Alexander H. Stephens in public and private

LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIS

•

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS,

IN

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.

WITH

LETTERS AND SPEECHES,

BEFORE, DURING, AND SINCE THE WAR.

BY

HENRY CLEVELAND.

**Who made the heart, 'tis he alone,

Decidedly can try us;
He knows each chord, its various tone;

Each spring, its various bias.
Thence at the balance let's be mute,

We never can adjust it;
What's done, we partly may compute ;

But know not what's resisted." — BURNS .

NATIONAL PUBLISHING- COMPANY,

PHILADELPHIA, PA.; RICHMOND, VA. ; ATLANTA, GA. ; CINCINNATI, OHIO
ST. LOUIS, MO. ; CHICAGO, ILL. J AND NEW ORLEANS, LA.

LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIS

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1866, by
J. R. JONES,

In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, in and for the Eastern District

of Pennsylvania.

S. A. GEORGE,

STEBEOTYPER, ELECTROTYPER, AJTD PRINTSB,

121 N. SEVENTH STREET,

PHILADELPHIA,

PREFACE.

A few words, and a few only, may not be improper by way of
preface, or introduction to the following pages. Mr. Stephens
has for a long time filled a large space in the public attention
throughout the "United States. Taken all in all — physically,
morally, and intellectually — he may very justly be regarded as
one of the most remarkable men of this country and age. For
a quarter of a century he has been an active participant, and
often leader, in the great questions of war, peace, change, and
progress, that have made the most interesting chapters in the
history of the western world ; and in the late semi-decade of con
flict he watched the shifting of the mighty scenes from the high
stand-point of the second office in the southern confederation.

•It is but fit that what he has said and done in all this eventful
period should be preserved in some durable form. This has
been the principal object of the writer ; and in the execution of
his purpose perfect accuracy has been his controlling motive.
With this view he has communicated his design to Mr. Stephens,
(having been on intimate terms of friendship with him for years,)
and received his consent to the undertaking. During the late
summer (of 1866) he had free access to all his papers, with no
restriction upon their use, save in questions as to their present
interest to the reader, or of propriety and good taste. The re
sult of the labor of compiling and arranging, as well as
biographical description and sketching of interesting incidents,
is respectfully presented. The writer only hopes to receive from
the wider circle of the American public, that kind indulgence so
generously accorded to different efforts in a narrower sphere.
To the student of biography the private life of this great and good
man is full of interest. To those who desire to know their country's
true history, there will be value in the thoughts and words of one
who was so trusted and honored by the southern portion of the

7

8 PREFACE.

late contestants, and who stood for the Union and its constitution
amid its enemies in a time when many despaired of it in the land
of its friends.

The writer has submitted to Mr. Stephens the result of his
undertaking, and, as part of this preface, subjoins a letter
received from him on the subject of the present publication.
Should the effort meet with favor, the credit will be due to the
subject ; if not, the writer will only think he has been unfortu
nate in his manner of presenting it.

H. C.

CRAWFORDVILLB, GA., IQth Nov., 1866.

HENRY CLEVELAND.

MY DEAR SIR : —

Your letter with proof-sheets of your forthcoming
volume has been received. I have looked over the latter, and
made some corrections and suggestions which you will notice.
With these the work in all essential facts will be, I think, sub
stantially correct.

I have not had time to examine closely the speeches taken
from the Globe. You must see that these are as they there
appear. All the others, I believe, are correct, as well as the
letters contained in the book.

I have no objections to your using this letter as you may
think proper.

With best wishes, I remain as ever,

Yours truly,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

GENERAL CONTENTS.

PREFACE

BIOGEAPHIOAL SKETCH.

L— INTRODUCTORY.

Home scenes — Personal appearance — Birth and lineage — Education
and early manhood 17

II.— SUCCESS AND RISE IN LIFE.

Admission to the Bar — Election to the Legislature — Election to
Congress 43

III.— POSITION IN RELATION TO POLITICAL PARTIES.

Always States Rights — Never partisan — Against the policy of the
Mexican war and the acquisition of any territory by conquest — A
Constitutional Union man throughout 70

IV.— REVIEW OF SPEECHES AND LETTERS.

t

Speech against acquisition of territory from Mexico — Against Clay
ton compromise — Personal rencounter — Presidential campaign of
1848— The compromise of 1850 — The Georgia platform— The
Kansas and Nebraska bill — Territorial policy in regard to African
slavery — Know-Nothingism — Admission of Minnesota and Oregon. 83

V.— RETIREMENT FROM CONGRESS.

Speech at Augusta, July 2d, 1859 — Views of the proper relation
between the white and black races at the South — Presidential
canvass of 1860 124

(9)

10 CONTENTS.

YL— POSITION ON THE QUESTION OF SECESSION.

Speech before the legislature in oposition to secession, November
14th, 1860 — Correspondence with Mr. Lincoln — Speech in the
secession convention — Goes as delegate to Montgomery, and is
elected Vice-President of the Confederate States organization 149

VII.— VIEWS OF PUBLIC POLICY AND COUKSE DURING

THE WAR.

Cotton loan — Martial law— Conscription — Impressments — Habeas
Corpus suspension — Efforts for peace — The two brothers — Hamp
ton Roads conference 170

VIII.— ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT.

Release on parole — Election to United States Senate — Reconstruc
tion speech before the legislature, February 22d, 1866 — Testimony
before reconstruction committee — Newspaper comments 201

IX.— CONCLUDING REMARKS... . 230

SPEECHES, LETTEKS, ETC.

Report of the minority of the c-ornmittee" on the state of the repub
lic, Georgia Senate, 1842 245

Speech on the right of members to their seats in the House of Rep
resentatives, February 9, 1844 259

Speech on the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas, deliv
ered in the House of Representatives, January 25, 1845 280

Speech on the subject of the Mexican war, delivered in the House of
Representatives, June 16, 1846 302

Speech on the Mexican appropriation, or "three million bill," in
Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, House of Rep
resentatives, February 12, 1847 320

Speech on the territorial bill (Clayton's compromise), delivered in the
House of Representatives, August 7, 1848 334

Address before the Maryland Institute, in Baltimore, February 23,
1852, in commemoration of the birth-day of Washington 352

Address before the Few and Phi Gamma societies of Emory Col
lege, Oxford, Georgia, July 21, 1852 364

Speech on the bill to prevent frauds upon the Treasury of the United
States, in defence of Mr. Corwin, and the Galphin claim, House of
Representatives, January 13, 1853 376

CONTENTS. 11

Nebraska and Kansas speech, House of Representatives, Febru
ary 17, 1854 394

Speech delivered in the House of Eepresentatives, December 14,
1854. in reply to the remarks of Mr. Mace, of Indiana, on giving
notice of his intention to introduce a bill to restore the Missouri
compromise 416

" Georgia and Ohio Again." Speech in reply to Mr. Campbell, of
Ohio, delivered in the House of Eepresentatives. January 15, 1855. . 432

Letter to Judge Thomas W. Thomas, on the subject of the Know-
Nothing party, written, Crawfordville, Georgia, May 9, 1855 459

Speech at the City Hall, Augusta, Georgia, announcing himself as a
candidate for re-election to Congress, in 1855 472

Debate with Mr. Zollicoffer, of Tennessee, on the power of Congress
to establish or prohibit slavery in the Territories, House, January
17,1856.... 489

Speech delivered in the House, March 11, 1856, on the Kansas con
tested election 515

Speech on the bill to admit Kansas under the Kansas-Topeka consti
tution. House, June 28, 1856 531

Speech on the Presidential election of 1856, the compromise of 1850,
and the Kansas act of 1854. House, January 6, 1857 561

Speech on the admission of Minnesota and alien suffrage, House of
Representatives, May tl, 1858 580

Impeachment of Judge Watrous. House of Representatives, De
cember 15, 1858. 591

Letter on the subject of the Western and Atlantic Railroad, written
March 13, 1857. Number one 605

Letter on the subject of the Western and Atlantic Railroad, written
March 17, 1857. Number two 611

Speech on the admission of Oregon, House of Representatives, Feb
ruary 12, 1859 621

Farewell speech on retiring from Congress, delivered in Augusta, Ga.,

July 2, 1859 637

Athens, Georgia, literary speech, in August, 1859 651

Letter to Hon. John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, Jan. 21, 1860 .... 656
Letter of thirteen gentlemen of Macon, Georgia, and reply of Mr.

Stephens, May 9, 1860 661

Letter to Dr. Z. P. Landrum, of Lexington, Georgia, July 1, I860.. 668
Union speech delivered in the City Hall Park, Augusta, Georgia,
September 1, 1860 674

12 CONTENTS.

Celebrated speech, delivered in opposition to secession, before the
Georgia Legislature, November 14, 1860 694

Rules for the government of the Confederate Congress, Montgomery,
Alabama, 1861 713

Speech known as " THE CORNER STONE," delivered at the Athenaeum,
Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861 717

Speech before the Virginia State Convention, Richmond, April 23,
1861 , 729

The Convention entered into between the State of Virginia and the
Confederate States 745

Letter on Martial Law, to the Mayor of Atlanta, Georgia, Septem
ber 8, 1862 747

Substance of the speech on the " Produce Loan," Crawfordville, No
vember 1, 1862 749

Speech on the state of the Confederacy, before the Georgia Legisla
ture, March 16, 1864 ... 761

Letter to the Hon. James A. Seddon, Secretary of War, April 29,
1864 786

Letter to Senator Herschel V. Johnson, of Georgia, June 22, 1864. . 790

Extract of a letter to Alex. J. Marshall, of Virginia, November 4,
1864 796

Address before the Georgia Legislature on the Reconstruction of the
Union, February 22, 1866 804

Testimony before the Reconstruction Committee of Congress, April
, 16, 1866 819

INDEX OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

PICTURE OF ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, FROM THE IMPERIAL PHOTO
GRAPH BY BRADY, TAKEN AT WASHINGTON CITY, MARCH, 1866. Frontispiece.

PICTURE OF "LIBERTY HALL," THE EESIDENCE OF ALEXANDER H.
STEPHENS, AT CRAWFORDVILLE, GEORGIA ; SOUTH-EAST VIEW. FROM
A PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON THE GROUNDS, 1866 23

PICTURE OF ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, AS HE APPEARED DURING THE
DELIVERY OF HIS GREAT STATISTICAL SPEECH, " GEORGIA AND OHIO
AGAIN." FROM A PHOTOGRAPH BY BRADY, JANUARY, 1855 102

THH "OLD HOMESTEAD BURIAL GROUND" OF THE STEPHENS FAMILY,

NEAR THE SPOT WHERE MR. STEPHENS WAS BORN. FfiOM A PHOTO
GRAPH TAKEN ON THE SPOT, 1866 232

(13)

INDEX OF AUTOGRAPH LETTERS

lithographed in Fac Simile.

LETTER FROM HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN TO MR. STEPHENS, SPRING
FIELD, ILLINOIS, NOVEMBER 30ra, 1860 150 to 151

REPLY OF ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, ORAWFORDVILLE, GEORGIA,

DECEMBER, 1860 . 150 to 151

REJOINDER OF HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS,

DECEMBER 22o I860.. . 150 to 151

NOTE FROM PRESIDENT LINCOLN TO MR. STEPHENS, CONCERNING HIS
NEPHEW, LIEUTENANT JOHN A. STEPHENS, WASHINGTON CITY,
FEBRUARY IOTH, 1865 199

(15)

ALEXANDER H, STEPHENS.

I.
INTRODUCTORY.

HOME SCENES — PERSONAL APPEARANCE — BIRTH AND LINEAGE
— EDUCATION AND EARLY MANHOOD.

WE desire to speak of this distinguished statesman, as he
appears in public and private, before, during, and since the war.

Having determined to compile some of the speeches, letters,
and papers of the Georgian, who has been so long and favora
bly known to the American public, it is proper to give a more
enlarged sketch than has ever heretofore been given of some
important and interesting incidents and features in the life of
the author of them.

Much of the material which composes the body of this volume
has never before appeared in print ; some has only been seen
by those to whom addressed, and none has ever appeared in
book form.

Of the man and his dwelling-place, his appearance, his earlier
and later manhood, his private existence and public career,
others have often spoken; but generally through the daily or
weekly printed leaves, that fall from the press as fast as the
autumnal spoils of the forests, and are gone as soon. Some of
the best and most accurate of these have not been widely circu.
lated, and few, if any of them, are now accessible.

Men are only known as they are seen ; and as clothing modi
fies the appearance of man and as the manner seems an index
2 (17)

18 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

of the nature, even so the land in which one dwells, the people
who are his people, the society, the companionship, the home ;
all become so inseparably linked with the recollections of the
individual as to seem part of himself. To know the man, we
should know them, for the devotion that clings to, and loves
and honors, the 'honest and worthy, who are found in the more
humble walks of life, is a different and more beautiful thing
from that which only finds pleasure among the favored children
of opulence, cultivation, and opportunity. There is the same
distinction between these, as between the love of Pauline, in
Bulwer's beautiful creation, when listening with entranced inter
est to the seeming Prince as he told of the dream Eden by the
Lake of Como, and the same Pauline as she confesses a nobler
emotion, in the arms of the poor Claude Melnotte. So, too, if
we shall speak of a man who loves his home better than all
other spots on earth ; it is well to know whether the home so
loved, be like what Dr. Johnson tells of the " Happy Yalley of
Easselas," or but one of earth's common dwelling-places : —
whether the heartstrings are tied to the bloom of womanhood
and childhood, or only fasten to unpictured walls and moss-
grown graves: — whether the sentiment which moves and
actuates him, be in any way akin to that of the Swiss, who re
joices in his Alpine home —

"And as a child, when scaring sounds molest,
Clings close and closer to the mother's breast ;
So the loud torrent and the whirlwind's roar,
But bind him to his native mountains more."

It is with some such idea, as what is thus imperfectly
expressed, that we speak first of Mr. Stephens' surroundings
and HIS HOME.

The traveller through the State of Georgia, will find it some
what difficult to reconcile what he has heard of the wealth of
that empire state of the South, with the appearance of poverty

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 19

which greets his eyes, as the rush of the train presents a pano
rama of the landscape.

From the crest of the Alleghanies, near the Tennessee river,
there is a gradual slope, which, between the Chattahoochee and
the Savannah, takes somewhat the form of a great ridge, as if
the mountain central crest were pointing its index finger to the
Atlantic. All such ridges are poor in comparison to the fertile
valleys that are set like emeralds in the mighty framework of
the hills, but the treasures that are born from both hill and
vale, beneath softening rain and glowing sun, can only be
known when accurate statistics sum up the sources of the
nation's wealth.

On the ridge we speak of, is the village of Crawfordville,
named in honor of the late William H. Crawford, of Georgia,
once a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. It
is on what is called the Georgia railroad, sixty-four miles from
the city of Augusta and one hundred and seven miles from
Atlanta, being about a medium between them in altitude.
Augusta is one hundred and forty-seven feet above the sea,
Atlanta one thousand and fifty feet, and Crawfordville is six
hundred and eighteen feet.

Its elevation makes it a pleasant summer residence, and the
water, gushing in crystal purity from the heart of the granite,
is cold enough without ice. The town was built in 1826, and
reached its prime some ten years later. Tradition says that
while in the height of prosperity, its " Town Commissioners"
kept the streets in good order. It had a good brick court
house; a jail that was, as usual, a discomfort of heavy timber
and iron gratings, a commodious hotel, and two chuches, only
one of which now exists. There were then several hundred
inhabitants.

In 1836 and 1837, there was an exodus of the people from
the town and county, who were seeking more fertile and favored
lands ; much capital was withdrawn, and a fire in 1838, that
swept away all the buildings on the north side of the public

20 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

square, marked the cessation of growth, and the beginning of
its "decline. The Georgia railroad trains still run through the
place, as regularly as would be the oscillations of a giant pendu
lum sweeping through the hills ; but give little benefit, save in
transportation to market for planters, and affording more speedy
locomotion for travellers, than the wagon and stage-coach which
they displaced. In summer, the mellow sunbeams are reflected
from browned herbage, or from the great red seams in the hills.
At train time, there is always a little assembly at the depot.
The fences, mostly of the Virginia worm pattern, appear to
wander over the hills as aimlessly as the lazy cattle and swine
pursue their own desultory wanderings along the highway.

Conspicuous from the railroad, on the outskirts of the town,
is the old Foster House, now called the Monk House, not from
being a monastery, but from a late owner. It was formerly
the grand house of the village, but now presents to each day's
sun or cloud, a front gray by degrees, and gradually more
gray.

The only brick house on the main street, and one of the only
two in the village, has given way to despondency from dampness
and lack of use, and a moiety of the rear wall, lying prone upon
the mother earth, seeks to restore its baked material to the
virgin clay, upon which it once looked down in ruddy pride.
The old hotel is grayheaded all over, and leans to the street, as
if looking for long gone guests ; and when we saw it, even a
blue eyed child and fair maiden that dwelt there, like stray
flowers in a long neglected garden, seemed a little as if the
shadow of the century plant in the hard yard, had fallen on
them.

The broken glass in the court house windows, appeared kept in
memory of the United States troops who broke them. The Acad
emy is kicking away the rough stones that support it, and all the
glass, and the most of the window-sash, has been removed by
means of small stones, hurled with unerring aim by the village
gamins, who thus manifest their zeal for improvement. The

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 21

time is past when the village had smooth streets of red clay,
bordered by green grass and beautiful trees, with white cottages
peeping out along the verdant ways ; with full stores, busy mer
chants, good schools, and " boys and girls playing in the streets
thereof." It all now gives sad evidence of the want of road
commissioners, repair, and paint. The streets are washed by
rain and worn by the attrition of feet, until the very ground
looks old and wrinkled. The little assembly of white houses
and red chimneys were all rapidly fading into nature's neutral
tints, when we saw them, under the blue summer sky of 1866.

The people, however, are good and kind, social, and given to
hospitality, with upright men, noble-looking women, and pretty
children.

Just out of the town is the old churchyard, where —

" Each in his narrow cell forever laid,
The rude forefathers of the hamlet sleep."

The wood and stone erected in honor of the dead seem mould
ering like the once loved dust they tried to keep in memory,
and rain and sun, alternate, bathe and blister the hard, pebble-
strewn clay. Near it, on the same hill, is the old Baptist church,
where all denominations peaceably assemble, and all ministers
of orthodox creeds are free to teach. It looks whiter and fresher
than any thing else, as if some of the immortality told of so well
in the humble pulpit, had penetrated the very boards. On
Sabbaths, when the hill echoes to the same truths that were
taught by the fishermen of Galilee, the irrepressible beauty of
the South blooms out in the matchless loveliness of Georgia
women, sweet as her roses and holy as her prayers. At the
foot of the hill are cold springs, from which little streams
wander off through the pines.

On the same elevated hill as the church and the graveyard,
and only removed from the town by the somewhat extended
grounds, is an unpretending mansion. Its white outlines are
half hid by the magnificent grove of oaks in which it stands;

22 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

and locust, hickory, china, cedar, and other trees, shadow the
large yard. The turf is a mixture of green Bermuda and white
clover, spangled here and there with other indigenous grasses.
The jonquilles disappear with the spring time. A plain, high
board fence, not painted, with large white gates, encloses the
premises. The main dwelling has eight rooms ; and two more,
with a wide veranda, have been built to the rear.

From the front porch, a door opens into the hall or passage,
its floor spread with oil-cloth in mosaic, and having no furniture
but an iron hat rack and gigantic barometer.

On the right of the hall is the parlor, with neat, cheerful
looking carpet of gree'n, with arabesques in colors. The win
dows are without curtains, but have shades of green and frosted
gold. On the mantle are : A large engraving of the United
States Senate, during the great speech of Daniel Webster, in
1850. A small bust of Senator Berrien. A fine cast by Saun-
ders, intended as a model for a statue of General Oglethorpe,
the founder of the Georgia Colony. The sword in his hand has
been damaged Ify an accident. Lastly, a cigar case, in imitation
of a bunch of cigars, the much prized gift of a lady friend.

On the right and left of the fireplace, are fine oil family por
t-raits by Healy, in massive gilt frames. On the walls hang two
medallions, one of Mrs. Steele, of the Kevolution, offering a
purse to General Green ; one of General Oglethorpe, with curly
wig, looking like Milton, but the neck fractured. A large litho
graph of the proprietor, and the grand face of that southern
type of manly beauty, Eobert Toombs.

Upon a small table is the large Bible, which, upon being
opened, is found to contain a family registry, including the
marriages, births, and deaths of the immediate household, as
well as the plantation servants. Lastly, there is a pillar of green
and white marble, surmounted by the beautiful Italian marble
bust of the great statesman we write of. It was among the first
ever executed by the young artist of Ohio — J. Q. A. Ward. It
was made in 1859. These, with the sofa, easy chairs, and other

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 23

culinary drawing-room furniture, are all that meet the eye upon
entering the neatly papered room. All the rooms are ceiled,
not plastered.

Opposite the parlor is a dining room. Its features are : —
Brussels carpet of white and roses. The window-shades are a
plain pattern of green and gold. Then an extension dining-
table, an ancient sideboard, a silent clock on the mantel-piece,
before whose modest face no hands are held, and a frozen
traveller watched by St. Bernard dogs, displayed upon the fire
screen.

Next a pantry. Then a bedroom carefully reserved for an
occasional visitor, a friend who at all times has a home and
welcome at the mansion, whenever he will come. Its common
designation is — Mr. O'Neal's room. There is another bed
chamber next the parlor.

The upper rooms, four in number, are neatly but plainly
furnished, and kept for the guests, male and female, who often
come, and are always made at home, in what by the owner's
own designation of long ago, is widely and familiarly known
as Liberty Hall.

In the back passage, there is always a cedar pail of pure cold
water, that is so refreshing in the long, hot, summer days.
Then the porch, connecting the two rooms built to the rear,
with the main building, and extending on the eastern side into
a wide veranda, with massive square pillars.

The first of the rear rooms is the library, a pretty room,
fifteen by twenty feet, its floor covered with neat carpeting in
stripes. The collection of law and political books is large and
excellent. Many valuable miscellaneous books belong there, but
numbers of them are always out in the hands of borrowers. The
library is the collection of thirty years. Numerous trunks con
tain the accumulated letters of a lifetime. A bronzed bust of
Daniel Webster looks gloomily down from a shelf over the
inner door. It is gray with dust, and bears no trace of that
"living light" in which his eloquence embalmed the flag of our

24 ALEXANDER H. STEPHEN'S.

country. He needs no bust or statue, for our memories are the
amber that keeps his fame. Would that his shade might return,
and re-utter to the whole land, those earnest words to — "The
sober men of Boston."

The inner room is the sanctum sanctorum. If the visitor
come in winter, a light tap is given on the door, a quick, but
pleasant voice says "Come in," and turning the top knob of the
door gives admittance. All is open in summer. There is a pretty
carpet of green and flowers. Low French, bedstead draped in
white. The walls too are white. There is a bureau and mirror,
cot-bed for waiting-boy "Tim," wash-stand and toilet furni
ture. Over the mantel, Brady's imperial photograph, taken in
1855, of which our third engraving is a copy. It is flanked on
the right by the picture of "Faith at the Cross," given while at
Fort Warren, by a much valued lady friend. On the left by
an embroidered watch-stand, and a pair of lamps. Then a
bookcase with broken glass, and bundles of papers in great
seeming disorder. The disorder is not so great, but the owner
can readily find what he wishes, and before the confusion inci
dent to the late war, no statesman kept such perfect order among
so many various papers. There is a little round top writing-
table, with eyelet press, and papers and scraps. More papers
and scraps are in the little table drawer, and the mind of the
owner is the index to them all, if they are not disturbed. That
annoys him greatly. His old office, and another library, are at
the court house, but he seldom goes to it.

On the worsted hearth-rug of this room, in winter, and on
the grass of the yard in summer, lounges a huge brown mastiff
named Troup. Near this larger specimen of the canine species,
is usually to be seen a little black terrier, with a chronic growl ;
he is called Frank. A restless yellow pup sometimes intrudes,
but is generally sent away with the proper rebuke from his
grave seniors. He bears the appropriate name of Sir Bingo
Binks. one of the characters in Walter Scott's "St. Eonan's Well."

Eio (called Reo), the famous poodle dog, the favorite pet and

ALEXANDER H. STEPHEN'S. 25

companion of the statesman for years, both at home and abroad,
has had, since 1863, a dreamless sleep in the garden. The red
clay mound that marks the spot of his burial, still awaits the
tablet for which an appropriate epitaph was once written : —

"Here rest the remains

Of what, in life, was a satire on the human race

And an honor to his own —

A faithful dog:1

On the left of the .fireplace of the room we last spoke of, in
winter, and in the veranda in summer, is generally seen the
owner of the premises. The man is known personally, and by
thousands of pictures, from the St. Lawrence to the Eio Grande.
The face is so kind that it is almost handsome ; and many years
of high thought, generous deeds, and patient suffering, have
given it that peculiar look of the maturely good which is al
most beautiful. His age, on the llth of February, 1866, was
fifty-four. The eyes are large, dark, habitually thoughtful, and
almost sad, sometimes full of brilliant power, and always fine.
His dress is much as described by the "Blind Chaplain," whom
we will quote hereafter, except that in summer it is usually
white. The pure and delicate fabric of the outer garments,
however, hide the heavy woollen that ill health and neuralgia
compel him always to wear.

At the first, he was a poor orphan ; then, successful lawyer ;
champion of education ; advocate of a great railroad ; pro
tector of the weak against the strong, righting wrong and
securing justice; benefactor of the poor; faithful ever to the
home and graves of his sires ; laying aside the robes of office
from choice, while in the noon of power ; an ardent defender
of the Union, 'as well as devotee of the doctrines of State rights
of the school of Jefferson and Madison ; ministering-spirit at
the hospitals, and caring for captive enemies as for brethren.
Then, a State prisoner, and afterward a Senator elect, dedi
cating his matchless eloquence again to harmony, wisdom,

26 .ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

peace, and Union ; hero of civil triumphs and bloodless bat
tles ; Christian gentleman and patriot statesman ; in a word —

ALEXANDER HAMILTON STEPHENS,

"What he calls his old Homestead place, is about two miles
from Crawford ville, and is the object of his most cherished
affections. It was the home of his grandfather and his father ;
but was sold at his father's death, and repurchased by him
with his first earnings at the bar. He has added largely to the
original tract of about two hundred and thirty acres, and
besides that, owns another farm of two hundred and seventy
acres, which is the best grazing farm in the country. The soil
of the old homestead place is sterile by nature, and mainly what
is termed " upland." It is in perfect order, and by careful
skill and liberal fertilization, is quite productive. There are two
fine orchards on the place, and a vineyard, which, with the one
he has in the village, made him, in I860, five hundred gallons
of Catawba wine. He has, however, made none since, and
grape culture in Georgia is, so far, a failure. The dwelling
on the farm is frame, unpainted, and surrounded by the usual
negro cabins that are seen all over the South. The place
is more elevated, and has even colder water than the village
home. His negroes have all remained with him, and his
plantation is entirely in their hands under contract of rent.
The following on the subject of which we are now writing, is
from the special correspondence of the New York Herald, and
will be read with interest :

" CRAWFORDVILLE, TALLIAFERRO Co., GA.,

September 26, 1860.

" Leaving his luggage at the humble inn in this little village,
which numbers but about three hundred inhabitants, white and
black, your correspondent inquired the direction to the residence
of the Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, the best beloved politician
in the State of Georgia. Walking to the corner of a street, a
short distance from the inn, our informant pointed in a northerly

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 27

direction, and said : ' There is Mr. Stephens' house, where that
white gate is, where you see that light' — for the sun had set, and
the curtains of night were closing around. In a few minutes
your correspondent found himself within the inclosure and
walking up a broad avenue toward Mr. Stephens' house. Upon a
capacious porch in front of the dwelling, a fine hound dog bayed
deep-mouthed warning that a stranger was approaching ; but
cries of ' Down, pup !' ' Be quiet, pup !' quieted the dog, and we
entered the house.

" The first object that met our view was that of a person, appa
rently a slightly formed youth, walking thoughtfully through a
wide passage way that extended from one side of the dwelling
to the other, and open to the air and sunshine at either end. On
approaching this slight, apparently fragile personage, we dis
covered at once, from his deeply marked and careworn features,
his broad forehead, his intelligent and eloquent black eye, it was
no youth who stood before us, but Mr. Stephens himself. He
now weighs ninety-two pounds, and weighed but eighty-four
when he commenced law practice in Crawfordville. The cere
mony of introduction passed, Mr. Stephens remarked : ' Let me
send to the hotel for your baggage, and stop with me while you
tarry here.' We thanked him and accepted his invitation. It
should be here mentioned, that the residence of Mr. Stephens
is called ' Liberty Hall,' and whether Mr. Stephens be at home
or not, the latch string is invariably hung outside for visitors and
friends, and servants are always at hand to extend the hospitali
ties of the mansion.

" Although laboring under a severe attack of neuralgia in the
head, Mr. Stephens at once engaged in conversation, and
plunged into the subject of the dangers that now imperil the
Union.
* * * * * *

"Besides his home residence in Crawfordville, which covers
about thirty acres of land, including a fine peach and apple
orchard, a garden in which the pomegranates are now bursting
with their luscious sweets, fig-trees overshadow the ground,
and roses of the finest varieties are in full bloom, Mr. Stephens

28 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

has a plantation about two miles distant, embracing a thousand
acres of land. A portion of this plantation belonged to his
parents. His grandfather died and was buried on the spot ; his
father and mother lived and died there, and the property falling
into other hands, it was not until the expiration of many years
that Mr. Stephens was enabled to achieve the proudest object of
his life's ambition, the redemption of his patrimonial estate.
He has since added considerably to its proportions, and by im
proving its culture rendered it one of the finest plantations in
the county. It was to this place that the biggest-littlest man in
the State of Georgia invited your correspondent to take a horse
back ride yesterday (Sunday) morning. Our equestrian educa
tion had been somewhat neglected in youth, although we had the
advantage of an intimate acquaintanceship with Disbrow and
other eminent professors of the equine art, and our situation on
the back of a horse at this time was quite a novel one.

" And now behold us, en cheval, passing through the gates
toward the road. But what is this white building — what is this
crowd ? They appear within the limits of Mr. Stephens' domain,
and the people regard him with evident respect. The one is a
modest-looking and yet goodly-sized Baptist meeting-house, and
the people you see, have come a distance of five and ten miles to
worship there. They are both white and black. Christ's blood
has sprinkled them all alike in the South, so far as I have seen.
There are a number to be baptized, and this, with the knowledge
that the Rev. Dr. Hilyer, of Penfield, is to preach, has attracted
an unusually large assemblage. Passing along, to quote a
famous novelist, ' two horsemen might have been seen' rising on
the crest of a hill of red clay in Taliaferro county, Georgia, on a
calm summer's morn. They were apparently engaged in earnest
conversation. One bestrode his horse as if he were waxed to the
saddle, and the other didn't. It seemed that the latter did not
know which of four evils to make choice of — whether it were best
to pop over the horse's head, tumble off to the right or to the
left, or slide back over his tail. The movements were unique,
undoubtedly ; but without accident we proceeded.

"All along the road were vehicles, and horsemen and horse-

ALEXANDEK H. STEPHENS. 29

women, going in their neat Sunday attire to meeting. Every
where was Mr. Stephens saluted with respect; even the negroes
would stop, and, taking off their hats, cry, ' Good mornin', mass
Aleck;' and Mr. Stephens would respond by kindly inquiring
after the folks at home.

" The conversation during the ride was interesting, and to me
instructive, as it opened a new volume on the subject of Southern
life, manners, rights, and duties. At one point my horse was
about a length in the rear, when Mr. Stephens observed, ' Black
berry is rather lazy this morning.' We gave Blackberry a
crack, and Blackberry came near making blackberry-jam of his
rider. In the course of the conversation Mr. Stephens reiterated
his apprehensions for the future of the country — said that the
leaders did not know what volcanoes were rumbling beneath
them — and, pointing to a large oak, whose upper branches were
decayed, said that, like those branches, the leaders in the country
had become corrupt and rotten, and that the insidious poison
was fast hastening to the trunk — the masses of the country.

" During the ride through his plantation, Mr. Stephens pointed
out his vineyard, comprising four acres of land. The vines are
of the Catawba variety, in healthful condition, and next year
will produce, Mr. Stephens calculates, several hundred gallons
of wine. He has also near his residence about an acre of land
in which he has planted what he intends shall be a model vine
yard, and from its fine situation, the thriftiness of the first year's
growth, and other significant reasons, there is no doubt his ex
pectations will be realized. Mr. Stephens devotes considerable
of his time to his plantation, and a day or two since might have
been seen sowing rye in one of his fields.
******

"After returning and attending divine service, I was told that
it was likely Senator Toombs would stop in passing, on his way
homeward, and take tea with Mr. Stephens. With the evening
train from Augusta, along came the great Southern agitator.
His features in the pictures bear a strong resemblance to him,
but they do not dance like those of the original. Mr. Toombs is
of an active, and I should think of rather a jolly temperament.

30 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

He looks as if he could sing 'Widow Machree' with as much
efiect as John Brougham, to whom, by the vt&y, he bears a strong

resemblance.

* * * * * *

" It should be stated that while the personal relations of Mr.
Stephens and Mr. Toombs are of the most friendly nature, they
differ as widely as the poles in relation to the course the States
should adopt in the event of Mr. Lincoln's election. Mr. Toombs
takes the ground that the States should forcibly resist, Mr.
Stephens the reverse. As the future, so pregnant with moment
ous events, developes itself, Mr. Stephens will be found, as he is
now, on the side of the Union, the Constitution, and the country.
Mr. Toombs is and has been for disunion."

The correspondent of the Herald, from whom we have above
quoted, does not speak of the old home spot, where the house
stood in which Mr. Stephens was born. It is on a gentle
eminence in an old field, overgrown with short wild grasses,
with a few pines, and some wild plum trees. The miniature
natural lake was ditched off and dried, and the magnificent
grove of trees at the house cut down by the person who
bought the place at the death of his father. The house in
which he was born, was of logs, but good for that day. Some
of the logs are part of a cabin, now occupied by a negro family
in the same field. A heap of stones — the ruins of the old chim
ney and hearth-stones — now mark the spot where the home of
his childhood stood. A substantial granite wall, near by, in
closes the graves of his kindred. The commodious frame
building, which took the place of the log cabin when his father's
circumstances grew better, was sold by the purchaser of the
land, and taken down and moved away. It is now a comfort
able residence some miles off.

An old field, the logs of a cabin, a heap of stones, some
mounds of earth ; these are the links which bind the statesman
to his first home, and these links, all the temptations of wealth,
and power, and fame, have failed to break.

The mental picture before us, of the scene as we last saw it,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 31

is this : — A horse and buggy. A negro boy gathering wild
plums. A slight forrn; somewhat stooping, standing in the old
field by the mound of stones, beneath the splendors of a south
ern sun in June. To him turn the eyes of millions of those who
love the men who benefit mankind. His eyes seek — •

" That dearest spot on earth to him,
' His father's grave.' "

MR. STEPHENS has been so often represented by the pens of
able writers as well as by the engraver's skill and the fidelity
of the photograph, that we shall not profess to improve what
has been done so well.

In presenting him, therefore, before the foot-lights of the
public stage, as well as in the portraiture of private life (both
of which are the objects of this sketch), the introduction to our
audience may as well be in the language of Rev. William
Henry Milburn, the half-blind chaplain of Congress. It is as
accurate as ever written of him. After speaking briefly of
John Quincy Adams and a few other veterans, he then pro
ceeds to tell of two young men, the one from Georgia being
described first, and the other one being Stephen A. Douglas,
of Illinois. He says : —

" Alexander Hamilton Stephens is the most powerful orator in
Congress, and that with all the odds against him. When stand
ing he is a man of medium height, but when seated he looks like
a boy, for his trunk is remarkably short, and his face exceeding
youthful. Careless of his personal appearance, his hair falling in
masses over his fine brow ; his black, brown, or any other colored
cravat (he seems not to know which) tied in a sailor's knot ; his
clothes fitting well, if he has been fortunate in his tailor (rarely
the case) ; an immense gold chain, terminated by a heavy seal,
falling from his watch fob, he presents an unpromising, not to
say an outre appearance. When in repose, his face does not
promise much more ; pale, with a slightly sallow tinge, sometimes
with a hectic flush upon his cheek, it seems to belong to a beard-

32 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

less boy. His arms and legs are very long, and his whole frame,
not compactly knit, appears loose and awkward, and the victim
of life-long disease. How nearly disease and genius may be
associated, is a question which I leave for physiologists and
psychologists to settle. But I feel sure that sleepless nights and
days of pain and fever have had much to do with the brilliant
intellect of this remarkable man. His voice, too, in common
talk, gives as little token of his power as his other features, for
it is thin, high-pitched, and inclining to the falsetto. Trained as
a lawyer at the Georgia bar, a wonderful school for development
of popular eloquence (for the jury system is pushed there to its
remotest limits), he early displayed those gifts which have made
his name so famous ; a sharp, incisive intellect, broad in its com
prehension, firm in its grasp, as keen in its perceptions, coupled
with an emotional nature, delicate as it is strong, giving him an
invincible hold upon the interest and sympathy of his hearers.
Returned to the House of. Representatives when scarcely thirty
years of age, he had, by the time I first saw him, already gained
the undivided ear of the House. When he stood up to speak,
there was no lunching, chatting, or apathy in the Hall, which
seemed divided between the silence and his voice. The almost
feminine squeak of opening soon became a consistent ringing tone,
penetrating eve^ corner of the spacious apartment ; and judging
of h^s effect upon the ear, I can well believe what I have so often
heard, that the impression of his presence upon the eye almost
amounted to a transformation. *

" In defence of his position he is at once logical and persuasive,
setting his argument before you in a clear light and striking atti
tude, insomuch that the remark of Mr. Horace Greeley is justi
fied, ' that you forget you are listening to the most eloquent man
in Washington, and only feel that he is right.'

" His manner is rapid, sometimes vehement, always collected.
Having in an instant gained your absorbed attention, he wins
your confidence by his apparent fairness of reasoning, until at
length you submit yourself to his control without compunction,
or the dread of his being overcome. The most brilliant, albeit
not the most satisfying, part of his oratory is seen when he turns

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 33

upon his opponents. His powers of satire, ridicule, sarcasm, and
invective, are fearful, and yet the man of good breeding never
forgets himself, nor is hurried away into truculent abuse. Many
a man has smarted, or even withered under Mr. Stephens' irony
or denunciation ; but I question if any has ever had cause to say
that he was not a gentleman.

" I fancy that there are several points of apparent resemblance
between Mr. Stephens, and John Randolph of Roanoke ; but there
must be more of real difference. Bothrhave been the victims of
disease whose origin dates far back in life, and each has conse
quently been the owner of a body, which, however exquisitely it
may have been strung, has been perilously sensitive. Both have
exercised almost unequal sway upon the floor of Congress ; and
both have been noted as masters in the art of offensive parlia
mentary warfare. Both have been admitted to be unimpeachably
honest and fearless statesmen, shunning no danger, and braving
every peril in the maintenance of their peculiar and cherished
convictions. But Mr. Randolph had scarcely a friend. Mr.
Stephens has hardty an enemy. Bodily infirmity, if it did not
master Mr. Randolph's will, soured his temper, and gave to his
perfect diction the poison of wormwood, and to his spirit the gall
of bitterness that verged upon misanthropy. Mr. Stephens has
conquered suffering, and made himself strong and noble by enter
ing heartily into the sweet charities of life.

" The Virginian, proud of his lineage and his birth-place ; an
intolerant aristocrat, with varied and finished culture, refined
taste, a high sense of honor, a mind disposed to prey upon itself,
and a contempt for those who did not share his advantages,
nevertheless, presented a curious spectacle, as the unflinching
advocate of extreme democratic doctrines, while at the same
time he was unable to free himself from the tyrannous sentiment
of exclusiveness and caste. With an air of stately haughtiness,
he entered the lists of Congressional debate like some solitarj'
champion, with his vizor up, that all might recognize him, wear
ing the colors of a fair lady, whose place upon the throne of his
affections never knew a rival, and in honor of his own Virginia
defiantly threw down his gage of battle to all comers. He chal-
3

84 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

lenged your admiration, and demanded your submission ; he dis
dained your sympathy, and scorned your weakness. If you were
not a gentleman by the four descents, he would hurl at you all
the fiery darts of his jeering ridicule ; and if you were not born
in the ' Old Dominion,' nothing could expiate your offence, and as
a Pariah you must bear the insult of his complacent or scoffing
pityi Any provincialism of pronunciation or phrase upon the
part of a man whom he thought worthy to be considered an
antagonist, was chastised,in the summary fashion of a pedagogue,
and more than one distinguished member of our national council
has been taught English by the great Virginian ; insomuch, that
in his day he deserved the appellation of the schoolmaster of
Congress. The Georgian, on the other hand, is as simple and
genial in his manners as a child ; considerate and kind to all, his
friendliness begets for him friendship. He rarely speaks except
upon an occasion which demands all his powers, and then after
mature deliberation, and a careful survey of his own position and
that occupied by those opposed to him ; so that he is like a great
general leading disciplined and well concentrated forces to the
attack, and so admirable are at once his instinctive and reflec
tive powers, that he seldom makes a mistake or suffers a defeat.
He is a born leader of men, because his comprehensive and in
tellectual nature is seconded and animated by his yet finer social
nature ; and whether Mr. Stephens continues in the House, which
I presume he would prefer, as the great popular body, or be re
moved to the Senate, I think that the country will one day adjudge
him the finest orator and ablest statesman in either.

"The idol of Mr. Randolph's political worship was State
sovereignty ; the coordinate rights of the States in harmony with
the unity and ascendency of the Federal government is the plat
form of Mr. Stephens. Mr. Randolph was a Virginian ; Mr
Stephens is a patriot."*

* We do not understand Mr. Milburn as doubting the patriotism of
John Eandolph, but only as believing the man of Roanoke to feel — "Not
that I love the Union less, but Virginia more." While it is also true, as
stated, that Mr. Stephens was ardently attached to the union of States,
yet he was not less ardently attached to State sovereignty, as will be
seen before we clo ^e.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 35

That was many years ago. When Ave write — in the summer
of 1866 — the heart of the man and the brain are just the same,
and the face and form changed but little.

The bending of the form, from study and weakness, not from
his fifty-four years, is a little more perceptible than then. The
cliveof his cheek deepens somewhat as the shadows of eternity
lengthen out over the lowlands of time, and the anxious care
for a nation of states and a nation of individuals, has plowed
deeper the seams in his face ; but the brown hair shows only
slight trace of the white grave blossoms, and the soul looks
through the eyes with the olden splendor. It is in no hyper
bole that men are accustomed to speak of him as " this most
remarkable man ;" for mentally and physically — as the poor boy,
the patient student, the young lawyer, the legislator, the great
advocate, the famed Congressman, the benefactor of youth
seeking for education, the retiring statesman, the vice-president
of a league of States, the State prisoner and the Senator elect,
the always invalid, the gentleman and the Christian ; as all
these (and with a sad consciousness of unfitness for the^task),
it is to depict these lights and shadows of a remarkable life,
that we attempt to write of the great Georgian.

As the ground we tread has already been gone over b)
other writers, and as reading their views must necessarily color
and shape our own, it is as well, while upon the threshold of
the subject, to gratefully admit the aid received from the
sketches of. John Mitchell, the Irish patriot ; J. B. Thorpe, the
" Bee Hunter ;" John Savage, author of " Our Living Eepre-
sentative Men," and from others, to whom we will attempt to
give proper credit for things we borrow, whether thoughts,
facts, or words. The author only claims to correctly state
some things about which error has existed, and to give some
new facts, together with unpublished letters and speeches not
generally accessible to the people of these States ; all in regard
to the man whose name is a household word beyond the

36 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

boundaries of his State, and whose honest fame spreads wider
than the dominions of the English tongue.

The grandfather of Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, and the founder
of the American branch of the family, was an Englishman by
birth, an adherent to the fortunes of the Chevalier Edward (the
Pretender), and was therefore opposed to the House of Hanover,
of which his Majesty, George III., was the representative at the
time of the Revolution. During the pre-revolutionary, Indian
troubles, he served under General Braddock, and was with
him while marching on Fort Du Quesne, and at the memorable
defeat. In another expedition he served under Colonel (after
wards General) Washington.

