposing and assuming that they would do these things if left free to regulate their own internal polity and domestic affairs in their own way? It was deemed a necessary expedient in order to render popular sovereignty and its advocates odious and detestable. Why then did he, in the course of the same discussion, turn round and say it was an insult to the American people to suppose that the people of the Territories would do those things when allowed to regulate their own affairs in their own way ? This, too, was in turn deemed a necessary expe- dient in order to avoid the horn of the dilemma into which he had been fairly driven, and escape the odium of an attempt to deceive the southern people, of which he had been fairly convicted of advocating a “ right without a remedy." To what desperate shifts will men resort or be driven when they deliberately abandon principle for expediency ? Ho more striking or humiliating illustration of this truth was ever given than this con- troversy presents. Each change of ground, every shifting of position has been done as an expedient to avoid what at the time was deemed 234 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF a worse alternative. The ground on which Mr. Buchanan was elected, 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,” was changed, and in lien of it the position assumed that “slavery exists in the Territories by virtue of the Constitution,” as an expedient to obtain the support of certain southern ultras and lire-eaters who had always opposed popular sovereignty, on the sup- position that without such support Mr. Buchanan’s administration would be in a minority in the two houses of Congress. The confes- sion that “ the Constitution certainly does not establish slavery in the Territories, nor anywhere else,” was made, and the position that slavery may be protected in the Territories under the laws of other States, assumed as an expedient to avoid the necessity of supporting a Congressional slave code. The confession that the people of the Territories may exercise legislative powers over all righful subjects of legislation, pertaining to life, liberty, and property, was made as an expedient to avoid the odium of advocating a right without a remedy, by showing that the Territorial legislatures might lawfully and rightfully pass all latvs and prescribe all judicial remedies neces- sary for the protection of property of every description, slavery in- cluded. The declaration that it is an insult to the American people to suppose that the people of the Territories, when left free to ma- nage their own affairs in their own way, would be guilty of “ legisla- tive robbery,” would confiscate private property, seize it in mere spite, etc., was deemed a necessary expedient for the purpose of proving that the people might safely be trusted to furnish the pro- tection and provide the remedies without which slaves could not be held and slave property protected in the Territories under the laws of other States. * * * * * * * Turning from Judge Black to Dr. Gwin, it is but respectful to say a few words upon his letter, which illuminated the columns of the cen- tral organ of my assailants the day previous to Judge Black’s rejoin- der. The identity of language, thought, and style, which pervades the two productions, while rejecting the idea that they could have been written with the same pen, furnishes conclusive evidence that great men will think alike when in the same vein. Bor example — Dr. Gwin says : “ The difference between Mb. Douglas and the Democbatic party, sus- tained by this decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, is this," etc., etc. Judge Black says : “ The whole dispute (as far as it is a doctrinal dispute) between Hr. Doug- las and the Democratic party lies substantially in these two propositions," etc., etc. This coincidence, without wearying the reader with other exam- ples, will suffice to show the unity of purpose and harmony of design STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 235 with which my assailants pursue me. To separate “Mr. Douglas” from the “ Democratic party ” seems to be the patriotic end to which they all aim. They may as well make up their minds to believe, if they have not already been convinced of the fact by the bitter experi- ence of the last two years, that the thing cannot he done. I gave them notice, at the initial point of this crusade, that no man or set of men on earth, save one, could separate me from the Democratic party; and as I was that one, and the only one who had the power, I did not intend to do it myself nor permit it to be done by others ! At this point (Nov. 7), Mr. Douglas was forced to stop writing by a seve reattack of inflammatory rheumatism, which soon prostrated him with a dangerous illness, from which he was not expected at one time to recover. In a moment of consciousness he directed the unfinished manuscript to bo taken to the printer, with a note which concludes as follows : “ I am too feeble, however, to add more. Here let the controversy close for the present, and perhaps for ever.” THE CHASE AND TRUMBULL AMENDMENT. We cannot close this chapter without referring to “the record ” to which Mr. Douglas alludes in his brief “ note ” as wishing to comment on in reply to Mr. Gwin. It will be found in the “ Congressional Globe ” of the First Session of the thirty-third Congress, vol. xxviii. It com- pletely exposes the attempted trickery of the Chase amend- ment. It shows what the Senate regarded as the true meaning of that clause in the Kansas Nebraska Bill which left the people of the Territories perfectly free “ to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way,” and that that meaning was, in the language of Senator Badger, “ an unrestricted and unreserved reference to the Territorial authorities or the people themselves to determine upon the question of slavery .” After the appearance of the Harper article, Mr. Gwin of California endeavored to produce the impression that neither 236 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Mr. Douglas nor other senators understood, when the Kansas Nebraska Bill was before them, that the people of the Terri- tories could legislate on the subject of slavery during the Territorial condition ; and that had senators so understood the bill, it would have destroyed the measure ; and further, that Mr. Douglas, if he took a different view of the bill from that, acted in bad faith to the Senate and the country in not saying so “ before the bill became a laic.” The records of Congress show the very reverse of this to be the fact. The record shows that both Mr. Douglas and the Democratic as well as other senators understood the Kansas Nebraska Bill to mean that the people of the Territories, while in the Territorial condition, could legislate on slavery as on any other domestic affair. It shows, also, that both Mr. Chase’s amendment and Mr. Trumbull’s amendment were legislative tricks, gotten up for political effect outside of Congress. As the Kansas Nebraska Bill stood before Mr. Chase offered his amendment, it read : It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people therein perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitu- tion of the United States. Mr. Chase’s amendment proposed to add these words : Under which the people of the Territory, through their appropri- ate representatives, may, if they see fit .prohibit the existence of sla- very therein. Mr. Chase made a brief speech in support of his amend- ment, in the course of which he said : After I have obtained a vote upon this question, I shall want to know, and if no other senator shall do it, I will-move amendments calculated to ascertain, whether it be intended to give the principle of non-intervention asserted by the hill full scope. If it is to be adopted, I want to see it adopted and fully carried out. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 237 Mu. Pratt said : Mr. President, the principle which the senator from Ohio adopts as the principle of his amendment, is that the ques- tion shall be left entirely and exclusively to the people whether they will prohibit slavery or not. Mow, for the purpose of testing the sin- cerity of the senator, and for the purpose 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 amend- ment be adopted, and the amendment of the senator from Ohio as so amended be introduced as 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 introduce slavery as they may see proper. I suppose the question will be taken on the amendment which I oiler to the amendment. Mr.. Sewaed. — Is an amendment to an amendment to an amend- ment in order? Mr. Chase. — The amendment which I offered is au amendment to an amendment. The Presiding Officer. — The amendment of the senator from Maryland is not now in order. Mr. Pratt.— -Perhaps the senator from Ohio will accept it. Me. Chase, in the course of his reply, said : Now, sir, I desire to have the sense of the Senate on the question, whether the Territorial legislatures to which you propose to refer this great question — vital to the future destiny of the people who are to emigrate into these Territories — can, subject to the Constitution, protect themselves, if they see fit to do so, from slavery. The senator from Maryland, Mr. Pratt, has proposed an amendment to my amendment. I cannot accept it, but it will be entirely within the power of the Senate to agree to his if they see fit to do so. Mr. Shields. — If the honorable senator will permit, I will suggest to him, if he wishes to test that proposition, to put the converse as suggested by the honorable senator from Maryland, and then it will be a fair proposition. Let the senator from Ohio accept the amend- ment of the senator from Maryland for the purpose of testing the question. Me. Chase.— I was about to state why I could not accept the amendment of the senator from Maryland. I have no objection that the vote shall be taken on it, and it is probable that it would receive the sanction of a majority here, but with my views of the Constitu- tion, I cannot vote lor it. I do not believe that a Territorial legis- lature, though it may have power to protect the people against slavery, is constitutionally competent to introduce it. Senator Badger, of North Carolina, took Mr. Chase in hand, and exposed the insincerity of the Ohio senator, and also told what was the true meaning of the bill. lie said : Mr. President, I have understood, I find, correctly the purport oi 238 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF the amendment offered by the honorable senator from Ohio. The purposes 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 subvert the very proposition introduced into the bill upon the motion of the chairman of the Committee on Territories , (Mr. Douglas.) Is not that clear? The position, as it stands, is an unrestricted and unreserved reference to the Territorial authorities , or the people themselves , to determine upon the question of slavery ; and, therefore, by the very terms, as well as by the obvious meaning and legal operations of that amendment (of Mr. Pratt), to enable THEM EITIIER TO EXCLUDE OR TO INTRODUCE OR TO ALLOW SLAVERY. If, therefore, the amendment proposed by the senator from Ohio were appended to the bill in the connection in which he introduces it, the necessary and inevitable effect of it would be to control and limit the language which the Senate had just put into the bill , and to give it this construction, that though Congress leaves them to regu- late 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. I 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 the refusal of the gentleman to incorporate in his amendment what was suggested by my honor- able friend from Maryland, the propriety and fairness of which were instantly seen by my friend from Illinois (Mr. Shields.) * ********* I 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 deter- mine .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 , 1 shall not complain of it. It is their oion business .” ********** The question being taken by yeas and nays on the amend- ment of Mr. Chase, it resulted yeas 10, hays 36. Yeas — Messrs. Chase, Dodge of Wis., Fessenden, Fish, Foote, Ilamlin, Seward, Smith, Sumner and Wade — 10. Nays — Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benjamin, Brod- liead, Brown, Butler, Clay, Clayton, Dawson, Dixon, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Houston, Hunter, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Jones of Tennessee, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pettit, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Stuart, Toucoy, Walker, Weller and Williams — 36. And so the amendment was rejected. It will be observed STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 239 , Dr. Gw in, wlio quotes Mr. Douglas’ vote against the -e amendment as conclusive evidence that the Nebraska .vas not intended to confer on the Territorial legislature ower of introducing or excluding slavery, was present • i eipating . in these proceedings, without littering one of dissent or disapprobation of the speeches of Messrs. T , Shields and Badger, when the latter declared that the i s it stood without the Chase amendment, “ submits the ! ; authority to the Territorial legislature to determine self,” “ and that if the people of these Territories choose e elude slavery, so far from my considering it a wrong to me or my constituents, I shall not complain of it — it ir own business.” e reader will doubtless be curious to know why it hap- 1 that so many of the senators who participated in the al of Mr. Douglas from the chairmanship of the Coni- n': i on Territories for construing the Nebraska Bill in the manner as Mr. Badger construed it the day before it ed their votes, could have remained silent in their : without one word of dissent or protest. _■ Trumbull proposition referred to by Dr. Gwin, was 1 as an amendment to the bill for the admission of s into the Union as a State, two years after the passage : Kansas-Nebraska Act, and was rejected solely upon the gre a i that it was irrelevant to the bill for the admission of a o, and not because it did not declare the true intent md ir eaning of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It was in the following words : it further enacted : — : the provision in the act “to organize the Territories ot i - and Nebraska,” which declares it to be “ the true intent and meaning of said act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic insti- tutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of abed States,” was intended to and does confer upon or leave THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 240 to the people of the Territory of Kansas full power at any time through its Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from said Ter- ritory, or to recognize or regulate it therein. The official report of the proceedings on this amendment (see App. to “Cong. Globe,” Jnly 2d, 1856) shows that this amendment was discussed by Senators Benjamin, Trumbull, Fessenden, Cass, Douglas, Bigler, Toucey, Hale, Seward and Bayard, and that no one of them denied or intimated that the amendment did not declare the true intent and meaning of O the original act, and that those who opposed it did so upon the ground that it was irrelevant to the bill under con- sideration. Me. Cass said: Mow, in respect to myself, I suppose the Senate knows clearly my views. I believe the original act gave the Territo- rial legislature of Kansas full power to exclude or allow slavery. . . . . This being my view, I shall vote against the amendment. Me. Douglas said: The reading of the amendment inclines my mind to the belief, that in its legal effect it is precisely the same with the original act, and almost in the words of that act. Hence, I should have no hesitancy in voting for it, except that it is putting on this bill a matter which does not belong to it. Me. Biglee said: Mow, sir, I am not prepared to say what the intention of the Congress of 1854 was, because I was not a member of that Congress. I will not vote on this amendment, because I should not know that my vote was expressing the truth. I agree too, with the senator from Michigan (Hr. Cass), and the senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas), that this is substantially the law as it now exists. Mr. Toucey said : Mow, I object to this amendment as superflu- ous, nugatory, worse than that, as giving grounds for misrepresenta- tion. It leaves the subject precisely where it is left in the Kansas- Mebraska Bill. Me. Bayard said : I have an objection to the amendment proposed by the honorable senator from Illinois (Mr. Trumbull), which to me would be perfectly sufficient, independent of any other : and that is, it is nothing more or less than an attempt to give 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. The question being taken by yeas and nays on the amend- ment, resulted, ayes 11, nays 34, as follows : STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 241 Yeas — Messrs. Allen, Bell, of 1ST. H., Collamer, Durkee, Fessen- den, Foote. Fostez-, Hale, Seward, Trumbull and Wade — 11. Hats— Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Oass, Olay, Crittenden, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Huntei', Iverson, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Mal- lory. Mason, Pratt, Pugh, Beid, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson, of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, Wellei - , Wright and Yulee — 34. So the amendment was rejected. Upon this transcript from the records we have three com- ments to make, which cannot fail to impress the reader. First, That during this whole debate no senator pretended that Mr. Trumbull’s amendment did not declare the true intent and meaning of the Nebraska Act, according to its legal effect and plain reading. Second, That every senator who spoke against the amend- ment, assigned as the sole reason for his vote, either that it was irrelevant or an attempt by Congress to usurp judicial power. Third, That those senators who now arraign and condemn Mr. Douglas as too unsound to be chairman of the Terri- torial Committee for no other reason than that he now con- strues the Kansas-N ebraska Act precisely as he then did, listened to this debate without one word of dissent, and by silence have acquiesced in the construction which the author of the bill distinctly affirmed in their presence. Indeed, it may be said that this construction of the act was unanimously affirmed by the Senate, on this occasion — the Republicans assenting to it by their votes in favor of the amendment, and all the others by their acqui- escence in the reasons assigned by Messrs. Cass, Douglas, Bayard, Bigler and Toucey for voting against it. If, however, these senators shall attempt to escape the conclusion under cover of the reasons assigned by Mr. Bayard, that the amendment was “ nothing more or less than an attempt to give a judicial exposition, by the Congress of the United 11 242 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF States, to the Constitution,” and “ that they have no right to usurp judicial power,” with what consistency can these gentlemen meet in secret caucus and propose resolutions, to he offered in open Senate, as a platform for the Charleston Convention; thus “giving a judicial exposition,” by the caucus and the Senate, to the Constitution, on the identical point which Mr. Bayard denounced as “a usurpation of judicial power,” and in the justice of which denunciation they all appeared at the time to acquiesce? Would it not be well, at the next meeting of the senatorial caucus, to give a satisfactory answer to this inquiry ? STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 243 CHAPTER XVH. PROTECTION OF STATES FROM INVASION — THE SENATORIAL CAUCUS. Great Speech of Mr. Douglas on the Harper’s Ferry Invasion — Anxiety to hear him — His Speeches in Reply to Senators Fessenden, Jeff. Davis, and Seward — The Caucus of Senators — Their Utopian Platform. The first session of the 36th Congress met on the first Mon- day in December, 1859. The great practical measure of the session was the proposition of Mr. Douglas, embraced in the resolution which he offered on the 16th of January, 1S60, instructing the Judiciary Committee to rejiort a bill to pro- tect each State from invasion by people of other States. A day or two before the introduction of this resolution, a sharp passage at arms took place in the Senate between Mr. Douglas and Messrs. Clay, Jeff. Davis, and Green, which is thus described by the correspondent of the “Xeiv York Herald Me. Pugh, of Ohio, a sharp, keen, and plucky debater, and the right-hand man of Mi’. Douglas, brought the controversy to a focus. There was a good deal of cross-firing and sharp-shooting against the doctrines and speeches of the Little Giant, from Green, Iverson, Clay, Davis, Gwin, and other southsiders, till at length the Little Giant himself was brought to the floor. He complained of ill-health ; but he never looked better in his life - — never appeared fresher in the ring, and never acquitted himself more to the admiration of his friends. He was like a stag at bay, and right and left he dashed among his pursuers. It is useless here to repeat this branch of the debate. It was the feature of the day and of the session. 2 44 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Mr. Douglas announced to-day that lie will abide by the decision of the convention, for the sake of the Democratic party, though he will not accept its nomination except upon the doctrine of popular sovereignty, as enunciated in the Cincinnati platform. EXTRACTS FROM THE DEBATE. This was Mr. Douglas’s first appearance in the Senate after his severe and protracted illness, and it was thought rather ungenerous in these senators to make a combined and con- certed attack upon him under the circumstances. It is con- ceded, however, by all who listened to the debate, that he never bore himself more gallantly or came out of a contest more successfully. The objects of the assaults upon him were to justify his removal from the Committee on Territories, upon the ground that he held opinions incompatible with the Democratic creed. We give several extracts from this im- portant debate. In reply to Mr. Davis of Mississippi, Mr. Douglas said : I have never complained of my removal from the chairmanship of the Committee on Territories, and I never intended to allude to that subject in this body ; but I do assert that the record proves that the Senate knew for eleven years that I held the identical opinions which I expressed in my Freeport speech, and which are now alleged as the cause of my removal ; and during that period, with a full knowledge of those opinions, which were repeated over and over again in this body, within the hearing of every member of the Se- nate, I was, by the unanimous vote of the body, made chairman of that committee, being reelected each year for eleven years. Tlio cause now assigned for my removal is that I hold the identical opinions to-day that I held and repeatedly expressed during that whole period. If this be the true state of the facts, what does it prove? Simply, that those who removed me changed at the end of the eleven years, and I was not sound because I did not change as suddenly as they. My only offence consists in fidelity to the princi- ples that I had avowed during that whole period. If at the end of that time my opinions were incompatible with those of a majority, STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 245 it shows that the majority had changed their policy but that I had not changed my opinions. Mr. Green answered by charging that Mr. Douglas, in 1S50, had declared in the Senate that the question, in respect to the extent of the power of a Territorial legislature over the subject of slavery, was a judicial question, which could be alone authoritatively determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Douglas, in reply, said : In 1 So 6 I did say it was a judicial question, and I said it over and over again before 1856. I have said it since that time. I declared in my Illinois speeches that it was a judicial question, I have declared the same thing in every publication I have made during the last year. I assert, now, that it is a judicial question. The point is that for years it was no want of soundness in principle that I held one side of that judicial question while others held the opposite. I assert that the Senate did know which side of the judicial question I held. But I have always said that I would abide the decisions of the Su- preme Court, not only as a matter of policy but from considerations of duty. I take the law as expounded by the Supreme Court, I re- ceive the Dred Scott decision as an authoritative exposition ; but I deny that the point now under consideration has been decided in the Dred Scott case. There is no one fact in that case upon which it could have arisen. The lawyers engaged on each side never dreamt that it did arise in the case. It is offensive and injurious to the reputation of the court to say that they decided a great question which had been the subject of agitation to the extent of convulsing the whole country, when it did not arise in the case, and when it was not argued by counsel. Sir, it would prove the court unworthy to decide the great question in a civilized country if it would take cog- nizance of a case when there was no fact upon the record upon which it could arise, when the counsel on either side never dreamt that it was in issue, when there was no argument on it, and foreclose the right of self-government to thousands and hundreds of thousands of people without a hearing. But one word more : I assert, and the debates will prove, that the understanding of the Kansas-Nebraska 246 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Bill was that this was a judicial question to he decided when it should arise on a Territorial enactment. The speech of the senator from Ya. (Mr. Hunter), shows clearly that it was to arise on a Territorial enactment, and all the speeches ol all of us show that it was in that way and at that time that this judicial question was expected to arise and be decided. The under- standing was that when a Territorial legislature passed an act on this subject, of which any man complained, he should be able to bring the matter before the Supreme Court ; and to facilitate the court in getting jurisdiction, we amended the bill by putting in a clause providing that a case affecting the title to slaves might bo taken up to the Supreme Court without reference to the amount in- volved. That clause was inserted in order to get this judicial ques- tion before the Supreme Court of the United States. IIow 1 On a Territorial enactment, and nobody ever dreamt that the court was going in a decision on a case which did not affect that question to decide this point without argument and without notice, and preclude the rights of the people without allowing them to be heard. Whenever a Territorial legislature shall pass an act divesting or attempting to divest or impair or prejudice the right to slave property, and a case under that act shall be brought before the Supreme Court, I will abide by the decision and help in good faith to carry it out. Mr. Clay, of Alabama, was the next to assail Mr. Douglas and to - impeach the soundness of his principles and the con- sistency of his course upon the slavery question. In reply to him, Mr. Douglas said : I say to the gentleman from Alabama, that while I have sought no sympathy and desire no sympathy, I shrink from no vindication of myself. I leave the public to judge whether there has not been rather a doubling of teams on me every time I have engaged in debate for the last two years. After fighting an unholy alliance in my own State, between federal officeholders and abolitionists, and triumphing over them, did I come here at the last session and make any parade of that fact? Ho, sir, I remained silent. I made no vindication of myself ; I made no complaint of my removal from the chair of the Territorial Committee ; I never alluded to it, and the matter would never have passed my lips if it had not been thrust in STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 247 ray face in debate in the Senate to-day. The discussion of last year ■was brought on by others and not by me, and yet we have been told by a senator (Mr. Gwin) while making a speech in the country, that those who removed me from the head of that committee expected me to defend myself, and complained that I waited until the end of the session, after I had been tried, condemned and executed in my ab- sence. Sir, I had no defence to make. I scorn to make any defence. T stood conscious of the rectitude of my own motives and the correct- ness of my own actions. I claimed the right to hold and vindicate my own opinions, and to impeach no other man's conduct or the integrity of his purpose. I yield to every senator the right of differ- ing from me, and I never make a test on him for doing so. * * * * Hi*** I have but a word more to say now, and that is on another point. The senator from Alabama tells me that if he had Dot supposed that I had changed my opinions, he would never have extended to me the right hand of fellowship as a Democrat. ’Well, sir, I do not know that my Democracy would have suffered much if he never had. I am willing to compare records with him as a Democrat. I never make speeches, proclaiming to the world that if I cannot get my man nominated I will bolt the convention and break up the Demo- cratic party, and then talk about the right hand of Democratic fellowship. Sir, that senator has placed himself beyond the pale of Democratic fellowship, by the pronunciamento that he will not abide the decision of the National Convention, if the speeches, which I see attributed to him in the newspapers, are true. I do not understand this thing of belonging to an organization, going into a convention and abiding by the result if you win and bolting if you lose. I never thought that it was deemed fair dealing in any profession. If you take the winnings when you gain, I always thought you had to pay your bets when you lost : a man who tells me and the world that he only goes into a convention to abide the result in the event of its deciding in his favor, has no right to talk about extending the hand of Democratic fellowship. Now, sir, I have the kindest feelings toward the gentleman personally. He has a right to differ from me ; he has a right to bolt the Charleston Convention ; he has a right to proclaim to the world beforehand that he means to do so ; but he has no right to go into the convention unless he intends to abide the 248 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF result. He has no right to claim that he belongs to the convention and say that he will bolt the nominee ; and hence I say to that senator, with all kindness, that if he does not extend to me the right hand of Democratic fellowship I shall survive the stroke. If I should happen to be the nominee of the Charleston Convention, and he should vote against me, I am not certain that it would diminish my majority in his own State. I am not counting his support. Permit me to say to that senator that it will be time enough to threaten that he will not vote for me when I ask him to do it. Permit me to say further to him that I am doing quite as much honor to him if I con- sent to accept his vote, as he will do me by conferring it. When threats are made of not extending the hand of Democratic fellowship, I should like to understand who it is that has the right to say who is in the party and who not. I believe that more than two- thirds of the Democracy of the United States are with me on this disputed point. James Buchanan received about eighteen hundred thousand votes at the last election, more than twelve hundred thousand of them in the free States, and something over six hundred thousand in the slaveholding States, and you have heard it said by the senator from Ohio to-day, and I believe it, that ninety-nine out of every one hundred Democrats in the northern States agreed with him and me on this question. Then one-third of the Democratic party are going to read out the remaining two-thirds. Your candidate will have a good chance of election if you shall have done it, will he not ? The only importance attached to the question of the chairmanship of the Committee on Territories is this : heretofore no test has been made as to a man’s opinions on this judicial question, and hence I could hold the position of chairman by a unanimous vote, without objection ; but now it is made a test. I do not make it — I only resist your test if you make it on me. While I do not want the chairman- ship — while I have performed labor enough on that committee, for eleven and a half years, to be anxious to get rid of it — yet the coun- try cannot fail to take notice that my removal at the end of eleven years, is significant in one of two points of view. It was either per- sonal or political. I acquit every man of the suspicion that it was personal. Then it must have been political. What does it signify ? It is a proclamation to the Senate that a man holding the opinions I STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 249 do is not sound enough to serve as chairman of a committee. Is he sound enough for a cabinet' officer, for a district attorney, for a collec- tor of the port, for a post-master, for a lighthouse-keeper ? All these classes of officers are now being removed, except cabinet officers, for holding the same opinions as myself. If you were to nominate for the Presidency a man who intends to pursue this proscriptive policy that every man holding the opinions I do is marked as a victim for vengeance the moment your candidates are elected, what chance have yon of electing them ?” After a colloquy between Mr. Davis and Mr. Douglas, the latter proceeded : “ I seek no war with any senator on either side of the chamber, and especially I seek none on political issues with Democratic sena- tors. Every word I have said has been in defence of myself against the imputation that I had changed my line of policy, which I utterly deny. I did understand, and I understand now, that when applica- tions are made to the present Administration for office, the question of a man’s opinion on popular sovereignty is asked, and the applicant is proscribed if he agree with me in opinion. The country under- stands therefore that if a man representing this proscriptive policy is the next President, every man in the country who holds tho opinions of the senator from Ohio and myself is to be proscribed from every office, high or low. Such is now the case. Is any gen- tleman prepared to take the Charleston nomination with the under- standing that he is to proscribe two-thirds of the party, and then degrade himself so low as to seek the votes of the men whom he has marked as his victims ? If no tests are to be made, there can be harmony ; if these tests are to be made, one-third will not subdue two-thirds. I do not intend to surrender an opinion or to try and force one upon any other senator or citizen. I arraign no man because of his opinions.” 11 * 250 THE LITE AND SPEECHES OF INCIDENTS OF THE GREAT SPEECH. On Monday, the 23d of January, the resolution submitted on the 16th instant having been made the special order for that day, Mr. Douglas addressed the Senate in its support. It was known in Washington for some time previously that he would speak on that day, and this fact drew to the Capitol an immense concourse of people. It would seem that the mantles of Clay and Webster have fallen upon the shoulders of Douglas, for it is well known that for years past it is only necessary to say “Douglas speaks to-day,” in order to have the Senate chamber thronged by all the wit and beauty in the capital. On this occasion, although it was known that Mr. Douglas would not begin to speak till nearly two in the afternoon, yet as early as ten in the morning, numerous groups of people Avere seen wending their way to the Capitol. At eleven, the galleries were full, and the tide of silk and satin, cambric and crinoline, continued to gather in the avenues and lobbies. CroAvds of ladies and gentlemen continued to pour in, till at noon every seat in the immense chamber was occu- pied, and all the standing-place jammed. The members of the House of Representatives came in almost in a body, and occupied the floor. The foreign diplomatic corps too, Avere present in full force. Never before had there been such a scene in the nerv chamber. Douglas was to speak — not for Illinois, not for the West, but for the pacification of the AAdiole country, and the perpe- tuity of the Union. The reader Avill comprehend the character of this speech from the subjoined extracts: STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 251 INVASION OP STATES. 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 gov ernment, inhabit- ants, property, or institutions of any other State or Territor y of the Union.” Me. Douglas. — Mr. President, on the 25th of November last, the governor of Virginia addressed an official communication to the President of the United States, in which he said: “ I have information from various quarters, upon which I rely, that a con- spiracy of formidable extent, in means and numbers, is formed in Ohio, Penn- sylvania, New York, and other States, to rescue John Brown and his associ- ates, prisoners at Charlestown, Virginia. The information is specific enough to be reliable “ Places in Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, have been occupied as depots and rendezvous by these desperadoes, unobstructed by guards or otherwise, to invade this State, and we are kept in continual apprehension of outrage from fire and rapine. I apprise 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 follow- ing 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, especially in the slaveholding States. It was generally received and regarded as an official and authoritative announcement that the Constitution of the United States confers no power upon the Federal Government to protect the several 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, aud to ask the judgment of the Senate and of the House of Repre- sentatives on the question, whether it is not within the power of Congress, and the duty of Congress, under the Constitution, to en- act, all laws which are necessary and proper for the protection of 252 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF each and every State against invasion, either from foreign powers or from any portion of the United States. * * * * * * 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 conviction that tho Harper’s Ferry crime was the natural, logical, inevitable 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. (Applause in the galleries.) Order being restored, Mr. Douglas proceeded : 1 was remarking that I considered this outrage at Harper’s Ferry as the logical, natural consequence of the teachings and doctrines of the Eepublican party. I am not making this statement for the pur- pose 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. The great principle that un- derlies the organization of the Republican party is violent, irrecon- cilable, eternal warfare upon the institution of American slavery, with the view of its ultimate extinction throughout the land ; sec- tional war is to be waged until the cotton fields of the South shall be cultivated by free labor, or the rye fields of Hew York and Massachusetts 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 ap- peals to northern passion, northern prejudice, northern ambition against southern States, southern institutions, and southern people. * * * * * * Can any man say to us that although this outrage has been perpe- trated at Harper’s Ferry, there is no danger of its recurrence? Sir, is not the Republican party still embodied, organized, sanguine, con- fident 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. Iam glad that they do so ; I am rejoiced that they have gone thus far ; but I must bo 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 invasion are STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 253 now in active operation. Is it trne 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 threat- ened invasion in the day or in the night ? Can you expect people to he patient, when they dare not lie down to sleep at night without first stationing sentinels around their houses to see if a band of ma- rauders 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. Upon the conclusion of this speech Mr. Fessenden at- tempted to break its force by a violeat partisan attack on Mr. Dougdas and the Democratic party ; to which Mr. Doug- las instantly replied, repelling the assaults and vindicating the position of the Democratic party upon the slavery ques- tion. We invite attention to extracts : ME. DOUGLAS’ EEPLY. Si>r, I desire a law that will make it a crime, punishable by impri- sonment in the penitentiary, after conviction in the United States court, to make a conspiracy in one State, against the people, properly, 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 pro- visions. I have heard men abuse the Fugitive Slave Law, and express their willingness to vote for amendments ; hut 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 had a hole in it big enough to let the ne- gro drop through and escape; but none that would comply with the obligations of the Constitution. So we shall find that side of the House voting for a law that will, in terms, disapprove of unlawful expeditions against neighboring States, without being efficient in affording protection. 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 Demo- cracy, 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 bro- ther senator here for representing the Republican party as dealing in THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 254 denunciation and insult of the institutions of the South. Look to your Philadelphia platform, where you assert the sovereign power of Congress over the Territories for their government, arid demand that it shall be exerted against those twin relics of barbarism — polygamy and slavery. I have said and repeat that this question of slavery is one of climate, of political economy, of self-interest, not a question of legis- lation. 'Wherever 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. "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 make 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 1787, slavery was prohibited, and yet our people, believing that slavery would be profitable to them, estab- lished 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 supposi- tion that it was for our interest to do so. ********* My object is to establish firmly the doctrine that each State is to do it? 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, 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 inter- ference, directly or indirectly. Sir, I confess the object of the legisla- tion 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 enjoyment of domestic tranquillity with- out apprehension from neighboring States. I will not occupy further time. REPLY TO SENATOR DAVIS. On the 26 th of Jannary, Mr. Douglas made the following remarks, in his reply to Gen. Jeff. Davis, senator from Mississippi. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 255 Me. Douglas. — I think if the senator from Mississippi had care- fully read my speech, he would have found no necessity for vindicat- ing the President of the United States from any criticism that I had made upon his letter, or from any issue that I had made with the President growing out of that letter. Certainly, in my speech, there is no criticism upon the President, none upon his letter, no issue made with him; on the contrary, an express disclaimer of any such issue. I quoted tho paragraph from the President’s letter in reply to Gov. Wise, and I will quote it again : “ I am at a los9 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, preserving the peace between the States.] My impression, from reading the President’s letter, was that he was inclined to the belief that the Constitution conferred no power upon the Federal Government to interfere. But still, it might be that such was not the President's meaning, and that he only wished to be understood as saying that existing laws conferred no authority upon him to interfere. Hence, in order to make no issue with tho President upon that subject, I stated, I shall not stop to inquire whe- ther he meant to be understood as denying the power of Congress to confer authority, or denying that the authority was yet conferred. My simple object was to obtain suitable legislation to redress similar evils in the future; that if the present laws were not sufficient — I believe there are none on the subject — Congress ought to enact suit- able laws to the extent that the Constitution authorized, to prevent these invasions. I quoted it for the purpose of showing the necessity of legislation by Congress. M} r argument was founded upon that supposed necessity. I proceeded to demonstrate that the Constitu- tion conferred the power on Congress to pass laws necessary and pro- per to protect the States, and I called upon Congress to exercise that power. I made no issue with the President. But the senator intimates that the legislation of which I spoke would lead to an act of usurpation that would endanger the rights of the States, and yet goes on to prove that the President of the United States does not differ with mo in regard to that constitutional power. If the President agrees with me on that point, I am glad of it. If lie differs with me it would not change my opinions nor my action, but I respectfully submit, when I only propose such legislation as the Constitution authorizes and requires, it is hardly fair to say that that means an attack upon the sovereignty of the States. The legislation that I propose on this point of combinations, was this: that it shall be lawful for the grand juries of the United States courts to indict all men who shall form conspiracies or combinations to invade a State or to disturb or molest citizens, property, or insti- tutions; anil that it shall be proper for the petit jury in the United States courts, under the judge, to try and convict the conspirators, and to punish them by confinement in the penitentiaries or prisons within the respective States where the conspiracies or combinations are formed. That was the power that I proposed should be eon- 256 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ferred by law on the federal courts. I never proposed to intrust to tho President an army to go and seek out conspiracies, to seek out com- binations, and to punish them by military rule. My whole argument was that the federal courts should have jurisdiction over these con- spiracies and combinations; that the conspirators should be indicted, and convicted according to law, and punished to the extent of their power. But in case of an organized body of men, or a military force in the act of invading, I would confer authority to use military force to the extent necessary to prevent that — not the conspiracy. The senator says he has got that power now. The President of the United States, I apprehend, thought, not, for this reason : lie said the only power ho had got was the authority conferred by the two acts to which he alluded, to wit: to protect the United States against invasion from foreign powers and Indian tribes ; and he stated that the invasion of one State from another State did not come within the specifications of the statute for protecting the United States against foreign powers and Indian tribes. If the senator thinks that that power is there, when we get the legislation before us it will be pro- per to make amendments which will reach each objection he may raise. The two propositions I maintained in my argument, and those provided for in my resolution, were these : first to protect each State against invasion — the case of actual invasion being then in pro- cess of execution ; second, to make it criminal to form conspiracies and combinations in any State or Territory, or any place within the United States, against the institutions, property or government of any other State or Territory of this Union. Those were the propo- sitions. REPLY TO SENATOR SEWARD. On the 29tli of February, Mr. Seward made his great speech on the occasion of his presenting the TFyandott Constitution of Kansas. It was a speech of much ability, and no doubt, when he had concluded, Mr. Seward imagined that he had dealt a death-blow to the Democratic party. Mr. Douglas immediately replied to Mr. Seward, taking up seriatim the points of his speech, and scattering his sophistries to the winds. By general confession Mr. Douglas has rarely ap- peared to better advantage on the floor of the Senate than in this triumphant ex tempore reply to Mr. Seward. In the lan- guage of the correspondent of the “ Cleveland Plaindealer,” “ He decapitated the mighty Philistine with his own sword. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 25 7 The beautiful structure which had cost Mr. Seward &o much time, labor, and travel, was in one brief hour scattered in fragments at the feet of the Little Giant.” The reader will find the reply of Mr. Douglas in a subse- quent part of this work, from which we give brief extracts: EXTRACTS FROM REPLY. Me. Presldext : I trust I shall be pardoned for a few remarks upon so much of the senator’s speech as consists in an assault on the De- mocratic party, and especially with regard to the Kansas-lSTebraska bill, of which I was the responsible author. It has become fashion- able now-a-days for each gentleman making a speech against the De- mocratic party to refer to the Kansas-Mebraska act as a cause of all the disturbances that have since ensued. They talk about the repeal of a sacred compact that had been undisturbed for more than a quar- ter 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 South, without one exception in this body, was willing thus to abide by it ; but the freesoil element of the northern States was so strong as to defeat that measure, and thus open the slavery ques- tion anew. The men who now complain of the abrogation of that act 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 Representatives, of the enactment of the bill to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific Ocean, after it had passed the Senate on my own motion, that opened the controversy of 1850, which was terminated by the adop- tion of the measures of that year. We carried those Compromise measures over the head of the sena tor of "New York and his present associates. We, in those measures established a great principle, rebuking his doctrine of intervention by the Congress of the United States to prohibit slavery in the Ter- ritories. Both parties, in 1852, pledged themselves to abide by that principle and thus stood pledged not to prohibit slavery in the Ter- ritories by act of Congress. The Whig party affirmed that pledge, and so did the Democracy. In 1854 we only carried out, in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the same principle that had been affirmed in the Compromise 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 258 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Terri- tories 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 and the white man were equal by Divine law, and hence that all laws and constitutions and govern- ments in violation of the principle of negro equality are in violation of the law of God. That is the basis upon which his speech rests. lie quotes the Declaration of Independence to show that the fathers of the Revolution understood that the negro was placed on an equality with the white man, by quoting the clause, “ we hold these truths to be self-evident that, all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Sir, the doctrine of that senator and of his party is — and I have had to meet it for eight years — that the Declaration of Independence intended to recognize the negro and the white man 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 that it is contrary to the law of God. The senator from Hew York lias long held that doctrine. The senator from Hew York has often proclaimed to the world that the Consti- tution 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 me, in which that proposition is distinctly put forth. In a speech made in the State of Ohio, in 1848, he said : “ Slavery 13 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 mankind deeply and universally, and this perversion became a universal habit. Habits of thought become fixed principles. No American State has yet delivered itself entirely from these 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 firesides from his relentless pursuer.” LABOR STATES AND CAPITAL STATES. The Senator from Hew 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 bring it into use. I have heard him discuss these favorite theories of his for the last ten years, I think, and I never heard of capital States find labor States before. It strikes me that something has recently occurred up in Hew England STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 259 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 in the towns there — labor against capi- tal. The senator has a new word ready coined to suit their case, and make the laborers believe that he is on the side of the most numerous class of voters. What produced that strike among the journeymen shoemakers? Why are the mechanics of New England, the laborers and the em- ployees, 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 Bepublican dogmas. It is another step, fol- lowing John Brown, of the “irrepressible conflict.” Therefore 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 shoemakers ; it reaches every mechanic’s shop and every factory. All the large laboring establishments of the North feel the pressure produced by the doctrine of the “irrepressible con- flict.” This new coinage of words will not save them from the just responsibility that follows the doctrines they have been inculcating. If they had 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, and your shoemakers would not strike for higher prices. 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. Address- ing the people of Ohio, he said : “ Yon blush not at these things, because they have become as familiar as household words ; and your pretended froe-soil allies claim peculiar merit for maintaining these miscalled guarantees of slavery, which they find in the na- tional 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 re- mains inert? Yes, much can be done, everything can be done. Slavery can 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 ? 260 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF “ It can be ameliorated. It can and must be abolished, and you and 1 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 pro- position 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 nowhere else. Every appeal they make to Northern prejudice and passion, is against the institution of slavery everywhere, and they would not be able to retain their abo- • lition 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 Territories of the Union. And again in the same speech, the senator from NewYork advised the people to disregard constitutional obligations in these words: “ But we must begin deeper and lower than the composition and combination of factions or parties, wherein the strength and 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 ; reform 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 constitutional guaranty 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 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; and witli 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 speecli to a very beautiful homily on the glories of our Union. All that he had said, all that any other man has ever said, all that the most eloquent tongue can ever utter, in behalf of the blessing's and the advantages of this glorious Union, I fully indorse. But still, sir, I am prepared to say, that the Union is glorious only when the Constitution is preserved inviolate. He eulogized the Union. I, too, am for the Union; 1 in- dorse the eulogies ; but still, what is the Union worth, unless the Con- stitution 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, un- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 201 .ess they are accompanied by obedience to the Constitution upon ■which the Union rests. I have a right to insist that the Constitution shall be maintained inviolate in all its parts, notonly that which suits the temper of the North, but every clause of that Constitution, whe- ther you like it or dislike it. Your 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 dis- obeys 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 Divine law, upon those revolutionary fathers whose eulogies we have heard here to-day. Did the framers of that instru- ment 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 sena- tor 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 an oath to support the in- strument? Did he understand that he was defying the authority of Heaven when he took the oath to support that instrument ? THE SENATORIAL CAUCUS. About the middle of February, 1860 , the whole country was astounded by tbe report that some of the Democratic senators in Congress had been amusing' themselves for want of something better to do, by constructing an entirely new platform for the Charleston Convention. It was at first laughed at as a good joke, but finally proved to be a fact. Well might the question be asked, “Who au- thorized them to make a platform for the party at the Charleston Convention ? What business had they to med- dle in the matter ?” Certain gentlemen were named by them as a committee to arrange something to be presented to a wondering and admiring world as the new Democratic creed. Yet strange to say, this committee did not embody the talents or the wisdom of the Democratic party in the Senate. Was there no merit in Mr. Toombs, or Mr. Pearce, or Mr. Benjamin, or Mr. Polk, or Mr. Pugh, or Mr. Hammond, or Mr. Davis, or Mr. Nicholson, or Mr. Wigfall, that they were passed over in the formation of the committee ? 203 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF The chairman of the Caucus, Mr. Bright, a bitter enemy of Mr. Douglas, appointed the folio-wing cast : Mr. Green of Missouri, who had supplanted Mr. Douglas as chairman of the Committee on Territories ; Mr. Fitch of Indiana, an ancient hater of Mr. Douglas ; Mr. Bigler of Penn- sylvania, the shadow of the President ; Mr. Gwin of California, whose hostility to Mr. Douglas is implacable and proverbial ; and Mr. Chestnut of South Carolina. Excepting Mr. Chest- nut, who is really an amiable gentleman, and a man of great ability, of what singular material was this committee com- posed! and that, too, when there were such men as Mason, Hunter, Clingman, and Brown, in the Senate ! This com- mittee of five were to report their platform to the Democratic members of the Senate, in caucus ; and after its approval there, it was to be introduced into the Senate for adoption. Mr. Bright could not have selected a better committee for the purpose of heading off Mr. Douglas at Charleston. A manifesto was therefore expected from this committee of five, which would be pointedly directed to the overthrow of the distinguished senator from Illinois, and his doctrine of popu- lar sovereignty. It was hoped by Messrs. Bright, Fitch, Gwin and Co., that by the action of this caucus, such new tests might be introduced at the Charleston Convention, as would make it impossible for Mr. Douglas to receive the nomination. The whole proceedings of the committee were what might have been anticipated. PLATF0R1I OF THE CAUCUS. The following are the material resolutions of the caucus platform : 4. Resolved , That neither Congress nor a Territorial legislature, whether by direct legislation or legislation of an indirect and unfriendly character, possesses the power to annul or impair the constitutional right of any citizen of the United States to take his slave property into the common Territories, and there hold and enjoy the same while the Territorial condition remains. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 2G3 5. Resolved , That if experience should at any time prove that the judiciary aud executive authority do not possess the means to insure adequate protection to constitutional rights in a Territory, and if the Territorial government should fail or refuse to provide the necessary remedies for that purpose, it will be the duty of Congress to supply such deficiency. 6. Resolved , That the inhabitants of a Territory of the United States, when they rightfully form a constitution to be admitted as a State into the Union, may then, for the first time— like the people of a State when forming a new constitution — decide for themselves whether slavery, as a domestic institution, shall be maintained or prohibited within their jurisdiction ; and if Congress admit them as a State “they shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission.” It remains to be seen -what disposition the United States Senate will make of this Utopian piece of Senatorial-caucus patchwork ; this modern bed of Procrustes. At all events, it is too short for the Little Giant. The material and obnoxious features of the caucus plat- form will be found in those provisions in which the caucus, to use the language of Senator Bayard, on the Trumbull amendment, “ attempted to give a judicial exposition of the Constitution, and to usurp judicial power ” by deciding against the right of a Territorial legislature to control the slavery question in violation of the Cincinnati platform, and in advance of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. These resolutions, when translated into plain English, in effect declare that if the people of a Territory desire slavery, and pass law's to introduce and protect it, Congress will not interfere with their decision ; but if they do not vmnt it, and so decide in their legislation, Congress ought to interfere, to force it on them, by the enactment of a code for its protec- tion in the Territories. Is this the boasted principle of non-intervention with slavery in States, Territories an-.l the District of Columbia, to which the party was pledged by the Cincinnati platform ? 204 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Is this the principle, “ ancient as free government itself,” of which Mr. Buchanan spoke in his letter accepting the Cin- cinnati nomination, when he said that the Ivausas-Nebraska Act “has simply declared that the people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits ?” We should he doing injustice to the Democratic party — no less than to those gentlemen concerned — to omit to state the fact that the introduction of these resolutions was deemed unfortunate and improper by at least twelve southern sena- tors, as was announced in caucus pending the discussion. Nor is it unworthy of note to mention the further fact that Messers. Pugh and Douglas are understood to have been the only senators from the free States who raised their voices in caucus against this gross departure from the usages, creed and established policy of the Democratic party. Nay, if well-accredited and uncontradicted rumors are to be believed, the main champions of these resolutions were Messrs. Bright, Fitch, Gwin and Lane— all representing free States. Mr. Lane, who was so loud in his declarations, in 1850, in favor of the doctrines of popular sovereignty, and the right of the people to introduce or exclude slavery at their pleasure during their Territorial condition, is represented in the public press as having declared in the Senate caucus, that “he did not wish to live in a republic which would not protect slavery in the Territories by act of Congress — that he could not conceive how a southern man could consent to remain in the Union without such Congressional protection, and that he had no respect for any man who would not vote for an act of Congress, protecting slavery in the Territories.” STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 265 CHAPTER XVm. THE STATE CONVENTIONS. Conventions of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and ‘.Michigan ; also of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and New York — Claims of the North-west — Conclusion. CONVENTIONS IN THE NORTHWEST. The northwestern States began to hold their State Conven- tions, and to elect delegates to the National Democratic Con- vention at Charleston, early in 1860 Illinois was first in the field. She held her Convention at Springfield, on the 4th of January, 1860, and unanimously adopted, among others, the following resolutions : Resolved, That the Democracy of Illinois do reassert and affirm the Cincinnati platform, in the woi'ds, spirit and meaning with which the same was adopted, understood and ratified by the people in 1856, and do reject and utterly repudiate all such new issues and tests as the revival of the African slave-trade, or a congressional slave code for the Territories, or the doctrine that slavery is a federal institu- tion, deriving its validity in the several States and Territories in which it exists from the Constitution of the United States, instead of being a mere municipal institution, existing in such States and Territories “ under the laws thereof.” Resolved , That the Democratic party of the Union is pledged in faith and honor, by the Cincinnati Platform and its indorsement of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, to the following propositions : 1. That all questions pertaining to African slavery in the Terri- tories shall be forever banished from the halls of Congress. 2. That the people of the Territories respectively shall be left per- fectly free to make such laws and regulations in respect to slavery and all other matters of local concern as they may determine for themselves,' subject to no other limitations or restrictions than those imposed by the Constitution of the United States 2G6 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 3. That all quostions affecting the validity or constitutionality of any Territorial enactments shall be referred for final decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, as the only tribunal provided by the Constitution which is competent to determine them. Resolved, That wo recognize the paramount judicial authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, as provided in the Consti- tution, and hold it to be the imperative duty of all good citizens to respect and obey the decisions of that tribunal, and to aid, by all lawful means, in carrying them into faithful execution. Resolved , That the Democracy of Illinois repel with just indigna- tion the injurious and unfounded imputation upon the integrity and impartiality of the Supreme Court, which is contained in the as- sumption on the part of the so-called Republicans, that, in tho Dred Scott case, that august tribunal decided against the right of tho peo- ple of the Territories to decide the slavery question for themselves, without giving them an opportunity of being heard by counsel in defence of their rights of self-governmont, and when there was no Territorial law, enactment or fact before the court upon which that question could possibly arise. Resolved , That whenever Congress or the legislature of any State or Territory shall mako any enactment, or do any act which attempts to divest, impair or prejudice any right which the owner of slaves, or any other species of property, may have or claim in any Territory or elsewhere, by virtue of the Constitution or otherwise, and tho party aggrieved shall bring his case beforo the Supreme Court of the Uwted States, the Democracy of Illinois, as in duty bound by their obligations of fidelity to the Constitution, will cheerfully and faith- fully respect and abide by the decision, and use all lawful means to aid in giving it full effect according to its true intent and meaning. Resolved , That tho Democracy of Illinois view with inexpressible horror and indignation the murderous and treasonable conspiracy of John Brown and his confederates to incite a servile insurrection in the slaveholding States, and heartily rejoice that the attempt was promptly suppressed, and the majesty of the law vindicated, by inflicting upon the conspirators, after a fair and impartial trial, that just punishment which the enormity of their crimes so richly merited. Resolved , That the Harper’s Ferry outrage was the natural conse- quence and and logical result of the doctrines and teachings of the Republican party, as explained and enforced in their platforms, par- tisan presses, books and pamphlets, and in the speeches of their leaders, in and out of Congress, and for this reason an honest and law-abiding people should not be satisfied with the disavowal or dis- approval by the Republican leaders of John Brown’s acts , unless they also repudiate the doctrines and teachings which produced those monstrous crimes, and denounce all persons who profess to sympa- thize with murderers and traitors, lamenting their fate and venerating their memory as martyrs who lost their lives in a just and holy cause. Resolved , That the delegates representing Illinois in the Charleston STEPHEN A . DOUGLAS. 267 Convention be instructed to vote for and use all honorable means to secure the readoption of the Cincinnati platform, without any addi- tions or subtractions. Resolved, That no honorable man can accept a seat as a delegate in the National Democratic Convention, or should be recognized as a member of the Democratic party, who will not abide the decisions of such convention and support its nominees. Resolved , That we affirm and repeat the principles set forth in the resolutions of the last State Convention of the Illinois Democracy, held in this city on the 21st day of April, 1858, and will not hesitate to apply those principles wherever a proper case may arise. Resolved, That the Democracy of the State of Illinois is unani- mously in favor of Stephen A. Douglas for the next Presidency, and that the delegates from this State are instructed to vote for him, and make every honorable effort to procure his nomination. THE NORTHWEST FOR DOUGLAS. The convention then elected their 22 delegates ; and they were all instructed to support Mr. Douglas for the nomination at Charleston. Indiana held her convention at Indianapolis on the 11th of January, and passed resolutions nearly similar to the above and quite as strong in favor of Mr. Douglas. The 26 dele’ gates to Charleston, from Indiana, were instructed by this convention to cast the vote of the State of Indiana as a unit for Mr. Douglas. Ohio, had held her State Convention a few days before, and it had been equally unanimous in favor of Mr. Douglas. Ohio is entitled to 46 delegates to Charleston, all of whom were instructed by the State Convention to cast the vote of Ohio as a unit for Mr Douglas. Minnesota, entitled to 8 delegates, instructed them to go as a unit for Mr. Douglas. Iowa held her State Convention at Fort Des Moines, on the 22d of February. It was the largest convention ever held in the State. There were 518 delegates present, from all parts of the State. The resolutions were adopted unanimously among them were the following : 268 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 8. Resolved , That we recognize in tlie Hon. Stephen A. Douglas the man for the times, able in council, ripe in experience, honest and firm in purpose, and devotedly attached to the institutions of the country, whose nomination as the Democratic standard-bearer for the Presi- dent would confer honor alike on the party and the country, and is a consummation devoutly to be wished ; and that the delegates elected by this convention be and are hereby instructed to cast the vote of the State of Iowa in the Charleston Convention as a unit for Stephen A. Douglas so long as he is a candidate before that body, and to use every other honorable means to secure his nomination for the Presidency. Another resolution cordially re-affirmed the principles of the platform of the National Democratic Convention at Cin- cinnati in 1856. Wisconsin held her State Convention on the same day. The following resolutions were adopted by a vote of 165 ayes to 22 nays : Resolved. That the Democratic party of 'Wisconsin will cordially support the nominee of the Charleston convention. Resolved , That Stephen A. Douglas is the choice of the Democracy of Wisconsin for President of the United States — his eminent public services rendered the government and the country — his signal triumphs in the Senate and before the people — his admitted ability — his sound and just views of public policy — his devotion to the Consti- tution and the Union — render his name a tower of strength, and gives assurance to the conviction that, if nominated at Charleston, he will most certainly receive the electoral vote of Wisconsin. Therefore, Resolved , That the entire delegation be instructed to vote for Stephen A. Douglas. Michigan also held her State Convention on the same day. The convention was very full, every county in the State being represented. The Committee on Resolutions reported a long series. They emphatically indorse the Cincinnati platform ; recog- nize the paramount judical authority in the Supreme Court of the United States ; express a fraternal regard for the citizens of every State, and denounce the invasion of Virginia as dan- gerous to the safety and prosperity of the country ; appeal to their brethren in other States to bury local prejudices, and join Michigan in advocating the claims of the favorite of the North-west ; present Douglas as their unanimous choice, and STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 2d9 instruct their delegates to use every honorable means to se- cure his nomination. The resolutions "were unanimously adopted amid great enthusiasm. Patriotic Union speeches were made by the State delegates, and all declared themselves uncompromising Douglas men. The name of Douglas was always received with the heartiest applause. Among the resolutions adopted, was the following : That admiring his broad, national statesmanship, his loyalty to true Democratic principles, his impartial defence of national ri-ghts against sectional claims, and that heroic courage which- — in be- half of the right — quails at no difficulty or disaster, and confi- dent that under his matchless leadership the enthusiastic masses can and will sweep the Northwest from centre to circumference, the Democracy of Michigan present Stephen A. Douglas as their unanimous choice for the Presidency, and they hereby instruct their delegates to the Charleton Convention to spare no honor- able efforts to secure his nomination. Iu the aggregate, these seven States have one hundred and thirty-two delegates at Charleston, and give sixty-six votes for President. They cast over 000,000 Democratic votes, a number equal to all the Democrats in the fifteen Southern States. They give one-third of the Democratic vote of the Union, and contain more than one-quarter of the population of the United States. By the census ot the present year they will be entitled to over ninety members of Congress. THE CLAIMS OF THE NORTH-WEST. While all the sections of the Union have each had their Presidents — indeed wliile every leading State in the East and South has had one or more of her sons honored with that high office — the great North-west, with its millions of people, has never had the Chief Magistrate taken from her limits. The case of General Harrison can scarcely be quoted to dis- 270 LIFE OF STEPHEN A . DOUGLAS. prove this remark, as lie held the office hut one month, when it reverted, by his death, to Virginia. For the first time in their history, the unfaltering Demo- cracy of the seven north-western States, hitherto always divided in their choice, are a unit for Mr. Douglas, and, if nominated at Charleston, it is the belief of nearly all the intel- ligent men in that section he would carry every State west of the Oliio River. They present, as their favorite, confessedly the foremost statesman of the nation — one, the unvarnished record of whose achievements puts him on a towering pedes- tal and furnishes a crushing answer to all the calumnies of his enemies. They present a man whose private escutcheon slan- der has never befouled with its breath, and whose career lias been characterized by a greater height of moral grandeur than has ever been reached by any statesman of his day. CONCLUSION. Combinations are thickening around him. Undoubtedly the favorite of the popular heart — beyond question the first choice of a large majority of the Democratic masses of the country — political conspirators are at work night and day to defeat his nomination at Charleston. No contrivance which artful malice can suggest is permitted to escape unavailed of. Politioal calumnies, for years sleeping in the grave where truth consigned them, -are revived and revamped. Republi- cans and southern Disunionists, almost in open alliance, are conspiring to thwart this to them most hateful consummation, the former satisfied that Douglas’ nomination is their mortify- ing, crushing defeat, the latter, assured that if nominated he will be elected, and all excuse for secession and revolution re- moved. But the conspiracy will not triumph. The people have taken up his cause, and will bring such a pressure of opinion on Charleston that the politicians will not disregard it. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 211 The adjourned meeting of the Democratic Conten- tion to Baltimore, on the 18th day of June, is a matter of history. Mr. Douglas was nominated on the Second Ballot, he having received 180£ votes out of 194^ cast, when Mr. Church, of New York, offered the following : Resolved, That Stephen A. Douglas having received two-thirds of all the votes cast in the National Democratic Convention, is, according to the rules of this Convention and the usages of the Democratic party, declared nominated for the office of President of the United States. Messrs. Hoge, of Virginia, and Clark, of Missouri, then simultaneously seconded the resolution of Mr. Church declaring Judge Douglas nominated, according to the usages of the Democratic party and the rules of the Con- vention, by a two-thirds vote. The resolution was adopted unanimously. A scene of excitement then ensued that evinced the violence of the feeling so long pent up. The cheers were deafening, every person in the theatre rising, waving hats, handkerchiefs, and evincing the utmost enthu- siasm. The scene could not be exceeded in excitement. From the upper tier, banners long kept in reserve were unfurled and waved before the audience. On the stage appeared banners, one of which was borne by the delegation from Pennsylvania, bearing the motto, “Pennsylvania good for forty thousand majority for Douglas.” Cheers for the “ Little Giant,” were responded to until all was in a perfect roar, inside the building and outside. The Convention again rose en masse, and the scene of excitement was renewed, cheer after cheer being sent forth for the nominee. Mr. Richardson, of Illinois, then made a speech, thanking the Conven- tion for the high honor conferred on his State in selecting for the candi- date for the Presidency her favorite son. Alluding to the seceders, he said that if the Democratic party should be defeated and perpetually ruined, they, the seceders, must bear the responsibility, not Douglas or his friends. In this connection he produced a letter from Mr. Douglas, dated Wash- ington, the 20th inst., authorizing and requesting his friends to withdraw his name if, in their judgment, harmony could be restored in the Demo- cratic ranks. Mr. Richardson then said that the course of the seceders had 212 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF placed it out of the power of the friends of Mr. Douglas to make any use of the letter. He concluded by saying that when the Government fails to accomplish the object for which it was formed, let it go down. The following is the letter of Mr. Douglas : ■Washington, Jane, 20—11, p.m. My Dear Sir: I learn there is imminent danger that the Democratic party will be de- moralized, if not destroyed, by the breaking up of the Convention. Such a result would inevitably expose the country to the perils of sectional strife between the Northern and Southern partisans of Congressional intervention upon the subject of slavery in the Terri- tories. I firmly and conscientiously believe that there is no safety for the country, no hope for the preservation o f the Union, except by a faithful and rigid adherence to the doctrine of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories. Intervention means dis- union. There is no difference in principle between Northern and Southern intervention. The one intervenes for slavery, and the other against slavery ; but each appeals to the passions and prejudices of his own section against the peace of the whole country and the right of self-government by the people of the Territories. Hence the docrine of non-inter- vention must be maintained at all hazards. But while I can never sacrifice the principle, even to obtain the Presidency, I will cheerfully and joyfully sacrifice myself to maintain the principle, If, therefore, you and my other friends who have stood by me with such heroic firmness at Charleston and Baltimore shall be of the opinion that the principle can be preserved, and the unity and ascendency of the Democratic party maintained, and the country saved from the perils of Northern Abolitionism and Southern disunion by withdrawing my name and uniting with some other non-intervention Union-loving Democrat, I beseech you to pursue that course. Do not understand me as wishing to dictate to my friends ; I have implicit confidence in your and their patriotism, judgment, and discretion. Whatever you may do in the premises will meet my hearty approval. But I conjure you to act with a single eye to the safety and welfare of the country, and without the slightest regard to my individual interest or aggrandizement. My interest will be best promoted, and my ambition gratified, and motives vindicated, by that course, on the part of my friends, which will be most effectual in saving the country from being ruled or ruined by a sectional party. The action of the Charleston Convention, by sustaining me by so large a majority on the platform, and designating me as the first choice of the party for the Presidency, is all the personal triumph I desire. This letter is prompted by the same motives which induced my dispatch four years ago, withdrawing my name from the Cincinnati Convention. With this knowledge of my opinions and wishes, you and your other friends must act upon your own convictions of duty. Very truly, your friend, S. A. DOUGLAS. To Hon. Wji. A. Richardson, Baltimore, Md. THE PLATFORM ADOPTED. In addition to and in explanation of the Cincinnati platform, the majority of our late National Convention, during its sessions at Charleston and Balti- more, adopted the following resolutions : STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS 213 Resolved, That we, the Democracy of the Union, In Convention assembled, do hereby declare our affirmation of the resolutions unanimously adopted and declared as a platform of principles by the Democratic Convention at Cincinnati, in the year 1856, believing that Democratic principles are unchangeable in their nature when applied to the same subject- matters. Resolved, That it is the duty of the United States to afford ample and complete protec- tion to all its citizens, whether at home or abroad, and whether native or foreign born. Resolved, That one of the necessities of the age in a military, commercial and postal point of view, is speedy communication between the Atlantic and Pacific States, and the Democratic party pledge such Constitutional power of the Government as will insure the construction of a Railroad to the Pacific coast, at the earliest practicable period. Resolved, That the Democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of Cuba on such terras as shall be honorable to ourselves and just to Spain. Resolved, That the enactments of State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave law, are hostile In character and subversive to the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effects. Resolved, That it is in accordance with the Cincinnati platform, that during the exis- tence of Territorial Governments, the measure of restriction, whatever it may be, imposed by the Federal Constitution on the power of the Territorial Legislature over the subject of the domestic relations, as the same has been or shall hereafter be finally determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, should be respected by all good citizens, and en- forced with promptness and fidelity by every branch of the General Government. On this platform, word for word, as printed above, the majority of our late National Convention nominated the Hon. Stephen A. Douglas for President of the United States. UR. DOUGLAS’ LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE. Washington, Friday, June 29, 1860. Gentlemen: In accordance with the verbal assurance which I gave you when you placed in my hands the authentic evidence of my nomination for the Presidency by the National Convention of the Democratic party, I now send you my formal acceptance. Upon a careful examination of the plat- form of principles adopted at Charleston and reaffirmed at Baltimore, with an additional resolution which is in perfect harmony with the others, I find it to be a faithful embodiment of the time-honored principles of the Demo- cratic party, as the same were proclaimed and understood by all parties in the Presidential contests of 1848, 1852, and 1856. Upon looking into the proceedings of the Convention also, I find that the nomination was made with great unanimity, in the presence and with the concurrence of more than two-thirds of the whole number of dele- gates, and in accordance with the long-established usages of the party. My inflexible purpose not to be a candidate, nor accept the nomination un- der any contingency, except as the regular nominee of the National Demo- THE LIFE ASD SPEECHES OF 214 cratic party, and in that case only upon the condition that the usages, as well as the principles of the party, should be strictly adhered to, had been proclaimed for a long time and become well known to the country. These conditions having all been complied with by the free and voluntary action of the Democratic masses and their faithful representatives, without any agency, interference, or procurement, on my part, I feel bound in honor and duty to accept the nomination. In taking this step, I am not unmind- ful of the responsibilities it imposes, but with firm reliance upon Divine Providence, I have the faith that the people will comprehend the true na- ture of the issues involved, and eventually maintain the right. The peace of the country and the perpetuity of the Union have been put in jeopardy by attempts to interfere with and to control the domestic affairs of the people in the Territories, through the agency of the Federal Government. If the power and the duty of Federal interference is to be conceded, two hostile sectional parties must be the inevitable result — the one inflaming the passions and ambitions of the North, the other of the South, and each struggling to use the Federal power and authority for the aggrandizement of its own section, at the expense of the equal rights of the other, and in derogation of those fundamental principles of self-gov- ernment which were firmly established in this country by the American Re- volution, as the basis of our entire republican system. During the memorable period of our political history, when the advo- cates of Federal intervention upon the subject of slavery in the Territories had well-nigh “ precipitated the country into revolution,” the northern interventionists demanding the Wilmot Proviso for the prohibition of slavery, and the southern interventionists, then few in number, and with- out a single Representative in either House of Congress, insisting upon Congressional legislation for the protection of slavery in opposition to the wishes of the people in either case, it will be remembered that it required all the .wisdom, power and influence of a Clay and a Webster and a Cass, supported by the conservative and patriotic men of the Whig and Demo- cratic parties of that day, to devise and carry out a line of policy which would restore peace to the country and stability to the Union. The essen- tial living principle of that policy, as applied in the legislation of 1850, was and now is, non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Terri- tories. The fair application of this just and equitable principle restored harmony and fraternity to a distracted country. If we now depart from that wise and just policy which produced these happy results, and permit the country to be again distracted ; if precipitated into revolution by a STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 215 sectional contest between Pro-Slavery and Anti-Slavery interventionists, where shall we look for another Clay, another Webster, or another Casa to pilot the ship of state over the breakers into a haven of peace and safety, The Federal Union must be preserved. The Constitution must be main- tained inviolate in all its parts. Every right guaranteed by the Constitu- tion must be protected by law in all cases where legislation is necessary to its engagement. The judicial authority as provided in the Constitution must be sustained, and its decisions implicitly obeyed and faithfully exe- cuted. The laws must be administered and the constituted authorities upheld, and all unlawful resistance to these things must be put down with firmness, impartiality and fidelity if we expect to enjoy and transmit unimpaired to our posterity, that blessed inheritance which we have received in trust from the patriots and sages of the Revolution. With sincere thanks for the kind and agreeable manner in which you have made known to me the action of the Convention, I have the honor to be, Your friend and fellow citizen, S. A. DOUGLAS. Hon. Wm, H. Ludlow, of New York ; R. P. Dick, of North Carolina; P. C. "Wickliff, ol Louisiana, and others of Committee. % A ■ - 1 ■ ” ■ ... .. •< i ,, v ... ■ ■ • . > ' SPEECHES AND REPORTS cm THE MEASURES OF ADJUSTMENT. Delivered in the City Hall , Chicago , Illinois , Oct. 23, 1850. The agitation on the subject of slavery now raging through the breadth of the land presents a most extraordinary spectacle. Congress, after a protracted session of nearly ten months, succeeded in passing a system of measures, which are believed to be just to all parts of the Republic, and ought to be satisfactory to the people. The South has not triumphed over the North, nor has the North achieved a victory over the South. Neither party has made any humiliating concessions to the other. Each has preserved its honor, while neither has sur- rendered an important right, or sacrificed any substantial interest. The measures composing the scheme of adjustment are believed to be in harmony with the principles of justice and the Constitution. And yet we find that the agitation is re-opened in the two extremes of the Union with renewed vigor and increased violence. In some of the southern States, special sessions of the legislatures are being called for the purpose of organizing systematic and efficient measures’ of resistance to the execution of the laws of the land, and for the adoption of disunion as the remedy. In the northern States, munici- pal corporations, and other organized bodies of men, are nullifying the acts of Congress, and raising the standard of rebellion against the authority of the Federal Government. At the South, the measures of adjustment are denounced as a dis- graceful surrender of southern rights to northern abolitionism. At the North, the same measures are denounced with equal violence as a total abandonment of the rights of freemen to conciliate the slave power. The southern disnnionists repudiate the authority of the highest judicial tribunal on earth, upon the ground that it is a pliant and corrupt instrument in the hands of northern fanaticism. The northern nullifiers refuse to submit the points at issue to the same exalted tribunal, upon the ground that the Supreme Court of the United States is a corrupt and supple instrument in the hands of the southern slavocracy. For these contradictory reasons the people in both sections of the 4 1 HE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Union are called upon to resist the laws of the land, and the authority of the Federal Government, by violence, even unto death and disunion. Strange and contradictory positions! Both cannot be true, and I trust in God neither may prove to be. "We have fallen on evil times, when passion, and prejudice, and ambi- tion, can so blind the judgments and deaden the consciences of men, that the truth cannot be seen and felt. The people of the North, or the South, or both, are acting under a fatal delusion. Should we not pause, and reflect, and consider, whether we, as well as they, have not been egregiously deceived upon this subject? It is my purpose this evening to give a candid and impartial exposition of these mea- sures, to the end that the truth may be known. It does not become a free people to rush madly and blindly into violence, and bloodshed, and death, and disunion, without first satisfying our consciences upon whose souls the guilty consequences must rest. The measures, known as the adjustment or compromise scheme, are six in number : 1. The admission of California, with her free constitution. 2. The creation of a Territorial government for Utah, leaving the people to regulate their own domestic institutions. 3. The creation of a Territorial government for New Mexico, with like provisions. 4. The adjustment of the disputed boundary with Texas. 5. The abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. 6. The Fugitive Slave Bill. The first three of these measures — California, Utah, and New Mexico — I prepared with my own hands, and reported from the Committee on Territories, as its chairman, in the precise shape in which they now stand on the statute-book, with one or two unimportant amendments, for which I also voted. I, therefore, hold myself res- ponsible to you, as my constituents, for those measures as they passed. If there is anything wrong in them, hold me accountable; if there is anything of merit, give the credit to those who passed the bills. These measures are predicated on the great fundamental principle that every people ought to possess the right of forming and regulating their own internal concerns and domestic institutions in their own way. It was supposed that those of our fellow-citizens who emi- grated to the shores of the Pacific and to our other territories, 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 have lost any of their intelligence 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 familiar with its topography, climate, productions, and resources, and had con- nected 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 \v v little about it. To question their competency to du STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 5 this, was to deny their capacity for self-government. If they have the requisite intelligence and honesty to be intrusted with the enact- ment 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 protection of life, liberty, and property — of morals and education— to determine the relation of husband and wife — of parent and child — I am not aware that it requires any higher degree of civilization to regulate the affairs of master and servant. These things are all confided by the Constitution of each State to decide for itself, and I know of no reason why the same principle should not be extended to the Terri- tories. My votes and acts have been in accordance with these views in all cases, except the 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. I believed then, and believe now, that it was better for the cause of freedom, of humanity, and of republicanism, to leave the people interested to settle all these questions for themselves. They have intellect and consciences as well as we, and have more interest in doing that which is best for themselves and their posterity, than we have as their self-constituted and officious guardians. I deem it fortunate for the peace and harmony of the country that Congress, taking the same view of the subject, rejected the Proviso, and passed the bills in the shape in which I originally reported them. So far as slavery is concerned, I am sure that any man who will take the pains to examine the history of the question, will come to the conclusion that this is the true policy, as well as the sound republican doctrine. Mr. Douglas here went into a historical view of the subject, to show that slavery had never been excluded in fact from one inch of the American continent by act of Congress. When the federal Consti- tution was formed in ’87, twelve of the thirteen States, then compos- ing the Confederation, held slaves, and sustained the institution of slavery by their laws. Since that period slavery had been abol- ished in six of these twelve original slave States. How was this effected? Not by an act of Congress. Not by the interposition of the Federal Government. Congress had no power over the subject, and never attempted to interfere with it. Slavery was abolished in those States by the people of each, acting for themselves, and upon their own motion and responsibility. The people became convinced that it was for their own interests, and the interests of their posterity, pecuniarily and morally, and they did it of their own free will, and rigidly enforced their own laws. So it was in the territory northwest of the Ohio River. By the act of Congress, known as the Ordinance of ’87, slavery was prohibited by law, hut not excluded in fact. Slavery existed in the Territories of Illinois and Indiana, in spite of the Ordinance, under the authority of the Territorial laws. Illinois was a slaveholding Territory in de* 6 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF fiance of the act of Congress, but became a free State by the action of our own people, when they framed our State constitution, prepa- ratory to their admission into the Union. So it was with Indiana. Oregon prohibited shivery by the action of her people under their provisional government, several years before Congress established a Territorial government. In short, wherever slavery has been excluded, and free institutions established, it has been done by the voluntary action of the people interested. Wherever Congress at- tempted to interfere in opposition to the wishes of the people of the Territory, its enactments remained a dead letter upon the statute- book, and the people took such legislative action as comported with their inclinations and supposed interests. Mr. Douglas then referred to the country acquired from Mexico, and called the attention of the audience to the fact, that the aboli- tionists had all predicted that slavery would certainly be introduced into those territories, unless Congress interfered and prohibited it by law, and condemned him because he was opposed to such interfer- ence. The problem is now solved. What was then a matter of opinion and disputation, has become a historical fact. Time has settled the controversy, and shown who was right and who was wrong. The Wilmot Proviso was not adopted. Congress did not prohibit slavery in those territories, and yet slavery does not exist in them. In California, it was prohibited by the people in the consti- tution with which that State was admitted into the Union. It is well known that the people of Mew Mexico, when they formed a constitution with the view of asking admission, also prohibited sla- very. These facts show conclusively that all the predictions of the abolitionists upon this subject have been falsified by history, and that my own have been literally fulfilled. I refer to these facts, not in the spirit of self-gratulation, but to show that these men, who have alarmed the friends of freedom, and for a time partially controlled the popular sentiment, were themselves mistaken, and misled their followers ; at the same time that their doctrine was at war with the whole spirit of our republican institutions. But let us return to the measures immediately under discussion. It must be conceded that the question of the admission of California was not free from difficulty, independently of the subject of sla- very. There were many irregularities in the proceedings ; in fact, every step in her application for admission was irregular, when viewed with reference to a literal compliance with the most approved rules and usages in the admission of new States. On the other hand, it should be borne in mind that this resulted from the necessity of the case. Congress had failed to perform its duty — had established no Territorial government, and made no provision for her admission into the Union. She was left without government, and was there- fore compelled to provide one for herself. She could not conform to rules which had not been established, nor comply with laws which Congress had failed to enact. The same irregularities had occurred, STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS 7 liowerer, and been waived, in the admission of 'other States under peculiar circumstances. True, they had not all occurred in the case of any one State ; but some had in one, others in another ; so that, by looking into the circumstances attending the admission of each of the new States, we find that all of these irregularities, as they are called, had intervened and been waived in the course of our legisla- tive history. Besides, the territory of California was too extensive for one State, (if we are to adopt the old States as a guide in carving out new ones,) being about three times the size of New York; and her boundaries were unnatural and unreasonable, disregarding the topography of the country, and embracing the whole mining region and her coast in the limits. Thus it will be seen that the slavery question was not the only real difficulty that the admission of Cali- fornia presented to the minds of calm and reflecting men ; although it cannot be denied that it was the exciting cause, which stimulated a large portion of the people in one section to demand her instant admission, and in the other, to insist upon her unconditional rejec- tion. Even iu this point of view, I humbly conceive that the ultras in each extreme of the republic acted under a misconception of their true interests and real policy. The whole of California — from the very nature of the country, her rocks and sands, elevation above the sea, climate, soil, and productions— was bound to be free territory by the decision of her own people, no matter when admitted or how divided. Hence, if considered with reference to the preponderance of political power between the free and slaveholding States, it was manifestly the true policy of the South to include the whole country in one State ; while the same reasons should have induced the North to subdivide it into as many States as the extent of the territory would justify. But, in my opinion, it was not proper for Congress to act upon any such principle. We should know no North, no South, in our legislation, but look to the interests of the whole coun- try. By our action in this case, the rights and privileges of Califor- nia and the Pacific coast were principally to be affected. By erect- ing the country into one State instead of three, the people are to be represented in the Senate by two in the place of six senators. If their interests suffer in consequence, they can blame no ono but themselves, for Congress only confirmed what they had previously done. The problem in relation to slavery should have been much more easily solved. It was a question which concerned the people of California alone. The other States of the Union had no interest in it, and no right to interfere with it. South Carolina settled that question within her own limits to suit herself; Illinois has decided it in a manner satisfactory to her own people ; and upon what prin- ciple are we to deprive the people of the State of California of a right which is common to every State in the Union? The bills establishing Territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico are silent upon the subject of slavery, except the provision that, when they should be admitted info the Union as States, each 8 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF should decide the question of slm cry for itself. This latter provision was not incorporated in my original bills, for the reason that I con- ceived it to involve a principle so clearly deducible from the Consti- tution that it was unnecessary to embody it in the form of a legal enactment. But when it was offered as an amendment to the bills, I cheerfully voted for it, lest its rejection should be deemed a denial of the principle asserted in it. The abolitionists of the North pro- fess to regard these bills as a total abandonment of the principles of freedom, because they do not contain an express prohibition of sla- very ; while the ultras of the South denounce the same measures as equivalent to the Wilmot Proviso. Of the Texas boundary I have but little to say, for the reason that I have scaroely heard it alluded to since my return home, although many complaints are made against it in other portions of the free States. It was an unfortunate dispute, which could result in no practical benefit to either party, no matter how decided. The Terri- tory in controversy was of no considerable value. If there was a spot on the face of the American continent more worthless than any other ; if there was a barren waste more desolate — sands more arid, and rocks more naked than all others — it was the country in dispute between Texas and the United States. Distant from navigation, and almost inaccessible for want of means of communication ; void of timber, fuel, water, or soil, with the exception of here and there a nook in the gorges of the mountains, it was entirely useless, save as it afforded hiding-places for the wild and roaming savages. And yet the controversy was none the less serious and fierce in consequence of the barrenness of the country. Texas believed it to bo hers, and deemed it a point of honor to maintain her title at all hazards and against all odds. Many of the States entertained doubts of the vali- dity of the Texan claim, while others considered it entirely without foundation. In this state of the case, each party having partial pos- session, was mustering troops to render its possession complete to the exclusion of the other. Many of the slaveholding States, from sympathy with the peculiar institutions of Texas, were preparing to array themselves on the one side, while most of the free States, from aversion to those institutions, were expected to array themselves on the other. Thus were we plunging headlong and madly into a civil war, involving results which no human wisdom could foresee, and consequences which could be contemplated only with horror. Fortunately this unnatural struggle was averted by the timely and judicious interposition of Congress. The Committee on Territories, to whom the subject had been referred, found it impossible to ascer- tain-and agree upon the true boundary line of Texas, and accord- ingly authorized me, as their chairman, to report a bill for adjusting the boundary upon an arbitrary but convenient line, drawn through the centre of the desert, and to pay Texas dollars for relin- quishing her claim to the waste lands outside of that line. I, there- fore, reported this provision, at the same time that I brought in tho STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 9 lills for California, Utah, and New Mexico, with the intention of moving to fill the blank with ten millions of dollars. When the Committee of Thirteen, which was subsequently appointed, united into one the several bills which had been reported by the Commit- tee on Territories, and thus formed what has been known as the “ Omnibus Bill,” they made a slight change in the line which had been agreed upon by the Territorial Committee. Upon the defeat of the Omnibus, Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, brought in a separate bill for adjusting this boundary, predicated upon the principle, also, of an arbitrary but convenient line through the Desert, changing the courses, however, so as to obviate some objections which have been urged to the others, and paying Texas ten millions of dollars for re- linquishing her claim. This bill, after having been joined in the House of Representatives to the bill establishing a Territorial gov- ernment for New Mexico, passed both houses, and became the law of the land. The people of Texas have since ratified it at the polls by an overwhelming majority ; and thus this dangerous element of agitation has been withdrawn from the controversy by the mutual assent of the parties. And yet there are organized parties, in both extremes of the Union, who are striving to reopen the controversy by persuading the people that the rights and interests of their own particular section have been basely betrayed in the settlement of this question. At the South, it is boldly proclaimed, and every where repeated, that sixty thousand square miles of slave territory have been sold and converted into free soil. On the other hand, the northern nullifiers and abolitionists are industriously impressing it upon the people that more than fifty thousand square miles of free soil have been transferred to Texas, and converted into slave terri- tory by the act of Congress adjusting the Texas boundary. Such are the extremities to which prejudice and ambition can lead des- perate men! Neither party has gained or lost anything, so far as the question of slavery is concerned. Texas has gained ten millions of dollars, and the United States have saved, in blood and treasure, the expenses of a civil war. The next in the series of measures was the hill for the abolition ot the slave trade in the District of Columbia. This bill was prepared and reported by the Committee of Thirteen, and I gave it my cordial support. I has been represented at the South as a concession to the North, to induce us to perform our duties under the Constitution in the surrender of fugitives from labor, and much opposition has been raised against the whole scheme of adjustment on that account. I did not regard it in that light. My vote was given upon no such con- siderations. I believed each of the measures substantially right in itselfi and, under the extraordinary circumstances by which we were surrounded, eminently wise and expedient. The bill does not abolish slavery in the District — does not emancipate the few slaves that aro there, and interferes with no man’s right of property. It simply provides that slaves shall hot be brought from the surrounding 1 * 10 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF States, or elsewhere, into the District for sale. In this respect, Con gress only followed the example of the legislatures of Maryland, North Carolina, Kentucky, and, in fact, most of the slaveholding States. The country embraced within the limits of the District of Columbia, therefore, stands in precisely the same relation to the slave trade under this law, that it would have stood under the laws of Maryland, if it had never been separated from that State. "What justification can there be then, for the assertion that this was a con- cession to the North ? It does nothing more nor less than to apply the general principles of the legislation of a majority of the southern States to the District of Columbia. But, while it was no concession from one section to the other, I had a right to expect that those modern philanthropists who have declaimed so eloquently and vio- lently against the disgrace of the National Capitol, by the slave trade within its precincts, would have rejoiced with exceeding joy at the passage of this act. I have listened in vain for one word of appro- val or commendation from the advocates of abolition or nullification. While the whole series of Compromise measures are denounced in coarse and unmeasured terms, not one word of congratulation to the friends of freedom — not a word of approval of the act or of the conduct of those who voted for it — is allowed to escape their lips. All the other measures of the scheme of adjustment are attempted to be kept in the background, and concealed from the public view, in order that more prominence and importance may be given to what they are pleased to call “The infamous Fugitive Slave Bill.” Before I proceed to the exposition of that bill, I will read the pre- amble and resolutions passed by the Common Council of this city, night before last. Mr. Douglas then read as follows : “ Whereas, The Constitution of the United States provides that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it; and, “ Whereas , The late act of Congress purporting to be for the recovery of fugitive slaves, virtually suspends the habeas corpus, and abolishes the right of trial by jury, and by its provisions, not only fugitive slaves, but white men, ‘ owing service’ to another in another State, viz., the apprentice, the mecha- nic, the farmer, the laborer engaged on contract or otherwise, whose terms of service are unexpired, may be captured and carried off summarily, and witboui legal resource of any kind ; and, “ Whereas, No law can be legally or morally binding on us which violates the provisions of the Constitution ; and, “ Whereas, Above all, in the responsibilities of human life, and the practice and propagation of Christianity, the laws of God should be held paramount to all human compacts and statutes : Therefore, “ Resolved, That the Senators and Representatives in Congress from the free States, who aided and assisted in the passage of this infamous law, and those who basely sneaked away from their seats, and thereby evaded the question, richly merit the reproach of all lovers of freedom, and are fit only to bo ranked with the traitors, Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed his Lori/ and Master for thirty pieces of silver. “ And Resolved. That the citizens, officers, and police of the city be, and STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 11 they are hereby requested to abstain from all interference in the capture and delivering up of the fugitive from unrighteous oppression, of whatever nation, name, or color. Resolved , That the Fugitive Slave Law lately passed by Congress is a cruel and unjust law. and ought not to be respected by any intelligent community, and that this Council will not require the city police to render any assistance for the arrest of fugitive slaves. “ Ayes — Aid. Miiiiken, Loyd, Sherwood, Foss, Throop, Sherman, Richards, Brady and Dodge. ‘‘ Nays — Aid. Page and Williams.” But for the passage of these resolutions, said Mr. D., I should not have addressed you this evening, nor, indeed, at any time before my return to the Capitol. I have no desire to conceal or withhold my opinions, no wish to avoid the responsibility of a full and frank expression of them, upon this and all other subjects which were embraced in the action of the last session of Congress. My reasons for wishing to avoid public discussion at this time, were to be found in the state of my health and the short time allowed me to remain among you. Now to the resolutions. I make no criticism upon the language in which they are expressed ; that is a matter of taste, and in every thing of that kind I defer to the superior refinement of our city fathers. But it cannot be disguised that the polite epithets of “traitors, Benedict Arnold, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed his Lord and Master for thirty pieces of silver,” will be understood abroad as having direct personal application to my esteemed col- league, G-en. Shields, and myself. Whatever may have been the inten- tion of those who voted for the resolutions, I will do the members of council the justice to say, that I do not believe they intended to make any such application. But their secret intentions are of little consequence, when they give their official sanction to a charge of infamy, clothed in such language that every man who reads it must give it a personal application. The whole affair, however, looks strange, and even ludicrous, when contrasted with the cordial recep- tion and public demonstrations of kindness and confidence, and even gratitude for supposed services, extended to my colleague and myself upon our arrival in this city one week ago. Then we were welcomed home as public benefactors, and invited to partake of a ptublic dinner, by an invitation numerously signed by men of all parties and shades of opinion. The invitation had no sooner been declined, for reasons which were supposed to be entirely satisfactory, and my colleague staited for his home, than the Common Council, who are presumed to speak officially for the whole population of the city, attempted to brand their honored guests with infamy, and denounce them as Bene- dict Arnolds and Judas Iscariots! I have read somewhere that it was a polite custom, in other countries and a different age, to invite those whom they secretly wished to destroy to a feast, in order to secure a more convenient opportunity of administering the hemlock ! I acquit the Common Council of any design of introducing that custom 12 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF into our hospitable city. But I have done with this subject, so fat as it has a personal bearing. It is a far more important and serious matter, when viewed with reference to the principles involved, and the consequences which may result. The Common Council of the city of Chicago have assumed to themselves the right, and actually exercised the power, of determining the validity of an act of Congress, and have declared it void upon the ground that it violates the Constitution of the United States and the law of God ! They have gone further ; they declared, by a solemn, official act, that a law passed by Congress “ ought not to be respected by any intelligent community,” aud have called upon “ the citizens, officers, aud police of the city” to abstain from rendering any aid or assistance in its execution! What is this but naked, unmitigated nullification ? An act of the American Congress nullified by the Common Council of the city of Chicago! Whence did the council derive their authority? I have been able to find no such provision in the city charter, nor am I aware that the legislature of Illinois is vested with any rightful power to confer such authority. I have yet to learn that a subordi- nate municipal corporation is licensed to raise the standard of rebel- lion, and throw off the authority of the Federal Government at pleasure ! This is a great improvement upon South Carolinian nul- lification. It dispenses with the trouble, delay, and expense of con- vening legislatures aud assembling conventions of the people, for the purpose of resolving themselves back into their original elements, preparatory to the contemplated revolution. It has the high merit of marching directly to its object, and by a simple resolution, writ- ten and adopted on the same night, relieving the people from their oaths and allegiance, aud of putting the nation and its laws at defi- ance ! It nas heretofore been supposed by men of antiquated notions, who. have not kept up with the progress of the age, that the Supreme Court of the United States was invested with the power of deter- mining the validity of an act of Congress passed in pursuance of the forms of the Constitution. This was the doctrine of the entire North, and of the nation, when it became necessary to exert the whole power of the government to put down nullification in another portion of the Union. But the spirit of the age is progres- sive, and is by no means confined to advancement in the arts and physical sciences. The science of politics and of government is also rapidly advancing to maturity and perfection. It is not long since that I heard an eminent lawyer propose an important reform in the admirable judicial system of our State, which he thought would render it perfect. It w'as so simple and eminently practicable, that it could not fail to excite the admiration of even the casual inquirer. His proposition tvas, that our judicial system should be so improved as to alloAV an appeal on all constitutional questions from the Supremo Court of this State to two justices of the peace! When that shall have been effected, but one other reform will be necessary to render STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 13 our national system perfect, and that is, to change the federal Con- stitution, so as to authorize an appeal, upon all questions touching the validity of acts of Congress, from the Supreme Court of the United States to the Common Council of the city of Chicago ! So much for the general principles involved in the acts of the council. I will now examine briefly the specific ground of objection urged by the council against the Fugitive Slave Bill, as reasons why it should not he obeyed. The objections are two in number : first, that it suspends the writ of habeas corpus in the time of peace, in violation of the Constitu- tion ; secondly, that it abolishes the right of trial by jury. How the council obtained the information that these two odious provisions were contained in the law, I am unable to divine. One thing is certain, that the members of the council, who voted for these resolutions, had never read the law, or they would have discovered their mistake. There is not one word in it in respect to the writ of habeas corpus or the right of trial by jury. Neither of these sub- jects is mentioned or referred to. The law is entirely silent on those points. Is it to be said that an act of Congress which is silent on the subject, ought to be construed to repeal a great consti- tutional right by implication ? Besides, this act is only an amend- ment — amendatory to the old law — the act of 1793 — hut does not repeal it. There is no difference between the original act and the amendment, in this respect. Both are silent in regard to the writ of habeas corpus and the right of trial by jury. If to be silent is to suspend the one and abolish the other, then the mischief was done by the old law fifty-seven years ago. If this construction be correct, the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended, and a trial by a jury abolished, more than half a century, without anybody ever discov- ering the fact, or, if knowing it, without uttering a murmur of com- plaint. Mr. Douglas then read the whole of the act of 1793, and compared its provisions with the amendment of last session, for the purpose of showing that the writ of habeas corpus and the right of trial by jury were not alluded to or interfered with by either. But I main- tain, said Mr. D., that the writ of habeas corpus is applicable to the case of the arrest of a fugitive under this law, in the same sense in which the Constitution intended to confer it, and to the fullest extent for which that writ is ever rightfully issued in any case. In this I am fully sustained by the opinion of Mr. Crittenden, the attor- ney-general of the United States. As soon as the bill passed the two houses of Congress, an abolition paper raised the alarm that the habeas corpus bill had been suspended. The cry was eagerly caught up, and transmitted by lightning upon the wires, to every part of the Union, by those whose avocation is agitation. The President of the United States, previous to signing the bill, referred it to the attorney-general, for his opinion upon the point whether any portion of it violated any provision of the Constitution of the 14 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF United States, and especially whether it conld possibly be construed to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. I have the answer of the attorney-general before me, in which he gives it as his decided opinion that every part of the law is entirely consistent with the Constitution, and that it does not suspend the writ of habeas corpus. I would commend the argument of the attorney-general to the careful perusal of those who have doubts upon the subject. Upon the presentation of this opinion, and with entire confidence in its correctness, President Pillmore signed the bill. [Here Mr. Douglas was interrupted by a person present, who called his attention to the last clause of the 6th section of the bill, Which he read, and asked him what construction he put upon it, if it did not suspend the writ of habeas corpus.] Mr. Douglas, in reply, expressed his thanks to the gentleman who propounded the inquiry. His object was to meet every point, and remove every doubt that could be possibly raised ; and he expressed the hope that every gentleman present would exercise the privilege of asking him questions upon all points upon which he was not fully satisfied. He then proceeded to answer the question which had been propounded. That section of the bill provides for the arrest of the fugitive and the trial before the commissioner ; and if the facts of servitude, ownership, and escape be established by competent evi- dence, the commissioner shall grant a certificate to that effect, which certificate shall be conclusive of the right of the person in whose favor it is issued to remove the fugitive to the State from which he fled. Then comes the clause which is supposed to suspend the habeas corpus : “ And shall prevent all molestatian of said person or persons by any process issued by any court , judge , magistrate , or other person whomsoever. ” The question is asked, whether the writ of habeas corpus is not a “ process ” within the meaning of this act? I answer, that it undoubtedly is such a “ process,” and that it may be issued by any court or judge having competent authority — not for the purpose of “ molesting ” a claimant, having a servant in his possession, with such a certificate from the commissioner or judge, but for the purpose of ascertaining the fact whether he has such a certificate or not ; and if so, whether it be in due form of law ; and if not, by what authority he holds the servant in custody. Upon the return of the writ of habeas corpus, the claimant will be required to exhibit to the court his authority for conveying that servant back ; and if he produces a “ certificate ” from the commissioner or judge in due form of law, the court will decide that it has no power to “molest the claimant” in the exercise of his rights under the law and the Constitution. But if the claimant is not able to produce such certi- ficate, or other lawful authority, or produces one which is not in conformity with law, the court will set the alleged servant at liberty, for the very reason that the law has not been complied with. The sole object of the writ of habeas corpus is to ascertain bj what STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 15 authority a person is held in custody ; to release him if no such authority be shown ; and to refrain from any molestation of the claimant, if legal authority he produced. The habeas corpus is necessary, therefore, to carry the fugitive law into effect, and, at the same time, to prevent a violation of the rights of freemen under it. It is essential to the security of the claimant, as well as the protection of the rights of those liable to be arrested under it. The reason that the writ of habeas corpus was not mentioned in the bill must be obvious. The object of the new law seems to have been, to amend the old one in those particulars wherein experience had proven amendments to be necessary, and in all other respects to leave it as it had stood from the days of Washington. The provisions of the old law have been subjected to the test of long experience — to the scrutiny of the bar and the judgment of the courts. The writ of habeas corpus had been adjudged to exist in all cases under it, and had always been resorted to when a proper case arose. In amending the law there was no necessity for any new provision upon this subject, because nobody desired to change it in this respect. But why this extraordinary effort, on the part of the professed friends of the fugitive, to force such a construction upon the law, in the absence of any such obnoxious provision, as to deprive him of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus? The law does not do so in terms ; and if it is ever accomplished, it must be done by implica- tion, contrary to the understanding of those who enacted it, and in opposition to the practice of the courts, acquiesced in by the people, from the foundation of the government. One would naturally suppose, that if there was room for doubt as to what is the true construction, those who claim to be the especial and exclusive friends of the negro would contend for that construction which is most favorable to liberty, justice, and humanity. But not so. Directly the reverse is the fact. They exhaust their learning, and exert all their ingenuity and skill, to deprive the negro of all rights under the law. What can be the motive? Certainly not to protect the rights of the free, or to extend liberty to the oppressed ; for they strive to fasten upon the law such a construction as would defeat both of these ends. Can it be a political scheme, to render the law odious, and to excite prejudice against all who voted for it, or were unavoidably absent when it passed ? No matter what the motive, the effects would be disastrous to those whose rights they profess to cherish, if their efforts should be successful. Now, a word or two in regard to the right of trial by jury. The city council, in their resolutions, say that this law abolishes that right. 1 have already shown you that the council are mistaken — that the law is silent upon the subject, and stands now precisely as it has stood for half a century. If the law is defective on that point, the error was committed by our fathers in 1793, and the people have acquiesced in it ever since, without knowing of its existence or car- ing to remedy it. The new act neither takes away nor confers tho 1G T M E LIFE AND SPEECI1ES OF right of trial by jury. It leaves it just were our fathers and the Constitution left it under the old law. That the right of trial by jury exists in this country for all men, black or white, bond or free, guilty or innocent, no man will be disposed to question who under- stands the subject. The right is of universal application, and exists alike in all the States of Union ; it always has existed, and always will exist, so long as the Constitution of the United States shall be respected and maintained, in spite of the efforts of the abolitionists to take it away by the perversion of the fugitive law. The only question is, where shall this jury trial take place ? Shall the jury trial be had in the State where the arrest is made, or the State from which the fugitive escaped? Upon this point the act of last session says nothing, and of course, leaves the matter as it stood under the law of ’93. The old law was silent on this point, and therefore left the courts to decide it in accordance with the Constitution. The highest judicial tribunals in the land have always held that the jury trial must take place in the State under whose jurisdiction the question arose, and whose laws were alleged to have been violated. The same construction has always been given to the law for surrendering fugi- tives from justice. It provides also for sending back the fugitive, but says nothing about the jury trial, or where it shall take place. "Who ever supposed that that act abolished the right of trial by jury ? Every day’s practice and observation teacli us otherwise. The jury trial is always had in the State from wTiicli the fugitive fled. So it is with a fugitive from labor. When he returns, or is surrendered under the law, he is entitled to a trial by jury of his right of free- dom, and always has it when he demands it. There is great unifor- mity in the mode of proceeding in the courts of the southern States in this respect. When the supposed slave sets up his claim, to the judge or other officer, that he is free, and claims his freedom, it be- comes the duty of the court to issue its summons to the master to appear in court with the alleged slave, and there to direct an issue of freedom or servitude to be made and tried by a jury. The master is also required to enter into bonds for his own appearance and that of the alleged slave at the trial of the cause, and that he will not remove the slave from the county or jurisdiction of the court in the mean time. The court is also required to appoint counsel to conduct the cause for the slave, while the master employs his own counsel. All the officers of the court are required by law to render all facili- ties to the slave for the prosecution of his suit free of charge, such as issuing and serving subpoenas for witnesses, etc. If upon the trial the alleged slave is held to be a free man, the master is required to pay the costs on both sides. If, on the other hand, he is held to be a slave, the State pays the costs. This is the way in which the trial by jury stood under the old law ; and the new one makes no change in this respect. If the act of last session be repealed, that will neither benefit nor injure the fugitive, so far as the right of trial by jury i* concerned. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 17 For these two reasons — the habeas corpus and the trial by jury — the Common Council have pronounced the law unconstitutional, and de- clared that it ought not to he respected by an enlightened community. I have shown that neither of the objections are well founded, and that if they had taken the trouble to read the law before they nullified it, they would have avoided the mistake into which they have fallen. I have spoken of the acts of the city council in general terms, and it may be inferred that the vote was unanimous. I take pleasure in stating that I learn from the published proceedings that there was barely a quorum present, and that Aldermen Page and Williams voted in the negative. Having disposed of the two reasons assigned by the Common Council for the nullification of the law, I shall be greatly indebted to any gentleman who will point out any other objection to the new law, which does not apply with equal force to the old one. My object in drawing the parallel between the new and old law is this : The law of '93 was passed by the patriots and sages who framed our glorious Constitution, and approved by the father of his country. I have always been taught to believe that they were men well versed in the science of government, devotedly attached to the cause of freedom and capable of construing the Con- stitution in the spirit in which they made it. That act has been enforced and acquiesced in for more than half a century, without a murmur or word of complaint from any quarter. I repeat — will any gentleman be kind enough to point out a single objection to the new law, which might not be urged with equal pro- priety to the act of ’93 ? [Here a gentleman present arose, and called the attention of Mr. Douglas to the penalties in the seventh section of the new law, and desired to know if there were any such obnoxious provisions in the old one.] Mr. Douglas then read the section referred to, and also the fourth section of the act of ’93, and proceeded to draw the parallel between them. Each makes it a criminal offence to resist the due execution of the law ; to knowingly and willfully obstruct or hinder the claimant in the arrest of the fugitive ; to rescue such fugitive from the claim- ant when arrested ; to harbor or conceal such person after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labor. In this respect the two laws were substantially the same in every important particular. Indeed the one was almost a literal copy of the other. I can con- ceive of no act which would be an offence under the one, that would not be punishable under the other. In the speeches last night, great importance was given to the clause which makes it an offence to harbor or conceal a fugitive. You were told that you could not clothe the naked, nor feed the hungry, nor exercise the ordinary charities toward suffering humanity, without incurring the penalty of the law. Is this a true construction of that provision ? The act does not so read. The law says that you shall not “ harbor or con- ceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of such 18 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF person after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid.” This does not deprive you of the privilege of extending charities to the fugitive. You may feed him, clothe him, may lodge him, provided you do not harbor or conceal him, so as to prevent discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge that he is a fugitive. The offence consists in preventing the discovery and arrest of the fugitive after knowledge of the fact, and not in the extending kindness and charities to him. This is the construction put upon a similar provision in the old law by the highest judicial tribunals in the land. The only difference between the old law and the new one, in respect to obstructing its execution, is to be found in the amount of the penalty, and not in the principle involved. But it is further objected that the new law provides, in addition to the penalty, for a civil suit for damages, to be recovered by an action of debt by any court having jurisdiction of the cause. This is true ; but it is also true that a similar provision is to be found in the old law. The concluding clause in the last section of the act of ’93 is as follows : “ Which penalty may be recovered by and for the benefit of such claimant, by action of debt, in any proper court to try the same ; saving , moreover , to the 'person claiming such labor or service , his right of action for or on account of the said injuries, or either of them." Thus it will be seen, that upon this point there is no difference between the new and the old law. Is there any other provision of this law' upon which explanation is desired ? [A gentleman present referred to the 10th section, and desired an explanation of the object and effect of the record from another Stato therein provided for.] I am glad, said Mr. D., that my attention has been called to that provision ; for I heard a construction given to it, in the speeches last night, entirely different to the plain reading and object of that sec- tion. It is said, that this provision authorizes the claimant to go before a court of record of the county and State where he lives, and there establish by ex-parte testimony, in the absence of the fugitive, the facts of servitude, of ownership, and escape ; and when a record of these facts shall have been made, containing a minute description of the slave, it shall be conclusive evidence against a person corres- ponding to that description, arrested in another State, and shall con- sign the person so arrested to perpetual servitude. The law con- templates no such thing, and authorizes no such result. I have the charity to believe that those who have put this construction upon it have not carefully examined it. The record from another State predicated upon “ satisfactory proof to such court or judge” before whom the testimony may be adduced, and the record made, is to be conclusive of two facts only : 1st. That the person named in this record does owe service to the person in whose behalf the record is made. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 19 That such person has escaped from service. ' e language of the law is, that “ the transcript of the record oticated,” etc., “shall be held and taken to be full and conclu- sive jvidence of the fact of escape, and that the service or labor of person escaping is due to the party in such record mentioned.” 1 1 1 . record is conclusive of these two facts, so far as to authorize the _ ve to be sent back for trial under the laws of the State whence d ; but it is no evidence that the person arrested here is the fugi~ earned in the record. The question of identity is to be proven to the satisfaction of the commissioner or judge, before whom ■ial is had, by “ other and further evidence .” This is the great in the case. The whole question turns upon it. The man • ■ ed may correspond to the description set forth in the record, et not be the same individual. We often meet persons resern- : _ each other to such an extent that the one is frequently mis- i for the other. The identity of the person becomes a matter oof — a fact to be established by the testimony of competent i. isinterested witnesses, and to be decided by the tribunal before ■ 1 i the trial is had, conscientiously and impartially, accord- > the evidence in the case. The description in the record, : ported by other testimony, is not evidence of the identity. It inserted for the especial benefit of the claimant — much less to rejudice of the alleged slave. It is required as a test of truth, guard against fraud, which will often operate favorably to the lugit r e, but never to his injury. If the description be accurate and true, no injustice can possibly result from it. But if it be erroneous < i false, the claimant is concluded by it; and the fugitive, availing hum -If of the error, defeats the claim, in the same manner as a dis- oancy between the allegations and the proof, in any other case, results to the advantage of the defendant. I repeat, that when an is made under a record from another State, the identity of the person must be established by competent testimony. The trial in this instance, would be precisely the same as in the case of a white man arrested on a charge of being a fugitive from justice. The writ >f the governor, predicated upon an indictment, or even an affidavit : o mother State, containing the charge of crime, would be con- ic vivo evidence of the right to take the fugitive hack; but the l y of the person in that case, as well as a fugitive from labor, m e proven in the State where the arrest is made, by competent ■v' ' ru -ses, before the tribunal provided by law for that purpose. In this r spect, therefore, the negro is placed upon a perfect equality i-u -he white man who is so unfortunate as to be charged with an otfem in another State, whether the charge by true or false. Ia some respects, the law guards the rights of the negro, charged with a fugitive from labor, more rigidly than it does those of a man who is alleged to be a fugitive from justice. The record mother State must be predicated upon “proof satisfactory the court or judge” before whom it is made, and must set forth 20 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF the “ matter proved,” bofore it can be evidence against a fugitive from labor, or for any purpose ; whereas, an innocent white man, who is so unfortunate as to be falsely charged with a crime in another State, by the simple affidavit of an unknown person, without indictment or proof to the satisfaction of any court, is liable to be transported to the most distant portions of this Union for trial. Here we find the act of last session is a great improvement upon the law of ’93 in reference to fugitives, white or black, whether they tied from justice or labor. But it is objected that the testimony before the court making the record is ex parte, and therefore in vio- lation of the principles of justice and the Constitution ; because it deprives the accused of the privilege of meeting the witnesses face to face, and of cross-examination. Gentlemen forget that all pro- ceedings for the arrest of fugitives are necessarily ex parte , from the nature of the case. They have fled beyond the jurisdiction of the court, and the object of the proceeding is, that they may be brought back, confront the witnesses, and receive a fair trial according to the Constitution and laws. If they would stay at home in order to attend the trial, and cross-examine the witnesses, the record would be unnecessary, and the fugitive law inoperative. It is no answer to this proposition to say that slavery is no crime, and therefore the parallel does not hold good. I am not speaking of the guilt or inno- cence of slavery. I am discussing our obligations under the Consti- tution of the United States. That sacred instrument says that a fugitive from labor “ shall he delivered up on the claim of the owner.” The same clause of the same instrument provides that fugitives from justice shall be delivered up. We are bound by our oaths to our God to see that claim as well as every other provision of the Constitution carried into effect. The moral, religious and constitutional obligations resting upon us, here and hereafter, are the same in the one case as in the other. As citizens, owing allegiance to the government and duties to society, we have no right to inter- pose our individual opinions and scruples as excuses for violating the supreme law of the land as our fathers made it, and as we are sworn to support it. The obligation is just as sacred, under the Constitu- tion, to surrender fugitives from labor, as fugitives from justice. And the Congress of the United States, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, are as imperatively commanded to provide the necessary legislation for the one as for the other. The act of 1793, to which I have had occasion to refer so frequently, and which has been read to you, provided for these two cases in the same bill. The first half of that act, relating to fugitives from justice, applies, from the nature and necessity of the case, principally to white men ; and the other half for the same reasons, applies exclusively to the negro race. I have shown you, by reading and comparing the two laws in your presence, that there is no constitutional guaranty — or common law right — or legal, or judicial privilege— for the protection of the white man against oppression and injustice, under the law, framed STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 21 m 1793, and now in force, for the surrender of fugitives from justice, that does not apply in all its force in behalf of the negro, when arrested as a fugitive from labor, under the act of the last session. What more can the friends of the negro ask than, in all his civil and legal rights under the Constitution, he shall be placed on an equal footing with the white man ? But it is said that the law is suscepti- ble of being abused by perjury and false testimony. To what human enactment does not the same objection lie ? You, or I, or any other man, who was never in California in his life, is liable, under the Constitution, to be sent there in chains for trial as a fugitive from justice, by means of perjury and fraud. But does this fact prove that the Constitution, and the laws for carrying it into effect, are wrong, and should be resisted, as we were told last night, even unto the dungeon, the gibbet and the grave ? It only demonstrates to us the necessity of providing all the safeguards that the wit of man can devise, for the protection of the innocent and the free, at the same time that we religiously enforce, according to its letter and spirit, every provision of the Constitution. I will not say that the act recently passed for the surrender of fugitives from labor, accom- plishes all this ; but I will thank any gentleman to point out any one barrier against abuse in the old law, or in the law for the surrender of white men, as fugitives from justice, that is not secured to the negro under the new law. I pause, in order to give any gentleman an opportunity to point out the provision. I invite inquiry and examination. My object is to arrive at the truth — to repel error and dissipate prejudice — and to avoid violence and bloodshed. Will any gentleman point out the provision in the old law, for securing and vindicating the rights of the free man, that is not secured to him in the act of last session ? [A gentleman present rose and called the attention of Mr. Douglas to the provision for paying out of the treasury of the United States the expenses of carrying the fugitive back in case of anticipated resistance.] Ah, said Mr. D., that is a question of dollars and cents, involving no other principle than the costs of the proceeding! I was discuss- ing the question of human rights — the mode of protecting the rights of freemen from invasion, and the obligation to surrender fugitives under the Constitution. Is it possible that this momentous question, which only forty-eight hours ago was deemed of sufficient import- ance to authorize the city council to nullify an act of Congress, and raise the standard of rebellion against the Federal Government, has dwindled down into a mere petty dispute, who shall pay the costs of suit ? This is too grave a question for me to discuss on this occasion. I confess my utter inability to do it justice. Yesterday the Consti- tution of the ocean-bound republic had been overthrown; the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus had been suspended ; the right of trial by jury had been abolished ; pains and penalties had been imposed upon every humane citizen who should feed the 22 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF hungry and cover the naked ; the law of God had been outraged by au infamous act of a traitorous Congress ; and the standard of rebel- lion, raised by our city fathers, was floating in the breeze, calling on all good citizens to rally under its sacred folds, and resist with lire and sword— the payment of the costs of suit upon the arrest of a fugitive from labor ! I will pass over this point, and inquire whether there is any other provision of this law upon which an explanation is desired ? I hope no one will be backward in propounding inquiries, for I have but a few days to remain with you, and desire to make a clean business of this matter on the present occasion. Is there any other objection ? [A gentleman rose, and desired to know why the bill provides for paying ten dollars to the commissioner for his fee in case he decided in favor of the claimant, and only live dollars if he decided against him,] I presume, said Mr. Douglas, that the reason was that he would have more labor to perform. If, after hearing the testimony, the commissioner decided in favor of the claimant, the law made it his duty to prepare and authenticate the necessary papers to authorize him to carry the fugitive home ; but if he decided against him, he had no such labor to perform. The law seems to be based upon the principle that the commissioner should be paid according to the ser- vice he should render — five dollars for presiding at the trial, and five dollars for making out the papers in case the testimony should re- quire him to return the fugitive. This provision appears to be exciting considerable attention in the country, and I have been ex- ceedingly gratified at the proceedings of a mass meeting held in a county not far distant, in which it was resolved unanimously that they could not be bribed, for the sum of five dollars, to consign a freeman to perpetual bondage ! This shows an exalted state of moral feeling, highly creditable to those who participated in the meeting. I doubt not they will make their influence felt throughout the State, and will instruct their members of the legislature to reform our criminal code in this respect. Under our laws, as they have stood for many years, and probably from the organization of our State government, in all criminal cases, on the preliminary examination before the magistrates, and in all the higher courts, if the prisoner be convicted, the witnesses, jurors, and officers, are entitled to their fees and bills of costs ; but if he be acquitted, none of them receive a cent. In order to diffuse the same high moral sense throughout the whole community, would it not be well, at their next meeting, to pass another resolution, that they would not be bribed by the fees and costs of suit in any case, either as witnesses, jurors, magis- trates, or in any other capacity, to consign an innocent man to a dismal cell in the penitentiary, or expose him to an ignominious death upon the gallows ? Such a resolution might do a great deal of good in elevating the character of our people abroad, at the same time that it might inspire increased confidence in the liberality and conscientiousness of those who adopted it. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 23 Is there any other objection to this law ? [A gentleman rose, and called the attention of Hr. Douglas to the provision vesting the appointment of the commissioners under it in the courts of law, instead of the President and Senate, and asked if that was not a violation of that provision of the Constitution which says that judges of the Supreme Courts, and of the inferior oourts, should be appointed by the President and Senate.] I thank the gentleman, said Hr. D., for calling my attention to this point. It was made in the speech of a distinguished lawyer last night, and evidently produced great effect upon the minds of the audience. The gentleman’s high professional standing, taken in con- nection with his laborious preparation for the occasion, as was appa- rent to all, from his lengthy written brief before him, while speak- ing, inspired implicit confidence in the correctness of his position. Hy answer to the objection will be found in the Constitution itself, which I will read, so far as it bears upon this question : “ The President shall nominate, and hy and with the consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, where appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.” ISTow it will be seen that the words “ inferior courts ” are not men- tioned in the Constitution. The gentleman in his zeal against the law, and his frenzy to resist it, interpolated these words, and then made a plausible argument upon them. I trust this was all unin- tentional, or was done with the view of fulfilling the “higher law.” But there is another sentence in this same clause of the Constitu- tion which I have not yet read. It is as follows : “ But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they may think proper in the President alone, in the Courts of Law , or in the heads of Departments.” The practice under this clause has usually been to confer the power of appointing those inferior officers, whose duties were executive or ministerial, upon the President alone, or upon the head of the appro- priate department ; and in like manner to give to the courts of law the privilege of appointing their subordinates, whose duties were in their nature judicial. What is meant by “ inferior officers, "'whose appointment may be vested in the “ courts of law,” will be seen by reference to the 8th section of the Constitution, where the powers of Congress are enumerated, and among them is the following : “ To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court." Is the tribunal which is to carry the fugitive law into effect infe- rior to the Supreme Court of the United States ? If it is, the Con- stitution expressly provides for vesting the appointment in the courts of law. I will remark, however, that these commissioners are not 24 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF appointed under the new law, hut in obedience to an act of Con gross which has stood on the statute hooks for many years. If those who denounce and misrepresent the act of last session, had conde- scended to read it before they undertook to enlighten the people upon it, they would have saved themselves the mortification of ex- posure, as 1 will show by reading the first section. Here Mr. Douglas read the law, and proceeded to remark: Thus it will he seen that these commissioners have been in office for years, with their duties prescribed by law, nearly all of which were of a judicial character, and that the new law only imposes additional duties, and authorizes the increase of the number. Why has not this grave constitutional objection been discovered before, and the people informed how their rights have been outraged in violation of the supreme law of the land ? Truly, the passage of the fugitive bill has thrown a flood of light upon constitutional principles ! Is there any other objection to the new law which does not apply to the act of ’93? [A gentleman rose, and said that he would like to ask another question, tvhich was this : if the new law was so similar to the old one, what was the necessity of passing any at all, since the old one was still in force ?] Mr. Douglas, in reply, said, that is the very question I was anxious some one should propound, because I was desirous of an oppor- tunity of answering it. The old law answered all the purposes for which it was enacted tolerably well, until the decision by the Su- preme Court of the United States, in the case of Priggs vs. the State of Pennsylvania, eight or nine years ago. That decision rendered the law comparatively inoperative, for the reason that there were scarcely any officers left to execute it. It will be recollected that the act of ’93 imposed the duty of carrying it into effect upon the magistrates and other officers under the State governments. These officers performed their duties under that law, with fidelity, for about fifty years, until the Supreme Court, in the case alluded to, decided that they were under no legal obligation to do so, and that Congress had no constitutional power to impose the duty upon them. From that time, many of the officers refused to act, and soon afterward the legislature of Massachusetts, and many other States, passed laws making it criminal for their officers to perform these duties. Hence the old law, although efficient in its provisions, and similar in most respects, and especially in those now objected to, almost identical with the new law, became comparatively a dead letter for want of officers to carry it into effect. The judges of the United States courts were the only officers left who were authorized to execute it. In this State, for instance, Judge Drummond, whose residence was in the extreme northwest corner of the State, within six miles of Wisconsin and three of Iowa, and in the direction where fugitives were least likely to go, was the only person authorized to try the ease. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 25 If a fugitive was arrested at Shawneetown or Alton, three or font hundred miles from the residence of the judge, the master would attempt to take him across the river to his home in Kentucky oi Missouri, without first establishing his right to do so. This was calculated to excite uneasiness and doubts in the minds of our citi- zens, as to the propriety of permitting the negro to be carried out of the State, without the fact of his owing service, and having es- caped, being first proved, lest it might turn out that the negro was a free man and the claimant a kidnapper. And yet, according to the express term of the old law, the master was authorized to seize his slave wherever he found him, and to carry him back without process, or trial, or proof of any kind whatsoever. Hence, it was necessary to pass the act of last session, in order to carry into effect, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the provisions of the law and the Constitution on the one hand, and to protect the free colored man from being kidnapped and sold into slavery by unprincipled men on the other hand. The purpose of the new law is to accom- plish these two objects — to appoint officers to carry the law into effect, in the place of the magistrates relieved from that duty by the decision of the Supreme Court, and to guard against harassing and kidnapping the free blacks, by preventing the claimant from carry- ing the negro out of the State, until he establishes his legal right to do so. The new law, therefore, is a great improvement in this re- spect upon the old one, and is more favorable to justice and freedom, and better guarded against abuse. [A person present asked leave to propound another question to Mr. Douglas, which was this: “If the new law is more favorable to free- dom than the old one, why did the southern slaveholders vote for it, and desire its passage?”] Mr. Douglas said he would answer that question with a great deal of pleasure. The southern members voted for it for the reason that it was a better law than the old one — better for them, better for us, and better for the free blacks. It places the execution of the law in the hands of responsible officers of the government, instead of leav- ing every man to take the law into his own hands and to execute it for himself. It affords personal security to the claimant while arrest- ing his servant and taking him back, by providing him with the opportunity of establishing his legal rights by competent testimony before a tribunal duly authorized to try the case, and thus allay all apprehensions and suspicions, on the part of our citizens, that he is a villain, attempting to steal a free man for the purpose of selling him into slavery. The slaveholder has as strong a desire to protect the rights of the free black man as we have, and much more interest to do so ; for he well knows, that if outrages should be tolerated under the law, and free men are seized and carried into slavery ; from that moment the indignant outcry against it would be so strong here and everywhere, that even a fugitive from labor could not be returned, lest he also might happen to be free. The interest of the slaveholder, a 26 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF therefore, requires a law which shall protect the rights of ail free ruen, black or white, from any invasion or violation whatever. I ask the question, therefore, whether this law is not better than the old one — better for the North and the South — better for the peace and quiet of the whole country ? Let it be remembered that this law is but an amendment to the act of ’93, and that the old law still remains in force, except so far as it is modified by this. Every man who voted against this modification, thereby voted to leave the old law in force ; for I am not aware that any member of either house of Congress ever had the hardihood to propose to repeal the law, and make no provisions to carry the Constitution into effect. But the cry of repeal, as to the new law, has already gone forth. Well, sup- pose'it succeeds; what will thof:e have gained who joined in the shout ? Have I not shown that *J1 the material objections they urge against the new law, apply with equal force to the old one ? What do they gain, therefor®, unless they propose to repeal the old law, also, and make no provision for performing our obligations under the Constitution? This must be the object of all men who take that f~ position. To this it must come in the end. The real objection is not to the new law, nor to the old one, but to the Constitution itself. v ~ Those of you who hold theoe opinions, do not mean that the fugitive from labor shall be taken back. That is the real point of your objec- tion. You would not care a farthing about the new law, or the old law, or any other law, or what provisions it contained, if there was a hole in it big enough for the fugitive to slip through and escape. Habeas corpuses — trials by jury — records from other States — pains and penalties — the whole catalogue of objections, would be all moon- shine, if the negro was not required to go back to his master. Tell me, frankly, is not this the true character of your objection? [Here several gentlemen gave an affirmative answer.] Hr. ' Douglas said he would answer that objection by reading a portion of the Constitution of the United States. He then read as follows : “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, into consequence of any law or regulation therein, he discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” This, said Mr. D., is the supreme law of the land, speaking to every citizen of the republic. The command is imperative. There is no avoiding — no escaping the obligation, so long as we live under, and claim the protection of, the Constitution. We must yield implicit obedience, or we must take the necessary steps to release ourselves / from the obligation to obey. There is no other alternative. We must stand by the Constitution of the Union, with all its compro- mises, or we must abolish it, and resolve each State back into its original elements. It is, therefore, a question of union or disunion. We cannot expect our brethren of other States to remain faithful to the compact, and permit us to be faithless. Are we prepared, there- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 27 fore, to execute faithfully and honestly the compact our fathers have made for us ? [Here a gentleman rose, and inquired of Mr. Douglas, whether the clause in the Constitution providing for the surrender of fugitive slaves was not in violation of the law of God ?] Mr. Douglas in reply : The divine law is appealed to as authority for disregarding our most sacred duties to society. The city council have appealed to it, as their excuse for nullifying an act of Congress ; and a committee embodied the same principle in their resolutions to the meeting in this hall last night, as applicable both to the Consti- lution and laws. The general proposition that there is a law para- mount to all human enactments — the law of the Supreme Euler of Universe — I trust that no civilized and Christian people is prepared to question, much less deny. We should all recognize, respect, and revere the divine law. But we should bear in mind that the law of God, as revealed to us, is intended to operate on our consciences, and insure the performance of our duties as individuals and Christians. The divine law does not prescribe the form of government under which we shall live, and the character of our political and civil insti- tutions. Eevelation has not furnished us with a constitution — a code of international law — and a system of civil and municipal jurispru- dence. It has not determined the right of persons and property — ■ much less the peculiar privileges which shall be awarded to each class of persons under any particular form of government. God has created man in his own image, and endowed him with the right of self-government, so soon as he shall evince the requisite intelligence, virtue, and capacity to assert and enjoy the privilege. The history of world furnishes few examples where any considerable portion of the human race have shown themselves sufficiently enlightened and civilized to exercise the rights and enjoy the blessings of freedom. In Asia and Africa wo find nothing but ignorance, superstition, and despotism. Large portions of Europe and America can scarcely lay claim to civilization and Christianity; and a still smaller portion have demonstrated their capacity for self-government. Is all this contrary to the laws of God ? And if so, who is responsible? The civilized world have always held, that when any race of men have shown themselves so degraded, by ignorance, superstition, cruelty, and barbarism, as to be utterly incapable of governing themselves, they must, in the nature of things, be governed by others, by such laws as are deemed applicable to their condition. It is upon this principle alone that England justifies the form of government she has established in the Indies, and for some of her other colonies — • that Eussia justifies herself in holding her serfs as slaves, and selling them as a part of the land on which they live — that our Pilgrim Fathers justified themselves iu reducing the negro and Indian to servitude, and selling them as property — that we in Illinois and laost of the free States, justify ourselves in denying the negro and me Indian the privilege of voting, and all other political rights- -and 28 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF that many of the States of the Union justify themselves in depriving the white man of the right of the elective franchise, unless he is for- tunate enough to own a certain amount of property. These things certainly violate the principle of absolute equality among men, when considered as component parts of a political society or government, and so do many provisions of the Constitution of the United States, as well as the several States of the Union. In fact, no government ever existed on earth in which there was a perfect equal itv, in all tilings, among those composing it and governed by it. Neither sacred nor profane history furnishes an example. If inequality in the form and principles of government is therefore to be deemed a viola- tion of the laws of God, and punishable as such, who is to escape ? Under this principle all Christendom is doomed, and no Pagan can hope for mercy ? Many of these things are, in my opinion, unwise and unjust, and, of course, subversive of republican principles ; hut I am not prepared to say that they are either sanctioned or con- demned by the divine law. Mho can assert that God has prescribed the form and principles of government, and the character of the poli- tical, municipal and domestic institutions of men on earth ? This doctrine would annihilate the fundamental principle upon which our political system rests. Our forefathers held that the people had an inherent right to establish such Constitution and laws for the govern- ment of themselves and their posterity, as they should deem best calculated to insure the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; and that the same might be altered and changed as expe- rience should satisfy them to he necessary and proper. Upon this principle the Constitution of the United States was formed, and our glorious Union established. All acts of Congress passed in pursuance of the Constitution are declared to he the supreme laws of the land, and the Supreme Court of the United States is charged with expound- ing the same. All officers and magistrates, under the Federal and State governments — executive, legislative, judicial, and ministerial — are required to take an oath to support the Constitution, before they can enter upon the performance of their respective duties. Any citi- zen. therefore, who in his conscience, believes that the Constitution of the United States is in violation of a “higher law,” has no right, as an honest man, to take office under it, or exercise any other func- tion of citizenship conferred by it. Every person horn under the Constitution owes allegiance to it ; and every naturalized citizen takes an oath support it. Fidelity to the Constitution is the only passport to the enjoyment of rights under it. Mlien a senator elect presents his credentials, he is not allowed to take his seat until he places his hand upon the holy evangelist, and appeals to his God for the sincerity of his vows to support the Constitution. He, who does this, with a mental reservation or secret intention to disregard any provision of the Constitution, commits a double crime — is morally guilty of perfidy to his God and treason to his country ! If the Constitution of the United States is to be repudiated upon STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 29 the ground that it is repugnant to the divine law, where are the friends of freedom and Christianity to look for another and a better ? Who is to be the prophet to reveal the will of God and establish a Theocracy for ns ? Is he to he found in the ranks of northern abolitionism, or of southern disunion ; or is the Common Council of the city of Chicago to have the distinguished honor of furnishing the chosen one ? I will not venture to inquire what are to be the form and principles of the new government, or to whom is to be intrusted the 'execution of its sacred functions ; for, when we decide that the wisdom of our revolutionary fathers was foolishness, and their piety wickedness, and destroy the only system of self government that has ever real- ized the hopes of the friends of freedom, and commanded the respect of mankind, it becomes us to wait patiently until the purposes of the Latter Day Saints shall be revealed unto us. For my part, I am prepared to maintain and preserve inviolate the Constitution as it is with all its compromises, to stand or fall by the American Union, clinging with the tenacity of life to all its glorious memories of the past and precious hopes for the future. Mr. Douglas then explained the circumstances which rendered his absence unavoidable when the vote was taken on the fugitive bill in the Senate. He wished to avoid no responsibility on account of that absence, and therefore desired it to be distinctly understood that he should have voted for the bill if he could have been present. He referred to several of our most prominent and respected citizens by name, as personally cognizant of the fact that he was anxious at that time to give that vote. He believed the passage of that or some other efficient law a solemn duty, imperatively demanded by the Constitution. In conclusion, Mr. I), made an earnest appeal to our citizens to rally as one man to the defence of the Constitution and laws, and above all things, and under all circumstances, to put down violence and disorder, by maintaining the supremacy of the laws. He referred to our high character for law and order heretofore, and also to the favorable position of our city for commanding the trade between the FTorth and South, through our canals and railroads, to show that our views and principles of action should be broad, liberal, and national, calculated to encourage union and harmony, instead of disunion and sectional bitterness. He concluded by remarking, that he considered this question of fidelity to the Constitution and supre- macy of the laws, as so far paramount to all other considerations, that he had prepared some resolutions to cover these points only, which he would submit to the meeting, and take their judgment upon them. If he had consulted his own feelings and views only, he should have embraced in the resolutions a specific approval of all the measures of the compromise ; but as the question of rebellion and resistance to the Federal Government has been distinctly presented, it has been thought advisable to meet that issue on this occasion, dis- tinct and separate from all others. 30 T II E LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Mr. Douglas then offered the following resolutions, which were adopted without a dissenting voice : Resolved , That it is the sacred duty of every friend of the Union to maintain, and preserve inviolate, every provision of our federal Constitution. Resolved, That any law enacted by Congress, in pursuance of the Constitu- tion, should be respected as such by all good and law-abiding citizens, and should be faithfully carried into effect by the officers charged with its execution. Resolved , That so long as the Constitution of the United States provides, that all persons held to service or labor in one State, escaping iuto another State, “shall be delivered ur on the claim of the party to whom the service or labor may be due,” and so long as members of Congress are required to take an oath to support the Constitution, it is their solemn and'religious duty to pass all laws necessary to carry that provision of the Constitution into effect. Resolved, That if we desire to preserve the Union, and render our great Republic inseparable and perpetual, we must perform all our obligations under the Constitution, at the same time that we call upon our brethren in other States to yield implicit obedience to it. Resolved, That as the lives, property and safety of ourselves and our families depend upon the observance and protection of the laws, every effort to excite any portion of our population to make resistance to the due execution of the laws of the land, should be promptly and emphatically condemned by every good citizen. Resolved , That we will stand or fall by the American Union and its Constitu- tion, with all its compromises, with its glorious memories of the past and pre- cious hope of the future. [The following was offered in addition by B. S. Morris, and also adopted :] Resolved, That we, the people of Chicago, repudiate the resolutions passed by the Common Council of Chicago upon the subject of the Fugitive Slave Law passed by Congress at its last session. On the succeeding night the common council of the city repealed their nullifying resolution by a vote of 12 to 1. STEPHEN A. DOUeiiS. 31 OX THE CLAYTOX BOWER TREATY. Delivered in the Senate of the United States, March 10 and IT, 1803. On returning to the Senate of the United States at the special session, commencing on the 4th March, 1843, Senator Clayton, of Delaware, offered the following resolutions : Resolved, That the President he respectfully requested, if compatible in his opinion with the public interest, to communicate to the Senate the propositions mentioned in the letter of the secretary of state accompanying the Executive message to the Senate of the 18th February last, as having'been agreed upon by the Department of State, the British minister, and the state of C’osta Rica, on the 30th of April, 1852, having for their object the settlement of the terri- torial controversies between the states and governments bordering on the river San Juan. Resolved, That the secretary of state be directed to communicate to the Senate such information as it maybe in the power of his department to furnish, in regard to the conflicting claims of Great Britain and the state of Honduras, to the island of Roatan, Bonacca, Utilla, Barbarat, Helene, and Morat, in or near the Bay of Honduras. On the 8th and 9th of March, 1853, he addressed the Senate on the subject, and arraigned Senators Cass, Mason, and Douglas, for the part they had taken in the debate during the regular session. On the 10th of March, Mr. Douglas replied as follows : Me. President : I have nothing to do with the controversy which has arisen between the senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton) and my venerable friend from Michigan (Mr. Cass), who is now absent in consequence of the severe illness of one nearest and dearest to him. Me all know enough of that senator to be assured that when he shall be in his place, he will be prompt to respond to any calls that may be made upon him. Xeither have I anything to do with the dispute which has grown up among senators in respect to the boundary of Central Am erica, and the position of the British settle- ment at the Balize. I leave that in the hands of those who have made themselves parties to the controversy. Xor shall I become a party to the discussion upon the issue between the senator from Delaware and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in their report on that question. Xot having been present when the committee made their report, and not yet having had the opportunity of reading it, I leave the chairman of the committee to vindicate his THE LIFE AXD SPEECHES OF positions, as I doubt not be will prove himself abundantly able to do. 1 have, therefore, only to ask the attention of the Senate to such points as the senator from Delaware has chosen to make against a speech delivered by me a few weeks ago in this chamber. The senator seems to complain that I should have questioned the propriety of withholding from the consideration of the Senate what is known as the Hise treaty, and the substitution of the Clayton and Buiwer treaty in its place. Those two treaties presented a distinct issue of great public concern to the country ; and it was a difference of opinion between him and me as to which system of policy should prevail. I advocated that system which would secure to the United States the sole and exclusive privilege of controlling the communi- cation between the two oceans. He substituted that other policy which opened the privilege to a partnership between the United States and Great Britain. The senator has assigned various reasons for withholding the Hise treaty from the consideration of the Senate. The first is, that it was concluded by Mr. Hise without the authority of this government. That may be true, but it is the first time. I have heard it argued as a valid reason for withholding from the consideration of the Senate a treaty the objects and pro- visions of which were desirable. The treaty with New Granada, which he so warmly commends in his speech, was made by Mr. Bid- lack without authority. President Polk stated this fact in his message communicating the treaty to the Senate, and the senator from Delaware has read that message and incorporated it into his speech. He therefore knew that fact when he gave- as a reason for withholding the Hise treaty, that it was made without authority. The treaty of peace with Mexico, to the provisions of which the senator has also referred on another point, was entered into by Mr. Trist, not only without authority, but in bold defiance of the instruc- tions of our government to the contrary. The administration of President Polk did not feel at liberty to withhold these two treaties from the Senate, merely because they were made without authority or in defiance of instructions, for the reason that the objects intended to be accomplished by the treaty were desirable, and the provisions could be so modified by the Senate as to make the details conform to the objects in view. It may not be amiss for me to remind the senator from Delaware, that lie was a member of the Senate at the time the Mexican treaty was submitted for ratification, and that he voted for it, notwithstanding it was concluded in opposition to the instructions of our government. If, therefore, the senator has any respect for the practice of the government heretofore, or for his own votes recorded upon the very point in controversy, he is not at liberty to object to the treaty upon the ground that it was concluded by our diplomatic agent withont authority. I understand the rule to be this : whenever the treaty is made in pursuance of instructions, the Executive is under an implied obliga- tion to submit it to tbe Senate foi ratification. But if it be entered STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 33 into without authority, or in violation of instructions, the admin- istration are at liberty to reject it unconditionally, or to send it to the Senate for advice, amendment, ratification, or rejection, according to their judgment of its merits. "Whether the Hise treaty was per- fect in all its provisions, or contained obnoxious features, is not the question. It furnished conclusive evidence that the government of Nicaragua was willing and anxious to confer upon the United States the exclusive and perpetual privilege of controlling the canal between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, instead of a partnership between us and the European powers. The senator from Delaware (then secre- tary of state) had the opportunity of securing to his own country that inestimable privilege, either by submitting the Hise treaty to the Senate, with the recommendation that it be so modified as to obviate all the objections which he deemed to exist to some of its provisions, or by making a new treaty which should embrace the principle of an exclusive and perpetual privilege without any of the obnoxious provisions. He did not do either. He suppressed the treaty — refused to accept of an exclusive privilege to his own country — and caused a new treaty to be made, t which should lay the foundation of a partnership between the United States and Great Britain and the other European powers. The next reason assigned for withholding the Hise treaty from the Senate is that it had not been approved by Nicaragua. It is true that Nicaragua did not ratify that treaty ; but why did she fail to do so ? I showed conclusively in the speech to which the senator was replying that the non-approval was in consequence of his instructions, as secretary of state, to Mr. Squier, our charge d’aifaires to Nicaragua. It required the whole influence of the representative of our govern- ment in that country to prevent the ratification and approval of the Hise treaty by the state of Nicaragua. Sir, it is not a satisfactory reason for suppressing the treaty, therefore, that it had not been ratified by the other party, when the non-ratification was produced by the action of the agent of this government in pursuance of in- structions. Me. Clayton. — I desire distinctly to understand the senator. If I understood him, he said that Mr. Ilise’s treaty was rejected in consequence of Mr. Squiers interference. Me. Douglas.— Y es, sir. Mr. Clayton. — And then I understand him to say that Mr. Squier did it by instruction. Me. Douglas. — Y es, sir. Mr. Clayton. — Now will the senator submit the truth to sub- stantiate that assertion? I know of no such instruction. Me. Douglas.— I will do that with a great deal of pleasure. Mr. Hise was sent to the Central American States by Mr. Polk. He negotiated a treaty with the state of Nicaragua — the treaty in question — on the 21st of June, 1849. Prior to that time he had been recalled, and Mr. Squier had been appointed by the administra 2 * 3 4 : THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF tion which succeeded that of President Pollc. Mr. Ilise had re- ceived no knowledge of his removal ; no instructions from the new administration at the time when he made the treaty. In the in- structions which the secretary of state gave to Mr. Squier on the 2d of May, 1849, when he was about to proceed to Central America to supersede Mr. Hise, you will find that he was directed to “ claim no peculiar privilege ; no exclusive right ; no monopoly of com- mercial intercourse ” for the United States. I will read from the letter of instructions : “We should naturally he proud of such au achievement as an American work ; hut if European aid he necessary to accomplish it, why should we re- pudiate it, seeing that our object is as honest as it is openly avowed, to claim no peculiar privilege ; no exclusive right ; no monopoly of commercial inter- course, but to see that the work is dedicated to the benefit of mankind, to be used by all on the same terms with us, and consecrated to the enjoj-ment and diffusion of the unnumbered and inestimable blessings which must flow from it to all the civilized world !” Then, sir, after having instructed Mr. Squier as to the character of the treaty which he was to form — a treaty which was to open the canal to the world — a treaty which was to give us no peculiar privilege, and secure to us no exclusive right — after giving that in- struction, the secretary, in the concluding paragraph, says : “If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incautiously or inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, seek to have it properly modified to answer the ends we have in view.” Mu. Clayton. — Is that the passage ? Me. Douglas. — T hat and the other together. Me. Clayton. — I endeavored to correct the misapprehension of the honorable senator yesterday in reference to that. That is not an instruction to the minister to Central America in regard to the treaty made by Mr. Hise, or any other treaty. It is a direction to the minister to Central America to see that any contract which had been made by the local government should be so made as not to he assignable. If the gentleman will read the context, he will see at once that that does not allude to a treaty. It is merely, I say again, an instruction to the minister in that country to look to it, that the capitalists who were about to construct the canal should not specu- late upon the work. There is nothing there touching a treaty ; nothing whatever. The gentleman is entirely mistaken. The whole construction is in reference to the character of the contract o* charter. Me. Douglas. — I will read the preceding sentence, and we will see then who is mistaken : “ If they do not agree to grant us passage on reasonable and proper terms, refuse our protection and our countenance to procure the contract from Nicaragua ” STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 35 Me. Clatton. — I f the gentleman will look at the context which goes before, he will see that the word “ they ” refers to the capitalists. Me. Douglas. — I will read what goes before-: “ See that it is not assignable to others ; that no exclusive privileges are granted to any nation that will not agree to the same treaty stipulations with Nicaragua ; that the tolls to be demanded by the owners are not unreasonable or oppressive ; that no power be reserved to the proprietors of the canal or their successors to extort at any time hereafter, or unjustly to obstruct or embarrass the right of passage. This will require all your vigilance and skill. If they do not agree to grant us passage on reasonable and proper terms, re- fuse our protection and our countenance to procure the contract from Nicaragua. If a charter or grant of the right of way shall have been incau- “iously or inconsiderately made before your arrival in that country, seek to cave it properly modified to answer the ends we have in view.” Me. Clanton. — The honorable senator will observe that that does tot refer to a treaty. The grant of the right of way was a different •jning. It was a contract between the local government and the capitalists. Mot a treaty at all. Me. Douglas. — The senator’s explanation is doubtless satisfactory to himself. He may imagine that it will suit his present purposes to place upon his instructions the construction for which he now con- tends ; hut it is wholly unwarranted by the language he employed. His instructions speak of securing the right of way to “us.” To whom did he allude in the word “ us ?” Did he refer to the capitalists, proprietors and speculators, who should become the owners of the charter? Was he cne of the company, and therefore authorized to use the word “us,” when speaking of the rights and privileges to he acquired of a foreign nation through his agency as secretary of state ? I have supposed that Mr. Squier was sent to Central America to represent the United States, and to protect our rights and interests as a nation. I have always done the senator from Delaware the justice to believe that when he gave those in- structions to Mr. Squier he was acting on behalf of his country to secure the right of way for a canal to the United States and not to a few capitalists and speculators under the title of “us.” For the honor of our country I will still do him that justice, notwithstanding his disclaimer. His instructions also speak of the right of way to “nations,” and caution Mr. Squier to see that “no exclusive privi- leges are granted to any nation,” etc. it is plain, therefore, that in the instructions relating to the secur- ing the right of way for a canal to the nations of the earth, Mr. Squier was directed to see that no exclusive privilege was granted to any other nation, and not to claim any peculiar advantages for our own. Then follows the concluding paragraph, which has been read: “ If a charter or grant of the rights of way shall have been incautiously or in- considerately made before your arrival in the country, seek to have it properly modified to answer the ends we have in view.” Modified how ? If before the arrival of Mr. Squier in the country 36 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Mr. Hiso shall have acquired a charter or grant which si til secure peculiar privileges or exclusive rights for this country, Le was to seek to have it so modified as to open the same rights and privileges to all other nations on equal terms. This is what I understand to he the meaning of those instructions, and it is clear that Mr. Squier understood them in the same way ; for when he arrived in Nicaragua, and discovered, by a statement in a newspaper of the Isthmus, that Mr. Hise was about making a treaty for a canal, without knowing what its terms were, without waiting to ascertain its provisions, he sent at once a notice to rtie government of Nicaragua, that Mr. Hise was not authorized to treat — that he did not understand the policy and views of the new administration — that he had been recalled, and that any treaty he might make must be considered and treated as an unofficial act. He communicated this protest to the secretary of state on the same day, and then proceeded to his point of destina- tion, where he made a treaty for the right of way for a canal to all nations on the partnership plan in pursuance of his instructions. These two treaties — the Hise treaty and the Squier treaty — were in the Department of State at the same time— the one having arrived about the middle of September, and the other about the first of October. It then became the duty of the senator from Delaware, as secretary of state, to decide between them : in other words, to de- termine whether he would accept of an exclusive privilege to his own country, or enter into partnership with the monarchies of Europe. He did determine that question, and his decision was in favor of the partnership, and against his own country having the exclusive control of the canal. Then, sir, I think I was authorized to say what I did say, that the non-ratification of Hise treaty by the government of Nicaragua was procured by the agent of General Taylor’s administration in that country, and that the agent acted under the authority of this go- vernment. lie certainly acted in obedience to what he understood to be his instruction, and that is, the instruction, that if such a char- ter had been incautiously granted, to seek to have it modified to con- form to the ends had in view, as stated in the instruction. Mr. Clayton. — Will the senator allow me to interrupt him ? It is not a very material point, still it is better to have it right than wrong. If the senator will only read the last paragraph, he will see that the charter or grant of the right of way which Mr. Squier was instructed to see was not incautiously made, was a very different thing, indeed, from the treaty ; and he will see that that is the thing which I directed the minister to look to, as I stated, and endeavored to be understood yesterday, and as I was anxious to be understood by the gentleman on this point — what I instructed the minister to look to was that the contract of these capitalists should not be such as would enable them to extort from persons using the canal. The last sentence of the instruction applies, if he will look at it excln sively to the case of the contract, aud not to that ff the treaty. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 37 One remark more : How is it possible for the gentleman to recon- cile the fact, that the State Department could know or imagine that Hr. Hise had made a treaty on the 2d of Hay, 1850, when those in- structions were given, when, in point of fact, Hr. Hise was not heard from until June afterward? How could I imagine any such thing? And again : how could I possibly suppose that Hr. Hise had made a treaty, or was going to make a treaty, when the records of the State Department showed me the instructions given to him by Hr. Buchanan, in which he tells Hr. Hise to make no treaty whatever with Nicaragua? If the gentleman can reconcile these things, I should be happy to hear him. He. Douglas. — I will have less difficulty in reconciling these things with my views of his instructions than he will with his construction of them. I have already shown that the instructions related to the right of way to nations and not to individuals ; that they were in favor of equal rights to all nations, and opposed to any peculiar pri- vileges to our own country. Is it not as reasonable to suppose that the instructions meant what they said, as it is to conceive that our minister was directed to procure the modification of contracts pre- viously entered into with individuals, and for the observance of which Nicaragua was supposed to have pledged her faith as a nation? "Was our minister sent there to represent individuals in their schemes of procuring charters and contracts on private account, or to inter- fere with and prevent the faithful observance of such contracts as that government might previously have made with our own citizens or others? "While this supposition might extricate the senator from his present difficulty on this point, it would not tend to elevate the character of our diplomacy during his administration of the State Department. I think I do the senator more justice by the construc- tion I have put upon his conduct than he does by his own explana- tion. Dut, sir, I wish to know whether I understand the senator now ? Does he wish now to be understood as saying that he preferred an exclusive privilege to his own country to a partnership with Eng- land? He. Clayton. — No, sir. He. Douglas. — Ah! then as he did not prefer the exclusive pri- vilege to a partnership with the European powers, does he wish the Senate to understand that he did not mean to convey his true idea in his instructions ? If he preferred the partnership to the exclusive privilege, was it not his duty to make known that wish in his in- structions ? Why should he complain when I show that by his in- structions he said precisely what he now avows to be his policy upon that subject ? Why, sir, I am defending the consistency of his own opinions, according to his present views, by showing that his instructions embraced what he says now was his true policy — ir. favor of a partnership with other nations, instead of an exclusive privilege to our own country. 38 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF But, sir, whatever may have been his meaning in those instruc- tions, it is undeniable that Mr. Squier understood them as I now do, and acted upon them accordingly. Hence, as I have already re- maiked, before he arrived upon the theatre of his operations, and upon the mere authority of a newspaper paragraph, that Mr. Ilise was about making such a treaty, he sent ahead a messenger to in- form the government of Nicaragua that Mr. Ilise had no autho- rity to treat upon the subject — that he had been recalled — that he was not informed of the views and purposes of the new administra- tion — and that whatever treaty he made must be regarded and treated as an unofficial act — aud requesting that “ new negotiations may be entered upon at the seat of government.” The new negotiations were immediately opened accordingly, and on the 3d of September terminated in a treaty, which was a substi- tute for that which Mr. Hise had previously made. I do not under- stand that the Hise treaty was formally rejected or disavowed by the government of Nicaragua. It was treated as an unofficial act — a mere nullity — upon the authority of Mr. Squier’s protest. I again submit the question to the Senate, therefore, whether I am not fully justified in the statement that the non-approval of the Hise treaty by the government of Nicaragua was in consequence of the action of the agent of this government in that country, under the instruc- tions of the senator from Delaware as secretary of state? I am only surprised that he should attempt to avoid the responsibility of the act, since, when hard pressed in this discussion, he has been driven into the admission that he preferred a partnership with the monarchies of the Old World to an exclusive privilege for his own country. If such were his opinions and preferences, he was bound by every consideration of duty and patriotism to have given the in- structions, and produced the result which I have attributed to him. Wliy not avow that which he now acknowledges to have been his purpose, in obedience to what he conceived to be his duty ? I only ask him to assume the responsibility and consequences of his own conduct, and then to assign such reasons as he may be able in justi- fication. The next reason which he gives for suppressing the Hise treaty is totally inconsistent w'ith the first. He alleges that the clause guar- anteeing the independence of Nicaragua was wholly inadmissible, and could never receive his sanction. In a report which was communi- cated to the House of Representatives in 1850, he assigned the same reason, and stated that such a guaranty was a departure from our uniform policy, and had no precedent in our history except in the one case of the French colonies in America. Of course courtesy requires me to acknowledge that the senator really believes that this was one of the reasons which induced him to withhold the Hise treaty from the Senate. I must be permitted, however, to inform him that he is entirely mistaken : that the clause in question did not constitute an objection in his mind at that time STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 39 that it is an afterthought which he has since seized hold of to .justify an act which he had previously performed upon totally different grounds. The evidence of these facts will be found recorded in a dispatch written by the senator from Delaware, as secretary of state, on the 20th of October, 1849, to Mr. Lawrence, our minister to Eng- land. The document containing this dispatch was printed and laid upon our tables a few days since, and is entitled Senate Ex. Doc. No. 27. It will be remembered that the Hise treaty was communicated to the Department of State on the loth of September, and the Squief treaty about the first of October of the same year. On the 20th of October, Mr. Clayton (in the dispatch to which I refer), discussed our relations with the Central American states at great length — among other things communicated to Mr. Lawrence the substance of these two treaties — and directed him to make the same known to Lord Palmerston. I read from the dispatch : “If. however, the British government shallrejectthese overtures on onr part, and shall refuse to cooperate with ns in the generous and philanthropic scheme of rendering the interoceanic communication by the way of the port and river San Juan free to all nations upon the same terms, we shall deem ourselves jus- tified in protecting our interests independently of her aid, and despite her op- position or hostility. With a view to this alternative, we have a treaty with the state of Nicaragua, a copy of which has been sent to you, and the stipula- tions of which you should unreservedly impart to Lord Palmerston. You will inform him. however, that this treaty was concluded without a power or in- struction from this government; that the President had no knowledge of its existence, of the intention to form it, until it was presented to him by Mr. Hise, our late charge d'affaires to Guatemala, about the 1st of September last ; and that, consequently, we are not bound to ratify it, and will take no step for that purpose, if we can, by arrangements with the British government, place our interests upon a just and satisfactory foundation. But, if our effort for this end should be abortive, the President will not hesitate to submit this or some other treaty which may be concluded by the present chargd d’affaires to Gua- temala, to the Senate of the United States for their advice and consent, with a view to its ratification ; and if that enlightened body should approve it, he also will give it his hearty sanction, and will exert all his constitutional power to execute its provisions in good faith — a determination in which he may confi- dently count upon the good will of the people of the United States.” Here we find the true reason assigned for withholding the Hise treaty from the Senate. It was to induce Great Britain to enter into partnership with us. Lord Palmerston is informed that if Great Bri- tain refuses our offer of a partnership, that “we shall deem ourselves justified in protecting our interests independently of her aid, and in despite of her opposition or hostility,” and that “ with a view to this alternative,” he held the Hise treaty in reserve, to he submitted to the Senate for ratification or not, dependent upon the decision of Great Britain in relation to the partnership. This is the only reaso assigned for withholding the treaty from the Senate. The pretext that it was made without authority is expressly negatived by the threat to accept the exclusive privilege, in the event that England refuses to enter into the partnership. Not a word of objection that 40 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF it guarantees the independence of Nicaragua ! But the testimony does not stop here. This same dispatch furnishes affirmative evi- dence — conclusive and undeniable — that the “guaranty” constituted no portion of his objection to the Ilise treaty — was not deemed ob- jectionable by him at that time — but, on the contrary, was looked upon with favor, and actually proposed by Mr. Clayton himself as a desirable provision which might be incorporated into a treaty for the protection of the canal ! I read from the same dispatch : “ You may suggest, for instance, that the United States and Great Britain should enter into a treaty guaranteeing the independence of Nicaragua, Hon- duras and Costa Rica, which treaty may also guarantee to British subjects the privileges acquired in those States by the treaties between Great Britain and Spain, provided that the limits of those States on the east be acknowledged to be the Carribean Sea.” Now, sir, let me ask the senator from Delaware what becomes of his pretest that he deemed the guaranty of the independence of Nicaragua an insuperable objection to the Hise treaty? Have I not proven by his own dispatches, written at the time, that such an idea could never have entered his brain when he determined to withhold the treaty from the Senate? — that it was an afterthought upon which he has since seized as an excuse for an act which had been previously done with a view to another object, and for different reasons ? I will now proceed to consider the fourth objection made by the senator to the Hise treaty. He goes on to criticise its various pro- visions, denounces them as ridiculous, as absurd, as unconstitutional, and he puts the question with an air of triumph whether there was a man in this body who would have voted for all the provisions of that treaty. Sir, I have no fancy for that species of special pleading which attempts to avoid the real issue by a criticism upon mere details which are subject to modification at pleasure. Does not the senator know that when a treaty is made, the objects of which are desirable, while the details are inadmissible, the practice has been to send it to the Senate, that the object may be secured and the details so modified as to conform to the ends in view ? Whoever supposed before that a treaty, desirable in its leading features, was to be rejected by the department, merely because there was an obnox- ious provision in it ? I could turn upon the senator with an air of as much triumph, if I had practised it as well, and ask him if there was a man in this body who would have voted for the Mexican treaty of peace as it was sent to us by the Executive? Do we not all know that the treaty which was ratified by about four-fifths of the Senate came to us in a shape in which it could not receive one solitary vote upon either side of the chamber? Do we not know that Mr. Polk in his message communicating the treaty intimated that fact, and called the attention of the Senate to the obnoxious provisions? "While it contained provisions which would exclude the President from the possibility of ever ratifying it, which would have STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 41 prevented every senator from giving his sanction to it, yet inasmuch as the main objects of the treaty met the approval of the President, and it was only matters of detail that were obnoxious and inadmis- sible, he sent it to the Senate that its details might he made to har- monize with its objects. Sir, the vote to strike out the obnoxious features in the treaty was unanimous. Hot one man in the body, not even the senator from Delaware, dared to affirm those clauses or vote to keep them in the treaty. Having perfected it so as to suit the v iews of about four-fifths of the Senate, it was ratified with the vote o. the senator recorded in the affirmative, according to my recol- lection. If, therefore, the senator from Delaware had followed the practice which he sanctioned by his own vote in the case of the Mexican treaty, he would have sent the Hise treaty to the Senate for amend- ment and ratification, even if the details had been obnoxious to all the objections he now urges to them. For this reason I do not deem it necessary to occupy the time of the Senate in reply to his objec- tions relative to making a canal outside the limits of the United States, or the creation of a company either by Congress or the Presi- dent for that purpose. I care not whether these provisions were admissible or inadmissible. It is not material to the argument. It can have no bearing upon the question. The Hise treaty was evi- dence of one great fact, which should never be forgotten, and that fact is, that Nicaragua was willing and anxious to grant the United States forever the exclusive right and control over a ship canal between the two oceans. The secretary of state (Mr. Clayton), knew that fact. If the details were not acceptable to him, he could have availed himself of the main provisions and made the details to suit himself ; I confine myself therefore to the great point that you might have had the exclusive privilege if you had desired it. You refused it with your eyes open, and took a partnership in lieu of it. All about the details is a matter of moonshine. You could have modified them to suit yourself before sending the treaty to the Senate, or you could have followed the example of Mr. Polk, in the case of the .Mexican treaty, and sent it to the Senate with the recom- mendation that the details be thus modified. All this talk about obnoxious features and objectionable provisions — about guarantees of independence and want of authority to make the treaty — must be regarded as miserable attempts to avoid the main point at issue. "Why this pitiful equivocation, if the senator was really in favor of the European partnership in preference to the exclusive privilege for the United States, as all his acts prove — the whole tenor of his correspondence clearly and conclusively prove— was the case? If he thinks his policy was right, why not frankly avow the truth, and justify upon the merits ? I am not to be diverted from my purpose by his assaults upon the administration of Presi dent Polk, nor by his array of great names in opposition to the views 1 entertain. History will do justice to Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanafl 42 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF upon this as well as all other questions connected with their admi- nistration of the government. In the speech to which the senator professed to reply, I did not make an allusion to party politics. I do not think the term Whig or Democrat can be found in the whole speech. I am sure that it does not contain a partisan reference to the state of political parties in the country during the period to which my remarks applied. I attempted to discuss the question upon its merits, independent of the fact whether my views might come in conflict with those professed by either of the 'great parties, or entertained by the great men of our country at some former period. I should have been better satisfied if the senator had pursued the same course, instead of calling upon Jackson, Polk and Buchanan, and sheltering himself behind their great names, while attempting to detract from their fame by representing them as having sacrificed the interests and honor of their country. Me. Clayton. — I deny it. There was not one word in my speech which went to arraign Mr. Polk or General Jackson, or anybody. There was nothing like a party spirit in this speech. If the gentle- man so understood me, he entirely misunderstood me. I stated the fact that Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan had been applied to by the local government of Nicaragua for the intervention of this govern- ment to protect it from the aggressions of the British. I stated, and proved the fact, that the Monroe doctrine had never been carried out — that Mr. Polk on that occasion had declined to interfere ; but I disclaim entirely assailing him, and endeavor to reconcile his whole course of conduct as being consistent with what he stated in the House of Eepresentatives on the Panama mission. Me. Douglas.- — I accept the explanation. It is perfectly satisfac- tory, but I am very unfortunate in apprehending the meaning of language. He said that Mr. Polk had avowed himself in favor of asserting the Monroe doctrine. He then said that Mr. Polk had abandoned and refused to carry it out when this question arose, lie said the President of Nicaragua, to use his own language, “poked that declaration into Mr. Polk’s own teeth.” Me. Clayton. — I used no such word. Me. Douglas. — At least, that he thrust it into his teeth. Me. Clayton. — I did not. Me. Douglas. — Well, never mind about the precise word. At all events, he went on to show that Mr. Polk was pledged to the Mon- roe doctrine, that he failed to carry it out, that no administration ever carried it out, that it had been abandoned whenever a question arose which gave an opportunity for caiTying it into effect. When he chose to put Mr. Polk into the position of making declarations and violating them, making protests and abandoning them, making threats and never executing them, I very naturally supposed, accord- ing to the notion of a western man, that he was attacking him. (Laughter.) Me. Clayton. — I endeavor to show that Mr. Polk had made his STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 43 recommendation to the Congress of the United States that he was perfectly justifiable in not considering that as the established doc- trine of the country, because the Congress of the United States had never adopted it. On that principle I endeavor to reconcile the course of Mr. Polk with itself. The gentleman has undertaken to represent me as assailing Mr. Polk, when if he had paid attention to what I said — unfortunately he was out during the greater portion of the time I was discussing the subject — he would have seen that I was endeavoring to prove that the course of that President of the United States, in this particular, was made liable to the exception which is taken to it ; that he was not bound by the declaration of the Monroe doctrine unless Congress adopted it, because he was not the govern- ment. Mr. Douglas. — Of course I accept the explanation of the senator with a great deal of pleasure, and I am gratified to know that I misapprehend him ; but it really did appear to me that I was justified in putting that construction upon what he said, inasmuch as he went on to show that when lie came into the State Department, he found Great Britain with her protectorate over the Mosquito coast, and spreading over more than half of Central America — that during Mr. Polk’s administration, and while he was negotiating the treaty of peace with Mexico, Great Britain seized the town of San Juan, at the mouth of the proposed canal, and that Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan remained silent, without even a protest against this unjus- tifiable aggression ; and when he denounced that seizure as an act originating in hostility to this country, to cut off communication with our Pacific possessions ; and when he said that it would have been wiser to have closed the door and shut out the British lion, than to allow him to enter unresisted, and then attempt to expel him ; and when he boasted of having expelled the British lion after Mr. Polk and Mr. Buchanan had permitted him to enter the house in contempt of their declaration of the Monroe doctrine, I really thought that he was attempting to censure Mr. Polk for letting the lion come in ; but it seems I was mistaken. He did not mean that, and not meaning it, upon my word I do not know what he did mean. (Laughter.) When I heard all this, and much more of the same tenor, it oc- curred to me that it amounted to a pretty good arraignment of Mr. Polk and his administration ; and that his object was to glorify him- self and General Taylor, at the expense of Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Polk, by accusing the latter of having tamely submitted to British aggressions of great enormity, rvhicli the former promptly rebuked by expelling the British from Central America. Let me ask him the question — did the Clayton and Bulwer treaty expel the British from Central America? Has England abandoned her protectorate? What power has she surrendered? What functionary has she recalled? What portion of the country — what inch of territory has she giveD up? Will the senator from Delaware inform me what England has abandoned in pursuance or by virtue of the Clayton and Bubwer THE LIFE . ND SPEECHES OF u treaty ? I can show him where she has extended her possessio since the date of that treaty, and in cor tempt of its stipulations, can point him to the seizure of the Bay Islands and the erection them into a colony — to the extension of her jurisdiction in t vicinity of the Balize — to her invasion of the Territory of Hondur on the main land — and to the continuance of her protectorate ov the Mosquito coast. I can point him to a series of acts designed 1 y Great Britain to increase her power and extend her possessions i that quarter. Will he point me to any one act by which she has re duced her power or curtailed her possessions ? lie boasts of havii expelled the British from Central America. Will he have the kin 1 ness to inform the Senate how, when, and where this has bei . effected ? Where is the evidence to sustain this declaration ? I call for information on this point in my speech the other day. Tb<, senator replied to all other parts of that speech in detail and at grc; length. Of course, want of time was the reason for his omission • respond to these pertinent inquiries. (Laughter.) Me. Clayton. — No, sir; I replied to it, but the senator was on ot his seat. Me. Douglas. — I was in my seat the most of the time the senab was speaking on that part of the subject, but unfortunately I hcai d no response to this interrogatory. Now, sir, in regard to this B<\ Island colony, I may be permitted to say, although it is by the w.' of digression from the line of argument which I was marking out for myself, that it presents a clear case not only in derogation of the Monroe doctrine, but in direct violation and contempt of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. I will do the senator the justice to say, that tb Bay Island colony has not been erected in pursuance of the treat;, , but in derogation of its provisions. The question arises, are we going to submit tamely to the establishment of this new colony? i f we 'acquiesce in it we submit to a double wrong — a contravention c f our avowed policy in regard to European colonization on this cont i nent ; and a palpable and open violation of the terms and stipulation of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. If we tamely submit to this two- fold wrong, the less we say henceforth in regard to European col< nization on the American continent, the better for our own credit. Here is. a case where we must act promptly if we ever intend I < act. I do not wish to make an issue with England about the Balizi — she has been in possession there longer than our nation has existe c l as an independent republic. Ido not wish to make an issue with her in regard to Jamaica, because she cannot surrender it upon ov. demand without dishonor, and she is bound to fight if driven to a., extremity on that point. I do not want to make an issue with her in reference to any colony she has upon the continent or adjacent to it, where she may be said to have had a long and peaceful possession. Sir, if I was going to make the issue on any one 01 these points, I would pursue a more manly course by declaring wai at once instead of resorting to such an expedient. I would make th STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 45 ■ solely and distinctly on the Bay Island colony, for the reason there she is clearly in the wrong, the act having been done in tion of her plighted faith. It was done in contempt of our . . red policy. She cannot justify it before the civilized world, and . i refore, dare not fight upon such an issue. England will fight us a her honor compels her to do it, and she will fight us for no r cause. We can require Great Britain to discontinue the Bay j - id colony, and I call upon the friends of the Clay ton-Bulwer y, whose provisions are outraged by that act, to join in the dc- ii ind that that colony he discontinued. Upon that point we are in c right : England is in the wrong ; and she cannot, she dare not iiuht upon it. And, sir, when England hacks out of one colony upon r remonstrance, it will be a long time before she will establish 1 other upon this continent without consulting us. And, sir, when ih gland shall have refrained from interfering in the affairs of the v nerican continent without consulting the wishes of this govern- 'd, what other power on earth will be willing to stand forward Ido that which England concedes it prudent not to attempt ? I may permitted to say, therefore, that the only issue that I desire to see his time, upon our foreign relations, as they are now presented to . . is upon the Bay Island colony : and let us require that that be 1: - ontinued, and that the terms of our treaty stipulations he obeyed id fulfilled. When that issue shall have been made and decided in our favor, we will not have much need for general resolutions about he Monroe doctrine in future. ! ut, sir, this was a digression. The point that I was discussing w as this : that while it has been a matter of boast for years that the • layton and Bulwer treaty drove Great Britain out of Central America, she has not surrendered an inch ; and what is more, she is now proposing negotiations with us with a view to new arrange- ments, by which she shall hereafter give up her protectorate. Yes, sir, . or late secretary of state and President, Everett and Fillmore, have ■ omunicated to Congress the fact that the British minister was pro- , ng new negotiations, new arrangements, by which Great Britain si n d hereafter give up that which the senator makes it a matter of l oast that he had secured by his treaty. That is a little curious. I do not understand this self-gratulation of having accomplished a great - A wonderful object, by the expelling of the British lion from the '• ce where Mr. Polk allowed him to come and abide, and still a new otiation or a new arrangement is deemed necessary to secure that which the senator from Delaware boasts of having accomplished long since ! England professes to be desirous of surrendering her protectorate. Then, why does she not do it? The British minister proposes to •f .-n negotiations by which England shall withdraw her authority fr m Central America, and the late secretary of state (Mr. Everett) •ertainsthe proposition favorably, while the senator from Delaware congratulates the country upon his having effected the desired end in his treaty three years ago. THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 46 If Messrs. Everett and Fillmore were correct in entertaining Mr. Crampton’s proposition for a new' arrangement, certainly the senator from Delaware is at fault in saying that his treaty expelled the Brit- ish from Central America. My opinion as to whether it did expel them or not, is a matter of not much consequence. I have always thought the language of the treaty was so equivocal, that no man could say with certainty, whether it did abolish the protectorate or not. One clause seemed to abolish it ; another seemed to recognize its existence, and to restrain its exercise ; and you conkl make as good an argument on one side as the other. But I gave notice at the time the treaty was ratified, that I would take the American side, and stand by the senator from Delaware in claiming that England was bound to quit ; but our late secret ary of state and the President , Everett and Fillmore, think otherwise ; and now it becomes a question whether new negotiations to accomplish that very desirable object are necessary or not ? Mr. President, I return to the point which I was discussing when the senator interrupted me, and led me off in this digression, to wit . That the simple question presented in this matter, when stripped of all extraneous circumstances, was this : Should we have accepted, when tendered, an exclusive right of way forever, from one ocean to the other ? The senator from Delaware thought not, and the admin- istration of General Taylor sustained him in his view of the question. I thought we ought to have embraced the offer which tendered us the exclusive control forever over this great interoceanic canal. The senator attempts to sustain his position by quoting the authority of General Jackson and Mr. Polk. Sir, he is unfortunate in his quotation. I do not think that, fairly considered, he has any such authority. I am aware that in 1835 that senator offered a resolution in this body, which was adopted, recommending a nego- tiation to open the Isthmus to all nations, and that General Jackson sent out Colonel Biddle to collect and report information on the subject ; but when the resolution was adopted, the question was then presented under circumstances very different from those which existed when the senator suppressed the Hise treaty. At that time the Central American States had granted to the Netherlands the privilege of making a canal. Others had already secured the privi- lege, and in that point of view it was reasonable to suppose that the most we could do was to get an equal privilege with European nations. That was not the case presented when the exclusive privi- lege was offered to us and the offer declined by the senator from Delaware without consulting the Senate. But there is no evidence that General Jackson ever entertained the opinions attributed to him. Colonel Biddle, who was appointed by General Jackson to explore the routes and collect and report information, availed himself of his official position to obtain an exclusive privilege to himself and his associates on private account. "When the existence of this private contract came to the knowledge of the secretary of state, Mr. Forsyth, he reprimanded our charge at STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 47 New Granada,' for having given any countenance to it. And why? Not because it contained an exclusive privilege to the United States, for it did not give us any privilege. Mr. Biddle had been sent out there to get information to be laid before the administration. He had no power to negotiate — no authority to open diplomatic rela- tions. He had no power to take any one step in procuring the privi- lege. He made use of his official position, and, in the opinion of the administration, abused it, by securing a private grant to himself, without the authority, protection, or sanction of the government of his own country. Mr. Forsyth was indignant because his agent had disobeyed Iris authority, and turned the public employment into a private specula- tion. That is not the question presented here. That contract did not give the United States the privilege at all. It gave it to Colonel Biddle and his associates. But I find nothing in that trans- action, and in all the public documents relating to it, to show that General Jackson would, have refused the exclusive privilege to his own country if it had been tendered to him. How is it, then, with Mr. Polk ? According to my recollection of the facts, New Granada had granted the privilege of making a canal to a Frenchman by the name of Du Quesne — I will not be cer- tain of his name — and it was desirable to get permission to carry the mails across there. The grant had passed into the possession of a citizen of a foreign power, and the most that our government could ask, was to be put upon an equal footing with that other power. It did not present the question of the privilege being tendered to us, and we refusing to accept it. But I shall take no time in going into a vindication of those ad- ministrations. In the remarks that I made the other day, I chose to vindicate my own course without reference to past administrations or present party associations, and I will pursue the same line of de- bate now. One word upon the point, made by the senator, that the Hise treaty was unconstitutional. "Was it not constitutional to accept the exclusive privilege to the United States ? If it was not, and his constitutional objection is valid, it goes a little too far. If you had no right to accept an exclusive privilege to us under the Constitution, what right had you to take a partnership privilege in company with Great Britain? If you had no right to take the privilege for the benefit of American citizens alone, what right had you to take one for the benefit of Englishmen and Americans jointly ? If you have no right to make a treaty by which you will protect an American company in making that canal, what right had you to make a treaty by which you pledged yourselves to protect a British company in making the same work ? I choose to put the senator upon the defensive, and let him demonstrate his right to do this thing jointly with England, and then I will draw from his argument my right to do it for the benefit of America alone. I choose to pul him in the position of demonstrating the existence of the constitu 4S THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF tional power. He, in his treaty, exercised the power. I have not. And he, having exercised it, having pledged the faith of the nation to do the act, I have a right to call npon him to show the authority, under the Constitution of the United States, to make a guaranty jointly with England for the benefit of English subjects as well as American citizens ; and when he proves the existence of that power, he has proved the right of the government to do the same thing for the benefit of America and American citizens, omitting England and British subjects. Sir, as I before said, I have no fondness for this special pleading about the peculiar provisions of a treaty, when the real point was the extent of the privilege which we should accept. Now, sir, I was in favor of an exclusive privilege, and I will tell you why. I desired to see 'a canal made; and when made, I desired to see it uuder the control of a power enabled to protect it. I desired to see it open to the commerce of the whole world, under our protection upon proper terms. How was that to be done, except by an exclusive privilege to ourselves ? Then, let us open it to the commerce of the world on such terms and conditions as we should deem wise, just and politic. Could we not do this as well by our volition as England could iu conjunction with us? Would it not be as creditable to us as a nation to have acquired it ourselves, and then opened it freely, as to have gone into a partnership by which we should have no con- trol in prescribing the terms upon which it should be opened ? And besides, if the grant had been made to us, and we had accepted it, and then thrown it open to the commerce of all nations on our own terms and conditions, we held in our hands a right which would have been ample security for every nation under heaven to keep the peace with the United States. The moment England abused the privilege by seizing any more islands, by establishing any more colonies, by invading any more rights, or by violating any more treaties, we would use our privileges, shut up the canal, and exclude her com- merce from the Pacific. We would hold a power in our hands which might be exercised at any moment to preserve peace and pre- vent injustice. Peace and progress being our aim, we should still have continued to be the only government on earth whose public policy from the beginning has been justly and honestly to enforce the laws of nations with fidelity toward all the nations. Sir, when you surrendered that exclusive right, you surrendered a great element of power, which in our hands would have been wielded in the cause of justice for the benefit of mankind. I was not for such a restrictive policy as would exclude British vessels from going through the canal, or the vessels of any other nation which should respect our rights. I would let them all pass, as long as they did not abuse the privilege ; close it against them when they did. I insist that the American people occupy a position on this continent which rendered it natural and proper that we should exercise that power. I have no fear of a war with England. 