During the Revolutionary war, he took an active part on the
side of the colonies, and arose to the rank of captain on the
patriot side. His home was then in Pennsylvania. In the
year 1795, he settled in Georgia, first in Elbert county, then in
Wilkes, on Kettle creek, where he dwelt until 1805, when he
finally removed again and settled a place in that part of Wilkes
which was afterward cut off, forming part of Taliaferro. An
drew B. Stephens, the father, and Alexander Stephens, the
grandfather of him of whom we write, died upon the place.
The subject of this sketch, was born there on the llth day of
February, 1812. He was named "Alexander/7 for the grand
father, who fought on the collonial side. The middle name,
"Hamilton," was subsequently adopted by him from love and
respect for his greatest benefactor, Rev. Alexander Hamilton
Webster, of Wilkes county — afterward his preceptor — and who
was a favorite preacher in Georgia.

His father, Andrew B. Stephens, was a farmer of moderate
means, industrious, just, and upright. His death, in the boy
hood of Alexander, May 7, 1826, deprived him of the care and
example of a most excellent man. His mother, Margaret Grier
who was a sister of the author of the famous Grier's Almanac,
and a distant relative of Justice Grier, of the United States

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 37

Supreme Court, died when he was an infant, which was perhaps
his greatest loss. He had one full brother, and one full sister,
both of whom are dead. His father married a second time, by
which marriage there was also two sons and a daughter ; of
these half brothers and sister, the Hon. Lin ton Stephens, of
Sparta, Georgia, late Judge of the State Supreme Court, is the
only one that survives.

John Savage, Esq., thus speaks of this period of the life of
Mr. Alexander H. Stephens :

" Having been deprived of the fond care of his mother, Mar
garet Grier, in infancy, he suffered the loss of his father in
boyhood. The solicitude and nourishment which would have
made a strong boy of him, were debarred in childhood, and
that directing care which moulds the youth into a man, was
lost in boyhood. He was left an orphan at the age of fourteen.
******

Dependent almost entirely on himself, his future looked dim
enough ; and who would have dreamed that the sickly, emacia
ted boy would loom up from the dreary hearthstone of that
desolated homestead into the councils of the nation, and the
brotherhood of the famous ?"

His parental home was sold for distribution, and the portion
of each child was only four hundred and forty-four dollars.

Before his father's death, he had been a regular attendant at
the village "neighborhood," school. A kind uncle, Aaron W.
Grier,* offered him a home without charge for board, and the

* This uncle lived to see his nephew and ward (Alexander) rise to the
highest distinction. He always took the deepest interest in his career,
and ever cherished toward him the tenderest affection. We clip, from
the Augusta (Georgia) Constitutionalist, the following obituary notice of
him :

" Died at his residence, near Ray town, Taliaferro county, Georgia, on
the 14th of January, 1864, General AARON W. GRIER. The deceased

38 ALEXANDEK H. STEPHENS.

interest of Ms little patrimony of four hundred and forty-dollars
at eight per cent., the then existing legal rate, barely paid for
tuition and clothing. By the laws of the State the principal
could not be used, but was held, during minority, by his guar
dian for his advantage.

Master Stephens being a boy of strict morality, and professed
and acknowledged piety, attracted the attention of the Superin
tendent of the Sabbath-school where he attended, by his extra-
was a man of many strongly marked traits of character. When quite
young, he volunteered in the forces that went out under Floyd, in the
Creek Indian war of 1812. He was in the battle of Caleebe, where the
gallant Butts fell. In this campaign he evinced that military talent which
characterized his after life. He was soon after elected major of a bat
talion of militia, afterward colonel of a regiment, and subsequently, brig
adier-general.

"This position he held for many years, which he resigned in conse
quence of ill-health. He was of clear and vigorous mind, and of the most
scrupulous honor, truth, and integrity ; very few, amongst men, are ever
found more exemplary in their conduct, or upright in all their dealings
with their fellows, than he was. In the latter years of his life, he was
severely afflicted. At one time, he was completely paralyzed in every
member of his body, though his intellectual powers remained unimpaired.
From this affliction he recovered sufficiently to travel about and attend
to his farm. He took great pleasure in agriculture and stock raising,
particularly in sheep, and occasionally contributed with his pen to jour
nals devoted to these objects. In politics, he was of the old Crawford,
Troup, State rights school, these were the principles of his youth, his
manhood, and old age.

'• He was emphatically a good citizen, a kind neighbor, an affectionate
husband, a tender father, and an indulgent master.

" Pneumonia was the disease that took him off at the age of sixty-seven.
He seemed to be conscious of his approaching change, and met it with
perfect resignation, retaining his consciousness until near the last.

" He was of the Presbyterian faith, though he never united himself
with any church.

" In him has passed away one of the best of men (taken all in all) ever
known by one who has seen a good deal of mankind, and who knew him
well."

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 39

ordinary capacity as well as other good qualities. This kind
gentleman was Mr. Charles C. Mills. He proposed an arrange
ment by which young Stephens might be able to secure to him
self 'a better education than he seemed likely to acquire at home.

He had been to school five months after the death of his
father, attending school in winter, and working on the farm in
summer. The offer of Mr. Mills, which was to send him to
school, was accepted, but with the distinct understanding that
the money was a loan that Master Stephens was to repay.
This arrangement being concluded, he went to the Academy in
Washington, Georgia, then one of the best classical schools in
the State.

It was under the direction and control of Rev. Alexander
Hamilton Webster, before referred to. Under this most excel
lent gentleman, with whom he boarded, Master Stephens com
menced his studies. The clergyman was delighted at the pro
ficiency of his pupil. Mr. Webster had the charge of the
Presbyterian church there at that time, and at an early day,
after the pupil entered the academy, had the satisfaction of
receiving him into church membership.

Stephens had no such opportunity before, no church of that
faith being near his father's. Toward the close of the first
term, Master Stephens was informed by Mr. Webster, that the
proposition of Mr. Mills had been at his instance, having heard
of Master Stephens not only from Mr. Mills, but from several
other sources. He thought, if educated, his pupil would be
well fitted for the ministry. He had made the arrangement
with a view of having him under his own observation, and of
satisfying himself on that point. He was well pleased, and
urged upon young Stephens this course for his future life. He
stated that it was his desire to prepare him for college, to furnish
board and tuition, and after that, there was a Board of Educa
tion, known as the " Georgia Education Society," which would
supply all further needful means.

This was a new phase of the question, and the young student

40 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

was somewhat perplexed by it. Upon returning home to his
uncle's at the close of the term or quarter, and consulting with
the uncle, who offered no opposition, and with an aunt — a
highly intellectual, excellent, and religious lady, who ap
proved it — he concluded to pursue his studies under the
arrangement proposed. It was with a renewal of the under
standing, however, that all advances of money should be
returned, in case he should not, on arriving at maturer age, feel
it to be his duty to enter the ministry. In any and all events
if he should ever be able. These views he reported to Mr.
Webster at the opening of the next quarter. They were
acceptable, and he continued at school. In a short time, how
ever, Mr. Webster — a man who stood high in Georgia as
a teacher and a divine — was taken ill with a malignant autumn
fever, and died a few days after. This loss was deeply felt by
Master Stephens, who cherished toward him a filial regard, and
had (as before stated) adopted the middle name of his benefactor
in token of it. The prospect of the future, as it was before
open, was utterly changed, and he immediately prepared to
return to his uncle's.

Several gentlemen of wealth and worth in the town, however,
who were devoted friends to Mr. Webster, and members of his
church, knew his estimate of Master Stephens, and his wishes in
that regard. Among them may be named Adam L. Alexander,
Dr. Felix Gilbert Hay, Colonel Duncan G. Campbell, father of
Hon. John A. Campbell, late of the United States Supreme
Bench, and Mr. William Dearing. These urged young Stephens
to remain at the school, which was continued under the direction
of Rev. Thomas Magruder. They opened their houses to him,
and bade him make himself at home with them. The kind
offers were accepted, and he first spent a portion of his time
with Mr. Alexander, then with Dr. Hay, and last with Mr.
Dearing, until he was prepared for college.

He entered the academy early in August, 1827, and left it
early in June, 1828 : there having been a vacation of six

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 41

weeks between these periods. So that, beginning with the rudi
ments of English, he was prepared for college in nine months.

Of the persons above named, Colonel Campbell died just be
fore Mr. Stephens entered college. Dr. Hay and Mr. Bearing
have long since been dead ; Mr. Alexander still lives in Wash
ington, Georgia, and is known as one of the most intellectual,
best informed, and worthy men of the State.

Thus Mr. Stephens entered college in August, 1828, and took
his place in the Freshman Class. As time advanced, there
was no change in his religious inclination, but by the close of
the second year great doubts had arisen in his mind as to his
special fitness for the sacred office. While under such a doubt,
the beneficiary circumstances under which he was placed were
a little embarrassing, and he made his trouble known to the
uncle who was his guardian.

The guardian was by this time satisfied of the trustworthiness
of his ward and minor, and surrendered to him the corpus of his
patrimony. With this, he for the future paid his way, and upon
graduating in 1832, with the highest honors, he borrowed enough
from his elder brother, Aaron G. Stephens, to pay all arrears of
advanced money, with interest. His Alma Mater was the State
University at Athens, generally known as Franklin College. •

With his native honest independence, he at once obtained a
situation as teacher in Madison, Georgia, and afterward a posi
tion as private tutor in Liberty county. As a teacher he was
remarkably successful, and equally popular with the patrons for
the rapid and thorough advancement of their children, and
with the pupils, for all the liberty and kindness compatible
with inflexible firmness on his part and complete obedience
on theirs. There are few of those pupils not now eminent.

The result of his labor as teacher and tutor (which last place he
took from failing health) was a considerable exhaustion of thelittle
vitality he had, but the full payment of all his debts, and a small
sum of money in his pocket when he began the study of law.

His attachment to the first pocketbook he ever had, has been

42 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

often, bat not always accurately spoken of. He yet carries it
constantly with him, and the date in it is, May 26th, 1834. He
began the study of law on that day. A lawyer of Crawford-
ville, Mr. Swepston C. Jefferies, was retiring from practice, and
had already sold out the most of his books. The few remain
ing elementary ones, to wit, Starkie on Evidence, Maddox's
Chancery, Comyn's Digest, Chitty's Pleadings, etc., Mr. Stephens
bought and paid twenty-five dollars for them. That day,
wanting something to hold papers, he went to the store of a
merchant who was not acquainted with him, to purchase the
receptacle we have spoken of. The merchant did not know
that he wished to pay for it, and asked some one if he could
safely trust young Stephens. The question of credit was not
made, however, and the wished-for article was bought and paid for

Upon the purchase of the law books, Mr. Stephens took the
place in the sheriff's office vacated by the retirement of Mr. Jeffer
ies. The arrangement had been that the attorney might occupy
the room in the court house appropriated to the sheriff' of the
county, on the condition of giving that officer general legal
advice in the discharge of his duties. The young neophyte
took it on the same terms, and thus held it until his election to
Congress in 1843. He read law alone and without any instruc
tor. To acquaint himself with the forms of practice in use in
Georgia, he had access to the clerk's office in an adjoining
room. Much of the recording of the clerk was done by him,
to gain familiarity with the full details of an action, from the
Declaration, to final Judgment and Execution. Also the .same
with Equity Pleadings, there being then, as now, a chancery
side to the Superior Courts of his State. No assistance was had
from any other quarter.

A little poem that was once the pet school speech of small
southern children, says :

" Large streams from little fountains flow,

Tall oaks from little acorns grow."

And few great things have ever come from smaller, more un
promising, and more obscure beginnings, than the man we write of.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 43

II.

EISE AND SUCCESS IN LIFE.

ADMISSION TO THE BAR — ELECTION TO THE LEGISLATURE —
ELECTION TO CONGRESS.

MR. STEPHENS was admitted to the bar on the 22d day of
July, 1834, when twenty-two years old. No profound jurist of
the school of Coke upon Littleton had helped him, but he went
to the examination relying alone upon his wonderful memory,
and his text books. He was examined before the Hon. William
H. Crawford, at the last court but one he ever held ; by Hon.
Joseph Henry Lnmpkin, afterward and now Chief Justice of
the State Supreme Court. Upon admission, he was compli
mented by these eminent jurists upon having sustained as good an
examination as they had ever heard in all their time at the bar.
Mr. Jefferies, the retired Attorney and Counsellor we have
spoken of, being wealthy and having some professional ambi
tion, proposed that Mr. Stephens should go with him to Colum
bus, Georgia, on the following terms : Mr. Jefferies to purchase
a large law library and fit up an office there, Mr. Stephens to
be his partner. He offered to guarantee young Stephens fifteen
hundred dollars a year, besides his board bills, if the half of the
partnership did not amount to so much ; an equal division if it
exceeded that. Mr. Stephens replied that he would rather stay
where he was if he only made one hundred, than make five
thousand a year anywhere else. Mr. Jefferies laughingly said he
would guarantee that for nothing, and assured him of tolerable,
if not brilliant success even there. The encouragement thus
given as to the prospect of making a bare living, near the scenes
of his childhood, decided him to remain in Crawfordville. That

44 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

interview settled the question of location. He lived on six
dollars a month, made his own fires, blacked his own boots, and
made four hundred dollars the first year.

He had a horse the second year, which he groomed himself.

As an illustration of the deceptiveness of appearances, we give
the following anecdote which Mr. Stephens tells of himself:

There was at that time a shoe factory in Crawfordville,4 and
as Mr. Stephens passed there one morning early, walking fast
as his habit was, one of three negroes suspended his cup in the
act of dipping up water, and asked :

" Who is that little fellow that walks by here so fast of
mornings ?"

The second replied :

" Why man, lhafs a lawyer !"

The third negro exclaimed :

"A lawyer ! A lawyer, you say ! Ha ! ha ! ha ! that's too
good !"

That conversation, thus overheard, caused the young attorney
much serious thought. He was not angry, but took it as an
accidental revelation of popular opinion of him. The prospect
at the time and place was anything but promising. There
were less than half a dozen cases returned to that term of the
court. It was from this reason that Mr. Jefferies had retired
from practice, there not being enough business to engage his
attention. Mr. Stephens had stayed on his kind assurance of
some business.

The amused negroes did not know that the " lawyer" would
be so prominent a defender of the wronged of their race. Mr.
Stephens has defended and saved the lives and persons of more
negroes, perhaps, than any man in Georgia. The negro who
made the remark was free, but in less than six months, that
" little fellow" had saved him from punishment under a serious
charge, by exposing a defect in the warrant.

Mr. Stephens' "shingle" as the saying is, was put out, and the
next week he started on the circuit.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 45

Bather an interesting anecdote is told of his first adventure
in beginning the profession :

The next court was at Washington, Georgia, the place of his
school-boy days. There were no railroads or public convey
ances between the places. He had no horse, and was too proud
to ask the loan of one from any of his acquaintances in the
town. The whole distance was a little too far for his strength,
should he undertake it on foot. He walked to his uncle's,
which was about ten miles, or half the distance, and but little
out of the way — carrying his saddle-bags, containing a change
of clothes, upon his shoulders. He chose the cool of night
instead of the heat of a July day for this undertaking ; and
resting frequently on the stones of the road-side, sadly meditated
in his darkened loneliness upon the deeper darkness that envel
oped his future fate. A horse was borrowed 'from his uncle
without scruple, and the next day he proceeded on his way. The
change of clothes, above mentioned, consisted in part, of a pair of
thin, white, cotton pants, of cheap material, very suitable for the
season, and somewhat of the appearance of linen. That he
might enter the town and the court room as decent as possible,
he dismounted a short distance from the suburbs, and doffed
the somewhat worn unmentionables with which he set out, and
donned the aforesaid- white ones in their stead. Also, other
wise arranged his toilet the best he could, for his first appear
ance as a member of the Bar on the circuit. The reverse opera
tion was gone through with on his return.

Such were the straits to which a sense of economy then com
pelled him to resort.

That period of his life was one of sore apprehension. He
was sickly, not able to do manual labor, poor, almost friendless;
and the brain that ached from disease and was weary with toil,
was haunted by the grim question of EXISTENCE ! Dependent
entirely upon himself, his powers untried, and faith built upon
will, not ability, the great YES and NO of all beings, resolved

46 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

for him into the . problem, would he live or die: if live, how?
Still he clung to his people, his home, and the graves of his
sires, with stronger attachment than even the German boasts
for his own Fatherland. No temptation, then or since, has di
vorced his heart from the red, sterile hills of his birth-place,
and to all allurements, even when the voices of home seem to
appeal to his ambition or his interest, and bid him go ; his heart
seems to answer to his people, as did Euth to Naomi, "Entreat
me not to leave thee, to return from following after thee ; for
whither thou goest I will go ; and where thou lodgest, I will
lodge ; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.
Where thou diest I will die, and there will I be buried ; the
Lord do so to me and more also; if aught but death part thee
and me."

Within ten (Jays after his admission to practice, he was em
ployed in a very important case. A wealthy gentleman of high
position and great influence, upon the death of his son, had
been appointed guardian of the person and property of his
granddaughter, then an infant, its mother being married to a
second husband. In the course of time, the mother claimed
possession of the child, which claim was resisted by the grand
father, who claimed it as legal guardian. The step-father, wish
ing to please the mother, his wife, came to the young lawyer,
and engaged him as counsel to set aside the guardianship ; other
lawyers having failed, and Mr. Stephens having, upon being
consulted, given his opinion that the letters of guardianship as
to the person of the child should be revoked, and the mother
given charge of the care and education of her daughter.

The trial was before the five judges of the Inferior Court,
with no jury, sitting as a Court of Ordinary, upon motion to
set aside the letters of guardianship, so far as related to the
person of the child. Great interest was manifested in the at
tempt of the ungainly lawyer to meet and foil Mr. Jefferies,
then the veteran of the bar at that place, and who, notwith
standing his retirement from the bar, had been prevailed upon

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 47

to reappear in this, the most exciting case that had been tried
in the county for a number of years. The result was, that the
guardianship was set aside, and the child restored to its natural
place, in the arms of its mother. The triumphant advocate at
once took the place at the bar he has held ever since, and was
soon retained on one side or other, of every important case tried
in his county.

A close student always, he now spent no idle time, and every
dollar he saved, went to buy those tools of the brain, books,
which he often read until the gray hours of morning.

His county practice soon extended throughout the judicial
circuit known as the northern circuit. His acquisitions in
legal lore made in the first two years after admission were amaz
ing, aad his rapid rise within the same period to position and
distinction as a lawyer, was no less amazing and wonderful.
Iri that time he had taken rank with the first men in the cir
cuit, and was retained as leading counsel in many of the most
important causes both in law and equity in it. The wonder at,
as well as merit of this extraordinary rise, may be better
understood when the character of some of the men with whom
he had to cope is considered. They were no pettifogging
attorneys or unskilled advocates.

The bar of the northern circuit has always been equal if
not superior to any in the State. This galaxy of talent never
shone brighter than it did from 1834 to 1836. It embraced in
its circle many who would have been pillars and ornaments of
the profession wherever the common law is administered. Some
of these may be named — Nathan 0. Sayre, Eli H. Baxter,
James Thomas, Garnett Andrews, Daniel Chandler, Eobert
Toombs, William C. Dawson, Francis H. Cone, and Joseph H.
Lumpkin.

Sayre, Baxter, and Thomas, were then in the prime and
vigor of life, and building up that substantial fabric of judicial
reputation they have left behind them. They .were all of the
county of Hancock. They each, in turn, subsequently occu-

48 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

pied the bench. They are all now departed, but their deeds
live after them, and their names will not soon die.

Andrews, Chandler, and Toombs, were of "Wilkes. Andrews
went upon the bench on the death of Judge Crawford. This
position he held for several consecutive terms of office, and in
it, in the discharge of its high duties, suffered nothing by com
parison with either his immediate illustrious predecessor, or
with the renowned Dooly, who occupied the same seat before
Crawford.

Toombs, whose reputation is now world-wide, and whose
intellect is equal to the greatest of this or any other country,
was then just beginning to win his first laurels in forensic en
counters — having been admitted four years before by special
act of the legislature, as he was not of age at the time.

Chandler, the senior of Toombs by a few years, though pos
sessing less of his genius and power, had already become
greatly distinguished for his fascinating manners, classical
scholarship, elegant diction, flowery rhetoric, and commanding
address before the juries. He moved soon after to Mobile,
and became a law-partner of the very distinguished jurist,
John A. Campbell.

Davvson and Cone were of Greene county, and though thev
did not reside in the northern circuit, yet they were numbered
with the members of its bar, for they attended the courts in
every county in it.

Dawson's fame at that time, both as lawyer and legislator,
was co-extensive with the State. He was at that time per
sonally, perhaps, the most popular man in it. His manners
were courtly. In speaking, his action was easy and graceful.
He abounded with wit and humor, and often put the whole
court-house in a roar of laughter with his sallies of this sort.

Cone was widely different from Dawson, but by no means
his inferior in any of the essential requisites of a lawyer. Like
his immediate rival, his reputation was already established far
and near. Like him, also, he had a vein of the most exquisite

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 49

humor. But humor was not his forte in the court-house. He
addressed himself more to the judge than to the jury. Being
thoroughly versed in the whole science of the law, and posses
sing a strong, well-trained, logical mind, no man was ever
clearer or more brilliant than he often was in the elucidation
of its most abstruse principles.

These two leading spirits, who filled so large a space in the
sphere in which they moved for so long a time, were then also
in their prime, and with their brethren of Hancock they have
also departed.

Lumpkin, the last of the galaxy mentioned, was, at the time
we write of, a resident of the county of Oglethorpe. He was
then in his full glory as an attorney, advocate, and counsellor
at law. And with what splendor did that glory shine ? With
eloquence of the highest order he combined the profoundest
knowledge of the law in all its departments — qualities as grand
and exalted as they are rare. He now lives at Athens, ripe
with honors and age. For twenty years and more he has been
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State.

These, be it remembered, were some of the giants at the bar
with whom the stripling Stephens had to contend when he
entered the arena of the northern circuit. All of these were
men of mark in their day, and have left, deeply fixed, their
impress upon the institutions of the State. It was amongst
such men the subject of our sketch took rank and became a
peer within the space of two years.

During this period his health was better than it had ever
been before. He had no serious attack of disease of any sort
in that time.

In August, 1836, he met with several old class-mates at the
annual commencement of the State University, and they all
congratulated him on improved health. All of them were
weighed, and his weight was ninety-six (96) pounds, which was
more than he had ever weighed before.

In 1836, contrary to his expressed wishes, he was nominated
4

50 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

by his friends for the lower branch of the general assembly
of his State, and triumphantly elected against a bitter opposi
tion. That opposition grew out of two facts. First, his being
openly and decidedly against the doctrine of nullification, which
was almost universally held by the people of the county. Second,
He had taken a stand sometime before in a county meeting,
against the proposition brought forward by the most popular
man in the county (who had been State Senator for years), for
the appointment of a Vigilance Committee. The proposal was
to raise and clothe such committee with full powers to take up
and punish all persons who might be suspected of circulating
incendiary sentiments or doctrines among the slaves, without
resorting to regular prosecution under the law. Such commit
tees had been raised in several other counties of the State, and
a meeting for that purpose had been called in Taliaferro. A
very large audience was present. Mr. Stephens was there. The
resolutions were submitted and about to pass, nem con. Mr.
Stephens arose and opposed them.

This led to high debate. At first the odds seemed to be
against the youthful opposer. He maintained his ground against
all the array, with a firmness and sternness that have ever
marked his course. He appealed to the people with a fervor
that has seldom been surpassed by him — as they valued, prized,
and cherished liberty, "to stand by the supremacy of the law."
Upon a vote, the resolutions were defeated by a very decided
majority.

His course gave rise to insinuations and charges, that he was
unsound upon the question of slavery. These, with his anti-nul
lification sentiments were brought against him in his first can
vass. Finding the opposition so fierce on election day, he
mounted a work-bench in the court-house yard, in lieu of a
stump, and made what is yet spoken of as one of the most tell
ing speeches of his life.

The lack of health was one great reason of his disinclination
to accept office. The two years' rest from disease was over;

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 51

and on the 22d of the previous August (1836), he had a severe
attack of bilious fever. He was badly salivated, and did not
recover sufficiently to leave his bed until the last week in
September. The election was the next week; and when he
did get out, he seemed scarcely able to walk, much less speak.
In spite of the opposition and his own feeble health, he defeated
his highest competitor more than two to one. At Milledge-
ville, the State capital, during his first session, he had a severe
attack of pneumonia, and did not recover during all that
winter ; but notwithstanding all this, his forensic talents, and
sound judgment soon gave him great weight and influence in
that body. His was no easy task, of taking rank among those he
met as their intellectual equal, for the calibre of that legisla
ture was far from mediocrity. Hon. Charles J. Jenkins, Hon.
William W. Gordon, Hon. Andrew J. Miller, Hon. 'James A.
Merriwether, Hon. Edward Y. Hill, Judge Iverson L. Harris,
Hon. Samuel W. Flurnoy, of Columbus, Hon. Robert Dough
erty, and other great Georgians were there, and it was a combat
of Titans.

As an orator, in style and manner, Mr. Stephens is entirely
original. He is a model of himself) such as it is, sui generis.
He has no studied attitude or action, or measured phrase. In
speaking, all his life, he seems to have acted on the idea formed
early, and which is given in one of a series of letters, written
by him, during his first session in the legislature, to his friend
Dr. Thomas Foster, of Crawfordville (the builder of the Foster
House referred to) — a man of rare intelligence and great worth,
and whom he often speaks of as the Mentor of his early days.
In one of these letters, now before us, he says:

" I have, since I came here, come to the conclusion that words
are — if you please — moral instruments capable of effecting much,
when properly applied and directed. And it is altogether use
less, at any and all times to talk, without having in view some
object to effect. In legislating in Georgia, it is waste of breath

52 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

for a man to talk about Greece and Rome, Scipio and Hannibal,
Tyre and Carthage, or any of that learned sort of lore. If one
indulges much in it, he is soon looked upon as a fool, speaking
in an { unknown tongue,' and very properly so too. Eloquence,
true eloquence, is certainly in some degree an art ; but in nothing
more than in selecting and fitting the matter to the time, place,
and circumstances. The whole generation of our young orators,
instead of reading Blair for rules, Scott and Addison for figures,
and Bryon and Shakspeare for quotations, had better be study
ing their subject, and thinking to whom they are going to present
it, and how they will most probably engage attention, and pro
duce conviction in the minds of those to whom it is presented.
Success in producing conviction is the object of oratory."

The first speech of Mr. Stephens in the legislature, was his
effort upon the subject of the State, or Western and Atlantic
railroad, connecting what is now Atlanta, Georgia, with Chatta
nooga, Tennessee.

On the 10th of May, 1857, the Hon. Iverson L. Harris, now
of the Supreme Court of Georgia, wrote a letter to Professor
Williams Kutherford, of the State University, giving him a
history of the State road, and some incidents connected with
the passage of the act of the legislature, first authorizing its
construction. The whole letter is exceedingly interesting, but
for our purpose, we quote but the following :

JUDQE HARRIS TO PROFESSOR RUTHERFORD,

" MILLEDGEVILLE, May IQth, 185Y.

" MY DEAR SIR :— * * * * * *

The debate lingered for days, and when every one was wroi^i
down and tired of the name of ' Main Trunk,7 from under the
gallery a clear, shrill voice, unlike that of any man of my ac
quaintance, was heard saying 'Mr. Speaker!'

" Every eye was turned to the thin, attenuated form of a mere
boy, with a black gleaming eye and cadaverous face. The atten
tion became breathless, the House was enchained for half aii

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 53

hour b}r a new speaker, and one with new views of the question,
such as had not been discussed or hinted at by others.

" When he sat down there was a burst of applause from a full
gallery, and many of us on the floor joined in the chorus.

" That speech ivas electrical! It gave new life to a dull debate,
it aided immensely in the passage of the bill for the survey of
the road, and the appropriation for it. It was the first and
maiden speech in the legislature, of that gentleman.

" From that hour he has been a man of mark, and now he is
recognized in the House of Representatives, at Washington, as its
foremost man.

" Need I say — that man was Alexander H. Stephens."
* * * * * *

In the letter of Professor Rutherford, giving the use of the
letter from Judge Harris, he thus speaks of the subject himself
he then being a boy, and occasionally attending the sessions
of the general assembly.

" UNIVERSITY OP GEORGIA, ATHENS, June 8th, 1866.
"MR. HENRY CLEVELAND, Augusta, Ga.

" DEAR SIR : — I remember many things which occurred during
that very remarkable session of the Georgia legislature, in the
winter of 1836. Nearly all the men who have made history for
Georgia were members of that legislature. I remember the
circumstances of that very remarkable speech of Mr. Stephens
made during this session, and to which Judge I. L. Harris has
so ardently alluded in the letter I send you. If I mistake not,
it was Mr. Charles J. Jenkins, then the leader of the House, who
approached Mr. Stephens at the conclusion of his argument, and
said : ' Sir, that speech will send you to Congress.'

" Georgia owes much to the Legislature of 1836 ; and much,
very much to Mr. Stephens and his noble colleagues for the work
performed during that session. The crowning act of the general
assembly was the passage of the bill for the building of the
Western and Atlantic railroad. One sprightly young man who
opposed the construction of the road, facetiously remarked that
' the road would pass through a country filled with mountains

54 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

so steep that a spider could not crawl up them.' If such
counsels had prevailed, Cherokee, Georgia, instead of being the
most populous and wealthy portion of the State, would still be a
gymnasium for spiders.

" The Western and Atlantic railroad is now the hope of
Georgia, crippled as she is in her financial condition. It owes its
success to such men as Mr. Stephens, who composed the con
trolling power in the legislature of 1836."
* * * * * *

In building that road through the mountains, there were great
obstacles, both from nature and men, and its defenders and pro
jectors ceased not from their labors from 1836, when it began,
to 1848, when it was completed. The appropriation of $300,000
for the tunnel through the rock of Tunnel Hill, in 1847, about
finished the work. It has been the great source of revenue to
the State, especially under the improvements of Governor
Herschel Y. Johnson, and the financial skill of Governor
Joseph E. Brown.

One secret of Mr. Stephens' wonderful success is his more
wonderful memory, which supplies the material for the power
of the orator and the finished elegance of the scholar. The
mere weight of its long-garnered treasures might consign a less
perfectly balanced mental organization to a mad-house, yet every
sheaf of knowledge stands in its proper place, distinct and easy
of access, and not a grain of literature, or legal or political
lore is ever lost. His great success as a debater on the hust
ings, results, in a great measure, from this source. Many a
gallant adversary has been quickly and completely unhorsed
by one or two sudden assaults upon the supposed facts -upon
which their argument rested.

Georgia is yet indebted to the speech above alluded to, and
to the zeal and brain that made a highway through the fertile
valleys of upper Georgia, and linked . the cotton and rice belt
of the seaboard and the gulf with the vast grain fields of Ten
nessee and the West. The fame of that speech yet lives, and

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 55

men yet tell how the feeling of annoyance, when the little man
from Taliaferro arose, gave place to the hush of breathless
attention, as his electrical utterances lifted him from the un
known

" Mere part of a crowd "

to the altitude of the statesman and the equality of the great.
Another honorable part of his record is as chairman of the
Committee on Education, at a later session, and his well-appre
ciated services as champion of the State University; his Alma
Mater just then much needing his services. He was also of
great service to the bill of Mr. Lewis, of Troup county, for the
incorporation of the Macon Female College. It is believed to
be the first institution of the kind ever chartered in the world
for the regular graduation of young ladies in the highest
branches of science. Mr. Stephens refers to it in his speech of
July 2d, 1859.

In April, 1837, he was again utterly prostrated by disease, and
confined for months. When pronounced convalescent, he- was
so weak that he could not even move his lower limbs in bed. At
first he had to be lifted and carried from one part of the house
to another like a child. The disease seemed to be a general let
ting down of the system. It was the result of over mental
working, the severe, and, for him, incredible labors of the past
three years. He then travelled in the mountains of Georgia,
seeking invigoration from the streams and breezes of the hills,
but became a confirmed dyspeptic. He could eat but very little,
and for two or three years probably did not eat as much as five
pounds of meat of any kind. The only diet he could bear was
milk and bread.

In September, 1837, he returned from the county of Habers-
ham, among whose mountains he had spent the summer, and,
though not at all well, was again elected to the Legislature, this
time without any opposition. He was better in the winter than
the summer, but never well. In April, 1838, he was again at
tacked by his besetting malady, and was advised to take a sea

56 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

voyage, which he did. He went to Boston — probably never
expecting to be a State prisoner there.*

From thence he went through New York to Saratoga,
becoming no better, but worse. Finally, in August, he went
to the Green Briar White Sulphur springs, in Virginia.
These waters were to him almost the Fountain of Youth, that
Ponce de Leon sought so long, for they seemed for awhile to
renew the vital powers, and, like a charm, arrested the rapid
decline. In 1889 and 1840, the general bad health continued,
and during both those years he spent the most of the summers
in the mountains. While absent in 1838, Mr. Eobert Toombs
generously offered to attend to all his law business, that he
might travel and not die. These two statesmen, often called
the Castor and Polux of the State, have always been friends.

During the two years we have spoken of — 1839 and 1840 — •
Mr. Stephens kept up his office business, but gave up all reading,
and was too weak to either walk well or ascend steps without a
cane. Many of his declarations and court papers were written
in bed. His brother, Aaron G. Stephens, of whom we have
before spoken, a good business man, and his senior in age,
attending to entering his judgments in court when he could not
attend in person. As we have saicl, this brother is not now
alive, having died in 1843.

Notwithstanding his great weakness and prostration in the
summers of 1838, 1839, and 1840, he was elected to the legisla
ture in each of those }^ears, and attended the sessions in the
winter.

John Savage, Esq., thus speaks of an interesting portion of
his personal history in the spring of 1839 :

" In that }rear, Mr. Stephens appeared for the first time before
a public audience in Charleston, South Carolina, in his capacity
of delegate to the Commercial Convention, composed of distin-

*As a singular coincidence, he reached Boston harbor, and passed close
to Fort Warren, on the 25th of May, 1838. On the 25th of May, 1865,
he stopped there as a prisoner.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 57

guished representatives from the Southern States of the Union.
The convention assembled in the theatre, at that time the most
commodious edifice in the city, for that purpose. The delegates
occupied the pit, and so many of the boxes of the first and second
tier as was necessary to accommodate them. The rest of the
building was crowded to its utmost capacity by a brilliant, intel
ligent, and fashionable audience, composed of ladies and gentle
men. The subject under discussion was the importance of a
direct trade between the South and Great Britain, and the best
mode of awakening public attention to the subject. On the first
point, there was great unanimity in the opinions of the conven
tion ; but on the second — the mode of action — the views of mem
bers differed widely, and Georgia and South Carolina, as has too
often been their case in past history, were opposed to each other.
General Hayne, General Hamilton, Major Filder, Hon. William
C. Preston, and other distinguished Carolinians, had already
addressed the convention ki speeches of great splendor and elo
quence, advocating a particular line of policy. At length an
individual arose in one of the boxes, the tones of whose voice
were rich and penetrating as those of the ' Sweedish Nightingale.7
This personage — who, however celebrated in Georgia, was not as
yet known in South Carolina — was no other than Alexander H
Stephens. But 'the hour and the man had come,' and no one
who heard that speech delivered can ever forget the electric effect
produced by it. He had hardly commenced speaking when every
neck was extended, and every eye fixed in mute wonder. The
contrast which existed between his physical delicacy and his
intellectual strength, between his masculine habit and his melli
fluous intonations, produced the utmost astonishment. A feeling
which gradually subsided into intense admiration of his quick
wit, his keen powers of analysis, his rapid generalizations, and
his overwhelming replies. It was a bold proceeding in a stranger
— though one in whose aspect mind triumphed over the grosser
elements of the material frame — to measure swords with such
antagonists as he encountered in that assembly ; but it was a stiil
more memorable exploit to obtain as he did the victory over them
in argument. The triumphant speech, in which he had snatched

58 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

their laurels from the most brilliant lawyers of the occasion, was
the topic of general comment and of unmeasured eulogy, and he
himself, though a modest and unassuming young man, became,
wherever he appeared, the ' observed of all observers.' The dele
gates collected from different and distant portions of the South,
and who were enabled for the first time to appreciate his singular
merits, on their return to their several homes, contributed, by
their enthusiastic account of his success, to extend his fame to
the remotest parts of the country."

An amusing anecdote is told of that visit to the beautiful
"city between the rivers." Being fatigued on his arrival at the
hotel, Mr. Stephens availed himself of a comfortable sofa or
lounge, and made the situation as easy as possible. His two
travelling companions were Mr. Thomas Chafin and Dr. John
M. Anthony, merchants, who had been frequent guests of the
house. The good lady of the house came in just then, and
found the two last-named gentlemen still standing, and what
she took for some country boy occupying the easy lounge. Her
manner was perfectly kind and somewhat patronising, as she
said to him, "My son, let the gentlemen have this seat." The
" gentlemen" were amused, and the kind landlady much annoyed,
when she afterward found that her " son" was the important per
sonage of her house, and very soon the lion of the whole city.

In 1841, Mr. Stephens was not engaged in politics, having
positively declined reelection to the legislature. His health
grew some better, and he did a very large business. He still
suffered greatly from dyspepsia, and could eat but few articles
of food. He suffered from horrible headaches; these had
attended him all his life. In 1842, he was elected to the State
Senate, and the labors of that session were, opposition to the
Central Bank, and an active interest in the questions of internal
improvements and in advocacy of a measure for dividing the
State into Congressional districts The great debate of the
session was on Federal Eelations, upon the Eeport of the
Committee on the State of the Eepublic. Mr. Stephens was

ALEXANDEK H. STEPHENS. 59

not a member of the committee, but at the request of the
minority, drew up their report. This is given in full in this
collection, as it embraces the principles and doctrines on which
the Whig party organized in Georgia, on the questions that
then divided the Whigs and Democrats in the Union. It is
almost needless to say, that Mr. Stephens took the lead in
debate and added to his reputation as orator and statesman.
Quite an array of talent was in the Senate that year : Andrew J.
Miller, of Kichmond ; K. Gr. Foster, of Morgan ; Solomon Cohen,
of Savannah ; Alexander Lawson, of Burke, and James M.
Kelly, first reporter of the State Supreme Court, among them.
We have been informed that Mr. Pettigrew, the distinguished
Carolinean, was there, and spoke of the oratorical and logical
displays of Mr. Stephens on that occasion in the highest terms.
Some writer has said of him at that period, " He distinguished
himself both in debate and in the unostentatious but most im
portant task of forwarding the public business. It is rare that
a man possessing a high order of oratorical talent, has those
habits of indefatigable application and perserving industry so
necessary in the committee room ; yet in Mr. Stephens, these
great and useful qualities are admirably harmonized. A matter
entrusted to his care, either officially or by friends, is always
carefully examined, and never neglected." In April, 1842, he
had a severe attack of sickness, and at that time it was thought
he had consumption. He was laid up all summer, and for six
weeks did not leave his room. His pulse was one hundred and
twenty beats to the minute the most of the time, expectorations
copious, his breast and side blistered again and again ; being
thus kept raw for weeks at a time. The disease was finally
pronounced an abscess of the liver, which broke and found
vent through the lungs. The election to the State Senate was
in October (1842), and after the discharge of the abscess, his
health was for a time better than ever, since 1836. In 1843,
the year of his first nomination to Congress, his health was
better than it had been for several years. He spent the summer

60 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

in upper Georgia, and there opened the canvass which was the
most interesting of his life. When he accepted the nomination,
which was almost forced upon him, he had little hope of suc
cess ; at the election of the year before, the opposite party
having a majority of two thousand. Hon. Mark A. Cooper,
had been nominated by his party to run for governor, and
had resigned his seat in Congress for that purpose. Mr.
Stephens became a candidate to fill that vacancy, being
nominated without his knowledge or consent at the time. At
the urgent entreaties of friends he accepted and went into the
canvass.

The race was made on the general ticket system, that is, the
State was not then divided into Congressional districts. The
same ticket was voted for by the respective parties throughout
the State.*

In that canvass he met many of the leading men of the
State, of the opposite party, in politics in discussion. The
debates had an unusual and wonderful effect upon the popular
mind. Full accounts were given of them in the newspapers
and circulated through the State. During the canvass, the
" Minority Eeport of the State Senate Committee on the State
of the Eepublic," alluded to before, drawn up by Mr. Stephens
while in the Senate of Georgia, 1842, was the main text as to
Federal relations. It was the first time that the "Whig party
of Georgia had organized on any definite principles. The
most important discussions were those at Cassville, with Hon.
William H. Stiles ; at Eome and Chatoogaville, with Hon. John

* The following is a transcript of the first ticket ever put in the ballot-
box for Mr. Stephens when a candidate for the State Legislature, and is
interesting also, as illustrating that general ticket system of which we
are speaking:

STATE RIGHTS TICKET.

n • 7 f Alford, Black, Colquit, Dawson,

Congressional j Habersham? Jacks2n, King, Nesbit.

ry, , T • 7 , (FOR SENATE — Gresham.

State Legislature, j REPKESENTATIVEs-Stephens, Darden.

ALEXANDER IT. STEPHENS. 61

H. Lumpkin ; at Daholonega, with Hon. Solomon Cohen ; at
Canton, with Hon. Howell Cobb ; at Newnan, with Hon. "Wal
ter T. Colquitt ; and finally at Jackson with his competitor, Hon.
James H. Starke.

The debate with Hon. Walter T. Colquitt, United States
Senator, which took place in the latter part of September of
that year, was, in many respects, the most important of the
canvass. The fame of it spread far and wide ; and it is often
spoken of to this day. There never was any authentic report
of it ; but many incidents are even yet graphically set forth by
some of the survivors who witnessed it. Judge Colquitt was
then at the head of his party. He was a man of rare ability,
of great eloquence, and generally deemed irresistible before
the people. It was reported that he had said, upon hearing of
Mr. Stephens' triumphs over others in the up-country, "that
his hands itched to get hold of him."

When it was known that Mr. Stephens had made an appoint
ment to speak at Newnan, the judge was sent for to meet him.
He resided at La-Grange, about thirty miles distant. He
came fresh and vigorous for the contest. Mr. Stephens was jaded,
and seemed hardly able to stand up for an hour, much less to
break a lance with the Richard Coeur-de-lion of Georgia.

His friends asked him not to go into the discussion — not to
allow the judge to speak — to claim the day as his own. The
truth was, as they admitted afterward, they were afraid the
discussion would result in the complete overthrow of their
cause. The county had been nearly equally divided for several
years. Twice within a few years there had been a tie in the
election of County Senator.

Mr. Stephens, however, insisted on giving the other side a
" showing" in the person of any one who might desire to be
heard.

The terms were therefore soon agreed upon between himself
and the judge, while the vast crowd were assembling at the
place of speaking. Both sides had come out in full strength ;

62 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

the one greatly elated, "his own as much depressed by un
pleasant forebodings. The champion of the one was known
and literally at home on his own tourney ground ; the other,
a stranger — nothing known of him beyond the report of others,
and his personal appearance gave no assurance of the truth of
that.

Without attempting at this time to give any thing of a
general sketch of the discussion which ensued, either in rela
tion to order, programme, or the leading topics introduced, we
will only present one of those graphic incidents alluded to.

As the story goes, a certain gentleman of the county, who
had been a member of the legislature with Mr. Stephens, had
been looking over the Journals of the House for votes of
Mr. Stephens which he thought might be used against him
before the people. These he thought he had found, and dog
eared the book at the proper places, and presented it to the
judge to use in the course of his speech. The votes selected
were several given in the legislature by Mr. Stephens;
against bills providing pensions for Georgia soldiers who
served in the then late Creek war, and for the widows and
orphans of some who had fallen in battle. One vote, against
paying the men attached to Gen. Charles H, Nelson's com
mand, in his well known Florida expedition, and others.

Judge Colquitt, using the journal thus furnished him, on the
spur of the moment, brought these votes out against his antag
onist, with a most telling effect before the crowd. No man
then (as now) could look for popular favor who was not a
friend to the soldier and the soldiers' widow and orphans.
The disclosures seemed to put Mr. Stephens in a bad predica
ment ; his friends were greatly alarmed ; some hung their
heads, while others actually quitted the locality.

Mr. Stephens, in rising to reply, came at the senator with
one of his bold dashes. " The bill for Georgia to pension her
own soldiers, he had voted against in the legislature. The
Congress of the United States, in whose common cause these

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 63

men had fought or died, had already provided pensions for
them or their families. Did the senator not know this ? Was
it right that Georgia should pension her own soldiers who had
become disabled in the cause, not of the State, but of all the
States ? It was not because he ' opposed the pension, but was
opposed to its payment by the State. Would the senator arise
before that audience and say that it was right for Georgia to
pay the pensions of her soldiers while she was contributing
her portion to pay the pensions of the soldiers of all the other
States ? He was not opposed to the pension, but if the people
would elect him to Congress, he would see that the persons
who deserved pensions received them, afld from the right
source, too !"

Upon the subject of the Nelson troops, he said " he did vote
as stated." He then picked up the Journal of the House, and
read what he had voted against. It was a bare resolution, ap
propriating money. He then turned to the Constitution of the
State, which provides against the appropriation of money from
the treasury, save by bill passed in proper form, after three
readings in each house. His vote against the measure was
because it was unconstitutional. He then turned to another
part of the journal, in which it appeared that the same measure
had been introduced by bill, and showed that he had then
voted for it.

Then he picked up the Senate Journal, which he had quietly
sent for while Senator Colquitt was speaking, and, turning upon
him, said, '•' Whether my vote was right or wrong, it was just
as Senator Colquitt's had been on the same resolution. He was
in the State Senate at the same session, the same resolution
was voted on, and Mr. Colquitt voted in the Senate as I did in
the House, and thus it appears in the Journal."

At this point, the tables being so suddenly and completely
turned, the whole Whig side, so depressed before, burst forth
into uproarious applause. This was redoubled when a friend of
Mr. Stephens reapplied the remark of the senator, and shouted —

64 ALEXANDER H. STEPHEN'S.

" Judge, your hands itch to let him go now, don't they ?"

The result of the speech was the triumphant election of the
entire Whig ticket in the county a few weeks afterward, by
the largest majority given for any party there in many years.
No one in that section doubted Mr. Stephens' powers after that.
He met Judge Colquitt repeatedly on the stump in after years,
but nothing ever occurred on these occasions to mar the friend
ship between them. In all passages at arms with him Mr.
Stephens proved a Eoland for an Oliver. Judge Colquitt
is said to have remarked after their last discussion, which
took place in Forsyth, Monroe county, in 1848, " No man ever
can make any thiifg out of Stephens on the stump."

But we return to our narrative. The result of that Con
gressional election was Mr. Stephens' triumphant return by
over three thousand majority.

On the day after his arrival in "Washington City, after his
election to Congress, he was taken ill again, and came near
dying. It was several weeks before he was able to leave his
room. It was during that attack that he, for the first time,
was put upon the use of nitric acid as an hepatic.

On his entrance in Congress, his right to a seat was ques
tioned, and became a matter of contest, from the following state ol
facts : A preceding Congress had passed a law providing that
elections to Congress, in all the States, should be by Districts,
and not by General Ticket, as some of the States had always
elected them. Four States, Georgia included, had failed to
comply with the provisions of the act. Georgia soon did so, but
not until after the election we have spoken of. The question
was, whether delegates of States so elected, should be admitted
as members.

The committee on elections reported in favor of their admission
to seats, and submitted a resolution declaring the act providing
for the Districting of the States to be unconstitutional and
void.

Mr. Stephens, in his speech, held the act to be constitutional.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 65

This, to some, presented strange inconsistencies. What he
said on the subject, and on his own position in relation to that
question, will be seen from the speech then delivered, which
was his first in Congress, and which will be found in full in
this collection.

We cannot resist the temptation to insert in this place, two
extracts from, its last pages, which are valuable as a clear and
concise definition of the relative powers of the States and the
United States Government, and presenting a vivid picture of
the dangers of party power, and the necessity of all the checks
and balances by which human wisdom restrains human passion.

* # * * ^ * *

11 The majority of the Committee of Elections, in their report,
which is now under consideration, affirm that the ' second section
of the act of apportionment is an attempt, by the introduction
of a new principle, to subvert the entire system of legislation
adopted by the several States of the Union, and to compel them
to conform to certain rules established by Congress for their
government.'

" Sir, I cannot agree with the committee in opinion that such
was either the object of the act in question, or can, in any v?&y
be its consequence. If so, I should be the last to advocate the
measure. I consider myself as one of those who hold the doctrine
that the permanency of our institutions can only be preserved
by confining the action of the State and Federal governments
each to its own proper sphere ; and that, while there should be
no encroachment upon the rights of the States by this Govern
ment, there should also, on their part, be no disobedience or failure
to perform their duties according to the terms of the constitu
tional compact."

* * * * * *

11 Sir, it is the most equal system. It is the most republican.
It gives every section of the State a representative. It gives
the minority in the State a voice in the National Councils. It
increases the responsibility of the representative to his constitu
ents, and better enables the constituents, from personal acquaint-
5

66 ALEXANDEK H. STEPHENS.

ance and intercourse, to judge correctly of the man to whom they
confide the important trust of legislating for them. But I can
not enumerate the advantages of this system at this time; I
will barely, however, add that, if from no other consideration, I
should be in favor of it from its conservative tendency. Under
its operation, parties in the different States are more nearly
balanced against themselves, and their violence is more nearly
neutralized by its counteraction. This tends very much to check
that high degree of excitement, which otherwise wrould prevail on
many questions, and might be most deleterious in its consequences.
To be useful and salutary, laws must have some continuance and
stability. But if the opposite principle should prevail, or, if even
the four larger States in the Union should adopt the general-
ticket mode of election, who is so careless an observer of men
and things as not to see the consequences that would result ?

" The representatives from each of these States, instead of
being divided as they now are, so as almost to balance each
other in party strength, would most probably all be on the same
side of the question ; and might, perhaps, be elected by only a
few hundred majority in their respective States ; and to the next
Congress another delegation, equal in number and equally
divided on the other political side, might be returned by about
as large a majority the other way. The effect would be an entire
change of measures ; for the past admonishes, and the present
speaks in language not to be misunderstood, that party rules
every thing.

" Amongst the dangers to which our system of government
is exposed, I consider as not the least, the effects upon the
public interests of the country of those fearful shocks produced
by the sudden change of such large party majorities upon this
floor. The human system, in its soundest health and fullest
vigor and strength, cannot long sustain its healthful action
against quick transitions from the extremes of temperature.
The most deeply laid and substantially built of human edifices
cannot stand amidst the oscillations of an unsteady earth ; nor
can the government of a free people, the noblest of all human
structures, remain firm, if its elements and foundation are sub-

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 67

ject to constant vibrations. Its basis is public opinion ; and the
elements of the human mind are not unlike those of the atmos
phere about us — which, however still, and calm, and quieted to
day, may be roused into the whirlwind to-morrow. And as the
mild air we breathe, when put into commotion, assumes all the
power and terrific force of the tornado, laying waste and in ruin
every thing in its desolating sweep ; so with the passions, preju
dices, and ambition of men, when excited and aroused into
factious strife : without reason or argument to control their ac
tion, every thing relating to order, right, law, or constitution, is
equally disregarded : and government itself cannot be saved
from its ruthless destruction. Wise legislation should always
guard against every thing tending to promote such excitements.
It was in this view of this subject, and to guard, as far as possi
ble, against the liability of such results, that the same wise
statesman — the pure patriot, the sage of Montpelier — to whom
I have before alluded, while the adoption of the Constitution was
before the American people, urged upon them the necessity of
establishing such checks and restraints in their government as
would be a ' defence for them against their own temporary errors
and delusions' — assuring them that, if the people of Athens had
possessed such provident safeguards for their protection, ' they
might have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the
same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues the next.' "

Some of Mr. Stephens' political enemies afterward stated
(for the purpose of doing him political injury) that Hon. John
Quincy Adams, upon the conclusion of that speech, approached
and tendered his congratulations. The statement was not true.
The Massachusetts statesman did, however (contrary to his
usual habit), listen with the most marked attention, and was re
ported to have spoken favorably of the effort.

In this connection, the following reference to, and evidence
of, the kind feeling between Mr. Adams and Mr. Stephens may
not be inappropriate :

Among other interesting mementos of Mr. Stephens' long

68 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

political life, is a copy of the United States Album, arranged
by J. Franklin Keigrt, of Pennsylvania. Besides its National
and State emblems and illustrations, together with the engraved
autographs of the John Tyler administration, Supreme Court,
and Congress, it contains the written autographs of many of
Mr. Stephens' friends.

Among them is a short poem, more remarkable from its dis
tinguished author than its own excellence. The writing plain,
but cramped, and part of the ink faded brown, while part re
mains black, as if written with two kinds, The darker parts
probably mark a fresh dip into the inkstand.

The following is a copy of the production. Mr. Stephens
has frequently been addressed in verse, generally when some
lady admirer of a great speech thought prose too tame to ex
press the feelings. Some of the best are lost ; but we may
copy one or two that yet linger between the pages of heavy
books :

"TO ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, ESQ., OF GEORGIA.

" Say, by what sympathetic charm,

What mystic magnet's secret sway
Drawn by some unresisted arm
We come from regions far away ?

" From North and South, from East and West,

Here in the People's Hall we meet,
To execute their high behest

In council and communion sweet.

" We meet as strangers in this hall,

But when our task of duty's done,
We blend the common good of all
And melt the multitude in one.

" As strangers in this hall we met ;
But now with one united heart,
Whate'er of life awaits us yet,
In cordial friendship let us part.

"JOHN QUINCY ADAMS,

•' II. R. U, S,, 14 June, 1844. of Quincy, Massachusetts,"

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 69

All this time, we have spoken of Mr. Stephens only as to his
external life, " as others saw him," and not of that inner life
which the angels of God recorded, nor of that benevolent life
in which mortals can most resemble the Man Immortal who
"went about doing good," nor yet of his social life, which was
building up for him friends, fastei than his finished periods
and brilliant eloquence did admirers, and creating a love for
the man, that will outlast the fame of the statesman, even as
the rewards of God outlive the applause of multitudes. He
never was ambitious, and probably the old Sunday-school
opinion that "Aleck was a good boy," was worth all the homage
and flattery with which the world bespatters its favorites. He
likes the one and permits the other, prizing most

"That heartfelt joy,
Which nothing earthly gives, or can destroy."

He has many souvenirs of friendship, that are evidence of how
others than ourselves appreciate his moral and social worth ;
but after all, there is no process by which we can photograph
the soul ; and if, when this imperfect sketch is finished, the
noblest feelings and emotions of the man remain unmentioned,
it is because such things belong not to human records but are
locked up in the memory of God. Therefore we continue as
we began.

70 ALEXANDEK H. STEPHENS.

III.

POSITION IN RELATION TO POLITICAL PAETIES.

ALWAYS STATES-EIGHTS — NEVER PARTIZAN — AGAINST THE
POLICY OF THE MEXICAN WAR, AND" THE ACQUISITION OF
TERRITORY BY CONQUEST — A CONSTITUTIONAL UNION MAN
THROUGHOUT.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS was brought up in the school of
State rights. The State organization in which he entered pub
lic life, was formed on the 13th day of November,- 1833.
With that party, and with the men who constituted that organi
zation, he cast his first vote for Joel Crawford for Governor of
the State, in 1833. In 1836 he voted for Hugh L. White for
President, and was in favor of the State standing by the nomi
nation of Governor Troup for President in 1840, and support
ing him for that office, although there was no hope of his
election. When, however, the party resolved to vote for Har
rison, he, as a choice between the two candidates then pre
sented, neither of whom was entirely acceptable, resolved to
vote for General Harrison. In like manner he voted for Henry
Clay in 1844, and gave him a zealous support against Mr. Polk,
notwithstanding the opposition of Mr. Clay to the annexation
of Texas, which measure Mr. Stephens favored. No direct
question of State Rights was involved in this election.

Mr. Stephens had long been in favor of the annexation or
the acquisition of Texas, or rather the incorporation of that
republic or State into our Union, and had advocated a resolu
tion to that effect in the State legislature as early as 1838 or
1839. He opposed the John Tyler treaty of 184-1, but advo
cated the measure proposed by Milton Brown, of Tennessee,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 71

which, was ultimately adopted, and by which Texas came in
as a State. That plan of Milton Brown was drawn up and pre
sented by him only after repeated consultations with Mr. Ste
phens, who materially aided (as he states in the speech of
July 2, 1859) in the formation of the plan, as in its passage.
We give in full, in this volume, Mr. Stephens' speech on the
annexation of Texas, delivered January 25th, 1845 ; and the
following is the explanatory note, and copy of those famed
resolutions, which accompanied and were printed with that
speech.

" For the information of those of iny constituents who have not
seen a history of the proceeding when the vote came to be taken,
it may not be improper to state that several of the propositions
alluded to in the foregoing speech were offered in the Committee
of the. "\Vhole, and were each successively rejected; and against
each of them I voted in their order. At length, Mr. Milton
Brown, a Whig member from the State of Tennessee, presented
his plan, to which reference is also made in the speech ; and for
this myself and seven other Southern Whigs voted, and it was
carried in the committee by a vote of 109 to 99, and was finally
passed in the House by a vote of 120 to 98. Had myself and the
other seven Whigs referred to, voted differently upon this plan
in the committee, it would likewise have been rejected by a vote
of 101 to 101, and no plan would have been agreed upon. It was
not until the party so largely in the majority found that they
could do nothing with their favorite schemes, that they consented,
or rather were reluctantly forced, to take the Whig measure or
none. That measure embraced the terms upon which the
Southern Whigs had put the question, from the beginning. It
provides for the admission of Texas as a State, without the
assumption of her debt, and with a settlement of the slave ques
tion. A copy of the resolutions of Mr. Brown are appended.

"ALEX. H. STEPHENS.
"WASHINGTON, D. C., llth of February, 1845."

Resolutions offered by Mr. BROWN, of Tennessee, as adopted
by the House .

72 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in Con
gress assembled, That Congress doth consent that the territory
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 assem
bled, with the consent of the existing Government, in order that
the same may be admitted as one of the States of this Union.

SECTION 2. And be it further resolved, That the foregoing
consent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, and
with the following guarantees, to wit :

1. Said State to be formed, subject to the adjustment by
this Government of all questions of boundary that may arise
with other Governments ; and 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.

2. Said State, when admitted into the Union, after ceding to
the United States all public edifices, fortifications, barracks,
ports and harbors, navy and navy yards, docks, magazines, arms,
armaments, and all other property and means pertaining to the
public defence belonging to said Republic of Texas, shall retain
all the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind which
may belong to, or be due and owing, said Republic ; and shall also
retain all the vacant and 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 be disposed of as said
State may direct ; but in no event are said debts and liabilities
to become a charge upon the Government of the United States.

3. New States of convenient size, not exceeding four in num
ber, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient
population, may hereafter, by the consent of a State, be formed
out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission
under the provisions of the Federal Constitution. And such

ALEXANDER H. STEPHEN'S. 73

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 compromise line, shall be ad
mitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of
each State asking admission ma}7 desire. And in such State or
States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Mis
souri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except
for crime) shall be prohibited."

This was the occasion of his first split with the Whig organiza
tion as it was then constituted in the United States. How far
his general views coincided from the beginning with those of
that party, may be gathered from the Minority Report of the
Committee on the State of the Republic, introduced in the
Georgia Senate in 1842, which, we have before referred to, and
which is given in full in the latter part of the book.

The Mexican war was, in his opinion, brought about
designedly, unwisely, and unconstitutionally by President Polk.
As the celebrated resolutions on that war, introduced by Mr.
Stephens, in the House, Friday, January 22d, 1847, are brief
and indicative of his views on the objects of the war, we give
them, as found in the Congressional Globe of the 29th Congress,
Second Session.

"THE WAR."

•" Mr. STEPHENS asked the general consent of the House to
offer a short preamble and resolutions, relating to a subject
which, of all others, was now most absorbing of public interest.
His object was not to ask the action of the House upon the
subject to-day, or to debate the merits of the question, but barely
to have the resolutions received and referred to the Committee
of the Whole on the state of the Union, to be called up at some
subsequent day.

The resolutions were read for information, and are as follows :

" Whereas, it is no less desirable that the interests and honor

of our country should be cordially sustained and defended, so

long as the present war with Mexico continues to exist, than that

74 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

the conflict should not be unnecessarily prolonged, but should be
terminated as soon as an honorable peace can be obtained ; and
whereas it is believed that a diversity of opinion prevails to a
considerable extent as to the ultimate aims and objects for which
the war should be prosecuted, and it being proper that this mat
ter should be settled by the clear expression of the legislative
will, solemnly proclaimed to the world :

" Be it therefore Resolved by the Senate and House of Repre
sentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the present war with Mexico ' is not waged with a view to
conquest,' or the dismemberment of that republic by the acqui
sition of any portion of her territory.

" Be it further Resolved by the authority aforesaid, That it is
the desire of the United States that hostilities should be ter
minated upon terms honorable to both parties ; embracing a lib
eral settlement on our part of the questions growing out of the
proper and rightful boundary of Texas, and a full recognition
and proper provision on her part to be made for all the just
claims of our citizens against that country ; the whole to be ad
justed by negotiation, to be instituted and effected according to
the constitutional forms of each government respectively."

" Objection being made to the reception of the foregoing pream
ble and resolutions, the vote on the motion to suspend the rules
was decided in the negative, as follows : yeas 76, nays 88.

He made many speeches on this subject, all of marked
ability, some while it was pending, and some after its close.
All of them, that are yet of general interest, are given in full
in this collection. In his opinion, the most of our subsequent
troubles are attributable to that most unfortunate war and its
consequences.

In 1850, Mr. Stephens was opposed to the secession move
ment started at the South, because of the admission of Cali
fornia — which act he thought no just cause of complaint to
the South. Nor did he think the southern, people had legiti
mate oau.se to complain of the acts of Congress establishing

ALEXANDER H. STEPHEN'S. 75

Territorial governments in Utah and New Mexico. By these
acts, the South recovered the principle lost in the Missouri
compromise of 1820, for by them there was no prohibition of
slavery in any part of the public domain.

In the fall of 1850 he canvassed the State thoroughly,
making speeches in every part of it, travelling in all not
less than two thousand miles, and exerted himself as few men
ever have clone, in behalf of the Union under the Constitution
The excitement was very great. An election was to be held
for Delegates to a State Convention, to consider of disunion, in
consequence of those measures. In Green county (Georgia)
he was interrupted by a violent Fire-eater, who exclaimed —
" Give us the line of 36° 30' or fight !" His reply was—" My
friend, we have already secured the line of 49°, or twelve and
a half degrees of latitude more than you ask, and without a
fight; are you content, or do you want a fight any how?"
That was the whole case in a nut-shell. The State went for
the Union by an overwhelming majority.

Mr. Stephens was a member of the Convention, and on the
Committee that drew up the celebrated " Georgia Platform/'
and one of the most prominent actors in both Committee and
Convention. Hon. Charles J. Jenkins was chairman of the
Committee and reported the resolutions. As these solemn
resolves of Georgia, in that most important and perilous crisis
of the Government, have often been referred to, we give them
here in full, as embodying the Union sentiments of Mr.
Stephens and the people of Georgia at that time.
"GEORGIA PLATFORM OF 1850."

" To the end that the position of this State may be clearly
apprehended by her confederates of the South and of the North,
and that she may be blameless of all future consequences —

11 Be it resolved by the people of Georgia in Convention assem
bled, First. That we hold the American Union secondary in
importance only to the rights and principles it was designed to
perpetuate. That past associations, present fruition, and future

76 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

prospects, will bind us to it so long as it continues to be the safe
guard of those rights and principles.

" Second, That if the thirteen original parties to the contract,
bordering the Atlantic in a narrow belt, while their separate
interests were in embryo, their peculiar tendencies scarcely
developed, their revolutionary trials and triumphs still green in
memory, found Union impossible without compromise, the thirty-
one of this day may well yield somewhat in the conflict of
opinion and policy, to preserve that Union which has extended
the sway of republican government over a vast wilderness to
another ocean, and proportionally advanced their civilization and
national greatness.

"Third. That in this spirit the State of Georgia has maturely
considered the action of Congress, embracing a series of meas
ures for the admission of California into the Union, the organi
zation of territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico, the
establishment of a boundary between the latter and the State of
Texas, the suppression of the slave-trade in the District of
Columbia, and the extradition of fugitive slaves, and (connected
with them) the rejection of propositions to exclude slavery from
the Mexican territories, and to abolish it in the District of
Columbia ; and, whilst she does not wholly approve, will
abide by it as a permanent adjustment of this sectional contro
versy.

"Fourth. That the State of Georgia, in the judgment of this
Convention, will and ought to resist, even (as a last resort) to a
disruption of every tie which binds her to the Union, any future
act of Congress abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia,
without the consent and petition of the slave-holders thereof, or
any act abolishing slavery in places within the slave-holding
States, purchased by the United States for the erection of forts,
magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, navy-yards, and other like pur
poses ; or in any act suppressing the slave-trade between slave-
holding States ; or in any refusal to admit as a State any terri
tory applying, because of the existence of slavery therein ; or
in any act prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the territo
ries of Utah and New Mexico ; or in any act repealing or materi-

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 77

ally modifying the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive
slaves.

''Fifth. That it is the deliberate opinion of this convention
that upon the faithful execution of the fugitive slave bill by the
proper authorities depends the preservation of our much loved
Union."

How far these resolutions may be considered as containing
within themselves Disunion principles, in the opinion of some
whose fidelity, to the Union has never been questioned, we
subjoin what Hon. Stephen A. Douglas said of them in his
speech in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1860.

Mr. Douglas said : —

" I shall never forget the intense anxiety which filled my
breast when the Georgia Convention met in December, 1850. It
was no ordinary convention. It was no partisan meeting. It
was not an assemblage of mere politicians to make equivocal
platforms for the sake of party advantage. It was a conven
tion of the sovereign people, elected by the people themselves,
under the authority of a legislative enactment, to determine
upon those principles which were essential to the preservation of
the rights of equality of Georgia in the Union. I have not that
platform before me, but I remember distinctly, that it con
sisted of five propositions, each one of which met my approval
then, and receives my support now. [' Hurrah for Douglas,' and
cheers.] That celebrated Georgia platform, according to my
recollection, contained five articles. The first was, that the
people of Georgia would never submit to the doctrine that there
should be no more slave States admitted into this Union ; the
second was, that the people of Georgia should never submit to
the Wilmot proviso in the territories ; the third was, that the
people of Georgia would never submit to the prohibition of the
slave-trade between the States by Congress ; the fourth was, that
the people of Georgia would never submit to any legislation by
Congress in the District of Columbia, which would impair the
rights or the safety of the slave-holding States ; and the fifth was,
that the people of Georgia could never submit to the repeal, or to

78 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

any other legislative enactment, impairing the validity of the
fugitive slave law. [Cheers.] Those five propositions contained
all that the people of Georgia asked. Each of them was just
and right in itself. I stand by each of them to-day. [' Good.']
I stood by them from the time I entered public life clown to this
hour. Why cannot the people of Georgia stand by their own
platform ? [' We will,' ' We intend to,' and applause.] Ac
cording to my recollection, your whole people acquiesced in
that platform. Union men and Fire-eaters, Whigs and Demo
crats, men of all shades of political opinion, you came up and
gave in your adhesion to it as being all that }^ou asked, and all
that you would maintahi.

"According to my recollection, Howell Cobb ran for Governor
of Georgia in 1851 on that platform, and was elected by an over
whelming majority. [' That's so,' etc.] If there was a public man
in Georgia, of any party, who was not pledged in faith and honor
to that Georgia platform, I never heard of him. Why then can
we not stand together upon these propositions ?

" I am told that some of those opposed to me are in the habit
of saying that I construe the Georgia platform differently from
what they do. I never construed it at all. [Laughter.] It is so
plain that it does not admit of any two constructions. It con
strues itself. But if there is any doubt, any possible ambiguity
upon that point, I will take Georgia's own construction of it.
[Applause.] The Georgia platform was predicated upon the
principles incorporated in the compromise measures of 1850.
******

" Inasmuch, then, as I stand to-day upon the Georgia platform,
affirming your own construction of your own platform, I want
to know upon what ground it is that those gentlemen who stood
pledged to stand by me, now consider that my position is only a
short cut to abolitionism."

As Judge Douglas states, the Constitutional Union party was
formed, of which Mr. Stephens was the main projector and
originator. It was based upon the principles of these resolu-

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 79

tions and organized at Milledgeville before the adjournment of
that Convention.

His object was to build up a party, not only in the State,
but throughout the country, for the maintenance both of the
Union and of the rights of the States. In his whole public
course, as we have said, he was devoted to these two objects,
believing that Constitutional liberty could be best secured by a
clue regard to both. "His devotion to the Union (in his own
words) was not to the Union per se, nor his devotion to State
Sovereignty, to State Sovereignty per se, but to Constitutional
liberty, the legitimate offspring of these two ever united in
holy wedlock."

It was by this party, so organized and constituted, that Mr.
Cobb was elected Governor of the State of Georgia, in 1851, by
an overwhelming majority.

Mr. Stephens' views on this Constitutional Union organization
may be gathered from the letter written from Washington, D. C.,
February 7th, 1852, to Hon. David A. Eeese.

The two old parties — "Whig and Democrat — revived at
Baltimore. Hon. Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, was
nominated by the democrats, and Gen. Winfield Scott, the hero
of Chippewa and Mexico, by the Whigs. Mr. Pierce endorsed
the principles of the adjustment of 1850, but Gen. Scott declined
to do so. Mr. Stephens supported Daniel Webster, of Massa
chusetts, as the embodiment of Constitutional Union principles.
A card was published in Washington City, July 3d, 1852,
signed by Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia ; Charles James
Faulkner, of Virginia ; W. Brooke, of Mississippi ; Alex. White,
of Alabama; James Abercrombie, of Alabama ; Robert Toombs,
of Georgia ; James Johnson, of Georgia, and consented to by
C. H. Williams and M. P. Gentry, of Tennessee, giving their
reasons for not supporting General Scott. This paper, which
produced great sensation at the time, was drawn up by Mr
Stephens.

4
80 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

Mr. Webster left the world before tlie election. We do not
speak of him as dead, for his last earthly words remain true —
" I still live." Many persons in Georgia showed their respect
for him by voting for him after he was dead — among whom
were Toombs and Stephens. Franklin Pierce was elected ; and
if he had made his own principles the test of his party organi
zation, his administration would have been more successful.

Mr. Millard Fillmore became President on the death of Taylor,
as Andrew Johnson has by the death of Mr. Lincoln. If he,
too, had made the compromise measures of 1850 the basis of his
administration, he would probably have been elected in 1853, as
the Constitutional Union candidate. Mr. Webster was on that
line, but Mr. Fillmore could not be got up to it. He adhered to
the old Whig organization, and was afraid of being Tylerized.

In like manner, President Pierce adhered to the old Demo
cratic organization, and gave office to softs rather than hards,
opposers rather than friends of the adjustment of 1850. He
should have remembered the scriptural philosophy, " that new
wine should not be put into old bottles, lest they burst."

In 1854 Mr. Stephens defended the principles of the Kansas-
Nebraska Act, and did so on the ground that that act carried
out the adjustment measures of 1850. Both parties, in the
election of 1853, had endorsed those principles — the Whigs
most emphatically — as a settlement, both in principle and sub
stance, of the subjects embraced in them.

As a great deal has been written and said on this subject, it
may not be improper to here reproduce what Mr. Douglas said
of it in 1860 :—

"In 1854 it became my duty, as chairman of the Committee on
Territories in the Senate, to bring forward a bill to organize the
Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. In offering that bill I
deemed it my duty to conform precisely to the principles affirmed
by the compromise measures of 1850, and indorsed by the two
great National parties — Whig and Democratic — in their conven
tions in Baltimore in 1852."

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 81

For the same reasons Mr. Stephens' gave this act his cordial
support, and was the great co-laborer of Douglas in that con
test. During the whole of Mr. Stephens' congressional career,
his course was not at all partisan, in the usual sense of that
term. A State Eights man, he supported Harrison in 1840.
In 1844, he supported Mr. Clay. In 1845, he acted with the
Democratic party on the admission of Texas as a State into the
Union. In 1846 and 1847, he stood with Mr. Calhoun and the
Whig party on the Mexican war. His resolutions on this sub
ject in the house, in February, 1847, became the basis of the
Whig organization throughout the country ; and on the policy
therein indicated, that party had a majority in the next House
of Representatives ; and on the same policy Gen. Taylor was
elected President in 1848. Mr. Stephens gave his election
a zealous support. In 1850, when Gen. Taylor's policy met
his disapproval, he opposed it as decidedly as he had done that
of Mr. Polk, and devoted all his energies to shaping and
establishing the principles embodied in what is known as the
adjustment measures of that year. In 1854, he exerted himself,
in like manner, to maintain and carry out these same principles,
as set forth and declared in the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
Throughout his whole public course, bare party considerations
have ever been held subordinate to his own convictions of
right ; and his associations, without regard to previous party
alliances, have always been cordial with all those who con
curred with him at the time in his views of the public interest.
His refusal to support General Scott for President in 1852, was
caused by the general's refusal to endorse the principles of the
compromise measures of 1850, and not by any failure to ap
preciate his great public services. On the contrary, it waa
mainly through the instrumentality of Mr. Stephens that the
chieftain, so recently dead, received the rank of Lieutenant-
General.

In 1856, Mr. Buchanan was not by any means the man of

his choice, but he voted for him. The quarrel of President
6

82 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

Buchanan with Judge Douglas, Mr. Stephens condemned, as not
only very impolitic and unwise, but as very unjust. He saw, if
Mr. Buchanan persisted in his course, that a disruption of the
party at the Charleston Convention would be inevitable, and
with it a national convulsion, almost as certain. Therefore he
retired to private life. His own quaint illustration was —
" When I see the engineer is reckless, and expect a smash-up
ahead, I always get off at the first station."

One important element to be considered, in relation to
Mr. Stephens' rapid rise in the estimation of the people, as
both orator and statesman, is the fact that there were so many
bright stars in the intellectual constellation of the Union be
fore his arose. In the time of the administration of President
Tyler, for instance (which was in power when he entered Con
gress in 1843), there were great names. In the House, were
John Quincy Adams, Henry A. Wise, George C. Drumgole,
Aaron Y. Brown, E. C. Winthrop, Stephen A. Douglas,
Howell Cobb, Thomas L. Clingman, Andrew Johnson, Garrett
Davis, and their kindred great throughout the United States.
Kobert Toombs and Jefferson Davis came in soon after. In
the Senate were Wilie P. Mangum, Kufus Choate, Thomas H.
Benton, James Buchanan, John Macpherson Berrien, George
McDuffie, Eichard H. Bayard, William C. Eeves, John J. Crit-
tenden, and their illustrious compeers.

John C. Calhoun was Secretary of State, and the head of a
brilliant Cabinet. The two master spirits of the age — Daniel
Webster and Henry Clay — were in the prime of life, and in only
temporary retirement. Eoger B. Taney, Joseph Story, Edward
Everett, Lewis Cass, and Washington Irving, were in public
life, some on the Supreme Bench, and some at foreign courts.
" There were giants in that day," yet, among them, Alexander
H. Stephens arose to greatness too.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 83

IV.

REVIEW OF SPEECHES AND LETTERS.

SPEECH AGAINST ACQUISITION OF TERRITORY FROM MEXICO —
AGAINST THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE — PERSONAL RENCOUN
TER — PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1848 — THE COMPROMISE
OF 1850 — THE GEORGIA PLATFORM — KANSAS AND NEBRASKA
BILL — TERRITORIAL POLICY IN REGARD TO AFRICAN SLAVERY
— KNOW - NOTHINGISM — ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA AND
OREGON.

WE will now briefly refer to some of the speeches upon
which his fame partly rests. His first address was delivered
on the 4th day of July, 1834, before his admission to the bar.
It was made at Crawfordville, and is full of earnestness, power,
and eloquence. The one on his right to a seat, February 9th,
1844, was his first in Congress. The speech on the "Tariff
Bill," with many others, not now of general interest, are omitted
from this collection.

The speech on the resolutions for the admission of Texas,
we spoke of. In his able speech on the Mexican War, June
16th, 1846, occurs his well-remembered vindication, or rather
eulogy, of Daniel Webster.

Its last words briefly convey his life-long creed upon the
effects of war. Speaking of human advancement, he said:
"This is not done by wars, whether foreign or domestic.
Fields of blood and carnage may make men brave and heroic,
but seldom tend to make nations either good, virtuous, or
great."

In the House of Representatives, on the 12th of February,
1847, Mr. Stephens delivered one of the most impressive
speeches of that period. The proposition before the House

84 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

was to appropriate three millions of dollars to enable the Presi
dent to conclude a treaty with Mexico. Mr Stephens said :

" Mr. CHAIRMAN — It is useless to attempt to disguise the fact,
or to affect to be blind to the truth, that this country is now sur
rounded by difficulties of no ordinary magnitude, and fast
approaching others, which threaten to be far greater and more
perilous than any which have ever been encountered since the
foundation of the government.

"It is true, the declaration was made the other day, by a dis
tinguished senator, in his place, that he saw no dangers about,
he espied nothing in the prospect to cause alai*m or apprehension,
and that, in his opinion, * the sentinel upon the watchtower might
sing upon his post V

11 Sir, whether this sentiment was expressed by authority, and
is to be taken as the exponent of the feelings of those who are
now wielding so recklessly the destinies of the nation, I know
not ; but to me it seems somewhat kindred to, if not the legiti
mate offspring of, that spirit which prompted Nero to indulge in
music and dancing when Rome was in flames."

After denouncing the attempt of the Administration to pre
vent free speech upon its acts, he went on to speak of the
unfair means used in the election of Mr. Polk :

" But if, in the inscrutable ways of Providence, he, who has
been thus fraudulently elevated to power, should be the ill-fated
instrument of our chastisement, the punishment maybe just, but
he will take no honor in its execution. If the result of his mis
chievous counsels should, in any way, prove disastrous to our
institutions — the stability, harmony, and permanency of the
government — which there is now abundant cause seriously to
apprehend, he will certainly have no place in the grateful remem
brance of mankind. Fame he will have ; but it will be of the
character of that which perpetuates the name of Erostratus.
And the more deeply blackened than even his, as the stately
structure of this government, the temple of our liberties, is
grander and more majestic than the far-famed magnificence of
the Epl esian dome.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHEN'S. 85

" The crisis, sir, requires not only firmness of principle, but
boldness of speech. As the immortal Tuliy said, in the days of
Cat aline, when Rome was threatened with the most imminent
dangers, the time has come when the opinion of men should not
be uttered by their voices only, but ' inscriptum sit in f route
unius cujusque quid de respublica sentit1 — it should even be
written upon the forehead of each one what he thinks of the
republic — there should be no concealment. In what I have to
say, therefore, I shall use that character of speech which I think
befitting the time and occasion."

He then discussed at length the policy of the war, asking,
# * # * * *

" Whether a line of military posts should now be established and
defended, until our enemy shall get in a humor to treat ; or
whether the most desolating invasion should be pushed forward,
as one gentleman has argued —

1 Even until

The gates of mercy shall be all shut up.
And the fleshed soldier, rough, and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range,
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass,
Their fresh, fair virgins and blooming youth.' "

In tlie course of his argument, denouncing in strong terms
all wars waged for conquest, he said : —

" But free institutions never did and never will enlarge the
circuit of their extent by force of arms. The history of the world
abounds with many melancholy examples in illustration of the
truth of this position. No principle is more dangerous to us, than
that of compelling other nations to adopt our form of govern
ment. It is not only wrong in itself, but it is contrary to the
whole spirit and genius of the liberty we enjoy ; and, if persisted
in, must inevitably result in our downfall and ruin. No instance
is to )e found upon record of any republic having ever entered
upon such a hazardous crusade which did not end in the subver
sion of its own liberties, and the ultimate enslavement of its own
people. And before embarking upon so dangerous an enterprise,

86 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

I trust we shall have some security and guarantee that we shall
at least escape the fate of those whose example we follow.

" Sir, I very much fear that the people of this country are not
sufficiently awake and alive to the mischievous and ruinous
schemes of those to whom they have for a time confided the
management of public affairs. Mr. Madison long since uttered
the prophetic warning, that 'if a free people be a wise people
also, they will NEVER FORGET that the danger of surprise can
never be so great as when the advocates of the prerogative of war
can sheath it in a symbol of peace. ,' And never in our history
did the times so strongly require a practical consideration of
this solemn admonition."

Then in tones as earnest as the throbbings of an angel's heart
and solemn as the trump of final judgment, he went OP to speak
of the inevitable consequences of the war if waged for Conquest,
and to tell of the yet distant effects of causes then <\t work.
Those prophetic utterances yet echo through the "comdors of
time," more truthful than Sybyl caught from the steaming
caves of Delphos ; plainer than the murmurs from the sun-
kissed lips of 'Memnon, and as seen in the light of tlie late
semi-decade of blood, faithful as Isaiah to the inspirations of
heaven. Speaking of the Wilmot proviso, and the resolutions
of the legislatures of the States of New York, Pennsylvania,
and Ohio, he said : —

" They show a fixed determination on the part of the North,
which is now in a majority in this House, and ever will b* here
after, that, if territory is acquired, the institutions of the South
shall be forever excluded from its limits ; this is to be the con
dition attached to the bill upon your table ! What is to 1: e the
result of this matter ? Will the South submit to this restriction ?
Will the North ultimately yield ? Or shall these two greaf, sec
tions of the Union be arrayed against each other ? When the
elements of discord are fully aroused, who shall direct the storm ?
Who does not know how this country was shaken to itf vny
centre by the Missouri agitation ?

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 87

" Should another such a scene occur, who shall be mighty
enough to prevent the most disastrous consequences ? The mas
ter spirit of that day is no longer in your councils. Shall an
other equally great and patriotic ever be found ? Let not gen
tlemen quiet their apprehensions by staving off this question.
It has to be met, and better now than at a future day. It had
better be decided now than after more blood and treasure has
been spent in the pursuit of that which may ultimately be our
ruin. Upon the subject of slavery, about which so much has
been said in this debate, I shall say but little. I do not think it
necessary to enter into a defence of the character of the people
of my section of the Union, against the arguments of those who
have been pleased to denounce that institution as wicked and
sinful. It is sufficient for me and for them, that the morality of
that institution stands upon a basis as firm as the Bible ; and by
that code of morals we are content to abide until a better be
furnished. Until Christianity be overthrown, and some other
system of ethics be substituted, the relation of master and slave
can never be regarded as an offence against the Divine laws.
The character of our people speaks for itself. And a more gen
erous, more liberal, more charitable, more benevolent, more phi
lanthropic, and a more magnanimous people, I venture to say,
are not to be found in any part of this or any other country. As
to their piety, it is true they have 'none to boast of.' But they
are free from that pharisaical sin of self-righteousness, which is
so often displayed elsewhere, of forever thanking the Lord that
they are not as other men are."

"But if bad counsels prevail — if all the solemn admonitions
of the present and the past are disregarded — if the policy of the
Administration is to be carried out — if Mexico, the " forbidden
fruit," is to be seized at every hazard, I very much fear that
those who control public affairs, in their eager pursuit after the
unenviable distinction of despoiling a neighboring republic, will
have the still less enviable glory of looking back upon the shat
tered and broken fragments of their own Confederacy. And
instead of 'revelling in the halls of Montezuma,' or gloating
over the ruins of the ancient cities of the Aztecs, they may be

88 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

compelled to turn and behold in their rear another and a wider
prospect of desolation, carnage, and blood.

" Mr. Chairman, it was asked by him who spake as man never
spake, ' WJiat shall a man be profited, if he gain the whole world
and lose his own soulT And may I not, with reverence, ask
what we shall be profited as a natioo, if we gain any part, or
even the whole of Mexico, and lose the Union, the soul of our
political existence ? The Union is not only the life, but the soul
of these States. It is this that gives them animation, vigor,
power, prosperity, greatness, and renown; and from this alone
spring our hopes of immortality as a common people."

The speech on the Land Bill, for the disposal of the public
lands, is a very able one.

Also, his speech on the War and Taxation, in which he
records his indignant protest against spending fifty or a hun
dred millions (the debt then being sixty millions, and a loan
bill on the table for eighteen millions) to compel the Mexicans
to take fifteen or twenty millions for New Mexico and California,
on the score of public interest. His speech on the Clayton
Compromise, was delivered on the Territorial Bill, August
7th, 1848.

In politics, Mr. Stephens has ever been decided, bold, and
fearless. He never courted popular favor by first feeling the
popular pulse, and then going with the current. He always
thought for himself, and acted for himself, relying on the good
sense of the people to sustain him. This was his course in his
first canvass for the legislature ; it was his course upon the
annexation of Texas ; it was his course on the know-nothing
question ; and this was his course, though at his peril in person
and politics, upon the Clayton Compromise of 1818. His mo
tion, in the House, to lay that motion on the table (which pre
vailed), and his speech on the subject, came near costing him
his life.

He was sustained at the time by but seven men in Congress
from the entire South. The bitterest denunciations were

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 89

hurled against him from the press and on the "stump" His
moral courage was as undaunted as his physical was unyield
ing. He came home — went before the people — neither asking
quarters nor giving them.

It was reported to him, that he had been proclaimed a traitor
to the South, in a public speech made by one who had held
high position in the State. In a personal interview with this
person, he inquired whether the charge had been made as re
ported; and though the charge was denied, and the parties
separated in a friendly manner at the time, yet the words used
by Mr. Stephens on that occasion led to a subsequent demand
upon him for a retraction. This was refused, and a rencounter
ensued. Mr. Stephens was unarmed, while his assailant, who was
more than twice his size and weight, was duly prepared for the
rencounter which he sought. Upon the refusal to retract the
words, an assault was made upon Mr. Stephens with open
knife. This he for some time parried with an umbrella, re
ceiving several wounds upon his arms and breast; but his
assailant, rushing upon him with all his superior force and
weight, threw him upon his back. One blow with the knife
aimed at the heart, would have done its fatal work, but for
the fortunate position of the blade of the knife. Another blow,
on the other side, passing between two ribs, severed an inter-
costalery artery. The strong man then, with his left hand on
the forehead of his adversary, and the knife in his light hand,

said, ''Now retract, or I will cut your throat!" The

reply was, " No, never ! Cut !" As the knife came, Mr. Stephens
caught it in his right hand, and with his left seized the right
elbow of him who wielded it. In this way the struggle lasted
until both parties were on their feet again, and others came
to the rescue. The right hand, that seized the knife as it was
aimed at the throat, was horribly mangled by the turning and
twisting of the blade in efforts to get it out of the grip. The
hemorrhage from the severed artery would have resulted in

90 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

speedy death, but for the fortunate presence of Dr. Hitchcock,
of the United States Army, whose skill arrested it.

The scene occurred in the piazza of Thompson's Hotel, in
Atlanta, Georgia, on the 4th of September, 1848. Mr. Stephens
was laid up for several weeks with these wounds. The right
hand was thought to be permanent!}' disabled. The tendons of
several fingers and the thumb were severed. He could not use
the hand at all for about twelve months. In the meantime,
he accustomed himself to write with his left. But, to the per
manent injury of the right, his bad chirography is now partly
owing.*

We have alluded to this affair now, only because it is an im
portant fact in the life of him of whom we write, and with no
view or wish to awaken any of the unpleasant reminiscences
of the times when it occurred.