1 STEPIIEN A. DOUGLAS. 49 have none now. TC ar should be avoided as long as possible. But, sir, you need have no apprehension of a war with her, for the reason that if we keep in the right, she dare not fight ns, and she will not, especially for anything relating to American affairs. She knows she has giveii a bond to keep the peace, with a mortgage on all her real estate in America as collateral security, and she knows she forfeits her title to the whole, without hope of redemption, if she commits a breach of the bond. She will not fight unless compelled. TVe could have fortified that canal at each end, and in time of war could have closed it against our enemies, and opened it at our own pleasure. TVe had the power of doing it ; for the Hise treaty contained provisions for the construction of fortifications at each terminus and at such points along the line of the canal as we thought proper. TVe had the privilege of fortifying it, and we had the right to close it against any power which should abuse the privilege which we conferred. Then, sir, what was the objection to the acceptance of that exclu- sive privilege ? I do not see it, sir. I know what were the private arguments urged in times which have gone by, and which I trust never will return ; that England and other European powers never would consent that the United States should have an exclusive con- trol over the canal. "Well, sir, I do not know that they would have consented, but of one thing I am certain, I would never have asked their consent. "When Nicaragua desired to confer the privilege, and when we were willing to accept it, it was purely an American ques- tion with which England had no right to interfere. It was an Ame- rican question about which Europe had no right to be consulted. Are we under any more obligation to consult European powers about an American question than the allied powers were, in their Congress, to consult us, when establishing the equilibrium of Europe by the agency of the Holy Alliance ? America was not consulted then. Our name does not appear in all the proceedings. It was a European question, about which it was presumed America had nothing to say. This question of a canal in Nicaragua, when nego- tiations were pending to give it to us, was so much an American question, that the English government was not entitled to be con- sulted. England not consent! She will acquiesce in your doing what you may deem right so long as you consent to allow her to hold Canada, the Bermudas, Jamaica, and her other American possessions. I hope the time has arrived when we will not be told any more that Europe will not consent to this, and England will not consent to that. I heard that argument till I got tired of it when we were discussing the resolutions for the annexation of Texas. I heard it again on the Oregon question, and I heard it on the California question. It has been said on every occasion whenever we had an issue about acquir- ing territory, that England would not consent ; yet she has acquiesced in whatever we had the courage and the justice to do. And why ? Because we kept ourselves in the right. England was so situated with her possessions on this continent, that she dare not fight in an 3 50 THE LITE AND SPEECHES OF unjust cause. We would liave been in the right to have accepted tho privilege of making this canal, and England would never have dared to provoke a controversy with us. I think the time has come when America should perform her duty according to our own judgment, and our own sense of justice, without regard to what European powers might say with respect to it. I think this nation is about of age. I think we have a right to judge for ourselves. Let us always do right, and put the consequences behind us. But, sir, I do not wish to detain the Senate upon this point, or to prolong the discussion. I have a word or two to say in reply to the remarks of the senator from Delaware upon so much of my speech as related to the pledge in the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, never to annex any portion of that country. I objected to that clause iu the treaty, upon the ground that I was unwilling to enter into a treaty stipulation with any European p>ower in respect to this continent, that we would not do in the future, whatever our duty, interest, honor, and safety, might require in the course of events. The senator infers that I desire to annex Central America because I was unwilling to give a pledge that we never would do it. He reminded me that there was a clause in the treaty with Mexico containing the stipula- tion, that in certain contingencies we would never annex any portion of that country. Sir, it was unnecessary that he should remind me of that provision, lie has not forgotten how hard I struggled to get that clairse out of the treaty where it was retained in opposition to my vote. Had the senator given me his aid then to defeat that pro- vision in the Mexican treaty, I would he better satisfied now with his excuse for having inserted a still stronger pledge in his treaty. But having advocated that pledge then, he should not attempt? to avoid the responsibility of his own act by citing it as a precedent. I was unwilling to bind ourselves by treaty for all time to come never to annex any more territory. I am content for the present with tho territory we have. I do not wish to annex any portion of Mexico now. I did not wish to annex any part of Central America then, nor do I at this time. But I cannot close my eyes to the history of this country for tho last half century. Fifty years ago the question was being debated in this Senate whether it was wise or not to acquire any territory on the west bank of the Mississippi, and it was then contended that we could never with safety extend beyond that river. It was at that time seriously considered whether the Alleghany Mountains should not be the barrier beyond which we should never pass. At a sub- sequent date, after we had acquired Louisiana and Florida, more liberal views began to prevail, and it was thought that perhaps we might venture to establish one tier of States west of the Mississippi ; but in order to prevent the sad calamity of an undue expansion of our territory, the policy was adopted of establishing an Indian Ter- ritory, with titles in perpetuity, all along the western borders of those States, so that no more new States could possibly be created STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 51 in that direction. That barrier could not arrest the onward progress of our people. They burst through it, and passed the Rocky Moun- tains, aud were only arrested by the waters of the Pacific. Who then is prepared to say that in the progress of events, having met with the barrier of the ocean in our western course, we may not he compelled to turn to the north and to the south for an outlet. How long is it since the gentleman from Delaware himself thought that the time would never arrive when we would want California? I am aware that he was of that opinion at the time we ratified the treaty, and annexed it. Me. Clayton. — How? Me. Douglas.— By his voting for Mr. Crittenden's resolutions de- claring that we did not want any portion of Mexican territory. He will find his vote in this volume which I hold in my hand. I am aware that he belonged to that school of politicians who thought we had territory enough. I have not forgotten that a respectable por- tion of this body, but a few years ago, thought it would be prepos- terous to bring a country so far distant as California, and so little known, into the Union. But it has been done ; and now since Cali- fornia lias become a member of the confederacy, with her immense commerce and inexhaustible resources, we are told that the time will never come when the territory lying half way between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions will be desirable. Central America is too far otf, because it is half way to California, and on the main, direct route — on the very route upon which you pay your senators and representatives in Congress their mileage in coming to the capital of the nation ! The usual route of travel, the public highway, the half- way house from one portion of the country to the other, is so far dis- tant that the man who thinks the time trill ever come when we will want it, is deemed a madman ! Mr. Clayton. — Does the senator apply those sentiments to me ? I do not think so. Me. Douglas. — I simply say that such an opinion was indicated by the vote of the gentleman on the resolution of Mr. Crittenden. Me. Clayton. — The senator is entirely mistaken on that point. Me. Douglas — In order to save time, I waive the point as to the senator's vote, although it is recorded in the volume before me, and he cau read it at his leisure. But I am not mistaken in saying that the senator on yesterday did ridicule the idea that we were ever to want any portion of Central America. He was utterly amazed, and in his amazement inquired where were these boundaries ever to cease. He wanted to know how far we were going, and if we expected to spread over the entire continent. I do not think we will do it in our day, but I am not prepared to prescribe limits to the area over which Democratic principles may safely spread. I know not what our de?tiny may he. 1 try to keep up with the spirit of the age, to keep in view the history of the country, see what we have done, whither we are going, and with what velocity we are moving, in order to bo 52 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF prepared for those events which it is not in the power of man to thwart. You may make as many treaties as you please to fetter the limits of this giant republic, and she will burst them all from her, and her course will be onward to a limit which I will not venture to describe. Why the necessity' of pledging your faith that you will never annex any more of Mexico? Do you not know that you will be compelled to do it; that you cannot help it; that your treaty will not prevent it, and that the only effect it will have will be to enable European [lowers to accuse us of bad faith when the act is done, and associate American faith and Punic faith as synonymous terms ? AYhat is the use of your guaranty that you will never erect any fortifications in Central America; never annex, occupy, or colonize any portion of that country? How do you know that you can avoid doing it? If you make the canal, I ask you if American citizens will not settle along its line; whether they will not build up towns at each termi- nus; whether they' will not spread over that country, and convert it into an American State ; whether American principles and American institutions will not be firmly planted there ? And I ask you how many years you think will pass away before you will find the same necessity to extend your laws over your ow r n kindred that you found in the case of Texas? How long will it be before that day arrives? It may not occur in the senator’s day nor mine. But so certain as this republic exists, so certain as we remain a united people, so cer- tain as the laws of progress which have raised ns from a mere hand- ful to a mighty nation, shall continue to govern our action, just so certain are these events to be worked out, and you will be compelled to extend your protection in that direction. Sir, I am not desirous of hastening the day. I am not impatient of the time when it shall be realized. I do not wish to give any additional impulse to our progress. AVe are going fast enough. But 1 wish our public policy, our laws, our institutions, should keep up with the advance in science, in the mechanic arts, in agriculture, and in everything that tends to make us a great and powerful nation. Let us look the future in the face, and let us prepare to meet that which cannot be avoided. Hence I was unwilling to adopt that clause in the treaty guaranteeing that neither party would ever annex, colonize, or occupy any portion of Central America. I was opposed to it for another reason. It was not reciprocal. Great Britain had possession of the island of Jamaica. Jamaica was the nearest armed and fortified point to the terminus of the canal. Jamaica at present commands the entrance of the canal; and all that Great Britain desired was, inasmuch as she had possession of the only place com- manding the canal, to procure a stipulation that no other [lower would ever erect a fortification nearer its terminus. That stipulation is equivalent to an agreement that England may fortify, but that wo never shall. Sir, wlfen you look at the whole history of that ques- tion you will see that England, with her far-seeing, sagacious policy. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 53 has attempted to circumscribe and restrict and restrain the free action of this government. When was it that Great Britain seized the pos- session of the terminus of this canal? Just six days after the signing of the treaty which secured to us California ! The moment England saw, that by the pending negotiations with Mexico, California was to be acquired, she collected her fleets and made preparations for the seizure of the port of San Juan, in order that she might be gate- keeper on the public highway to our new possessions on the Pacific. Within six days from the time we signed the treaty, England seized by force and violence the very point now in controversy. Is not this fact indicative of her motives ? Is it not clear that her object was to obstruct our passage to our new possessions ? Hence I do not sympa- thize with that feeling which the senator expressed yesterday, that it was a pity to have a difference with a nation so friendly to us as England. Sir, I do not see the evidence of her friendship. It is not in the nature of things that she can be our friend. It is impossible she can love us. I do not blame her for not loving us. Sir, we have wounded her vanity and humbled her pride. She can never forgive us. But for us, she would be the first power on the face of the earth. But for us, she would have the prospect of maintaining that proud position which she held for so long a period. We are in her way. She is jealous of us, and jealousy forbids the idea of friendship. Eng- land does not love us ; she cannot love us, and we do not love her either. We have some things in the past to remember that are not agreeable. She has more in the present to humiliate her that she cannot forgive. I do not wish to administer to the feeling of jealousy and rivalry that exists between us and England. I wish to soften and allay it as much as possible ; but why close our eyes to the fact that friend- ship is impossible while jealousy exists. Hence England seizes every island in the sea and rock npon our coast where she can plant a gun to intimidate us or to annoy our commerce. Her policy has been to seize every military and naval station the world over. W'hy does she pay such enormous sums to keep her post at Gibraltar, except to hold it “in terrorem" over the commerce of the Mediterranean? Why her enormous expense to maintain a garrison at the Cape of Good Hope, except to command the great passage on the way to the Indies ? Why is she at the expense to keep her position on the little barren islands, Bermuda and the miserable Bahamas, and all the other islands along our coast, except as sentinels upon our actions? Does England hold Bermuda because of any profit it is to her? Has she any other motive for retaining it except jealousy which stimulates hostility to us? Is it not the case with all her possessions along our coast? Why, then, talk about the friendly bearing of England toward us when she is extending that policy every day? New treaties of friendship, seizure of islands, and erection of new colonies in violation of her treaties, seem to be the order of the day. In view of this state of things, I am in favor of meeting England as we meet a rival; meet her boldly, treat her justly and fairly, but make no 54 THE LIFE AND S LEECHES OF humiliating concession even for the sake of peace. She has as much reason to make concessions to us as we have to make them to her. I would not willingly disturb the peace of the world ; but, sir, the Bay- Island colony must be discontinued. It violates the treaty. Now, Mr. President, it is not my purpose to say another word upon our foreign relations. I have only occupied so much time as was necessary to put myself right in respect to the speech made by the senator from Delaware. He advocates one line of policy in regard to our foreign relations, and I have deemed it my duty to advocate another. It has been my object to put the two systems by the side of each other that the public might judge between us. Mr. Mason having continued the debate on Monday, March 14th, Mr. Clayton occupied a portion of that and the succeed- ing days in a reply to Mr. Douglas — to which, on Wednesday, the 17 th of March, Mr. Douglas responded: Me. Peesident : I had a right to expect that the senator from Delaware, in his reply, would have vestured upon an argument against the positions which I had assumed in my former speech, and which he had assailed.' It will be observed, upon a close examination, that he has evaded nearly every point in controversy between us, under the cover of free indulgence in coarse personalities. I do not complain of this. He had a right to choose his own course of dis- cussion. Perhaps it was prudent in him to pursue the course which he adopted. I shall not follow his example, however. I may not have the same inducements that may have prompted him. If I had been driven from nearly every position I had assumed in debate — if nearly every material fact I had asserted had been negatived and disproved by official documents bearing my own signatures — if I had been convicted of giving one explanation of my conduct at one time, and at other times different and contradictory reasons, I might be prompted to seek refuge under personalities from the exposure that might be made. Sir, I pass that all by. The senator, as a last resort, attempted to get up unkind feelings between my political friends and myself in regard to this debate. He endeavored to show that my speech was an assault upon every sena- tor who took a different course. He went further, and charged that I, as a Presidential candidate, was pursuing this course in order to destroy and break down rivals in my own party. Sir, these insidious and disreputable assaults do not disturb my equanimity. The object is to enlist, from prejudice and unworthy motives, a sympathy in the course of discussion which he has attempted to maintain. But I appeal to the Senate if I assailed any senator upon this floor, either in regard to the Hise treaty or the Clayton and Bulwer treaty. I appeal to the Senate if I mentioned the name of any senator, or stated how any one man had voted. I did not disclose even how the vote STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 55 stood. Ho citizen in America would have known the vote of any senator on this floor from my speech, or from my participation in the recent discussion ; and I have yet to learn that a vindication of my own course involves an assault upon those who chose to differ with me. I have not understood the speeches of the senator from Michi- gan (Mr. Cass) and of the senator from Virginia (Mr. Mason) and of other senators, who have spoken on this question, in opposition to some of my views, as an attack on myself. It was their duty to vin- dicate their own course with the reasons which prompted them ; and it was my right and my duty to give the reasons which induced and compelled me to pursue the course that I did. I do not choose to occupy the time of the Senate in a matter that partakes so much of a personal character. But the senator cannot avail himself of that argument in vindication of his course in sup- pressing the Ilise treaty. He is not supported by that array of names which he has produced for that act. Xo one of the senators ever did sustain him, so tar as I know, in suppressing the Hise treaty. That treaty was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. The Se- nate were never permitted to examine it. The treaty, to this day, has been withheld from the Senate. You will have to go elsewhere than to the files of this body to find that treaty. How can it be said that senators. have sustained him in his rejection of the Hise treaty, when he had deprived the Senate of an opportunity of showing whether they were for or against it ? Sir, he cannot have the benefit of those names which he has quoted to shelter him upon that point. Again, sir, he has quoted all the eminent names from General Jackson down to the present time, to support him in his refusal to accept of the exclusive control of the eaual for his own country. Sir, he has no authority thus to quote them ; he has no authority for say- ing that any one of those eminent statesmen were opposed to such a privilege as the Hise treaty showed that we could have acquired. It is true that when Central America granted a privilege to a company in the Hetherlands to make this canal, the administration of General Jackson, under that state of facts, were content with asserting our right to an equal participation. It is also true that when a French- man had procured a charter for a railroad across the isthmus of Panama, and thus it had gone into the hands of foreigners, the ad- ministration of President Polk were content to assert our claim to an equal right. But it is not true that either of them ever refused to ac- cept an exclusive privilege for this country when voluntarily tendered. I am not going to occupy the attention of the Senate with an array of names for or against this proposition. I quoted no names in my first argument. I addressed myself to the merits of the question, and chose to decide it by arguments upon its merits, and not by the authority of great names. I would rather see the senator sustain his position now by arguments upon the merits of his own official action, and not by an appeal to the action of great men who lived at a different period, and whose acts were dependent upon entirely different circumstances. 56 1 II E LIFE AND SPEECHES OF One word more, and I proceed to the main point at issue. Tin senator has accused me of having attempted to make this a party question. How did I attempt it? In my speech of February last, to which he replied, he cannot find the term "Whig or Democrat, oi a political allusion, or a partisan argument. I explained my own principles of action as evinced in my votes ; and 1 expressly stated that they were not sanctioned by either Whig or Democratic adminis trations upon some of the points. I did not invoke the aid of sympa thy of party. I was willing to stand upon the truth and the soundness of my own record, and leave the future to determine whether I was right or wrong on the question. Sir, partisan polities have been introduced by the senator, and not by me. The senator, in his speech in reply to me, endeavored to show that Democratic administrations had done this, and Democratic administrations had done that, and appealed to partisan authority, to sustain himself. I admit his right to introduce party questions, and to appeal to party names as author- ity. I have not done it, and I deny his right to charge it upon me. Sir, I invoked the aid of no partisan feeling or party organization for the support of the position I maintained. But when the senator showed that a majority of my own party, on the ratification of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, had recorded their names in opposition to mine, he ought to have been content, without charging that I was making it a party question. It was not a very agreeable thing to me to be compelled to differ with three-fourths of the Senate, including a majority of my own political friends, and nothing but a sense of duty would have compelled me to take the responsibility of such a course. How, let us go back to the real point. Why all these attempts to avoid the main issue? In the first place the senator denied that he was responsible for not sending the Hise treaty to the Senate, inas- much' as it had been rejected by Central America. Then, when I showed that the rejection of that treaty was procured by his own agent in obedience to his instructions, he denied the existence of the instructions. When I produced the instructions, and showed that the agent acted in obedience to what he believed to be their true meaning, the senator acknowledged his opposition to the treaty, and justified it upon the ground that it guaranteed the independence of Nicaragua. When I showed that he could not have objected to it on that ground, for the reason that at that very time lie proposed a guaranty, in connection with Great Britain, of the independence of Nicaragua, he abandons that position, and is driven to the extremity of seeking refuge under what he chooses to consider obno.-^ous details. When I showed that his objections to the details could not avail him, because it was no reason for withholding the treaty according to the usages of the Senate, he then comes to the point that it was better to have a partnership privilege than an exclusive one. That brings us to the real question. Why could we not have come to it at once ? If he was right in his preference for a European STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 57 partnersliip over an exclusive privilege to liis own country, why did he not avow the fact at once and justify his conduct, instead of wast- ing the time of the Senate in requiring me to prove facts which ought to have been confessed, and which have been proven by his own written testimony, in opposition to his own denial? In his last speech the senator chose to persevere in representing me as the advocate of a canal to be made through Central America, with funds from the Treasury of the United Slates. I need not remind the senator that he had no authority, from anything I have said, to attribute to me such a purpose. I certainly did not assume any such position, while my remarks were calculated to negative such an idea. My position was this: that while negotiating for the right of way for a canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific, w 7 e should have accepted the offer to our own government of the exclusive right to control it, instead of a partnership with England and the other powers of the earth. The Iljse treaty granted the privilege either to the United States or to an American company under our protec- tion, at our option. I insisted that we had the same right to take it to ourselves that we had to take it jointly with other powers. It requires no further exertion of constitutional power to execute and maintain and regulate an exclusive privilege to America than it did to execute and maintain a partnership privilege with European powers. Hence his objections upon that score must fall to the ground. The simple question was, whether it would have been wise to accept that privilege. Sir, I think it would have been. I am not going to repeat the argument I made the other day upon that point. If it had been given to us, we could have opened the canal to the world upon such terms as we deemed proper. We could have withdrawn the use of it whenever a nation failed to respect our rights. It would have been a bond of peace instead of being an apple of discord between us and other nations; because when you bring all the great Powers of the earth into partnership, constant disputes will arise as to the nature and extent of the rights of the respective parties. The history of these negotiations proves this fact. But, sir, let me ask the senator what he has gained by his rejec- tion of the Hise treaty? He has given the world to understand by his speeches that he has accomplished two great objects: the one to open a canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans — the other to put a stop to British encroachments in Central America. Has he accomplished either of those objects? I ask what privilege he has gained to make a canal? He has not even secured the right of way for a canal, either jointly or separately. He is responsible for having defeated the project of a canal between the two oceans. He refused the grant of the right of way, because it gave the right to control the work exclusively to his own country. The treaty which he caused to be made, failed to receive the sanction of the Senate. Thus we are left without any right of way — without any charter, right, or privilege. Instead of accomplishing that object, he is responsible for 3 * 58 THE LIKE AND SPEECHES OF its defeat. All that he has to boast of is, that he deprived his own country of an inestimable privilege, the necessity and importance of which are now conceded on all bands. What, then, have we gained by his diplomacy? Why, sir, after having failed in getting the privilege of making the canal, either jointly or separately, lie makes a treaty with Great Britain by which, if we hereafter secure it, the privilege is given to Great Britain as well as to ourselves. The Clayton and Bulwer treaty provides that any right of way or communication which may be secured at any future time, shall be open alike to England and the United States, and under the joint control and protection of the two powers. We have a treaty with England about a canal in Central America, but we have none with any of the Central American States. Let me ask, then, how much have we gained? Has he expelled the British from Central America by his treaty? What inch of country have they given up. What right have they abandoned ? What functionary have they withdrawn? Where is the evidence that you have driven the British from Central America ? Are they not still in the full enjoyment of their protectorate upon the Mosquito coast? Have you driven them from the Balize? The senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass), and the chairman of the Committee, on Foreign Relations (Mr. Mason), in their speeches, have maintained that the Clayton and Bulwer treaty would fairly include the Balize as a part of Central America. But the senator from Dela- ware, while acting as the secretary of state, gave a construction to that treaty which excludes the Balize. The senator, therefore, is estopped from saying that he has expelled the British from the Balize. The fact shows that he has not driven the British protecto- rate from the coast. We find that instead of leaving Central America, the British have not only established a colony at the Bay Islands, but, if the newspaper information received by the last steamers can be credited, they have bombarded the towns upon the main land, and taken forcible possession of a part of the state of Honduras. Then 1 repeat the question to the senator, what has he gained? I can tell him what has resulted from his negotiation. He has recognized the right of Great Britain and all European powers to interfere with the affairs of the American states. He has recognized that right by a treaty; and he has guaranteed to England that we will use our good offices to enable them to enter into arrangements with these Central American states. He has excluded the idea that the question of the Central American states is an American question, and by his nego- tiation has opened it as a European question. In other words, he has, by his treaty, abolished what is known as the Monroe doctrine, with reference to a large portion of the American continent. This brings me to the examination of another question. The sena- tor from Delaware chose to arraign me upon that portion of my speech, in which I stated that I was unwilling to give a pledge never to annex any more territory to the United States. He then went on STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 59 to argue against annexation, said we were pledged, and that the pledge given was correct, and attempted to vindicate it. He ar- raigned me for having said that such a treaty could not be enforced through all time to come. I explained to him that my idea was that the growth of this country was so great and so rapid that the bar- riers of any treaty would be irresistibly broken through by natural causes, over which we had no control ; and hence that the treaty ought not to have been made. He told me that the explanation made it worse, and that he would show that the doctrine involved moral turpitude : that he was amazed and grieved that any one here from this high place should proclaim such a sentiment. Sir, I will proceed to show my authority on that point, which I think he will be compelled to respect. In taking that position, I only reiterated the opinions expressed by the late secretary of state, and now senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett), in ids letter to the Comte de Sartiges, a few months ago, in respect to the island of Cuba ; and when the senator from Delaware arraigns me for utter- iug sentiments involving a want of respect for treaty stipulations, I will turn him over to the senator from Massachusetts and to ex-Pre- sident Fillmore, and allow them to settle that issue between them- selves. I wish to call the attention of the senator to the letter of Air. Everett to the Comte de Sartiges. In that letter you find the following passage in regard to a proposed convention stipulating that we would never annex Cuba ; “ The convention would he of no value unless it were lasting ; accordingly its terms express a perpetuity of purpose and obligation. Now, it may well ba doubted whether the Constitution of the United States would allow the treaty- making power to impose a permanent disability on the American government for all coming time, and prevent it, under any future change of circumstances, from doing what has been so often done in times past. In 1803 the United States purchased Louisiana of France, and in 1819 they purchased Florida of Spain. It is not within the competence of the treaty-making power in 1852 effectually to bind the government in all its branches ; and for all coming time not to make a similar purchase of Cuba.” The senator from Delaware will see that the late secretary of state, Mr. Everett, by the direction of President Fillmore, has pronounced such a guaranty to be a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and the exercise of an authority not conferred by that instru- ment. Sir, if the Constitution gave no authority to make a pledge by this government that we will never annex Cuba, I suppose it does not authorize a pledge never to annex Central America. The con- stitutional objection applies to the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, in re- lation to Central America, with the same force that it did to the proposed convention in respect to Cuba. They take higher ground than I did. I was not willing to do that which would involve a breach of faith in the progress of events. But I did not go so far as to deny the constitutional power to make such a treaty. And, there- fore, I ask the senator why lie did not arraign President Fillmore — 60 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF why he did not arraign the late secretary of state, Mr. Everett, for uttering those monstrous sentiments, instead of hurling his anathe- mas upon my head, as if I had been the only man in America who ever ventured to proclaim such opinions ? According to the opin- ions of President Fillmore, and his secretary of state, as promulgated in Mr. Everett’s celebrated letter, and applauded by the almost una- nimous voice of the American people, the Clayton and Bulwer treaty was a palpable violation of the Constitution of the United States. But Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Everett were not content with denying the power of this government, under the Constitution, to enter into this treaty stipulation. They deny its propriety, its justice, its wis- dom, as well as the right to make it. I will read a passage upon this point : “ There is another strong objection to the proposed agreement. Among the oldest traditions of the Federal Government is an aversion to political alliances with European powers. In his memorable Farewell Address, President Wash- ington says : ‘ The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political con- nection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.’ President Jefferson, in his inaugural address, in 1801, warned the country against entangling alliances. This expression, now become proverbial, was unquestionably used by Mr. Jef- ferson in reference to the alliance with France of 1778, an alliance at the time of incalculable benefittothe United States, but which in less than twenty years came near involving us in the wars of the French Revolution, and laid tile foun- dation of heavy claims upon Congress not extinguished to the present day. It is a significant coincidence that the particular provision of the alliance which occasioned these evils was that under which France called upon us to aid her in defending her West Indian possessions against England. Nothing less than the unbounded influence of Washington rescued the Union from the perils of that crisis and preserved our neutrality.” As-the senator from Delaware is fond of the authority of great names, I not only furnish him with the name of the late secretary of state, and that of the late President of the United States, upon the points to which I have referred, but I have the authority of these gentlemen for saying that his doctrine with regard to Central America is in violation of the solemn warnings of the Father of his Country, and in derogation of the protests of Mr. Jefferson, repeated over and over again during his eventful life. I find that the late secretary of state has again, in another passage, summed up the objections which I entertained to the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, and 1 will call the attention of the Senate to it. It is this: “ But the President has a graver objection to entering into the proposed con- vention. He has no wish to disguise the feeling, that the compact, although equal in its terms, would be very unequal in substance France and England, by entering into it, would disable themselves from obtaining possession of an island remote from their seats of government, belonging to another European power, whose natural right to possess it must always be as good as their own — a distant island, in another hemisphere, and one which by mo ordinary or peaceful course of things could ever belong to either of them. If the present STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS 6 ] balance of power in Europe should be broken np : if Spain should become un- able to maintain the island in her possession, and France and England should be engaged in a death-struggle "with each other, Cuba might then be the prize of the victor. Till these events all take place, the President does not see how Cuba can belong to any European power but Spain. The United States, on the other hand, would, by the proposed convention, disable themselves from making an acquisition which might take place without any disturbance of ex- isting foreign relations, and in the natural order of things.” If the prosposed guaranty never to annex Cuba was not reciprocal as between the United States and England, Low is it that it can he said that a similar guaranty respecting Central America was reci- procal ? Every argument urged by the late secretary of state against reciprocity in one, applies with equal force to the other. It may he said that Cuba stands at the entrance of the Gulf of Mexico; but it can be said with equal truth that Central America is upon the public highway to our Pacific possessions. Both stand as gates to this pub- lic highway, and every argument urged in relation to the one is equally applicable to the other. Kow I have to quote the late secretary of state and President Fillmore against the senator from Delaware on another point. When I remarked that the history of this country showed that our growth and expansion could not be resisted, and would inevitably break through whatever barriers might be erected by the present genera- tion to restrain our future progress, the senator from Delaware as- sumed the right to rebuke me for uttering sentiments implying per- fidy and moral turpitude. He desired t.o know if sentiments of that kind were to be tolerated in the American Senate? Let him hear liis friend from Massachusetts on that point, in the same docu- ment : “ That a convention stick as is proposed would be a transitory arrangement, sure to be swept away by the irresistible tide cf affairs in a new country, is, to the apprehension of the President, too obvious to require a labored argument. The project rests on principles applicable, if at all, to Europe, where interna- tional relations are in their basis of great antiquity, slowly modilied for the most part in the progress of time and events; and not applicable to America, which, but lately a waste, is filling up with intense' rapidity, and adjusting, on natural principles, those territorial relations which on the first discovery of the continent were in a good degree fortuitous.” .... Hut whatever may be thought of these last suggestions, it would seem im- possible for any one who reflects upon the events glanced at in this note to mistake the law of American growth and progress, or think it can ultimately arrested by a convention like that proposed. In the judgment of the Presi- dent, it would he as easy to throw a dam from Cape Florida to Cuba, in the hope of stopping the flow of the Gulf Stream, as to attempt, by a compact like this, to fix the fortunes of Cuba, now and for hereafter, or, as expressed in the French text of the convention, ‘ pour le prfisent comme pour l’avenir.’ that is for all coining time.” There the senator is told that such a stipulation might be applica- ble to European politics, hut would be unsuited and unfitted to Ame- rican affairs ; that he has mistaken entirely the system of policy, 02 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF which should be applied to oar own country, that he has predicated his action upon those old, antiquated notions which belong to the stationary and retrograde movements of the Old World, and find no sympathy in the youthful, uprising aspirations of the American heart. I indorse fully the sentiment. I insist that there is a difference, a wide difference, between the system of policy which should be pursued in America and that which would be applicable to Europe. Europe is antiquated, decrepit, tottering on the verge of dissolution. When you visit her, the objects which enlist your highest admiration are the relics of past greatness ; the broken columns erected to departed power. It is one vast graveyard, where you find here a tomb indi- cating the burial of the arts ; there a monument marking the spot where liberty expired; another to the memory of a great man, whose place has never been filled. The choicest products of her classic soil consists in relics, which remain as sad memorials of de- parted glory and fallen greatness! They bring up the memories of the dead, but inspire no hope for the living! Here everything is fresh, blooming, expanding, and advancing. We wisli a wise, prac- tical policy adapted to our condition and position. Sir, the states- man who would shape the policy of America by European models, has failed to perceive the antagonism which exists in the relative position, history, institutions — in everything pertaining to the Old and the New World. The senator from Delaware seems always to have had his back turned upon his own country, and his eye intently fixed upon Europe as the polar star of all his observations. If it would not he deemed an indelicate interposition between the senator from Delaware and his friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett), I should be inclined to say that the criticism of the late secretary of state, although not in- tended for the senator from Delaware, is strictly applicable to his diplomacy, and fully deserved. I shall not go into the discussion of that question, however. I deny the right of the senator from Dela- ware to come back at me on that point. I shall certainly turn him over to his friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett), because he will not dare to accuse him of political prejudices aud partisan feelings, lie has said severer tilings of the senator’s diplomacy than I thought the rules of the Senate would authorize me to indulge in. The ex- President of the United States has sanctioned them, and now I think I am at liberty to refer to them, for if it were not within the rules of courtesy and diplomacy, they would not be sent here. Put, sir, I may be permitted to add that the nation has sanctioned them too ; for I am not aware that a State paper was ever issued in America that received a heartier response in most of its principles, than the letter of the late secretary of state to the Comte de Sartiges, to which I have referred. Sir, if ho had done nothing else to render his administration of the State Department illustrious, his name would live in all coming time in that diplomatic letter, as one who could appreciate the spirit of the age, and perceive the destiny of tho •■'.rion, No document has ever received such a universal sanction STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 63 of the American people as the one to which I have referred, con- demning and repudiating the diplomacy of the senator from Dela- ware in relation to the American continent. Air. President, I have not much more to add. The senator has arraigned me also for having attempted to arouse unkind feelings be- tween the United States and England. I deny that the arraignment is just. I have attempted no such thing. I have never attempted to foster jealousies or unkind feelings between our own country and any other. I have attempted to plant our relations on amicable terms, by speaking the truth plainly as we and they know it to exist. The remarks that I have made about friendly relations between the two countries, were drawn out by his statement that England was known to be so “ friendly” to us. I said to him I did not think the friendly relations of England constituted any claim upon our gratitude. I have seen no evidence of that friendship. I said frankly I did not * think that England loved us, and it was useless for us to pretend that we loved her. The history of the two countries proves it. The daily action of the two countries proves it. England is spending her millions to maintain her fortifications all along our coast ; at the Ber- mudas, the Bahamas, and at Jamaica, and on every rock and barren ■waste along the American coast. What does she keep them up for? Does she make money out of them ? Why, you all know that they are a source of unbounded expenditure to her. Does it extend her com- merce ? Does it employ her shipping ? ISTot at all. Why does she keep them ? In order to point her guns at America. Well, if she is so friendly to ns, and we are so friendly to her, what necessity is there for pointing her cannon all the time at us ? And if these are evidences of friendship, why do we not reciprocate it by sending over a few cannon and planting them on every little island and rock near her coast ? If we were to seize upon every military and naval position, and expend millions in keeping np fortifications all along her coast, would that be any evidence of friendly feeling on our part toward England ? I do not see it. Again : the moment it was discovered that we were to acquire California as a consequence of the Mexican war, England sent her armed ships and seized possession of the town of San Juan, and I have the authority of the senator from Delaware for saying there is reason to believe that the act was done out of hostility to the Amer- ican government. Why did she want the town of San Juan ? Sim- ply for the reason that by the Mexican treaty our possessions had been enlarged upon the Pacific coast, and it evidently became necessary, in order to preserve this Union and maintain our commerce, that we should have the line of intercommunication between the two oceans so as to connect the Atlantic and Pacific States together ; and there- fore, in order to cut oft’ our right of way, in order to establish a toll gate upon our public highway, she seized possession of that point as the one from which she could annoy us most. The senator will not pretend that he believes that act originated Gi THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF in friendly feelings toward ns on the part of England. I have his authority in his public documents for saying that he believes it ori- ginated in motives of jealousy and hostility. The object was, not to advance her own interest, not to increase her own commerce, not to extend her own power, hut to restrain, fetter, and cripple our ener- gies and our power. Are these acts evidence of friendship on her part toward us, and are we so constituted that we feel grateful for them? Sir, let us not play the hypocrite upon this subject. Let us speak out the naked truth, plainly and boldly. We feel that this seizure of every rock and island upon our coast, and converting them into garrisoned fortresses, with guns to bear on American commerce and American interests, are no evidence of friendship. We feel that these attempts to surround and fetter us, and hem us in, are evidences of hostility, which it is our duty plainly to see and boldly to resist. Sir, the way to establish friendly relations with England is, to let her know that we are not so stupid as not to understand her policy, nor so pusillanimous as to submit to her aggressions. The moment * she understands that we mean what we say, and will carry out any principle we profess, she will be very careful not to create any point of difference between us. It is want of candor and frankness that keeps the two nations in conflict with each other. I say, that as long as this policy of hemming us in, and fettering us, and trying to re- strain our growth and curtail our power continues, we cannot feel friendly and kindly toward her ; and so long as she persists in that policy, we ought not to believe that she feels kindly toward us. If we tell her so, she will do one of two things ; either abandon her aggressive course, or avow her hostility ; and of all things let us know whether she is our friend or our enemy. Therefore, I will repeat very frankly, that it is useless to endeavor to conceal the fact that there are jealousies between us and England growing out of rival interests, and that her policy has for its aim to restrain our power rather than increasing her own. Our policy is, to enhance our own power and greatness, without attempting to restrain hers. Ours is generous, honorable, and justifiable ; hers is illiberal, unkind, unjust, and wrn ought to tell her so. I believe, Mr. President, I have said all I have to say upon this question. My object has been simply to reply to the points raised by the senator in his speeeh. I do not wish to travel over the ground again. There are many other points in the discussion into which I could have gone. There are many other positions that the docu- ments which have been lately published would furnish me ample material for prolonging the discussion, but I do not wish to occupy the time of the Senate. I only wish to show that the real points at issue are : first, that the senator preferred a partnership with Eng- land to an exclusive privilege to his own country for the great iutev- oceanic canal. Secondly, that he believes in the policy of pledging this country never to annex any more territory in all time to come. I repudiate that policy. These are the main points between us. and STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. G5 the last point, in the course of the discussion, seems to have become the material one. He is opposed to all further annexation, and wishes to make treaties now to -restrain us in all time to come from extend- ing our possessions. I do not wish to annex any more territory now. But I avow freely that I foresee the day when you will be compelled to do it, and cannot help it, and when treaties cannot prevent the consumma- tion of the act. Hence my policy would be to hold the control of our own action, give no pledges upon the subject, but hide our time, and he at liberty to do whatever our interest, our honor, and duty may require when the time for action may come. An old, decrepit nation, tottering aud ready to fall to pieces, may well seek for pledges and guaranties from a youthful, vigorous, growing power, to protect her old age. But a young nation, with all her freshness, vigor, and youth, desires no limits fixed to her greatness, no boundaries to her future growth. She desires to be left free to exercise her own powers, exert her own energies, according to her own sense of duty in all coming time. This, sir, is the main issue between us, and I am ready to submit it to the Senate and to the country. [Senator Butler, in continuation of the debate on the same day, having assailed some of the positions maintained by Senator Douglas, and pronounced a eulogy upon England and her literature, Senator Douglas replied:] Me. President : In reply to the senator from South Carolina, I wish to state to him, without going into the controversy as to which is the right policy for the President when a treaty contains objects desirable and details obnoxious, that he will find an example in point in the case of the Mexican treaty containing provisions which the President and Senate both regarded as unconstitutional, yet the President sent the treaty here, and pointed out the obnoxious parts. The senator aud those acting with him modified it, perfected it, voted for it, and ratified it in opposition to my vote, and it became the law of the laud. It is a case precisely in point, and I merely mention it, and leave that part of the question. Me. Butler. — I think the Mexican treaty was sent as an entirety. "We amended it no doubt, but it was sent as an entirety by President Polk, saying that Mr. Trist had usurped power which he did not possess. It was exactly one of those instances in which the treaty had been made, and he asked the Senate to adopt it, but he sent it in as an entire thing. Ms. Douulas. — The President sent it in, stating that there were certain provisions in it which must be striken out before it could b( sanctioned by him. But now to another point : The gentleman com- mented upon a remark that I had made, and which also was con- tained in the letter of the late secretary of state (Mr. Everett), and seems to suppose that we were advocating the doctrine of not ob- serving the faith of treaties. That did not put us before the country in the true position which we have assumed. My position is this . THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF GG that we should never make a treaty which we cannot carry ink idis execution; that good faith requires us not to make a treaty i Mi — we intend to execute it, nor make one which we probably canr. 1 1 1 >o able to execute. My argument, therefore, was an argument against, the making of treaties improperly upon points that were unneces rg . and which could not be carried into effect, and not in favor of vi bit- ing any treaties that had been made. It was an argument in of the sanctity of treaties; and those who make treaties proiii- . ly and recklessly, binding us for all time to come without referem i . the ability in future to execute them, are the ones who ought to be arraigned, if anybody should be, for not being faithful to t stipulations. I wish, therefore, to make this explanation, in order that no misapprehension as to the position which I have assumed may be entertained in any quarter. The senator referred to a remark of mine in regard to the do n . and decline of European powers, and made it the excuse for a - uln- gium upon England as the source from which we have derived evi. thing that is valuable in science and art ; in literature, law, and poli n . When I am reminded of the greatness of England, as connect f with her statesmen and orators, and the illustrious names of Hamj - den and Sydney are pointed to as examples, I cannot fail to rei cm ber — I can never forget — that the same England which gave them birth, and should have felt a mother’s pride and love in their vir ues and services, persecuted her noble sons to the dungeon and i scaffold, and attempted to brand their names with infamy in all com ing time, for the very causes which have endeared them to us md filled the republican world with their fame! Nor am 1 unmindful of the debt of gratitude which the present generation owes to (he brilliant galaxy of great names whose fortune it was to have been boyn and to have suffered in England, and whose labors and re searches in political, legal, and physical science — in literature, pot ( n . and art, have added so much lustre on their native land. Some pursued their labors under the protection and patronage of the Eng- lish government — others in defiance of her tyranny and vengeam c I award all credit and praise to the authors of all the blessings ' advantages we have inherited from that source. I cannot go as far as the senator from South Carolina. I ca ■ .of recognize England as our mother. If so, she is and ever has be cruel and unnatural mother. I do not find the evidence of her ; ill tion in her watchfulness over our infancy, nor in her joy and pride at our ever-blooming prosperity and swelling power, since we as- sumed an independent position. The proposition is not historically true. Our ancestry were m t all of English origin. They were of Scotch, Irish, German, Ercucu, and of Norman descent as well as English. In short, we inherit fmni every branch of the Caucasian race. It has been our aim and poli y to profit by their example — to reject their errors and follies — and io retain, imitate, cultivate, perpetuate all that Avas valuable and dt ir- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 67 far as any portion of the credit may he due to England and - men — and much of it is — let it be freely awarded and recorded ncient archives, which seem to have been long since forgotten and the memory of which her present policy toward us is 1 calculated to revive. But, that the senator from South i, in view of our present position and of his location in this racy, should indulge in glowing and eloquent eulogiums of . for the blessings and benefits she has conferred and is still g upon us, and urge these considerations in palliation of the she is daily perpetrating, is tome amazing. He speaks in • ■_ f delight and gratitude of the copious and refreshing streams English literature and science are pouring into our country using throughout the land. Is he not aware that nearly every book circulated and read in this country contains lurking idious slanders and libels upon the character of our people institutions and policy of our government ? Does he not know ditionism, which has so seriously threatened the peace and f this republic, had its origin in England, and has been in- ted into the policy of that government for the purpose of dug upon the peculiar institutions of some of the States of this 5 racy, and thus render the Union itself insecure? Does she p her missionaries perambulating this country, delivering iu and scattering broadcast incendiary publications, designed i, re prejudices, hate, and strife between the different sections i- Union? I had supposed that South Carolina and the other •.-holding States of this confederacy had been sufficiently refreshed n lightened by a certain species of English literature, designed iip treason and insurrection around his own fireside, to have the senator from offering up praises and hosannas to our mother ! (Applause in the galleries.) Is not the heart, in- and press of England this moment employed in flooding a with this species of “ English literature ?” Even the wives ighters of the nobility and the high officers of government d the presumption to address the women of America, and in . : ■ i ie of philanthropy appeal to them to engage in the treasonable . inst the institutions and government of their own choice in dive land, while millions are being expended to distribute <-] Tom’s Cabin” throughout the world, with the view of corn- . he fanaticism, ignorance, and hatred of all the nations of the It-, a common crusade against the peculiar institutions of the nd section of this Union represented by the senator from mb', larolina ; and he unwittingly encourages it, by giving vent to ’ ; , turous joy over these copious and refreshing streams with England is irrigating the American intellect. (Renewed ap- ■ • ■ . n the galleries.) Presiding Officer (Me. Rusk in the chair). — There must be i the galleries. If there is not, they will be ordered to be G8 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Me. Adams. — I desire to ask that the galleries may be cleared if such an outrage occurs again. Me. Douglas. — I hope it will he done. It is manifestly improper to have such proceedings in the galleries. The Pkesiding Offioee. — It certainly will be done, if the same thing occurs again. Me. Butlee. — I have hut one word to say in reply to the senator from Illinois. When I spoke of our gratitude to England, I did not allude to the sentimental kind of literature to which the senator re- fers. I thought I indicated the authors of the literature to which I referred ; and I do not thank the senator for going out of his way, and indicating impure streams, as if they had a connection with my remark, for there are impure streams ilowing from other sources be- sides G-reat Britain; and there are impure examples in other parts of the world besides Great Britain. When I spoke of it, I spoke in emphatic terms of those writers who have poured upon us what tho senator himself will not deny to be refreshing streams ; what I hope he will regard as refreshing to him, and to the intelligence of the age. I named authors. Will he dissent from Burke ? Will he dis- sent from Chatham? Will he dissent from Shakspeare ? Will he dissent from the literature, and the eloquence, and the example, and the tone of feeling of Hampden and Sidney ? Sir, when I spoke in the spirit of a man judging the literature of England, I did not ex- pect to be diverted by this miserable allusion to “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” (Laughter.) That may do for an ad captandum , but it is not a manly mode of meeting what I said in relation to the literature of England. Me. Douglas. — I spoke in terms of reverence aud respect of the monuments and tombstones which were found in England, to the great men, to their patriotism, to their legal learning and science and poetry, and all that was great and noble and admirable. I spoke of them with respect as a matter of the past ; but, sir, I do not think it was a legitimate argument to go back two or three centuries past to justify English aggressions in the present upon this continent ; and when I heard the laudations and eulogiums upon past English history in palliation of present English enormity, with commenda- tions upon the refreshing streams which she is now pouring into this country to enlighten our people, I thought it was right and proper to remind the senator himself of some of the present conduct of England, which should be borne in mind when he pronounced eulogies upon her conduct. I am talking of the present and its bearing upon the future. It is that to which I am directing my remarks, and not to the past. Me. Butlee. — -I should like to know how England is to be re- sponsible for “ Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” Is England the indorser of it? I have alluded to the masterly intellects of England, and not to the spurious, miserable, sickly sentimentality of the day. If such litera- ture as that to which he alludes is to be taken as a standard, England STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 69 is not the only place in which it is found. She is no more responsi- ble for that miserable cant in relation to this subject than others. But with regai-d to England, in all our commercial relations, in all our connection with her as a civilized nation, I presume the honor- able senator would not he disposed to postpone her to any other any other nation. He. Douglas. — I would neither postpone nor give her the prefer- ence. I have no eulogium to make upon her. I will treat her as our duty as a nation requires. Hr. Butlee. — I have pronounced no other eulogium than history yields to her literature, commerce and civilization, and we are bound to maintain our relations with England if we intend to he a civil- ized nation ourselves. I made no allusion to the kind of literature which the senator has brought in debate. We can find this miserable sentimentality anywhere, and there are many other things which the senator might as well have brought in, which would have been as pertinent to the debate. He had better get up a discussion of the Haine liquor law. (Laughter.) I do not see why he could not. It has about as much connection with the question as the other. He. Douglas. — I have introduced into this discussion none of these extraneous topics. I have contented myself with replying when others have brought them forward and thrust them upon me. Hy object has been to confine the debate to the points at issue be- tween the senator from Delaware and myself, and I have not de- parted from that line except when compelled to do so by the remarks of others. The discussion having been continued on subsequent days by Mr. Clayton and Mr. Everett, Mr. Douglas closed the debate with the following remarks : He. Pkesldext : I do not intend to prolong the discussion ; but I think it due to myself and the occasion to make a word of comment upon one remark which fell from the eminent senator from Hassa- chusetts. I understood him to concur in the opinion expressed by the senator from Delaware, that his letter in relation to Cuba, which proclaimed the principle that no pledge was to he made hv this gov- ernment in regard to the future condition of that island, was not applicable to the Central American states. I cannot consent, even for the sake of harmonizing the political relations of those two sena- tors, to he placed in a false position. I am not willing, even by their concurrence, to he put in a position of having made a misapplication of that letter. The main point to which I referred in the letter of Hr. Everett to the Comte de Sartiges was the denial of any consti- tutional power in this government to make the pledge, that in all coming time we would not acquire any territory which, in the course 70 THE LIFE 4. N D SPEECHES OF of events, might become desirable and necessary. If it mas not com- petent under the Constitution to make such a stipulation in reference to the island of Cuba, where does he find the constitutional authority to make it in the Clayton and Bulwer treaty in respect to Central America ? If there be a want of constitutional power in the one case, does not the same absence of authority exist in the other, and should it not be equally binding upon the consciences of men in all cases ? Therefore, until they remove that constitutional barrier, I cannot permit those two senators to place themselves upon a com- mon platform, and accuse me of having made a misapplication of the letter to the French minister. The senator from Delaware has asserted the existence of the power, and exercised it in the Clayton and Bulwer treaty, while the senator from Massachusetts has denied its existence in the official dispatch to which I have referred. That is all I desired to say on that point. So far as the senator’s remarks relate to the preservation of peace, I fully and cordially agree with him. If there is any one line of policy more dear to my heart than all others, it is that which shall avoid any just cause of war, and preserve peace in all time to come. If there be a difference of opinion between us, it is upon the point as to which line of policy will best accomplish that object. I believe that the true policy is to make no pledges at present which are to bind our successors in all time to come with reference to a state of facts which now does not exist, but then may require action. I have not said that I wish to annex any portion of Central America to this country. I only protest against the pledge that our successors shall not do that which their interest, duty and honor may require when the time for action comes. "With these remarks, I am willing to close the discussion. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 71 OX THE NEBRASKA TERRITORY. Delivered in the Senate , January 30, 1854. The Senate, as in Committee of the "Whole, proceeded to tlie con- sideration of the bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska. Nk. Douglas. — Air. President, when I proposed, on Tuesday last, that the Senate should proceed to the consideration of the bill to or- ganize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, it was my purpose only to occupy ten or fifteen minutes in explanation of its provisions. I desired to refer to two points ; first to those provisions relating to the Indians, and second to those which might be supposed to bear upon the question of slavery. The committee, in drafting the bill, had in view the great anxiety which had been expressed by some members of the Senate to protect the rights of the Indians, and to prevent infringements upon them. By the provisions of the bill, I think we had so clearly succeeded, in that respect, as to obviate all possible objection upon that score. The hill itself provides that it shall not operate upon any of the rights or lands of the Indians, nor shall they be included within the limits of those Territories, until they shall, by treaty with the United States, expressly consent to come under the operations of the act, and be incorporated within the limits of the Territories. This provision cer- tainly is broad enough, clear enough, explicit enough, to protect all the rights of the Indians as to their persons and their property. Upon the other point, that pertaining to the question of slavery in the Territories, it was the intention of the committee to be equally explicit. AVe took the principles established by the Compromise acts of 1850 as our guide, and intended to make each and every provision of the bill accord with those principles. Those measures established and rest upon the principles of self-government, that the people should be allowed to decide the question of their domestic institu- tions for themselves, subject only to such limitations and restrictions as are imposed by the Constitution of the United States, instead of having them determined by an arbitrary or geographical line. The original bill, reported by the committee as a substitute for the hill introduced by the senator from Iowa (Mr. Dogde), was believed to have accomplished this object. The amendment which was sub- sequently reported by us was only designed to render that clear and specific, which seemed, in the minds of some, to admit of doubt and misconstruction. In some parts of the country the original substi- tute was deemed and construed to be an annulment or a repeal of what has been known as the Missouri Compromise, while in other parts it was otherwise construed. As the object of the committee was to conform to the principles established by the Compromise measures of 1850, and to carry those principles into effect in the 72 TIIE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Territories, ire thought it was better to recite in the bill precisely what we understood to have been accomplished by those measures, viz., that the Missouri Compromise, having been superseded by the legislation of 1850, has become and ought to be declared inoperative ; and hence we propose to leave the question to the people of the States and the Territories, subject only to the limitations and provi- sions of the Constitution. Sir, this is all that I intended to say, if the question had been taken up for consideration on Tuesday last; but since that time oc- currences have transpired which compel me to go more fully into the discussion. It will be borne in mind that the senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase) then objected to the consideration of the bill, and asked for its postponement until this day, on the ground that there had not been time to understand and consider its provisions ; and the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) suggested that the postponement should be for one week for that purpose. These sug- gestions seeming to be reasonable, in the opinions of senators around me, I yielded to their request, and consented to the post- ponement of the bill until this day. Sir, little did I suppose, at the time that I granted that act of courtesy to those two senators, that they had drafted and published to the world a document, over their own signatures, in which they arraigned me as having been guilty of a criminal betrayal of my trust, as having been guilty of an act of bad faith and been engaged in an atrocious plot against the cause of free government. Little did I suppose that these two senators had been guilty of such con- duct when they called upon me to grant that courtesy, to give them an opportunity of investigating the substitute reported by the com- mittee. I have since discovered that on that very morning the “ Na- tionel Era,” the abolition organ in this city, contained an address, signed by certain abolition confederates, to the people, in which the bill is grossly misrepresented, in which the action of the committee is grossly perverted, in which our motives are arraigned and our characters calumniated. And, sir, what is more, I find that' there was a postscript added to the address, published that very morning, in which the principal amendment reported by the committee was set out, and then coarse epithets applied to me by name. Sir, had I known those facts at the time that I granted that act of indulgence, I should have responded to the request of those senators in such terms as their conduct deserved, so far as the rules of the Senate and a respect for my own character would have permitted me to do. In order to show the charactwr of this document, of which I shall have much to say in the course of my argument, I will read certain pas- sages : ‘‘ We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge ; as a criminal betrayal of precious rights ; as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region emigrants from the Old World, and free laborers from our own States, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves.” STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 73 A Senator. — By whom is the address signed ? Mr. Douglas. — It is signed “ S. P. Chase, senator from Ohio ; Charles Sumner, senator from Massschusetts ; J. R. Giddings and Edward Wade, representatives from Ohio; Gerrit Smith, represen- tative from New York; Alexander De Witt, representative from Massachusetts;” including, as I understand, all the abolition party in Congress. Then, speaking of the Committee on Territories, these confederates use this language : “ The pretences, therefore, that the Territory, covered by the positive prohi- bition of 1820, sustains a similar relation to slavery with that acquired from Mexico, covered by no prohibition except that of disputed constitutional or Mexican law, and that the compromises of 1850 require the incorporation of the pro-slavery clauses of the Utah and New Mexico Bill in the Nebraska Act, are mere inventions, designed to cover up from public reprehension meditated bad faith.” “Mere inventions to cover up bad faith.” Again : “ Servile demagogues may tell you that the Union can be maintained only by submitting to the demands of slavery.” Then there is a postscript added, equally offensive to myself, in which I am mentioned by name. The address goes on to make an appeal to the legislatures of the different States, to public meetings, and to ministers of the Gospel in their pulpits, to interpose and arrest the vile proceeding which is about to be consummated by the senators who are thus denounced. That address, sir, hears date Sunday, January 22, 1854. Thus it appears that, on the holy Sab- bath, while other senators were engaged in divine worship, these abolition confederates were assembled in secret conclave, plotting by what means they should deceive the people of the United States, and prostrate the character of brother senators. This was done on the Sabbath day, and by a set of politicians, to advance their own po- litical and ambitious purposes, in the name of our holy religion. But this is not all. It was understood from newspapers that reso- lutions were pending before the legislature of Ohio proposing to express their opinions upon this subject. It was necessary for these confederates to get up some exposition of the question by which they might facilitate the passage of the resolutions through that legisla- ture. Hence you find that, on the same morning that this document appears over the names of these confederates in the abolition organ of this city, the same document appears in the New York papers — certainly in the “Tribune,” “Times” and “Evening Post” — in which it is stated, by authority, that it is “ signed by the senators and a majority of the representatives from the State of Ohio” — a statement which I have every reason to believe was utterly false, and known to be so at the time that these confederates appended it to the address. It was necessary, in order to carry out this work of 4 74 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF deception, and to hasten the action of the Ohio legislature, under a misapprehension of the real facts, to state that it was signed, not only by the abolition confederates, but by the whole Whig repre- sentation, and a portion of the Democratic representation in the other house from the State of Ohio. Mr. CnASE. — Mr. President Mr. Douglas. — Mr. President, I do not yield the floor. A senator who has violated all the rules of courtesy and propriety, who showed a consciousness of the character of the act he was doing by conceal- ing from me all knowledge of the fact — who came to me with a smiling face, and the appearance of friendship, even after that docu- ment had been uttered — w!m> could get up in the Senate and appeal to my courtesy in order to get time to give the document a wider circulation before its infamy could be exposed; such a senator has no right to my courtesy upon this floor. Mr. Chase. — Mr. President, the senator mistates the facts Mr. Douglas. — Mr. President, I decline to yield the floor. Mr. Chase. — And I shall make my denial pertinent when the time comes. The President. — Order! Mr. Douglas. — Sir, if the senator does interpose, in violation of the rules of the Senate, a denial of the fact, it may be that I shall be able to nail that denial, as I shall the statements in this address which are over his own signature, as a wicked fabrication, and prove it by the solemn legislation of this country. Mr. Chase. — I call the senator to order. The President. — The senator from Illinois is certainly out of order. Mr. Douglas. — Then I will only say that I shall confine myself to this document, and prove its statements to be false by the legisla- tion of the country. Certainly that is in order. Mr. Chase. — You cannot do it. Me. Douglas. — The argument of this manifesto is predicated upon the assumption that the policy of the fathers of the republic was to prohibit slavery in all the territory ceded by the old States to the Union, and made United States territory, for the purpose of being organized into new States. I take issue upon that statement. Such was not the practice in the early history of the government. It is true that in the territory northwest of the Ohio River slavery was prohibited by the Ordinance of 1787 ; but it is also true that in the territory south of the Ohio River, slavery was permitted and pro- tected ; and it is also true that in the organization of the Territory of Mississippi, in 1798, the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787 were applied to it, with the exception of the sixth article, which prohibited slavery. Then, sir, you find upon the statute-books under Washing- ton and the early Presidents, provisions of law showing that in the southwestern territories the right to hold slaves was clearly implied or recognized, while in the northwest territories it was prohibited. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 75 The only conclusion that can be fairly and honestly drawn from that legislation is, that it was the policy of the fathers of the republic to prescribe a line of demarkation between free Territories and slave- holding Territories by a natural or a geographical line, being sure to make that line correspond, as near as might he, to the laws of cli- mate, of production, and all those other causes that would control the institutions and make it either desirable or undesirable to the people inhabiting the respective Territories. Sir, I wish you to bear in mind, too, that this geographical line, established by the founders of the republic between free Territories and slave Territories, extended as far westward as our territory then reached; the object being to avoid all agitation upon the slavery question by settling that question forever, as far as our territory extended, which was then to the Mississippi River. When, in 1803, we acquired from France the territory known as Louisiana, it became necessary to legislate for the protection of the inhabitants residing therein. It will be seen, by looking into the bill establishing the Territorial government in 1805 for the Territory of New Orleans, embracing the same country now known as the State of Louisiana, that the Ordinance of 1787 was expressly ex- tended to that Territory, except the sixth section, which prohibited slavery. That act implied that the Territory of New Orleans was to be a slaveholding Territory by making that exception in the law. But, sir, when they came to form what was then called the Territory of Louisiana, subsequently known as the Territory of Missouri, north of the thirty -third parallel, they used different language. They did not extend to it any of the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787. They first provided that it should be governed by laws made by the governor and the judges, and, when in 1812 Congress gave to that Territory, under the name of the Territory of Missouri, a Territorial government, the people were allowed to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution of the United States. Now what is the inference from that legisla- tion ? That slavery was, by implication, recognized south of the thirty-third parallel ; and north of that the people were left to exer- cise their own judgment and do as they pleased upon the subject, without any implication for or against the existence of the institu- tion. This continued to be the condition of the country in the Missouri Territory up to 1820, when the celebrated act which is now called the Missouri Compromise was passed. Slavery did not exist in, nor was it excluded from, the country now known as Nebraska. There was no code of laws upon the subject of slavery either way : First, for the reason that slavery had never been introduced into Louisiana, and established by positive enactment. It had grown up there by a sort of common law, and been supported and protected. When a common law grows up, when an institution becomes established under a usage, it carries it so far as that usage actually goes, and no 76 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF further. If it had been established by direct enactment, it might have carried it so far as the political jurisdiction extended; but, be that as it may, by the act of 1812, creating the Territory of Missouri, that Territory was allowed to legislate upon the subject of slavery as it saw proper, subject only to the limitations which I have stated ; and the country not inhabited or thrown open to settlement was set apart as Indian country, and rendered subject to Indian laws. Hence, the local legislation of the State of Missouri did not reach into that Indian country, but was excluded from it by the Indian code and Indian laws. The municipal regulations of Missouri could not go there until the Indian title had been extinguished, and the country thrown open to settlement. Such being the case, the only legislation in existence in Nebraska Territory at the time that the Missouri act passed, namely, the Gth of March, 1820, was a provision, in effect, that the people should be allowed to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery. The Territory of Missouri having been left in that legal condition, positive opposition was made to the bill to organize a State govern- ment, with a view to its admission into the Union ; and a senator from my State, Mr. Jesse B. Thomas, introduced an amendment, known as the eighth section of the bill, in which it was provided that slavery should be prohibited north of 36° 30' north latitude, in all the country which we had acquired from France. What was the object of the enactment of that eighth section? Was it not to go back to the original policy of prescribing boundaries to the limitation of free institutions, and of slave institutions, by a geographical line, in order to avoid all controversy in Congress upon the subject? Hence they extended that geographical line through all the territory purchased from France, which was as far as our possessions then reached. It was not simply to settle the question on that piece of country, but it was to carry out a great principle, by extending that dividing line as far west as our territory went, and running it onward on each new acquisition of territory. True, the express enactment of the eighth section of the Missouri act, now called the Missouri Compro- mise, only covered the territory acquired from France; but the principles of the act, the objects of its adoption, the reasons in its support, required that it should be extended indefinitely westward, so far as our territory might go, whenever new purchases should be made. Thus stood the question up to 1845, when the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas passed. There was inserted in that joint re- solution a provision, suggested in the first instance and brought be- fore the House of Representatives by myself, extending the Missouri Compromise line indefinitely westward through the Territory of Texas. Why did I bring forward that proposition ? Why did the Congress of the United States adopt it? Not because it was of the least practical importance, so far as the question of slavery within the limits of Texas was concerned ; for no man ever dreamed that it STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 77 had any practical effect there. Then why wa9 it brought forward ? It was for the purpose of preserving the principle, in order that it might be extended still further westward, even to the Pacific Ocean, whenever we should acquire the country that far. I will here read that clause. It is the third article, second section, and is in these words : “New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the con- sent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shallbe entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal Constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said Territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Com- promise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And, in such State or States as shall be formed out of said Territory north of said Missouri Compro- mise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be pro- hibited - .” It will be seen that it contains a very remarkable provision, which is, that when States lying north of 36° 30' apply for admission, slavery shall be prohibited in their constitutions. I presume no one pretends that Congress could have power thus to fetter a State ap- plying for admission into this Union ; but it was necessary to pre- serve the principle of the Missouri Compromise line, in order that it might afterward be extended ; and it was supposed that while Con- gress had no power to impose any such limitation, yet, as that was a compact with the State of Texas, that State could consent for her- self that, when any portion of her own Territory, subject to her own jurisdiction and control, applied for admission, her constitution should be in a particular form ; but that provision would not be binding on the new State one day after it was admitted into the Union. The other provision was that such States as should lie south of 36° 30' should come into the Union with or without slavery, as each should decide in its constitution. Then, by that act, the Missouri Compromise was extended indefinitely westward, so far as the State of Texas went, that is, to the Rio del Norte; for our Gov- ernment at that time recognized the Itio del Norte as its boundary. We recognized, in many ways, and among them by even paying Texas for it ten millions of dollars, in order that it might be in- cluded in and form a portion of the Territory of New Mexico. Then, sir, in 1848, we acquired from Mexico the country between the Rio del Norte and the Pacific Ocean. Immediately after that ac- quisition, the Senate, on my own motion, voted into a hill a qu’ovi- sion to extend the Missouri Compromise indefinitely westward to the Pacific Ocean, in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted. That provision passed this body by a decided majority, I think by ten at least, and went to the House of. Representatives, and was defeated there by northern votes. Now, si", let us pause and consider for a moment. The first time 78 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF that the principles of the Missouri Compromise were ever abandoned, the first time they were ever rejected by Congress, was by the defeat of that provision in the House of Representatives in 1848. By whom was that defeat effected? By northern votes with Freesoil proclivities. It was the defeat of that Missouri Compromise that reopened the slavery agitation with all its fury. It was the defeat of that Missouri Compromise that created the tremendous struggle of 1850. It was the defeat of that Missouri Compromise that created the necessity for making a new compromise in 1850. Had we been faithful to the principles of the Missouri Compromise in 1848, this question would not have arisen. Who was it that was faithless ? I undertake to say it was the very men who now insist that the Missouri Compromise was a solemn compact, and should never be violated or departed from. Every man who is now assail- ing the principle of the bill under consideration, so far as I am ad- vised, was opposed to the Missouri Compromise in 1848. The very men w’ho now arraign me for a departure from the Missouri Com- promise are the men who successfully violated it, repudiated it, and caused it to be superseded by the Compromise measures of 1850. Sir, it is with rather bad grace that the men who proved faithless themselves, should charge upon me and others, who were ever faith- ful, the responsibilities and consequences of their own treachery. Then, sir, as I before remarked, the defeat of the Missouri Com- promise in 1848 having created the necessity for the establishment of a new one in 1850, let us see what that compromise was. The leading feature of the Compromise of 1850 was Congressional non-intervention as to slavery in the Territories ; that the people of the Territories, and of all the States, were to be allowed to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, subject only to the provi- sions of the Constitution of the United States. That, sir, was the leading feature of the Compromise measures of 1850. Those measures, therefore, abandoned the idea of a geogra- phical line as the boundary between free States and slave States ; abandoned it because compelled to do it from an inability to main- tain it ; and in lieu of that, substituted a great principle of self- government, which would allow the people to do as they thought proper. Mow the question is, when that new compromise, resting upon that great fundamental principle of freedom, was established, was it not an abandonment of the old one — the geographical line ? "Was it not a supersedure of the old one within the very language of the substitute for the bill which is now under consideration ? I say it did supersede it, because it applied its provisions as well to the north as to the south of 36° 30'. It established a principle which was equally applicable to the country north as w r ell as south of the parallel of 36 J 30' — a principle of universal application. The authors of this abolition manifesto attempted to refute this pre- sumption, and maintain that the Compromise of 1850 did not super- sede that of 1820, by quoting the proviso to the first section of tin STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 79 act to establish the Texan boundary, and create the Territory of New Mexico. That proviso was added, by way of amendment, on motion of Mr. Mason, of Virginia. I repeat, that in order to rebut the presumption, as I before stated, that the Missouri Compromise was abandoned and super- seded by the principles of the Compromise of 1850, these confede- rates cite the following amendment, offered to the bill to establish the boundary of Texas and create the Territory of blew Mexico in 1S50 : “ Provided , That nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify anything contained in the third article of the second section of the joint resolution for annexing Texas to the United States, approved March 1, 1845, either as regards the number of States that may hereafter he formed out of the States of Texas or otherwise.” After quoting this proviso, they make the following statement, and attempt to gain credit for its truth by suppressing material facts which appear upon the face of the same statute, and which, if pro- duced, would conclusively disprove the statement : “ It is solemnly declared in the very compromise acts, ‘ that nothing herein contained shall he construed to impair or qualify the prohibition of slavery north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes and yet, in the face of this declaration, that sacred prohibition is said to be overthrown. Can presumption further go?” I will now proceed to show that presumption could not go fur- ther than is exhibited in this declaration. They suppress the following material facts, which, if produced, would have disproved their statement. They first suppress the fact that the same section of the act cuts off from Texas, and cedes to the United States all that part of Texas which lies north of 36° 30'. They then suppress the further fact that the same section of the law cuts off from Texas a large tract of country on the west, more than three degrees of longitude, and adds it to the territory of the United States. They then suppress the further fact that this terri- tory thus cut off from Texas, and to which the Missouri Compromise line applied, was incorporated into the Territory of New Mexico. And then what was done? It was incorporated into that Territory with this clause : “ That, when admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their con- stitution may prescribe at the time of its adoption.” Yes, sir, the very bill and section from which they quote, cuts off all that part of Texas which was to be free by the Missouri Compro- mise, together with some on the south side of the line, incorporates it into the Territory of New Mexico, and then says that the Terri- so THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF tory, and every portion of the same, shall come into the Union with or without slavery, as it sees proper. What else does it do? The sixth section of the same act provides that the legislative power and authority of this said Territory of New Mexico shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation con- sistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of the act, not excepting slavery. Thus the New Mexican Bill, from which they make that quotation, contains the provision that New Mexico, including that part of Texas which was cut off, should come into the Union with or without slavery, as it saw proper ; and in the meantime that the Territorial legislature should have all the authority over the subject of slavery that they had over any other subject, restricted only by the limitation of the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of the act. Now, I ask those senators, do not those provisions repeal the Missouri Compromise, so far as it applied to the country cut ofF from Texas? Do they not annul it? Do they not supersede it? If they do, then the address which has been put forth to the world by these confederates is an atrocious falsehood. If they do not, then what do they mean when they charge me with having, in the substitute first reported from the committee, repealed it, with haviug annulled it, with having violated it, when I only copied those 'precise words? I copied the precise words into my bill, as reported from the committee, which were contained in the New Mexico Bill. They say my bill annuls the Missouri Compromise. If it does, it had already been done be- fore by the act of 1850: for these words were copied from the act of 1850. Me. Wade. — Why did you do it over again? Me. Douglas. — I will come to that point presently. I am now dealing with the truth and veracity of a combination of men who have assembled in secret caucus upon the Sabbath day, to arraign my conduct and belie my motives. I say, therefore, that their manifesto is a slander either way ; for it says that the Missouri Compromise was not superseded by the measures of 1850, and then it says that the same words in my bill do repeal and annul it. They must be adjudged guilty of one falsehood in order to sustain the other assertion. Now, sir, I propose to go a little further, and show what was the real meaning of the amendment of the senator from Virginia, out of which these gentlemen have manufactured so much capital in the newspaper press, and have succeeded by that misrepresentation in procuring an expression of opinion from the State of Ithode Island in opposition to this bill. I will state what its meaning is. • Did it mean that the States north of 36° 30’ should have a clause in their constitutions prohibiting slavery? I have shown that it did not mean that, because the same acc says that they might come in with slavery, if they saw proper. I say it could not mean that for another reason : The same section containing that proviso cut STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 81 off all that part of Texas north of 36° 30', and hence there was nothing for it to operate upon. It did not, therefore, relate to the country cut off. What did it relate to ? Why, it meant simply this: By the joint resolution of 1845, Texas was annexed, with the right to form four additional States out of her territory ; and such States as were south of 36° 30' were to come in with or without slavery, as they saw proper ; and in such State or States as were north of that line, slavery should be prohibited. When we had cut off all north of 36° 30', and thus circumscribed the boundary and diminished the territory of Texas, the question arose, how many States will Texas be entitled to under this circumscribed boundary. Certainly not four, it will be argued. Why ? Because the original resolution of annexation provided that one of the States, if not more, should be north of 36° 30'. It would leave it, then, doubtful whether Texas was entitled to two or three additional States under the circumscribed boundary. In order to put that matter to rest, in order to make a final set- tlement, in order to have it explicitly understood what was the meaning of Congress, the senator from Virginia offered the amend- ment that nothing therein contained should impair that provision, either as to the number of States or otherwise, that is, that Texas should be entitled to the same number of States with her reduced boundaries as she would have been entitled to under her larger boundaries ; and those States shall come in with or without slavery, as they might prefer, being all south of 36° 30', and nothing to im- pair that right shall be inferred from the passage of the act. Such, sir, was the meaning of that proposition. Any other construction of it would stultify the very character and purpose of its mover, the senator from Virginia. Such, then, was not only the intent of the mover, but such is the legal effect of the law ; and I say that no man, after reading the other sections of the bill, those to which I have referred, can doubt that such was both the intent and the legal effect of that law. Then I submit to the Senate if I have not convicted this mani- festo, issued by the abolition confederates, of being a gross falsifica- tion of the laws of the land, and by that falsification that an erroneous and injurious impression has been created upon the pub- lic mind. I am sorry to be compelled to indulge in language of severity ; but there is no other language that is adequate to express the indignation with which I see this attempt, not only to mislead the public, but to malign my character by deliberate falsification of the public statutes and the public records. In order to give greater plausibility to the falsification of the terms of the Compromise measures of 1850, the confederates also declare in their manifesto that they (the Territorial bills for the or- ganization of Utah and New Mexico) “applied to the territory acquired from Mexico, and to that only. They were intended as a settlement of the controversy growins out of that acquisition, aud 4 * 82 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF of that controversy only. They must stand or fall by their own merits.” I submit to the Senate if there is an intelligent man in America who does not know that that declaration is falsified by the statute from which they quoted. They say that the provisions of that bill was confined to the territory acquired from Mexico, when the very section of the law from which they quoted that proviso did pur- chase a part of that very territory from the State of Texas. And the next section of the law included that territory in the Territory of New Mexico. It took a small portion also of the old Louisiana purchase, and added that to the Territory of New Mexico, and made up the rest out of the Mexican acquisitions. Then, sir, your statutes show, when applied to the map of the country, that the Territory of New Mexico was composed of country acquired from Mexico, and also of territory acquired from Texas, and of territory acquired from France; and yet in defiance of that statute, and in falsification of its terms, we are told, in order to deceive the people, that the bills were confined to the purchase made from Mexico alone ; and in order to give it greater solemnity, they repeat it twice, fearing that it would not be believed the first time. What is more, the Territory of Utah was not confined to the country acquired from Mexico. That Territory, as is well known to every man who under- stands the geography of the country, includes a large tract of rich and fertile country, acquired from France in 1803, and to which the eighth section of the Missouri Act applied in 1820. If these con- federates do not know to what country I allude, I only reply that they should have known before they uttered the falsehood, and im- puted a crime to me. But I will tell you to what country I allude. By the treaty of 1819, by which we acquired Florida and a fixed boundary between the United States and Spain, the boundary was made of the Arkan- sas River to its source, and then the line ran due north of the source of the Arkansas to the 42d parallel, then along on the 42d parallel to the Pacific Ocean. That line, due north from the head of the Arkansas, leaves the whole middle part, described in such glowing terms by Colonel Fremont, to the east of the line, and hence a part of the Louisiana purchase. Yet, inasmuch as that middle part is drained by the waters flowing into the Colorado, when we formed the territorial limits of Utah, instead of running that air-line, we ran along the ridge of the mountains, and cut oft' that part from Nebraska, or from the Louisiana purchase, and included it within the limits of the Territory of Utah. Why did we do it? Because we sought for a natural and conve- nient boundary, and it was deemed better to take the mountains as a boundary, than by an air-line to cut the valleys on one side of the mountains, and annex them to the country on the other side. And why did we take these natural boundaries, setting at defiance the old boundaries ? The simple reason was that so long as we acted STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 83 upon the principle of settling the slave question by a geographical line, so long we observed those boundaries strictly and rigidly ; but when that was abandoned, in consequence of the action of free- soilers aud abolitionists — when it was superseded by the Compromise measures of 1850, which rested upon a great universal principle — there was no necessity for keeping in view the old and unnatural boundary. For that reason, in making the new Territories, we formed natural boundaries, irrespective of the source whence our title was derived. In writing these bills I paid no attention to the fact whether the title was acquired from Louisiana, from France, or from Mexico ; for what difference did it make? The principle which we had established in the bill would apply equally well to either. In fixing those boundaries, I paid no attention to the fact whether they included old territory or new territory — whether the country was covered by the Missouri Compromise or not. Why ? Because the principles established in the bills superseded the Missouri Com- promise. For that reason we disregarded the old boundaries ; dis- regarded the territory to which it applied, and disregarded the source from whence the title was derived. I say, therefore, that a close examination of those acts clearly establishes the fact that it was the intent, as well as the legal effect of the Compromise mea- sures of 1850, to supersede the Missouri Compromise, and all geo- graphical and territorial lines. Sir, in order to avoid any misconstruction, I will state more distinctly what my precise idea is upon this point. So far as the Utah and Mew Mexico bills included the territory which had been subject to the Missouri Compromise provision, to that extent they absolutely annulled the Missouri Compromise. As to the unor- ganized territory not covered by those bills, it was superseded by the principles of the Compromise of 1850. We all know that the object of the Compromise measures of 1850 was to establish certain great principles, which would avoid the slavery agitation in all time to come. Was it our object simply to provide for a temporary evil? Was it our object to heal over an old sore, and leave it to break out again? Was it our object to adopt a mere miserable expedient to apply to that territory, and to that alone, and leave ourselves entirely at sea, without compass, when new territory was acquired, or new territorial organizations were to be made? Was that the object for which the eminent and venerable senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay) came here and sacrificed even his last energies upon the altar of his country? Was that the object for which Webster, Clay, Cass, and all the patriots of that day, strug- gled so long and so strenuously ? Was it merely the application of a temporary expedient, in agreeing to stand by past and dead legis- lation, that the Baltimore platform pledged us to sustain the Com- promise of 1850 ? Was it the understanding of the Whig party, when they adopted the Compromise measures of 1850 as an article of political faith, that they were only agreeing to that which was S Jr THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF past, and had no reference to the future ? If that was their mean- ing ; if that was their object, they palmed off an atrocious fraud upon the American people. Was it the meaning of the Democratic party, when we pledged ourselves to stand by the Compromise of 1850, that we spoke only of the past, and had no reference to the future ? If so, it was a gross deception. When we pledged our President to stand by the Compromise measures, did we not under- stand that we pledged him as to his future action? Was it as to his past conduct? If it had been in relation to past conduct only, the pledge would have been untrue as to a very large portion of the Democratic party. Men went into that convention who had been opposed to the Compromise measures — men who abhorred those measures when they were pending — men who never would have voted affirmatively on them. But, inasmuch as those measures had been passed and the country had acquiesced in them, and it was im- portant to preserve the principle in order to avoid agitation in the future, these men said, we waive our past objections, and we will stand by you and with you in carrying out these principles in the future. Such I understand to be the meaning of the two great parties at Baltimore. Such I understand to have been the effect of their pledges. If they did not mean this, they meant merely to adopt resolutions which were never to be carried out, and which were designed to mislead and deceive the people for the mere purpose of carrying an election. I hold, then, that, as to the territory covered by the Utah and New Mexico bills, there was an express annulment of the Missouri Compromise ; and as to all the other unorganized territories, it was superseded by the principles of that legislation, and we are bound to apply those principles to the organization of all new territories, to all which we now own, or which we may hereafter acquire. If this construction be given, it makes that compromise a final adjustment. No other construction can possibly impart finality to it. By any other construction, the question is to be reopened the moment you ratify a new treaty acquiring an inch of country from Mexico. By any other construction, you reopen the issue every time you make a new Territorial government. But, sir, if you treat the Compro- mise measures of 1850 in the light of great principles, sufficient to remedy temporary evils, at the same time that they prescribe rules of action applicable everywhere in all time to come, then you avoid the agitation forever, if you observe good faith to the provisions of these enactments, and the principles established by them. Mr. President, I repeat that, so far as the question of slavery is concerned, there is nothing in the bill under consideration which does not carry out the principle of the Compromise measures of 1850, by leaving the people to do as they please, subject only to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. If that princi- ple is wrong, the bill is wrong. If that principle is right, the bill is STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 85 right. It is unnecessary to quibble about phraseology or words ; it is not the mere words, the mere phraseology, that our constituents wish to judge by. They wish to know the legal effect of our legis- lation. The legal effect of this bill, if it be passed as reported by the Committee on Territories, is neither to legislate slavery into these Territories nor out of them, but to leave the people to do as they please, under the provisions and subject to the limitations of the Constitution of the United States. Why should not this principle prevail? Why should any man, Horth or South, object to it? I will especially address the argument to my own section of country, and ask why should any northern man object to this principle ? If you will review the history of the slavery question in the United States, you will see that all the great results in behalf of free insti- tutions which have been worked out, have been accomplished by the operation of this principle, and by it alone. When these States were colonies of Great Britain, every one of them was a slaveholding province. When the Constitution of the United States was formed, twelve out of the thirteen were slave- holding States. Since that time sis of those States have become free. How has this been effected? Was it by virtue of abolition agitation in Congress? Was it in obedience to the dictates of the Federal Government ? Hot at all; but they have become free States under the silent but sure and irresistible working of that great principle of self-government which teaches every people to do that which the interests of themselves and their posterity morally and pecuniarily may require. Under the operation of this principle, Hew Hampshire became free, while South Carolina continued to hold slaves ; Connecticut abolished slavery, while Georgia held on to it ; Rhode Island aban- doned the institution, while Maryland preserved it; Hew York, Hew Jersey and Pennsylvania abolished slavery, while Virginia, Horth Carolina, and Kentucky retained it. Did they do it at your bid- ding? Did they do it at the dictation of the Federal Government? Did they do it in obedience to any of your Wilmot Provisoes or Ordi- nances of ’87? Hot at all; they did it by virtue of their rights as freemen under the Constitution of the United States, to establish and abolish such institutions as they thought their own good required. Let me ask you, where have you succeeded in excluding slavery by an act of Congress from one inch of the American soil? You may tell me that you did it in the Horthwest Territory by the Ordi- nance of 1787. I will show you by the history of the country that you did not accomplish any such thing. You prohibited slavery there by law, but you did not exclude it in fact. Illinois was a part of the Horthwest Territory. With the exception of a few French and white settlements, it was a vast wilderness, filled with hostile savages, when the Ordinance of 1787 was adopted. Yet, sir, when Illinois was organized into a Territorial government, it established 8G THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF and protected slavery, and maintained it in spite of your Ordinance and in defiance of its express prohibition. It is a curious fact, that, so long as Congress said the Territory of Illinois should not have slavery, she actually had it ; and on the very day when you with- drew your Congressional prohibition the people of Illinois, of their own free will and accord, provided for a system of emancipation. Thus you did not succeed in Illinois Territory with your Ordinance or your Wilmot Proviso, because the people there regarded it as an in- vasion of their rights. They regarded it as a usurpation on the part of the Federal Government. They regarded it as violative of the great principles of self-government, and they determined that they would never submit even to have freedom so long as you forced it upon them. Nor must it be said that slavery was abolished in the constitution of Illinois in order to be admitted into the Union as a State, in com- pliance with the Ordinance of 1787 ; for they did no such thing. In the Constitution with which the people of Illinois were admitted into Union, they absolutely violated, disregarded, and repudiated your Ordinance. The Ordinance said that slavery should be forever pro- hibited in that country. The constitution with which you received them into the Union as a State provided that all slaves then in the State should remain slaves for life, and that all persons born of slave parents after a certain day should be free at a certain age, and that all persons born in the State after a certain other day, should be free from the time of their birth. Thus their State constitution, as well as their Territorial legislation, repudiated your Ordinance. Illinois, therefore, is a case in point to prove that whenever you have attempted to dictate institutions to any part of the United States, you have failed. The same is true, though not to the same extent, with reference to the Territory of Indiana, where there were many slaves during the time of its Territorial existence, and I believe also there were a few in the Territory of Ohio. But, sir, these abolition confederates, in their manifesto, have also referred to the wonderful results of their policy in the States of Iowa and the Territory of Minnesota. Here, again, they happen to be in fault as to the laws of the land. The act to organize the Territory of Iowa did not prohibit slavery, but the people of Iowa were allowed to do as they pleased under the Territorial government ; for the sixth section of that act provided that the legislative authority should extend to all' rightful subjects of legislation except as to the disposition of the public lands, and taxes in certain cases, but not excepting slavery. It may, however, be said by some that slavery was prohibited in Iowa by virtue of that clause in the Iowa act which declared the laws of Wisconsin to be in force therein, in- asmuch as the Ordinance of 1787 was one of the laws of Wisconsin. If, however, they say this, they defeat their object, because the very clause which transfers the laws of Wisconsin to Iowa, and makes them of force therein, also provides that those laws are subject to be altered, modified, or repealed by the Territorial legislature of Iowa. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 87 Iowa, therefore, was left to do as she pleased. Iowa, when she came to form a constitution and State government, preparatory to admission into the Union, considered the subject of free and slave institutions calmly, dispassionately, without any restraint or dicta- tion, and determined that it would be to the interest of her people in their climate, and with their productions, to prohibit slavery ; and hence Iowa became a free State by virtue of this great principle of allowing the people to do as they please, and not in obedience to any federal command. The abolitionists are also in the habit of referring to Oregon as another instance of the triumph of their abolition policy. There again they have overlooked or misrepresented the history of the country. Sir, it is well known, or if it is not, it ought to be, that for about twelve years you forgot to give Oregon any government or any protection; and during that period the inhabitants of that country established a government of their own, and by virtue of their own laws, passed by their own representatives before you ex- tended your jurisdiction over them, prohibited slavery by a unani- mous vote. Slavery was prohibited there by the action of the people themselves, and not by virtue of any legislation of Congress. It is true that, in the midst of the tornado which swept over the country in 1848. 1849 and 1850, a provision was forced into the Ore- gon bill prohibiting slavery in that Territory; but that only goes to show that the object of those who pressed it was not so much to establish free institutions as to gain a political advantage by giving an ascendency to their peculiar doctrines in the laws of the land; for slavery having been already prohibited there, and no man pro- posing to establish it, what was the necessity for insulting the people of Oregon by saying in your law that they should not do that which they had unanimously said they did not wish to do ? That was the only effect of your legislation so far as the Territory of Oregon was concerned. How was it in regard to California ? Every one of these abolition confederates, who have thus arraigned me and the Committee on Territories before the country, and have misrepresented our position, predicted that unless Congress interposed by law, and prohibited slavery in California, it would inevitably become a slaveholding State. Congress did not interfere; Congress did not prohibit slavery. There was no enactment upon the subject ; but the people formed a State constitution, and therein prohibited slavery. Hr. Weller. — The vote was unanimous in the convention of Cali- fornia for prohibition. Me. Douglas. — So it was in regard to Utah and Hew Mexico. In 1850, we who resisted any attempt to force institutions upon the people of those Territories inconsistent with their wishes and their right to decide for themselves, were denounced as slavery propagan- dists. Every one of us who was in favor of the Compromise mea- sures of 1850 was arraigned for having advocated a principle prnoo?- 88 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ing to introduce slavery into those Territories, and the people were told, and made to believe, that, unless we prohibited it by act of Congress, slavery would necessarily and inevitably be introduced into these Territories. Well, sir, we did establish the Territorial governments of Utah and New Mexico without any prohibition. We gave to these abo- litionists a full opportunity of proving whether their predictions would prove true or false. Years' have rolled round, and the result is before us. The people there have not passed any law recognizing, or establishing, or introducing, or protecting slavery in the Terri- tories. I know of but one Territory of the United States where slavery does exist, and that one is where you have prohibited it by law ; and it is this very Nebraska country. In defiance of the eighth sec- tion of the act of 1820, in defiance of Congressional dictation, there have been, not many, but a few slaves introduced. I heard a minis- ter of the Gospel the other day conversing with a member of the Committee on Territories upon this subject. This preacher was from that country, and a member put this question to him : “ Have you any negroes out there ?” He said there were a few held by the Indians. 1 asked him if there were not some held by white men ? He said there were a few under peculiar circumstances, and he gave an instance. An abolition missionary, a very good man, had gone there from Boston, a'nd he took his wife with him. He got out into the country but could not get any help; hence he, being a kind- hearted man, went down to Missouri and gave $1,000 for a negro, and took him up there as “help.” (Laughter.) So, under peculiar circumstances, when these freesoil and abolition preachers and mis- sionaries go into the country, they can buy a negro for their own use, b u t they do not like to allow any one else to do the same thing. (Renewed laughter.) I suppose the fact of the matter is simply this: there the people can get no servants — no “help,” as they are called in the section of country were I was born — and from the necessity of the case, they must do the best they can, and for this reason a few slaves have been taken there. I have no doubt that whether you organize the Territory of Nebraska or not, this will continue for some little time to come. It certainly does exist, and it will in- crease as long as the Missouri Compromise applies to the Territory ; and I suppose it will continue for a little while during their Terri- torial condition, whether a prohibition is imposed or not. But when settlers rush in— when labor becomes plenty, and therefore cheap, in that climate, with its productions — it is worse than folly to think of its being a slaveholding country. 1 do not believe there is a man in Congress who thinks it could be permanently a slave- holding country. I have no idea that it could. All I have to say on that subject is, that, when you create them into a Territory, you thereby acknowledge that they ought to be considered a distinct political organization. And when you give them in addition a legis- 6TETHEN A DOUGLAS. 80 mture, von thereby confess that they are competent to exercise the powers of legislation. If they wish slavery, they have a right to it. If they do not want it, they will not have it, and you should not attempt to force it upon them. I do not like, I never did like, the system of legislation on our part, by which a geographical line, in violation of the laws of nature, and climate and soil, and of the laws of God, should be run to estab- lish institutions for a people contrary to their wishes ; yet, out of a regard for the peace and quiet of the country, out of respect for past pledges, and out of a desire to adhere faithfully to all compromises, I sustained the Missouri compromise so long as it was in force, and advocated its extension to the Pacific ocean. How, when that has been abandoned, when it has been superseded, when a great princi- ple of self-government has been substituted for it, I choose to cling to that principle, and abide in good faith, not only by the letter, but by the spirit of the last compromise. Sir, I do not recognize the right of the abolitionists of this coun- try to arraign me for being false to sacred pledges, as they have done in their proclamations. Let them show when and where I have ever proposed to violate a compact. I have proved that I stood by the compact of 1820 and 18-15, and proposed its continu- ance and observance in 1818. I have proved that the freesoilers and abolitionists were the guilty parties who violated that com- promise then. I should like to compare notes with the abolition confederates about adherence to compromises. When did they stand by or approve of any one that was ever made ? Did not every abolitionist and freesoiler in America denounce the Missouri Compromise in 1820? Did they not for years hunt down ravenously, for his blood, every man who assisted in making that compromise? Did they not in 1815, when Texas was annexed, denounce all of us who went for the annexation of Texas, and for the continuation of the Missouri Compromise line through it ? Did they not, in 1818, denounce me as a slavery propagandist for stand- ing by the principles of the Missouri Compromise, and proposing to continue it to the Pacific Ocean ? Did they not themselves violate and repudiate it then ? Is not the charge of bad faith true as to every abolitionist in America, instead of being true as to me and the committee, and those who advocate this bill ? They talk about the bill being a violation of the Compromise mea- sure of 1850. Mho can show me a man in either house of Congress who was in favor of those Compromise measures in 1850, and who is not nowin favor of leaving the people of Xebraska and Kansas to do as they please upon the subject of slavery, according to the principle of my bill? is there one ? If so, I have not heard of him. This tornado has been raised by abolitionist, and abolitionists alone. They have made an impression upon the public mind, in the way in which I have men tioned, by a falsification of the law and the facts ; and this whole organization against the Compromise measures of 1850 is an abolition 00 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF movement. I presume they had some hope of getting a few tender- footed Democrats into their plot ; and, acting on what they supposed they might do, they sent forth publicly to the world the falsehood that their address was sighed by the senators and a majority of the representatives from the State of Ohio ; hut ivhen we come to examine signatures, we find no one Whig there, no one Democrat there ; none hut pure, unmitigated, unadulterated aholitionists. Much effect, I know, has been produced hy this circular, coming as it does with the imposing title of a representation of a majority of the Ohio delegation. What was the reason for its effect ? Be- cause the manner in which it was sent forth implied that all the Whig members from that State had joined in it ; that part of the Democrats had signed it ; and then that the two abolitionists had signed it, and that made a majority of the delegation. By this means it frightened the Whig party and the Democracy in the State of Ohio, because they supposed their own representatives and friends had gone into this negro movement, when the fact turns out to be that it was not signed by a single Whig or Democratic member from Ohio. Mow, I ask the friends and the opponents of this measure to look at it as it is. Is not the question involved the simple one, whether the people of the Territories shall be allowed to do as they please upon the question of slavery, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution ? That is all the bill provides ; and it does so in clear, explicit and unequivocal terms. I know there are some men, Whigs and Democrats, who, not willing to repudiate the Baltimore plat- form of their own party, would be willing to vote for this principle, provided they could do so in such equivocal terms that they could deny that it means ivhat it was intended to mean in certain localities. I do not wish to deal in any equivocal language. If the principle is right, let it be avowed and maintained. If it is wrong, let it be repudiated. Let all this quibbling about the Missouri Compromise, about the territory acquired from France, about the act of 1820, bo cast behind you ; for the simple question is, will you allow the peo- ple to legislate for themselves upon the subject of slavery? Why should you not ? When you propose to give them a Territorial government, do you not acknowledge that they ought to be erected into a political organi- zation ; and when you give them a legislature, do you not acknow- ledge that they are capable of self-government? Having made that acknowledgment, why should you not allow them to exercise the rights of legislation? Oh, these abolitionists say they are entirely willing to concede all this, with one exception. They say they are willing, to trust the Territorial legislature, under the limitations of the Constitution, to legislate upon the rights of inheritance, to legislate in regard to religion, education, and morals, to legislate in regard to the relations of husband and wife, of parent and child, of guardian and ward, upon everything pertaining to the dearest rights and interests STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 01 of M'liite men, but they are not willing to trust them to legislate in regard to a few miserable negroes. That is their single exception. They acknowledge that the people of the Territories are capable of deciding for themselves concerning white meii, but not in relation to negroes. The real gist of the matter is this : Does it require any higher degree of civilization, and intelligence, and learning, and sagacity, to legislate for negroes than for white men ? If it does, we ought to adopt the abolition doctrine, and go with them against this bill. If it does not — if we are willing to trust the people with the great, sacred, fundamental right of prescribing their own institutions, consistent with the Constitution of the country — we must vote for this bill. That is the oulv question involved in the bill. I hope I have been able to strip it of all the misrepresentation, to wipe away all of that mist and obscurity with which it has been surrounded by this abolition address. I have now said all I have to say upon the present occasion. For all, except the first ten minutes of these remarks, the abolition con- federates are responsible. My object, in the first place, was only to explain the provisions of the bill, so that they might be distinctly understood. I was willing to allow its assailants to attack it as much as they pleased, reserving to myself the right, when the time should approach for taking the vote, to answer in a concluding speech all the arguments which might be used against it. I still reserve — what I believe common courtesy and parliamentary usage awards to the chairman of a committee and the author of a bill — the right of sum- ming up after all shall have been said which has to be said against this measure. I hope the compact which was made on last Tuesday, at the sug- gestion of these abolitionists, when the bill was proposed to be taken up, will be observed. It was that the bill, when taken up to-day, should continue to be considered from day to day until finally dis- posed of. I hope they will not repudiate and violate that compact, as they have the Missouri Compromise and all others which have been entered into. I hope, therefore, that we may press the bill to a vote ; but not by depriving persons of an opportunity of speaking. I am in favor of giving every enemy of the bill the most ample time. Let us hear them all patiently, and then take the vote and pass the bill. We who are iii favor of it know that the principle on which it is based is right. Why, then, should we gratify the abolition party in their effort to get up another political tornado of fanaticism, and put the country again in peril, merely for the purpose of electing a few agitators to the Congress of the United States? We intend to stand by the principle of the Compromise measures of 1850. 92 THE LI EE AND SPEECHES OF ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. Delivered in the Senate , March 3, 1854:. Me. Pkesedent : before I proceed to the general argument upor the most important branch of this question, I must say a few word in reply to the senator from Tennessee (Mr. Bell), who, has spoke: upon the bill to-day. He approves of the principles of the bill ; be- thinks they have great merit; but he does not see his way entirel, clear to vote for the bill, because of the objections which he ha stated, most of which relate to the Indians. Upon that point, I desire to say that it has never been the custor in territorial bills to make regulations concerning the Indians within the limits of the proposed Territories. All matters relating to tliei - it has been thought wise to leave to subsequent legislation, to b brought forward by the Committee on Indian Affairs. I did ventur originally in this bill to put in one or two provisions upon that sub ject; but, at the suggestion of many senators on both sides of tin chamber, they were stricken out, in order to allow the appropriat committee of the Senate to take charge of that subject. I think therefore, since we have stricken from the bill all those provision which pertain to the Indians, and reserved the whole subject for th . consideration and action of the appropriate committee, we ha\ obviated every possible objection which could reasonably be urge- upon that score. We have every reason to hope and trust that tl Committee on Indian Affairs will propose such measures as will c entire justice to the Indians, without contravening the objects c Congress in organizing these Territories. But, sir, allusion has been made to certain Indian treaties, and , has been intimated, if not charged in direct terms, that we were vie lating the stipulations of those treaties in respect to the rights ai lands of the Indians. The senator from Texas (Mr. Houston), mat a very long and interesting speech on that subject ; but it so ha pened that most of the treaties to which lm referred were with 1 dians not included within the limits of this bill. We have been i - formed, in the course of the debate to-day, by the chairman of th- Committee on Indian Affairs (Mr. Sebastian), that there is but oi treaty in existence relating to lands or Indians within the limits < either of the proposed Territories, and that is the treaty with t Ottawa Indians, about two hundred persons in number, ownii about thirty-four thousand acres of land. Thus it appears that t. whole argument of injustice to the red man, Avhicli in the course - this debate has called forth so much sympathy and indignation, confined to two hundred Indians, owning less than two townshi of land. Now, sir, is it possible that a country, said to be five hu STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 93 dred thousand square miles in extent, and large enough to make :welve such States as Ohio, is to be consigned to perpetual barbarism merely on account of that small number of Indians, when the bill tself expressly provides that those Indians and their lands are not o be included within the limits of the proposed Territories, nor to oe subject to their laws or jurisdiction? I would not adow this measure to invade the rights of even one Indian, and hence I inserted m the first section of the bill that none of the tribng with whom we nave treaty stipulations should be embraced wiulin either of the Territories, unless such Indians shall voluntarily consent to be in- cluded therein by treaties hereafter to be made. If any senator can ,’urnish me with language more explicit, or which would prove nore effectual in securing the rights of the Indians, I will cheerfully adopt it. Well, sir, the senator from Tennessee, in a very kind spirit, here •aises the objection for me to answer, that this bill includes Indians within the limits of these Territories with whom wo have no trea- ies ; and he desires to know what we are to do with them. I will my to him, that that is not a matter of inquiry which necessarily or properly arises upon the passage of this bill ; that is not a proper nquiry to come before the Committee on Territories. You have in ill your Territorial bills included Indians within the boundaries of the Territories. When you erected the Territory of Minnesota, you tad not extinguished the Indian title to one foot of land in that Ter- ritory west of the Mississippi Kiver, and to the major part of that Territory the Indian title remains unextinguished to this day. In addition to those wild tribes, you removed Indians from Wisconsin and located them within Minnesota since the Territory was organ- ized. It will be a question for the consideration of the Committee m Indian Affairs, and for the action of Congress, when, in settle- ment and civilization, it shall become necessary to change the present policy in respect to the Indians. When you erected the Territorial government of Oregon, a few years ago, you embraced within it all rhe Indians living in the Territory without their consent, and with- ( >ut any such reservations in their behalf as are contained In this bill. You had not at that time made a treaty with those Indians, nor ex- ' inguished their title to an acre of land in that Territory, nor indeed iave you done so to this day. So it is in the organization of Wash- mgton Territory. You ran the lines around the country -which you bought ought to be within the limits of the Territory, and you em- braced all the Indians within those lines ; but you made no provision in respect to their rights or lands; you left that matter to the Com- mittee on Indian Affairs, to the Indian laws, and to the proper de- partment, to be arranged afterward as the public interests might .equire. The same is true in reference to Utah and New Mexico. In fact, the policy provided for in this bill, in respect to the In- ■ ians, is that which is now in force in every one of the Territories. Therefore, any senator who objects to this bill on that score should 94 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF have objected to and voted against every Territorial bill which you have now in existence. Yet my friend from Texas has taken occa- sion to remind the Senate several times that it was a matter of pride — and it ought to be a matter of patriotic pride with him — that he voted for every measure of the Compromise of 1850, including the Utah and New Mexico Territorial bills, embracing all the Indians within their limits. My friend from Tennessee, too, has been very liberal in voting for most of the Territorial bills ; and I therefore trust that the same patriotic and worthy motives which induced him to vote for the Territorial acts of 1850 will enable him to give his support to the present bill, especially as he approves of the great principle of popular sovereignty upon which it rests. The senator from Tennessee remarked further, that the proposed limits of these two Territories were too extensive; that they were large enough to be erected into eight different States ; and why, he asked, the necessity of including such a vast amount of country within the limits of these two Territories ? I must remind the sena- tor that it has always been the practice to include a large extent of country within one Territory, and then to subdivide it from time to time as the public interest might require. Such was the case with the old Northwest Territory. It was all originally included within one Territorial government. Afterward Ohio was cut off ; and then Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin, were successively erected into separate Territorial governments, and subsequently admitted into the Union as States. At one period, it will be remembered, the Territory of Wisconsin included the country embraced within the limits of the States of Wisconsin and Iowa, and a part of the State of Michigan, and the Territory of Minnesota. There is country enough within the Terri- tory of Minnesota to make two or three States of the size of New York.' Washington Territory embraces about the same area. Ore- gon is large enough to make three or four States as extensive as Pennsylvania; Utah tw'o or three, and New Mexico four or five of like dimensions. Indeed, the whole country embraced within the proposed Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, together with the States of Arkansas, Missouri and Iowa, and the larger part of Min- nesota, and the whole of the Indian country west of Arkansas, once constituted a Territorial government, under the name of the Mis- souri Territory. In view of this course of legislation upon the sub- ject of Territorial organization, commencing before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States and coming down to the last session of Congress, it surely cannot be said that there is anything unusual or extraordinary in the size of the proposed Territory which should compel a senator to vote against 'the bill, while he approves of the principles involved in the measure. It has also been urged in debate that there is no necessity for these Territorial organizations; and I have been called upon to point out any public and national considerations which require action at this STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 95 time. Senators seem to forget that our immense and valuable pos- sessions on the Pacific are separated from the States and organized Territories on this side of the Rocky Mountains by a vast wilder- ness, filled by hostile savages ; that nearly a hundred thousand emi- grants pass through this barbarous wilderness every year, on their way to California and Oregon ; that these emigrants are American citizens, our own constituents, who are entitled to the protection of law and government ; and that they are left to make their way, as best they may, without the protection or aid of law or government. The United States mails for New Mexico and Utah, and all official communications between this government and the authorities of those Territories, are required to be carried over these wild plains, and through the gorges of the mountains, where you have made no provision for roads, bridges, or ferries, to facilitate travel, or forts or other means of safety to protect life. As often as I have brought forward and urged the adoption of measures to remedy these evils, and afford security against the dangers to which our people are con- stantly exposed, they have been promptly voted down as not being of sufficient importance to command the favorable consideration of Congress. Now, when I propose to organize the Territories, and allow the people to do for themselves what you have so often re- fused to do for them, I am told that there are not white inhabitants enough permanently settled in the country to require and sustain a government. True, there is not a very large population there, for the very good reason that your Indian code and intercourse laws ex- clude the settlers, and forbid their remaining there to cultivate the soil. You refuse to throw the country open to settlers, and then object to the organization of the Territories upon the ground that there is not a sufficient number of inhabitants. The senator from Connecticut (Mr. Smith) has made a long argu- ment to prove that there are no inhabitants in the proposed Terri- tories, because nearly all of those who have gone and settled there have done so in violation of certain old acts of Congress which for- bid the people to take possession of and settle upon the public lands until after they should be surveyed and brought into market. I do not propose to discuss the question whether these settlers are technically legal inhabitants or not. It is enough for me that they are a part of our own people ; that they are settled on the public domain ; that the public interests would be promoted by throwing that public domain open to settlement ; and that there is no good reason why the protection of law and the blessings of government should not be extended to them. I must be permitted to remind the senator that the same objection existed in its full force to Minne sota, to Oregon and to Washington, when each of those Territories were organized; and that I have no recollection that he deemed it his duty to call the attention of Congress to the objection, or con- sidered it of sufficient importance to justify him in recording his own vote against the organization of either of those Territories. 96 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Mr. President, I do not feel called upon to make any reply to the argument which the senator from Connecticut has urged against the passage of this bill upon the score of expense in sustaining these Ter- ritorial governments, for the reason that, if the public interests re- quire the enactment of the law, it follows as a natural consequence that all the expenses necessary to carry it into effect are wise and proper. 1 will now proceed to the consideration of the great principle in- volved in the bill, without omitting, however, to notice some of those extraneous matters which have been brought into this discus- sion with the view of producing another anti-slavery agitation. We have been told by nearly every senator who has spoken in opposition to this bill, that at the time of its introduction the people were in a state of profound quiet and repose ; that the anti-slavery agitation had entirely ceased ; and that the whole country was acquiescing cheerfully and cordially in the Compromise measures of 1850, as a tinal adjustment of this vexed question. Sir, it is truly refreshing to hear senators who contested every inch of ground in opposition to those measures when they were under discussion, who predicted all manner of evils and calamities from their adoption, and who raised the cry of repeal, and even resistance, to their execution, after they had become the laws of the land — I say it is really refreshing to hear these same senators now bear their united testimony to the wisdom of those measures, and to the patriotic motives which induced us to pass them in defiance of their threats and resistance, and to their beneficial effects in restor- ing peace, harmony and fraternity to a distracted country. These are precious confessions from the lips of those who stand pledged never to assent to the propriety of those measures, and to make war upon them so long as they shall remain upon the statute-book. I well understand that these confessions are now made, not with tho view of yielding their assent to the propriety of carrying those enactments into faithful execution, but for the purpose of having a pretext for charging upon me, as the author of this bill, the responsi- bility of an agitation which they are striving to produce. They say that I, and not they, have revived the agitation. What have 1 done to render me obnoxious to this charge? They say I wrote and intro- duced this Nebraska Bill. That is true; but I was not a volunteer in the transaction. The Senate, by a unanimous vote, appointed me chairman of the Territorial Committee, and associated five intelligent and patriotic senators with me, and thus made it our duty to take charge of all Territorial business. In like manner, and with the concurrence of these complaining senators, the Senate referred to us a distinct proposition to organize this Nebraska Territory, and re- quired us to report specifically upon the question. 