It is proper to add, that the gentleman who figured in the
scene with Mr. Stephens had been previously on very friendly
terms with him — and some years afterward they became
friendly again. The ill blood of that day entirely subsided on
both sides. That gentleman is now dead, and we say of him,
as we doubt not Mr. Stephens would, "De mortuis nil nisi
bonv.m." He was a man of extraordinary talents and brilliant
intellect. At the bar in Georgia, in companionship and social
qualities he had few equals and no superiors. In dismissing
the subject, let us only wish to his ashes and his memory —
"Requiescat in pace"

How Mr. Stephens resumed the labors of the canvass, will be

* Many amusing, and some provoking things have occurred from this
terribly bad writing, in which Hon. Rufus Choate was his only rival, and
of which we will give at least one/ac simile of a late date. Printers often
set up Tuesday for Thursday, and North for South, or friends- fill appoint
ments too soon or too late. He once ordered two " Dagon plows," an old
kind bearing that name which he wished. He received two dozen, a full
car load of another kind. Once, when the writer was with him on a visit,
he ordered fifty pounds of rice, and received fifty pounds of ice.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 91

seen from the following account of his appearance at a mass
meeting of the supporters of General Taylor for the Presidency
held in Atlanta, Georgia, ten days afterward.

This account is taken from the Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle
and Sentinel, of 18th September, 1848 :

"EIGHT TO TEN THOUSAND WHIGS IN COUNCIL.

" The Whigs' Mass Meeting at Atlanta on the 14th inst, whether
we regard it for its numbers, the intelligence and orderly char
acter of those who compose it, or the ability, prudence, and dis
cretion of the speakers, was one of the most interesting and en
thusiastic political festivals that has occurred in Georgia for
years.

" The friends of ' Old Zack' came up in crowds from almost
every section of the State, with not a few from the adjacent
States, evincing their devotion to the institutions of the country,
and their desire to reclaim the administration of the government
Nor were the voters from the 'gable end,' that stronghold of
democracy in Georgia, the Cherokee Circuit, less zealous than
their brethren from the middle sections."

* * * * * *
Mr. Stephens being still unable to walk, some enthusiastic

friends determined that he should, at least, be seen on the stand,
and on this occasion, placed him in a carriage which they drew
themselves, to avoid all accidents which might happen from the
use of horses.

The account then goes on to speak of his appearance and
reception in the procession :

" When his delicate and feeble form was seen borne along at
the head of a column, the enthusiasm of the vast multitude
knew no bounds, and the air was rent with such a loud and con
tinuous shout for ' Stephens !' ' Stephens !' ' Stephens !' as Georgia
Whigs only could give to their devoted representative. Such a
reception was alike worthy of the man and those who gave it : it
was touching, eloquent, sublime, and caused the manly tear to
start in many an eye."

* * * * * *

92 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

After speaking of the organization of the meeting, and the
speech of Judge Berrien, the writer proceeds as follows :

" When Judge Berrien resumed his seat, some one called for
Stephens, and immediately, like electricity, his name seemed to
thrill the immense mass from centre to circumference, and all
crowded nearer and nearer to the stand, with a shout that would
have made a Western audience stand mute in profound admira
tion. When his slender, emaciated form was seen slowly rising
from his seat and to approach the front of the stand, what seemed
the wildest enthusiasm before, became tame approbation. When
the shout had died away, he announced, in a clear, shrill tone,
which those only who have heard him can appreciate, that he
arose not to make a speech (for he was not able), but simply to
acknowledge the distinguished and cordial manner in which his
presence had been greeted.

" He would, however, relate an anecdote. It was of the sol
dier — a man well advanced in life, one of the renowned Doni-
phan's regiment — who returned to New Orleans after an arduous
service in Mexico, almost naked, and destitute of the means to
supply his immediate wants, or to pay his passage back to his
family and friends. In this forlorn and destitute condition, a
generous citizen of New Orleans took him to his store, shielded
his nakedness from the public gaze, and gave him the means of
returning to his home. When the grateful soldier was about to
take his leave, his benefactor asked if he could do any thing more
for him. The soldier replied ' no,' and took leave. After going
some distance, he suddenly stopped, hesitated, and turning round
retraced his steps to the store. When he entered, he met the
inquiring gaze of his benefactor, and observed, ' I told you there
was nothing more that you could do for me. I forgot, there is
one thing you can do.' 'What is that?' inquired the merchant,
as he cordially grasped the hand of the war-worn veteran. ' You
can vote for ' Old Zack' — all I ask of you is not to forget to
vote for " Old Zack." And with a heart overflowing with grati
tude, he grasped the hand of his benefactor, and bade him adieu.

" 'Now,' said Mr. Stephens, 'all I have to say to you is, ' don't
forget to vote for ' Old Zack.' ' He then resumed his seat amid

ALEXANDER H. STEPHEN'S. 93

such a shout, as gave the highest assurance that the injunction
would not be forgotten."

ISTor did they forget it.

When at length able to get out, he canvassed not only his
own district, but the entire State.

We need hardly add, that Mr. Stephens was again trium
phantly elected, and that General Taylor carried the electoral
vote of the State by a decided majority. At the time Mr.
Stephens returned to Georgia, in August, few people questioned
that General Cass would carry the State by at least ten thou
sand. Yet such was the result of the canvass, that General
Taylor carried it by about two thousand majority.

The Hon. John J. Crittenden, congratulating Mr. Stephens,
and referring to the report that had first gone out, of his being
killed in the Atlanta rencounter, said this could not be true, or
else the "Dead Douglas" had carried the field.

After the election of General Taylor, in the session of Con
gress ensuing, Mr. Stephens opposed the ratification of the
treaty that had been made with Mexico, ^acquir ing more terri
tory, unless the slavery question springing from it should be first
settled. His speech on this subject is one of the ablest he ever
made. It is, however, not in this collection. Had his warning
been heeded, the late troubles that have so afflicted this country
might have been avoided. Because this question was not first
settled, he voted against carrying the treaty into effect. In
another speech, made August 9th, 1850, after the treaty was
consummated, he appealed to the fairness of the North for a just
division of the territory which had been acquired against his
vote, in the language of Scripture, "Let there be no strife I
pray thee, between me and thee, between thy herdmen and my
herd men, for we are brethren. Is not the whole land before
thee? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me. If thou wilt
take the left hand, then I will go to the right : or if thou de
part on the right hand, then I will go to the left." In it also
was the solemn warning, that a long continued course of uupro-

94: ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

voked aggression, would sooner or later leave to the people of
the South no other alternative, than to acquiesce in the neces
sity of " holding you, as the rest of mankind, enemies in war —
in peace, friends."

He consented to deliver an oration at the Maryland Institute,
in that old Monumental City, Baltimore, at the commemoration
of the birthday of Washington, February 22d, 1852. The
Magyar Chief, Louis Kossnth, had then recently come to this
country. Kesolutions of welcome had been passed by Congress,
and his progress from New York had been one continued ova
tion. Mr. Stephens took strong grounds against the mania,
and thought the birthday anniversary of Washington the best
time to recall to his forgetful countrymen the solemn warning
of the Pater Patria against " entangling alliances" with foreign
powers. He was the originator of the great Washington birth
day celebration in the Capitol that year, and in, regard to the
invitation of Baltimore, he said, that day "Must not go a beg
ging for an orator," and went.

On the 27th of Ap,ril, 1852, he made his well known speech
upon the " State of the Country, Homestead Bill, State of Par
ties, and the Presidency," in which he closed with the words of
the Earl of Derby, " I elect on this issue to be tried by God
and my country."

Mr. Stephens has probably made as many literary speeches
as any one in Georgia, having always manifested great interest
in education. They were generally extemporaneous (as the
most of his efforts are), and of them only two were written, and
only the one we next speak of was ever published.

Among all his speeches, perhaps that, which for profound
yet practical philosoplry, literary excellence, and pleasing
arrangement, takes precedence, is the address before the
literary societies of Emory College, Oxford, Georgia, July
21st, 1852.

He drew largely from human experience and historic mines
to enforce his precepts to the young, and closed with the lesson

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, 95

drawn from the incident in Bulwer's great play, where the page
says, " If I fail " and Eichelieu stops the utterance with :

"Fail! FAIL!

In the lexicon of youth, which fate reserves
For a bright manhood, there is no such word

AS FAIL !"

•

In that speech (which was "upon the elements of character
essential to success) he seems to have embodied and presented
the practical principles that have governed his whole life.
As such, we commend it to special attention and study.

The other was on the delivery of prize medals to the success
ful declaimers of the Sophmore class of the State University,
in 1859. Let not our readers be deceived by the conversational
and common-place opening of it to slight the classical beauty
that it teems with before the close. It will be found in the
collection as the "Athens Literary Speech."

The earnest and impressive speech in defence of Mr. Corwin,
and the Gralphin Claim, was delivered in the House, January
13th, 1853. It effectually hushed the cry of " Galphinism," as
it was called ever afterward.

On the 17th day of February, 1854, Mr. Stephens delivered
one of his most effective speeches on -the exciting subject of
Kansas and Nebraska. It was in this speech that he reviewed
the compromise measures of 1850, and showed that they were
correctly carried out in that famed act. The impression pro
duced by this speech may be gathered from the remarks of a
correspondent, who did not agree with him in politics, pub
lished in the Pennsylvania™, at that time. After an illustration
of the adage that appearances are often deceptive, the writer
proceeds to speak of Mr. Stephens thus :

"And yet this ungainly-looking individual — with head and face
constructed contrary to the rules of physiognomy and phrenology
— is considered by many the ablest member of the House, and of a
House, too, that can boast some of the best minds of the country.

96 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

Mr. Stephens is slightly above the medium height, and painfully
thin in appearance. His head is small and flat ; his forehead low,
and partially covered with straight, dark, lustre-lacking hair ; and
his cheeks thin, wrinkled, and of parchment texture. His walk,
his features, his figure, bespeak great physical emaciation. You
look in vain for some outward manifestation of that towering,
commanding intellect which has held the congregated talent of
the whole country spell-bound for hours. It is not in the eye, for
it is dull and heavy. It is not in the face, for it is meaningless.
It is not in the voice, for it is shrill and sharp ; but still you feel
convinced that the feeble, tottering being before you is all brain
— brain in the head, brain in the arms, brain in the legs, brain in
the body — that the whole man is charged and surcharged with
electricity of intellect — that a touch would bring forth the divine
spark 1"

In regard to Mr. Stephens' personal appearance at this time,
it may be proper to add, that he was just from a bed of severe
illness. He was not able to walk to the Capitol. The day be
fore was the first time he had been out for more than two
months. He was just recovering from another abscess of the
liver, which had terminated like the first one. This attack came
on in the fall of 1853. He had also been confined to his room
nearly the whole summer of 1853, in consequence of injuries
received from a railroad accident. A train of cars, on which
he was travelling, was thrown from the track near Macon,
Georgia, on the 9th of June of this year. His right shoulder
was injured, right collar-bone broken, left elbow crushed, and
a severe gash received upon the head, causing, from its effects,
serious apprehension for some hours that his skull was frac
tured.*

* The following is only one of the many expressions of sympathy that
he received, while suffering from this accident :

BOSTON, June 17, 1853.
" MY DEAR SIR : —

" I have been much concerned to see by the papers that you have
suffered severe injury by a railroad accident. Newspapers so often ex-

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 97

While again upon the subject of Mr. Stephens' health, we
may here properly add that, in 1851, he suffered from another
severe and protracted attack, similar, in some respects, to the
one of 1837, leaving him in a state of equal prostration. He
was laid up nearly all the summer, and when convalescent, he
was again carried about his room, and the house, and into the
yard and garden, as a child, by his favorite colored servant,
who was then, as now, generally known as Harry Stephens.
His weight then was but eighty pounds. Since the last abscess
of the liver his general health has been better than ever since
1836. The "dyspeptic horribles" and severe "headache's," with
their attendant afflictions, left him with that attack, it is hoped,
never to return. Other maladies, however, succeeded; and of
these Nephritic Calculus is perhaps the worst. From this he
suffers occasionally most excruciatingly. Upon the whole,
however, as to general health and physical strength, he is -as
well off now, in the summer of 1866, as he ever was in his life.*

To return to our subject-matter — the speeches — the statisti
cal one in reply to Mr. Cambell (" GEORGIA AND OHIO AGAIN")
is one of the ablest and most interesting in this volume. It
was made under the following circumstances : — On the 14th
day of December, 1854, Mr. Mace, of Indiana, made a speech,
in which he gave notice of his intention to introduce a bill to
repeal the Kansas -Nebraska act, and to prohibit slavery forever
from these territories. In this speech Mr. Mace had spoken

aggerate, that I cannot but hope it is not so bad as represented. If not
too much trouble, pray let me have a line from yourself, containing
authentic information.

" With much regard, faithfully yours,

EDWARD EVERETT.
" Hon. A. H. STEPHENS."

* At one time this year, he weighed one hundred and one-half pounds.
He is five feet ten inches high, and did not get his full growth until he
was twenty-seven years old. He grew two inches after he was admitted
to the bar, which was when he was twenty-two years and five months
old. He cut his last tooth in his twenty-seventh year.
7

98 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

of slavery as injurious to the industry and the development
of the physical resources of a country. Mr. Stephens made
impromptu one of his happiest, off-hand replies. The whole
of the speech is in this volume, but the concluding part was in
these words, as reported next morning in the Globe.

" A few facts in reference to physical development. I had oc
casion, some time since, for another purpose than the present, to
look a little into the statistics of Georgia, compared with those
of other States. I selected the State of Ohio, because it was one
of the most prosperous of the North — often styled, and, perhaps,
justly too, the Giant of the West. According to the census re
turns in 1850, Ohio had of improved lands 9,851,493 acres.
Georgia had only 6,378,419 acres. The cash value of the Georgia
land, so improved and under culture, was $95,753,445 ; while the
cash value of the Ohio lands was returned at $358,758,603.
Ohio had nearly one third more land in a state of improvement
than Georgia had, and returned at more than three times the
cash value of the Georgia lands. The whole population of Ohio
was 1,908,480 ; the whole population of Georgia, white and black,
was 905,999. The population of Ohio, therefore, was more than
double that of Georgia. Here we see her free labor more than
double in number, working one third more land, worth by valua
tion, more than three times that of Georgia. From these ele
ments it might not be surprising to see her agricultural products
greatly exceeding those of Georgia, without resorting to the
1 curse of slavery' to account for it. But how stand the facts ?
Ohio produced the following articles :

Wheat. 14,487,351 bushels at 80 cents $11,589,880

Buckwheat 638,060 " 40 " .... 255,224

Indian corn 59,078,695 " 30 " 17,723,608

Eye 425,918 " 50 " .... 212,959

Barley 354,358 " 50 " .... 177,179

Oats..... 13,472,742 " 25 " .... 3,368,182

Peas and beans 60,168 " $100 60,168

Irish potatoes 5,057,769 " 40 cents 2,023,107

Sweet potatoes 187,991 " 50 " .... 93,995

Tobacco 10,454,449 pounds 7 " ....' 731,811

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 99

Cloverseed 103,197 bushels $4 00 412,748

Flax 446,932 pounds 10 cents 44,693

Flaxseed 188,880 bushels 75 " 141,660

Maple sugar 4,588,209 pounds 6 " .... 275,292

Molasses 197,308 gallons 35 " 69,057

Wine 48,207 " $100 48,207

Garden products, returned in money value .... .... 214,004

Orchard " " " " 695,921

Aggregate $38,137,695

" This list includes nearly every agricultural product of the
earth in that State except hay, which is omitted, because in
Georgia there is no return for fodder, which, in 'that State,
answers the same purpose of hay in Ohio as food for stock. The
quantity of each product produced is given from the census
tables. The values run out are such as are believed to be the
usual average values of each article in that State, except the pro
ducts of gardens and orchards, which are taken from the tables
. — no other values are put upon the products in the tables. The
estimate above stated is believed to be a fair one. Now let us
take up the returns for Georgia, and place upon them a like esti
mated average value. Here we have :

Wheat 1,088,534 bushels at $100 $1,088,534

15,040,049
15,970,912
1,558,027
1,142,011
1,746,607
113,689
1,432,516
98,520
54,037
92,766
76,500

Aggregate $38,414,168

" An amount so far from falling under that of Ohio, as might
have been expected, actually exceeds it above a quarter of a
million, without extending the Georgia list to rye, barley, tobacco,

499,091 400 Ibs.
38,950,691 pounds
1,142,011 bushels $
6,986,528
227,378
3,820,044
1,642 hh4s., 1000 Ibs.,
216,150 gallons

8 ....
4 ....
100 ....
25 ....

50 ....
37*....
6 ....
25 ....

Peas and beans

Irish potatoes

Oats

Molasses . . . . . .

Orchard products of .

Garden, products of .

100 ALEXANDEK H. STEPHENS.

and other articles which are produced in that State. Away,
then, with this prating cry about slavery's paralyzing the energy
of a people, and opposing the development of the resources
of a country.

" If I were to take the statistics of any other State, and go
through them in the same way, I have no reason to doubt that
an equally favorable result to Georgia would follow. I took tho
State of Ohio, not as any disparagement to her, but to show that
even in the South, where they say the soil is sterile, and the pop
ulation inert, and cursed with slavery, as it is said to be, Georgia,
with one half of the population, and only two thirds of the value
of land, exceeds in agricultural products, by one quarter of a
million of dollars, the great Giant of the West.

" Now, then, if the people of Kansas, the people of Nebraska,
or the people of any other portion of our territory, going from old
Massachusetts, going from New York, or from Indiana, or from the
South, learning and consulting wisdom from the past, and profiting
by experience from all parts of the Union, should think it practi
cally best for the happiness of themselves and for their posterity in
the far distant future, to adopt the social institutions of Georgia in
preference to those of Indiana, if they prefer the institutions of the
South to those of the North, I say they should not be deprived of
their right to do it, and the gentleman from Indiana, and those who
act with him, should not set themselves up as judges and 'masters'
.0 control the matter."

[Here the hammer fell.]

To this speech of Mr. Stephens, Hon. Lewis D. Campbell of
Ohio replied briefly on the same day. His speech, however, was
not published until sometime after. When published it was
greatly elaborated with voluminous statistical tables gotten up
in the meantime to controvert the positions of Mr. Stephens.

The great rejoinder, entitled "Georgia and Ohio again," in
reply to Mr. Campbell's speech and his tables, was delivered in
the House, on the 15th of January, 1855. It is one of the ablest
statistical papers ever prepared, and one that cost Mr. Stephens
much labor.

ALEXANDEK H. STEPHENS. 101

The impression made upon the public by the new facts and
startling conclusions of this speech, may be estimated by its
effect upon Mr. John C. Rives, who, at that time, had the con
trol of the Congressional Grlobe. Mr. Rives, in pursuance of
his habit of close personal attention to his business, looked
over the speech as it came from the hands of the reporters, and
the accompanying statistical tables which Mr. Stephens had
furnished to be inserted in the right place. He was imme
diately struck with what seemed to him the impossibility of the
correctness of the tables. Knowing Mr. Stephens' usual accu
racy in all matters of fact, and being also his personal friend,
and feeling solicitous that his well-earned reputation in this
particular should not be put to the blush, he sent for Mr.
Stephens and stated to him his doubts as to the possibility
of the facts, and suggested the propriety of withholding the
publication of the tables, supposing, as he said, that they had
been carelessly prepared by some other person, and had not
undergone his own close examination. When Mr. Stephens
informed him that they were his own work, and that he was
prepared to maintain their entire accuracy, Mr. Rives, with a
mixture of mirth and friendly anxiety, gave him to understand
that he had really thought the tables had been prepared by
somebody who didn't know what he was about ; but since they
were Mr. Stephens' own work, he could see them go to the
public with his misgivings diminished but not removed. The
tables, and the novel conclusions deduced from them, appeared
in the next morning's Globe; and their accuracy has never yet
been successfully assailed.

The subjoined engraving of Mr. Stephens in this sketch, is
from the Imperial Photograph by Brady, which adorns the
mantel-piece of Mr. Stephens' private room, and was intended
to represent him as he stood, during the delivery of that
masterly speech. It is given in full in this volume.

The following sketch of his appearance and power at that period
is from the Washing4 on correspondent of the Frederick Citizen-

102 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

" WASHINGTON, February 28, 1855.

" Near the bar of the House, to the right of the main aisle, facing
the speaker, sits a man whose singular appearance alwa}^s arrests
the attention of the stranger. You should note him well, for he is
one of the marked characters of the House."

" It is Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia. And do you call
that curious-looking creature one of the marked characters of the
House ? say you. Yes, every word of it. True, there is no mark
of extraordinary intellectuality in his countenance ; but draw
him out in debate, do any thing to set at work the powerful intel
lectual battery within, and that poor, sickly, emaciated frame,
which looks as if it must sink under the slightest physical exer
tion, at once grows instinct with a galvanic vitality which quickens
every nerve with the energy of a new life, imparts to every fea
ture a high, intellectual expression, makes the languid eyes glow
like living coals, and diffuses a glow of reviving animation over
the pallid countenance.

"A new spirit seems to be awakened within him which trans
forms the whole man into a new creature in appearance. You
cease to be annoyed by that voice which pierces the ear with its
shrill and discordant tones, and the awkward gestures seem awk
ward no longer, for they are evidently prompted by nature. No
wonder that nature has slighted the outward man, since she has
lavished her rarest gifts upon the inward with unsparing profu
sion. The intellectual power of the man seems so to transfigure
the outward appearance, so to transfer its quickening and trans
forming spirit into the physical nature, that the emaciated figure
before you looks as much like intellect incarnate, as can well be
imagined. He hurries through the exordium, announces the sub
ject, lays down his propositions, and advances at once to the
argument, which he follows out with logical exactness, weaving
into the thread of it such facts as are proper for illustration, and
drawing out conclusions which the most subtle ingenuity cannot
avert. Now he advances to the arguments of the other side, dis
sects them wit admirable delicacy, exposes a fallacy here and

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 103

a misstatement of facts there ; here a non sequiter, and there a
petitio principii ; now some insidious reflection upon the South
touches his sensitive feelings on that subject, and forth there
issues a flame of withering invective, which, made doubly hot by
his envenomed sarcasm, scathes its victim as with the blasting-
touch of the lightning ; now he is all on fire with interest in his
subject, and seems to catch the inspiration of eloquence, as, with
more than mortal power, he summons forth the feelings of the
audience, and sways them in alternate emotions of anger, indig
nation, pity, love, and all the passions of the human breast.

"A death-like silence reigns over the vast Hall, broken only b}'
the reverberating tones of the speaker's voice. Senators have
deserted the other wing of the Capitol, and, side by side with
members, are sitting as under a spell which they cannot break ;
Mr. Speaker has thrown down his hammer, which generally knows
no rest, and has forgotten to keep an eye upon the clock, that
the member on the floor may not break through the ' hour rule' ;
pages have almost lost their power of perpetual motion, and are
now subdued into a stillness like unto death ; reporters look like
the ' mediums' with the spell upon them, inditing revelations from
the spirit world ; while from the overhanging galleries, graced
with a brilliant array of beauty and fashion, a thousand eyes are
riveted on the speaker as on a 'charmer,' with an air of bewil
dered amazement, nor dare they turn to each other for a moment,
for an interchange of those sympathetic glances, which bring so
much relief to the human heart when swayed by such emotions."

When, in 1855, the mystic Sam — the know-nothing giant —
was striding on to power, the North seemed bowing before his
chariot- wheels ; but in Virginia and Georgia, Henry A. Wise and
Alexander H. Stephens stood up in the breach and said, " Thus
far shalt thou come, and no farther." The first mighty blow
upon the helmet of the giant was the letter of Mr. Stephens, to
his friend, Judge Thomas W. Thomas, May 9th, 1855. It is
one of the best efforts of Mr. Stephens, and given in full in

104 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

this book. We will not mar the "feast of reason" by sampling
this dish. Being abandoned by many old friends, the Georgian
entered the lists almost alone. He announced his own candi
dacy from the City Hall, in Augusta, and by an appeal to his
unassailable record, at the outset defied personal attack, and
startled and alarmed the opposition. His plan was not to
defend himself, but to assail the opposition.

Before giving an extract from that opening speech, it may be
as well to state as follows : He had been continuously a mem
ber of Congress from 1843 until the close of Congress in the
spring of 1855 ; sometimes with party nominations, and some
times with the common consent of all parties, without any
regular nomination. Opposition to him was deemed almost
useless, and when made, it was generally with a view to pre
serving the party organization of a minority. In this instance,
of his own accord, he became a candidate by his own announce
ment. We give it in his own words, as follows :

FELLOW-CITIZENS: — Two years ago, or a little less, I ap
peared before you in the same place where I now stand. I had
been put in nomination for Congress informally, by a portion of
the people in this, as well as in several other counties of the
district. In responding to that call, on that occasion, I stated,
as many of you doubtless recollect, that I had no pledge to give,
except that if I should be returned, it would be my utmost
endeavor so to discharge my duties as your representative, that
no man in the district, or in the State, whether whig or
democrat, should, upon the expiration of my term of office,
have just reason or cause to say, that his rights, interest, or
honor, or the rights, interest, or honor of Georgia, had suffered
detriment at my hands. With this pledge I was elected. The
term of office to which I was so chosen expired the 4th of March
last. My acts, as your representative, are known to all of you.
They have been subjected to the most rigid scrutiny. And
before proceeding further with what I have to say this night, I
wish to ask if there is a man in this very large assembly [called

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 105

together without distinction of party] who feels that the pledge
then given has not been redeemed ? Is there a whig here, or a
democrat, or a ' know-nothing,' or an ' anti-know-nothing' — a
Protestant or a Catholic — a native or a naturalized citizen — who
will say that he feels that his rights, interests, or honor, or the
rights, interests, or honor of the district or State, so far as they
were committed to me, have sustained injury in my hands ? If so,
let him speak. Let him name in what I came short of duty, or
what single act I did, of which he has cause to complain. I
pause for a reply. No one answers. Then may I not be bold
enough to presume that my public conduct during the official
term which is now terminated, meets the approbation of all ?"

Later in his speech, he thus spoke of proscription for FOREIGN
BIRTH, or CATHOLIC FAITH :

" Members of the Order may deny it, and say, as some do, that
they ' are pledged for religious freedom to every church, be it
Catholic or Protestant.' But every one of them knows, and
whether they deny it or not, there is a secret monitor within that
tells them they have pledged themselves never to vote for any
Roman Catholic to any office of profit or trust. They have thus
pledged themselves to set up a religious test in qualifications for
office, against the express words of the Constitution of the United
States. The words of the constitution are :

" ' But no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification
to any office or public trust under the LTnited States.'

" The words of Scripture are :

" ' And the Lord commanded the man, saying, of every tree of
the garden thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowl
edge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day thou
eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.'

" So of all the reasons you may have or objections or disquali
fications you may make, in the selection of men to office or
places of public trust under the United States, you may make
any other test but this religious test — the test of ' good and evil1 in
the conscience of men — that you cannot make under the con
stitution ; that test our great lawgivers, with Washington, the

106 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

4

Father of his country at their head, said ' shall not be required. '
This is the for bid den fruit. Of it thou shalt not eat and live.
*******

" It proposes to put a large class of as true native-born citizens
as any in the United States, under the ban of civil proscription.
And whenever any government denies to any class of its citizens
any equal participation in the privileges, immunities, and honors
enjoyed by all others, it parts with all just claims to their
allegiance. Allegiance is due only so long as protection is ex
tended ; and protection necessarily implies an equality of right
to stand or fall, according to merit, amongst all the members of
society or the citizens of the commonwealth. When native Cath
olics, therefore, or any other class of citizens, be they Methodist,
or Baptist, or Presbyterians, are practically denied the equality
of right in the administration of their government, they will
naturally become its enemies ; and they ought to. The result,
sooner or later, will be strife, civil discord, and civil war. Men
so situated, sooner or later will fight. The best of our Protestant
friends, under like circumstances, would fight, too. For the best
of men, after all, have enough of the old leaven of human nature
left about them to fight when they feel aggrieved, outraged, and
trampled upon ; and, strange to say, when men get to fighting
about religion, they fight harder, and longer, and more extermi-
natingly, than upon any other subject. The history of the world
teaches this. Many of the bloody wars that rest as a blot and
stain upon Christendom, attest it. The tendencjr of this move
ment, therefore, so far as this branch of it is concerned, is to civil
war — just as inevitably as a collision of two engines meeting on
your railroad track, unless checked in their progress, tends to
their destruction. It is the first movement of the kind since the
formation of our government. Already we see the spirit abroad
which is to enkindle the fires and set the faggots ablazing. Not
by the Catholics, they are comparatively few and weak. Their
only safety is in the shield of the constitutional guarantee. Mi
norities seldom assail majorities ; and persecutions always begin
with the larger numbers against the smaller. But this spirit is
evinced by one of the numerous replies to my letter. It says :

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 107

' We call upon the children of the Puritans of the North, and
the Huguenots of the South — by the remembrance of the fires of
Smithfield, and the bloody St. Bartholomew — to lay down for
once all sectional difficulties,' etc., and to join in this great
American movement of proscribing Catholics. What is this
but the tocsin of intestine strife ? Why call up the remembrance
of the fires of Smithfield, but to whet the Protestant appetite for
vengeance ? Why stir up the quiet ashes of bloody St. Barthol
omew, but for the hope, perhaps, of finding therein a slumbering
spark from which new fires ma}?" be started ? Why exhume the
atrocities, cruelties, and barbarities of ages gone by, from the
repose in which they have been buried for hundreds of years,
unless it be to reproduce the seeds and spread amongst us the
same moral infection and loathsome contagion ? just as it is said
the plague is sometimes occasioned in London, by disentombing
and exposing to the atmosphere the latent virus of the fell disease
still lingering in the dusty bones of those who died of it centu
ries ago ?"

During the same canvass lie was complimented by a public
dinner at Appling, Columbia county, Georgia, on the llth of
July, 1855. Also one in Sparta, Georgia, and made speeches
in both places.

From the time of the announcement of his candidacy, until
the election, the contest was the most bitter and fierce that had
ever been in the district. The odds seemed greatly against him
at the beginning. He spoke in every county in the district.
In some, three or. four times at different places. The three
speeches we have spoken of were the only ones reported in
full for the press, and they only imperfectly.

He was triumphantly returned to Congress. He began with
a majority of about three thousand against him, and the vote
recorded about three thousand in his favor.

His influence in Congress lost nothing by the fiery ordeal
he had passed at home.

The famed debate with Zollicoffer, the eloquent Tennes-
seean, on the power of Congress to establish or prohibit

108 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

slavery in the Territories, took place in the House, January
17th, 1856.

June 28th, 1856, he spoke on the Topeka Constitution and
admission of Kansas under it. His opponents have often
attempted to confuse him by interruptions, but invariably get
worsted in the attempt. The following, from that speech, will
illustrate his readiness in debate.

Speaking of the restriction of 1820, he said : —

" Here is also Mr. Madison's emphatic opinion against the same
measure. I cannot take up nry time in reading it. I state the
fact, and challenge contradiction. Jefferson was against the re
striction of 1820. Madison was against it, and Jackson was
against it. No man can deny these facts. It was reluctantly
accepted by the South, however, as an alternative, and only as
an alternative, for the sake of peace and harmony. And who are
those now who call it a sacred compact ? Those very men, the
gentleman and his party, who denounced every man from the
North as 'a dough-face,' who from 1846 to 1850 was in favor of
abiding by it for the sake of union and harmony. Not a man
can be named from the North who was willing to abide by that
line of division during the period I have stated, who was not de
nounced by the gentleman and his party as ' a dough-face.' Who
now are the ' dough-faces ?' And if the gentleman wishes to
know what tree brought forth that bitter fruit of which he spoke
the other day, I will tell him. It was not the Kansas tree, but
that old political upas planted by Rufus King in 1820. It grew
up ; it nourished, and it sent its poisonous exhalations throughout
this country till it came well nigh extinguishing the life of the
Republic in 1850.

11 MR. CAMPBELL. That tree was planted when — [Cries of
' Order !' ' Order !'] — when slavery was first brought to the shores
of America. [Cries of ' Order !' ' Order !']

" MR. STEPHENS. Well, then, Mr. Speaker, it is much older
than the Kansas bill. It was planted before the government was
formed. The constitution itself was grafted upon its stock. The
condition or slavery of the African race, as it exists amongst us,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 109

is a ' fixed fact' in the constitution. From this a tree has indeed
sprung — bearing, however, no troubles or bitter fruits. It is the
tree of national liberty, which, by the culture of statesmen and
patriots, has grown up and flourished, and is now sending its
branches far and wide, ladened with no fruit but national happi
ness, prosperity, glory, and renown.

" MR. CAMPBELL. Will the gentleman from Georgia read the
preamble to the constitution ?

" MR. STEPHENS. Yes ; and I believe I can repeat it to him.
It is 'in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
insure domestic tranquillity S

"Mr. CAMPBELL. 'And secure the blessings of liberty to our
selves and our posterity.'

" Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir, to themselves and their posterity —
not to the negroes and Africans — and what sort of liberty ? Con
stitutional liberty ; that liberty which recognized the inferior condi
tion of the African race amongst them ; the liberty which all the
States enjoyed at that time, save one (for all were then slave-hold
ing except Massachusetts). That is the sort of liberty. None
of your Socialism liberty. None of your Fourierism liberty.
Constitutional liberty — ' law and order' — abiding liberty. That
is the liberty which they meant to perpetuate."

On the "Kansas Election," and her " Contested Election,"
he spoke, February 19th, 1856, and March llth, 1856; the
Topeka speech, was June 28th of the same year.

On July 31st, 1856, he spoke at length on the Eeeder vs.
Whitfield case. The celebrated speech on the presidential elec
tion of 1856, the compromise of 1850, and the Kansas Act of
1854, was delivered in the House, January 6th, 1857. The
following is a sketch of his appearance and influence on that
occasion, from the correspondence of the Charleston (South
Carolina) Courier, entitled, Life in Washington:

"WASHINGTON, January 7, 1851.

" It had been rumored throughout the city — told in the drawing-
rooms of the hotels, in the private parlors, and in the public

110 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

saloons — that ' Stephens, of Georgia,' was to speak on Tuesday
of the present week, on the all-absorbing topic of slavery. At
an early hour the galleries were tilled to overflowing with the
families of our distinguished statesmen, members of the foreign
legations, dashing belles, with a sprinkling here and there of our
best residents.

"As we passed through the lobbies we were struck with the
deep and reverential quiet that pervaded the House. Where was
the power that subdued the stormy confusion of this (always)
riotous assembly? That vast crowd of listening faces were
turned toward a shrunken and attenuated figure, the shoulders
contracted and drawn in, the face dead and of the color of ashes.
There was something grand in the mere spectacle of his shadowy
figure, binding up the very breath of the House in a hush so
silent that the unsheathing of a stiletto might have been heard
amid its stillness.

" When we entered, the speaker was pouring out a continuous,
unintermitted volume of thought and language to prove the sover
eignty of the people in the territories.* He went on and on,
with unwearied rapidity, arguing, defining, illustrating, repeat
ing -intricate facts, laying down subtile distinctions, prostrating
an objection here, seizing upon a fallacy there ; then retracing
his steps, and re-stating in some original point of view his general
propositions ; then flying off again to the outskirts of the ques
tion, and dealing his desultory blows with merciless reiteration
wherever an inch of ground remained to be cleared ; and during
the whole of this, though his face exhibited signs of great ex
haustion, the god-like mind within did not flag for a single
instant, nor even pause for a topic, an idea, or an expression.
This velocity of creation, arrangement, and delivery astonished
us ; and what added to our wonder, was, that it appeared to be
achieved without an effort. Mass after mass of argument was
thrown off in phraseology vigorous and appropriate, while the
speaker seemed the mere organ of some hidden power that saved

*The argument of Mr. Stephens, as will be seen in the speech, was in
illustration of his views as to where ultimate sovereignty rests under our
institutions. — Ed.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. Ill

him the cost of laborious exertion, apparently anxious to impress
upon others his own reliance upon the force of what seemed to
come unsought.

" He had little variety of gesture, and what he used seemed per
fectly unstudied. He was evidently so thoroughly absorbed in
his subject as to be quite unconscious that he had hands and
arms to manage. As he proceeded, he occasionally raised one
hand, and then suddenly struck it down with extraordinary
force. The strength of the action atoned for its inelegance. This
very disdain for the externals of oratory had something imposing
in it ; one was made to feel that he was in the presence of a pow
erful mind that looked to itself alone, and one surrendered oneself
more completely to its guidance from the conviction that no
hackneyed artifice was employed to allure our confidence.

" Before concluding, his whole manner changed. His tones
grew solemn in their deep, sonorous swell, as he reviewed his
political life. He spoke of the measures he had aided to pass
— of his part in the compromise of 1850. Then, in a strain of
matchless eloquence, he proclaimed his fidelity to the union of
these States.

" He soared above the commonplaces of public speaking ; he
rose above the mere politician, and declared his faithfulness to
the principles on which our Union is framed ; his faithfulness to
the laws on which it proceeds and operates ; his faithfulness to
the institutions which distribute the validity, while they secure
the unity of the whole.

"As he proceeded, his unearthly face seemed to brighten into
fuller and ghostlier meaning ; his eye shone like a sunken pit of
fire suddenly disclosed ; his attenuated form seemed to dilate to
his dilating soul ; his voice seemed exalted to a trumpet tone ;
the word orator (like a transparent fluttering in the breeze) flamed
around his every look, and gesture, and word, and movement.
The Speaker's hammer descended in the midst of this impassioned
burst, leaving an impression upon the tingling ears of his audi
tors which many will carry to their graves. This speech is con
sidered a master-piece, pure, lofty, dignified, and impassioned,

112 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

leaving an impression on the public mind of the patriotic motives
and lofty objects of the speaker.

" The marked disproportion between the personnel and the
splendid intellect of Mr. Stephens is most striking. If Rem
brandt were living in our times, he should paint the physique of
this remarkable man. His unearthly face would afford an appro
priate subject to the shadowy pencil of that great artist. There
should be no gradual melting of colors into each other ; there
should be no nice variety of hue — no sky, no flowers, no drapery,
no marble ; but a shrunken and spectral figure should stand upon
the canvas, with the greater proportions of his form in opacity
and shadow, and with a strong line of light bre'aking through a
monastic window upon a few locks scattered upon a small and
irregularly-shaped head. The pallor of the grave should sit upon
his face, the features of which, though destitute of all symmetry
or proportion, yet derive from the mind within an expression of
ghostly power. M. J. W."

In 1857, he wrote two very interesting letters to Professor
Williams Rutherford, of the Georgia State University, giving
facts and reminiscences connected with the origin and construc
tion of the great State railroad, to which we have referred be
fore. These letters, although private, we are permitted to pub
lish for the first time, as they furnish a fair specimen of Mr.
Stephen's epistolary style outside of political topics.

On Thursday, December 17th, 1857, he delivered an eloquent
eulogy upon Hon. Andrew Pickens Butler, of South Carolina,
on the occasion of the resolutions in the House and Senate on
his death. It was extemporaneous, but considered a model of
its kind. We give the remarks in full :

" Mr. STEPHENS. I rise, sir, to second the motion for the adop
tion of .those resolutions. But before the question is put, I wish
to add a few words to what has been said by the gentleman from
South Carolina, in honor of the memory of the distinguished
senator whose death has been announced. Judge Butler was
known to in?, personally. His immediate constituents and mine

I

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 113

are neighbors. Nothing but the broad and beautiful Savannah
separates them. Identified in interests, identified in habits, in
sentiments, and in feelings, their sympathies naturally commingle
on a common loss and bereavement, and such this is considered.

" Judge Butler possessed, in an eminent degree, those qualities
that not only secure the esteem and the admiration always due to
genius, and learning, and talent of a high order, but those other
qualities that win the love and the affection of all who come
within their range. He was emphatically a man cast in an original
mould, of most marked characteristics, physical as well as intel
lectual. As the honorable gentleman spoke of his silvery locks,
and majestic form, and stately person, and Roman countenance.
I could almost imagine him again standing in our midst. Those
of us who knew that form, and knew that gallant bearing, with
the sense of age and the fire of youth, can never forget him. He
was mercurial in his temperament, more pointed in conversation,
as well as in argument, than he was logical. But he was, never
theless, firm and stable.

" In the social circle he shone to great advantage. Wit and
humor, drawn from classical sources, were his delight. He was
chaste in thought, and classical in expression. In the busy pur
suits of life, the abstruse studies of the law, or the labors that
devolved on him in public life, he did not forget the cultivation
of letters. He scorned to wrangle, yet he had a zeal for truth.
In manner he was easy and agreeable — in intercourse with man
kind, warm-hearted, brave, chivalrous. None was more liberal ;
none more unoffending ; none more generous, noble, or magnan
imous.

"He was firm, though versatile. Decision was one of his
marked characteristics. As a judge and as a legislator, he came
up to the ideal of one of his favorite poets :

" ' Justum et tenacem propositi virum
Non civium ardor prava jubentium
N"on vultus instantis Tyranni
Mente quatit solida.'

" Few men were more amiable and mild in disposition, none
more resolute in purpose.

114 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

" Sir, eulogy is not my object ; that may be left for his biogra
pher or historian. He that was a few months ago with us, is
gone. Those places that knew him so well, will know him no
more. We, too, are passing away. How brief the time since the
voices of Lowndes, of McDuffie, of Calhoun, and of Hamilton,
were heard within these walls ! The cold sod covers them to-day.
The voice of Butler is silent in the grave with theirs. These
were men that stirred, in their day, empires — a proud galaxy, of
which the gallant Palmetto State, which they almost adored, may
well be proud. As a mother, she may well boast of such jewels.

"But, the thought, how suggestive, when we see men of such
character in their day and generation, passing away, receding
from the existing generation — how suggestive the thought — the
truth that —

" ' When fame's loud trump hath blown its noblest blast,
Though loud the sound, the echo sleeps at last ;
And glory, like the phoenix 'midst the fires,
Exhales her odors, blazes and expires.'

" What shadows we are, and what shadows we pursue ! How
transitory pleasures ! How unsubstantial honors ! The only
hope to the wise and the good — the virtuous good — on this earth,
with all their aspirations for honorable place — and such aspira
tions are to be great only so far as they are good — is the hope,
the day-star of promise, that hereafter the dust of these bodies,
like the ashes of that same fabled phoenix, is to be quickened
into newness of life in a future existence, where to each shall be
measured out according to the deeds done here in the body;
where there shall be no more strife, no more pain, no more death,
but never-ending immortality. I second the resolutions."

While speaking of South Carolina, we will insert here an
extract or two, from the Congressional Globe, of January 26th,
1853. It is of interest as an earnest and magnanimous vindi
cation of that gallant little State, coming from one who had
never received much, sympathy from her in his political course.

" Mr. STEPHENS. I am opposed to this amendment. I do not
concur in the remarks made by the gentleman from North Caro-

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 115

lina [Mr. STANLY], or in the sentiments expressed in the amend
ment offered by him. Not at all, sir. I do not understand that
General Jackson ever put down nullification in this country.
When or where ? That General Jackson, as President of the
United States, and as a citizen, was against the doctrine of nulli
fication, as taught in South Carolina, I concede. But did
General Jackson ever put down that doctrine ? Did he ever
silence it ? It is true, the principles of the proclamation were
against that doctrine. I did not agree with General Jackson in
the principles of that proclamation, though the gentleman from
North Carolina might or may have done so. And so it may have
been with a majority of the American people. But, sir, that
proclamation did not put down nullification. If the gentleman
from North Carolina will look to the history of this country, he
will find that the spirit and principles of nullification were never
abandoned or put down in South Carolina. She did not cease
her preparations for resistance until this government abandoned
the principles of that policy against which she was arrayed.

" Mr. STANLY. They were never abandoned, and never will be.

" Mr. STEPHENS. They were certainly abandoned by the com
promise tariff bill, brought forward in the Senate for conciliation,
and this the gentleman himself will hardly deny.

11 Mr. STANLY. I deny it ; it was denied at the time.

" Mr. STEPHENS. I am not going into a discussion of the extent
of the abandonment, at this time and upon this subject. What
I say is this : — The spirit of nullification, whether right or wrong,
never yielded until there was a yielding on the part of this gov
ernment. It is not my object now to say whether it was right or
wrong. I was, however, no nullifier. I did not believe in the
doctrine of nullification, as taught in South Carolina, any more
than I did in the doctrines of the proclamation ; but I say that
the history of the country bears me out in this, that General
Jackson did not put it down. I am opposed to this amendment."