1 repeat, then, we were not volunteers in this business. The duty was imposed upon us by the Senate. We were not unmindful of the delicacy and responsibility of the position. Wo were aware that from 1S20 to STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 97 1850 the abolition doctrine of Congressional interference with slavery in the Territories and new States had so far prevailed as to keep r.p an incessant slavery agitation in Congress and throughout the coun- try, whenever any new Territory was to he acquired or organized. We were also aware that, in 1850, the right of the people to decide this question for themselves, subject only to the Constitution, was substituted for the doctrine of Congressional intervention. The first question, therefore, which the committee were called upon to decide, and indeed the only question of any material importance, in framing this bill, was this : Shall we adhere to and carry out the principle recognized by the Compromise measures of 1850, or shall we go hack to the old' exploded doctrine of Congressional interference, as established in 1820 in a large portion of the country, and which it was the object of the Wilmot Proviso to give a universal applica- tion, not only to all the Territory which we then possessed, hut all which we might hereafter acquire ? There were no other alterna- tives. We were compelled to frame the bill upon the one or the other of these two principles. The doctrine of 1820 or the doctrine of 1850 must prevail. In the discharge -of the duty imposed upon us by the Senate, the committee could not hesitate upon this point, whether we consulted our individual opinions and principles, or those which were known to he entertained and boldly avowed by a large majority of the Senate. The two great political parties of the country stood solemnly pledged before the world to adhere to the Compromise measures of 1S50, “in principle and substance.” A large majority of the Senate, indeed every member of the body, I believe, except the two avowed abolitionists (Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner), profess to belong to the one or the other of these parties, and hence was supposed to be under a high moral obligation to carry out the “principle and substance” of those measures in all new Ter- ritorial organizations. The report of the committee was in accord- ance with this obligation. I am arraigned, therefore, for having endeavored to represent the opinions and principles of the Senate truly ; for having performed my duty in conformity with the parlia- mentary law ; for having been faithful to the trust reposed in me by the Senate. Let the vote this night determine whether 1 have thus faithfully represented your opinions. When a majority of the Senate shall have passed the bill ; when a majority of the States shall have indorsed it through their representatives upon this floor ; when a majority of the South and a majority of the North shall have sanc- tioned it ; when a majority of the Whig party and a majority of the Democratic party shall have voted for it ; when each of these pro- positions shall be demonstrated by the vote this night on the final passage of the bill, I shall be willing to submit the question to the country, whether, as the organ of the committee, 1 performed my duty in the report and bill which have called down upon my head so much denunciation and abuse. Mr. President, the opponents of this measure have had much to 5 98 THE LIFE A. N L> SPEECHES OF say about the mutations and modifications which this hill has under- gone since it was first introduced by myself, and about the alleged departure of the bill, in its present form, from the principle laid down in the original report of the committee as a rule of action in all future Territorial organizations. Fortunately there is no neces- sity, even if your patience would tolerate such a course of argument at this late hour of the night, for me to examine these speeches in detail, and to reply to each charge separately. Each speaker scorns to have followed faithfully in the footsteps of his leader- — in the path marked out by the abolition confederates in their manifesto, which T exposed on a former occasion. You have seen them on their wind- ing way, meandering the narrow and crooked path in Indian file, each treading close upon the heels of the other, and neither ventur- ing to take a step to the right or left, or to occupy one inch of ground which did not bear the foot-print of the abolition champion. To answer one, therefore, is to answer the whole. The statement to which they seem to attach the most importance, and which they have repeated oftener perhaps than any other, is, that, pending the Compromise measures of 1850, no man in or out of Congress ever dreamed of abrogating the Missouri Compromise; that from that period down to the present session, nobody supposed that its validity had been impaired, or anything done which rendered it obligatory upon us to make it inoperative hereafter; that at the time of sub- mitting the report and bill to the Senate, on the 4th of January last, neither I nor any member of the committee ever thought of such a thing ; and that we could never be brought up to the point of abro- gating the eighth section of the Missouri act until after the senator from Kentuc ky introduced his amendment to my hill. Mr. President, before I proceed to expose the many misrepresenta- tions c.ontained in this complicated charge, I must call the attention of the Senate to the false issue which these gentlemen are endeavor- ing to impose upon the country, for the purpose of diverting public attention from the real issue contained in the bill. They wish to have the people believe that the abrogation of what they call the Missouri Compromise was the main object and aim of the bill, and that the only question involved is, whether the prohibition of slavery north of 86° 30' shall be repealed or not? That which is a mere incident, they choose to consider the principal. They make war on the means by which we propose to accomplish an object, instead of openly resisting the object itself. The principle which we propose to carry into effect by the bill is this : That Congress shall neither legislate slavery into any Territories or State, nor out of the same ; hut the people shall he left free to regulate their domestic concerns in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. In order to carry this principle into practical operation, it becomes necessary to remove whatever legal obstacles might be found in the way of its free exercise. It is only for the purpose of carrying out STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 99 this great fundamental principle of self-government that the hill renders the eighth section of the Missouri act inoperative and void. Mow, let me ask, will these senators who have arraigned me, or any one of them, have the assurance to rise in his place and declare that this great principle was never thought of or advocated as appli- cable to Territorial bills in 1850 ; that, from that session until the present, nobody ever thought of incorporating this principle in all new Territorial organizations; that the Committee on Territories did not recommend it in their report ; and that it required the amendment of the senator from Kentucky to bring us up to that point? “Will any one of my accusers dare to make this issue, and let it be tried by the record ? I will begin with the compromises of 1850. Any senator who will take the trouble to examine our jour- nals will find that on the 25th of March of that year I repoi’ted from the Committee on Territories two bills including the following mea- sures : The admission of California, a Territorial government for Utah, a Territorial government for Mew Mexico, and the adjustment of the Texas boundary. These bills proposed to leave the people of Utah and Mew Mexico free to decide the slavery question for them- selves, in the precise language of the Kebraska Bill now under dis- cussion. A few weeks afterward, the Committee of Thirteen took those two bills and put a wafer between them, and reported them back to the Senate as one bill, with some slight amendments. One of those amendments was, that the Territorial legislatures should not legislate upon the subject of African slavery. I objected to that provision upou the ground that it subverted the great principle of self-government upon which the bill had been originally framed by the Territorial Committee. On the the first trial, the Senate refused to strike it out, but subsequently did so, after full debate, in order to establish that principle as the rule of action in Territorial organi- zations. Upon this point I trust I will be excused for reading one or two sentences from some remarks I made in the Senate on the 3d of June, 1850 : The position that I have ever taken has been that this, the slavery question, and all other questions relating to the domestic affairs and domestic policy of the Territories, ought to be left to the decision of the people themselves, and that we ought to be content with whatever way they would decide the ques- tion, because they have a much deepeT interest in these matters than we have, and know much better what institutions will suit them, than we, who have never been there, can decide for them.” Again, in the same debate, I said : “ I do not see how those of us who have taken the position which we have taken, (that of non-interference,) and have argued in favor of the right of the people to legislature for themselves on this question, can support such a pro- vision without abandoning all the arguments which we urged in the Presiden 100 THE LIFE ANT SPEECHES OF tial campaign in the year 1848, and the principles set forth by the honorablo senator from Michigan ju that letter which is known as the ‘Nicholson letter.’ AVe are required to abandon that platform ; 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 Territories shall not have such institutions as they shall deem adapted to their condition and their wants. I do not see, sir, how such a provision as that can be acceptable either to the people of the North or the South.” Mr. President, I could go on and multiply extract after extract from my speeches in 1850, and prior to that date, to show that this doctrine of leaving the people to decide these questions for them- selves is not an “after-thought ” with me, seized upon, this session, for the first time, as my calumniators have so frequently and boldly charged in their speeches during this debate, and in their manifesto to the public. I refused to support the celebrated Omnibus Pill in 1850 until the obnoxious provision was stricken out, and the principle of self-government restored, as it existed in my original bill. No sooner were the Compromise measures of 1850 passed, than the abolition confederates, who lead the opposition to this bill now, raised the cry of repeal in some sections of the country, and in others forcible resistance to the execution of the law. In order to arrest and suppress the treasonable purposes of these abolition confederates, and avert the horrors of civil war, it became my duty, on the 23d of October, 1850, to address an excited and frenzied multitude at Chicago, in defence of each and all of the Compromise measures of that year. I will read one or two sentences from that speech, to show how those measures were then understood and explained by their advocates : “ These measures are predicated on the great fundamental principle that every people ought to possess the right of forming and. regulating their own internal concerns, and domestic institutions in their own way.’’ Again ; “ These things are all confided by the Constitution to each State to decide for itself, and I know of no reason wuy the same principle should not be con- fided to the Territories.” In this speech it will be seen that I lay down a general principle of universal application, and make no distinction between Terri- tories north or south of 30° 80'. 1 am aware that some of the abolition confederates have perpe- trated a monstrous forgery on that speech, and are now circulating through the abolition newspapers the statement that I said that I would “ cling with the tenacity of life to the compromise of 1820 ” This statement, false as it is — a deliberate act of forgery, as it is known to be by all who have ever seen or read the speech referred to— constitutes the staple article out of which most of the abolition orators at the small anti-Nebraska meetings manufacture the greater part of their speeches. I now declare that there is not a sentence, STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 101 a line, even a word in that speech, which imposes the slightest limi- tation on the application of the great principle embraced in this bill in all new Territorial organizations, without the least reference to the line of 36° 30'. At the session of 1850-51, a few weeks after this speech was made at Chicago, and when it had been published in pamphlet form and circulated extensively over the States, the legislature of Illinois proceeded to revise its action upon the slavery question, and define its position on the compromise of 1850. After rescinding the reso- lutions adopted at a previous session, instructing my colleague and myself to vote for a proposition prohibiting slavery in the Territories, resolutions were adopted approving the Compromise measures of 1850. I will read one of the resolutions, -which was adopted in the House of Representatives, by a vote of G1 yeas to 4 nays : “ Resolved, That our liberty and independence are based upon the right of the people to form for themselves such a government as they may choose ; that this great privilege — the birthright of freemen, the gift of Heaven, secured to us by the blood of our ancestors — ought to be extended to future generations ; and no limitation ought to be applied to this power, in the organization of any Territory of the United States, of either a Territorial government or a State Constitution : Provided, The government so established shall be republican, and in conformity with the Constitution.” Another series of resoulutions having passed the Senate almost unanimously, embracing the same principle in different language, they were concurred in by the House. Thus was the position of Illinois, upon the slavery question defined at the first session of the legislature after the adoption of the Compromise of 1850. How, sir, what becomes of the declaration which has been made by nearly every opponent of this bill, that nobody in this whole Union ever dreamed that the principle of the Utah and Hew Mexican bill was to be incorporated into all future Territorial organizations ? I have shown that my own State so understood and declared it at the time in the most implicit and solemn manner. Illinois declared that our “liberty and independence” rest upon this “principle;” that the principle “ought to be extended to future generations;” and that “no limitation ought to be applied to this power in THE OP.GANIZATION OF ANY TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES.” Ho exception is made in regard to Hebraska. Ho Missouri Compromise lines ; no reservations of the country north of 36° 30'. The principle is declared to be be the “ birthright of freemen :” the “ gift of Hea- ven, to be applied without limitation,” in Hebraska as well as Utah, north as well as south of 36° 30'. it may not be out of place here to remark that the legislature of Illinois, at its recent_session, has passed resolutions approving the Hebraska Bill ; and among the resolutions is one in the precise language of the resolution of 1851, which I have just read to the Senate. 102 THE LIFE ADD SPEECHES OF Thus I have shown, Mr. President, that the legislature and people of Illinois have always understood the Compromise measures of 1850 as establishing certain principles as rules of action in the organization of all new Territories, and that no limitation was to be made on either side of the geographical line of 36° 30'. Neither my time nor your patience will allow me to take up the resolutions of the different States in detail, and show what has been the common understanding of the whole country upon this point. I am now vindicating myself and my own action against the assaults of my calumniators ; and, for that purpose, it is sufficient to show that, in the report and bill which I have presented to the Senate, I have only carried out the known principles and solemnly declared will of the State whose representative I am. I will now invite the attention of the Senate to the report of the committee, in order that it may be known how much, or rather how little, truth there is for the allegation which has been so often made and repeated on this floor, that the idea of allowing the people in Nebraska to decide the slavery question for themselves was a “ sheer after-thought,” con- ceived since the report was made, and not until the senator from Kentucky proposed his amendment to the bill. I read from that portion of the report in which the committee lay down the principle by which they propose to be governed : “ In the judgment of your committee, those measures (Compromise of 1850) were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment 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 remedies for existing evils, but in all 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 committing it to the arbitrament of those who were immediately interested in and alone responsible for its consequences.” After making a brief argument in defence of this principle, the report proceeds, as follows : “From these provisions, it is apparent that the Compromise measures of 1850 affirm and rest upon the following propositions: II First, that all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, 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 purpose.’’ And in conclusion, the report proposes a substitute for the bill introduced by the senator from Iowa, and concludes as follows : “The substitute for the bill which your committee have prepared, and which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these propositions and principles into practical operation, in the precise lan- guage of the. Compromise measures of 1850.” Mr. President, as there has been so much misrepresentation upor STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 103 this point, I must be permitted to repeat that the doctrine of the report of the committee, as has been conclusively proved by these . extracts, is — First, That the whole question of slavery should be withdrawn from the halls of Congress, and the political arena, and committed to the arbitrament of those who are immediately interested in and alone responsible for its existence. Second, The applying this principle to the Territories and the new States to be formed therefrom, all questions pertaining to slavery were to be referred to the people residing therein. Third, That the committee proposed to carry these propositions and principles into effect in the precise language of the compromise measures of 1850. Are not these propositions identical with the principles and pro- visions of the bill on your table ? If there is a hair’s breadth of dis- crepancy between the two, I ask any senator to rise in his place and point it out. Both rest upon the great principle, which forms the basis of all our institutions, that the people are to decide the question for themselves, subject only to the Constitution. But my accusers attempt to raise up a false issue, and thereby divert public attention from the real one, by the cry that the Mis- souri Compromise is to be repealed or violated by the passage of this bill. Well, if the eighth section of the Missouri Act, which attempted to fix the destinies of future generations in those Territories for all time to come, in utter disregard of the rights and wishes of the people when they should be received into the Union as States, be inconsistent with the great principle of self-government and the Constitution of the United States, it ought to be abrogated. The legislation of 1850 abrogated the Missouri Compromise, so far as the country embraced within the limits of Utah and Mew Mexico was covered by the slavery restriction. It is true, that those acts did not in" terms and by name repeal the act of 1820, as originally adopted, or as extended by the resolutions annexing Texas in 1845, any more than the report of the Committee on Territories proposes to repeal the same acts this session. But the acts of 1850 did authorize the people of those Territories to exercise “ all rightful powers of legis- lation consistent with the Constitution,” not excepting the question of slavery ; and did provide that, when those Territories should be admitted into the Union, they should be received with or with -ut slavery as the people thereof might determine at the date of their admission. These provisions were in direct conflict with a clause in a former enactment, declaring that slavery should be forever pro- hibited in any portion of said Territories, and hence rendered such clause inoperative and void to the extent of such conflict. This was an inevitable consequence, resulting from the provisions in those acts which gave the people the right to decide the slavery question for themselves, in conformity with the Constitution. It was not necessary to go further and declare that certain previous enactments. 104 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF which were incompatible with the exercise of the powers conferred in the bills, “are hereby repealed.” The very act of granting those powers and rights have the legal effect of removing all obstructions to the exercise of them by the' people, as prescribed in those Terri- torial bills. Following that example, the Committee on Territories did not consider it necessary to declare the eighth section of the Missouri act repealed. "We were content to organize Nebraska in the precise language of the Utah and New Mexican bills. Our object was to leave the people entirely free to form and regulate their domestic institutions and internal concerns in their own way, under the constitution; and we deemed it wise to accomplish that object in the exact terms in which the same thing had been done in Utah and New Mexico by the acts of 1850. This was the principle upon which the committee reported ; and our bill was supposed, and is now believed, to have been in accordance with it. When doubts were raised whether the bill did fully carry out the principle laid down in the report, amendments were made, from time to time, in order to avoid all misconstruction, and make the true intent of the act more explicit. The last of these amendments was adopted yes- terday, on the motion of the distinguished senator from North Carolina (Mr. Badger), in regard to the revival of any laws or regulations which may haye existed prior to 1820. That amendment was not intended to change the legal effect of the bill. Its object was to repel the slander which had been propagated by the enemies of the measures in the North, that the southern supporters of the bill desired to legislate slavery into these Territories. The south denies the right of Congress either to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, or out of any Territory or State. Non-interven- tion by Congress with slavery in the States or Territories is the doctrine of the bill, and all the amendments which have been agreed to have been made with the view of removing all doubts and cavil as to the true meaning and object of the measure. Mr. President, I think I have succeeded in vindicating myself and the action of the committee from the assaults which have been made upon us in consequence of these amendments. It seems to be the tactics of our opponents to direct their arguments against the unim- portant points and incidental questions which are to be affected by carrying out the principle, with the hope of relieving themselves from the necessity of controverting the principle itself. The senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase) led off gallantly in the charge that the com- mittee, in the report and bill first submitted, did not contemplate the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and could not be brought to that point until after the senator from "Kentucky offered his amendment. The senator from Connecticut (Mr. Smith) followed his lead, and repeated the same statement. Then came the other senator from Ohio (Mr. Ward), and the senator from New York (Mr. Seward), and senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner), all singing the same song, only varying the tune. STEPHEN A . DOUGLAS. 105 Let me ask those senators what they mean by this statement ? Do they wish to be understood as saying that the report and first form of the bill did not provide for leaving the slavery question to the decision of the people in the terms of the Utah Bill ? Surely they will not dare to say that, for I have already shown that the two measures were identical in principle and enactment. Do they mean to say that the adoption of our first bill would not have had the legal effect to have rendered the eighth section of the Missouri Act “inoperative and void,” to use the language of the present bill? If this be not their meaning, will they rise in their places and inform the Senate what their meaning was? They must have had some object in giving so much prominence to this statement, and in repeat- ing it so often. I address the question to the senators from Ohio and Massachusetts (Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner). I despair in extort- ing a response from them , for, no matter in what way they may answer upon this point, I have in my hand the evidence over their own signatures, to disprove the truth of their answer. 1 allude to their appeal or manifesto to the people of the United States, in which they arraign the bill and report, in coarse and savage terms, as a proposition to repeal the Missouri Compromise, to violate plighted faith, to abrogate a solemn compact, etc. etc. This document was signed by those two senators in their official capacity, and published to the world before any amendments had been offered to the bill. It was directed against the committee’s first bill and report, and against them alone. If the statements in this document be true, that the first bill did repeal the eighth section of the Missouri Act, what are we to think of the statements in their speeches since, that such was not the intention of the committee, was not the recom- mendation of the report, and was not the legal effect of the bill ? On the contrary, if the statements in their subsequent speeches aro true, what apology do those senators propose to make to the Senate and country -for having falsified the action of the committee in a document over their own signatures, and thus spread a false alarm among the people, and misled the public mind in respect to our pro- ceedings ? These senators cannot avoid the one or the other of these alternatives. Let them seize upon either, and they stand condemned and self-convicted; in the one case by their manifesto, and in the other by their speeches. In fact, it is clear that they have understood the bill to mean the same tiling, and to have the same legal effect in whatever phase it lias been presented. Mhen first introduced, they denounced it as a proposition to abrogate the Missouri restriction. Mhen amended, they repeated the same denunciation, and so on each successive amendment. They now object to the passage of the bill for the same reason, thus proving conclusively that they have not the least faith in the correctness of their own statements in respect to the mutations and changes in the bill. They seem very unwilling to meet the real issue. They do not 5 * 10G THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF like to discuss the principle. There seems to be something which strikes them with terror when you invite their attention to this great fundamental principle of popular sovereignty. Hence you find that all the memorials they have presented are against repealing the Mis souri Compromise, and in favor of the sanctity of compacts — in favor of preserving plighted faith. The senator from Ohio is cautious to dedicate his speech with some such heading as “Maintain Plighted Faith.” The object is to keep the attention of the people as far as possible from this principle of self-government and constitutional rights. Well, sir. what is this Missouri Compromise, of which we have heard so much of late? It has been read so often that it is not necessary to occupy the time of the Senate in reading it again. It was an act of Congress, passed on the 6th of March, 1820, to author- ize the people of Missouri to form a constitution and a State govern- ment, preparatory to the admission of such State into the Union. The first section provided that Missouri should be received into the Union “ on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever.” The last and eighth section provided that slavery should be “ for ever prohibited ” in all the territory which had been acquired from France north of 36° 30', and not included within the limits of the State of Missouri. There is nothing in the terms of the law that purports to be a compact, or indicates that it was anything more than an ordinary act of legislation. To prove that it was more than it purports to be on its face, gentlemen must produce other evidence, and prove that there was such an understanding as to create a moral obligation in the nature of a compact. Have they shown it ? I have heard but one item of evidence produced during this whole debate, and that was a short paragraph from Niles’s Register, pub- lished a few days after the passage of the act. But gentlemen aver that it was a solomn compact, which could not be violated or abro- gated without dishonor. According to their understanding, the con- tract was that, in consideration of the admission of Missouri into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever, slavery should be prohibited forever in the Territories north of 36° 30’. Now, who were the parties to this alleged com- pact? They tell us that it was a stipulation between the North and the South. Sir, I know of no such parties under the Constitution. I am unwilling that there shall Re any such parties known in our legislation. If there is such a geographical line, it ought to be obli- terated for ever, and there should be no other parties than those provided for in the Constitution, viz. : the States of this Union. These are the only parties capable of contracting under the Consti- tution of the United States. Now, if this was a compact, let us see how it was entered into. The bill originated in the House of Representatives, and passed that body without a southern vote in its favor. It is proper to remark, STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 107 However, that it did not at that time contain the eighth section, pro- hibiting slavery in the Territories ; but in lieu of it, contained a pro- vision prohibiting slavery in the proposed State of Missouri. In the Senate, the clause prohibiting slavery in the State was stricken out, and the eighth section added to the end of the bill, by the terms of which slavery was to be forever prohibited in the Territory not embraced in the State of Missouri north of 36° 30'. The vote on adding this section stood, in the Senate, 34 in the affirmative, and 10 in the negative. Of the northern senators, 20 voted for it and 2 against it. On the question of ordering the bill to a third reading as amended, which was the test vote on its passage, the vote stood 24 yeas and 20 nays. Of the northern senators, 4 only voted in the affirmative, and 18 in the negative. Thus it will be seen that, if it was intended to be a compact, the North never agreed to it. The northern senators voted to insert the prohibition of slavery in the Territories ; and then, in the proportion of more than four to one voted against the passage of the bill. The North, therefore, never signed the compact, never consented to it, never agreed to be bound by if. This fact becomes very important in vindicating the character ... of the North for repudiating this alleged compromise a few months afterward. The act was approved and became a law on the 6th of March, 1820. In the summer of that year, the people of Missouri formed a constitution and State government, preparatory to admis- sion into the Union, in conformity with the act. At the next session of Congress the Senate passed a joint resolution, declaring Missouri to be one of the States of the Union, on an equal footing with the original States. This resolution was sent to the House of Eepresen- tatives, where it was rejected by northern votes, and thus Missouri was voted out of the Union, instead of being received into the Union under the act of the 6th of March, 1820, now known as the Missouri Compromise. Now, sir, what becomes of our plighted faith, if the act of the 6th of March, 1820, was a solemn compact, as we are now told? They have all rung the changes upon it, that it was a sacred and irrevocable compact, binding in honor, in conscience, and morals, which could not he violated or repudiated without perfidy and dis- honor ! The two senators from Ohio (Mr. Chase and Mr. Wade), the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner), the senator from Con- necticut (Mr. Smith), the senator from New York (Mr. Seward), and perhaps others, have all assumed this position. Me. Sewakd.— Whoever will refer to my antecedents will find that in the year 1850 I expressed opinions on the subject of legisla- tive compromises between the North and South, which, at that day were rejected and repudiated. Me. Douglas. — If the object of the senator is to go hack, and go through all his opinions, I cannot yield the floor to him ; but if his object is now to show that the North did not violate the Missoux-i compromise, I will yield. Me. Sewakd.— I f the honorable senator will allow me just one 108 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF minute and a half, without dictating what I shall say within that minute and a half, I shall be satisfied. Me. Douglas. — Certainly, I will consent to that. Me. Sewaed. — I find that the honorable senator from Illinois is standing upon the ground upon which I stood in 1850. I have nothing to say now in favor of that ground. On this occasion, I stand upon the ground, in regard to compromises, which has been adopted by the country. Then, when the senator tells me that the North did not altogether, willingly, and unanimously, consent to the compromise of 1820, 1 agree to it ; but I have been overborne in the country, on the ground that if one northern man carried with him a majority of Congress he bound the whole North. And so I hold in regard to the compromise of 1820, that it was carried by a vote which has been held by the South and by the honorable senator from Illinois to bind the North. The South having received their consideration and equivalent, I only hold him, upon his own doctrine and the doctrine of the South, bound to stand to it. That is all I have to say upon that point. v A few words more will cover all that I have to say about what the honorable senator may say hereafter as to the North repudiating this contract. When I was absent, I understood the senator alluded to the fact that my name appeared upon a paper which was issued by the honorable senator from Ohio, and some other members of Congress, to the people, on the subject of this bill. Upon that point it has been my intention throughout to leave to the honorable senator from Illinois, and those who act with him, whatever there is of merit, and whatever there is of responsibility for the present measure, and for all the agitation and discussion upon it. Therefore, as soon as I found, when I returned to the Capitol, that my name was op that paper, I caused it to be made known and published, as fully and extensively as I could, that I had never been consulted in regard to it ; that I know nothing about it ; and that the merit of the measure, as well as the responsibility, belonged to the honorable senator from Ohio, and those who cooperated with him ; and that I had never seen the paper on which he commented ; nor have I in any way addressed the public upon the subject. Mb. Douglas. — I wish to ask the senator from NewYork a question. If I understood his remarks when he spoke, and if I understand his speech as published, he averred that the Missouri Compromise was a compact between the North and the South ; that the North performed it on its part ; that it had done so faithfully for thirty years ; that the South had received all its benefits, and the moment these benefits had bet n fully realized, the South disavowed the obligations under which it had received them. Is not that his position? Me. Sewaed. — I am not accustomed to answer questions put to me, unless they are entirely categorical, and placed in such a shape that I may know exactly, and have time to consider, their whole extent The honorable senator from Illinois has put a very broad question STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 109 What I mean to say, however, and that will answer his purpose, is, that his position, and that the position of the South is, that this was a compromise ; and I say that the North has never repudiated that compromise. Indeed, it has never had the power to do so. Missouri came into the Union, and Arkansas came into the Union, under that compromise; and, whatever individuals may have said, whatever individuals, more or less humble than myself, may have contended, the practical effect is, that the South has had all that she could get by that compromise, and that the North is now in the predicament of being obliged to defend what was left to her. I believe that answers the question. Me. Douglas. — Now, Mr. President, I choose to bring men directly up to this point. The senator from New York has labored in his whole speech to make it appear that this was a compact ; that the North had been faithful ; and that the South acquiesced until she got all its advantages, and then disavowed and sought to annul it. This he pronounced to be bad faith ; and he made appeals about disorder. The senator from Connecticut (Mr. Smith) did the same thing, and so did the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner), and the senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase). That is the point to which the whole aboli- tion party are now directing all their artillery in this battle. Now, I propose to bring them to the point. If this was a compact, and if what they have said is fair, or just, or true, who was it that repudi- ated the compact? Me. Sumwee. — Mr. President, the senator from Illinois, I know, does not intend to misstate my position. That position, as announced in the language of the speech which I addressed to the Senate, and which I now hold in my hand, is, “ this is an infraction of solemn obligations, assumed beyond recall by the South, on the admission of Missouri into the Union as a slave State which was one year after the act of 1820. Me. Douglas. — Mr. President, I shall come to that ; and I wish to see whether this was an obligation which was assumed “ beyond recall.” If it was a compact between the two parties, one party has been faithful, it is beyond recall by the other. If, however, one party has been faithless, what shall we think of them, if, while faithless, they ask a performance ? Me. Sewaed. — Show it. Me. Douglas. — That is what I am coming to. I have already stated that, at the nest session of Congress, Missouri presented a constitution in conformity with the act of 1820 ; that the Senate passed a joint resolution to admit her ; and that the House refused to admit Missouri in conformity with the alleged compact, and, I think, on three distinct votes, rejected her. Me. Sewaed. — I beg my honorable friend, for I desire to call him so, to answer me frankly whether he would rather I should say what I have to say in this desultory way, or whether he would prefer that 1 should answer him afterward ; because it is with me a rule in the Se- nate never to interrupt a gentleman, except to help him in his argument 110 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Me. Douglas. — I would rather hear the senator now. Me. Sewaed. — What I have to say now, and I acknowledge the magnanimity of the senator from Illinois in allowing me to say it, is, that the North stood by that compact until Missouri came in with a constitution, one article of which denied to colored citizens of other States the equality of privileges which were allowed to all other citizens of the United Sates, and then the North insisted on the right of colored men to be regarded as citizens, and entitled to the privi- leges and immunities of citizens. Upon that a new compromise was necessary. I hope I am candid. Me. Douglas. — The senator is candid, I have no doubt, as he understands the facts ; but I undertake to maintain that the North objected to Missouri because she allowed slavery, and not because of the free-negro clause alone. Me. Sewaed. — No sir. Me. Douglas. — Now I will proceed to prove that the North did not object, solely on account of the free-negro clause ; but that in House of Representatives at that time, the North objected as well because of slavery as in regard to free negroes. Here is the evidence. In the House of Representatives, on the I2th of February, 1821, Mr. Mallory, of Vermont, moved to amend the Senate joint resolution for the admission of Missouri, as follows : “ To amend the said amendment, by striking out all thereof after the words respects , and inserting the following : ‘ Whenever people of the said State, by a convention, appointed according to the manner provided by the act to autho- rize the people of Missouri to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories, approved March 6, 1820, adopt a constitution conformably to the provisions of said act, and shall, in addition to said provisions, further provide , in and by said constitution , that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever be allowed in said State of Missouri, unless inflicted as a punishment for crimes committed against the laws of said State, whereof the party accused shall be duly convicted : Pro- vided, That the civil condition of those persons who now are held to service in Missouri shall not be affected by this last prevision.’ ” Here I show, then, that the proposition was made that Missouri should not come in unless, in addition to complying with the Mis- souri Compromise, so called, she would go further, and prohibit slavery within the limits of the State. Me. Sewaed. — Now, then, for the vote. Me. Douglas.— The vote was taken by yeas and nays. I hold it in my hand. Sixty-one northern men voted for that amendment, and thirty-three against it. Thus the North, by a vote of nearly two to one, expressly repudiated a solemn compact upon the very matter in controversy, to wit : that slavery should not be prohibited in the State of Missouri. Me. Welles. — Let the senator from New York answer that. Me. Douglas. — I should like to hear his answer. Me. Sewaed. — I desire, if I shall be obtrusive by speaking in this way, that senators will at once signify, or that any senator will sig- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. Ill nify, that I am obtrusive. But I make these explanations in this vray, for the reason that I desire to give the honorable senator from Illinois the privilege of hearing my answer to him as he goes along. It is simply this: That this doctrine of compromises is, as it has been held, that if so many northern men shall go with so many southern men as to fix the law, then it binds the North and South alike. I there- fore have hut one answer to make : the vote for the restriction was less than the northern vote given against the compromise. Me. Douglas.- — Well, now, we come to this point: We have been told, during this debate, that you must not judge of the North by the minority, hut by the majority. You have been told, that the mi- nority, who stood by the Constitution and the rights of the South, were dough-faces. Me. Sewaed.— I have not said so. I will not say so. Me. Douglas. — You have all said so in your speeches, and you have asked us to take the majority of the North. Me. Sewaed. — I spoke of the practical fact. I never said anything about dough-faces. Me. Douglas. — You have asked us to take the majority instead of the minority. Me. Sewaed. — The majority of the country. Me. Douglas. — I am talking of the majority of the northern vote. Mr. Sewaed. — No, sir. Me. Douglas. — I hope the senator will hear me. I wish to recall him to the issue. I stated that the North in the House of Representatives voted against admitting Missouri into the Union under the act of 1S20, and caused the defeat of that measure; and he said that they voted against it on the ground of the free-negro clause in her consti- tution, and not upon the ground of slavery. Now, I have shown by the evidence that it was upon the ground of slavery, as well as upon the other ground; and that a majority of the North required not only that Missouri should comply with the compact of 1820, so called, but that she should go further, and give up the whole consi- deration which the senator says the South received from the North for the Missouri Compromise. The compact, he says, was that, in consideration of slavery being permitted in Missouri, it should he prohibited in the Territories. After having procured the prohibition in the Territories, the North, by a majority of votes, refused to admit Missouri as a slaveholding State, and in violation of the alleged compact, required her to prohibit slavery as a further condition of her admission. This repudiation of the alleged compact by the North is recorded by yeas and nays, sixty-one to thirty-three, and entered upon the Journal, as an imperishable evidence of the fact. With this evidence before us, against whom should the charge of perfidy be preferred ? Sir, if this was a compact, what must be thought of those who violated it almost immediately after it was formed ? I say it was a calumny upon the North to say that it was a compact : I should feel 112 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF .t flush of shame upon my cheek, as a northern man, if I were to say that it was a compact, and that the section of the country to which I belong received the consideration, and then repudiated the obliga- tion in eleven months after it was entered into. I deny that it was a compact in any sense of the term. But if it was, the record proves that faith was not observed ; that the contract was never carried into effect; that after the North had procured the passage of the act prohibiting slavery in the Territories, with a majority in the J rouse large enough to prevent its repeal, Missouri was refused admis- sion into the Union as a slaveholding State, in conformity with the act of March 6, 1820. If the proposition be correct, as contended for by the opponents of this bill, that there was a solemn compact between the North and the South, that, in consideration of the pro- hibition of slavery in the Territories, [Missouri was to be admitted into the Union in conformity with the act of 1820, that compact was repudiated by the North and rescinded by the joint action of the two parties within twelve months from its date. Missouri was never admitted under the act of the 6th of March, 1820. She was refused admission under that act. She was voted out of the Union by northern votes, notwithstanding the stipulation that she should bo received ; and, in consequence of these facts, a new compromise was rendered necessary, by the terms of which Missouri was to be ad- mitted into the Union conditionally — admitted on a condition not embraced in the act of 1820, and, in addition, to full compliance with all the provisions of said act. If, then, the act of 1820, by the eighth section of which slavery was prohibited in the Territories, was a compact, it is clear to the comprehension of every fair-minded man that the refusal of the North to admit Missouri, in compli- ance with its stipulations, and without further conditions, imposes upon' us a high moral obligation to remove the prohibition of shivery in the Territories, since it has been shown to have been procured upon a condition never performed. Mr. President, inasmuch as the senator from New York has taken great pains to impress upon the public mind of the North the con- viction that the act of 1820 was a solemn compact, the violation or repudiation of which by either party involves perfidy and dishonor, I wish to call the attention of that senator (Mr. Seward) to the fact, that his own State was the first to repudiate the compact and to instruct her senators in Congress not to admit Missouri into the Union in compliance with it, nor unless slavery should be prohibited in the State of Missouri. Me. Sewaed. — That is so. Me. Douglas. — I have the resolutions before me, in the printed Journal of the Senate. The senator from New York is familiar with the fact, and frankly admits it: “State of New York, f In Assembly, November 13, 1820. “Whereas the legislature of this State, at the last session, did instruct. theij STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 113 senators and request their representatives in Congress to oppose the admission, as a State, into the Union, of any territory not comprised within the original boundaries of the United States, without making the prohibition of slavery therein an indispensable condition of admission; and whereas this legislature is impressed with the correctness of the sentiments so communicated to our senators and representatives : Therefore — “ Resolved (if the honorable the Senate concur herein), That this legislature does approve of the principles contained in the resolutions of the last session ; and further, if the provisions contained in any proposed constitution of a new State deny to any citizens of the existing States the privileges and immunities of citizens of such new State, that such proposed constitution should not be cccepted or confirmed ; the same, in the opinion of this legislature, being void by the Constitution of the United States. And that our senators be instructed, and our representatives in Congress be requested, to use their utmost exer- tions to prevent the acceptance and confirmation of any such constitution.” It will be seen by these resolutions, that at the previous session the New York legislature had “instructed ” the senators from that State “ to oppose the admission, as a State, into the Union of any territory not comprised within the original boundaries of the United States, without making the prohibition of slavery therein an indis- pensable condition of admission.” These instructions are not confined to territory north of 30° 30'. They apply, and were intended to apply, to the whole territory west of the Mississippi, and to all territory which might hereafter be acquired. They deny the right of Arkansas to admission as a slave- holding State, as well as Missouri. They lay down a general princi- ple to be applied and insisted upon everywhere, and in all cases, and under all circumstances. These resolutions were first adopted prior to the passage of the act of March 6, 1S20, which the senator now chooses to call a compact. But they were renewed and repeated on the 13th of November, 1820, a little more than eight months after the Missouri Compromise, as instructions to the New York senators to resist the admission of Missouri as a slaveholding State, notwith- standing the stipulations in the alleged compact. Now, let me ask the senator from New York by what authority he declared and pub- lished in his speech that the act of 1820, was a compact which could not be violated or repudiated without a sacrifice of honor, justice and good faith. Perhaps he will shelter himself behind the resolu- tions of his State, which he presented this session, branding this bill as a violation of plighted faith. Mr. Seward. — M ill the senator allow me a word of explanation? Me. Douglas.- — Certainly, with a great deal of pleasure. Mr. Seward. — I wish simply to say that the State of New York, for now thirty years, has refused to make any compact on any terms by which a concession should be made for the extension of slavery. But. by the practical action of the Congress of the United States, compromises have been made, which, it is held by the honorable senator from Illinois and by the South, bind her against her consent and approval. And, therefore, she stands throughout this whole matter upon the same ground — always refusing to enter into a i torn • 114 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF promise, always insisting upon the prohibition of slavery within the Territories of the United States. But, on this occasion, we stand here with a contract which has stood for 30 years, notwithstanding our protest and dissent, and in which there is nothing left to he ful- filled except that part which is to be beneficial to us. All the rest has been fulfilled, and we stand here with our old opinions on the whole subject of compromises, demanding fulfillment on the part of the South, which the honorable senator from Illinois on the present occasion represents. Ms. Douglas. — Mr. President, the senator undoubtedly speaks for himself very frankly aDd very candidly. Me. Sewaed. — Certainly I do. Me. Douglas. — But I deny that on this point he speaks for the State of New York. Mk. Sewaed. — We shall see. Me. Douglas.- — I will state the reason why I say so. He has pre- sented here resolutions of this State of New York which have been adopted this year, declaring the act of March 6, 1820, to be a “ solemn compact.” I read from the second resolution : “ But at the same time duty to themselves and to the other States of the Union demands that when an effort is making to violate a solemn compact w 'hereby the political power of the State and the privileges as well as the honest sentiments of its citizens will be jeoparded and invaded, they should raise their voice in protest against the threatened infraction of their rights, and declare that the negation or repeal by Congress of the Missouri Compro- mise will be regarded by them as a violation of right and of faith, and destruc- tive of that confidence and regard which should attach to the enactment of the federal legislature.” Mr.' President, I cannot let the senator off on the plea that 1, for the sake of the argument, in reply to him and other opponents of this bill, have called it a compact ; or that the South have called it a compact ; or that other friends of Nebraska have called it a com- pact which has been violated and rendered invalid. He and his abolition confederates have arraigned me for a violation of a com- pact, which, they say, is binding in morals, in conscience and honor. I have shown that the legislature of New York, at its present session, has declared it to be “ a solemn compact,” and that its repudiation would “ be regarded by them as a violation of right, and of faith, and destructive of confidence and regard.” I have also shown, that if it be such a compact, the State of New York stands self-con- demned and self-convicted as the first to repudiate and violate it. But since the senator has chosen to make an issue with me in respect to the action of New York, with the view of condemning my conduct here, I will invite the attention of the senator to another portion of these resolutions. Referring to the fourteenth section of the Nebraska Bill, the legislature of New York says : STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 115 “ That the adoption of this provision would be in derogation of the truth, a gross violation of plighted faith, and an outrage and indignity upon the free States of the Union* whose assent has been yielded to the admission into the Uniou of Missouri and of Arkansas, with slavery, in reliance upon the faithful observance of the provision (now sought to be abrogated) known as the Mis- souri Compromise, whereby slavery was declared to be “forever prohibited in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36° 30' north latitude, not included within the limits of the State of Missouri.” I have no comments to make upon the courtesy and propriety exhibited in this legislative declaration, that a provision in a bill, reported by a regular committee of the Senate of the United States, and known to be approved by tliree-fourths of the body, and which has since received the sanction of their votes, is “ in derogation of truth, a gross violation of plighted faith, and an outrage and indig- nity,” etc. The opponents of this measure claim a monopoly of all the courtesies and amenities, which should be observed among gen- tlemen, and especially in the performance of official duties ; and I am free to say that this is one of the mildest and most respectful forms of expression in which they have indulged. But there is a declaration in this resolution to which I wish to invite the particular attention of the Senate and the country. It is the distinct allega- tion that “the free States of the Union,” including Hew York, yield their “ assent to the admission into the Union of Missouri and Arkansas, with slavery, in reliance upon the faithful observance of the provision known as the Missouri Compromise.” How, sir, since the legislature of Hew York has gone out of i!s way to arraign the State on matters of truth, I will demonstrate that this paragraph contains two material statements in direct “ derogation of truth.” I have already shown, beyond controversy, by the records of the legislature and by the journals of the Senate, that Hew York never did give her assent to the admission of Mis- souri with slavery ! Hence, I must be permitted to say, in the polite language of her own resolutions, that the statement that Hew York yielded her assent to the admission of Missouri with slavery is in “derogation of truth!” and, secondly, the statement that such assent was given “ in reliance upon the faithful observance of the Missouri Compromise ” is equally “ in derogation of truth.” Hew York never assented to the admission of Missouri as a slave State, never assented to what she now calls the Missouri Compromise, never observed its stipulations as a compact, never had been willing to carry it out ; but, on the contrary, has always resisted it, as 1 have demonstrated by her own records. Mr. President, I have before me other journals, records and in- structions, which prove that Hew York was not the only free State that repudiated the Missouri Compromise of 1820 within twelve mouths from its date. I will not occupy the time of the Senate at this late hour of the night by referring to them, unless some oppo- nent of the bill renders it necessary. In that event, I may be able 116 THE LIFE ANT) SPEECHES OF to place other senators and their States in the same unenviable posi- tion in which the senator from Few York has found himself and hia State. I think I have shown, that to call the act of the 6th of March, 1820. a compact, binding in honor, is to charge the northern States of this Union with an act of perfidy unparalleled in the history of legislation or of civilization. I have already adverted to the facts, that in the summer of 1820 Missouri framed her constitution, in con- formity with the act of the 6th of March ; that it was presented to Congress at the next session ; that the Senate passed a joint resolu- tion declaring her to be one of the States of the Union, on an equal footing with the original States ; and that the House of Representa- tives rejected it, and refused to allow her to come into the Union, because her constitution did not prohibit slavery. These facts created the necessity for a new compromise, the old one having failed of its object, which was, to bring Missouri into the Union. At this period in the order of events — in February, 1821, when the excitement was almost beyond restraint, and a great fun- damental principle, involving the right of the people of the new Slates to regulate their own domestic institutions, was dividing the Union into two great hostile parties — Henry Clay, of Kentuckjq came forward with a new compromise, which had the effect to change the issue, and make the result of the controversy turn upon a different point. He brought in a resolution for the admission of Missouri into the Union, not in pursuance of the act of 1820, not in obedience to the understanding when it was adopted, and not with her constitution as it had been formed in conformity with that act, but lie proposed to admit Missouri into the Union upon a “fun- damental condition,” which condition was to be in the nature of a solem'n compact between the United States on the one part and the State of Missouri on the other part, and to which “ fundamental con- dition ” the State of Missouri was required to declare her assent in the form of “ a solemn public act.” This joint resolution passed, and was approved March 2, 1821, and is known as Mr. Clay’s Missouri Compromise, in contradistinction to that of 1820, which was intro- duced into the Senate by Mr. Thomas, of Illinois. In the month of June, 1821, the legislature of Missouri assembled and passed the “ solemn public act,” and furnished an authenticated copy thereof to the President of the United States, in compliance with Mr. Clay’s compromise, or joint resolution. On August 10, 1821, James Mon- roe, President of the United States, issued his proclamation, in which, after reciting the fact that on the 2d of March, 1821, Congress had passed a joint resolution “providing for the admission of the State of Missouri into the Union, on a certain condition and that the gene- ral assembly of Missouri, on the 26 th of June, having, “by a solemn public act, declared the assent of the said State of Missouri to the fundamental condition contained in said joint resolution,” and having furnished him wiih an authentic copy thereof, he, “ in pursuance oj STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 117 the resolution of Congress aforesaid ,” declared the admission of Mis- souri to be complete. I do not deem it necessary to discuss the question whether the conditions upon which Missouri was admitted were wise or unwise. It is sufficient for my present purpose to remark, that the “ funda- mental condition ” of her admission related to certain clauses in the constitution of Missouri in respect to the migration of free negroes into that State ; clauses similar to those now in force in the consti- tutions of Illinois and Indiana, and perhaps other States ; clauses similar to the provisions of law in force at that time in many of the old States of the Union; and, I will add, clauses which, in my opin- ion, Missouri had a right to adopt under the Constitution of the United States. It is no answer to this position to say, that those clauses in the constitution of Missouri were in violation of the Con- stitution. If they did conflict with the Constitution of the United States, they were void ; if they were not in conflict, Missouri had a right to put them there, and to pass all laws necessary to carry them into effect. Whether such conflict did exist is a question which, by the Constitution, can only be determined authoritatively by the Supreme Court of the United States. Congress is not the appropri- ate and competent tribunal to adjudicate and determine questions of conflict between the constitution of a State and that of the United States. Had Missouri been admitted without any condition or re- striction, she would have had an opportunity of vindicating her con- stitution and rights in the Supreme Court — the tribunal created by the Constitution for that purpose. By the condition imposed on Missouri, Congress not only deprived that State of a right which she believed she possessed under the con- stitution of the United States, but denied her the privilege of vindi- cating that right in the appropriate and constitutional tribunals, by compelling her, “by a solemn public act,” to give an irrevocable pledge never to exercise cr claim the right. Therefore Missouri came in under a humiliating condition — a condition not imposed by the Constitution of the United States, and which destroys t'he prin- ciple of equality which should exist, and by the Constitution does not exist, between all the States of this Union. This inequality resulted from Mr. Clay’s compromise of 1821, and is the principle upon which that compromise was constructed. I own that the act is couched in general terms aud vague phrases, and therefore may possibly be so construed as not to deprive the State of any right she might pos- sess under the Constitution. Upon that point 1 wish only to say, that such a construction makes the “fundamental condition” void, while the opposite construction would demonstrate it to be uncon- stitutional. T have before me the “solemn public act” of Missouri to this fundamental condition, whoever will take the trouble to read it will find it the richest specimen of irony and sarcasm that has ever been incorporated into a public act. Sir, in view of these facts I desire to call the attention of the sen 118 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ator from Hew York to a statement in liis speech, upon whir greater part of his argument rested. His statement was, am; now being published in every abolition paper, and repeated 1 whole tribe of abolition orators and lecturers, that Missouri admitted as a slaveholding State, under the act of 1S20; while i shown, by the President's proclamation of August 10, 1821, th was admitted in pursuance of the resolution of March 2, Thus it is shown that the material point of his speech is o dieted by the highest evidence — the record in the case. The s statement I believe was made by the senator from Connection’ Smith), and the senators from Ohio (Mr. Chase and Mr. Wade) am) the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner). Each of these tors made and repeated this statement, and upon the strength ■ i erroneous assertion called upon us to carry into effect the eight tion of the same act. The material fact upon which their arguments rested being overthrown, of course their conclusions are ern 1 and deceptive. Me. Sewakd. — I hope the senator will yield for a moment, b' I have never had so much respect for him as I have to night. Me. Douglas. — I see what course I have to pursue in order to inand the senator’s respect. I know now how to get it. (Lang Me. Sewaed. — Any man who meets me boldly commands n - pect. I say that Missouri would not not have been admittted into the Union by the United States except upon the compi of 1820. When that point was settled about the restriction < very it was settled in this way ; that she should come in with s and that all the rest of the Louisiana purchase, which is now 1 as Nebraska, should be forever free from slavery. Missouri ad a constitution, which was thought by the northern States to in upon Lie right of citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution United States, which was a new point altogether; and upon : . point debate was held, and upon it a new compromise was math an Missouri came into the Union upon the agreement, that, in reg ml that question, she submitted to the Constitution of the United St and so she was admitted into the Union. Me. Douglas. — Mr. President, I must remind the senator j that I have already proven that lie was in error in stating th North objected to the admission of Missouri merely on account C the free-negro clause in her constitution. I have proven by th that the North objected to her admission because she tolerate 1 . - very; this objection was sustained by the North by a vote of ■ ■ ■ - two to one. He cannot shelter himself, therefore, under the ’ ■ negro dodgo, so long as there is a distinct vote of the North oh ■ to her admission; because, in addition to complying with the m 1820, she did not also prohibit slavery, which was the only cor A •- ation that the South was to have for agreeing to the prohibi t i if slavery in the Territories. Then, having deprived the senator, conclusive evidence from the records, of that pretext, what do 1 dr STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 119 him to? I compel him to acknowledge that a new compromise was made. Mr. Seward. — Certainly there was. Mb. Douglas. — Then, I ask, why was it made? Because the North would not carry out the first one. And the best evidence that the North did not carry out the first one is the senator’s admis- sion that the South was compelled to submit to a new one. Then, if there was a new compromise made, did Missouri come in under the new one or the old one ? Mb. Seward. — U nder both. Mp.. Douglas. — This is the first time, in this debate, it has been intimated that Missouri came in under two acts of Congress. The senator did not allude to the resolution of 1821 in his speech; none of the opponents of this bill have said it. But it is now admitted that she did not come into the Union under the act of 1820 alone. She had been voted out under the first compromise, and this vote compelled her to make a new one, and she came in under the new one ; and yet the senator from New York, in his speech, declared to the world that she came in under the first one. This is not an imma- terial question. His whole speech rests upon that misapprehension or misstatement of the record. Mr. Seward. — You had better say misapprehension. Mis. Douglas. — Very well. Me will call it by that name. His whole argument depends upon that misapprehension. After stating that the act of 1820 was a compact, and that the North performed its part of it in good faith, he arraigns the friends of this bill for propos- ing to annul the eighth section of the act of 1S20 without first turn- ing Missouri out of the Union, in order that slavery may be abo- lished therein by the act of Congress. He says to us, in substance : “ Gentlemen, if you are going to rescind the compact, have respect for that great law of morals, of honesty, and of conscience which compels you first to surrender the consideration which you have received ‘under the compact.’” I concur with him in regard to the obligation to restore the consideration when a contract is rescinded. And inasmuch as the prohibition in the Territories north of 36° 30' was obtained, according to his own statement, by an agreement to admit Missouri as a slaveholding State on an equal footing with the original States, “ in all respects whatsoever,” as spe- cified in the first section of the act of 1820 ; and, inasmuch as Missouri was refused admission under said act, and was compelled to submit to a new compromise in 1821, and was then received into the Union on a fundamental condition of inequality, I call on him and his abolition confederates to restore the consideration which they have received, in the shape of a prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30', under a compromise which they repudiated, and refused to carry into effect. I call on them to correct the erroneous statement in respect to the admission of Missouri, and to make a restitution of the consideration by voting for this bill. I repeat, that this is not 320 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF an immaterial statement. It is the point upon which the abolitionists rest their whole argument. They could not get up a show of pre- text against the great principle of self-government involved in this bill, if they could not repeat all the time, as the senator from New York did in his speech, that Missouri came into the Union with slavery, in conformity to the compact which was made by the act of 1820, and that the South, having received the consideration, is now trying to cheat the North out of her part of the benefits. I have proven that, after abolitionism had gained its points so far as the eighth section of the act prohibited slavery in the Territory, Missouri was denied admission by northern votes until she entered into a compact by which she was understood to surrender an impor- tant right now exercised by several States of the Union. Mr. President, I did not wish to refer to these things. I did not understand them fully in all their bearings at the time I made my first speech on this subject; and, so far as I was familiar with them, I made as little reference to them as was consistent with my duty; because it was a mortifying reflection to me, as a northern man, that we had not been able, in consequence of the abolition excitement at the time, to avoid the appearance of bad faith in the observance of legislation, which has been denominated a compromise. There were a few men then, as there are now, who bad the moral courage to perform their duty to the country and the Constitution, regardless of consequences personal to themselves. There were ten northern men who dared to perform their duty by voting to admit Missouri into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and with no other restriction than that imposed by the Constitution. I am aware that they were abused and denounced as we are now ; that they were branded as dough-faces, traitors to freedom, and to the section of the country whence they come. Mr. Geyer. — They honored Mr. Lanman, of Connecticut, by burn- ing him in effigy. Mr. Douglas. — Yes, sir; these abolitionists honored Mr. Lanman in Connecticut just as they are honoring me in Boston, and other places, by burning me in effigy. Mr. Cass. — It will do you no harm. Mr. Douglas. — 'Well, sir, I know it will not; but why this burning in effigy? It is the legitimate consequences of the address which was sent forth to the world by certain senators, whom I denominated, on a former occasion, as the abolition confederates. The senator from Ohio presented here the other day a resolution — he says unin- tentionally, and I take it so — declaring that every senator who advo- cated this bill was a traitor to his country, to humanity, and to God ; and even he seemed to be shocked at the results of his own advice when it was exposed. Yet he did not seem to know that it was, in substance, what he had advised in his address, over his own signa- ture, when he called upon the people to assemble in public meetings and thunder forth their indignation at the criminal betrayal of pre- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 121 ciuus rights; when lie appealed to ministers of the Gospel to desecrate their holy calling, and attempted to inflame passions, and fanaticism, and prejudice against senators who would not consider themselves very highly complimented by being called his equals ? And yet, when the natural consequences of his own action and advice came back upon him, and he presents them here, and is called to an account for the indecency of the act, lie professes his profound regret and surprise that anything should have occurred which could possibly be deemed unkind or disrespectful to any member of this body ! The senator’s explanation does not help him at all. He says he did not state under what act Missouri came in ; but he did say, as I understood him, that the act of 1820 was a compact, and that, accord- ing to that compact, Missouri was to come in with slavery, provided slavery should be prohibited in certain Territories, and did come in in pursuance of the compact. He now uses the word “ compact.” To what compact does he allude ? Is it not to the act of 1820 ? If he did not, what becomes of his conclusion that the eighth section of that act is irrepealable? lie will not venture to deny that his reference was to the act of 1820. Did he refer to the joint resolution of 1821, under which Missouri was admitted? If so, we do not propose to repeal it. "We admit that it was a compact, and that its obligations are irrevocably fixed. Hut that joint resolution does not prohibit slavery in the Territories. The Nebraska Bill does not propose to repeal it, or impair its obligation in any way. Then, sir, why not take back your correction, and admit that you did mean the act of 1820, when you spoke of irrevocable obligations and compacts? Assuming then, that the senator meant what he is now unwilling either to admit or deny, even while professing to correct me, that Missouri came in under the act of 1S20, I aver that I have proven that she did not come into the Union under that act. I have proven that she was refused admission under that alleged compact. I have, therefore, proven incontestably that the material statement upon which his argument rests is wholly without foundation, and unequivocally contradicted by the record. Sir, I believe I may say the same of every speech which has been made against the bill, upon the ground that it impared the obligation of compacts. There has not been an argument against the measure, every word of which in regard to the faith of compacts is not con- tradicted by the public records. What I complain of is this : The people may think that a senator, having the laws and journals before him, to which he could refer, would not make a statement in contra- diction of those records. They make the people believe these things, and cause them to do great injustice to others, under the delusion that they have been wronged, and their feelings outraged. Sir, this address did for a time mislead the whole country. It made the legis- lature of New York believe that the act of 1820 was a compact which it would be disgraceful So violate; and, acting under that delusion, 6 122 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF they framed a series of resolutions, which, if true and just, convict that State of an act of perfidy and treachery unparalleled in the his- tory of free governments. You see, therefore, the consequence of these misstatements. You degrade your own State, and induce the people, under the impression that they have been injured, to get up a violent crusade against those whose fidelity and truthfulness will in the end command their respect and admiration. In consequence of arousing passions and prejudices, I am now to be found in effigy, hanging by the neck, in all the towns where you have the influence to produce such a result. In all these excesses, the people are yield- ing to an honest impulse, under the impression that a grievous wrong has been perpetrated. You have had your day of triumph. You have succeeded in directing upon the heads of others a torrent of insult and calumny from which even you shrink with horror, when the fact is exposed that you have become the conduits for conveying it into this hall. In your State, sir (addressing himself to Mr. Chase) I find I am burnt in effigy in j'our abolition towns. All this is done because I have proposed, as it is said, to violate a compact! Now, what will those people think of you when they find out that you have stimulated them to these acts, which are disgraceful to your State, disgraceful to your party, and disgraceful to your cause, under a misrepresentation of the facts, which misrepresentation you ought to have been aware of, and should never have been made. Me. Ciiase. — "Will the senator permit me to say a few words ? Me. Douglas. — Certainly. Me. Chase. — Mr. President, I certainly regret that anything has occurred in my State which should be otherwise than in accordance with the disposition which I trust I have ever manifested to treat the senator from Illinois with entire courtesy. I do not wish, how- ever, to be understood, here or elsewhere, as retracting any state- ment which I have made, or being unwilling to reassert that state- ment when it is directly impeached. I regard the admission of Mis- souri, and the facts of the transaction connected with it, as constitut- ing a compact between the two sections of the country ; a part of which was fulfilled in the admission of Missouri, another part in the admission of Arkansas, and other parts of which have been fulfilled in the admission of Iowa, and the organization of Minnesota, but which yet remains to be fulfilled in respect to the Territory of Nebraska, and which, in my judgment, will be vioalated by the repeal of the Missouri prohibition. That is my judgment. I have no quarrel with senators who differ with me ; but upon the whole facts of the trans- action, however, I have not changed my opinion at all, in conse- quence of what has been said by the honorable senator from Illinois. 