Afterward some general debate occurred, and then again :

" Mr. STEPHENS. I wish to say only a few words in reply. The
point at issue between the gentleman and myself was, whether

116 ALEXANDEK H. STEPHENS.

General Jackson put down nullification, and not whether he was
a protective tariff man or not. He was a protective tariff man
at that time and up to the day of his death, so far as I know. I
grant that I did not say he was not, but I stated that General
Jackson did not put down nullification. What I stated was,
whether South Carolina was right or wrong, there was no giving
way on her part until conciliation was proposed. This is history.
That is the point.

" Mr. STANLY. The gentleman said that they gave way in
yielding protection.

" Mr. STEPHENS. I say that they or this government gave way
on that act against which South Carolina was contending. It
was this government that first gave way and let go. I did not
say that she entirely abandoned protection. You have not done
it to this day ; even a revenue tariff is protective as far as it goes.
We have now a protective tariff upon most articles, of thirty per >
cent. I say to the friends of that kind of protective system which
was established by the acts of 1828 and 1832, protection for pro
tection sake, not looking to revenue as the object, did let go so
far as to agree that one tenth of the duty above twenty per cent,
on all articles should at stated periods be taken off, and that all
above twenty per cent, should be taken off at the end of ten years.
Twenty per cent, was considered the standard of a revenue tariff
I say that is letting go ; and I say, as I repeated before, whether
General Jackson was right or wrong in being a protective tariff
man, or whether South Carolina was right or wrong in her views,
I am not going to discuss here. It is not the proper place ; but
I mean to defend history. South Carolina, whether right or
wrong, did maintain her attitude of resistance, and she stood up
to it until the government here gave way, and until General
Jackson's party here gave way. If there was any giving way,
it was on the part of the Federal government. South Carolina,
however I may have disagreed with her in her policy, never
quailed to the proclamation. She did not quail, but there was a
giving way here. When conciliation was offered to her upon
terms that met the approval of her judgment, she yielded, and
not before. She may have yielded some to patriotism, too. This

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 117

I believe she did. But the olive branch came from the Federal
government. It was not General Jackson or his proclamation
that put her down. That is the point I make."

January 13th, 1858, he spoke in the House, on the arrest of
General Walker by Commodore Paulding. The speech was
much praised ; it was on the Neutrality Laws.

He made the famed Lecompton Eeport, March 10th, 1858.

On the llth of May, 1858, he endeared himself to the hearts
of a worthy people, by his speech on Minnesota and alien suf
frage.

The speech on the impeachment of Judge Watrous was deliv
ered December 15th, 1858.

His last speech in Congress, was that on the admission of
Oregon, February 12th, 1859. As an oration, it stands among
the grandest specimens of American eloquence, and it is of in
terest beyond the splendor of its language or the beauty of its
periods as embodying his theory of our system of republican
government, in both State and territorial matters. We subjoin
a passage, drawn from the vision of Ezekiel, that for effect upon
his vast audience, and the deep emotion it excited, both on the
floor and in the galleries, has seldom been equalled.

" Now, Mr. Speaker, on another and entirely different aspect of
this question, I have something special to say to another side of
the House — a distinct class in it. I mean the members coming
from slaveholding States. There is evidently a feeling of opposi
tion in that quarter to the admission of Oregon, from a reluctance
and manifest indisposition to increase the number of what are
called free States. This arises from the apprehension that, with
the loss of the balance of power, the rights of our section upon
constitutional questions will be less secure. This may be so. It
does not, however, necessarily follow. But that balance is already
gone — lost by causes beyond your or my control. There is no
prospect of its ever being regained ; and, in taking that ground,
you do but reverse the position of our sectional opponents on the
other side of the House. I know it is the tendency of power to

118 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

encroach ; but let us look to the security which rests upon prin
ciple, rather than upon numbers. The citadel of our defence is
principle sustained by reason, truth, honor, and justice. Let us,
therefore, do justice, though the heavens fall.

" Let us not do an indirect wrong, for fear that the recipient
from our hands of what is properly due, will turn upon us and
injure us. Statesmen in the line of duty should never consult
their fears. Where duty leads, there we may never fear to tread.
In the political world, great events and changes are rapidly
crowding upon us. To these we should not be insensible. As
wise men, we should not attempt to ignore them. We need not
close our eyes, and suppose the sun will cease to shine because
we see not the light. Let us rather, with eyes and minds wride
awake, look around us and see where we are, whence we have
come, and where we shall soon be, borne along by the rapid,
swift, and irresistible car of time. This immense territory of the
west has to be peopled. It is now peopling. New States are fast
growing up ; and others, not yet in embryo, will soon spring into
existence. Progress and development mark every thing in na
ture — human societies, as well as every thing else. Nothing in
thfe physical world is still ; life and motion are in every thing ; so
in the mental, moral, and political. The earth is never still. The
great central orb is ever moving. Progress is the universal law
governing all things, animate as well as inanimate. Death itself
is but the beginning of a new life in a new form. Our govern
ment and institutions are subject to this all-pervading power.
The past wonderfully exemplifies its influence, and gives us some
shadows of the future.

" This is the sixteenth session that I have been here, and within
that brief space of fifteen years, we have added six States to the
Union — lacking but one of being more than half of the original
thirteen. Upward of twelve hundred thousand square miles of
territory — a much larger area than was possessed by the whole
United States, at the time of the treaty of peace in IT 83 — have
been added to our domain. At this time the area of our republic
is greater than that of any five of the greatest powers in Europe
all combined ; greater than that of the Roman Empire in the

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 119

brightest days of her glory ; more extensive than were Alexan
der's dominions when he stood on the Indus, and wept that he
had no more worlds to conquer. Such is our present position ;
nor are we yet at the end of our acquisitions.

* Our internal movements, within the same time, have not been
less active in progress and development, than those external. A
bare glance at these will suffice. Our tonnage, when I first came
to Congress, was but a little over two millions ; now it is upward
of five millions, more than double. Our exports of domestic man
ufactures were only eleven million dollars in round numbers ; now
they are upward of thirty millions. Our exports of domestic pro
duce, staples, etc., were then under one hundred million dollars ;
now they are upward of three hundred millions ? The amount of
coin in the United States, was at that time about one hundred mil
lions ; now it exceeds three hundred millions. The cotton crop then
was but fifty-four millions ; now it is upward of one hundred and
sixty million dollars. We had then not more than five thousand
miles of railroad in operation ; we have now not less than twenty-
six thousand miles — more than enough to encircle the globe — and
at a cost of more than one thousand million dollars. At that time
Professor Morse was engaged in one of the rooms of this Capitol,
in experimenting on his unperfected idea of an electric telegraph —
and there was as much doubt about his success as there is at present
about the Atlantic cable, but now there are more than thirty-five
thousand miles in extent of these iron nerves sent forth in every
direction through the land, connecting the most distant points, and
uniting all together as if under the influence of a common living
sensorium. This is but a glance at the surface ; to enter within
and take the range of other matters — schools, colleges, the arts, and
various mechanical and industrial pursuits, which add to the intelli
gence, wealth, and prosperity of a people, and mark their course in
the history of nations, would require time ; but in all would be found
alike astonishing results.

" This progress, sir, is not to be arrested. It will go on. The end
is not yet. There are persons now living, who will see over a hun
dred million human beings within the present boundaries of the
United States, to say nothing of future extension, and perhaps

120 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

double the number of States we now have, should the Union last.
For myself, I say to you, my southern colleagues on this floor, that
I do not apprehend danger to our constitutional rights, from the
bare fact of increasing the number of States with institutions dis
similar to ours. The whole governmental fabric of the United
States is based and founded upon the idea of dissimilarity in the
institutions of the respective members. Principles, not numbers,
are our protection. When these fail, we have, like all other people,
who, knowing their rights, dare maintain them, nothing to rely
upon but the justice of our cause, our own right arms and stout
hearts. With these feelings, and this basis of action, whenever
any State comes and asks admission, as Oregon does, I am pre
pared to extend her the hand of welcome, without looking into
her constitution, further than to see that it is republican in form,
upon our well-known American models.

" When aggression comes, if come it ever shall, then the end
draweth nigh. Then, if in my day, I shall be for resistance, open,
bold, and defiant. I know of no allegiance superior to that
due the hearthstones of the homestead. This I say to all. I lay
no claim to any sentiment of nationality not founded upon the
patriotism of a true heart, and I know of no such patriotism that
does not centre at home. Like the enlarging circle upon the
surface of smooth waters, however, this can and will, if unob
structed, extend to the utmost limits of a common country. Such
is my nationality — such my sectionalism — such my patriotism.
Our fathers of the South joined your fathers of the North in
resistance to a common aggression from their fatherland ; and if
they were justified in rising to right a wrong inflicted by a parent
country, how much more ought we, should the necessity ever
come, to stand justified before an enlightened world, in righting
a wrong from even those we call brothers. That necessity, I
trust, will never come.

" What is to be our future, I do not know. I have no taste for
indulging in speculations about it. I would not, if I could, raise
the vail that wisely conceals it from us. ' Sufficient unto the day
is the evil thereof,' is a good precept in every thing pertaining to
human action. The evil I would not anticipate ; I would rather

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 121

strive to prevent its coming; and one wajr, in my judgment, to
prevent it, is, while here, in all things to do what is right and
proper to be done under the constitution of the United States.
Nothing more, and nothing less. Our safety, as well as the pros
perity of all parts of the country, so long as this government
lasts, lies mainly in a strict conformity to the laws of its exist
ence. Growth is one of these. The admission of new States is
one of the objects expressly provided for. How are they to come
in? With just such constitutions as the people in each may
please to make for themselves, so it is republican in form. This
is the ground the South has ever stood upon. Let us not abandon
it now. It is founded upon a principle planted in the compact of
Union itself, and more essential to us than all others besides.
That is, the equality of the States, and the reserved rights of the
people of the respective States.

" By our system, each State, however great the number, has the
absolute right to regulate all her internal affairs as she pleases,
subject only to her obligations under the constitution of the
United States. With this limitation, the people of Massachusetts
have the perfect right to do as they please upon all matters re
lating to their internal policy. The people of Ohio have the right
to do the same ; the people of Georgia the same ; of California
the same ; and so with all the rest.

" Such is the machinery of our theory of self-government by
the people. This is the great novelty of our peculiar system,
involving a principle unknown to the ancients, an idea never
dreamed of by Aristotle or Plato. The union of several distinct,
independent communities upon this basis, is a new principle in
human governments. It is now a problem in experiment for the
people of the nineteenth century upon this continent to solve.
As I behold its workings in the past and at the present, while I
am not sanguine, yet I am hopeful of its successful solution.
The most joyous feeling of my heart is the earnest hope that it
will, for the future, move on as peacefully, prosperously, and bril
liantly, as it has in the past. If so, then we shall exhibit a moral
and political spectacle to the world something like the prophetic
vision of Ezekiel, when he saw a number of distinct beings or

122 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

living creatures, each with a separate and distinct organism,
having the functions of life within itself, all of one external like
ness, and all, at the same time, mysteriously connected with one
common animating spirit pervading the whole — so that when the
common spirit moved, they all moved; their appearance and
their work being, as it were, a wheel in the middle of a wheel.
And whithersoever the common spirit went, thither the others
went, all going together ; and when they went, he heard the noise
of their motion, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the
Almighty.

" Should our experiment succeed, such will be our exhibition.
A machinery of government so intricate, so complicated, with so
many separate and distinct parts, so many independent States,
each perfect in the attributes and functions of sovereignty, within
its own jurisdiction — all, nevertheless, united under the control
of a common directing power for external objects and purposes
— may, naturally enough, seem novel, strange, and inexplicable
to the philosophers and crowned heads of the world.

" It is for us, and those who shall come after us, to determine
whether this grand experimental problem shall be worked out ;
not by quarrelling amongst ourselves ; not by doing injustice to
any ; not by keeping out any particular class of States ; but by
each State remaining a separate and distinct political organism
within itself — all bound together for general objects, under a com
mon Federal head ; as it were, a wheel within a wheel. Then the
number may be multiplied without limit ; and then, indeed, may
the nations of the earth look on in wonder at our career ; and
when they hear the noise of the wheels of our progress in achieve
ment, in development, in expansion, in glory, and renown, it may
well appear to them not unlike the noise of great waters ; the
very voice of the Almighty — ' Vox populi! Vox Dei!' 'The
voice of the people is the voice of God.' [Great applause in the
galleries and on the floor.]

" The SPEAKER. If the applause in the galleries is repeated, the
Chair will order the galleries to be cleared.

" Many MEMBERS. It was upon the floor."

From all the compliments, in prose and verse; that rained in

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 123

upon the orator, we make a brief extract of only one. It is
from the Washington (D. C.) Star :

" HON. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

"By Mrs. M. S. Whitaker.

"As warring winds in frozen realms contend.
And o'er the deep their dreary murmurs send,
So contest rose, and faction ruled the crowd
With empty words and declamation loud.

" Oh ! who shall breast the storm, who guide the helm,
While raging waters threaten to o'erwhelm ?
Gray hairs are there, the wrinkled front of age,
The fresher manhood and the riper sage.

" Behold ! one cometh, Oregon for thee,
Whose very coming bringeth victory ;
Whose words will add a star to those we boast,
And fix our flag on the Pacific coast.

'As great in action as in council wise,
See her intrepid, conquering champion rise ;
The South his birth-place, honored by his name ;
The admiring world his theatre of fame.

" Pale is his cheek, but silver-toned his voice,
While at its sound the tuneful Nine rejoice.
All soul ! all fire ! a revelation given,
As though some spirit spoke to earth from heaven.
#• # # #• * *

"And shall we miss thee and thy councils now ?
Like Cincinnatus, wouldst thou seek the plow ?
Rome needs thy wisdom, modest tho' thou art,
And Freedom keeps thee ever near her heart.

" Thy private goodness, registered above,
Wins for the noble man as noble love ;
Beneficent patriot, wear thy laurel leaves
'Till reaped by angel hands shall be thy sheaves.

" WASHINGTON CITY, February 12, 1859."

124 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

y.

EETIEEMBNT FEOM CONGRESS.

SPEECH AT AUGUSTA (GEORGIA), 2D OF JULY, 1859 — VIEWS ON
THE PROPER RELATION BETWEEN THE WHITE AND BLACK
RACES AT THE SOUTH — PRESIDENTIAL CANVASS OF 1860.

IN March, 1859, at the close of that Congress, he voluntarily
retired to private life.

As evidence of the estimation in which he was held by the
public men with whom he had been associated at Washington,
we state that on the occasion of his retirement, a public dinner
was tendered to him by senators and members of the House
without distinction of party, headed by the President of the.
Senate and Speaker of the House. The compliment of such a
manifestation of regard is, we believe, without a precedent.*

* The following is the original draft of his reply, which we find among
some old papers :

" WASHINGTON, D. C., Id March, 1859.
"Hon. JOHN C. BRECKINRIDGE, JAMES L. ORR, G. E. PDGH, and others :

" GENTLEMEN : — Your kind note tendering- me the compliment of a din
ner, on the occasion of my retiring from Congress, has just been handed
to me. For this very distinguished and entirely unexpected mark of your
personal friendship, without reference to the terms in which you have
been pleased to speak of my public service, I return you my unfeigned
thanks. I appreciate this testimonial of esteem on the part of so many
senators and members in no ordinary degree — the more so from the fact,
that it comes not alone from those with whom I am associated politically.
It will ever be cherished in that retirement to which you allude, as one
of the most pleasant reminiscences of my life. If circumstances per
mitted, I need not assure you, it would afford me great pleasure to comply
with your request, and around the social board to take that long and last
farewell which so soon awaits us.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 125

On Mr. Stephens' return to Georgia, a dinner was given to
him, at Augusta, by the people of his old district. This, too,
was without distinction of party. His " farewell speech," as it
is called, delivered on that occasion to a vast crowd of ladies
and gentlemen in the City Hall Park of Augusta, July 2d,
1859, is one of the most interesting in this book. In it he not
only reviews the whole course of his public life, but spoke
also upon some of the gravest questions then before the people.
All should read it.

In this speech he gives fully and clearly his views on the
now broken relations between the white and the black races in
the South. Slavery, as it existed in the Southern States, Mr.
Stephens ever regarded as but the proper status in society of
an inferior to a superior race. In the Texas speech, in 1845,
he said : —

" I am no defender of slavery in the abstract — liberty always
had charms for me, and I would prefer to see all the sons and
daughters of Adam's family in the full enjoyment of all the
rights set forth in the Declaration of American Independence,
if a stern decree of the Almighty did not in some cases interfere
and prevent."

This, in his judgment, was the case where the European and
African races existed together in the proportion they did in the
Southern States. He did not regard this "peculiar institu
tion," as it was called in the South, as slavery in the proper
acceptation of that term. It was but a proper and legal subor
dination of the inferior to the superior race. This subordina
tion was the natural and normal condition of the black or
African race toward the white. These views were fully given

" But business engagements previously made require my immediate
departure for home at the close of our public duties ; this, I trust, will be
a sufficient excuse for my foregoing that pleasure.

" Please accept the assurance of my high regards, and in whatever for
tunes betide us, my best wishes attend you and our common country.
" Yours, most sincerely, ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS."

126 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

in many speeches made by him during his whole public course.
But in none, perhaps, more clearly and concisely than in this
speech made upon retirement from Congress. We give them
in full as therein expressed, that he may speak for himself and
not we for him :

"African slavery with us rests upon principles that can never
be successfully assailed by reason or argument. It has grown
stronger by discussion, and will still grow stronger as discussion
proceeds and as time rolls on. Thirty years ago, Virginia was
on the verge of abolition. Now, no such sentiment is to be
found there. Twenty years ago, Wilberforce's theory was car
ried out by emancipation in the British West Indies. That
experiment has most signally failed ; thaft error in policy is now
attempted to be remedied by Coolies, instead of Africans, under
the title of apprentices, instead of slaves. This is but verifying
the proverb, that ' one false step leads to another.' Carlyle, the
greatest thinker of England, has repudiated the folly of aboli
tionism ; and the London Times followed not far behind him.
The world is growing wiser, and upon no subject more rapidly
than that of the proper status of the negro. In my judgment,
there arc more thinking men at the North now who look upon
our system of slavery as right — socially, morally, and politically
— than there were even at the South thirty years ago. The
leading public men of the South, in our early history, were
almost all against it. Jefferson was against it ; Madison was
against it ; nearly all of them were against it. This I freely
admit, when the authority of their names is cited. It was a
question which they did not, and perhaps could not, thoroughly
understand at that time. It was then a new question in the con
struction of constitutional government. It is still a problem in
process of solution. They met the paramount questions of their
day as statesmen ; so should the men of this day meet those
before them. New truths are always slow in development. This
is the case in all the physical sciences. It was so with the Coper-
nican system in astronomy; so with the application of steam in
mechanics ; so with the knowledge of the laws of electricity, and
the means of controlling it for great uses and purposes ; this is

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 127

also the case with new truths in governments, and even more GO ;
for legislators and rulers are not generally the thinkers of any
country. Hence, important facts within their appropriate sphere
often lie much longer unobserved, without the legitimate induc
tions and conclusions to be drawn from them. The world had
moved on for centuries ; States, Kingdoms, and Empires had
risen, fallen, and passed away before legislators were even con
scious of the great facts and truths brought to light by Adam
Smith, touching the laws of trade and the real source of the wealth
of nations. Even when first announced, they were slow in im
pressing the minds of those who controlled the action of govern
ments. Now they are recognized and adopted as maxims by the
wise and intelligent in all civilized countries. So it has been,
and is, with the great fact that in the framework of human society
the materials for its structure should be selected and arranged in
the order of nature. Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, the great
est philosophers of antiquity, directed their minds to the systems
of government, and the proper constitution of a State. The re
publican form was the ideal model of each. They all saw the
necessity of some sort of gradation in the elements of its compo
sition ; but their systems failed, because they violated nature in
making the subordinate class of the same race. Subordination
is the normal condition of the negro. This great truth, that such
was the normal condition of any race, was not recognized in their
theories ; and hence their machinery, in practice, could not work.
In this connection, allow me to say, that I do not agree with
some as to the manner of meeting our assailants on this subject.
Many seem to be not only astonished, but offended, at the ' higher
law' doctrine of the Senator from New York (Mr. Seward). I,
too, believe in the 'higher law,' the law of the Creator, as mani
fested in his words and his revelations. Upon this our cause
eminently rests. I claim nothing barely upon the ground that
'thus it is nominated in the bond.' I recognize to the fullest
extent the doctrine that all human laws and constitutions must
be founded upon the Divine law. And if there is any right secured,
or any obligation imposed, in our constitution inconsistent with
this law, underlying and overruling all others, such right and

128 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

such obligation must be yielded. I would not swear to support
any constitution inconsistent with this ' higher law.'

"Let us not deceive ourselves ; this question has to be grasped
and comprehended in all its vast dimensions ; on it we need not
orators so much as thinkers, nor declaimers so much as reason-
ers. We must stand on the ' higher law' as well as upon the
constitution. The latter must be subordinate to the former.
But as I read the inscriptions upon the canvas of the universe
about us, and around us, and over us, as well as the teachings of
inspiration, ' order is nature's first law ;' with it, come gradation
and subordination. This principle extends from the Throne of
the Creator to the utmost limits of his works. We see it in the
heavens above, in the greater and lesser lights, in the stars that
differ from each other in magnitude and lustre ; we see it in the
earth below, in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, ranging
from stateliest trees of the forests to the rudest mosses and
ferns ; from the magnolia grandiflora gioriosa, the rose and the
japonica, down to the most uncouth flower we tread under foot;
from the hugest monster of life in the air, on the land, or in the
ocean, to the smallest animalcule to be found in them all, we see
similar distinctions and gradation in the races of men, from the
highest to the lowest type. These are mysteries in creation
which are not for us to explain. It is enough to know that they
work out a grand harmony through the whole; and that in our
S3rstein of government, which, in my judgment, is the best in the
world, we do but conform to those immutable principles of
nature. Who> then, is warring against the 'higher law;' we who
conform to it, or those who are striving to reverse the decrees of
the Almighty ? In politics and morals, as in mechanics, it is
impossible to war successfully against principle. The principle
will ultimately prevail. The wickedest of all follies, and the
absurdest of all crusades, are those which attempt to make
things equal which God, in his wisdom, has made unequal. It
is a struggle against a principle which can never succeed, where
reason has sway, until 'the leopard can change his spots, and
the Ethiopian his skin.' The world, by wise men, is to be taken
as they find it ; and it is the business of statesmen so to con-

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 129

struct the materials of society as best to promote the good of
all. This can never be done by violating any principle of nature.
If our system is not the best, or cannot be made the best for
both races, it is wrong. I utterly repudiate the doctrine of the
greatest good for the greatest number. One hundred men have
no right to have happiness at the expense of ninety-nine, or a
less number. If slavery, as it exists with us, is not the best for
the African, constituted and made as he is ; if it does not best
promote his welfare and happiness, socially, morally, and politi
cally, as well as. that of his master, it ought to be abolished.
But if it does this, then we stand upon a rock as firm and
impregnable as truth."

This great truth, according to his convictions, upon which
the institution rested was justified by him, in another speech,
made some years afterward at Savannah, which has obtained
much celebrity, and was then styled by him the " Corner Stone."
That " corner stone" speech, it is proper to state, was extempora
neous. It was very imperfectly reported, and only purported
to give the substance of what was said on the several points
treated of in the address. In its statistical references were
many errors, some of which we may not be able to perfectly
correct at this time. But as that speech has been often referred
to, as embodying some of his sentiments in regard to the colored
race, and more than once attacked, we give it place in this col
lection. It may be found much easier to object to its views,
than to reply to them.

We allude to these matters with no view to revive a discus
sion of these questions, but simply to present Mr. Stephens'
views upon them as they were when the questions were open.
However wrong or right, he may have been in them, no one
can doubt his perfect sincerity and conscientiousness in enter
taining them. In benevolence, and kindly feeling toward the
human family — all classes and grades of society — Mr. Stephens
is signally distinguished. He is, in truth and in deed, a phil
anthropist, in the broadest sense of that word, if one ever ex
isted on this earth. The system of the subordination of the
9

130 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

black to the white race, as it existed, he did not think perfect.
But he looked for improvement, and strove for improvements
in it. He was opposed to that feature which denied education
to the black race, as well as that which failed to recognize the
marriage relation. These and other improvements of the sys
tem, he looked to. There was no time, however, during the
war, that he would not have been willing to give up the insti
tution for the acknowledgment of his cherished principle of
separate State sovereignty. This he has often been heard to
say ; and how he now accepts this fundamental change in the
social fabric of Southern society, will be seen in his speech on
the 22d February, 1866, hereafter referred to. In this connec
tion, we may be excused for quoting from it here, as follows.
He says :

" But with this change comes a new order of things. One of
the results of the war is a total change in our whole internal
policy. Our former social fabric has been entirely subverted.
Like those convulsions in nature which break up old incrusta
tions, the war has wrought a new epoch in our political existence.
Old things have passed away, and all things among us in this
respect are new. The relation heretofore, under our old sj^stem,
existing between the African and European races, no longer
exists. Slavery, as it was called, or the status of the black race,
their subordination to the white, upon which all our institutions
rested, is abolished forever, not only in Georgia, but throughout
the limits of the United States. This change should be received
and accepted as an irrevocable fact. It is a bootless question
now to discuss, whether the new system is better for both races
than the old one was or not. That may be proper matter for the
philosophic and philanthropic historian, at some future time, to
inquire into, after the new system shall have been fully and fairly
tried.

" All changes of systems or proposed reforms are but experi
ments and problems to be solved. Our system of self-govern
ment was an experiment at first. Perhaps as a problem it is not
jet solved. Our present duty on this subject is not with the past

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 131

or the future. It is with the present. The wisest and the best
often err in their judgment as to the probable workings of any
new system. Let us, therefore, give this one a fair and just trial,
without prejudice, and with that earnestness of purpose which
always looks hopefully to success. It is an ethnological problem,
on the solution of which depends, no.t only the best interests of
both races, but it may be, the existence of one or the other, if not
both.

" This duty of giving this new system a fair and just trial,
will require of you, as legislators of the land, great changes in
our former laws in regard to this large class of population. Wise
and hurr.ane provisions should be made for them. It is not for
me to go into detail. Suffice it to say on this occasion, that ample
and full protection should be secured to them, so that they may
stand equal before the law, in the possession and enjoyment of
all rights of person, libert}r, and property. Many considerations
claim this at your hands. Among these may be stated their
fidelity in times past. They cultivated your fields ; ministered
to your personal wants and comforts ; nursed and reared your
children ; and even in the hour of danger and peril, they were, in
the main, true to you and yours. To them we owe a debt of
gratitude, as well as acts of kindness. This should also be don-e
because they are poor, untutored, uninformed ; many of them
helpless, liable to be imposed upon, and need it. Legislation
should ever look to the protection of the weak against the strong.
Whatever may be said of the equality of races, or their natural
capacity to become equal, no one can doubt that, at this time,
this race among us is not equal to the Caucasian. This inequality
does not lessen the moral obligations on the part of the superior
to the inferior, it rather increases them. From him who has
much, more is required than from him who has little. The pres
ent generation of them, it is true, is far above their savage pro
genitors, who were at first introduced into this country ; in general
intelligence, virtue, and moral culture. This shows capacity for
improvement. But in all the higher characteristics of mental
development, they are still very far below the European type.
What further advancement they may make, or to what standard

132 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

they may attain, under a different system of laws every way suit
able and wisely applicable to their changed condition, time alone
can disclose. I speak of them as we now know them to be,
having no longer the protection of a master, or legal guardian ;
they now need all the protection which the shield of the law can
give.

" But above all, this protection should be secured because it is
right and just that it should be, upon general principles. All
governments in their organic structure, as well as in their
administration, should have this leading object in view : the good
of the governed. Protection and security to all under its juris
diction, should be the chief end of every government. It is a
melancholy truth that while this should be the chief end of all
governments, most of them are used only as instruments of power,
for the aggrandizement of the few, at the expense of, and by the
oppression of, the many. Such are not our ideas of government,
never have been, and never should be. Governments, according
to our ideas, should look to the good of the whole, and not a part
only. " The greatest good to the greatest number," is a favorite
dogma with some. Some so defended our old system. But you
know this was never my doctrine. The greatest good to all, with
out detriment or injury to any, is the true rule. Those govern
ments are only founded upon correct principles of reason and
justice, which look to the greatest attainable advancement, im
provement, and progress, physically, intellectually, and morally,
of all classes and conditions within their rightful jurisdiction.
If our old system was not the best, or could not have been made
the best, for both races, in this respect and upon this basis, it
ought to have been abolished. This was my view of that system
while it lasted, and I repeat it now that it is no more. In legisla
tion, therefore, under the new system, you should look to the
best interest of all classes ; their protection, security, advance
ment, and improvement, physically, intellectually, and morally.
All obstacles, if there be any, should be removed, which can possib^
hinder or retard the improvement of the blacks to the extent of
their capacity. All proper aid should be given to their own
efforts. Channels of education should be opened up to them.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 133

Schools, and the usual means of moral and intellectual training,
should be encouraged amongst them. This is the dictate, not
only of what is right and proper, and just in itself, but it is also
the promptings of the highest considerations of interest. It is
difficult to conceive a greater evil or curse, that could befall our
country, stricken and distressed as it now is, than for so large a
portion of its population as this class will quite probably consti
tute amongst us hereafter, to be reared in ignorance, depravity,
and vice. In view of such a state of things, well might the pru
dent, even now, look to its abandonment. Let us not, however,
indulge in such thoughts of the future. Nor let us, without an
effort, say the system can not be worked. Let us not, standing
still, hesitatingly ask, ' Can there any good thing come out of
Nazareth ?' but let us rather say, as Gamaliel did, ' If this counsel
or this work be of men, it will come to naught, but if it be of God
ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight
against God.' The most vexed questions of the age are social pro
blems. These we have heretofore had but little to do with ; we
were relieved from them by our peculiar institution. Emancipa
tion of the blacks, with its consequences, was ever considered by
me with much more interest as a social question, one relating to
the proper status of the different elements of society, and their
relations toward each other, looking to the best interest of all,
than in any other light. The pecuniary aspect of it, the considera
tions of labor and capital, in a politico-economic view, sunk into
insignificance, in comparison with this. This problem, as one of
the results of the war, is now upon us, presenting one of the most
perplexing questions of the sort that any people ever had to deal
with. Let us resolve to do the best we can with it, from all the
lights we have, or can get from any quarter. With this view, and
in this connection, I take the liberty of quoting for your considera
tion, some remarks even from the REV. HENRY WARD BEECHER.
I met with them some months ago, while pondering on this subject,
and was as much struck as surprised, with the drift of their philoso
phy, coming from the source they did. I give them as I find them
in the New York Times, where they were reported. You may be
as much surprised a.t hearing such ideas from Mr. Beecher, as I

134: ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

was. But however much we may differ from him on many ques
tions, and on many questions connected with this subject, yet all
must admit him to rank amongst the master spirits of the age.
And no one perhaps has contributed more by the power of his
pen and voice in bringing about the present state of things, than
he has. Yet, nevertheless, I commend to your serious considera
tion, as pertinent to my present object, what he was reported to
have said, as follows :

" ' In our land and time facts and questions are pressed upon us, which
demand Christian settlement. Settlement on this ground and doctrine.
We cannot escape the responsibility. Being strong and powerful, \ve
must nurse, and help, and educate, and foster, the weak, and poor, and
ignorant. For my own part, I do not see how we shall escape the most
terrible conflict of classes, by-and-by, unless we are educated into this
doctrine of duty, on the part of the superior to the inferior. We are told
by zealous and fanatical individuals, that all men are equal. We know
better. They are not equal. A common brotherhood teaches no such
absurdity. A theory of universal, physical likeness, is no more absurd
than this. Now, as in all times, the strong go to the top, the weak go to
the bottom. It's natural, right, and can't be helped. All branches are
not at the top of the tree, but the top does not despise the lower ; nor do
they all despise the limb or the parent trunk ; and so with the body poli
tic there must be classes. Some must be at the top and some must be at
the bottom. It is difficult to foresee and estimate the development of the
power of classes in America. They are simply inevitable. They are
here now, and will be more. If they are friendly, living at peace, loving
and respecting and helping one another, all will be well. But if they are
selfish, unchristian ; if the old heathen feeling is to reign, each extracting
all he can from his neighbor, and caring nothing for him, society will be
lined by classes as by seams — like batteries, each firing broadside after
broadside, the one upon the other. If, on the other hand, the law of love
prevails, there will be no ill-will, no envy, no disturbance. Does a child
hate his father because he is chief, because he is strong and wise ? On
the contrary, he grows with his father's growth, and strengthens with his
strength. And if in society there should be fifty grades or classes, all
helping each other, there will be no trouble, but perfect satisfaction and
content. This Christian doctrine, carried into practice, will easily settle
the most troublesome of all home present questions.'

" What he here said of the state of things where he spoke in

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 135

the State of New York, and the fearful antagonism of classes
there, is much more applicable to us. Here, it is true, only two
great classes exist, or are likely to exist ; but these are deeply
marked by distinction bearing the impress of nature. The one
is now, beyond all question, greatly superior to the other. These
classes are as distinct as races of men can be. The one is of the
highest type of humanity, the other of the lowest. All that he
says of the duty of the superior, to protect, to aid, to encourage,
and to help the inferior, I fully and cordially endorse and com
mend to 3"ou as quite applicable to us and our situation, as it was
to his auditors. Whether the doctrine, if carried out and prac
tised, will settle all these most troublesome home questions with
us as easily as he seemed to think it would like home questions
with those whom he was addressing, I will not undertake to say.
I have no hesitancy, however, in saying that the general princi
ples announced by him are good. Let them be adopted by us as
far as practicable. No harm can come from it, much good may.
Whether the great barrier of races which the Creator has placed
between this, our inferior class and ourselves, shall prevent a
success of the experiment now on trial, of a peaceful, happy and
prosperous community, composed of such elements and sustain
ing present relations toward each other, or even a further
elevation on the part of the inferior, if they prove themselves fit
for it, let the future, under the dispensations of Providence,
decide. We have to deal with the present. Let us do our duty
now, leaving* results and ultimate consequences to that

" ' Divinity which shapes our ends,
Eough hew them how we will.'

" In all things on this subject, as in all others, let our guide be
the admirable motto of our State. Let our counsels be governed
by wisdom, our measures by moderation, and our principles by
justice."

On that occasion before spoken of, to wit: his retirement
from Congress, a magnificent dinner, free to the whole public,
was served up in the largest railroad depot in the city. The

136 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

invitation asking him to accept it, had been signed by two or
three hundred prominent citizens of Augusta, and vicinity,
embracing all shades of opinion.

Chance enables us to present a few of the letters of the dis
tinguished men who were invited to the dinner, but could not
attend. They show the estimation in which he was held by
his compeers.

" FROM GOVERNOR ELLIS, OF NORTH CAROLINA.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE, RALEIGH, June 26th, 1859.

" GENTLEMEN : — Your favor of the 16th instant, inviting me to be present
at a complimentary dinner to the Hon. A. H. Stephens, at Augusta, on
the 2d day of July next, is at hand, for which please accept, my thanks.

" I regret exceedingly that official business will prevent my being with
you at the time designated. This regret arises from the fact that there
is no man in this country whom I would more delight to honor than your
distinguished guest. I regard him as not only one of the ablest, but one of
the purest and most reliable statesmen in the Union ; and in this feeling, I
am happy to say, the people of North Carolina participate without distinc
tion of party. As a representative from the State of Georgia, Mr. Ste
phens has shown himself capable of filling the highest position under the
government ; and it is most natural that his countrymen should have
their attention turned toward him in connection with such positions.
Though the country has lost the services of Mr. Stephens in the House
of Representatives, it is to be hoped that the day is not distant when he
will be called upon to occupy a more extended field of labor, and of use
fulness to the public.

" Hoping that you will have an agreeable social gathering on the 2d
proximo, I have the honor to be your obedient servant.

"JoHN W. ELLIS."

" FROM HON. E. A. NISBET, Georgia Supreme Court.

" MACON, GA., June 24tfi, 1859.

" GENTLEMEN : — I am in receipt of your polite note of the 16th instant,
inviting me to attend a dinner to be given to the Hon. A. H. Stephens,
on the second day of next month, as a testimonial of his distinguished
services while a member of Congress. It would gratify me exceedingly
to be in attendance on that occasion, mainly, that I might, by my presence,
show my own appreciation of the services of that distinguished gentleman
to the country. I shall not be able to attend. I have no doubt you will

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 137

agree with me that statesmanship of the highest order, with very few ex
ceptions, is not now to be found in the national legislature ; and that, at
no time in the past of our history, has it been more needed than at the
present moment. What the country wants, more, perhaps, than any thing
else, is calm, conservative, wise men in Congress ; with reputations so
commanding as to guide public opinion. We have party leaders in abun
dance; but in the House of Representatives not one who may be justly
called a national leader. It is because these things are so, that I do most
sincerely regret Mr. Stephens' retirement. He had attained to the de
sired grade of statesmanship, and enjoyed the requisite nationalism of
reputation. In simple truth, his retirement is a public calamity. The
House of Representatives was the field of his triumphs, and would be the
sphere of his greatest usefulness ; for, to my mind, there is to be fought
yet the great battles of the constitution. Real power is more difficult of
attainment there than on higher levels. It is the House of the people,
and there they ought to have true exponents of their virtue and intelli
gence. Of course, I will not be understood as disparaging his fitness for
any other position in the public service. If, however, his purpose is set
tled to become a private citizen, he will carry with him to the shades of
his home, the gratitude and respect of numerous friends and admirers in
every part of the Union. Respectfully, etc., etc.,

"B. A. NlSBET."

t
" FROM HON. HOWELL COBB, Secretary of the Treasury.

"WASHINGTON CITY, June 28th, 1859.

" GENTLEMEN : — I regret to say that my public engagements will deprive
me of the pleasure of attending the proposed dinner to your distinguished
representative, Hon. A. H. Stephens. It has been my good fortune to
serve in Congress, as the colleague of Mr. Stephens, for a period of ten
years. During that time the most important questions of public policy
have been discussed and settled. In all of them your late representa
tive took an active and influential part — upon most of them we
agreed, upon some we differed ; but in all of them his course was marked
with ability, patriotism, and devotion to his convictions of right and jus
tice. Few men have retired from our national legislature with a higher
reputation than Mr. Stephens. By a faithful and energetic discharge of
duty, he won for himself the personal confidence of his immediate con
stituency to an extent rarely, if ever, exceeded ; whilst his bold and elo
quent advocacy of the principles and measures he defended, commanded
the respect and admiration of all with whom he was associated.

" Such a representative is worthy of the testimonial you have proposed ;

138 ALEXANDER H. STEPH/ENS.

and I can only repeat tb 3 regret I feel in not being able to participate,
personally, in doing honor to one to whom honor is due.
" I am respectfully yours, etc.,

"HOWELL COBB."

"FROM HON. H. Y. JOHNSON, Ex-Governor of Georgia.

11 SPIERS TURN OUT, JEFFERSON Co., GA., June 29ta, 1859.

" GENTLEMEN : — I duly received your note of the 16th instant, by which
you honor me with i n invitation ' to attend a dinner, to be given on the
2d day of July, to the Hon. A. H. Stephens, by a number of his friends
and former constituents, as a testimonial of their appreciation of his dis
tinguished services while a member of Congress.'

" I sincerely regret that I cannot accept your invitation. As one of his
' former constituents,' it would afford me unfeigned pleasure to attest my
' appreciation of his distinguished public services,' by mingling personally
in the convivialities of the occasion.

" Few men, in the history of our country, have achieved a career at once
so successful and so brilliant as that which Mr. Stephens now volun
tarily closes. Not one ever retired from public life with more dignity.
His fame is the well-earned reward of patriotic toil, exalted talents, and
uncommon eloquence ; his chosen retreat to private life is the triumph
of personal virtue over the love of place and office, which is characteristic
of noble minds. Still we cannot resist the conviction that his withdrawal
from Congrels is a public loss, and creates a vacuum difficult to be filled.
His tact as a parliamentarian, his familiarity with public affairs, his skill
as a debater, his boldness and zeal, all combine to invest him with power
for usefulness rarely possessed by statesmen. I am sure I express the
almost universal sentiment when I say, I sincerely regret his determina
tion to abandon his field of fame and service.

" Yery respectfully, your obedient servant and fellow-citizen,

"HERSCHEL Y. JOHNSON."

Mr. J. B. Thorpe thus writes of Mr. Stephens at the time of
this retirement from public life, in 1859, which retirement
was expacted and intended to be final :

" The time was when a visit to Washington city presented a
field of intellectual interest ; there were men in our National
councils alike remarkable for mental power and physical peculi
arity. In the Senate were Clay, Webster, and Calhoun ; in the
House, Rand olph, Burgess, Crockett, and other giants in their

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 139

way, who, once seen, afforded life-long reminiscences. At present,
our Congressmen have, with very few exceptions, become com
monplace, and in no way distinguishable from the vulgar multi
tude which throng the drinking saloons and naked streets of our
nation's Capital. Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, one of the oldest
members of the House of Representatives, is the most prominent
man, intellectually, and the most remarkable man, physically, of
the few remaining celebrities. From his infancy he has been
an invalid, and the fearful effect of suffering is shown in his
singularly delicate frame, in his pale, attenuated face, and in his
feeble walk. A first introduction to Mr. Stephens fairly startles
you, and it is utterly impossible to realize that there stands be
fore you a man deservedly famous for his triumphs, alike at the
bar and the forum ; that one so frail could, by his mental ability,
give character to the legislation of a great people ; but a few
moments' conversation, however, are only necessary to impress
you with the feeling that you are in the presence of a remarkable
man. There is the simplicity of a child in his manners, yet his rich
and varied experience crowds upon you, in anecdote and incident,
in the statement of broad principles and philosophic reflections,
and carries }^ou away with the gentleness and the power of a
deep and irresistible stream. His reminiscences of great men
are charming beyond expression, and he seems particularly fond
of dwelling upon the mental characteristics of such men as Craw
ford, Clay, Webster, and their compeers, analyzing with singular
perception their peculiarities ; and, by happy flashes of illustra
tion, giving you a key to their characters — crystallizing them, in
deed, until you could see through and through them, and under
stand them as if you had a new sense of mental perception."
* * * * * *

" When Mr. Stephens rises to speak, there is a sort of electric
communication among the audience, as if something was about to
be uttered that was worth listening to. The loungers take their
seats, and the talkers become silent, thus paying an involuntary
compliment to Mr. Stephens' talents and high claims as a gentle
man. At first his voice is scarcely distinguishable ; but in a fe\v
moments you are surj rised at its volume, and you are soon con*

14:0 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

vinced that his lungs are in perfect order ; and as his ideas flow,
you are not surprised at the rapt attention he commands. His
style of speaking is singularly polished ; but he conceals his art,
and appears, to the superficial observer, to be eloquent by inspi
ration. The leading characteristic of his mind is great practical
good sense, for his arguments are always of the most solid and
logical kind ; hence his permanent influence as a statesman, while
his bright scintillations of wit and profuse adornment secure him
a constant popularity as an orator. Possessed of a mind too
great to be restrained by mere partisan influence, he has there
fore the widest possible field of action : at one time heading a
forlorn hope, and leading it to victory ; at another, giving grace
and character to a triumphant majority. Common as it is to im
pugn the motives of many of our public servants, and charge
them directly with corruption, Mr. Stephens has escaped without
even the taint of suspicion ; an inflexible honesty of purpose on
his part, as a governing principle, is awarded to him by his
veriest political foe.

" The report that Mr. Stephens will retire from Congress at
the end of the present session remains nncontradicted, yet we
indulge the hope that he only seeks temporary repose before
again entering upon active political life."

Mr. Stephens did retire, without any idea or intention of
ever again entering public life. His name, however, was early
mentioned as a desirable candidate for the Presidency, by
friends North and South, and the. following letter from a dis-
tingished Judge, is a fair index to the feelings of the State : —

" GREENVILLE, GA., December Mth, 1859.