1 say that the facts of the transaction, taken together, an 4 as under- stood by the country for more than thirty years, constitute a cam- pact binding in moral force; though, as I have always said, being embodied in a legislative act, it may be repealed by Congress, if Con- gress see fit. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 123 Mr. Douglas. — Mr. President, I am sorry that the senator from Ohio lias repeated the statement that Missouri came in under the compact which lie says was made by the act of 1820. How many times have I to disprove the statement? Does not the vote to which I have referred show that such was not the case? Does not the fact that there was a necessity for a new compromise show it ? Have I not proved it three times over? and is it possible that the senator from Ohio will repeat it in the face of the record, with the vote star- ing him in the face, and with the evidence which I have produced ? Does he suppose that he can make his own peopie believe that his statement ought to be credited in opposition to the solemn record ? I am amazed that the senator should repeat the statement again unsustained by the fact, by the record, and by the evidence, and overwhelmed by the whole current and weight of the testimony which I have produced. The senator says, also, that he never intended to do me injustice, and he is sorry that the people of his State have acted in the manner to which I have referred. Sir, did he not say, in the same document to which I have already alluded, that I was engaged, with others, in “ a criminal betrayal of precious rights,” in an “atrocious plot?” Did he not say that I and others were guilty of “ meditated bad faith ?” Are not these his exact words ? Did he not say that “ ser- vile demagogues” might make the people believe certain things, or attempt to do so ? Did he not say everything calculated to produce and bring upon my head all the insults to which I have been sub- jected publicly and privately — not even excepting the insulting let- ters which I have received from his constituents, rejoicing at my domestic bereavements, and praying that other and similar calami- ties may befall me ? All these have resulted from that address. I expected such consequences when I first saw it. In it he called upon the preachers of the Gospel to prostitute the sacred desk in stimu- lating excesses ; and then, for fear that the people would not know who it was that was to be insulted and calumniated, he told them, in a postscript, that Mr. Douglas was the author of all this iniquity, and that they ought not to allow their rights to be made the hazard of a Presidential game ! After having used such language, he says meant no disrespect — he meant nothing unkind ! lie was amazed that I said in my opening speech that there was anything offensive in this address ; and lie could not suffer himself to use harsh epithets, or to impugn a gentleman’s motives! No ! not he! After having deliberately written all these insults, impugning motive and charac- ter, and calling upon our holy religion to sanctify the calumny, he could not think of losing his dignity by bandying epithets, or using harsh and disrespectful terms ! Mr. President, I expected all that has occurred, and more than has come, as the legitimate result of that address. The things to which I referred are the natural consequences of it. The only re- venge I seek is to expose the authors, and leave them to hear, as best 124 T II E LIFE AND SPEECHES OF they may, the just indignation of an honest community, when tho people discover how their sympathies and feelings have been out- raged, by making them the instruments in performing such desper- ate acts. Sir, even in Boston 1 have been hung in effigy. I may say that I expected it to occur even there, for the senator from Massachusetts lives there. He signed his name to that address; and for fear the Boston abolitionists would not know that it was he, he signed it Charles Sumner, senator from Massachusetts.” The first outrage was in Ohio, where the address was circulated under the signature of “ Salmon P. Chase, senator from Ohio.” The next came from Bostou — the same Boston, sir, which, under the direction of the same leaders, closed Faneuil Hall to the immortal Webster in 1850, because of his support of the Compromise measures of that year, which all now confess have restored peace and harmony to a dis- tracted country. Yes, sir, even Boston, so glorious in her early his- tory — Boston, around whose name so many historical associations cling, to gratify the heart and exalt the pride of every American — could be led astray by abolition misrepresentations so far as to deny a hearing to her own great man, who had shed so much glory upon Massachusetts and her metropolis ! I know that Boston now feels humiliated and degraded by the act. And, sir (addressing himself to Mr. Sumner), you will remember that when you came into the Sen- ate, and sought an opportunity to put forth your abolition incendi- arism, you appealed to our sense of justice by the sentiment, “ Strike, but hear me first.” But when Webster went back in 1850 to speak to his constituents in his own self-defence, to tell the truth, and to expose his slanderers, you would not hear him, but you struck first ! Again, sir, even Boston, with her Faneuil Hall consecrated to liberty, was so far led astray by abolitionism, that when one of her gallant sons — gallant by his own glorious deeds, inheriting a heroic Bevolutionary name, had given his life to his country upon the bloody field of Buena Vista; and when his remains were brought home, even that Boston, under abolition guidance and abolition preaching, denied him a decent burial, because he lost his life in vindicating his country’s honor upon the southern frontier ! Even the name of Lin- coln, and the deeds of Lincoln, could not secure for him a decent interment, because abolitionism follows a patriot beyond the grave. (Applause in the galleries.) The Presiding Officer (Me. Mason in the chair). — Order must be preserved. Mr. Douglas.— Mr. President, with these facts before me, how could I hope to escape the fate which had followed these great and good men ? While I had no right to hope that I might be honored as they had been, under abolition auspices, have I not a right to be proud of the distinction and the association ? Mr. President, I regret these digressions. I have not been able to follow the line of argu- ment which I had marked out for myself, because of the many inter- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 125 rnptions. I do not complain of them. It is fair that gentlemen should make them, inasmuch as they have not the opportunity 01 replying ; hence I have yielded the floor, and propose to do so cheer- fully whenever any senator intimates that justice to him or his posi- tion requires him to say anything in reply. Returning to the point from which I was diverted : I think I have shown that, if the act of 1826, called the Missouri Compromise, was a compact, it was violated and repudiated by a solemn vote of the House of Representatives in 1821, within eleven months after it was adopted. It was repudiated by the North by a majority vote, and that repudiation was so complete and successful as to compel Missouri to make a new compromise, and she was brought into the Union under the new compromise of 1821, and not under the act of 1820. This reminds me of another point made in nearly all the speeches against this bill, and, if I recollect right, was alluded to in the abolition manifesto ; to which, I regret to say, I had occa- sion to refer so often. I refer to the significant hint that Mr. Clay was dead before any one dared to bring forward a proposition to undo the greatest work of his hands. The senator from New York (Mr. Seward) has seized upon this insinuation, and elaborated it, per- haps, more fully than his compeers; and now the abolition press suddenly, and as if by miraculous conversion, teems with eulogies upon Mi- Clay and his Missouri Compromise of 1S20. Now, Mr. President, does not each of these senators know that Mr. Clay was not the author of the act of 1S20? Do they not know that he disclaimed it in 1850 in this body ? Do they not know that the Missouri restriction did not originate in the house of which he was a member? Do they not know that Mr. Clay never came into the Mis- souri controversy as a compromiser until after the compromise of 1820 was repudiated, and it became necessary to make another? I dislike to he compelled to repeat what I have conclusively proven, that the compromise which Mr Clay effected was the act of 1821, un- der which Missouri came into the Union, and not the act of 1820. Mr. Clay made that compromise after you had repudiated the first one. How, then, dare you call upon the spirit of that great and gal- lant statesman to sanction your charge of had faith against the South on this question ? Me. Sewap.d. — M ill the senator allow me a moment? Me. Douglas. — Certainly. Me. Sewaed. — In the year 1S51 or 1852, 1 think 1851, a medal was struck in honor of Henry Clay, of gold, which cost a'large sum of money, which contained eleven acts of the life of Henry Clay. It was presented to him by a committee of citizens of New York, by whom it had been made. One of the eleven acts of his life which was celebrated on that medal, which he accepted, was the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This is my answer. Me. Douglas. — Are the words “ of 1820 upon it? Me, Sewaed. — It commemorates the Missouri Compromise. 126 IFE OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS Mr. Douglas. — Exactly. I have seen that medal ; and my recol lection is that it does not contain the words “ of 1820.” One of the great acts of Mr. Clay was the Missouri Compromise, hut what Mis- souri Compromise? Cf course, the one which Henry Clay made, the one which he negotiated, the one which brought Missouri into the Union, and which settled the controversy. That was the act of 1821, and not the act of 1820. It tends to confirm the statement which I have made. History is misread and misquoted, and these statements have been circulated and disseminated broadcast through the country, concealing the truth. Does not the senator know that Henry Clay, when occupying that seat in 1850 (pointing to Mr. Clay’s chair), in his speech of the 6th of February of that year, said that nothing had struck him with so much surprise as the fact that historical circum- stances soon passed out of recollection; and he instanced, as a case in point, the error of attributing to him the act of 1820. (Mr. Seward nodded assent.) The senator from New York says that he does remember that Mr. Clay did say so. If so, how is it, then, that he presumes now to rise and quote that medal as evidence that Henry Clay was the author of the act of 1820? Me. Sewaed. — I answer the senator in this way : that Henry Clay, while he said he did not disavow or disapprove of that compromise, transferred the merit of it to others who were more active in procur- ing it than he, while he had enjoyed the praise and the glory which were due from it. Mr. Douglas. — To that I have only to say, that it cannot be the reason; for Henry Clay, in that same speech, did take to himself the merit of the compromise of 1S21, and hence it could not have been modesty which made him disavow the other. He said that he did not know whether he had voted for the act of 1820 or not; but ho supposed that he had done so. He furthermore said that it did not originate in the house of which ho was a member, and that he never did approve of its principles; but that he may have voted, and pro- bably did vote for it, under the pressure of the circumstances. Now, Mr. President, as I have been doing justice to Mr. Clay on this question, perhaps I may as well do justice to another great man, who was associated with him in carrying through the great measures of 1850, which mortified the senator from New York so much, because they defeated his purpose of carrying on the agitation. I allude to Mr. Webster. The authority of his great name has been quoted for the purpose of proving that he regarded the Missouri Act as a compact— an irrepealable compact. Evidently the distinguished senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett) supposed that he was doing Mr. Webster entire justice when he quoted the passage which he read from Mr. Webster’s speech of the 7t h of March, 1850, when he said that he stood upon the position that every part of the American con- tinent w r as fixed for freedom or for slavery by irrepealable law. The senator says that, by the expression “irrepealable law,” Mr. Webster meant to include the compromise of 1820. Now, I will STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 127 show that that was not Mr. Webster’s meaning — that he was never guilty of the mistake of saying that the Missouri Act of 1820 was an irrepealable law. Mr. Webster said in that speech, that every foot of territory in the United States was fixed as to its character for free- dom or slavery by an irrepealable law. He then inquired if it was not so in regard to Texas? He went on to prove that it was; be- cause, he said, there was a compact in express terms between Texas and the United States. He said the parties were capable of contract- ing, and that there was a valuable consideration ; and hence, be con- tended, that in that case there was a contract binding in honor, and morals, and law ; and that it was irrepealable without a breach of faith. He went on to say : “Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be excluded from those Territories by a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in Texas — I mean the law of nature, of physical geography, the law of the formation of the earth.” That was the irrepealable law which he said prohibited slavery in the Territories of Utah and New Mexico. He next went on to speak of the prohibition of slavery in Oregon, and he said it was an “en- tirely useless, and, in that connection, senseless proviso.” He went further, and said : “That the whole territory of the States in the United States, or in the newly-acquired territory of the United States, has a fixed and settled character, now fixed and settled by law, which cannot be repealed in the case of Texas without a violation of public faith, and cannot be repealed by any human power in regard to California or New Mexico ; that, under one or other of these taws , every foot of territory in the States, or in the Territories, has now received a fixed and decided character.” ■What irrepealable laws? “ One or the other ” of those which he had stated. One was the Texas compact, the other the law -of nature and physical geography ; and he contended that one or the other fixed the character of the whole American continent for freedom or for slavery. He never alluded to the Missouri Compromise, unless it was by the allusion to the Wilrnot Proviso in the Oregon Bill, and there he said it was a useless, and, in that connection, senseless thing. Why was it a useless and a senseless thing? Because it was re-enacting the law of God ; because slavery had already been pro- hibited by physical geography. Sir, that was the meaning of Mr. Webster’s speech. My distinguished friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Everett), when he reads the speech again, will be utterly amazed to see how lie fell into such an egregious error as to suppose that Mr. Webster bad so far fallen from Iris high position as to say that the Missouri Act of 1S20 was an irrepealable law. Me. Evekett. — W ill the gentleman give way for a moment? Me. Douglas. — With great pleasure. Mi;. Everett. — What I said on that subject was, that Mr. Webster, 12S THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF in my opinion, considered the Missouri Compromise as of the nature of a compact. It is true, as the senator from Illinois has just stated, that Mr. Webster made no allusion, in express terms, to the subject of the Missouri restriction. But I thought then, and I think now, that lie referred in general terms to that as a final settlement of the question, in the region to which it applied. It was not drawn in question then on cither side of the House. Nobody suggested that it was at stake. Nobody intimated that there was a question before the Senate whether' that restriction should be repealed or should remain in force. It was not distinctly, and in terms, alluded to, as the gentle- man correctly says, by Mr. Webster or anybody else. What he said in reference to Texas, applied to Texas alone. What he said in refer- ence to Utah and New Mexico, applied to them alone ; and what ho said with regard to Oregon, to that Territory alone. But he stated in general terms, and four or five times, in the speech of the 7th of March, 1S50, that there was not a foot of land in the United States or its Territories, the character of which, for freedom of slavery, was not fixed by some irrepealable law; and I did think then, and I think now, that by the “ irrepealable law,” as far as concerned the territory north of 36° 30' and included in the Louisiana purchase, Mr. W ebster had reference to the Missouri restriction, as regarded as of the nature of a compact. That restriction was copied from one of the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787, which are declared in that instrument itself to be articles of compact. The Missouri restriction is the article of the Ordinance of 1787 applied to the Louisiana purchase. That this is the correct interpretation of Mr. Webster’s language, is confirmed by the fact that he said more than once, and over again, that all the North lost by the arrangement of 1859, was the non-imposition of the Wilmot Proviso upon Utah and New Mexico. If, in addition to that, the North had lost the Missouri restriction over the whole of the Louisiana purchase, could he have used language of that kind, and would he not have attempted, in some way or other, to reconcile such a momentous fact with his repeated statements that the measures of 1850 applied only to the territories newly acquired from Mexico ? Me. Douglas. — Mr. President, I -will explain that matter very quickly. Mr. Webster’s speech was made on the 7th of March, 1850, and the Territorial bills and the Texas boundary bill were first re- ported to the Senate by myself on the 25th of the same month. Mr. Webster’s speech wa”s made upon Mr. Clay’s resolution, when there was no bill pending. Then the Omnibus Bill was formed about the 1st of May subsequently; and hence this explains the reason why Mr. Webster did not refer to the principle involved in these acts, and to the necessary effect of carrying out the principle. Me. Eveeett. — The expression of Mr. Webster, which I quoted in my remarks on the 8th of February, was from a speech of Mr. Soule’s amendment, offered, I think, in June. In addition to this, I have before me an extract from a still later speech of Mr. Webster, mado STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, 129 quite late in the session, on the 17th of July, 1850, in which he reit- erated that statement. In it he said : “ And now, sir, what do Massachusetts and the North, the anti-slavery States, lose by this adjustment? What is it they lose? I put that question to every gentleman here, and to every gentleman in the country. They lose the appli- cation of what is called the ' Wilniot Proviso’ to these Territories, and that is all. There is nothing else. I suppose, that the whole North are not ready to do. They wish to get California into the Union ; they wish to quiet New Mexico ; they desire to terminate the dispute about the Texan boundarj- in any reason- able manner, cost what it reasonably may. They make no sacrifice in all that. What they do sacrifice is exactly this : The application of the ‘ Wilmot Proviso’ to the Territory of New Mexico and the Territory of Utah, and that is all.” Could Air. Webster have used language like this if he had under- stood that, at the same time, the non-slaveholdiug States were losing the Missouri restriction, as applied to the whole vast territory in- cluded in the bills now before the Senate ? Me. Douglas. — Of course that was all, and if he regarded the Mis- souri prohibition in the same light that he did the Oregon prohibi- tion, it was a useless, and, in that connection, a senseless proviso ; and hence the North lost nothing by not having that same senseless, useless proviso applied to Utah and New Mexico. Now, to show the senator that he must be mistaken as to Mr. Webster’s authority, let me call his attention back to this passage in his 7th of March speech : “ Under one or otlier of these laws, every foot of territory in the States or Territories has now received a fixed and decided character.” What laws did he refer to when he spoke of “ one or other of these laws?” He had named but two, the Texas compact and the law of nature, of climate, and physical geography, which excluded slavery. He had mentioned none other ; and yet he says “ one or other” pro- hibited slavery in all the States or Territories — thus including Ne- braska, as well as Utah and New Mexico. Me. Everett.— That was not drawn in question at all. Me. Douglas. — Then if it was not drawn in question, the speech should not have been quoted in support of the Missouri Compromise. It is just what I complain of, that, if it was not thus drawn in ques- tion, that use ought not to have been made of it. Now, Mr. Presi- dent, it is well known that Mr. Webster supported the Compromise measures of 1850, and the principle involved in them, of leaving the people to do as they pleased upon this subject. I think, therefore, that I have shown that these gentlemen are not authorized to quote thllname either of Mr. Webster or Mr. Clay in support of the posi- tion which they take, that this bill violates the faith of compacts. Sir, it was because Mr. Webster went for giving the people in the Territories the right to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, and because he was in favor of carrying out the Constitution in re- gard to fugitive slaves, that he was not allowed to speak in Faneuil Hall. 6 * 130 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Mk. Everett. — That was not my fault. Me. Douglas. — I know it was not; but I say it was because ha took that position ; it was because he did not go for a prohibitory policy ; it was because he advocated the same principles which I now advocate, because he went for the same provisions in the Utah Bill which I now sustain in this bill, that Boston abolitionists turned their backs upon him, just as they burnt me in effigy. Sir, if identity of principle, if identity of support as friends, if identity of enemies fix Mr. Webster’s position, his authority is certainly with us, and not with the abolitionists. I have a right, therefore, to have the sympa- thies of his Boston friends with me, as I sympathized with him when the same principle was involved. Mr. President, I am sorry that I have taken up so much time ; but I must notice one or two points more. So much has been said about the Missouri Compromise Act, and about a faithful compliance with it by the North, that I must follow that matter a little further. The senator from Ohio (Mr. Wade) has referred, to-night, to the fact that I went for carrying out the Missouri Compromise in the Texas reso- lutions of 1845, and in 1848, on several occasions; and he actually proved that I never abandoned it until 1850. He need not have taken the pains to prove that fact ; for he got all his information on the subject from my opening speech upon this bill. I told you then that I was willing, as a northern man, in 1845, when the Texas ques- tion arose, to carry the Missouri Compromise line through that State, and in 1848 I offered it as an amendment to the Oregon Bill. Al- though I did not like the principle involved in that act, yet I was willing, for the sake of harmony, to extend to the Pacific, and abide by it in good faith, in order to avoid the slavery agitation. The Missouri Compromise was defeated then by the same class of politi- cians who are now combined in opposition to the Nebraska Bill. It was because we were unable to carry out that compromise, that a necessity existed for making a new one in 1850. And then we estab- lished this great principle of self-government which lies at the foun- dation of all our institutions. What does his charge amount to ? He charges it, as a matter of offence, that I struggled in 1845 and in 1848 to observe good faith; and he and his associates defeated my purpose, and deprived me of the ability to carry out what he now says is the plighted faith of the nation. Sir, as I have said, the South were willing to agree to the Missouri Compromise in 1848. When it was proposed by me to the Oregon Bill, as an amendment, to extend that line to the Pacific, the South' agreed to it. The Senate adopted that proposition, and the House voted it down. In 1850, after the Omnibus Bill had broken down, and wo proceeded to pass the Compromise measures separately, I proposed, when the Utah Bill was under discussion, to make a slight variation of the boundary of that Territory, so as to include the Mor- mon settlements, and not with reference to any other question ; and it was suggested that we should take the line of 30° 30'. That would STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 131 hare accomplished the local objects of the amendment very well. But when I proposed it, what did these freesoilers say ? What did the senator from blew Hampshire (Mr. Hale), who was then their leader in this body, say ? Here are his words : “ Mr. Hale. — I wisli. to say a word as a reason why I shall vote against the amendment. I shall vote against 36° 30', because I think there is an implica- tion in it. (Laughter.) I will vote for 37° or 36° either, just as it is conve- nient : but it is idle to shut our eyes to the fact that here is an attempt in this bill — I will not say it is the intention of the mover — to pledge this Senate and Congress to the imaginary line of 30° 30', because there are some historical recollections connected with it in regard to this controversy about slavery. I will content myself with saying that I never will, by vote or speech, admit or submit to anything that may bind the action of our legislation here to make the parallel of 30° 30' the boundary line between slave and free territory. And when I say that, I explain the reason why I go against the amendment.” These remarks of Mr. Hale were not made on a proposition to ex- tend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, but on a proposition to fix 36° 30' as the southern boundary line of Utah, for local rea- sons. He was against it because there might be, as he said, an impli- cation growing out of historical recollections in favor of the imaginary line between slavery and freedom. Does that look as if his object was to get an implication in favor of preserving sacred this line, in regard to which gentlemen now say there was a solemn compact ? That proposition may illustrate what I wish to say in this connection upon a point which has been made by the opponents of this bill, as to the effect of an amendment inserted on the motion of the senator from Virginia (Mr. Mason), into the Texas Boundary Bill. The oppo- nents of this measure rely upon that amendment to show that the Texas compact was preserved by the acts of 1850. I have already shown, in my former speech, that the object of the amendment was to guaranty to the State of Texas, with her circumscribed boundaries, the same number of States which she would have had under her larger boundaries, and with the same right to come in with or with- out slavery, as they please. We have been told over and over again that there was no such thing intimated in debate as that the country cut oft’ from Texas was to be relieved from the stipulation of that compromise. This has been asserted boldly and unconditionally, as if there could be no doubt about it. The senator from Georgia (Mr. Toombs), in his speech, showed that, in his address to his constituents of that State, he had proclaimed to the world that the object was to establish a principle which would allow the people to decide the question of slavery for themselves, north as well as south of 36° 30'. The line of 3fi° 30' was voted down as the boundary of Utah, so that there should not be even an implication in favor of an imaginary line to divide freedom and slavery. Subsequently, when the Texas Boun- dary Bill was under consideration, on the next day after the amend- ment of tho senator from Virginia had been adopted, the record says : 132 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 11 Mr. Sebastian moved to add to tlie second article the following : “ ‘ On the condition that the territory hereby ceded may be, at the proper time, formed into a State, and admitted into the Union, with a constitution with or without the prohibition of slavery therein, as the people of the said Territory may at the time determine.’ ” Then the senator from Arkansas did propose that the territory ent off should he relieved from that restriction in express terms, and allowed to come in according to the principles of this bill. What was done ? The debate continued : “Mb. Foote. — Will my friend allow me to appeal to him to move this amendment when the Territorial Bill for New Mexico shall be up for consider- ation ? It will certainly be a part of that bill, and I shall then vote for it with pleasure. Now it will only embarrass our action.” Let it be remarked, that no one denied the propriety of the provi- sion. All seemed to acquiesce in the principle ; but it was thought better to insert it in the Territorial bills, as we are now doing, instead of adding it to the Texas Boundary Bill. The debate proceeded : “ Mr. Sebastian. — My only object in offering the amendment is to secure the assertion of this principle beyond a doubt. The principle was acquiesced in without difficulty in regard to the Territorial government established for Utah, a part of this acquired territory, and it is proper, in my opinion, that it should be incorporated in this bill. “Messrs. Cass, Foote, and others. — Oh, withdraw it. “ Mr. Sebastian.- — I think this is the proper place for it. It is uncertain whether it will be incorporated in the other bill referred to, and the bill itself may not pass.” It will be seen that the debate goes upon the supposition that the effect was to release the country north of 3G° 30' from the obligation of the prohibition ; and the only question, was whether the declara- tion that it should be received into the Union “with or without slavery,” should be inserted in the Texas Bill or the Territorial Bill. The debate was continued, and I will read one or two oilier pas- sages : “Mr. Foote. — I wish to state to the senator a fact of which, I think, he is not observant at this moment ; and that is, that the senator from Virginia has introduced an amendment, which is now a part of the bill, which recognizes the Texas compact of annexation in every respect. “Mr. Sebastian.— I was aware of the effect of the amendment of the sena- tor from Virginia. It is in regard to the number of States to be formed out of Texas, and is referred to only in general terms.” Thus it will he seen that the senator from Arkansas then explained the amendment of the senator from Virginia, which iiad been adopted, in precisely the same way in which I explained it in my opening speech. The senator from Arkansas continued: “ If this amendment be the same as that offered by the senator from Vir- ginia, there can certainly be no harm in reaffirming it in this bill, to which 1 think it properly belongs.” STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 133 Tims it will be seen that nobody disputed that the restriction was to be removed; and the only question was, as to the bill in which that declaration would be put. It seems, from the record, that I took part in the debate, and said : “Me. Douglas. — This bouuflary as now fixed, would leave New Mexico hounded on the east by the 103° of longitude up to 36° 30', and then east to 100° ; and it leaves a narrow neck cf land between 36° 30' and the old bound- ary of Texas, that would not naturally and properly go to New Mexico when it should become a State. This amendment would compel us to include it in New Mexico, or to form it into another State. When the principle shall come up in the bill for the organization of a Territorial government for New Mexico, no doubt the same vote which inserted it in the Omnibus Bill, and the Utah Bill, will insert it there. “ Several senators. — No doubt of it.” Upon that debate the amendment of the senator from Arkansas was voted down, because it was avowed and distinctly understood that the amendment of the senator from Virginia, taken in connection with the remainder of the bill, did release the country ceded by Texas north of 36° 30' from the restriction; and it was agreed that if we did not put it into the Texas Boundary Bill it should go into the Territorial Bill. I stated, as a reason why it should not go into the Texas Boundary Bill, that if it did it would be a compact, and would compel us to put the whole ceded country into one State, when it might be more convenient and natural to make a different boundary. I pledged myself then that it should be put into the Territorial Bill; and when we considered the Territorial bill for New Mexico, we put in the same clause, so far as the country ceded by Texas was embraced within that Territory, and it passed in that shape. When it went into the house, they united the two bills together, and thus this clause passed in the same bill, as the senator from Arkansas desired. Now, sir, have I not shown conclusively that it was the under- standing in that debate that the effect was to release the country north of 36° 30', which formerly belonged to Texas, from the opera- tion of that restriction, and to provide that it should come into the Union with or without slavery, as its people should see proper ? That being the case ; I ask the senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase) if he ought not to have been cautious when he charged over and over again that there was not a word or a syllable uttered in debate to that effect? Should he not have been cautious when he said that it was a mere after-thought on my part? Should he not have been cautious when he said that I never even dreamed of it up to the 4th of January of this year? Whereas the record shows that I made a speech to that effect during the pendency of the bills of 1850. The same statement was repeated by nearly every senator who followed him in, debate in opposition to tins bill ; and it is now being circulated over the country, published in every abolition paper, and read on every stump by every abolition orator in order to get up a prejudice 13-1 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF against me and the measure I have introduced. Those gentlemen .should not have dared to utter the statement without knowing whether it was correct or not. These records are troublesome things sometimes. It is not proper for a man to charge another with a mere after-thought because he did not know that he had advocated the same principles before. Because he did not know it lie should not take it for granted that nobody else did. Let me tell the senators that it is a very unsafe rule for them to rely upon. They ought to have had sufficient respect for a brother senator to have believed, when he came forward with an important proposition, that he had investigated it. They ought to have had sufficient respect for a committee of this body to have assumed that they meant what they said. "When I see such a system of misinterpretation and misrepresenta- tion of views, of laws, of records, of debates, all tending to mislead the public, to excite prejudice, and to propagate error, have I not a right to expose it in very plain terms, without beiug arraigned for violating the courtesies of the Senate ? Mr. President, frequent reference has been made in debate to the admission of Arkansas as a slaveholding State, as furnishing evidence that the abolitionists and freesoilers, who have recently become so much enamored with the Missouri Compromise, have always been faithful to its stipulations and implications. I will show that the reference is unfortunate for them. When Arkansas applied foi admission in 1836, objection was made in consequence of the provi- sions of her constitution in respect to slavery. When the abolition- ists and freesoilers of that day were arraigned for making that objection, upon the ground that Arkansas was south of 36° 30', they replied that the act of 1820 was never a compromise, much less a compact, imposing any obligation upon the successors of those who piassed the act to pay any more respect to its provisions than to any other enactment of ordinary legislation. I have the debates before me, but will occupy the attention of the Senate only to read one or two paragraphs. Mr. Hand of New York, in opposition to the admission of Arkansas as a slaveholding State, said : “I am aware, it will be, as it lias already been contended, that by the Missouri Compromise, as it has been preposterously termed, Congress has parted with its right to prohibit the introduction of slavery into the territory south of 36° 30' north latitude.” He acknowledged that by the Missouri Compromise, as he said it was preposterously termed, the North was estopped from denying the right to hold slaves south of that line; but, he added: “ There are, to my mind, insuperable objections to the soundness of that proposition.” Here they are : “ In the first place, there was no compromise or compact whereby Congress surrendered any power, or yielded any jurisdiction ; and, in the second place, STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 133 if it had done so. it was a mere legislative act, that could not hind their suc- cessors ; it would be subject to a repeal at the will of any succeeding Congress.” I give these passages as specimens of the various speeches made in opposition to the admission of Arkansas by the same class of politi- cians who now oppose the Nebraska Bill upon the ground that it violates a solemn compact. So much for the speeches. Now for the vote. The journal which I hold in my hand, shows that forty- nine northern votes were recorded against the admission of Arkansas. Yet, sirs, in utter disregard — and charity leads me to hope, in pro- found ignorance — of all these facts, gentlemen are boasting that the North always observed the contract, never denied its validity, never wished to violate it ; and they have even referred to the cases of the admission of Missouri and Arkansas as instances of their good faith. Now, is it possible that gentlemen could suppose these things could be said and distributed in -their speeches without exposure? Did they presume that, inasmuch as their lives were devoted to slavery agitation, whatever they did not know about the history of that question did not exist ? I am willing to believe, I hope it may be the fact, that they were profoundly ignorant of all these records, all these debates, all these facts, which overthrow every position they have assumed. I wish the senator from Maine (Mr. Fessenden), who delivered his maiden speech here to-night, and who made many sly stabs at me, had informed himself upon the subject before he re- peated all these groundless assertions. I can excuse him for the reason that he has been here but a few days, and having enlisted under the banner of the abolition confederates, was unwise and sim- ple enough to believe that what they had published could be relied upon as stubborn facts. He may be an innocent victim. I hope ho can have the excuse of not having investigated the subject. I am willing to excuse him on the ground that he did not know what he was talking about, and it is the only excuse which I can make for him. I will say, however, that I do not think he was required by his loyalty to the abolitionists to repeat every disreputable insinua- tion which they made. Why did he throw into his speech that foul innuendo about “ a northern man with southern principles,” and then quote the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) as his authority ? Ay, sir, I say that foul insinuation. Did not the senator from Mas- sachusetts, who first dragged it into this debate, wish to have the public understand that I was known as a northern man with southern principles? Was not that the allusion? If it was, he availed himself of a cant phrase in the public mind, in violation of the truth of his- tory. I know of but one man in this country who ever made it a boast that he was “ a northern man with southern principles,” and he (turning to Mr. Sumner) was your candidate for the Presidency in 1848. (Applause in the galleries.). The Presiding Officer (Me. Mason). — Order, order. Me. Douglas. — If his sarcasm was intended for Martin Van Buren, 136 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF it involves a family quarrel, with, which I have no disposition to interfere. I will only add that I have been able to discover nothing in the present position or recent history of that distinguished states- man, which would lead me to covet the sobriquet by which he is known — “a northern man with southern principles.” Mr. President, the senators from Ohio and Massachusetts (Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner), have taken the liberty to impeach my motives in bringing forward this measure. I desire to know by what right they arraign me, or by what authority they impute to me other and dif- ferent motives than those which I have assigned. I have shown from the record that I advocated and voted for the same principles and provisions in the compromise acts of 1850, which are embraced in this bill. I have proven that I put the same construction upon those measures immediately after tlielr adoption that is given in the report which I submitted this session from the Committee on Territories. I have shown the legislature of Illinois at its first session, after those measures were enacted, passed resolutions approving them, and de- claring that the same great principles of self-government should be incorporated into all Territorial organizations. Yet, sir, in the face of these facts, these senators have the hardihood to declare that this was all an “ afterthought” on my part, conceived for the first time dur- ing the present session ; and that the measure is offered as a bid for Presidential votes ! Are they incapable of conceiving that an honest man can do a right tiling from worthy motives? I must be permitted to tell those senators that their experience in seeking political prefer- ment does not furnish a safe rule by which to judge the character and principles of other senators ! I must be permitted to tell the senator from Ohio that I did not obtain my seat in this body, either by a corrupt bargain or a dis- honorable coalition ! I must be permitted to remind the senator from Massachusetts that I did not enter into any combinations or arrangements by which my character, my principles, and my honor, were set up at public auction or private sale in order to procure a seat in the Senate of the United States ! I did not come into the Senate by any such means. Me. Weller. — But there are some men whom I know that did. Me. Chase (to Mr. Weller.) Do you say that I came here by a bargain ! Whoever says that I came here by a corrupt bargain states what is false. Mr. Douglas.- — It will not do for the senator from Ohio to return offensive expressions after what I have said and proven. Nor can I permit him to change the issue, and thereby divert public attention from the enormity of his offence, in charging me with unworthy motives ; while performing a high public duty, in obedience to the expressed wish and known principles of my State. I choose to maintain my own position, and leave the public to ascertain, if they do not understand how and by what means he was elected to the Senate, STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 137 Me. Chase. — If the senator will allow me, I will say, in reply to the remarks which the senator has just made, that I did not under- stand him as calling upon me for any explanation of the statement which he said was made in regard to a Presidential bid. The exact statement in the address was this — it was a question addressed to the people: “ "Would they allow their dearest rights to he made the hazards of a Presidential game?” That was the exact expression. Now, sir, it is well known that all these great measures in the country are influenced, more or less, hy reference to the great public canvasses which are going on from time to time. I certainly did not intend to impute to the senator from Illinois — and I desire always to do justice — in that any improper motive. I do not think it is an unworthy ambition to desire to he a President of the United States. I do not think that the bringing forward of a measure with refer- ence to that object would he an improper thing, if the measure be proper in itself. I difi'er from the senator in my judgment of the measure. I do not think the measure is a right one. In that I express the judgment which I honestly entertain. I do not condemn his judgment, 1 do not make, and I do not desire to make, any perso- nal imputations upon him in reference to a great public question. Me. Douglas. — I wish to examine the explanation of the senator from Ohio, and see whether I ought to accept it as satisfactory. He has quoted the language of the address. It is undeniable that that language clearly imputed to me the design of bringing forward this bill with a view of securing my own election to the Presidency. Then, hy way of excusing himself for imputing to me such a pur- pose, the senator says that he does not consider it “ an unworthy ambition and hence he says that, in making the charge, he does not impugn my motives. I must remind him that, in addition to that insinuation, he only said, in the same address, that my bill was a “criminal betrayal of precious rights;” he only said it was “an atrocious plot against freedom and humanity;” he only said that it was “meditated bad faith;” he only spoke significantly of “servile demagogues;” he only called upon the preachers of the Gospel and the people at their public meetings to denounce and resist such a monstrous iniquity. In saying all this, and much of the same sort, he now assures me in the presence of the Senate, that he did not mean the charge to imply an “unworthy ambition ;” that it was not intended as a “ personal imputation ” upon my motives or character ; and that lie meant “no personal disrepect” to me as the author of the measure. In reply, I will content myself with the remark, that there is a very wide difference of opinion between the senator from Ohio and myself in respect to the meaning of words, and especially in regard to the line of conduct which, in a public man, does not constitute an unworthy ambition. Me. Suhxee. — Will the senator from Illinois yield the floor to me for a moment? Me. Douglas. — As I presume it is on the same point. I will hear the testimony. 133 T n E LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Mi?. Sumner. — Mr. President, I shrink always instinctively from any effort to repel a personal assault. I do not recognize the juris- diction of this body to try my election to the Senate ; but I do state, in reply to the senator from Illinois, that if he means to suggest that I came into the body by any waiver of principles; by any abandon- ment of my principles of any kind ; by any effort or activity of my own, in any degree, he states that which cannot be sustained by the facts. I never sought, in any way, the office which I now hold ; nor was I a party, in any way, directly or indirectly, to those efforts which placed me here. Mr. Douglas. — Sir, the senator from Massachusetts comes up with a A ery bold front, and denies the right of any man to put him on defence for the manner of his election. He says it is contrary to bis principles to engage in personal assaults. If he expects to avail him- self of the benefit of such a plea, he should act in accordance with his professed principles, and refrain from assaulting the character and impugning the motives of better men than himself. Everybody knows that he came here by a coalition or combination between political parties holding opposite and hostile opinions. But it is not my purpose to go into the morality of the matters involved in his election. The public know the history of that notorious coalition, and have formed its judgment upon it. It will not do for the senator to say that he was not a party to it, for he thereby betrays a con- sciousness of the immorality of the transaction, without acquitting himself of the responsibilities which justly attach to him. As well might the receiver of stolen goods deny any responsibility for the larceny, while luxuriating in the proceeds of the crime, as the sena- tor to avoid the consequences resulting from the mode of his election, while he clings to the office. I must be permitted to remind him of what he certainly can never forget, that when he arrived here to take his seat for the first time, so firmly were senators impressed with the conviction that he had been elected by dishonorable and corrupt means, there were very few who, for a long time, could deem it consistent with personal honor to hold private intercourse with him. So general was that impression, that for a long time he was avoided and shunned as a person unw'orthy of the association of gentlemen. Gradually, liowe re r, these injurious impressions were worn away by his bland manners and amiable deportment ; and I regret that the senator should now, by a violation of all the rules of courtesy and propriety, compel me to refresh his mind upon these un- welcome reminiscences. Me. Chase.— If the senator refers to me, he is stating a fact of which I have no knowledge at all. I came here — — ■ Mr. Douglas. — I was not speaking of the senator from Ohio, but of his confederate in slander, the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner). 1 have a word now to say to the other senator from Ohio (Mr. Wade). On the day when 1 exposed this abolition address, so full of slanders and calumnies, he arose and stated that, although his name was signed to it, he had never read it; and so willing was he STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 139 indorse an abolition document, that he signed it in blank, witli- t knowing what it contained. The senator from New York (Mr. Seward), when I was about to 1 him to account for this slanderous production, promptly denied it he ever signed the document. Now, I say, it has been circu- ed with his name attached to it ; then I want to know of the lators who sent out the document, who forged the name of the lator from New York? Mb. Chase. — I am glad that the senator has asked that question, lave only to say in reference to that matter, that I have not the ightest knowledge in regard to the manner in which various names we appended to that document. It was prepared to be signed, and is signed, by the gentlemen here who are known as Independent ■mocrats, and how any other names came to be added to it is more rhan I can tell. Mb. Douglas. — It is not a satisfactory answer, for those who con- -s to the preparation and publication of a document filled with suit and calumny, with forged names attached to it for the purpose imparting to it respectability, to interpose a technical denial that ey committed the crime. Somebody did forge other people’s ones to that document. The senators from Ohio and Massachusetts r. Chase and Mr. Sumner), plead guilty to the authorship and pub- cation; upon them rests the responsibility of showing who coin- itted the forgery. Mr. President, I have done with these personal matters. I regret, e necessity which compelled me to devote so much time to them. All I have done and said has been in the way of self-defence, as tho S.-nate can bear me witness. Mr. President, I have also occupied a good deal of time in exposing e cant of these gentlemen about the sanctity of the Missouri Com- "omise, and the dishonor attached to the violation of plighted faith, have exposed these matters in order to show that^the object of ,.ese men is to withdraw from public attention th^-yeal principle volved in the bill. They well know that the abrogation of tho tissoun Compromise is the incident and not the principal of the bill. . hey well understand that the report of the committee and the bill ropose to establish the principle in all Territorial organizations, that e question of slavery shall be referred to the people to regulate for iemselves, and that such legislation should be had as was necessary • remove all legal obstructions to the free exercise of this right by ihe people. The eighth section of the Missouri Act standing in the way of this great principle must be rendered inoperative and void whether ex- ressly repealed or not, in order to give the people the power of regu- ting their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only ; j the Constitution. Now, sir, if these gentlemen have entire confidence in the correct- ness of their own position, why do they not meet the issue boldly 140 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF and fairly, and controvert the soundness of this great principle of popular sovereignty in obedience to the Constitution? They know full well that this was the principle upon which the colonies separa- ted from the crown of Great Britain, the principle upon -which the battles of the Bevolution were fought, and the principle upon which our republican system was founded. They cannot be ignorant of the fact that the Bevolution grew out of the assertion of the right on the part of the imperial government to interfere with the internal affairs and domestic concerns of the colonies. In this connection I will invite attention to a few extracts from the instructions of the differ- ent colonies to their delegates in the Continental Congress, with a view of forming such a union as would enable them to make success- ful resistance to the efforts of the crown to destroy the fundamental principle of all free government by interfering with the domestic affairs of the colonies. I will begin with Pennsylvania, whose devotion to the principles of human liberty, and the obligations of the Constitution, has acquired for her the proud title of the Key-stone in the arch of republican States. In her instructions is contained the following reservation : “ Reserving to tlie people of this colony the sole and exclusive right of regu- lating the internal government and police of the same.” And, in a subsequent instruction, in reference to suppressing the British authority in the colonies, Pennsylvania uses the following emphatic language : “Unanimously declare our willingness to concur in a vote of the Congress declaring the United Colonies free and independent States, provided the form- ing the government and the regulation of the internal police of this colony be always reserved to the people of the said colony.” Connecticut, in authorizing her delegates to vote for the Declara- tion of Independence, attached to it the following condition: “ Saving that the administration of government, and the power of forming governments for, and the regulation of the internal concerns and police of each colony, ought to be left and remain to the respective colonial legisla- tures.” New Hampshire annexed this proviso to her instructions to her delegates to vote for independence : “ Provided the regulation of our internal police be under the direction of our own assembly.” New Jersey imposed the following condition: “ Always observing that, whatever plan of confederacy you enter into, the regulating the internal police of this province is to be reserved to the Golonial legislature.” STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 141 Maryland gave lier consent to the Declaration of Independence upon the condition contained in this proviso : “ And that said colony will hold itself bound by the resolutions of a majority of the United Colonies in the premises, provided the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police of that colony be reserved to tne people thereof.” Virginia annexed the following condition to her instructions to vote for the Declaration of Independence : “ Provided that the power of forming government for, and the regulations of the internal concerns of the colony, be left to respective colonial legisla- tures.” I will not weary the Senate in multiplying evidence upon this point. It is apparent that the Declaration of Independence had its origin in the violation of that great fundamental principle which secured to the people of the colonies the right to regulate their own domestic affairs in their own way : and that the Revolution resulted in the triumph of that principle, aud the recognition of the right as- ' serted by it. Abolitionism proposes to destroy the right, and extin- guish the principle for which our forefathers waged a seven years’ bloody war, and upon which our whole system of free government _js founded. They not only deny the application of this principle to the Territories, but insist upon fastening the prohibition upon all the States to be formed out of those Territories. Therefore, the doctrine of the abolitionists — the doctrine of the opponents of the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, and of the advocates of the Missouri restriction — demand Congressional interference with slavery, not only in the Ter- ritories, but in all the new States to be formed therefrom. It is the same doctrine when applied to the Territories and new States of this Union, w T hich the British government attempted to enforce by the sword upon the American colonies. It is this fundamental principle of self-government which constitutes the distinguishing feature of the Nebraska Bill. The opponents of the principle are consistent in opposing the bill. I do not blame them for their opposition. I only ask them to meet the issue fairly and openly, by acknowledging that they are opposed to the principle which it is the object of the bill to carry into operation. It seems that there is no power on earth, no intellectual power, no mechanical power that can bring them to a fan- discussion of the true issue. If they hope to delude the people, and escape detection for any considerable length of time under the catch-word ‘-Missouri Compromise,” and “faith of compacts,” they will find that the people of this country have more penetration and intelligence than they have given them credit for. Mr. President, there is an important fact connected with this sla- very resolution, which should never be lost sight of. It has always arisen from one and the same cause. Whenever that cause has been 142 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF removed, the agitation has ceased ; and whenever the cause has been renewed, the agitation lias sprung into existence. That cause is, and ever has been, the attempt on the part of Congress to interfere with the question of slavery in the Territories and new States formed therefrom. Is it not wise, then, to confine our action within the sphere of our legitimate duties, and leave this vexed question so take care of itself in each State and Territory, according to the wishes of the people thereof, in conformity to the forms and in subjection to the provisions of the Constitution ? The opponents of the bill tell us that agitation is no part of their policy, that their great desire is peace and harmony ; and they com- plain bitterly that I should have disturbed the repose of the country by the introduction of this measure. Let me ask these professed friends of peace and avowed enemies of agitation, how the issue could have been avoided ? They tell me that I should have let the question alone — that is, that I should have left Nebraska unorganized, the people unprotected, and the Indian barrier in existence, until the swelling tide of emigration should burst through, and accomplish by violence what it is the part of wisdom and statesmanship to direct and regulate by law. How long could you have postponed action with safety? llow long could you maintain that Indian barrier, and restrain the onward march of civilization. Christianity, and free government by a barbarian wall ? Do you suppose that you could keep that vast country a howling wilderness in all time to come, roamed over by hostile savages, cutting oft’ all safe communication between our Atlantic and Pacific possessions? I tell you that the time for action has come, and cannot be postponed. It is a case in which the “let-alone” policy would precipitate a crisis which must inevitably result in violence, anarchy, and strife. You cannot fix bounds to the onward march of this great and growing country. You cannot fetter the limbs of the young giant. He will burst all your chains. He will expand, and grow, and in- crease, and extend civilization, Christianity, and liberal principles. Then, sir, if you cannot check the growth of the country in that direction, is it not the part of wisdom to look the danger in the face, and provide for an event which ydu cannot avoid? I tell you, sir, you must provide for continuous lines of settlement from the Missis- sippi Valley to the Pacific Ocean. And in making this provision, you must decide upon what principles the Territories shall be or- ganized; in other words, whether the people shall be allowed to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, according to the provisions of this bill, or whether the opposite doctrine of Con- gressional interference is to prevail. Postpone ’t, if you will ; but whenever you do act, this question must be met and decided. The Missouri Compromise was interference ; the Compromise of 1850 was non-interference, leaving the people to exercise their rights under the Constitution. The Committee on Territories were com- pelled to act on this subject. I, as their chairman, was bound to STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 143 meet tee question. I chose to take the responsibility, regardless of consequence personal to myself. I should have done the same thing last year, if there had been time : hut we know, considering the late period at which the bill then reached us from the House, that there ■was not sufficient time to consider the question fully, and to prepare a report upon the subject. I was therefore persuaded by friends to allow the hill to be reported to the Senate, in order that such action might be taken as should be deemed wise and proper. The bill was never taken up for action, the last night of the ses- sion having been exhausted in debate on the motion to take up the bill. This session, the measure was introduced by my Mend from Iowa (Mr. Dodge) and referred to the Territorial Committee during the first week of the session. We have abundance of time to con- sider the subject ; it was a matter of pressing necessity, and there was no excuse for not meeting it directly and fairly. We were com- pelled to take our position upon the doctrine either of intervention or non-intervention. We chose the latter, for two reasons ; first, because we believed that the principle was right ; and, second, be- cause it was the principle adopted in 1850, to which the two great political parties of the country were solemnly pledged. There is another reason why I desire to see this principle recog- nized as a rule of action in all time to come. It will have the effect to destroy all sectional parties and sectional agitations. If, in the language of the report of the committee, you withdraw the slavery question from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and com- mit it to the arbitrament of those who are immediately interested in and alone responsible for its consequences, there is nothing left out of which sectional parties can be organized. It never was done, an£ never can be done on the bank, tariff, distribution, or any other par ty issue which has existed, or may exist, after this slavery question is withdrawn from politics. On every other political question these have always supporters and opponents in every portion of the Union — in each State, county, village, and neighborhood — residing togeth- er in harmony and good-fellowship, and combating each other’s opin- ions and correcting each other’s errors in a spirit of kindness and friendship. These differences of opinion between neighbors and friends, and the discussions that grow out of them, and the sympa- thy which each feels with the advocates of his own opinions in eve- ry other portion of this wide-spread republic, adds an overwhelming and irresistible moral weight to the strength of the confederacy. Affection for the Union can never be alienated or diminished by any other party issues than those which are joined upon sectional or geographical lines. 'When the people of the North shall all be rallied under one banner, and the whole South marshalled under an- other banner, and each section excited to frenzy and madness by hostility to the institutions of the other, then the patriot may well tremble for the perpetuity of the Union. Withdraw the slavery question from the political arena, and remove it to the States and 144 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Territories, each to decide for itself, such a catastrophe can never happen. Then you will never be able to tell, by any senator’s vote for or against any measure, from what State or section of the Unian he comes. "Why, then, can we not withdraw this vexed question from poli- tics? Why can we not adopt the principle of this bill as a rule of action in all new Territorial organizations ? Why can we not deprive these agitators of their vocation, and render it impossible for sena- tors to come here upon bargains on the slavery question? I believe that the peace, the harmony, and perpetuity of the Union require us to go back to the doctrines of the Revolution, to the principles of the Constitution — the Compromise of 1850, and leave the people, under the Constitution, to do as they may see proper in respect to their own internal affairs. Mr. President, I have not brought this question forward as a nor- thern man or as a southern man. I am unwilling to recognize such divisions and distinctions. I have brought it forward as an Ameri- can senator, representing a State which is true to this principle, and which has approved of my action in respect to the Nebraska Bill, f have brought it forward not as an act of justice to the South more than to the North. I have presented it especially as an act of justice to the people of those Territories, and of the States to be formed therefrom, now and in all time to come. I have nothing to say about northern rights or southern rights. I know of no such divisions or distinctions, under the Constitution. The bill does equal and exact justice to the whole Union, and every part of it ; it violates the rights of no State or Territory, but places each on a perfect equality, and leaves the people thereof to the free enjoyment of all their rights under the Constitution. Now, sir, I wish to say to our southern friends, that if they desire to see this great principle carried out, now is their time to rally around it, to cherish it, preserve it, make it the rule of action in all future time. If they fail to do it now, and thereby allow the doctrine of interference to prevail, upon their heads the consequence of that in- terference must rest. To our northern friends, on the other hand, I desire to say, that from this day henceforward, they must rebuke the slander which has been uttered against the South, that they desire to legislate slavery into the Territories. The South has vindicated her sincerity, her honor on that point, by bringing forward a provision, negativing, in express terms, any such effect as the result of this hill. I am rejoiced to know that, while the proposition to abrogate the eighth section of the Missouri Act comes from a free State, the pro- position to negative the conclusion that slavery is thereby introduced comes from a slaveholding State. Thus, both sides furnish conclu- sive evidence that they go for the principle, and the principle only, and desire to take no advantage of any possible misconstruction. Mr. President, I feel that I owe an apology to the Senate for hav- ing occupied their attention so long, and a still greater apology for STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 145 having discussed the question in such an incoherent and desultory manner. But I could not forbear to claim the right of closing this debate. I thought gentlemen tvould recognize its propriety when they saw the manner in which I was assailed and misrepresented in the course of this discussion, and especially by assaults still more disreputable, in some portions of the country. These assaults have had no other effect upon me than to give me courage and energy for a still more resolute discharge of duty. I say frankly that, in my opinion, this measure will be as popular at the North as at the South, when its provisions and principles shall have been fully developed and become well understood. The people at the North are attached to the principles of self-government ; and you cannot convince them that that is self-government which deprives a people of the right of legislating for themselves, and compels them to receive laws which are forced upon them by a legislature in which they are not repre- sented. "We are willing to stand upon this great principle of self- government everywhere; and it is to us a px - oud reflection that, in this whole discussion, no friend of the bill has urged an argument in its favor which could not be used with the same propriety in a free State as in a slave State, and vice versa. But no enemy of the bill has used an argument which would bear repetition one mile across Mason and Dixon’s line. Our opponents have dealt entirely in sec- tional appeals. The friends of the bill have discussed a great prin- ciple of universal application, which can be sustained by the same reasons, and the same arguments, in every time and in every corner of the Union. I 146 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ON BRITISH AGGRESSION. On the 7th of June, 1S5S, the subject of British Aggres- sion being under consideration, Mr. Douglas said : I agree, Mr. President, with most that has been said by my friend from Georgia (Mr. Toombs), and especially that we ought to deter- mine what we are to do in reference to the outrages upon our flag in the Gulf of Mexico and the West Indies before we decide the amount of money we shall vote for war purposes. If wo are going to con- tent ourselves with simple resolutions that we will not submit to that which we have resolved for half a century should never be repeated, I see no use in additional appropriations for navy or for army ; if we are going to be contented with loud-sounding speeches, with defiance to the British lion, witli resolutions of the Senate alone, not con- curred in by the other house, conferring no power on the Executive, merely capital for the country, giving no power to the Executive to avenge insults or prevent their repetition, what is the use of voting money ? I find that patriotic gentlemen are ready to talk loud, re- solve strong; but are they willing to appropriate the money — are they willing to confer on the Executive power to repel these insults, and to avenge them whenever they may be perpetrated ? Let us know whether we are to submit and protest, or whether we are to authorize the President to resist and to prevent the repetition of these offences. If senators are prepared to vote for a law reviving the act of 1839, putting the army, the navy, volunteers, and money at the disposal of the President to prevent the repetition of these acts, and to punish them if repeated, then I am ready to give the ships and the money; but I desire to know whether we are to sub- mit to these insults with a simple protest, or whether we are to re- pel them. Gentlemen ask us to vote ships and money, and they talk to us about the necessity of a ship in China, and about outrages in Tam- pico, and disturbances in South America, and Indian difficulties in Puget Sound. Every enemy that can be found on the face of the earth is defied, except the one that defies us. Bring in a proposi- tion here to invest the President with power to repel British aggres- sion on American ships, and what is the response? High-sounding resolutions, declaring in effect, if not in terms, that whereas Great Britain has perpetrated outrages on our flag and our shipping, which are intolerable and insufferable, and must not be repeated ; therefore, if she does so again, we will whip Mexico, or we will pounce down upon Nicaragua, or we will get up a fight with Costa Rica, or we will chastiso New Granada, or we will punish the Chinese, or we STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 147 will repel the Indians from Puget Sound (laughter) ; but not a word about Great Britain ! Vi hat I desire to know, is whether we are to meet this issue with Great Britain ? I am told we shall do it when we are prepared. Sir, when will you be prepared to repel an insult, unless when it is given ? England has her ships of war, of various sizes, searching our ves- sels, firing across their bows, firing into their rigging, subject- ing them to search, not only in the Gulf of Mexico, but in the Carib- bean sea and upon the Atlantic. It is not confined to one captain, or one vessel, or one locality, but the outrages are committed by various ships, by the Styx, on the coast of Cuba; by the Forward, five hundred miles east of there ; by the Buzzard, a thousand miles from Cuba. Every arrival at our ports brings us information of the repetition of these offences, clearly demonstrating the fact that they are not accidental. They are not confined to one locality. They are not the acts of one ship or of one officer. They are the result of orders from Great Britain to execute this system of outrages on the American flag and American commerce. Are we to submit to it ? If so, let us not say another word about it, pass no resolutions, make no speeches, vote no extra appropriations that we would not vote if these things had not occurred. If, on the contrary, we are not going to submit to them, why not act as we did on the northeastern boundary question in 1839 ? When the news arrived here on the 2d of March, 1839, that an American citizen had been taken prisoner on the dis- puted boundary of Maine, showing a disposition on the part of Great Britain to insist on her claim to the exclusive possession of that country, instantly the Senate, by a unanimous vote, passed a bill authorizing the President to repel any attempt on the part of Great Britain to enforce that claim, and, for that purpose, putting at hi3 disposal the army, the navy, the militia, fifty thousand volunteers, and ten millions of money, to enable him to execute the will of the nation in that respect. How, sir, why not revive that act, striking out the disputed boun- dary and inserting “ her claims to the right of visitation and search,” and then every provision of that bill would be applicable to the pre- sent case. My friend from Missouri (Mr. Green) calls my attention to the vote of' the House of Representatives on that occasion. If stood 197 in the affirmative, and 6 in the negative. The vote in tlio Senate was forty-one in the affirmative, none in the negative. Your Clays, your Calhouns, your Websters, the great men of former times, were here then ; men differing in politics in times of high party strife, at a period when Mr. Tan Buren was President, and Clay, Webster, and Calhoun led the opposition. Still, the moment this outrage was perpetrated by Great Britain upon our rights, all party dissensions were hushed ; the opposition and the administration stood as one man when the honor of the nation was assaulted. They did not hesitate to confer upon Mr. Y an Buren the power to resist the outrages committed by Great Britain, in case they should bo persevered in. 148 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Why not now revive the same law which was then passed by a unanimous vote in the Senate, and with only six dissenting voices in the other house, and confer upon President Buchanan the same power and authority which was then conferred upon President Van Buren on the motion of Mr. Senator Buchanan? Do that, and then I am prepared to vote the ships, the money, the men, anything, everything, necessary to indicate our firm resolve. Yes, sir, I will go further, I will vote the ships and the money even now, trusting that Congress, before it adjourns, will arm the President with the necessary power and authority to prevent a repetition of these aggres- sions. I am, however, extremely unwilling to bury up the outrages of Great Britain under all the talk and noise that is made about the inj uries perpetrated by the South American republics. I know that in South America outrages have been perpetrated on our commerce, on our citizens and their property, which ought to have been punished on the spot. I know they are continuing, and will continue, from day to day, and year to year, until you clothe the Executive with the authority to punish them as promptly as the British government punish similar outrages on their commerce and their rights; but these things have been going on in South America for years. They are weak, feeble, unstable powers, entitled to our sympathy and our contempt mingled together. While I would clothe the Executive with power to punish them, I would only do it after I had avenged the insults perpetrated by Great Britain, or I would in the same act authorize the President to avenge them. Sir, I tremble for the fame of America, for her honor, and for her character, when we shall be silent in regard to British outrages ; and avenge oufselves by punishing the weaker powers instead of grap- pling with the stronger. I never did fancy that policy, nor admire that chivalry which induced a man, when insulted by a strong man of his own size, to say that he would whip the first boy he found in the street, in order to vindicate his honor ; or, as is suggested by a gentleman behind me, that he would go home and whip his wife (laughter), in order to show his courage, inasmuch as he was afraid to tackle the full grown man who had committed the aggression. Sir, these outrages cannot be concealed, they cannot have the go- by; we must meet them face to face. Plow is the time when England must give up her claim to search American vessels, or we must be silent in our protests and resolutions and valorous speeches against that claim. It will not do to raise a navy for the Chinese seas, nor for Puget Sound, nor for Mexico, nor for the South Ameri- can republics. It may be used for those purposes, but England must first be dealt with. Sir, we shall be looked upon as showing the white feather, if we strike a blow at any feeble power, until these English aggressions and insults are first punished, and security is obtained that they are not to be repeated. I shall vote for the amendment offered by my friend from Florida, under the authority of Committee on Naval Affairs, providing for ten sloops-of-war. I shall also vote for the proposition of my friend STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 149 from North Carolina for the ten gun-boats. I wish he had increased the number to fifty, because I understand they can be constructed for about $100,000 apiece, and $5,000,000 would give you fifty gun- boats, vessels of a character more serviceable for coast defence than any other vessels you could have. They could enter every harbor, every creek, every bay, every nook where it is necessary to afford protection, and each one of them singly would be strong enough in time of war to capture an enemy’s merchant vessel, and bring it into port or sink it, as easily as a seventy-four, or the largest class of ships of war. I would increase the number of gun-boats to fifty — I would give the sloops asked for by the committee, but I would never permit this Congress to adjourn, after all the resolutions we have had reported and all the brave speeches we have made, until we give the President power, and thereby make it his duty, to repel in future every repetition of these British outrages on our flag ; and to use the army, the navy, the militia, and the treasury, to any extent which may be necessary for that purpose. 