" SIR: — Your letter of the 22d is received, and in reply to your
queries, I have to say that Mr. Stephens is decidedly my first
choice as a candidate for the next President. The following are,
briefly, some of niy reasons for that preference :

" 1. He is the undoubted choice of a large majority of the
people of Georgia.

" 2. He is a true man, and an enlightened practical statesman,
who would administer the government with ability and economy,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 141

in stricc accordance with the principles observed and recognized,
in the early and better days of the republic.

" 3. Because he is an available man for a candidate, the man
for the times, enjoying the confidence and respect of the true
friends of constitutional government throughout the Union.

" 4. Because he has not sought the office directly or indirectly,
either by intriguing for the nomination, or suffering himself to
be made the instrument of any particular clique or faction ; con
sequently if nominated and elected, would have no friends to
reward or enemies to punish, but will faithfully guard and pro
tect the interests of the whole country, and every section of it,
in obedience to the constitution and laws of the land. While
Mr. Stephens is my first choice for President, being an old-
fashioned Jackson democrat, I shall cordially support the nomi
nee of the Charleston Convention, when fairly and properly
made, in accordance with the principles and usages of the party.

" Your obedient servant,

" HIRAM WARNER.

" Dr. JAMES P. HAMBLETON."

The views of Mr. Stephens as to that memorable campaign,
are chiefly embodied in the following papers, to wit : his reply
to thirteen prominent citizens of Macon, Georgia, dated May
9th, 1860 ; in his letter to Dr. Landrum, of July 1st, 1860 ; his
letter to the editor of this book and writer of this sketch, April
8th, I860, and to Mr. C. D. Curtis ; . all of which are contained
in this volume. The following is the letter to the writer of
these pages with the one which drew it forth. It is part of the
history of an eventful period.

" CONSTITUTIONALIST OFFICE, AUGUSTA, GA., March 26th, 1860.
" Hon A. H. STEPHENS :

" DEAR SIR : — I have received a letter from one of the delegates
of the Eighth Congressional district, requesting me to take his
place in the Charleston Convention, and I think that I shall go.
The purpose of this, is to ask permission to use your name in
the Convention. I know that you do not desire it, but knowin<*

142 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

the pleasure it would give the people of your State, would 3*011
accept the nomination if offered? I have been informed that you
have already answered the question, but I do not know it. I
trust that you will not deem this intrusive or impertinent, for I
feel that I could not truly represent the Eighth district by any
other preference. Very respectfully,

"HENRY CLEVELAND."

" CRAWFORDVILLE, GEORGIA, 8th April, 1860.
"DEAR SIR: — You must excuse the delay of my answer to
your letter of the 25th ultimo. It reached the office here during
my absence to Wilkes' court. All the last week, up to last night,
I was at Warren court ; and I am to leave home this evening for
Hancock, where I shall he all next or rather all the present week.
I can therefore now answer only briefly, but pointedly and can
didly. I do not wish my name put in nomination at Charleston.
I do not wish it presented by the Georgia delegation in the con
vention. I not only do not wish it done, but I protest against

its being done. The Presidency is an office I do not want.

* * * * * *

" In answer to your question whether I would accept a nomi
nation if tendered, I can only say to you what I have said to
others, that ' sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.' I have
no idea that any such question will ever be presented for my
serious consideration ; but if it should be, my action would be
governed solely by my sense of duty at the time.

" Lord Coke, when upon the King's Bench, being once asked by
his sovereign how he would decide a hypothetical case submitted
to him, replied in substance, if not in the identical words —
'When the case happens, I shall do that which it shall be fit for a
Judge to do.' And so I say in reply to your question, When
the case happens I shall do that which shall be fit for a patriot
to do — or at least, I shall do that which my own sense of duty
shall require me to do. I can imagine a nomination made under
circumstances that I would not accept; and yet a nomination
might be made — that is, it is within the range of possibility, but
not within the limits of the remotest probability — under such cir
cumstances that I could not decline without being greatly dere-

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 143

lict in duty. No good citizen could refuse to perform any duty
assigned him to the best of his ability, however reluctant he
might be, and however hazardous or disagreeable the duty might
be, if the public good require it. To do so, in civil life, would
be no better than to run in battle. That I should never do, if for
the public safety, I was ordered out to %post where instant death
was inevitable. This is all the answer, as a good citizen and an
honest man, I can give you. I state to you, frankly, that it
would be with reluctance that I should, under any circumstances,
accept the duties of President of the United States. It would be
only from a sense of duty. And I should feel the greater reluc
tance, from the weight of the grade of the duty. With its higher
responsibilities, the greater would be my reluctance. As for the
honor of any position, that, in my judgment, depends entirely
upon the deeds performed in the position. So far from the
Presidency, or any other office, conferring honor upon one who
is so lucky, in his own opinion, as to get it, I consider it a great
dishonor if he is not, in all the requirements of qualification,
thoroughly up to the full measure of the position.

" 'Honor and shame from no condition rise,
Act well your part — there all the honor lies.'

" This is as true of any position as it is of any condition of life.
It is as true of office as it is of any thing else. And, measuring
myself by this rule, I tell you, candidly, I should shrink from
assuming the high position of chief magistrate of this great
republic, with its diversity of interests, prejudices and passions,
its sectional strifes and troubles. I would, in every possible con
tingency, prefer to see some other man, who feels desirous of un
dertaking it, gratified in his wishes ; some man who, with the
desire, has in a much greater degree the requisite qualifications
for directing the future destiny of such great interests than I
have. I should greatly prefer to see any of the prominent men
now spoken of in the democratic party, not excepting Judge
Douglas, assigned that position, than that it should be assigned
to me. Were the office to be disposed of by lot between them
and myself, I should feel relieved at its being cast upon either of
the others.

144 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

" These, sir, are my feelings and views upon the subject of your
letter, as clearly as I can give them. I have not been able to
give them as briefly as I expected when I commenced, but I trust
you will find no difficulty in understanding them, and fully appre
ciating them. And besides this, I have nothing else to say, ex
cept to express the earnest hope that the members of the Charles
ton Convention, from all parts and sections of the country, ivill
enter into their councils duly impressed with the importance of
their action — the importance of coolness, -prudence, and discre
tion — wisdom, and the most enlarged patriotism — the importance
of overlooking personal likes or dislikes, and directing their
attention solely to country, its present condition and future
hopes ; for upon the action of that convention, in my judgment,
the peace, welfare, and even permanancy of our government, as
it now exists, may, and very probably will, depend. Greater
responsibility did not rest upon the convention that framed the
constitution of the United States. We are on the eve of one of
.our great political battles, which will mark the course of events
for many years to come. The history of the world abounds in
wars and battles. But in it we see some of much greater conse
quence to mankind than others. Some that mark epochs of them
selves — such as Marathon, and Waterloo, for instance. So we,
in our political contests, have had many hard-fought struggles,
that passed away with the passions that entered into them ; but
the conflict now approaching will be a Marathon or a Waterloo
in our history. But enough. Yours, truly,

"ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

" HENRY CLEVELAND, Augusta, Ga."

Mr. Stephens had refused solicitations to speak in the earlier
part of the canvass of 1860, but his ardent desire to perpetuate
a constitutional Union, drew him out, in spite of feeble health,
and his own repeated protestations. His first speech in the
canvass of that year, was in the City Hall Park, Augusta, Sep
tember 1st, of 1859, during the delivery of which he was com
pelled to sit down from exhaustion. We publish it in full.

He made two or three other speeches during that campaign,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 145

none of which, have ever been reported. His speech in Colum
bus, Georgia, was one of the grandest efforts of his life, and of
most wonderful effect upon his audience. In the midst of his
impressive appeal to " Stand by the constitution in any and
every event," the vast crowd arose to their feet, as one man;
and while venerable ministers of the gospel, and dignified
statesmen, and citizens, seemed to vie with each other in enthu
siasm, the prolonged shouts of applause stopped for awhile the
utterance of the orator. His speech in Dalton, Georgia, was
also eminently successful. He was sick in bed, and only con
sented to go that his presence might be known. Hon. Linton
Stephens, late of the State Supreme Court, made one of those
magnificent speeches, in which he almost surpasses the elo
quence of his brother Alexander ; and that brother became
inspired by its glowing words. He arose, with a borrowed
expression of sad but sublime pity for the delusions and dis
sensions of his countrymen : " Oh, Jerusalem, Jerusalem ! thou
that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto
thee ; how often would I have gathered thy children together-,
even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, but ye
would not I" His whole effort was to rouse the people to a
sense of the great impending dangers, to impress upon them
the great importance of adhering to their old established prin
ciples, and of sustaining, throughout a common country, those
men who were standing by those principles, as the only means
of maintaining the constitution, and the Union under it.

Attempts were made to break the force of the speech, by in
terruptions with questions touching Douglas's position. All
these served but as fuel to light up the flame of his eloquence.

In an eloquent burst of oratory, raising his thin hand toward
heaven, he said : " Rather than that this hand should put a
vote in the ballot-box in condemnation of Stephen A. Douglas,
I would prefer letting it go down to posterity covered with the
infamy of having poured the hemlock in the cup of Socrates."
We quote from memory only. The speech was never reported.
10

146 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

Soon after this, Mr. Stephens met Mr. Douglas, on his ap
pearance in Atlanta, Georgia, and introduced him to the vast
audience with the following highly complimentary remarks :

" FELLOW-CITIZENS or GEORGIA : — The occasion of our meeting
to-day is one of deep interest. No subject of an earthly character
is more interesting to a free people than the principles of their
government. We have come up here to hear from the candidate
of the national democratic party the principles which would
govern his administration if he should be elected, the principles
which should govern the administration of any man who may be
elected, and the only principles, as we believe, upon which the
union of the States can be preserved, and the liberties of the
people perpetuated.

" My countrymen, I bespeak for that candidate to-day a care
ful, calm, and patient hearing. He comes to address not your
passions, but your intellects. A free government can only be
maintained by the virtue, by the intelligence, and by the patriot
ism of the people. 'Ours is the only really free government on
the face of the earth, and our institutions, which cost so much,
and which are so dear to every patriot, can only be maintained
by the exercise of intelligence, of virtue, and patriotism. This
must be done at the ballot-box.

" Yonder sun, that shines so brilliantly and auspiciously upon
us to-day in Ms circuit around the earth, lights up no nation
where the people enjoy the liberties that the people of the
United States do. [Cheers.] My countrymen, I make an appeal
to you that you shall so act on all occasions that these liberties
may be perpetuated. To the old men, to the middle aged men,
and to the boys in this crowd, I make this appeal. You have
heard much of the distingushed Senator, now the candidate of
the national democratic party. You have heard much that was
true, and you have, also, doubtless, heard much that was not.

" We wish you to-day to give him your close attention, and
from his own lips, and not from those of another, to make up
your judgment. Then I appeal to every man, when he leaves
him, if he speaks the words of patriotism and truth, to act toward
him as a patriot should, looking to the best interests of his

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 147

country. You have heard it said that he is an enemy to the
equality of the States. I have known him for the last sixteen
years — we entered Congress together, and I maintain before you
that from that day to this, no man in the public councils has
been truer, or firmer, or bolder, in defending not only the
equality of the States, but the equality of all the citizens of this
republic. ['Hurrah for Douglas,' and immense applause.] But
hear him for yourselves, take it not from me, but hear
what he says, and then pronounce your judgments accordingly.

* * * # # *

" I now, my fellow-countrymen, have the pleasure of intro
ducing to you Stephen A. Douglas, the national democratic
candidate for President of the United States." [Immense and
long-continued applause.]

In the opening of Senator Douglas's speech on that occasion,
some interesting facts were brought to light, which show, not
only that Mr. Douglas was willing to sacrifice his own ambi
tion for the general good ; but also, that Mr. Stephens was no
aspirant for the office, the candidacy of which seemed seeking
him. Mr. Douglas said :

"FELLOW-CITIZENS OP GEORGIA: — Such an introduction from
one of the first intellects and purest patriots that this republic
ever produced, fills my heart with gratitude. [' Hurrah for
Stephens,' and cheers.] I come before you to-day, not for the
purpose of soliciting your votes, but for the purpose of vindicat
ing those principles of government upon which I believe the equal
rights of all the citizens of all the States may be preserved
within the Union.

" I hold that there is no grievance of which we complain for
which disunion would afford an adequate remedy. I believe that
there can be no grievance in this country for which the constitu
tion and the laws will not afford ample remedy within the Union.
All that is necessary is, that each and every clause of the con
stitution shall be carried into effect in good faith. Every right
guaranteed by that instrument, every duty imposed by it, must
be carefullj7 protected and faithfully performed. So long as we

148 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

live under a constitution which is the supreme law of all the
States, it must be executed in such a manner as to afford equal
rights and equal protection to the citizens of all the States of this
Confederacy.

***** *

"My friends at Baltimore, in 1860, did not demand, as a sine
qua non, either a change in the platform or the nomination of any
particular man. It is well known that I stood ready and anxious
to withdraw my name at any moment that it would restore har
mony by nominating a sound man on the Cincinnati platform.
[Applause.] And I will now state, what no man before has
known, and what, once stated, will astonish the person alluded to
more than any one in the assemblage. Pending the convention,
I wrote letters to my friend Richardson, at Baltimore, urging
that if they would only stand by the Cincinnati platform, and
accept a southern man on that platform — I implored him to con
sult our friends, and get them to accept Alexander H. Stephens,
of Georgia, as the man. [Tremendous applause.] The secession
ists knew that I had proposed to withdraw my name, and unite
upon a true non-intervention man, before they seceded at Balti
more. They seceded with a knowledge of the fact that I was
not asking a nomination, but was simply fighting a battle for
principles. [Cheers.]

" Now for an evidence of the fact that they knew that I was
ready to withdraw, although they did not know who would be my
choice, if I did, nor did he [pointing to Mr. Stephens] ever dream
of it up to this hour. As evidence of the fact, telegraphic de
spatches were sent off, on Friday night, ten or fifteen hours before
the bolt, announcing that Douglas had written letters to Balti
more withdrawing his name and going for a southern man. [Ap
plause.] Those despatches were sent by the seceders to all
portions of the country, and the files of the daily papers of that
day will attest the fact. I have alluded to this matter for the
purpose of showing that there has been no unholy ambition
stimulating me in this contest." [Cheers.]

What Mr. Douglas said in the same speech, on the Georgia
platform of 1850, we have given before.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 14:9

VI.

POSITION ON THE QUESTION OF SECESSION.

SPEECH BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE OF GEORGIA, 14TH NOVEM
BER, 1860 — CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. LINCOLN — SPEECH
IN THE SECESSION CONVENTION — DELEGATE *TO THE CON
GRESS IN MONTGOMERY, AND ELECTED VICE-PRESIDENT OF
THE CONFEDERATE STATES' ORGANIZATION.

THE election of Mr. Lincoln was attended with, the greatest
excitement. Many of the leading men of the South had dur
ing the canvass declared themselves openly for secession in that
event. This sentiment spread with amazing furor as soon as
the result was known. The legislature was in session. There
was a strong feeling with many of the members to declare the
State out of the Union, and by acts of that body to resume
the .sovereign powers of the State. A very large majority
were against remaining longer in the Union. The most ex
citing and inflammatory speeches were made night after night
by prominent men of the State not members. Mr. Stephens
was invited by the more conservative portion to give them his
views upon the crisis. He went to Milledgeville, and, in response
to the call, on the night of the 14th of November delivered
the memorable speech which belongs to the household words
of the Union — a part of the nation's history, and a portion of
its heart.*

* At the close of this speech, Hon. Robert Toombs, his great opponent,
arose and said : " Fellow-citizens, we have just listened to a speech from
one of the brightest intellects and purest patriots that now lives. I move
that this meeting now adjourn, with three cheers for Alexander H. Ste
phens, of Georgia." They were given with a good will.

That was a gloomy time for the lovers of the Union, as the following

150 ALEXANDEK H. STEPHENS.

This speech, though so widely and extensively circulated,
was entirely extemporaneous, as were all the political speeches
he ever made, save two — the one of July 4th, 1834, the other of
February 22d, 1866. It was never fully revised by him, as will
appear from the following correspondence. It had made a deep
impression South and North, and gave rise to the correspond
ence between the Hon. Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois, President
elect, and himself, which Mr. Stephens for the first time per
mits to be published. We are informed by Mr. Stephens, that
no person had ever seen the letters of Mr. Lincoln to him until
since his return from Fort Warren, in 1865, except his private
secretaries.

The "For your own eye only'1'1 of Mr. Lincoln, has been
sacredly observed, as far as possible, so long as it was deemed
at all necessary or proper.

The correspondence is now given, not only for its own in
trinsic interest, but as throwing light on Mr. Stephens' views
and positions at that time. Mr. Lincoln's two letters are given
in fac-simile, as well as the copy retained of Mr. Stephens' first
letter to him.

anecdote will show : That night, Herschel Y. Johnson, the defeated can
didate for Yice-President, could not refrain from congratulating Mr.
Toombs upon his generous conduct to an opponent, who was addressing
so large a majority of secessionists, and told him that his concluding be
havior, on the motion to adjourn, was admirable. "Yes," saidlCoombs,
" I always behave myself at a funeral !" Mr. Toombs had spoken the
night before, and it was to his impassioned eloquence that Mr. Stephens
had mainly replied.

J.

0 y

££~ &4 /^ yt*^r&*'*

/

JL.

.g/AJfrO

J £v*^£s jfef

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 151

" CRAWFORDVILLE, GEORGIA, 30th Dec., 1860.

" DEAR SIR : — Yours of the 22d instant was received two days
ago. I hold it and appreciate it as you intended. Personally I
am not your enemy — far from it — and however widely we may
differ politically, yet I trust we both have an earnest desire to pre
serve and maintain the Union of the States, if it can be done upon
the principles and furtherance of the objects for which it was
formed. It was with such feelings on my part, that I suggested
to you in my former note the heavy responsibility now resting
on you, and with the same feelings I will now take the liberty of
saying in all frankness and earnestness, that this great object
can never be attained by force. This is my settled conviction.
Consider the opinion, weigh it, and pass upon it for yourself.
An error on this point may lead to the most disastrous conse
quences. I will also add, that in my judgment the people of
the South do not entertain any fears that a Republican Adminis
tration, or at least the one about to be inaugurated, would
attempt to interfere directly and immediately with slavery in the
States. Their apprehension and disquietude do not spring from
that source. They do not arise from the fact of the known anti-
slavery opinions of the President elect. Washington, Jefferson,
and other -Presidents are generally admitted to have been anti-
slavery in sentiment. But in those days anti-slavery did not
enter as an element into party organizations.

" Questions of other kinds, relating to the foreign and domes
tic policy — commerce, finance, and other legitimate objects of the
general government — were the basis of such associations in their
day. The private opinions of individuals upon the subject of
African slavery, or the status of the negro with us, were not looked
to in the choice of Federal officers, any more than their views
upon matters of religion, or any other subject over which the
government under the constitution had no control. But now
this subject, which is confessedly on all sides outside of the con
stitutional action of the government so far as the States are con
cerned, is made the ' central idea' in the platform of principles
announced by the triumphant party. The leading object seems
to be simpty, and wantonly, if you please, to put the institutions

152 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

of nearly half the States under the ban of public opinion and
national condemnation. This, upon general principles, is quite
enough of itself to arouse a spirit not only of general indignation
but of revolt on the part of the proscribed. Let me illustrate. It is
generally conceded, by the republicans even, that Congress can
not interfere with slavery in the States. It is equally conceded
that Congress cannot establish any form of religious worship.
Now suppose that any one of the present Christian churches or
sects prevailed in all the Southern States, but had no existence
in any one of the Northern States — under such circumstances
suppose the people of the Northern States should organize a
political party — not upon a foreign or domestic policy, but with
one leading idea of condemnation of the doctrines and tenets of
that particular church, and with the avowed object of preventing
its extension into the common territories, even after the highest
judicial tribunal of the land had decided they had no such con
stitutional power ! And suppose that a party so organized should
carry a Presidential election ! Is it not apparent that a general
feeling of resistance to the success, aims, and objects of such a
party would necessarity and rightfully ensue ? Would it not be
the inevitable consequence ? And the more so, if possible, from
the admitted fact that it was a matter beyond their control, and
one that they ought not in the spirit of comity between co-States
to attempt to meddle with. I submit these thoughts to you for
your calm reflection. We at the South do think African
slavery, as it exists with us, both morally and politically right.
This opinion is founded upon the inferiority of the black race.
You, however, and perhaps a majority of the North, think it
wrong. Admit the difference of opinion. The same difference
of opinion existed to a more general extent amongst those who
formed the constitution, when it was made and adopted. The
changes have been mainly to our side. As parties were not
formed on this difference of opinion then, why should they be
now. The same difference would of course exist in the supposed
case of religion. When parties or combinations of men, therefore,
so form themselves, must it not be assumed to arise not from
reason or any sense of justice, but from fanaticism. The motive

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 153

can spring from no other source, and when men come under the
influence of fanaticism, there is no telling where their impulses or
passions may drive them. This is what creates our discontent
and apprehension. You will also allow me to say, that it is
neither unnatural or unreasonable, especially when we see the
extent to which this reckless spirit has already gone. Such, for
instance, as the avowed disregard and breach of the constitution,
in the passage of the statutes in a number of the Northern States
against the rendition of fugitives from service, and such exhibi
tions of madness as the John Brown raid into Virginia, which
has received so -much sjonpathy from many, and no open con
demnation from any of the leading men of the present dominant
party. For a very clear statement of the prevailing sentiment
of the most moderate men of the South upon them, I refer you
to the speech of Senator Nicholson, of Tennessee, which I inclose
to you. Upon a review of the whole, who can say that the gen
eral discontent and apprehension prevailing is not well founded ?
" In addressing you thus, I would have you understand me as
being not a personal enemy, but as one who would have you do
what you can to save our common country. A word ' fitly
spoken' by you now, would indeed be ' like apples of gold, in pic
tures of silver.' I entreat you be not deceived as to the nature
and extent of the danger, or as to the remedy. Conciliation and
harmony, in my judgment, can never be established by force.
Nor can the Union under the constitution be maintained by force.
The Union was formed by the consent of independent sovereign
States. Ultimate sovereignty still resides with them separately,
which can be resumed, and will be if their safety, tranquillity and
security in their judgment require it. Under our system, as I
view it, there is no rightful power in the general government to
coerce a State, in case any one of them should throw herself upon
her reserved rights, and resume the full exercise of her sovereign
powers. Force may perpetuate a Union. That depends upon
the contingencies of war. But such a Union would not be the
Union of the constitution. It would be nothing short of a con
solidated despotism. Excuse me for giving you these views. Ex
cuse the strong language used. Nothing but the deep interest I

154 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

feel in prospect, of the most alarming dangers now threatening
our common country, could induce me to do it. Consider well
what I write, and let it have such weight with you, as in your
judgment, under all the responsibility resting upon you, it
merits. Yours respectfully,

"ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.
" To HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Springfield, III.

Mr. Stephens was elected to the secession convention of the
State, which assembled at Milledgeville Georgia, on the 16th
of January, 1861. There he continued to exert himself for the
maintenance of the Union. He spoke and voted against the
ordinance of secession. But after it passed, was, much to his
surprise, selected as one of the delegates to the city of Montgo
mery. He hesitated two days, but from the hope of doing
something to preserve constitutional liberty; and seeing indica
tions that many in the North were seriously inclined to let the
Southern States depart in peace, if they were in earnest in the
movement, he consented.

President Buchanan, then in office, held that there was no
power in the federal government under the constitution to
coerce a State. The Attorney-general had given his opinion to
the same effect. Mr. Lincoln had made no public declaration
of his policy, no public expression had come from him either
approving or disapproving of the constitutional view, expressed
by Mr. Buchanan in his Annual Message of December before, or
what would be the course of his administration on the subject.
While in Congress with Mr. Stephens, however, in 1848, he ho,d
expressed the following sentiments upon the general subject of
the right of any people to change their government and form a
new one, which in their opinion would suit them better :

"Any people," said he, "anywhere, being inclined and having
the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing
government, and form a new one that suits them better. This
is a most valuable, a most sacred right — a right which, we hope
and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 155

•

to cases in which the whole people of an existing government
may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that aan,
may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory
as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of
such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, inter-
mingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their move
ments. Such minority was precisely the case of the tories of
our own revolution. It is a quality of revolution not to go Try
old lines, or old laws; but to breakup both, and make new
ones."

V

Many of the leading republican papers at the North, the
organs of the party which, had elected him, had also then
recently uttered similar sentiments, and had given strong indi
cation of a willingness to let "the wayward sisters of the
South" depart in peace, if they were in earnest and chose
so to do.

The New York Tribune, for instance, as early as the 10th of
November before, had put forth the following : —

"And now if the cotton States consider the value of the Union
debatable, we maintain their perfect right to discuss it. Nay :
we hold, with Jefferson, to the inalienable right of communities
to alter or abolish forms of government that have become
oppressive or injurious ; and, if the cotton States shall decide
that the}^ can do better out of the Union than in it, w^e insist on
letting them go in peace. The right to secede may be a revolu
tionary one, but it exists nevertheless ; and we do not see how
one party can have a right to clo what another party has a right
to prevent. We must ever resist the asserted right of any State
to remain in the Union, and nullify or defy the laws thereof ; to
withdraw from the Union is quite another matter. And, when
ever a considerable section of our Union shall deliberately
resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures designed
to keep it in. We hope never to live in a republic, whereof one
section is pinned to the residue by bayonets."

Under these circumstances, what could a man of Mr.

156 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

•

Stephens' impulses and nature do, but yield to the dictates of a
philanthropic heart prompting him to aid in saving what could
be saved of public liberty in the pending general disruption,
which seemed to be determined on by one side and not seri
ously objected to on the other ? With this view and this
object, he did yield to earnest appeals, not only from members
of the convention after his unanimous choice by that body as
a delegate, but to appeals from other friends outside of the
convention. He finally consented to go, and was once more
launched most reluctantly on the tempest-tost ocean of politics,
on a voyage more perilous than ever he had been on before,
from no motive of selfish ambition or personal aggrandize
ment, but solely with a view and a hope of being able to do
the public some good. Well may he exclaim, as he often
does —

" What grounds we build our hopes upon ;

life's but a mist,

And in the dark our fortunes meet us."

His first effort was to preserve the principles of the old con
stitution, and he, therefore, on the 28th of January, 1861, pre
sented to the convention of his State the following resolution
as part of the directions for the government of her delegates :

" Be it Resolved, That said delegates be likewise authorized,
upon like consultation with the delegates from the other States
in said Congress, to agree upon a plan of permanent government
for said States, upon the principles and basis of the constitution
of the United States of America, which said plan or constitution
of permanent government shall not be binding or obligatory
upon the people of Georgia, unless submitted to, approved, and
ratified by this convention."

With these views, he went to the convention at Montgomery,
was on the committee for, and took an active part in, the forma
tion of the constitution for the provisional government. As a
parliamentarian, he had an unrivalled reputation in the old

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 157

Congress, and it devolved upon him to draw up the rules for
the Southern Congress. Some very marked changes were
made in the parliamentary law of this country; for instance,
the "Previous Question" was omitted, and a new one styled,
" The Question" made to answer a better purpose. The Rules
will be found in full in this volume.

After the constitution was formed, he (being absent from the
halls) was unanimously elected Yice-President of the Confed
erate States. On the evening of his election, he was serenaded,
and made the following speech :

" GENTLEMEN AND FELLOW-CITIZENS, for though we met as
strangers from different and independent States, we are once
more citizens of a common country. [Applause.] Allow me
briefly and sincerely to return you my unfeigned thanks for this
compliment. The state of my health, my voice and the night
air, apart from all other considerations, will prevent me from
doing more. This is not the time or the-place to discuss those
great questions which are now pressing upon our public coun
sels. We are in a transition condition — in the process of a new
formation.

" Sufficient to say, that this day a new republic has been born —
the Confederate States of America has been ushered into exist
ence, to take its place amongst the nations of the earth — [cheers]
— under a temporary or provisional government, it is true ; but
soon to be followed by one of a permanent character, which,
while it surrenders none of our ancient rights and liberties, will
secure more perfectly, we trust, the peace, security, and domestic
tranquillity that should be the objects of all governments. [Ap
plause.]

" What is to be the future of this new government — the fate of
this new republic — will depend upon ourselves. Six States only,
at present, constitute it — but six stars, as yet, appear in our ofcn-
stellation — more, we trust, will soon be added. By the time of
the adoption of the constitution of the permanent government,
we may have a number greater than the original thirteen — of the
original Union, and with more than three times their population,

158 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

Wealth, and power. [Applause.] With such a beginning, the
prospect of the future presents strong hopes to the patriot's
heart, for a bright and prosperous career. But what that future
shall be, depends, I sa}^ upon ourselves and those who shall
come after us. Ours is a republic. And all republics, to be per
manent and prosperous, must be supported by the virtue, intel
ligence, integrity, and patriotism of the people. These are the
corner-stones upon which the temple of popular liberty must be
constructed, to stand securely and permanently. Resting ours
jipon these, we need fear nothing from without or from within.
With a climate unsurpassed by any on earth ; with staples and pro
ductions which control the commerce of the world ; with institu
tions, so far as regards our organic and social policy, in strict
conformity to nature and the laws of the Creator, whether read
in the Book of Inspiration or in the great book of manifestations
around us, we have all the natural elements essential to the
attainment of the highest degree of honor, glory, and renown.
[Applause.]

" These institutions have been much assailed. It is our mission
to vindicate the great truths on which they rest — and with them
to exhibit the highest type of civilization which it is possible for
human society to reach. In doing this, our policy should be
marked by a desire to preserve and maintain peace with all other
States and peoples. If this cannot be done, let not the fault lie
at our door. While we should make aggressions on none, we
should be prepared to repel them if made by others ; let it come
from whatever quarter it may. [Applause.] We ask of all others
simply to be let alone, and to be permitted to work after our own
safety, security, and happiness, in our own way, without molest
ing or giving offence to any other people.

" Let then peace, fraternity, and liberal commercial relations
with all the world, be our motto. [Cheers.] With these princi-
pl$s, without any envy toward other States in the line of policy
they may mark out for themselves, we will rather invite them to
a generous rivalship in all that develops the highest qualities of
our nature. [Applause.]

" With best wishes for you, gentlemen, and the success of

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

our common government, this day announced, I bid you good
night."

The following testimony to Mr. Stephens' earnestness in en
deavoring to preserve the Union under its constitutional guar
antees, did not appear before the public until after the close of
the war. The letter was published by Mr. Curtis, to whom it
was addressed, in 1865, while Mr. Stephens was in prison.

" CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., 30th November, 1860.

"My DEAR SIR: — Your kind and esteemed favor of the 23d
instant is before me. I was truly glad to receive it, and to know
that the general line of policy indicated in the speech made by
me before our legislature, met your approval. The times are
indeed perilous, and nothing but the prompt and most energetic
action on the part of the patriots in all sections of the country
can save the republic. Of this I am confident ; but I am not
confident, or even sanguine, in my hopes that even this can do it.
Still, the effort should be made. South Carolina, I suppose, will
certainly go out of the Union forthwith — -just as soon as her con
vention meets and can act. My apprehension is, that Georgia,
Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi will go too. If South Caro
lina would wait to see whether the offending States North would
change their position, and resume their constitutional obligations,
I have but little doubt that Georgia would also. But when South
Carolina takes the lead, I have but little hope of either of the other
named States holding back. This, I assure you, may be looked for.

" What sort of an adjustment can afterward be made to restore
union, or effect reconciliation, I do not know. I am certain, how
ever, that nothing short of what was indicated in my speech, to
which you refer, can. Should the seceding States be let alone, and
no force be used against them, perhaps an amicable understanding
and settlement of the matters in controversy might be made at no
distant day. But if resort to arms is once had, all prospect of
peace and union, in my judgment, will be gone forever. I write
freely and frankly to you. What I say is intended for yourself
only, and not for the public, in any sense of the word. When I
tell you what I apprehend will be the course of the Georgia con-

160 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS

vention, it is only to apprise you of the real state of things
here.

" There are a large number of our people who will sustain my
position ; but I feel that the odds are against us. We will do all
that we can, and should any decided demonstration be made in
Massachusetts, or other Northern States, on the part of any lead
ing republicans, to right the wrongs of which our people so
justly complain, it would greatly aid us in our patriotic endeavors
to save the constitution and the Union under it. This is my
earnest desire. Thanking you again for your letter, and hoping
to hear from you again as to the prospect in Massachusetts, I
remain, Yours, truly,

"ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

"GEO. T. CUETIS, Boston, Massachusetts."

As another interesting matter relating to Mr. Stephens' views
and feelings on the state of the country, which seem not yet
generally understood in all parts of the Union, we give the
following correspondence, which has never been made public
before. It was before his election as Vice-President :

" WASHINGTON CITY, Jan. 3lst, 1861.

" DEAR SIR : — Thanking you for your hospitality during my
tarry at your place in the latter part of September last, I pray
the privilege of putting myself under renewed obligations, which
will be expressed in a few words.

" The public of the North are in a measure ignorant of your
position in the present posture of affairs. Will you do me the
honor to explain it ?

" It has been a sincere pleasure to me to speak and write to
Northern people regarding your patriotic position and sentiments,
as enunciated during my truly pleasurable sojourn with you.
" Your obedient servant,

"SAMUEL R. G-LENN, National Hotel.
"Hon, A. H. STEPHENS."

" MONTGOMERY, ALA., 8th Feb., 1861.

" DEAR SIR : — Your letter of the 31st ult., addressed to me at
Crawfordville, Ga. (my home), was received by me yesterday in

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 161

this place, where I am, as perhaps you are aware, rendering the
public whatever aid I can in the reconstruction of a government
for our people. Events, since I saw you, have taken the course
I then told }^ou I thought they would take. I then saw their
shadows ' coming before.' Had others I could name, at that time
been as sensibly impressed with this fact as I was, the result
might have been averted. The utmost of my power was exerted
to that end, but all in vain. In answer to your inquiry, I will
barely refer you to the speech I made before our legislature, 14th
November last (it was republished in the Herald), and to a letter
I wrote to a friend in New York, which was published in the
Journal of Commerce (without my knowledge) soon after, and
to a slip you will find inclosed in this letter.

" From all these, you can much better understand my position
than I could undertake to set it forth in a letter.

" The inclosed slip, you will see, is the speech I made in our
State Convention — it is badly printed, but you can understand
it. We are now in the midst of a revolution. That may be acted
upon as a fixed, irrevocable fact. It is bootless to argue the
causes that produced it, or whether it be a good or bad thing in
itself. The former will be the task of the historian. The latter
is a problem that the future alone can solve. The wise man — the
patriot and statesman in either section — will take the fact as it
exists, and do the best he can under circumstances as he finds
them, for the good, the peace, welfare, and happiness of his own
country. I have neither room nor time to say more, and what I
have said, of course, is intended only for yourself. The great
objection to private letters of this character being brought before
the public arises from the haste with which they are generally
sketched. This is particularly the case with myself. While I
have no special confidences to enjoin in any thing I write to any
body, in relation to public affairs, I do have a strong and repug
nant aversion to being brought before the public against my will.
" Yours, most respectfully, ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

" SAMUEL E-. GLENN, National Hotel,. Washington, D. C."

The following is the letter referred to in the letter to Mr.
11

162 ALEXANDER H. STEPHEN'S.

Glenn. It was addressed to a strong secessionist from Georgia,
then residing in the city of New York.

" CRAWFORD VILLE, GEORGIA, 25th Nov., 1860.

"DEAR SIR: — Your kind and esteemed favor of the 19th inst.
is before me, for which you will please accept my thanks. I
thoroughly agree with you as to the nature and extent of the
dangers by which we are surrounded, and the importance of
united action on the part of our people, in the line of policy to
be pursued.

"I know, also, that there breathes not a man in Georgia who is
more sensitively alive to her rights, interests, safety, honor, and
glory, than myself; and whatever fate befalls us, I earnestly hope
that we shall be saved from the worst of all calamities — internal
divisions, contentions, and strifes. The great and leading object
aimed at by me in Milledgeville, was to produce harmony on a
right line of policy.

" If the worst comes to worst, as it may, and our State has to
quit the Union, it is of the utmost importance that all our people
should be united cordially in this course. This, I feel confident,
can only be effected on the line of policy I indicated. But candor
compels me to say that I am not without hopes that our rights
may be maintained and our wrongs be redressed, in the Union.
If this can be done, it is my earnest wish. I think, also, that it
is the wish of a majority of our people. If, after making an effort,
we shall fail, then all our people will be united in making or
adopting the ' Ultima-ratio regum.'

" Even in that case, I should look with great apprehension as
to the ultimate result. When this Union is dissevered, if of ne
cessity it must be, I see at present but little prospect of good
government afterward. At the North, I feel confident anarchy
will soon ensue ; and whether we shall be better off at the South,
will depend upon many things that I am not now satisfied that
we have any assurance of. Revolutions are much easier started
than controlled, and the men that begin them, even for the best
purposes and objects, seldom end them.

"The American revolution of 1T76 was one of the few excep-

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 163

tions to this remark, that the history of the world furnishes.
Human passions are like the winds — when aroused they sweep
every thing before them in their fury. The wise and the good
who attempt to control them, will themselves most likely become
the victims. This has been the history of the downfall of all
republics. The selfish, the ambitious, and the bad, will generally
take the lead. When the moderate men, who are patriotic, have
gone as far as they think right and proper, and propose to recon
struct, there will be found a class below them, governed by no
principle, but personal objects, who will be for pushing matters
further and further, until those who sowed the wind will find that
they have reaped the whirlwind.

" These are my serious apprehensions. They are founded upon
the experience of the world and the philosophy of human nature,
and no wise man should contemn them. To tear down and build
up again, are very different things ; and before tearing down
even a bad government, we should first see a good prospect for a
better. These are my views candidly given. If there is one
sentiment in my breast stronger than all others, it is an earnest
desire for the peace, prosperity, and happiness, which a wise and
good government alone can secure. I have no object, wish, desire,
or ambition beyond this ; and if I should in any respect err in
endeavoring to attain this object, it will be an error of the head
and not the heart.

" With great personal esteem and respect, I remain, yours truly,

"ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS."

The following is the speech made by Mr. Stephens in the
Georgia secession convention, which was contained in the
newspaper slips inclosed to Mr. Glenn. It was made on
Friday, January 18th, 1861 ; the resolutions of Mr. Nesbit,
of Bibb, and Mr. Johnson, of Jefferson, being under considera
tion : —

" MR. PRESIDENT : — The motion of the honorable delegate from
the county of Jefferson (Hon. H. Y. Johnson) is, first to strike
ou •, the pending resolution offered by the honorable delegate from

164 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

Bibb county (Hon. E. A. Nesbit), and insert in lieu thereof the
propositions he has submitted by way of substitute ; and then, in
the second place, to refer or commit both these propositions to a
committee of twenty-one. The pending question is on the mo
tion to refer to such committee. The object, I take it, is not to
obstruct or delay the action of the convention ; it is rather to
present in the most direct manner a test question between those
who are for immediate secession and those who prefer the
adoption of some other remedy, looking to the redress of existing
wrongs, in the Union and under the constitution, before taking
this last resort. The first of the resolutions of the honorable
delegate from Bibb — that one which is now under consideration —
declares it to be the right and duty of the State to secede from
the Union. It is true, this resolution as stated by the honorable
mover, does not in express terms declare it to be the duty of the
State to secede now, nor would it of itself commit any one who
might vote for it, for immediate secession. But that is evidently
the object of the resolution. It is to commit the State to imme
diate secession ; and I am frank to say, that if we are to secede
for existing causes, without any further effort to secure our rights
under the constitution in the Union — if a majority of the conven
tion have lost all hopes and look upon secession as the only
remedy left — in my opinion the sooner we secede the better.
Delay can effect no good. How this convention stands upon
that question I do not know. Some claim a large majority for
immediate and unconditional secession, while others think there
is a majority still looking with hope to redress and conciliation.
I am very desirous of having this point settled and put to rest
in good feeling and harmony amongst ourselves by a test vote.
My actions, hereafter, shall be influenced by that vote. If a
majority express themselves for secession for existing causes, and
without further effort, I shall forbear from pressing upon the
consideration of this body any plan or measures, or even indi
vidual views or opinions, calculated to embarrass, obstruct, delay,
or hinder speedy action upon the resolve of the majority. It
could only tend to divide and distract our counsels, which ought,
above every ->ther consideration, to be harmonious in the final

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 165

result, if possible. It is well known that my judgment is against
secession for existing causes. I have not lost hope of securing
our rights in the Union and under the constitution. My judg
ment on this point is as unshaken as it was when the convention
was called. I do not now intend to go into any arguments on
the subject. No good could be effected by it. That was fully
considered in the late canvass, and I doubt not every delegate's
mind is made up upon the question. I have thought, and still
think, that we should not take this extreme step before some posi
tive aggression upon our rights by the general government, which
may never occur ; or failure after effort made to get a faithful
performance of these constitutional obligations on the part of
those Confederate States, which now stand so derelict in their
plighted faith. I have been, and am still, opposed to secession as
a remedy against anticipated aggressions on the part of the
Federal Executive, or Congress. I have held, and do now hold,
that the point of resistance should be the point oi aggression.
I would not anticipate. I would not be the first to strike.

Pardon me, Mr. President, for trespassing on your time but
for a moment. I have ever believed, and do now believe, that it
is to the interest of all the States to be and remain united under
the constitution of the United States, with a faithful performance
by each of all its constitutional obligations. If the Union could
be maintained on this basis, and on these principles, I think ii
would be the best for the security, the liberty, happiness, and
common prosperity of all. I do further feel confident, if Georgia
would now stand firm and united with the border States, as they
are called, in an effort to obtain a redress of these grievances on the
part of some of their Northern confederates, whereof they have
such just cause to complain, that complete success would attend
their efforts ; our just and reasonable demands would be granted.
In this opinion I may be mistaken, but I feel almost as confident
of it as I do of my existence. Thence, if upon this test vote,
which I trust will be made upon the motion now pending, to refer
both the propositions before us to a committee of twenty-one, a
majority shall vote to commit them, then I shall do all I can to
perfect the plan of united southern co-operation, submitted by

166 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

the honorable delegate from Jefferson, and put it in such a shape
as will in the opinion of the convention best secure its object.
That object, as I understand it, does not look to secession by the
16th of February or the 4th of March, if redress should not be
obtained by that time. In my opinion it cannot be obtained by
the 16th of February, or even the 4th of March. But by the 16th
of February we can see whether the border States and other
non-seceding Southern States will respond to our call for the
proposed congress or convention at Atlanta. If they do, as I
trust they may, then that body, so composed of representatives
by delegates and commissioners as contemplated, from the whole
of the slaveholding States, could, and would I doubt not, adopt
either our plan or some other, which would fully secure our rights
with ample guarantees, and thus preserve and maintain the ulti
mate peace and union of the country. Whatever plan of peaceful
adjustment might be adopted by such a Congress, I feel confi
dent would be acceded to by the people of every Southern State.
This would not be done in a month, or two months, or perhaps
short of twelve months. Time would necessarily have to be
allowed for a consideration of the question submitted to the people
of the Northern States, and for their deliberate action on them
in view of all their interests, present and future. How long a
time should be allowed, would be a proper question for that Con
gress to determine. Meanwhile, this convention could continue
its existence, by adjourning over to hear and decide upon the
ultimate result of this patriotic effort.

" This is but a sketch, an outline of the policy, I shall favor
and endeavor to get adopted, Mr. President, if upon the test
vote it shall be found that a majority are not in favor of secession
for existing causes, and without further efforts in the way of pro
curing an adjustment. If, however, on the test vote, a majority
shall be against the line of polic}r I indicate, then, sir, upon the
point of immediate secession, or a postponment to some future
day between this and the 4th of March, I am clearly of the
opinion that no good can come from any such delay or postpon
ment. It is futile and delusive to indulge in any hope of the
present Congress doing any thing, or of any redress of wrongs

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 167

being effected before the 4th of March next ; that I look upon as
impossible. And, as I said before, if a majority are for secession
for existing causes, then the sooner we secede the better.

" If that is the line of policy to be adopted between this and the
4th of March, whatever is to be done, ' if it were well done, when
it is done, 'twere well that it were done quickly.' This is my view
on that point.

" My judgment, as is well known, is against the policy. It can
not receive the sanction of my vote ; but if the judgment of a
majority of this convention, embodying as it does the sovereignty
of Georgia, be against mine ; if a majority of the delegates in this
convention shall by their votes dissolve the compact of Union
which has connected her so long with her confederate States, and
to which I have been so ardently attached, and have made such
efforts to continue and perpetuate upon the principles on which
it was founded, I shall bow in submission to that decision. I
have looked, and do look upon our present government as the
best in the world. This with me is a strong conviction. I have
acted upon it as a great truth. But another great truth also
presents itself to my mind, and that is this, that no government is
a good one for any people who do not so consider it. The wisdom
of all governments consists mainly in their adaptation to the
habits, the tastes, the feelings, wants, and affections of the people.
The best system of government for our people might be the
worst for another. If, therefore, the deliberate judgment of the
sovereignty of Georgia shall be pronounced that our present
government is a bad one, and shall be changed for some other
better suited to our people, more promotive of our peace, security,
happiness, and prosperity, while my individual judgment shall be
recorded against it, yet my action shall conform to the decision
made. Nay, more sir, the cause of the State shall be my cause ;
her destiny shall be my destiny. To her support, defence, and
maintenance, all that I have and am shall be pledged. And how
ever widely we of this convention, as well as the people of the
State may have differed, or may now differ to the proper line of
policy to be pursued at this juncture, I trust there will be but one
feeling, and one sentiment here, and throughout our limits, after

168 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

the line of policy shall be adopted, let that be what it may. The
cause of Georgia, whether for weal or woe, must and will be the
cause of us all. Her safety, rights, interests, and honor, what
ever fortunes await her, must and will be cherished in all our
hearts, and defended if need be by all our hands."

This is the only speech Mr. Stephens made in that conven
tion on the subject of secession.

We also state in this connection, that a speech, purporting
to have been made by Mr. Stephens in the State convention on
the secession debate, is an entire frabrication. It was pub
lished and extensively circulated in the North, and used there
as a campaign document in the fall of 1864. It is quoted from
in the notes of one of the northern pictorial histories of the war,
perhaps in others. No such speech was made by him. What
he did say on this subject before the legislature is given in this
volume, and what he said in the convention we have just given.

It is said of Queen Mary the First, of England, that grieving
for the loss, she said when she died the word Calais would be
found engraven on her heart. Mr, Stephens' heart should be
marked — THE CONSTITUTION.

Two days after the serenade speech, on Monday, February
llth, 1861, the anniversary of his birthday, at the age of forty-
nine, he was inaugurated Yice- President.

After the Provisional Government was organized, Mr.
Stephens returned to Georgia, and met his State convention,
then re-assembled in Savannah. He then made what is called
his " Corner stone!'1 speech, which was delivered at the Athenaeum,
March 21st. It is due to Mr. Stephens to state, as we have once
before done, that the speech was impromptu and not reported
with great accuracy.

Having been appointed a commissioner, he, on the 22d of
April, 1861, delivered the able address to the Virginia State
convention, that resulted in allying that State with the Confed
eracy. The speech, and the convention entered into (drawn
up by him), that followed it, we give in full in their place.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 169

Immediately on his return from the Virginia convention, be
ing well satisfied himself that the war would be a desperate one,
he exerted all his power to make that impression on the Presi
dent, Cabinet, and Congress. He did not concur in Mr. Mernmin-
ger's policy of a produce (or cotton) loan, which was for the
planters to contribute cotton, tobacco, etc., under an obligation
to sell it, and turn over the proceeds to the government, as a
loan. He urged the policy of the government buying the
cotton and giving eight per cent, bonds for it at once.

It is true, that after the adoption of Mr. Memminger's plan by
the Provisional Government, he canvassed various portions of
the State — stating that the administration plan was not such as
met his approval, but was in hope that by the time Congress
met in Richmond, that plan would be abandoned, and the
other, which he set forth as a better policy, would be adopted.
The change would not affect contributors to the loan, injuriously,
but rather, if made, be advantageous to them. In a subse
quent speech, at Crawfordville, November 1st, 1862, which is
in this volume, his views on this subject were given at large.
In canvassing for the "cotton loan," in 1861, he had urged all
reporters of his speeches to make no allusion to his views on
the right policy of the government in relation to cotton, and the
public report of his speech, in 1862, was allowed by him only
in self-vindication against newspaper assaults. The plan of
Mr. Stephens was never adopted. It is now conceded by
many who differed with him then, that his policy was not only
the right one to have pursued, but might have changed the
result of the war.

170 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

VII.

VIEWS ON PUBLIC POLICY AND COUESE DURING

THE WAR.

COTTON LOAN — MARTIAL LAW — CONSCRIPTION — IMPRESSMENTS
— HABEAS COlvPUS SUSPENSION — EFFORTS FOR PEACE — THE
TWO BROTHERS — HAMPTON ROADS CONFERENCE.

SOON after the inauguration of the permanent government,
Mr. Stephens found himself differing very essentially on other
great questions of public policy from the Richmond authorities.
In September, 1862, appeared his letter to Mayor Calhoun, of
Atlanta, Georgia, upon the subject of martial law. Though
short, it is one of the ablest productions of his life. It created
quite a sensation at Richmond and throughout the country.

In the summer of 1863, Mr. Stephens made his well-known
attempts at negotiation with the authorities at Washington.
The ostensible object was the renewal of the cartel for the ex
change of prisoners, which was then suspended. But it is
generally understood, that he had objects ulterior to this. That
in the discussions growing out of the exchange of prisoners,
the field might be opened up for a general review of the nature,
aims, and objects of the war, which might elicit something, at
least, which might form the basis of a settlement of the points
in controversy between the States, without the further effusion
of blood. The principle to which he looked as the basis of
such an adjustment, was the acknowledgment of the ultimate
sovereignty of the separate States under our system of govern
ment.

The time he made the proffer of his services with this view,
was not long after the great victory of General Lee at Chan-

ALEXANDER H. STEPHEN'S. 171

vjellorsville, when there were strong indications of a general
peace feeling at the North. The time for such an overture he
then thought propitious. The time when he was sent on the
mission, was after General Lee had removed his army into Penn
sylvania, and just before the fall of Vicksburg. The attempted
mission at that time he thought inopportune, but undertook
it. The result is history. The battle of Gettysburg occurred
before he reached Newport News. After some detention, he
was refused permission to proceed to Washington. He returned
to Georgia.

> It was generally known, from an early period of the war,
that Mr. Stephens differed from the policy on which it was con
ducted, no less than he had done from that which inaugurated
it. His own opinions on these points were uniformly main
tained by him with perfect frankness and manliness, in his
communications with the Confederate authorities, who were
completely possessed of his views, and in all oral and written
expressions of opinion during the progress of the war. It is
important to remark, however, that he never allowed his own
opinions to lead him into the organization of a party oppo
sition, for he believed, and often said, that such an opposi
tion would be -productive of mischief, and that the only mode
of effecting any salutary change of measures, was by impres
sing sound and true views upon those who had official charge
of the cause. Hence he always maintained friendly relations
with all those in public authority ; and when convinced that
they could not be induced to carry out his views concerning
vital points, he withdrew himself as much as possible from par
ticipating in the administration of a policy which he did not
approve. To give some insight into his peculiar views, we
deem it proper to publish some of his written expressions of
them contemporaneous with the events and policy to which
they relate ; and for this purpose, and this only, we are per
mitted to give to the public, for the first time, the two following
communications. The first of these will be better understood

172 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

from preceding it with the letter to which it is a reply. This
preceding letter is therefore also given, but the name of the
author is omitted.

"August 2ith, 1863.

"HoN. A. H. STEPHENS.

" MY DEAR SIR : — I have many misgivings as to the propriety
of troubling you with a letter, because I am aware that your
public duties require the whole of your attention ; but, as the
situation of the country demands the aid of every faithful man in
it, perhaps you will not deem it altogether improper in me to
submit some reflections to your consideration. You will under
stand me, in all that I may say, to be the unflinching friend and
supporter of the administration and i-ts policy ; so much so, that
my personal service, as we'll as my fortune, are at the disposal
of the government, to be used in any way that will best promote
the interest of the country. To be more explicit, I have from the
beginning approved heartily of the election of President Davis and
yourself, as the first and second officers of the government ; and
believe that the resources of the country could not have been better
employed, in its defence, than they have been. I declare myself
ready to go to the end of the world, and encounter any hazard,
in order to serve the country. Nothing would gratify me more
than to be charged with despatches to our foreign agents, for I
am of opinion — pardon the presumption — that I could be of some
benefit to the country, were I in Europe.

"But, to the principal object of this letter — the plan that I
would suggest. No plan or scheme would be worthy of consider
ation that does not look to the present and future condition of
the country. The prospect of the country is bad enough, you will
allow, and its future, I think, if things are not changed, will be
worse. You must not understand me as being discouraged in
the slightest manner as to our ultimate success. On the con
trary, I believe that there is too much of justice in our cause, for
God to permit us to be overcome by Yankees, or others. The plan
is, first: let the President be proclaimed Dictator for a specified
length of time, and the Vice-President his successor, should it be
come necessary Secondly: Propose to England and Franco

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 173

exclusive commercial privileges with our country for a given
number of years, provided they will, by force or otherwise, pro
cure peace to be proclaimed between us and the Yankees, on the
basis of our country's independence. I cannot, in submitting the
above plan, suggest so much as the principal reasons in its favor ;
that can only be done by a personal interview. Now, if you deem
this plan, or any feature of it, of sufficient importance to author
ize its discussion, I should be glad to see you at a place and time
when it may be convenient. M - would suit me best.
" With high regard, I am your friend, etc.,"

" CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., 29to August, 1863.
" DEAR SIR : — Your letter of the 24th inst. is before me. I
should like very much to see you and talk over some matters
alluded to in it — such, for instance, as treaties with England or
France, or both, on which points, perhaps, after an interchange
of views, we might not disagree entirely, and if you could make
it suit your convenience to come and pay me a visit, I should be
glad to see you. I cannot go to M - , and indeed cannot leave
home without great inconvenience. But you must permit me to
say to you, with perfect freedom and frankness, that I disagree
with you totally on almost every other point in your letter. I
am utterly opposed to every thing looking or tending to a dicta
torship in this country. No language at my command could give
utterance to my inexpressible repugnance at the very suggestion
of such a lamentable catastrophe ! There is no man living that
I would confide such powers in, and not one of the illustrious
dead, whom, if now living, would I so trust. Constitutional
liberty can be achieved and secured only by maintaining and de
fending written and well denned limitations on the powers of all
who are in authority. Such are the limitations in our constitu.
tion. That chart of our liberties was made for war as well as for
peace. Our first, chief, and controlling object in every " plan" or
act, should be to maintain the constitution. Secession was re
sorted to as the only means to preserve the principles of the con
stitution inviolate. Independence, based upon the recognized
sovereignty of the separate States, is certainly a great object with

174 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

us, but even this is, and should be, ever held subordinate to the
maintenance of the constitution ; for independence was resorted
to mainly for the purpose, and with the view to secure our rights
under the constitution. Nothing could be more unwise than for
any free people, at any time, under any circumstances, to give up
their rights under the vain hope and miserable delusion that they
might thereby be enabled to defend them.

" In a like spirit of frankness, you will pardon me for saying
that I do not agree with you in the belief that the resources of
the country could not have been better employed in its defence
than they have been. It is not my purpose now, or at any time,
to arraign the policy of the administration. I doubt not those
at the head of our affairs are, and have been, actuated in what
they are doing and have done, by the most patriotic motives. I
mean only to express to you my dissent from your hearty
approval of that policy. On the contrary, that policy does not
meet with my approval, as developed, either in the military,
financial, legislative, or diplomatic departments of government.
Its conscription, its ignoring State sovereignty and the rights of
the citizen soldiers in the appointment of officers, its impress
ments and seizures, its system of passports and provost-marshals
— its continued issues of paper money, without timely taxation
or other steps to prevent depreciation, and its utter neglect of
cotton, our greatest element of power, when it could have been
of incalculable value to us — to say nothing of other matters — are
all wrong, radically wrong in my judgment, both in principle and
policy. Under this general sj^stem it will with us be a simple
question of how much political quackery we have strength of
constitution to bear and yet survive. But again I must ask you
to excuse the freedom with which I speak. It is- with the same
frankness with which you wrote, and I trust you will receive it
in the same spirit. Neither my time nor space will allow me to
say any more, except to repeat, in conclusion, that I should be
glad to see you at my house if you can come.

"Yours, most respectfully, ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS."

The other communication referred to, is a letter written by

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 175

Mr. Stephens to Professor Kichard M. Johnson, of the Rockby
Institute, Hancock county, Georgia ; and it gives still further
glimpses into the inner man, and his most private feelings' and
views at this time, (as well as through the whole scenes of the
past five years,) which throw much light upon his public con
duct during that period. The letter was written on the 6th
day of November, 1863. It is a very long one, and we give only
such parts of it as are pertinent to our present object, omitting
names therein mentioned.

After copying a private letter which he had written on the
1st of January, 1861, the day previous to the election of mem
bers to the secession convention of the State, and which letter
was on the same line as his speech of November 14th, 1861,
at Milledgeville, Mr. Stephens, in his letter to Professor John
ston, proceeds as follows :

" From that you can form some general ideas of my views and
feelings about secession at the beginning. My opinions have un
dergone no material change since. Sometimes I have seen gleams
of hope, which at other times have been clouded and darkened
again. I yielded to it, wishing and desiring, and using the
utmost of my exertions for the best, while all along I have been
and am still prepared for the worst. The greatest difficulty I
apprehended at the first, was the want of men of the right stamp,
men of intellect, ability, integrity, purity, patriotism, and states
manship. This, I think, is the greatest difficulty with us now.
We have resources in abundance, if properly wielded, to achieve,
secure, and establish independence. I have had, and now have,
no fears or apprehensions on that score. We are very far from
being conquered yet. It is true our reverses have been severe
and great of late. But we have not yet been struck in any vital
part. I looked for the invasion of our country. The superior
numbers of the enemy made this almost certain. But invasions,
while they do great harm, destroy vast amounts of property, and
cause a vast deal of suffering, do but little toward conquering a
people who are determined never to submit. I am not at all,

176 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

therefore, disheartened — more so, I mean, than I was at the
beginning, because of the late inroads of the enemy. I shall not
be, even if their armies penetrate and pass through Georgia,
Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, as they
have done in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi. We have
not yet reached the period that tries men's souls — that ordeal is
still ahead of us. Other matters give me more concern than the
fall of Yicksburg, or the repulse at Gettysburg. One of these is
a growing disposition amongst the people to disregard princi
ples, to forget or pay no attention to the landmarks of public
liberty. The idea is beginning to prevail, that the constitution
is nothing. Some go further, and intimate that we are in need
of a stronger government. Now, this causes me more apprehen
sion than all other things combined." * * *

In reply to a previous inquiry about the writer of the letter
proposing a dictatorship, which we gave just before this, and
whether Mr. Stephens thought there was any regularly or
ganized combination of men in this country for such a purpose,
he goes on in the letter before us to say :

" If there is any, I am not aware of it. This is the only com
munication that has ever been made to me upon the subject.
The writer is a man of age, of experience, position, and distinc
tion, well known by reputation throughout the country, though
he holds no official position. I do not attach any importance to it,
further than it is a bare indication of the public mind. Man is a
strange being. Opinions and sentiments, like many diseases, are
epidemic. As one is affected, others are affected — strangely
and mysteriously. We cannot account for it. As this man's
mind is running, other men's minds are running, even without
any concert of action or interchange of views at first. I have
every reason to believe he is a clever, well-disposed gentleman
himself in his way. I have no idea he is in any combination. But
I have heard such sentiments in so many quarters in conversa
tion — not exactly the same, but on the same line, and tending to
a similar end — that I feel deep concern on that point. Some of

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 177

the newspapers — the Richmond Enquirer, for instance — have
openly proclaimed sentiments of like character. This shows a
general disorder in the public mind. What men think about and
talk about, they easily and readily get in a condition to do, how
ever revolting it may be to them at first. So with all errors poor
frail human nature is liable to. We are, I assure you, sir, in
great danger on this point. The North has already run into
a complete despotism. This has not disappointed me ; and if I
felt certain, or had assurance that we would not pursue the same
course, I should feel easier and less depressed. This has been
the usual course and fate of republics. This is what I think
European powers are looking for and expecting. They have no
real sympathy either for the North or the South. They are
rejoiced to see professed republicans cutting each others' throats ;
and when both sides are exhausted and reduced to despotism,
which result they are anxiously anticipating, then they will
willingly, perhaps, step in and stop the further effusion of blood,
in exultation at the end of the experiment of self-government by
man. Besides this feeling, I think England has one collateral
idea — it is not a leading one, but one that has some influence in
her action — and that is, a desire, in the general melee of the war,
that African slavery may be so crippled as to receive its death
blow in the struggle. * * *
There is less prospect for intervention, or alliance with either
of these powers (England and France) than there was at first.
When we organized the government at Montgomery, I was very
anxious to send commissioners immediately and directly to
Louis Napoleon. I expected more from him than from the
ministry in England. I thought that he might at that time be
induced to form an alliance on the basis of a favorable treaty
which would have been mutually advantageous to both parties.
But my views did not prevail. The commissioners were sent
first to England, and by the time they got to France they found
the door closed. England had anticipated such an offer, and
had ' headed it' by herself entering into an agreement or conven
tion with France, that these two powers should act in conjunction
on the American question — that neither would act without the
12

178 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

other. And such are still our foreign or European relations. As
to ' what is to be the end of it ?' I do not know. More depends upon
the virtue of our people and wisdom of our rulers than upon any
thing else. All things human are uncertain. We have a terrible
ordeal before us. If we can pass this fierj- crucible and come
out pure metal, all may end well. Misfortunes, trials, and
adversities, are crucibles — terrible crucibles — which prove the
metal of men singly and in bodies. Adversity is never negative
— it is always positive. It is a tremendous, active power. It
develops either virtue or vice ; it ennobles or degrades ; it brings
out either good qualities or bad qualities, as they exist. It is the
test of greatness of soul, or the littleness of spirit. This is
true of the individual man, and the aggregation of men*. This
test we have got to stand. And while, as I have said, I hope and
wish for the best, I am prepared for the worst. I have great
confidence in the mass of our people, much more than I have in
their leaders." ******

In answer to a question, " Do you see no way to end the
war, no prospect of peace ?" Mr. Stephens goes on thus to
reply : —

" None at all, none at least that is practicable. There is a way
for peace, easy and short, if it could be adopted. It is as simple
as the utterance of a word — and that is the recognition of the
sovereignty of the States. With this on the part of the northern
government, the troubled waters would instantly subside. But I
see no prospect for this. Indeed, had not that government vio
lated this' fundamental principle of American constitutional
liberty, there would have been no war. The southern States
would have seceded. And if they had found that it was to their
interest to remain to themselves, would have done so, and ought
to have done so — and if they liad found that it was to their
interest to be in union with their former confederates on the basis
of the old compact, the reunion would have taken place volun
tarily and peaceably, as it was at first effected. My own opinion
was, and still is, that it vas better for all the States to remain in

ALEXANDER II. STEPHENS. 179

union under the constitution, each performing faithfull}7 its obliga
tions under that instrument. The only open and avowed breach
of this was on the part of those northern States alluded to in my
letter (the letter of 1st January, 1861). Now these States have,
or had, as much interest in the union as any others. And if the
true theory and principle of our government — the sovereignty of
the separate States — had only been acted on, these derelict States,
in my opinion, would soon have been brought to a proper con
sideration of their duty and obligations. They would have
changed their policy. They would have returned to their duty.
The door then would have been opened for the injured States to
adjust their relations with them according to their interests, the
universal law of national action.* If it had been to their interest
to reunite, they would have done it, and if not, they would not.
My opinion is, that it would have been to their interest to reunite,

* Mr. Stephens' idea here expressed does not seem to have been very
dissimilar to the views of John Quincy Adams, in his address before the
Historical Society of New York, in 1839. In that address he said, " With
these qualifications we may admit the same right as vested in the people
of every State in the Union, with reference to the general government,
which was exercised by the people of the united colonies with reference to
the supreme head of the British Empire, of which they formed a part ; and
under these limitations have the people of each State in the Union a right
to secede from the Confederated Union itself. Here stands the right. But
the indissoluble union between the several States of this confederated na
tion is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should ever
come, (may heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these
States shall be alienated from each other ; when the fraternal spirit shall
give way to cold indifference, or collision of interest shall fester into hatred,
the bands of political asseveration will not long hold together parties no
longer attached by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly
sympathies ; and far better will it be for the people of the dis-United States,
to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by con
straint ; then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred
at the formation and adoption of the constitution, to form again a more
perfect Union by dissolving that which co*uld no longer bind and to leave
the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the
centre."

180 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

and all to move on peaceably and harmoniously as before. I know
others differ from me in this opinion. Still it is my opinion. And
if the northern government would now return to this first princi
ple — acknowledge the sovereignty of the States — the rights of each
for itself, to determine its own destiny, freely and voluntarily, the
war would instantly cease, and the great law of nature governing
the question of the proper union of States, would ultimately —
how long first I know not — work its results, whatever they might
be. But you might as well sing psalms to a dead horse, I fear,
as to preach such doctrines to Mr. Lincoln, and those who control
that government, at this time. If we ever have peace on this line,
it will be when other men are brought into power there. Our
policy should be to bring such men into power there, if we can.
There are such men there — State Rights and State Sovereignty
men of the Jefferson school. One of the greatest blunders of our
government, diplomatically, I think has been in not backing, aid
ing, and assisting in all ways possible, men of their school. * * *
Now so far from backing men of this class, it seems that our
government has done all that it could to cripple and destroy them
The invasion of Pennsylvania and Morgan's raid in Ohio, to say
nothing of the general denunciation and abuse of the ' Copper
heads,' as they were styled, by our leading papers, did more to
defeat the peace movement than Mr. Lincoln, with all his power
and influence, did or could have done. The ghost that haunts
these men's brains, is the fear of 'reconstruction.' Not being
satisfied to let all things adjust themselves, according to nature
and the interests of the people under the principles of State
Rights — State Sovereignty, and the rights of self-government on
the part of the people. This has been a great error, I think, on
our side. The error, however, on the other side, has been vastly
more serious. The course of Mr. Lincoln from the beginning —
from his inauguration — has been at war with every principle of
the constitution. He claims the right to coerce seceding States.
He denies the sovereignty of the States. He ignores the founda-
tion principle upon which the wrhole system of government rests ;
to wit, the consent of the governed — the consent of the people of
the States, acting in their organized State character and capaci-

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 181

ties respectively. He, b}* force of arms, attempts to compel a
return to what he calls allegiance to the constitution. This, too,
in the face of the fact of the open and avowed violation of their
constitutional pledges on the part of those northern States
alluded to, all of which gave him a cordial support. The Union
must be preserved. The South must be forced back to her con
stitutional duty at all costs and all hazards, but not a word has
he ever uttered against those northern States in open rebellion
against one of the most important provisions of the constitution
— one at least without which it is well known the constitution
could never have been adopted, and the Union never would have
been formed. He has never even intimated a desire that these
States should return to their constitutional duty and allegiance,
while all the power of the government is resorted to to compel
us to do so. * * * We have fallen upon evil times. What
is to be the end, I know not." '

Mr. Stephens' address before the General Assembly of the
State of Georgia, March 16th, 1864, is one of the great efforts
of his life, and a full review of some of those executive and
congressional errors that, in his opinion, wrecked and destroyed
the confederate government. Our people were literally " patient
of toil, serene amidst alarms, inflexible in faith, invincible in
arms;" but the ship of empire went to pieces from the unskilful-
ness of the pilots. We give the closing words of that oration : —

" What fate or fortune awaits you or me, in the contingencies
of the times, is unknown to us all. We may meet again, or we
may not. But as a parting remembrance, a lasting memento, to
be engraven on your memories and your hearts, I warn you
against that most insidious enemy which approaches with her
syren song, ' independence first, and liberty afterward.' It is a
fatal delusion. Liberty is the animating spirit, the soul of our
system of government ; and like the soul of man, when once lost
it is lost forever. There is for it no redemption, except through
blood. Never for a moment permit yoursel\;es to look upon lib
erty, that constitu ional liberty which you inherited as a birth-

182 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

right, as subordinate to independence. The one was resorted to,
to secure the other. Let them ever be held and cherished as
objects co-ordinate, co-existent, co-equal, coeval, and forever in
separable. Let them stand together ' through weal and through
woe.' and if such be our fate, let them and us all go down
together in a common ruin. Without libert}^ I would not turn
upon my heel for independence. I scorn all independence which
does not secure liberty. I warn you also against another fatal
delusion, commonly dressed up in the fascinating language of,
' if we are to have a master, who would not prefer to have a
southern one to a northern one ?' Use no such language. Coun
tenance none such. Evil communications are as corrupting in
politics as in morals.

" ' Yice is a monster of such hideous mien,
That to be hated, needs but to be seen.
But seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.'

" I would not turn upon my heel to choose between masters. I
was not born to acknowledge a master from either the North or
South. I shall never choose between candidates for that office.
I shall never degrade the right of suffrage in such an election. I
have no wish or desire to live after the degradation of my coun
try, and have no intention to survive its liberties, if life be the
necessary sacrifice of their maintenance to the utmost of my
ability, to the bitter end. As for myself, give me liberty as
secured in the constitution with all its guarantees, amongst which
is the sovereignty of Georgia, or give me death. This is my
motto while living, and I want no better epitaph when I am
dead.

" Senators and representatives, the honor, the rights, the dig
nity, the glory of Georgia, are in your hands. See to it as faith
ful sentinels upon the watchtower, that no harm or detriment
come to any of those high and sacred trusts, while committed to
your charge."

Mr. Stephens was bitterly assailed by the organs of the
Bichmond government, for this speech. The Southern Con-

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 183

federacy, a high-toned journal, then published in the city of
Atlanta, Georgia, thus speaks of the manner and matter of his
adversaries :

" They will quite forget, in the excess of their fine frenzy, that
Mr. Stephens is the second individual in our government ; that if
one man dies, he is our chief; that he has staked his all upon the
result, and is as deep in the mud, if we fail, as Mr. Davis can be
in the mire ; but above all, will they forget that he is the wisest
man living to-day under the confederate sun. He is a person, in
the first place, of an enlightened understanding. He adds to a
fine intellect by nature, the cultivation of earnest inquiry and long-
experience. He has been a brilliant actor in public affairs, as well
as a close student in his own library. His perceptions are clear ;
his vision far-sighted ; his disposition temperate. No man but a
fool can doubt the loyalty of his nature to fixed principles, for, as
a citizen and a statesman, he is a man of integrity. He seems to
have made the science of government a system of profound re
search, the good of his people his chief puvpose ; and, since the
advent of the revolution, the success of our cause the aim of his
existence. Had his counsels prevailed, we would have had peace
this da}r. There is no sort of question of it ; for they w.ould have
given us an army at the start, and both a financial and diplomatic
system throughout the war. The modest bearing, the earnest
truths, the calm good sense, the sagacious hints, the eloquent
pictures and appeals, which gleam among the sturd}^ issues pre
sented in his late speech, cannot fail to find the heart of all who
read them ; and he who rises from the perusal of that document,
and has the bigotry to prate about what is called the ' Georgia
Platform,' proclaims himself as unfit to enjoy a free country as
he is to talk politics."

That speech was made upon two sets of resolutions then
pending before the legislature. The one known as the Habeas
Corpus Resolutions, the other as the Peace Resolutions. They
were drawn up and presented by Hon. Linton Stephens, and
although without any consultation with his more widely

184 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

known brother, show the perfect coincidence of thought
between them, as well as his very great ability as a jurist, legis
lator, and statesman. The resolutions upon the Habeas Corpus,
upon which the speech was mainly made, may well lay claim
to the position in the parliamentary history of Georgia, that
the celebrated resolutions of Virginia in 1798 and 1799 do in
the history of that renowned commonwealth. They are as
follows : —

" The General Assembly of the State of Georgia do resolve, 1st.
That under the constitution of the Confederate States, there is
no power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus,
but in a manner and to an extent, regulated and limited by the
express, emphatic, and unqualified constitutional prohibitions,
that ' No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law,' and that 'The right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no
warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the places to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' And this con
clusion results from the two following reasons : First, because
the power to suspend the writ, is derived not from express dele
gation, but only from implication, which must always yield to
express, conflicting, and restricting words. Second, because this
power being found nowhere in the constitution, but in words
which are copied from the original constitution of the United
States, as adopted in 1787, must yield in all points of conflict to
the subsequent amendments of 1789, which are also copied into
our present constitution, and which contain the prohibitions above
quoted, and were adopted with the declared purpose of adding
further declaratory and restrictive clauses.

" 2d. That ' due process of law' for seizing the persons of the
people, as defined by the constitution itself, is a warrant issued
upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particu
larly describing the persons to be seized ; and the issuing of such
warrants, being the exertion of a judicial power, is, if done by

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 185

any branch of the government except the judiciary, a plain viola
tion of that provision of the constitution, which vests the judicial
power in the courts alone ; and, therefore, all seizures of the per
sons of the people, by any officer of the confederate government,
without warrant, and all warrants for that purpose, from any but
a judicial source, are, in the judgment of this general assembly
unreasonable and unconstitutional.

" 3d. That the recent act of Congress to suspend the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus in cases of arrests ordered by the Presi
dent, Secretary of War, or general officer commanding the Trans-
Mississippi Military Department, is an attempt to sustain the
military authority in the exercise of the constitutional, judicial
function of issuing warrants, and to give validity to unconsti
tutional seizures of the persons of the people ; and as the said
Act, by its express terms, confines its operation to the upholding
of this class of unconstitutional seizures, the whole suspension
attempted to be authorized by it, and the whole act itself, in the
judgment of this general assembly, are unconstitutional.

"4th. That in the judgment of this general assembly, the said
Act is a dangerous assault upon the constitutional power of the
courts, and ijpon the liberty of the people, and beyond the power
of any possible necessity to justify it; and while our senators
and representatives in Congress are earnestly urged to take the
first possible opportunity to have it repealed, we refer the ques
tion of its validity to the courts, with the hope that the people
and the military authorities will abide by the decision.

"5th. That as constitutional liberty is the sole object which our
people and our noble army have, in our present terrible struggle
with the government of Mr. Lincoln, so also is a faithful adher
ence to it, on the part of our own government, through good
fortune in arms, and through bad, one of the great elements of our
strength and final success ; because the constant contrast of con
stitutional government on our part with the usurpations and
tyrannies, which characterize the government of our enemy, under
the ever recurring and ever false plea of the necessities of war,
will have the double effect of animating our people with an uncon
querable zeal, and of inspiring the people of the North more and

186 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

more, with a desire and determination to put an end to a contest
which is waged *by their government openly against our liberty,
and as truly, but more covertly against their own."

The peace resolutions are the same referred to subsequently
in the letter to Messrs. Scott and others, September, 1864
They are as follows :

" The General Assembly of the State of Georgia do resolve,
1st. That to secure the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, 'governments were instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed ; that when
ever any form becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right
of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new gov
ernment, laying its foundation on such principles, and organ
izing its powers in such form, as shall seem to them most likely
to effect their safety, and happiness.'

" 2d. That the best possible commentary upon this grand text
of our fathers of 1776, is their accompanying action, which it was
put forth to justify ; and that action was the immortal declara
tion that the former political connection between the colonies and
the State of Great Britain was dissolved, and the thirteen colonies
were, and of right ought to be, not one independent State, but
thirteen independent States, each of them being such a ' people'
as had the right, whenever they chose to exercise it, to separate
themselves from a political association and government of their
former choice, and institute a new government to suit themselves.

"3d. That if Rhode Island, with her meagre elements of na
tionality, was such a 'people' in 1776, when her separation from
the government and people of Great Britain took place, much
more was Georgia, and each of the other seceding States, with
their large territories, populations, and resources, such a 'people,'
and entitled to exercise the same right in 1861, when they de
clared their separation from the government and the people of
the United States ; and if the separation was rightful in the first
case, it was more clearly so in the last, the right depending, as it
does in the case of every ' people' for whom it is claimed, simply

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 1ST

upon their fitness and their will to constitute an independent
State.

" 4th. That this right was perfect in each of the States, to be
exercised by her at her own pleasure, without challenge or resist
ance from an}'- other power whatsoever ; and while these South
ern States had long had reason enough to justify its assertion
against some of their faithless associates, yet, remembering the
dictate of 'prudence,' that 'governments long established should
not be changed for light and transient causes,' they forbore a re
sort to its exercise, until numbers of the northern States, State
after State, through a series of years, and by studied legislation,
had arrayed themselves in open hostility against an acknowledged
provision of the constitution, and at last succe-eded in the election
of a President who was the avowed exponent and executioner of
their faithless designs against the constitutional rights of their
southern sisters ; rights which had been often adjudicated by the
courts, and which were never denied by the -abolitionists them
selves, but upon the ground that the constitution itself was void
whenever it came in conflict with a 'higher law,' which they
could not find among the laws of God, and which depended for
its exposition solely upon the elastic consciences of rancorous
partisans. The constitution thus broken, and deliberately and
persistently repudiated by several of the States who were parties
to it, ceased, according to universal law, to be binding on any of
the rest, and those Spates who had been wronged by the breach
were justified hi using their right to provide 'new guards for
their future security.'

" 5th. That the reasons which justified the separation when it
took place, have been vindicated and enhanced in force by the
subsequent course of the government of Mr. Lincoln — by his con
temptuous rejection of the confederate commissioners who were
sent to Washington before the war, to settle all matters of differ
ence without a resort to arms ; thus evincing his determination
to have war — by his armed occupation of the territory of the
Confederate States — and especially by his treacherous attempt
to reinforce his garrisons in their midst, after they had, in pursu
ance of their right, withdrawn their people and territory from tha

188 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

jurisdiction of his government ; thus rendering war a necessity,
and actually inaugurating the present lamentable war — b}^ his
official denunciation of the Confederates States as ' rebels' and
'disloyal' States, for their rightful withdrawal from their faithless
associate States, whilst no word of censure has ever fallen from
him against those faithless States who were truly ' disloyal' to the
Union and the constitution, which was the only cement to the
Union, and who were the true authors of all the wrong and all
the mischief of the separation, thus insulting the innocent by
charging upon- them the crimes of his own guilty allies — and
finally, by his monstrous usurpations of power and undisguised
repudiation of the constitution, and his mocking scheme of secur
ing a republican form of government to sovereign States by
putting nine tenths of the people under the dominion of one tenth,
who may be abject enough to swear allegiance to his usurpation,
thus betraying his design to subvert true constitutional republi
canism in the North as well as the South.

" 6th. That while we regard the present war between these
Confederate States and the United States as a huge crime, whose
beginning and continuance are justly chargeable to the govern
ment of our enemy, yet we do not hesitate to affirm that, if our
own government, and the people of both governments, would avoid
all participation in the guilt of its continuance, it becomes all of
them, on all proper occasions, and in all proper ways — the
people acting through their State organizations and popular
assemblies, and our government through its appropriate depart
ments — to use their earnest efforts to put an end to this unnatural,
unchristian, and savage work of carnage and havoc. And to
this end we earnestly recommend that our government, imme
diately after signal successes of our arms, and on other occa
sions, wher^ none can impute its action to alarm, instead of a
sincere desire for peace, shall make to the government of our
enemy an official offer of peace, on the basis of the great prin
ciple declared by our common fathers in 1776, accompanied by
the distinct expression of a willingness on our part to follow
that principle to its true logical consequences, by agreeing that
any border State, whose preference for our association may be

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 189

doubted (doubts having been expressed as to the wishes of the
border States), shall settle the question for herself, by .a conven
tion to be elected for that purpose, after the withdrawal of all
inilitaiy forces, of both sides, from her limits.

" tth. That we believe this course, on the part of our govern
ment, would constantly weaken, and sooner or later break down
the war power of our enemy, by showing to his people the jus
tice of our cause, our willingness to make peace on the principles
of 17 16, and the shoulders on which rests the responsibility for
the continuance of the unnatural strife ; that it would be hailed
by our people and citizen-soldiery, who are bearing the brunt of
the war, as an assurance that peace will not be unnecessarily
delayed, nor their sufferings unnecessarily prolonged ; and that
it would be regretted lay nobody, on either side, except men
whose importance or whose gains would be diminished by peace,
and men whose ambitious designs would need cover under the
ever-recurring plea of the necessities of war.

" 8th. That while the foregoing is an expression of the senti
ments of this general assembly respecting the manner in which
peace should be sought, we renew our pledges of the resources
and power of this State to the prosecution of the war, defensive
on our part, until peace is obtained upon just and honorable
terms, and until the independence and nationality of the Confed
erate States is established upon a permanent and enduring basis."

These resolutions, as we have said, were drawn up and sub
mitted to the legislature by Hon. Linton Stephens, then mem
ber of that body, without any concert with his brother.

It may be proper to add, however, that the last one was not
in the original series proposed and presented by him. It was
offered as an amendment. to his, and adopted by the House.

There is something so remarkable about these two brothers,
that we may be indulged in a short digression on the subject.
In their physical development, there is not the slightest trace
of resemblance, nor any in their temperaments ; yet their
mental constitutions seem to be of the same type, while their
inner souls have a congeniality and affinity rarely to be met

190 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

•with. The elder, Alexander, eleven years the senior, became
the guardian of the junior, Linton, in 1837. On taking control
of his education, he put him at once under one of the ablest
instructors in this State. That younger brother was fitted for
college in 1839, and entered the Freshmen class in the State
University in August) of that year. He graduated in 1843,
with the first honor in his class. He then went to the Univer
sity of Virginia, where he took a regular course in the law
department, and after that went to Cambridge, Massachusetts,
to complete his law studies under Judge Story. Upon the death
of that distinguished jurist, he quitted that institution and
returned to Georgia, where he commenced the practice of law.
Soon he arose to the highest distinction. In 1859, he was
placed upon the bench of the Supreme Court of Georgia, at the
age of thirty-five. This position he held with great distinction,
until he voluntarily resigned it some years afterward.

Before going upon the bench, and since, he has several times
been a member of the State legislature. Both the brothers
were distinguished at college for their scholarship. Both upon
entering life soon became distinguished, as lawyers, orators and
statesmen of a high order. Both are noted for their generous
liberality, especially in aiding young men in procuring an edu
cation. But besides this, the fact to which we allude espec
ially, is the singular and extraordinary attachment and devotion
to each other which has ever 'existed between them as brothers.
They are always together when they can be. When separated,
hardly a mail has passed since 1843, up to the imprisonment
of the elder, without letters passing between them.

So soon as permission was given to the junior by President
Johnson, he visited the elder in Fort Warren, and remained a
voluntary prisoner with him until his release. This personal
devotion between them has its parallel in history only in the
case of Marcus and Quintus Cicero.

But to return to the matter we were on : — While Mr.
Stephens' speech against the suspension of habeas corpus received

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 191

marked approbation from the press generally, and the princi
ples of it were indorsed by several State legislatures, and cor
dially hailed by the great mass of the people ; yet there were
efforts made, more in private than in public circles, to break
the influence of it by representing it as having emanated from
nothing but hostility to the administration.

How Mr. Stephens received and was affected by these will
be seen from two private letters, which we are permitted to
publish. One of them was written to Hon. James A. Seddon,
Secretary of War ; and the other to Hon. Herschel Y. Johnson,
Senator in Congress. They both appear in their proper places
in this collection. In the month of September, 1864, appeared
his well-known letter to Messrs. Scott and others, upon the
subject of inaugurating some movement in favor of peace.
This letter we here give in full :

" CRAWFORD VILLE, GEORGIA, 22d September, 1864.
" Messrs. ISAAC SCOTT, J. B. Ross, J. H. R. WASHINGTON,

Macon, Georgia.

11 GENTLEMEN : — You will please excuse me for not answering
your letter of the 14th inst. sooner. I have been absent nearly a
week on a visit to my brother, in Sparta, who has been quite out
of health for some time. Your letter I found here on my return
home yesterday. The delay of my reply thus occasioned, I regret.
Without further explanation or apology, allow me now to say to
you, that no person living can possibly feel a more ardent desire
for an end to be put to this unnatural and merciless war, upon
honorable and just terms, than I do. But I really do not see
that it is in my power, or yours, or that of any number of persons
in our position, to inaugurate any movement that will even tend
to aid in bringing about a result that we and so many more so
much desire. The movement by our legislature at its last session,
at the suggestion of the Executive, on this subject, was by au
thority properly constituted for such a purpose. That move
ment, in my judgment, was timely, judicious, and in the right
direction. Nor has it been without results. The organization

192 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

of that party at the North, to which you refer, may justly be
claimed as a part of the fruits of it. These, it is to be hoped,
will be followed by others of a more marked character, if all, in
both sections, who sincerely desire peace upon correct terms will
give that movement thus inaugurated all the aid in their power.
The resolutions of the Georgia legislature, at its last session,
upon the subject of 'peace, in my judgment, embodied and set
forth very clearly those principles upon which alone there can be
permanent peace between the different sections of this extensive,
once happy and prosperous, but now distracted country. The easy
and perfect solution to all our present troubles, and those far more
grievous ones which loom up in prospect, and portentously threaten
in the coming future, is nothing more than the simple recognition
of the fundamental principle and truth upon which all American
constitutional liberty is founded and upon the maintenance of
which alone it can be preserved ; that is, the sovereignt}^ — the ul
timate, absolute sovereignty — of the States. This doctrine our
legislature announced to the people of the North, and to the world
It is the only key-note to peace — permanent, lasting peace — con
sistent with the security of public liberty. The old confederation
was formed upon this principle. The old Union was afterward
formed upon this principle ; and no union or league can ever be
formed or maintained between any States, North or South, secur
ing public liberty upon any other principle. The whole frame
work of American institutions, which in so short a time had won
the admiration of the world, and to which we were indebted for
such an unparalleled career of prosperity and happiness, was
formed upon this principle. All our present troubles spring from
a departure from this principle, from a violation of this essential,
vital law of our political organism. In 17 f 6, our ancestors, and
the ancestors of those who are waging this unholy crusade against
us, together proclaimed the great and eternal truth, for the
maintenance of which they jointly pledged their lives, their for
tunes, and their sacred honor, that ' governments are instituted
amongst men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed ;' and that ' whenever any form of government becomes
destructive of those ends (those for which it was formed), it is the

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 193

right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new
government, lying its foundations on such principles, and orga
nizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely
to effect their safety and happiness.'

" It is needless here to state, that, by ' people' and ' governed,'
in this annunciation, is meant communities and bodies of men
capable of organizing and maintaining government, not individual
members of society. ' The consent of the governed' refers to the
will of the mass of the community or State in its organized form,
and expressed through its legitimate and properly constituted
organs.' It was upon this principle the colonies stood justified
before the world in effecting a separation from the mother coun
try. It was upon this principle that the original thirteen co-equal
and co-sovereign States formed the Federal compact of the old
Union in 1787. It is upon the same principle that the present co
equal and co-sovereign States of our Confederacy formed their new
compact of union. The idea that the old Union, or any union
between any of these sovereign States, consistently with this fun
damental truth, can be maintained by force, is preposterous.
This war springs from an attempt to do this preposterous thing.
Superior power may compel a union of some sort ; but it would
not be the Union of the old constitution or of our new ; it would
be that sort of union that results from despotism. The subjuga
tion of the people of the South by the people of the North, would
necessarily involve the destruction of the constitution, and the
overthrow of their liberties as well as ours. The men or party at
the North, to whom you refer, who favor peace, must be brought
to a full realization of this truth in all its bearings before their
efforts will result in much practical good ; for any peace growing
out of a Union of the States established by force, will be as ruin
ous to them as to us.