1 concur entirely with the senator from Virginia in the reasons he has given for the necessity of applying the provisions of the bill which he has reported from the Committee on Foreign Relations, as a substitute for one I introduced, to Mexico, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and New Granada ; but I do not perceive the necessity of limiting the application to those countries, and not extending it beyond them. If his objection be true that my proposition was to confer a war- making power upon the President, then, by applying the whole power of these provisions to Mexico, and the other three countries, he confers a war-making power to that extent. I suppose, if it is no violation of principle to give the President a war-making power as applied to one country, it is no more so to give it to him generally. The objection I had to his provision was this : I had introduced a bill to authorize the President, in cases of flagrant violations of the law of nations, under circumstances admitting of no delay, to repel and punish the aggression. The senator from Virginia takes the provisions of that bill and indorses them as to four feeble, crippled powers, and omits the very country that is now committing outrages upon our flag and our shipping. I had introduced a bill, general in its provisions, applicable to England, France, Spain, Mexico, Central America, South America — everywhere where there were flagrant violation upon our flag, under circumstances admitting of no delay. It does not follow that for every belligerent act we shall declare war. The senator from Virginia, in his report, as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, quoted Chief Justice Marshall to show that the practice of the right of search was a belligerent act. All belligerent acts do not necessarily produce war. You may repel them, you may grant letters of marque and reprisal — there are various remedies short of war for repelling and redressing belligerent acts. It does not follow, by any means, when one nation perpe- trates a violation of right against another, which, of itself, is a bel- 150 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ligerent act, that war is the inevitable consequence, any more than it follows, when one gentleman says something offensive to another, that a peremptory challenge is a necessary result. A demand for explanation may be necessary. There are preludes to a declaration. So it is between nations. There may be a belligerent act performed. It leads to negotiation, to remonstrance. When these means fail, then the question comes, whether our rights or our honor are involved to such an extent as to make it imperative to go to war as a final resort ? If this violation of the freedom of the seas were a new thing ; if the assertion of the right to search American vessels were now made for the first, or even the second time, we might not, although treating it as a belligerent act, deem it necessary to go to war. But when the question has gone through half a century of dispute ; when it has reached such a point that we refuse to discuss the question of right any further ; when we have asserted that the argument is ex- hausted, and that the only thing left is to resort to resistance if it he persevered in any further ; it will not do for us, in the face of these outrages repeated each day, to he silent with regard to them, and proceed to legislate for the punishment of Mexico, Nicaragua, and other weak and feeble powers at a distance. The bill reported by the senator from Virginia would he right if it were brought for- ward at a time when the aggravation came from those countries, and not from England. I will vote for it. But to pass that by itself, and remain silent with regard to these British outrages, is to confess to the world that we are afraid of Great Britain, but we will maintain our courage by punishing some smaller, feebler, weaker power. I do not bring forward the jiroposition to revive the act of the 3d of March, 1839, as a substitute for the bill reported by the senator. from Virginia, as he imagines. On the contrary, the two bills ought to go together. The one which I bring forward is applicable to England, and to her alone. It covers the present quar- rels between us and England ; not as a war measure, hut as a peace measure. The only change that I make between that act, as I bring it forward now, and as it was in the shape in which it originally passed, is to strike out the words “ territory in dispute,” and insert “ the claim of the right of search.” Then the two cases are paral- lel, and the provision is as applicable to one as it is to the other. Sir, there was one member of this body, who, when the measure was brought in, in 1839, was disposed to treat it as an act of war, until the great minds of the Senate, the patriots of that day, came forward, and said : no, Great Britain is performing a belligerent act ; we must resist it at all hazards ; if she perseveres in the wrong, then the consequences he on her head, for having persevered in the wrong. Hence, you find that Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Buchanan, and the leaders of the Senate of all parties of that day, united with entire unanimity in conferring upon President Van Buren the power to resist it. One man only hesitated. A distinguished and re- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 151 spected senator from New Jersey made the very point that is now being made, as to its being an act of war ; but a distinguished sena- tor from Mississippi appealed to him, after a prelimin ary vote had been taken, and it was ascertained that the Senate were unanimous with one exception, not to persevere in his opposition, but allow the Senate to stand unanimous in the assertion of a principle upon which all agreed ; and Mr. Southard, in deference to the opinion of the remainder of the Senate, waived his objections, and allowed the hill to pass by a unanimous vote. Sir, did it turn out to he a measure of war then? On the con- trary, it resulted in peace, and you were saved from a war with Great Britain on the northeastern boundary question, by the unani- mity of Congress, at that time, in preparing to repel the assault. The vote in the Senate was unanimous, and in the House of Repre- sentatives it was 197 against 6. This unanimity among the American people, as manifested by their representatives, saved the two coun- tries from war, and preserved peace between England and the United States upon that question. If the Senate had been nearly equally divided in 1839 ; it' there had been but half a dozen majority for the passage of that measure ; if the vote had been nearly divided in the House of Representatives, England would have taken courage from the divisions in our own councils ; she would have pressed her claim to a point that would have been utterly inadmissible, and incompatible with our honor, and war would have been the inevitable consequence. The true peace measure is that which resents the insult and re- dresses the wrong promptly upon the spot with a unanimity that shows the nation cannot be divided. Unanimity now, prompt action, and determined resistance to this claim of the right of search is the best peace measure, and the only peace measure to which you can resort. You have said that this nation will not submit to the right of search ; every department of this government has repeated it, all political parties unite in the sentiment ; there is one point on which the American people are united, and on which they have stood for half a century. It is violated now. The question is, whe- ther we shall present the same unanimity in resistance that we do in denying the right to commit the outrage. Unanimity on our part, unanimity in our councils, firm resolve, but kind and respectful words will preserve peace. Sir, I desire peace. I would lament a war with England, or with any other power, as much as any other man in the Senate. Nor do I think that my constituents desire war, but I believe that the true way to prevent it is to be prepared to resist aggression the moment it is made. Mhat is the argument we hear used to-day? The senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hammond), who knows that I have for him the highest respect, portrays to us otir weak, feeble, and defenceless condition ; our thousands of miles of coast ; our small navy ; our limited resources ; to show that we are not ready for a war now. Sir, let Great Britain believe that picture, and she will be ready now for a war with us. 152 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Our vacillation, our hesitation, our nervousness about the defence- less condition of our coasts and of our cities, are the sources of en- couragement to England. Sir, I repel the idea that the American coast is so defenceless as represented. I have passed round a great portion of the British coast, and I undertake to assert that the American coast is in a bet- ter condition of defence than that of Great Britain. New York is better defended than Liverpool or London to-day. It is easier for a fleet to enter the harbor of Liverpool or London than New York. There are not as many obstacles in the way in the British cities as in the American. It is possible that a steam fleet might run by the fortifications into either. It is not probable it would ever escape from there if it did ; but it is possible that it might effect its escape. But, sir, I do not believe that our coast is more exposed than hers, and I do not believe our commerce is more exposed than hers. I do not believe England is any better prepared for war with us than we are with her. If she has a larger navy, she has a more exposed interest to protect by that navy. She has her troubles in India ; she has them at the Cape ; she has them all over the world ; and her navy is divided, and her army divided to protect them in those detached places on every continent, and every island of the globe. Sir, the extent of her power spreading all around the globe is one of the greatest sources of her weakness ; and the other fact that she is a commercial nation, and we are an agricultural people shows that she may be ruined, and her citizens starved, while we, although at war abroad, are happy and prosperous at home. Her statesmen have more respect for us in this particular than we have for ourselves. They will never push this question to the point of war. They will look you in the eye, march to you steadily, as long' as they find it is prudent.' If you cast the eye down, she will rush upon you. If you look her in the eye steadily, she will shake hands with you as friends, and have respect for you. Suppose she should not, my friend from South Carolina asks me. If she does not, then we will appeal to the God of battles ; we will arouse the patriotism of the American nation ; we will blot out all distinction of party; and the voice of faction will be hushed; the American people will he a unit ; none but the voice of patriotism will be heard ; and from the North and the South, from the East and the "West, we will come up as a band of brothers, animated by a common spirit and a common patriotism, as were our fathers of the Revolution, to repel the foreign enemy, and afterward differ as we please, and discuss at our leisure, matters cf domestic dispute. As to my proposition for fifty gun-boats instead of twenty, I have only to say that I prefer the larger number ; and with all the respect I have for the senator from Mississippi and his superior knowledge on all matters of military defence, I must be permitted to entertain doubts whether he is correct in this particular. As to the usefulness of those vessels called gun-boats, the experience of the last few STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 153 years shows that a gun-boat can wander from the Carolina coast, and can venture to sea. England constructed immense numbers of them expressly for the Black Sea and the Baltic during the Russian war; and she used them with great effect. She used them in the Gulf of Finland and at Sweaborg. They were built expressly for t hat service, and had to go three thousand miles to get to the Black Sea, and nearly two thousand to get into the Gulf of Finland. England has sent them to the West Indies; and the very outrages of which we now complain are being perpetrated by gun-boats. The Forward, that seized our vessels five hundred miles east of the Island of Cuba, on the high seas, is a gun-boat. The Buzzard, that seized our vessels one thousand miles from Cuba, off in the Atlantic ocean, is a gun-boat. All the vessels England is using now, for the annoyance of our commerce, are gun-boats — that very despised little craft which the senator from Mississippi thinks will never venture out from shore. I think that if a gun-boat is powerful enough to stop our merchantmen on the high seas, search them, and take them into port, or do what she pleases with them, such vessels will be efficient enough in time of war for us to annoy the enemy’s commerce with. I think daily experience proves that these gun-boats are efficient not only in the defence of harbors, in running into the mouths of rivers and shallow bays, but in annoying the enemy’s commerce, as they are being used by England for that very purpose at this time. It so happens that only one of the vessels of Great Britain that have been perpetrating these outrages on our commerce, which has hovered around the coast of Cuba, is not a gun-boat, but small side- wheel steamer — the Styx. 1 9 154 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ON THE INVASION OE STATES, AND EEPLY TO ME. FESSENDEN. Delivered in the Senate of the United States , January 23, 18G0. 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 be instructed to report a bill 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 sup- pression 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 Territory ol the Union.” Me. Douglas. — Mr. President, on the 25th of November last, the Governor of Virginia -addressed an official communication to the President of the United States, in which he said : “ I have information from various quarters, upon which I rely, that a con- spiracy of formidable extent, in means and numbers, is formed in Ohio, Penn- sylvania, New York, and other States, to rescue John Brown and his associates, prisoners at Charlestown, Virginia. 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 other- wise, to invade this State, and we are kept in continual apprehension of out- rage from fire and rapine. I apprise 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 States confers no power upon the 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 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 155 to enact Ian's which would authorize the federal interposition to pro- tect the States from invasion; my object is to raise the inquiry, and to ask the judgment of the Senate and of the House of Representa- tives on the question, whether it is not within the power of Con- gress, and 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 Govern- ment 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 prosperity, or domestic tranquillity, 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 precise purpose. 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 tranquillity against violence or aggression from with- out. The States of this Union would possess that power, were it not for the restraints imposed upon them by the federal Constitution. Tfhen 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 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 helpless condition, with their hands tied by the Constitution, stripped of all means of repelling assaults and maintaining their existence, without a guaranty from the Federal Government, to pro- tect them against violence. If the people of this country shall settle down into the conviction that there is no power in the Federal Go- vernment 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. How, 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 ho 156 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 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 pdace, 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 fii'st article of the Constitution, you find that Congress has power — “ 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 pro- vide for calling forth the 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 fore of the country for the purpose specified in the Consti- tution. 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 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 inva- sion of the United States. The language is, Congress shall bavo power to u 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 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 Constitution then proceeded to make guaranties 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 guarantee 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 can- not be convened,) against domestic violence.” This clause contains three distinct guaranties : first, the United States shall guarantee to every State in tins 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 tho legislature, or of the Executive, when the legislature cannot be con- vened, protect them against domestic violence. Now, sir, I submit to you whether it is not clear, from the very language of the Oonsti- STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 157 tntion, 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 any other State, Territory, or place within the juris- diction 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 guaranties 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 guaranty had been given previously as against foreign nations. If any further authority is necessary to show that such is the true construction of the Constitution, it way be found in the forty-third number of the “ Federalist,” written by James Madison. Mr. Madi- son quotes the clause of the Constitution which I have read, giving these three guaranties ; and, after discussing the one guaranteeing 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 due from every society to the parts compos- ing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enter- prises 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 cele- brated work, was written after the Constitution was made, and before it was ratified by the States, and with a view to securing its ratifica- tion ; hence the people of the several States, when they ratified this instrument, knew that this clause was intended to bear the construc- tion which I now place upon it. It was intended to make it the duty of every society to protect each of its 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 Govern- ment, 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 guaranty effectual. While Congress, 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 158 T XI E LIFE AND SPEECHES OF in the fact that no Congress ever dreamed that such legislation would ever 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 a view of inciting servile insurrection, murder, treason, and every other crime that disgraces humanity? 1711116, 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 in omit- ting 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 pre- sume 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 sufficient. Such legislation would not be a full compliance with this guaranty of the Constitu- tion. The framers of that instrument meant more when they gave the guaranty. Mark the difference in language between the provi- sion for protecting 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 guaranty to the States it changed the language and said the United States shall “ protect ” each of the States against invasion. In 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 invadiDg army shall have been organ- ized 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 tranquillity to each State and Territory of this Union against 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 department of the government to suppress all conspiracies and combinations in the several States with the 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, the combination with intent to do the act, and then you will suppress it in advance. There is no principle more familiar to the legal profes- sion 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 perpe- trate the act. Look upon your statute books, and I presume you will find an enactment to punish the counterfeiting of the coin of the United States; and then another section to punish a man for having STEPIIEN A. DOUGLAS. 159 conntefeit 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 princi- ple in legislative and judicial proceedings. If the act of invasion is criminal, the conspiracy to invade should also be made criminal. If it he unlawful and illegal to invade a State, and run off fugitive slaves, why not make it unlawful to form conspiracies and combina- tions 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 Cleaveland 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 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 Ter- ritory 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 lan- guage of the preamble to the Constitution, to insure to each State domestic tranquillity against external violence. There can be no peace, there can be no prosperity, there can be no safety in any community, unless it is secured against 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 France, to pass laws to punish conspiracies 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 punishments. 1G0 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF It cannot be said that the time has not yet arrived for such legis- lation. It cannot be said with truth that the Harper’s Ferry caso will not be repeated, or is not in danger 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 in detail, I have no hesitation in expressing my firm and deliberate conviction 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 boohs, and especially in the speeches of their leaders in and out of Congress. (Applause in the galleries.) 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 atten- tion 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 judg- ment 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. The great principle that underlies the Republican party is violent, irreconcila- ble, 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 culti- vated by free labor, or the rye fields of New York, and Massachu- setts • 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 prejudice, northern ambition against southern States, southern institutions, and southern people. 1 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 northern people, is essential 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 preju- dice, but 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, f )r the purpose of canvassing Illinois, with a view to reflection, I had to moet this issue of the STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 16 ] “ irrepressible conflict.” It is true that the senator from New York had not then made his Rochester speech, and did not for four months afterward. It is true that he had not given the doctrine that precise name and form ; hut 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 the language in which this doctrine was stated in Illinois before it received the name of the “ irrepressible 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 government 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 extinction ; 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 gather- ing 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 opinion merely of the senator from New York, who four months afterward 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 peo- ple 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 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, 162 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 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 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 cot- ton 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 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, hut an irrepressible conflict between the free States and the slave States ; and they argue that these two systems of State cannot per- manently 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 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 desirable 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 domestic 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 uni- formity in the domestic institutions of the different States is neither possible nor desirable. That is the very issue upon which I con- ducted 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 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 slave- holding' States, and one a free State. Suppose this doctrine of uni- formity on the slavery question had prevailed in the Federal Con- vention, do the gentlemen on that side of the House think that free- dom would have triumphed over slavery? Do they imagine that the one free State would have outvoted the twelve slaveholding States. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 1G3 and thus have abolished slavery throughout the land by a Consti- tutional 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 constitutional provision fastening slavery irrevocably upon every inch of American soil, Kcrth 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 question, 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 desirable 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 con- ferred 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 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 Constitu- tion knew that the laws and institutions which were well adapted to the mountains and valleys of Hew England, were ill-suited to the rice pdantations and the 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 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 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, dif- ferent and distinct from every other State. The Union rests on the theory that no two States would be precisely alike in them 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, revo- lutionary in its character, and leading directly to despotism if it is ever established. Uniformity in local and domestic affairs in a coun- try of great extent is despotism always. Show me centralism pre- 164 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF scribing uniformity from the capital to all of its provinces i local and domestic concerns, and I will show you a despot odious and as insufferable as that of Austria or of Naples. D larity is the principle upon which the Union rests. It is ft upon the idea that each State must necessarily require di regulations ; that no two States have precisely the same in and hence do not need precisely the same laws ; and you account for this confederation of States upon any other princi Then, sir, what becomes of this doctrine that slavery must tablished in all the States or prohibited in all the States ? only conform to the principles upon which the Federal Unit lormed, there can be no conflict. It is only necessary to rec the right of the people of every State to have just such insti - as 'they please, without consulting your wishes, your views, o prejudices, and there can be no conflict. And, sir, inasmuch as the Constitution of the United Stab l’ers upon Congress the power coupled with the duty of pro- each State against external aggression, and inasmuch as that b the power of suppressing and punishing conspiracies in on against the institutions, property, people, or government o:> other State, I desire to carry out that power vigorously. Sii us such a law as the Constitution contemplates and authorize.' will show the senator from New York that there is a constil in mode of repressing the “irrepressible conflict.” I will op < prison door to allow conspirators against the peace of the lit and the domestic tranquility of our States to select their cells . : to drag out a miserable life, as a punishment for their crimes • the peace of society. Can any man say to us that although this outrage has bee: tratqd at Harper’s Ferry, there is no danger of its recurrent is not the Republican party still embodied, organized, coni" success, and defiant in its pretensions ? Does it not now huh proclaim the same creed that it did before this invasion? It that most of its representatives here disavow the acts of John ! at Harper’s Ferry. I am glad that they do so ; I am rejoice I they have gone thus far ; but I must be permitted to say to th. t it is not sufficient that they disavow the act, unless they als< ate and denounce the doctrines and teachings which prodm act. Those doctrines remain the same ; those teachings s • poured into the minds of men throughout the country by i speeches and pamphlets and books and through partisan The causes that produced the Harper’s Ferry invasion are n; active operation. It is true that the people of all the bord are required by the Constitution to have their hands tied, the power of self-defence, and remain patient under a threa 1 vasion in the day or in the night? Can you expect peopk patient, when they dare not lie down to sleep at night with stationing sentinels around their houses to see if a band of m STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 165 rderers are not approaching -with torch and pistol? Sir.it vs more patience than freemen ever should cultivate, to submit ant annoyance, irritation and apprehension. If we expect to v e this Union, we must remedy, within the Union and in obe- . to the Constitution, every evil for which disunion would fur- remedy. If the Federal Government fails to act, either from or from an apprehension of the want of power, it cannot ho d that the States will be content to remain unprotected, sir, I see no hope of peace, of fraternity, of good feeling, be- t ■’ he different portions of the United States, except by bringing i the power of the Federal Government to the extent author- ize the Constitution — to protect the people of all the States at a : ■ any external violence or aggression. I repeat, that if the i i f the Constitution shall be carried out by conceding the right of die [people of every State to have just such institutions as they C , there cannot be a conflict, much less an “irrepressible con- flict. between the free and the slaveholding States. E resident, the mode of preserving peace is plain. This system or s -ctional warfare must cease. The Constitution has given the - md all we ask of Congress is to give the means, and we, by nts and convictions in the federal courts of our several ota . - will make such examples of the leaders of these conspiracies _ 'trike terror into the hearts of the others, and there will be an e id of this crusade. Sir, you must check it by crushing out the •onspi - :icy, the combination, and then there can be safety. Then we - r ; able to restore that spirit of fraternity which inspired our .... o. nonary fathers upon every battle-field ; which presided over the liberations of the convention that framed the Constitution, and till I tt 3 hearts of the people who ratified it. Then we shall be able nstrate to you that there is no evil unredressed in the Union v h disunion would furnish a remedy. Then, sir, let us exe- Constitution in the spirit in which it was made. Let Con- g;v" pass all the laws necessary and proper to give full and complete effect to every guaranty of the Constitution. Let them authorize t!>: [ ..nishment of conspiracies and combinations in any State or IV 1 . y against the property, institutions, people or government of iv ther State or Territory, and there will be no excuse, no de- sire, t disunion. Then, sir, let us leave the poople of every State pc-rlbt tiy free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their ■r r s way. Let each of them retain slavery just as long as itpleases, and abolish it when it chooses. Let us act upon that good old _ ; - [principle which teaches all men to mind their own business ai d :-t heir neighbors alone. Let this be done, and this Union can enJ or forever as our fathers made it, composed of free and slave Stare;, ist as the people of each. State may determine for them- selves. V Fessenden having replied. at some length to Mr. Doug- . a.- he made the following rejoinder : 106 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Mr. Douglas. — Mr. President, I shall not follow the senator from Maine through his entire speech, hut simply notice such points as demand of me some reply. lie does not know why I introduced my resolution; he cannot conceive any good motive for it ; bethinks there must he some other motive besides the one that has been avowed. There are some men, I know, who cannot conceive that a man can he 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 mo- tives. 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 Sen- ate. 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 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 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 pro- duced it were still in operation ; and argued that, so long as the party to which the gentlemen belong remains embodied in full force, those causes will still threaten the country. That Avas 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 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 coun- try upon the progress they are making toward 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 Avhere the Republican party predominate, so far as 1 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 guaranteed by the Constitution. Sir, where, in the towns and cities Avith Republican majorities, can you execute the Fugitive Slave Lasv ? 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 ? Why not make it a crime to form conspiracies and combinations STEPHEN A.. DOUGLAS. 167 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, aud 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 irri- tation. John Brown could boast, in a public lecture in Cleveland, 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 impri- sonment in the penitentiary, after conviction in the United States court, to make a conspiracy in one State, against the people, pro- perty, 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 guaranties 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 had 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 find that side of the chamber voting for a law that will, in terms, disapprove of unlawful expeditions against neighboring States, with- out being efficient in affording protection. 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 Demo- cracy, 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 deal- ing in denunciation and insult of the institutions of the South. Look to your Philadelphia 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 barbar- ism — polygamy and slavery. Mr. President, for what purpose does the Republican party appeal to northern passions and northern prejudices against southern insti- tutions 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 polygamist. I have always noticed that those men who were so far off from fclig slave States that they did not' know anything about them, are 168 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF 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 condition of the poor negro. (Laughter.) But, sir, go into the border States, where we associate across the line, where the civil- ities 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 Illinois, southern Indiana, southern Ohio, and that part of Pennsylvania bordering on Maryland, and there you will find social intercourse ; commercial intercourse ; good feeling ; because those people know the condition of the slave on the oppo- site 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 sym- pathies 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. I know that it 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. Tire 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 he one thing or all the other, or else the Union cannot endure. What is the meaning of that language, unless it is that the Union 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 slaveholding 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 siaveholding States by a cordon of free States, to use the language of the senator ; to hem them in, in order that yon 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 ? Con- fine 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. STEniEN A. DOUGLAS. 169 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 tires 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 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 perma- nently exist in the same republic. He said : “ 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.” 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 Hew 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 con- flict between free labor and slave labor in the 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 con- test 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 become a slave State, that there is now ? If that was the meaning, would the conflict between 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 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 innuendoes, with a series of com- 8 170 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF plaint s of misrepresentation, showing that he was afraid to meet the rial issues of his party, and wonld make np for that ky personal assaults and innuendoes against the opposite party. lie goes hack to a speech of mine in opposition to the Lecompton constitution, in which 1 said that if you would send that constitu- tion hack 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. The idea is taken from a speech in the Senate— the first speech I made against the Lecompton 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 Korth. I say this : if the people of Kansas want a slave State, it is their business, 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 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 I were a citizen of Louisiana I would vote for retaining and maintaining slavery, be- cause 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 g>o 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 legis- lation. "Wherever the climate, the soil, the health of the country are such that it cannot be cultivated by wdiite labor, you will have African labor, and compulsory labor at that. 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 yon can- not by any law you can make keep it out from one inch of American territory where the people wmnt it. You tried it in Illinois. By the Ordinance of 1787, slavery was prohibited, and yet our people, be- lieving that slavery would be profitable to them, established heredi- tary 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 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 171 the moment yon recognized ns 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 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 satisfied, without stopping to inquire or caring which way they decide it. That is what I meant by that declara- tion, 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 ac- count 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 provisions 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 con- spiracies 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 sovereignty, 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 pre- servation 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 “ irre- pressible 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 enjoyment of domestic tranquillity without apprehen- sion from neighboring States. 172 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF ON THE ADMISSION" OE KANSAS UNDER THE WYAN- DOTT CONSTITUTION. IN EEPLY TO ME. SEWAED AND ME. TEITMBULL. Delivered in the Senate of the United States , February 29, 18G0. Me. Peesident : I trust I shall he pardoned for a few remarks upon so much of the senator’s speech as consists in an assault on the De- mocratic party, and especially with regard to the Kansas-Nebraska bill, of which I was the responsible author. It has become fashion- able now-a-days for each gentleman making a speech against the De- mocratic party to refer to the Kansas-Nebraska Act as the cause of ad the disturbances that have since ensued. They talk about the repeal of a saered compact that had been undisturbed for more than a quar- ter 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 South, without one exception in this body, was willing thus to abide by it ; but the freesoil element of the northern States was so strong as to defeat that measure, and thus open the slavery ques- tion anew. The men who now complain of the abrogation of that act 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 Representatives, of the enactment of the bill to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific Ocean, after it had passed the Senate on my own motion, that opened the controversy of 1850, which wa3 terminated by the adop- tion of the measures of that year. "We carried those Compromise measures over the head of the sena- tor from New York and his present associates. We, in those mea- sures, established a great principle, rebuking his doctrine of inter- vention 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, and so did the Democracy. In 1854 we only carried out, in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the same principle that had been affirmed in the Compromise measures of 1850. I repeat that their resistance to carrying out in good faith the settlement of 1820, their defeat o 1 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 173 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 1 belong with the responsibility for that agitation which rests solely upon him and his associates. Sir, the Democratic party was willing to carry out the Compromise in good faith. Having been defeated in that for the want of numbers, and having established the principle of non-intervention in the Compromise measures of 1850, in lieu of it, the Democratic party from that day to this has been faithful to the new principle of adjustment. "Whatever agitation has grown out of the question since, 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 lie was willing to acquiesce in the solemn and repeated judgment of that American people to which he appeals, there would be 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 and the white man were equal by Divine law, and hence that all laws and constitutions and govern- ments in violation of the principle of negro equality are in violation of the law of God. That is the basis upon which his speech rests. He quotes the Declaration of Independence to show that the fathers of the Revolution understood that the negro was placed on an equality with the white man, by quoting the clause, “ we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Sir, the doctrine of that senator and of his party is — and I have had to meet it for eight years— that the Declaration of Independence intended to recognize the negro and the white man as equal under tire 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 that it is contrary to the law of God. The senator from New York has long held that doctrine. The senator from New York has often proclaimed to the world that the Consti- tution 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 me, in which that proposition is distinctly put forth. In a speech made in the State of Ohio, in 1848, ho said: “ Slavery is the sin of not some of the States only, hut of them all ; of not one nationality, but of all nations. It perverted and corrupted the moral sonso m THE LIFE" AND SPEECHES OF of mankind deeply and universally, and this perversion became a universal habit. Habits of thought become fixed principles. No American State has yet delivered itself entirely from these 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 firesides from his relentless pursuer.” There you find his doctrine clearly laid down, that the Constitution of the United States is “ in violation of the Divine law,” and there- fore, is not to he 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 Independence recognized the negro and the white man as equal ; that the negro and white man are equals by Divine law, and that every provision of our Constitu- tion and laws which establishes inequality between the negro and the white man, is void, because contrary to the law of God. The senator from New York says, in the very speech from which I have quoted, that New York is yet a slave State. Why? 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. Dor 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, notwith- standing 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 proposition and dodges it, to leave the inference that he does not indorse it. Sir, I desire to see these gentlemen carry out their prin- ciples to their logical conclusion. If they will persist in the decla- ration that the negro is made the equal of the white man, and that 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 white men. For one, I never held to any such doctrine. I hold that the Declaration of Independence wai only referring to the white man — to the governing race of this coun- try, tvho were in conflict with Great Britain, and had no reference to the negro race at all, when it declared that all men were created equal. Sir, if the signers of that declaration had understood the instru- ment then as the senator from New York now construes it, were STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 175 they not bound on that day, at that very hour, to emancipate all their slaves ? If Hr. Jefferson had meant that his negro slaves were created by the Almighty his equals, was he not bound to emancipato the slaves on the very day that he signed his name to the DeclaYation of Independence ? Yet no one of the signers of that declaration emancipated his slaves. Ho one of the States on whose behalf the declaration was signed, emancipated its slaves until after the Revo- lution was over. Every one of the original colonies, every one of the thirteen original States, sanctioned and legalized slavery until after the Revolution was closed. These facts show conclusively that the Declaration of Independence was never intended to bear the construction placed upon it by the senator from Hew York, and by that enormous tribe of lecturers that go through the country deliver- ing 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. Hr. 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 for ever, and should be administered by white men, and by none other whatsoever. He. Doolittle. — I will ask the honorable senator, then, why not give the Territories to white men? He. Douglas. — Hr. President, I am in favor of throwing the Ter- ritories open to all the white men, and all the negroes, too, that choose to go, and then allow the white men to govern the Territory. I would not let one of the negroes, free or slave, either vote or hold 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 Territory, 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 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 provision. I repudiate the doctrine, that because free institutions may be best in one climate they are, necessarily, the best everywhere ; or thatbecause 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 go- verned by it. One people will bear different institutions from another. One climate demands different institutions from another. 176 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF I repeat, then, what I have often had occasion to say, 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 system 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 willing that a Territory settled by white men shall have negroes, free or slave, just as the white 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 bring it into use. 1 have heard him discuss these favorite theories of his for the last ten years, 1 think, and I never heard of capital States and labor States before. It strikes me that something has recently occurred up in New England 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 in the towns there — labor against capi- tal. The senator has a new word ready coined to suit their case, and make the laborers believe that he is on the side of the most numerous class of voters. A¥hat produced that strike among the journeymen shoemakers? Why are the mechanics of New England, the laborers and the em- ployees, 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, fol- lowing John Brown, of the “ irrepressible conflict.” Therefore wo now get this new coinage of “ labor States ” — he is on the side of the shoemakers (laughter), and “ capital States ” — lie 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 shoemakers ; it reaches every mechanic’s shop and every factory. All the large laboring establishments of the North feel the pressure produced by the doctrine of the “irrepressible con- flict.” This new coinage of words will not save them from the just responsibility that follows the doctrines they have been inculcating. If they had 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 ; STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 177 the northern and southern States would be brethren ; there would be fraternity between us, and your shoemakers would not strike for higher prices. ******** Sir, the feeling among the masses of the South we find typified in the dress of the senator from Virginia (Mr. Mason) ; they are deter- mined 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 manufacturing 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 Missouri. 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, Missouri 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 because she followed your example, and attempted to resist its consequences. I condemn both ; but I con- demn a thousand-fold more those that set the example and struck the first blow, than those who thought they would act upon the principle of fighting the devil with his own weapons, aud resorted to the same means that you had employed. But, sir, 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. Kansas has adopted a free State ; New Mexico has established a slave Territory. I am content 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 conclu- sion that slavery will not suit her, and 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; I 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 lexical conclusions ? Why is there not a man in that whole party, in this body or the House of Eepre- sentatives, bold enough to redeem the pledges which that party has 8 * 178 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF made to tlie 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 pro- hibit, 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 Ameri- can people repose in your faith and sincerity, when, having the power in one House, you do not bring forward a bill ta> carry out your principles ? The fact is, these principles are avowed to get votes in the North, but not to be carried into effect by acts of Con- gress. 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 be 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 they shrink from carrying out their measures lest they might throw off some conservative voters who do not like the Democratic 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. Address- ing 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 maintaining these miscalled guaranties of slavery, which they find in the na- tional compact. Does not all this prove that the Whig party have kept up with the spirit of the age ; that it is as true and 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 re- mains inert? Yes, much can be done, everything can be done. Slavery can 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 abolished, 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 uot then exist in any Territory. Slavery was confined to the States. The first pro- position 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 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 179 in the States. Tiiey could abolish it nowhere else. Every appeal they make to Northern prejudice and passion, is against the institution of slavery everywhere, and they would not be able to retain their abo- lition allies, the rank and tile, 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 Territories of the Union. And again in the same speech, the senator from New York advised the people to disregard constitutional obligations in these words : “ But we must begin deeper and lowerthan the composition and combination of factions or parties, wherein the strength and 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 ; reform 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 constitutional guaranty which may not be released, and ought not to be relinquished.” I know they tell ns that all this is to he done according to the Constitution; they would not violate the Constitution except so far as the Constitution violates the law of 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 ; and with that interpretation of the Constitution, they turn to the South and say, “TVe 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 onr Union. All that he has said, all that any other man has ever said, all that the most eloqueut tongue can ever utter, in behalf of the blessings and the advantages of this glorious Union, I fully indorse. But still, sir, I am prepared to say, that the Union is glorious only when the Constitution is preserved inviolate. He eulogized the Union. I, too, am for the Union ; 1 in- dorse the eulogies ; hut still, what is the Union worth, unless the Con- stitution 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 he taken for naught, un- less they are accompanied by obedience to the Constitution upon - which the Union rests. I have a right to insist that the Constitution shall be maintained inviolate in all its parts, notonly that whiehsuits the temper of the North, hut every clause of that Constitution, whe- ther you like it or dislike it. Yorr oath to support the Constitution hinds 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 J 80 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF law, and that, therefore, you will not observe it. The man who dis- obeys 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 Divine law, upon those revolutionary fathers whose eulogies we have heard here to-day. Did the framers of that instru- ment 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 sena- tor 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 an oath to support the in- strument? 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 party is this: we stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it, and by the decisions of the constituted authori- ties as they are pronounced in obedience to the Constitution. They repudiate the instrument, substitute their own will for that of the constituted authorities, annul such provisions as their fanaticism, or prejudice, or policy, may declare to be in violation of God’s law, and then say: “We will protect all your rights under the Constitution as expounded by ourselves ; lmt not as expounded by the tribunal cre- ated for that purpose.” Mr. President, 1 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 Hew York had not made a broad arraignment of the Democratic 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 and helped to carry through the Kansas-Nebraska act, and that I was active in support of the compromise measures of 1850. I have heard bad faith attached to the Democratic party for that act too long to be willing to remain silent and seem to sanction it even by tacit acquiescence. Mr. Trumbull having replied, Mr. Douglas 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 be- came 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 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 181 existed in fact. The master exercised his dominion over the slave, and those negroes -were held as slaves until 1847, when we estab- lished the new Constitution. There are gentlemen around me here, who know the fact — gentlemen who were nursed by slaves in Illinois. Ho man familiar with the history of Illinois will deny the fact. The quibble is, that the Territorial laws authorizing the intro- duction 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 con- stitution. It is a fact ; we all know it. That gentlemen have seen many of those old French slaves, who were held in defiance of the ordinance. Whether they were lawfully held or not, the Territorial authorities sustained the rights of the master. Hot only were slaves held by the French before the ordinance, but the Territorial legisla- ture passed a law in substance to this effect : any citizen might go to Kentucky, or any other State or Territory, where 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 Territory 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 Illi- nois 168 slaves ; in 1820, 917 ; 'in 1830, 747 ; and in 1840, 331. In 1850 there were none, for the reason that, in 1847, we adopted a new constitution that prohibited slavery entirely, and by that time they had nearly all died. The census shows that at one time there were as many as nine hundred slaves, and at all times 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 origi- nated 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 Indiana and northern Ohio ; and a Yankee could not get to Illinois at all, unless he passed down through Virginia and over iuto Tennessee and through Kentucky. The consequence was, that ninety-nine out of a hundred of the set- 132 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF tiers 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 Congress 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 slavery and held slaves as long as they wanted them. When they assembled to make the constitution of Illinois, in 1818, for admission into 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, frolicksome 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 profit- able in this climate.” There were no scruples about it. Every one of them was nursed by it. His mother and his father held slaves. They bad no scruples about its being right, but they said, “ We can- not 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 northern population ;” and, as a matter of political policy, state policy, they prohibited slavery themselves. How did they prohibit it? Hot by emancipating, setting at liberty, the slaves then in the State, for I believe that lias 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 they provided that all slaves then in the State should remain slaves for life; that all indentured persons should fulfill the terms o-f their indentures. Ninety-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 born 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 Con- gress, 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 1820, the census of 1830, and the census of 184:0, 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 be about legal construction, legal right, these are the facts. Look into the Territorial legislation, and you will find as rigorous a code for the protection of slave property as in any State ; a code prescribing the control of the master, providing that if a negro slave STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 1S3 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 au 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, hut 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 histo- rical facts. I suppose the Senate of the United States has no parti- cular interest in the early history of Illinois, but it has 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 Terri- tories 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 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 essense of the report begins — bur, the report added, this committee proposes to carry out the prin- ciples embodied in the Compromise measures of 1850 in precise language, and then we go on to state what those principles were ; and one was, that the people of a Territory should settle the question of slavery for themselves, and we reported a bill giving them 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 1850, the right to iutroduce it into Kansas, notwithstanding the Missouri restriction, was also proposed to be conferred without expressly repealing the restriction. The legal effect was precisely the same. Afterward some gentlemen said they would rather have the legal effect expressed in plain lan- guage. 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 lienee I put in the express provision that the Missouri act was thereoy 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 inconsistency by small politicians in the country. Be it so. The people understand that thing. The object I had in view was to allow the people to do as they pleased. The first bill accomplished that ; the amendment accomplished it. 'Whether that was the object of others or not, is another question. That was my objeet. The two bills, in my opinion, had the same legal effect ; but I said if any one doubts it, I will make it plain. 184 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Some said, “ we doubt whether that gives the right.” Then I made it plain, and brought it in in express terms, and he calls a change of language, without varying the legal effect, 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 ; whether 1 am a good represen- tative of northwestern Democracy. I have nothing to say about that. I will allow the people to speak in their conventions on that subject. "Whether I represent the Democracy of Illinois or not, I shall not say. The people understand all that. I can only say that I have been in the Democratic party all my life, and I know what our Democrats mean. My colleague indorsed and approved the compromise measures of 1850. He was a Democrat a few years ago. Even in 1856, he declared, I believe, that he could not vote for me, if nominated, but he 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 iuconsisteucy ; but I do not think he is as safe and as authoritative an expounder of the Eepublican 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. 1 read his speech here to-day. I suppose the sena- tor from New York is a pretty good Eepublican. I thought he spoke with some authority for his party. 1 did not suppose those neo- phytes who had just come into the party were going to unsettle and unhorse the leader and embodiment of the party so quickly, and prescribe a platform 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 New 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 him a political 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. lie lives too far south in Illinois for that, decidedly, lie 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 centre 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 senator, 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 STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 185 cautious how I reply. 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 white man 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 •iqhts, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” .f the negro and the white man are created equal , and that equality ,s an inalienable 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 Kepublican party is not in favor of according to the negro an inalienable right which he re- ceived directly from 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 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 Inde- pendence 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 to those God- given rights which are inalienable. If they believe the first propo- sition, 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.”) Ho, they cannot make him a senator, because the Supreme Coiirt 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 cannot be a senator. I say, if you hold that the Almighty created the negro the equal of the white man, and that equality be an in- alienable right, you are bound to confer the elective franchise and every other privilege of political equality on the negro. The senator from Hew York stands up to it like a man. His logic drove him there, and 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 do the senator from Hew York the justice to say, that, in his speech to-day, I think he made the most successful effort, considered as an attempt to con- ceal what he meant. (Laughter.) He dealt in vague generalities ; he dealt in disclaimers and general denials ; and he covered it all up with a verbiage that would allow anybody to infer just what he pleased, but not to commit the senator to anything ; and to let the 186 THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF country know that tliere was no danger from the success of the Re- publican party ; that they did not mean any harm ; that if men, be- lieving in the truth of their doctrines, did go and commit invasions, murders, robberies, and treason, all they had to do was to disavow the men who were fools enough to believe them, and they are not responsible for the consequences of their own action! Row, Mr. President, I wish my colleague were equally as frank as the senator from New York. That senator is in favor of the equal- ity of the negro with the white man, or else he would not say that, the Almighty guaranteed to them an inalienable right of equality. My colleague dare not deny the inalienable rights of the negro, for if he did, the Abolitionists would quit him. He dare not avow it, lest the old line Whigs should quit him; hence he is riding double on this question. I have no desire to conceal my opinions ; and I repeat that I do not believe the negro race is any part of the govern- ing element in this country, except as an element of representation in the manner expressly provided in the Constitution. This is a white man’s government, made by white men for the benefit of white men, to be administered by white men and nobody else ; and I should regret the day that we ever allowed the negroes to have a hand in its administration. Not that the negro is not entitled to any privileges at all ; on the contrary, I hold that humanity requi. _s us to allow the unfortunate negro to enjoy all the rights and privi- leges that he may safely exercise consistent with the good of society. We may, with safety, give them some privileges in Illinois that would not be safe in Mississippi ; because we have hut few, while that State has many. We will take care of our negroes, if Missis- sippi will take care of hers. Each has a right to decide for itself what shall be the relation of the negro to the white man within its own. limits, and no other State has a right to interfere with its de- termination. On that principle there is no “ irrepressible conflict there is no conflict at all. If we will just take care of our own negroes, and mind our own business, we shall get along very well ; and we ask our southern Mends to do the same, and they seem pretty well dis- posed to do it. Therefore, I am in favor of just firing a broadside into our Republican friends over there, who will keep interfering with other people’s business. That is the complaint I have of them They keep holding up the negro for us to worship, and when the} get the power, they will not give him the rights they claim for him they will not give him his inalienable rights. New York has no given the negro those inalienable rights of suffrage yet. The sena tor from New York represents a slave State, according to his owi speech ; because New York does not allow the negro to vote on an equality with a white man. It is true, in New York they do allov a negro to vote, if he owns $250 worth of property, but not with out. They suppose $250 just compensates for the difference be- tween a rich negro and a poor white man. (Laughter.) The} STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. 1ST allow the rich negro to vote, and do not allow the poor one ; and the senator from New York thinks that is a system of slavery. It may he ; let New York decide that ; it is her business. I 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 business ; but you must not send them here ; because we do not allow anybody hut citizens to hold seats on this floor ; and, thank God, the Dred Scott case has decided that a negro is not a citizen. —