" The action of the Chicago Convention, so far as its platform
of principles goes, presents, as I have said on another occasion,
1 a ray of light, which, under Providence, may prove the dawn of
day to this long and cheerless night.' The first ray of real light
I have seen from the North since the war began. This cheers
the heart, and toward it I could almost have exclaimed :
13

194 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

" ' Hail, holy light — offspring of heaven first-born,
Or of the Eternal, co-eternal beam,
May I express thee unblamed, since God is light ?'

" Indeed, I could quite so have exclaimed, but for the sad re
flection, that, whether it shall bring healing in its beams, or be
lost in dark and ominous eclipse ere its good work is done,
depends so much upon the action of others who may not regard
it and view it as I do. So, at best, it is but a ray — a small
and tremulous ray — enough only to gladden the heart and quicken
hope. The prominent and leading idea of that convention seems
to have been a desire to reach a peaceful adjustment of our present
difficulties and strife through the medium of the convocation of
the States. They propose to suspend hostilities to see what can be
done, if any thing, by negotiation of some sort. This is one step in
the right direction. To such a convention of the States, I should
have no objection, as a peaceful conference and interchange of
views between equal and sovereign Powers, just as the convention
of 1181 was called and assembled. The properly constituted au
thorities at Washington and Richmond, the duly authorized re
presentatives of the two confederacies of States now at war with
each other, might give their assent to such a proposition. Good
might result from it. It would be an appeal on both sides from the
sword to reason and justice. All wars, which do not result in the
extinction or extermination of one side or the other, must be ended,
sooner or later, by some sort of negotiation. From the discussion
and interchange of views in such a convention, the history, as
well as the true nature of our institutions, and the relation of
the States toward each other and toward the Federative head,
would doubtless be much better understood generally than they
now are. But I should favor such a proposition only as a peace
ful conference, as the convention of 178T was. I should be
opposed to leaving the questions at issue to the absolute decision
of, such a body. Delegates might be clothed with powers to con
sult and agree, if they could, upon some plan of adjustment, to
be submitted for subsequent ratification by the sovereign States
whom it affected, before it should be obligatory or binding ; and
then binding only on such as should so ratify. It becomes the

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 195

people of the South, as well as the people of the Xorth, to be
quite as watchful and jealous of their rights as their common an
cestors were.

" The maintenance of liberty, in all ages, times, and countries,
when and where it has existed, has required not only constant
vigilance and jealousy, but has often required the greatest priva
tions, sufferings, and sacrifices that people or States are ever
subjected to. Through such an ordeal we are now passing.
Through a like and even severer ordeal, our ancestors passed in
their struggle for the principles which it has devolved upon us to
defend and maintain. But great as our sufferings and sacrifices
have been and are, to which you allude, they are as yet far short
of the like sufferings and sacrifices which our fathers bore with
patience, and fortitude, in the crisis that ' tried men's souls' in
their day. These are the virtues that sustained them in their
hour of need. Their illustrious and glorious example bids us
not to under-estimate the priceless inheritance they achieved for
us at such a cost of treasure and blood. Great as are the odds
we are struggling against, they are not greater than those against
which they successfully struggled. In point of reverses, our con
dition is not to be compared with theirs. Should Mobile, Savan
nah, Charleston, Augusta, Macon, Montgomery, and even Peters
burg and Richmond fall, our condition would not then be worse
or less hopeful than theirs was in the darkest hour that rested on
their fortunes. With wisdom on the part of those who control
our destiny, in the cabinet and in the field, husbanding and properly
wielding our resources at their command, and in securing the hearts
and affections of the people in the great cause of right and lib
erty for which we are struggling, we could suffer all these losses
and calamities, and greater, even, and still triumph in the end.
At present, however, I do not see, as I stated in the outset, that
you, or I, or any number of persons in our position, can do any
thing toward inaugurating any new movement looking to a peace
ful solution of the present strife. The war, on our part, is purely
and entirely defensive in its character. How long it will con
tinue to be thus wickedty and mercilessly waged against us,
depends upon the people of the North. Georgia, our own State,

196 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

to whom we owe allegiance, has, with great unanimity, pro
claimed the principles upon which a just and permanent peace
ought to be sought and obtained. The Congress of the Confede
rate States has followed with an indorsement of those princi
ples. All you, and I, and others in our position, therefore, can
do on that line at this time, is, to sustain the movement thus
already inaugurated, and, to the utmost of our ability, to hold
up these principles as the surest hope of restoring soundness to
the public mind North, as the brazen serpent was held up for the
healing of Israel in the wilderness. The chief aid and encour
agement we can give the peace party at the North, is to keep
before them these great fundamental principles and truths which
alone will lead them and us to a permanent and lasting peace,
with the possession and enjoyment of constitutional liberty.
With these principles once recognized, the future would take
care of itself. There would be no more war so long as they should
be adhered to. All questions of boundaries, confederacies, and
union or unions, would naturally and easily adjust themselves
according to the interests of the parties and the exigencies of
the times. Herein lies the true law of the balance of power and
the harmony of States. Yours, respectfully,

''ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS."

Subsequently appeared his letter in reply to a proposal for
a conference made by General Sherman, of the United States
army, through Mr. William King. We also give this letter
in full in this place :

" CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., October 1st, 1864.

-WM. KING, ESQ:

" SIR : — I have considered the message you delivered me yes
terday from General Sherman, with all the seriousness and
gravity due the importance of the subject. That message was a
verbal invitation by him, through you to me, to visit him at
Atlanta, to see if we could agree upon some plan of terminating
this fratricidal war without the further effusion of blood. The
object is one which addresses itself with peculiar interest and
great force to every well-wisher of his country — to every friend

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 197

of humanity — to every patriot — to every one attached to the prin
ciples of self-government, established by our common ancestors.
I need not assure you, therefore, that it is an object very dear to
me — there is no sacrifice I would not make, short of principle
and honor, to obtain it, and no effort would I spare, under the
same limitations, with reasonable or probable prospect of success.
" But in the present instance, the entire absence of any power
on my part to enter into such negotiations, and the like absence
of any such power on his part, so far as appears from his mes
sage, necessarily precludes my acceptance of the invitation thus
tendered. In communicating this to General Sherman, you may
also say to him that if he is of opinion that there is any prospect
of our agreeing upon terms of adjustment to be submitted to the
action of our respective governments, even though he has no
power to act in advance in the premises, and will make this
known to me in some formal and authoritative manner (being so
desirous for peace himself, as you represent him to have
expressed himself), I would most cheerfully and willingly, with
the consent of our authorities, accede to his request thus mani
fested, and enter with all the earnestness of my nature upon the
responsible and arduous task of restoring peace and harmony to
the country, upon principles of honor, right, and justice to all
parties. This does not seem to me to be at all impossible, if
truth and reason should be permitted to have their full sway.
" Yours, most respectfully,

"ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS."

In the winter of 1864-5, Mr. Stephens, seeing that affairs
were rapidly tending to a disastrous crisis, and being ex
tremely desirous to do any thing in his power to avert or
ameliorate the impending consummation, went again to Rich
mond.

His efforts were again directed with all his energy to the
object of procuring a radical and thorough change in the gov
ernment policy, internal and external. He was invited by the
Senate to address them on this subject in secret sesssion. He
did so, giving his vievs as to the changes which he deemed

198 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

essential in both the internal and external policy. So far as
related to the States then at war, his views were presented in" a
series of resolutions, which will not be found in this collection.
There was a good prospect for the adoption of these resolutions,
substantially by both Houses of Congress, when the affair of
the Blair mission intervened. This produced a diversion from
his programme, and ended in the celebrated Hampton Roads
conference. The part he took in that conference was prompted
by no expectations, nor even hope of procuring an immediate
treaty of peace. He has been often heard to say that his views
in consenting to take a part in that conference, can never be
fully understood without a knowledge of the true objects con
templated by the authors of that mission. These he has never
disclosed, and does not yet feel himself at liberty to disclose- All
that can be at present said concerning his own object in« taking
a part in it is, that he had the hope of possibly obtaining an
armistice which would allow time for the cooling of hot blood,
and serve as a stepping-stone to negotiations for a permanent
peace.

With this hope on his part, weakened by the Confederate
disaster at Nashville, and the fall of Fort Fisher, he yielded
more to pressure from others than to his own inclination, and
more from a fear that his refusal might do harm, than from a
hope that his acceptance would result in good. While we are
on this subject, we will remark that a publication appeared in
the Augusta Chronicle and Sentinel, and was republished in
many other papers last summer, while Mr. Stephens was a pris
oner, purporting to give his version of the Hampton Roads
conference. This was without his authority or knowledge, and
caused him deep regret. The account contained some truths
and many inaccuracies, with the truths and inaccuracies so
blended, as to make a very erroneous impression. He desired
to ]? ublish a disavowal of the publication at the time, but was
not permitted. He has, on several occasions, told to a few par
ticular friends, some things that transpired, particularly the

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 199

agreeableness of the interview, the courteous bearing of Mr.
Lincoln and Mr. Seward, and some anecdotes which were inter
changed ; but he has always objected to giving to the public
any account whatever beyond that contained in the official re
port of the commissioners. That report, he says, contains the
exact truth touching the points embraced in it ; but the real
object of that mission was not embraced in it. This was ver
bally and confidentially communicated, and his own judgment
was against any report at all for publication, as he thought that
any report which could be made, would have the effect of mis
leading the public mind as to the real objects of the mission.

But when the objects of the mission had failed, Mr. Stephens,
true to his instincts of humanity, brought up the question of
the exchange of prisoners. Mr. Lincoln said he would leave
that matter with General Grant, and authorize him to act in the
matter as he thought best. The commissioners conferred with
General Grant on the subject, on their return to City Point. A
general exchange soon followed. As an evidence of the good
personal feeling existing between Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Stephens,
we here also state that in this interview, Mr. Stephens made
application to him for a special exchange in behalf of a nephew
of his, then at Johnson's Island. This Mr. Lincoln readily
granted, promising to send the nephew to the uncle. This he
attended to immediately upon his return to Washington. He
telegraphed that the nephew should be sent forthwith to him.
He received him cordially, spoke of the uncle to the nephew in
the kindest terms, personally, and by the latter sent to the former
the letter of which we give a fac-simile on the opposite page.
******

Mr. Stephens also speaks in the highest terms of the whole
course and bearing of General Grant in all his interviews with
that distinguished officer.

The Hampton Roads conference, ending as it did, and being
used as it was, terminated all his hopes of effecting any salutary

200 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

changes of policy, either internal or external, so far as his cher
ished idea of State sovereignty was concerned. He gave up
all as lost, and returned home to await the general and early
collapse which he saw was inevitable. He remained at home in
quiet and calm readiness to meet whatever might be his own
personal fate.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 201

YIIL
ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT.

RELEASE ON PAROLE — ELECTION TO UNITED STATES SENATE
— SPEECH BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE ON RECONSTRUCTION,
22D FEBRUARY, 1866 — TESTIMONY BEFORE THE RECON
STRUCTION COMMITTEE — COMMENTS OF THE PUBLIC PRESS.

AT Liberty Hall, on the llth of May, 1865, the following »
scene occurred :

Mr. Stephens seeing an officer and guard advancing from the
front gate, met him near the door of his private room, in which
he then was. The following dialogue took place :

OFFICER — Is this Mr. Stephens ?

MR. STEPHENS — It is.

OFFICER — (apparently astonished) Alexander H. Stephens ?

MR. STEPHENS — That is my name.

OFFICER — I am ordered to put you under arrest.

MR. STEPHENS — Will you allow me to see the order ?

The officer produced a paper addressed to Captain Saint, of
the Fourth Iowa cavalry, directing him to arrest Alexander H.
Stephens, and take him to the head-quarters in Atlanta. It
was from Major-General Upton.

MR. STEPHENS — I am subject to your directions. How shall
we travel?

OFFICER — By the cars I came in.

MR. STEPHENS — Can I take any baggage ?

OFFICER — Yes, sir.

MR. STEPHENS — How long can I have to get ready ?

OFFICER — As long as necessary.

202 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

The whole conduct and bearing of the officer was exceedingly
civil and courteous.

A few moments were taken, and the baggage being ready,
the party left with the illustrious prisoner.

From exposure that night, in travelling in the open cars, he
took a violent cold, from which he suffered for several days.
At Atlanta he was put on parole of honor by General Upton.
On Sunday, the 14th of May, in pursuance of orders, he was
started, under military escort, to Washington City. Passing by
his home, being still on parole, he was permitted to stop and
provide himself with additional clothing. It being known that
he was to return on that day, a large crowd, consisting of nearly
all the village people, and all his household and plantation ser
vants, were assembled to take their farewell of him. Among
them all, there were but few dry eyes as the cars moved off
with him. At Augusta, he was put under the charge of Col.
Pritchard, who had arrested Mr. Davis, and who then had him
and his party in custody. With this party Mr. Stephens re
mained until they reached Hampton Roads, where, after some
detention, orders were received for him and Hon. John H.
Eeagen, who was of Mr. Davis's party, to be sent to Fort War
ren, in Boston harbor, instead of to Washington.

Mr. Stephens' parole was continued by all the officers into
whose charge he fell, until he reached his destined prison. The
intercourse between him and Mr. Davis, while they were on the
route, was free, friendly, and cordial, as it had always been, how
ever 'much they had disagreed upon public questions. Mr.
Stephens entered the prison at Fort Warren on the 25th of
May. At first he was put into a room rather below the level of
the ground. Here the humidity and bad ventilation soon
affected his health very injuriously. His confinement at first
was close, with the privilege of taking an hour's walk and
airing every day within the grounds of the fort, under the escort
of an officer. At first, also, he was put upon soldier's rations.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 203

This diet not suiting him at all, upon application he was per
mitted to be supplied^ at his own expense, by the sutler. His
health and strength failing in the quarters first assigned him
he was removed to others as comfortable as the fort afforded,
and as comfortable as he desired. He was also given full privi
lege, by orders from Washington, to go out and in as he
pleased, within the grounds of the fort, without any guard,
between reveille and tattoo. Books, pen, ink, paper, and
newspapers were allowed him from the beginning. He speaks
with the kindest remembrance of all the officers and men of the
army who had any connection with his custody. He also ex
presses warm gratitude to many of the good people of Boston
for their kind attentions in ministering to his prison wants.
Having made up his mind, even before his arrest, that it was
best for the southern people in every point of view, to accept
the results of the war — the abolition of slavery, and the restora
tion of the Union under the constitution, with an abandonment
of their doctrine of secession — he soon, after the appearance of
the President's proclamation of Amnesty, made application for
its benefit ; or if that should not be granted, then for an enlarge
ment on bail or parole to answer any criminal prosecution which
might be instituted against him. The parole was granted on
the llth of October, 1865. His entire imprisonment was five
months to a day. He immediately returned home, paying his
respects in person to the President in his passage through
Washington. He was urged to allow his old constituents the
pleasure of returning him to his former place in Congress, by a
unanimous vote. This he declined. Many also wished him to
accept the office of governor. This he also declined. Upon
the meeting of the legislature, all eyes and all hearts were
turned to him for one of the United States senators, to be
chosen by that body. The following correspondence took
place upon that subject: —

204 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

Reply of Hon. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS to invitation to address
the legislature on public affairs.

" MILLEDGEVILLE, GrA., January 2%d, 1866.
" Messrs. J. F. JOHNSON, CHAS. H. SMITH* and others :

" GENTLEMEN : — Your note of invitation to me to address the
general assembly on the state of the country, and assuring me
that it is the almost universal desire of the members that I should
do so, if consistent with my feelings, etc., was received two days
ago. I have considered it maturely ; and be assured, if I saw any
good that could be accomplished by my complying with your re
quest, I would cheerfully yield any personal reluctance to so gen
eral a wish of the members of the general assembly, thus mani
fested. But, as it is, seeing no prospect of effecting any good by
such an address, you and your associates will, I trust, excuse me
ink declining. My reasons need not be stated ; they will readily
suggest themselves to your own minds upon reflection.

"In reference to the subject of the election of United States
senators, which is now before you, allow me to avail myself of
this occasion to say to you, and through you to all the members
of the general assembly, that I cannot give my consent to the
use of my name in that connection. This inhibition of such use
of it is explicit and emphatic. I wish it so understood by all.
As willingly as I would yield my own contrary inclinations to
what I am assured is the general and unanimous wish of the
legislature in this respect, if I saw any prospect of my being
able, by thus yielding, to render any essential service to the peo
ple of Georgia ; and as earnestly desirous as I am for a speedy
restoration of civil law, perfect peace, harmony, and prosperity
throughout the whole country ; yet, under existing circumstances,
I do not see such prospect of the availability of my services to
these ends in any public position. Moreover, so far as I am
personally concerned, I do not think it proper or politic that the
election should be postponed with any view to a probable change
of present circumstances, or a probable change of my position
on the subject; and I do trust that no member will give even a
complimentary vote to me in the election.

" Yours, truly, ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS."

* Bill Arp.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 205

Neither the people nor representatives Avere satisfied with
this, and the popular will at length took this shape, and had.ita
result.

" MILLEDGEVILLE, January 29£/i, 1866.
" HON. A. H. STEPHENS :

" ESTEEMED SIR: — We have read with deep regret your letter
to the legislature, withholding the use of your name in connection
with the senatorial canvass ; but while we grant to you the right
of refusing a candidacy for a seat in the United States Senate,
yet, at the same time, we claim to have also the right to bestow
upon you this trust, involving, as it does, important considerations.
We feel, sir, that a vast majority of the people of the State are
looking to you as the man for the crisis. As the representatives
of that constituency, desirous to carry out this manifest demon
stration of the public will, we now ask, will you serve if elected ?
" H. R. CASEY, BEN. B. MOORE,

WM. GIBSON, P. B. BEDFORD,

CLAIBORNE SNEAD, 0. L. SMITH,
JAMES M. RUSSELL GEO. S. OWENS,
JESSE A. GLENN, J. A. W. JOHNSON,

JOHN 0. GARTRELL, P. J. STROZER.
B. A. THORNTON."

" MILLEDGEVILLE, GA., 29^ January, 1866.
" Messrs. R. H. CASEY, WILLIAM GIBSON, and others :

" The right claimed by you in your note to me, of this date, I
do not wish to be understood as at all calling in question.

•'In reply to your interrogatory, I can only say that I cannot
imagine any probable case in which I would refuse to serve, to
the best of my abilit}', the people of Georgia, in any position
which might be assigned to me by them or their representatives,
whether assigned with or without my consent.

" Yours, truly, ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS."

The result was his election to the office of United States
senator against his inclinations and wishes. He was elected
for the long term, and Hon. Herschel V. Johnson, for the short
term. The vote for each stood finally, one hundred and fifty-

206 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

two to thirty-nine. Afterward, upon the invitation of the
members of both houses of the legislature through their pre
siding officers, he consented to address them upon the state of
public affairs, and fixed upon the 22d of February, the anni
versary of Washington's birthday, for the delivery of the
address. The speech then made is also in this collection. It
was delivered to a large, intelligent, and anxious audience, in
the Capitol of the State. It received the unanimous indorse
ment of both houses of the legislature, and was ordered to be
spread at large upon the records of the State.

It was republished in almost- -all the leading papers, North
and South, with little distinction of past or present p&ity pro
clivities. In the North, it was printed by republican and
democrat papers or noticed by them, and generally in kind
terms. In the South, both fire-eating and conservative papers
praised it, and even the paper in Georgia, controlled by the
Freedmen's Bureau and edited by freedmen, indorsed the views
of him who had so lately been the second officer of the southern
government, but always the friend of the colored people.

It was reproduced in Europe from the imperfect copy sent
North by telegraph at great expense to the New York Times,
and the comments upon it were as various as the journals in
which they appeared. As a matter both of interest and of
curiosity we subjoin some notices of this speech, which seems
to have been as famous in all enlightened lands, as any Ameri
can one ever made. Some of the comments are from sources
that command and deserve far more attention than any words
of ours.

[From the New York Tribune.]

"Mr. A. H. Stephens, of Georgia, delivered by invitation an
address before the legislature of that State on Washington's
birthday. Mr. Stephens had shortly before been elected to repre
sent Georgia in the United States Senate, and in this speech,
while referring to his relutance to re-enter public life, arising out
of his position as vice-president of the confederacy, accepts the

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 207

office to which he had been chosen. Whatever he chose to say
would in any event have an importance as the opinion of the
ablest southern politician. What he now says is especially im
portant, because he speaks of his State and to his State, and
must be presumed to say the best word he can to advance her
interests.

" We frankly accord to this address the praise of being per
haps the best yet proceeding from any citizen south of Mason's
and Dixon's line. It contains some good advice to his con
stituents, and some sound views of public affairs. Mr. Stephens
has qualities quite distinct from those which usually win attention
on a southern stump, and he displays them in this address to
advantage. He counsels patience. He reminds his hearers that
they must expect to endure such ills as now befall them, likening
his listening constituents to a man with a broken leg, who must
for the time tolerate his splints, and bandages — that is, must
tolerate exclusion from Congress, payment of taxes, military rule,
deprivation of postal facilities, and ' other matters on the long
list of our present inconveniencies.' In order that the people
may advance to a better state, they must show harmony among
themselves and renewed loyalty to the government. Mr.
Stephens reiterates with emphasis and with elaboration his well-
known view that lo}7alty is perfectly consistent with secession ;
in other words, that the South remained always faithful to the
principles of government which the constitution was meant to
embody ; and that the only point at issue was whether the State
or the federal government should be paramount. 'As for my
self,' says he, ' I can affirm that no sentiment of disloyalty to
these great principles of self-government recognized and em
bodied in the constitution of the United States, ever beat or
throbbed in heart of mine.' He would say the same for Georgia
and for the whole South. Secession he viewed only as a means to
an end, and the means has failed.

" It is of more consequence to inquire what Mr. Stephens pro
poses for the future. He does not leave us in doubt on this any
more than on the other point : ' We should accept the issues of
the war, and abide by them in good faith.' What are the issues

208 ALEXANDEK H. STEPHENS.

thus settled ? First, that Georgia is in the Union, not out of it,
and that ' the whole United States, therefore, is now, without
question, our country, to -be cherished and defended as sucn by
all our hearts and by all our arms.' That at least is something.
Next, slavery has been destroyed. Whether for better or for
worse is not important ; it is gone, and the new state of things
is to be accepted. Many changes must follow. • Old codes of
law become obsolete. For the negroes, wise and humane laws
should be made. Mr. Stephens uses language which for a south
erner of this generation is remarkable. * Ample and full protec
tion should be secured to them, so that they may stand equal
before the law in the possession and enjoyment of all rights of
persona,! liberty and property. That has even a flavor of the
declaration in it. Could Mr. Stephens but persuade his Georgia
legislature to frame such opinions into statutes. He praises the
fidelity of the negro in times .past ; admits his capacity for im
provement, and correctly lays down the principle that the object
of government is the good of the governed, including those of
African descent, ' looking to the greatest attainable advancement,
improvement, and progress, physical, intellectual and moral, of
all classes and conditions within their rightful jurisdiction. '
Again, ' all obstacles, if there be any, should be removed, which
can possible hinder or retard the blacks to the extent of their
capacity.' Education should be open to them ; not onty. for their
own sake, but for that of the community. ' It is difficult,' says
Mr. Stephens, very explicitly and sensibly, to ' conceive a greater
evil or curse than could befall our country, stricken and distressed
as it now is, for so large a portion of its population as this class
will quite probably constitute among us hereafter, to be reared
in ignorance, depravity, and vice.' Again we say, could but this
belief of Mr. Stephens be translated into Georgia law, and into
law for all the Southern States, the problems of reconstruction
were amazingly simplified. We wish the State legislatures might
take the advice of their counsellor to ' do the best they can with
their problem.' Sure they may be that somehow the problem has
got to be solved, and can by no means be shirked or shuffled out
of sight

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 209

"It is fair to admit, thinks Mr. Stephens, that the outlook
for the South is somewhat gloomy. We judge that his best hopes
lie in the two conditions above stated, a genuine loyalty to the
Union and justice to the negro. And he makes the remarkable
admission — especially remarkable for the second executive officer
of the rebel confederac}^ that ' during the whole lamentable con
flict it was my opinion that, however the pending strife might ter
minate, so far as the appeal to the sword was concerned, after
awhile, when the passions and excitement of the day should pass
away, an adjustment would be made on equitable principles, upon
a general basis of reciprocal ad\rantage and mutual convenience
on which the Union was first established.' That can only mean
that Mr. Stephens was from the first, hopeless of what is 'called
southern independence, and he now expressly declares that he
can see no reason why the good sense of the States shall not per
ceive their true interests to lie inside the Union — such a new
Union as he has described. Would that the States to which he
refers were of the same mind."

[From the New York Times.]

" The luxury of having speeches delivered in the heart of
Georgia, reported by telegraph, verbatim, for the New York
Times, is not one that may be every day indulged in. But the
elaborate, temperate, and judicious discourse of Mr. A. H. Ste
phens before the legislature of Georgia, which we publish in full
in other columns to-day, seems to us to justify the prominence
we give it. The day was one well chosen for the delivery of the
best Union speech heard in Georgia since the same speaker, five
years ago, with terribly prophetic truthfulness, depicted all the
horrors, and anguish, and bitterness, and blood which must
follow the treasonable attempt to overthrow the government and
destroy the Union. Mr. Stephens with good sense refuses to go
over the terrible experience of the intervening years. He points
briefly to the fearful damages that have to be repaired. But his
discourse is mainly with the present, with the duties which the
actual situation demand — his references to the past being mainly
illustrations from history of what is possible in the adjustment
14

210 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

of great public questions l>y an appeal from the sword to the
arena of peaceful discussions and legislative deliberations.

" The temper of Mr. Stephens' address leaves nothing to be
wished for. It is a response, frank, manly, and evidently sin
cere, to the restoration policy of the executive. It comes not
only from a clear and acute thinker, but from a representative
southern man. It indicates where the intelligence of the South
is to be found to-day on the vital question of submission to the
supreme law. ' Bad humor,' says Mr. Stephens ; ' ill temper,
exhibited either in restlessness or grumbling, will not hasten
restoration.' Again he says : ' The first step toward local or
general harmony, is the banishment from our breasts of every
feeling and sentiment calculated to stir the discords of the past.'
The question whether Georgia was out of the Union by the
secession ordinance of 1861, Mr. Stephens holds to be of no
practical account to-day. What his fellow-citizens have to recog
nize, he urges, is, that ' the whole United States is now our coun
try, to be cherisJied and defended as such by all our hearts and
all our arms.1

11 Mr. Stephens' faith in the President's restoration policy is
expressed in no equivocal terms. And if, as we believe, he inter
prets aright the political sentiment of the intelligent people of
the South, the Executive, and the Union party here that sustain
his policy, will not find themselves embarrassed by any solicita
tions for sectional favors or immediate representation, which are
not founded in ceason, and called for on the very highest grounds
of political expediency and absolute right.

" It is important that Mr. Stephens' speech should be read in
every quarter throughout the North. It is time that the era of
good feeling should open. Here, at least, is a fair occasion for
beginning anew a friendly interchange of sentiment — free entirely
from party narrowness or partisan malignity. The country de
mands that instead of exhausting measures for the perpetuation
of sectional hatreds, there shall be occasions made, if they do not
otherwise arise, for applying the influence of kind words and tem
perate counsel. The grand demonstration of Thursday must in
this respect produce a most healthy influence. And that influence,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 211

we venture to think, will be greatly strengthened and stimulated
by this appeal from the foremost public man of the South."

[From the Commercial Gazette.]

" We publish in full the address delivered by Alexander H.
Stephens, before the Georgia legislature, on the 22d of February.
It will be only less celebrated than his last appeal for the Union,
before the overt acts of treason and the outburst of war, made in
the same place, and before the same body, five years ago. Mr.
Stephens has not lost any of his old time ability in stating a case,
and has spoken on this occasion evidently not to make a sensa
tion, but to moderate excitements, and inculcate sentiments of
charity and good will, as the best restorative of a people beaten
in arms and broken in fortune. We presume he possesses more
influence than any other southern man ; and it is one of the good
signs of the times that he is so clear-sighted and plain-spoken as
to the actual situation in the South, and the duty of the southern
people toward the freedmen. If the advice given by Mr. Stephens
as to the treatment of the blacks were generally followed by the
class to whom it is addressed, and it was made apparent that the
views he advances regarding the protection and education of the
freed, but almost helpless, and exceedingly ignorant people, the
Freedmen's Bureau would be abolished in three months, with the
full consent of all, except those interested in its continuance. "

[From the Louisville Journal.]

" Mr. Stephens, by request, delivered an address on the 22d
before both houses of the Georgia legislature, which will be found
in this morning's Journal. We recommend its attentive perusal.
It is worthy of it. It ought to be read dispassionately by every
man and woman in the country, North and South. It is calcu
lated to do good. It was evidently designed to do good, and it
will do good if reason and fraternity have not fled the land. Let
no one be deterred in digesting it on account of its length. It
could not well have been shorter, and might well have been longer.
We hope it will be printed by every paper in the country. The
people Not Mi and the people South ought to know in what spirit

212 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

and to what intent one of the ablest intellects in the United
States, whose lot is identified with the States lately in revolt, ad
dresses the legislature that has lately elected him senator, and
indirectly, the whole South and the whole country. Its tone is
admirable. Nothing, indeed, could be better, more truly liberal,
or more truly loyal. Mr. Stephens comprehends the whole great
question of reconciliation, of union, and of peace.

" ' No pent up Utica contracts his powers.'

" He speaks like one burdened with the good of his whole
country ; and his words come freighted with wisdom. He speaks
like a Christian, a statesman, and a philosopher. He does not
seek to be eloquent, yet he is eloquent. He is subdued almost to
sadness in view of the momentous issues of the hour, and he is so
because his eagle eye runs through and through them ; because he
understands them ; because he grasps somewhat of their indescri
bable greatness and importance. It is utterly inconceivable to
us how any man can rise from the perusal of that address with
out having the conviction ineffaceably fixed upon his mind, that
the author of it is truly and thoroughly loyal to the constitution
and to the Union, and to the best interests of this entire country.
Every throb that runs through it is a heart-throb of devoted loy
alty. It counsels patience and forbearance. It inculcates mod
eration. It accepts unreservedly the free basis. It asks for
complete protection to the persons and property of the freedmen.
It pleads sublimely for charity. It utters no harsh word. It
indulges in no recriminations. It reasons upon facts as they
exist, and it draws from them lessons of brotherhood and good
will for the benefit of all the people of all these great American
States and sections. It recognizes no clashing interests among
them.

" Mr. Stephens sees and knows that American nationality is a
unit. The American people must live together as one great
family ; and profoundly convinced of this, he appreciates the su
preme importance of the cultivation, among all classes, of those
feelings of amity, and mutual respect and confidence, which lie
at the foundation of all harmony, and are the very sources of

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 213

strength and prosperity in a country. His effort is a powerful
plea for pacification and reconciliation, for the extirpation of all
feuds, and the thorough eradication of that spirit of sectional
antagonisn which produced the bitter fruits, the apples of Sodoin,
which we have all tasted, and which turned to ashes on our pal
ates. Would to God that all our public men, our legislators and
magistrates ; that all editors and writers, North and South, would
imbibe and exhibit the spirit of this address of the great Geor
gian. If they would do this, if they would all do this, the effect,
it seems to us, would be — and we speak it reverently — like the
voice of the Son of Man, commanding the winds and the waters
to be still, when he said, ' Let there be peace,' and there was
peace.

" In our judgment, just in proportion as men, public or private,
comprehend the condition and true interests of this country, of
the people of this whole country, just in that ratio will they
manifest a spirit similar to that which lives and breathes through
every word and line of this most appropriate, most loyal, most
national address of Mr. Stephens. He realizes how mighty and
infuriate were the passions which leaped from the red gulf of
blood and war, and how they yet rankle in a multitude of hearts,
smaller than his, and hence he is not very sanguine of ultimate
results. He does not seem to think our American experiment of
self-government has been quite finished or vindicated. There
will be, doubtless, sneers at this portion of his address, but they
will come from men who have not his intellect, who do not see the
high mountain peaks and the deep abysses of the great future
with a vision so clear and piercing as his is. Let him who thinks
he stands, take heed lest he fall. We confess, that we, at times,
profoundly sympathize with his apprehensions. When we wit
ness the bad spirit which prevails so extensively in some quar
ters — a spirit which seemed to have learned nothing by the war,
or the events which produced the war, and which appears incapa
ble of learning any thing from any source or in any school, it is'
certainly almost enough to dampen and chill the most buoyant
hopes. But it is a great virtue not to despair of the Republic. We
must have confidence in the ultimate triumph of reason over pas-

214 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

sion, and in the strength of the appliances which, we trust, will
never be wanting to insure the success of the self-governing prin
ciple over the multiform and mighty obstacles with which it has
to contend. Let us hold on to our great charter of freedom with
a grapple which nothing can loose. Let us imitate the noblest, and
not the meanest of mankind. Let us make a herculean effort to
catch this spirit of charity and tolerance. Let us drink at the
fountain of Mount Vernon, and take lessons at the tomb of
Franklin."

[From the Augusta (Georgia) Constitutionalist.]

" The recent address of the Hon. Alexander H. Stephens before
the general assembly of Georgia, is being published broadcast
through the North and West, winning golden opinions from
friend and foe. A few jaundiced radical journals, chronically
blind to any good that may come out of Nazareth, assail it mildly,
on the score of sincerity ; asserting that, however it may be a
fair reflex of Mr. Stephens' individual sentiments, it is not a key
note of southern temper and opinion. From the many criticisms
we have been industriously collating, that of the New York
Times is selected as most judicious and forcible ; mainly, too,
because this journal is a bow-shot beyond any republican organ
in conservatism, and a correct exponent of the popular will. It
can be presented as the most enlightened precursor of a new
party, which will shake the Jacobin pagoda to its foundation.

" Mr. Stephens' speech is intended, of course, to sink deep into
the hearts of his countrymen, but it is likewise vocal for posteri
ty, and aimed at the intelligence of the North. We, who imme
diately surround him, may fail to appreciate it thoroughly from
its very nearness ; but the remote North has already caught the
magic of its utterance, and those who live after us will cherish it
as the wholesome counsel of a great man, who compromises no
principle, but advises for the best when evil seems insurmounta
ble. We say that our people cannot properly regard this speech,
because of their proximity to the artist. How shall this be better
illustrated than by the achievement of the old Greek sculptor.
His massive statue, when placed upon the ground, looked rough

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 215

and uncouth : but, reared upon the Partheon, its rugged outlines
were mellowed by altitude, and all its thorough symmetry came
out in the relief of perfect majesty. So with this memorable
speech. The far North recognizes the divine art of the master
in his work, and, niched in the Partheon of time, our children
shall hail it as most worthy among the grand efforts of our intel
lectual Phidias."

[From the New Orleans Picayune of March llth, 1866.]

" In a speech, lately delivered before the Georgia legislature,
and published by one of our contemporaries in this city, we
clearly discover the master hand of Georgia's most renowned and
gifted son. We could readily have assigned the authorship of
this address to Mr. Stephens, without a positive knowledge of
the fact that it is his. Wise and moderate, forcible and earnest,
delivered in unostentatious terms, lucid and truthful, conviction
follows every sentence, and we pause in admiration of that great
intellect, which seems equal to any emergency.

" It is well known that Mr. Stephens long opposed secession,
and only yielded his opinion in obedience to the command of his
beloved Georgia. At various periods during the war, he strove
to set on foot negotiations which he hoped would end it ; but his
policy was to a great extent overruled. Had it been otherwise,
we doubt not that a deplorable waste of life and the revolting
horrors of war would to a great extent have been averted.

" We have heard the assertion made, that Mr. Stephens is ' all
intellect,' yet where shall we find a heart more benevolent ? In
the address before us, referring to emancipated slaves, he says :
'Legislation should ever look to the protection of the weak
against the strong,' and this principle he advocates and estab
lishes with all the cogency of argument and strength of diction,
which make hin» irresistible. Again he counsels cheerful sub
mission to the laws, a spirit of conciliation and charity, by every
motive of expediency and of honor.

" Mr. Stephens is a man who has made his mark on the age —
as an orator, he is unsurpassed, possessing, in wonderful degree,
that control over the human heart, and that power of convincing

216 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

the understanding, by which, like an overmastering torrent, he
bears along with him the sympathies of an audience, while the
paleness and delicacy of his face, the flashing light of his dark
and lustrous eye, and the musical intonations of his mellifluous
voice, hold his entranced hearers in mute attention —

" 'All soul, all fire, a revelation given,

As though some spirit spoke to earth from heav'n.'

11 Yet this lofty genius, with all the great endowments so
rarely bestowed on man, is coupled with a woman's tender and
pitying yearning over the afflicted and the oppressed. In
strength of will and firmness of resolve, a match for the lion-
hearted Richard of England, his gentle accents and bounteous
hands are accustomed to soothe the ear of sickness and scare
away the demon of poverty. The good angel of the hospital, the
fosterer of friendless talent, the encourager of worth, he is no
less loved in private life than he is honored in halls of counsel.
His speech is before the world, and we dare affirm that its influ
ence on the public mind will be productive of the happiest
results.

" Mr. Stephens' health is feeble, but we hope, for the good of
his country, that length of days and physical strength, necesnry
to the discharge of his responsible duties, may be vouchsafed to
a statesman so dear to the people, so qualified to adorn our halls
of legislation.

"A beautiful trait in the character of the great Georgian, is his
perfect truthfulness (we speak from our own personal knowledge
of him), his word is his bond — strong as the rock of Gibraltar,
and never to be falsified, be the consequence what it may. No
shuffling, no evasion, no mysticism, does the crystal of his
nature allow. ' I will,' or ' I will not,' are the curt, unmistakable
annunciations of his position, whatever it may De.

" There is a reverence in his nature, which, without parade,
submits all things to the will of Him who rules amongst the
armies of heaven and the inhabitants of earth — the God of bat
tles and of nations, in whose hands we are, and to whose provi-

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 217

dence we, like Mr. Stephens, commit ourselves in this our day
of trial and humiliation."

From Europe we gather but one notice, as we have taken up
so much space already.

[From the Cosmopolitan of London and Paris, March 17th, 1866.]

"Mr. Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, delivered* an address
before the legislature of that State, on Washington's birthday,
the 22d of last month. This address was considered by one of
the leading journals of the North important enough to be tele
graphed entire, and accordingly we find it occupying four closely
printed columns of the New York Times, the recognized organ of
the Administration. Considering the occasion, the speaker, and
the momentous nature of the subjects dilated upon, the speech
merits the importance attached to it. It is such a political ad
dress as is, we take it, not often heard in America — calm, logical,
deriving its eloquence mostly from its large and generous ideas
— though not devoid of the graces of language — and informed
throughout with the spirit of a ripe, liberal, and noble political
philosophy. It is an effort that recalls the first race of American
statesmen. Mr. Stephens counsels submission, and a full and
honest acceptance of the issues of the war, but he abates not one
jot or tittle in the rights of the States under the constitution. He
claims for Georgia a place in the restored Union as the equal of
each and all of those States that fought to preserve that Union,
as still the indisputable co-heiress of the past and the future.

" The address is, indeed, deserving of the attention and com
mendations it has received from the conservative journals of the
North."

The following is the close of that speech of February 22d,
1866, of which the foregoing notices were made :

" But we shall have still left all the essentials of free govern
ment, contained and embodied in the old constitution, untouched
and unimpaired as they came from the hands of our fathers.
"With these, even if we had to begin entirely anew, the prospect
before us would be much more encouraging than the prospect

218 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

was before them, when they fled from the oppressions of the old
world, and sought shelter and homes in this, then wilderness,
land. The liberties we begin with, they had to achieve. With
the same energies and virtues they displayed, we have much more
to cheer us than they had. With a climate unrivalled in salu
brity, with a soil unsurpassed in fertility, and with products un
equalled in «value in the markets of the world, to say nothing of
our mineral resources, we shall have much still to wed us to the
good old land. With good government — the matrix from which
alone spring all great human achievements — we shall lack nothing
but our own proper exertions, not only to recover our former
prosperity, but to attain a much higher degree of development,
in every thing that characterizes a great, free, and happy people.
At least, I know of no other land that the sun shines upon that
offers better prospects under the contingencies stated.

" The old Union was based upon the assumption, that it was
for the best interest of the people of all the States to be united
as they were, each State faithfully performing to the people of
the other States all their obligations under the common compact.
I always thought this assumption was founded upon broad, cor
rect, and statesmanlike principles. I think so yet. It was only
when it seemed to be impossible further to maintain it, without
hazarding greater evils than would, perhaps, attend a separation,
that I yielded my assent, in obedience to the voice of Georgia, to
try the experiment which has just resulted so disastrously to us.
Indeed, during the whole lamentable conflict, it was my opinion
that, however the pending strife might terminate, so far as the
appeal to the sword was concerned, yet, after awhile, when the
passions and excitements of the day should pass away, an adjust
ment or arrangement would be made upon continental principles,
upon the general basis of ' reciprocal advantage and mutual con
venience,' on which the Union was first established. My earnest
desire, however, throughout, was, whatever might be done, might
be peacefully done — might be the result of calm, dispassionate,
and enlightened reason, looking to the permanent interests and
welfare of all. And now, after the severe chastisement of war,
if the general sense of the whole country shall come back to the

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 219

acknowledgment of the original assumption, that it is for the
best interests of all the States to be so united, as I trust it will —
the States still being ' separate as the billows, but one as the sea'
— I can perceive no reason why, under such restoration, we, as a
whole, with ' peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all na
tions, and entangling alliances with none,' may not enter upon a
new career, exciting increased wonder in the old world, by
grander achievements hereafter to be made, than airy heretofore
attained, by the peaceful and harmonious workings of our Amer
ican institutions of self-government. All this is possible, if the
hearts of the people be right. It is my earnest wish to see it.
Fondly would I indulge my fancy in gazing on such a picture of
the future. With what rapture may we not suppose the spirits
of our fathers would hail its opening scenes from their mansions
above. Such are my hopes, resting on such contingencies. But
if, instead of all this, the passions of the day shall continue to
bear sway; if prejudice shall rule the hour; if a conflict of races
shall arise ; if ambition shall turn the scale ; if the sword shall be
thrown in the balance against patriotism ; if the embers of the
late war shall be kept a glowing until, with new fuel, the}' shall
flame up again, then our present gloom is but the shadow, the
penumbra of that deeper and darker eclipse which is to totally
obscure this hemisphere, and blight forever the anxious anticipa
tions and expectations of mankind ! Then, hereafter, by some
bard, it may be sung :

" ' The star of Hope shone brightest in the West,
The hope of Liberty, the last, the best ;
That, too, has set, upon her darkened shore,
And Hope and Freedom light up earth no more.'

" May we not all, on this occasion, on this anniversary of the
birthday of Washington, join in the fervent prayer to heaven,
that the Great lluler of events may avert from this land, such a
fall, such a fate, and such a requiem !"

This speech gave rise to a poem, under circumstances which
may excuse the writer for stating them, as well as for intro-

220 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

ducrag the poem itself. Because of the importance of the sub
ject and the occasion, the speech was prepared by Mr. Stephens
at home, it being, as before stated, the second political speech
ever written by him before delivery. The writer being at Lib
erty Hall at the time of its preparation, Mr. Stephens showed
him a paraphrased quotation from Campbell, which he had an
idea of using ; but which, however, he did not exactly like.
The writer thereupon submitted to him an impromptu verse,
which now makes the tenth of the poem, and asked him how
he liked that in lieu of the other. He said, very well; and
asked the writer where he got it. He told him he got it from
the inspiration of hearing him read the latter part of the speech.
" By your permission, then," he said, " I will adopt it." This
he accordingly did, with such changes as better suited his taste.
These will appear from comparing the verse as it now stands in
the speech with the original as it appears in the poem. On
his return home, after the delivery of the speech, he told the
writer that several inquiries had been made of him as to the
authorship of the verse, and commendation of it had been ex
pressed. He then suggested to the writer to make, on the same
theme, a poem, in which the verse should appear, and from
which it should seem to be quoted. The result of that sugges
tion was the following verses, written in attempted harmony
with the concluding part of the speech :

A EEQUIEM FOE THE LAND, IP LIBEETY IS LOST,
A land there was, toward the setting sun,
Fresh as if Eden were again begun ;
Two great twin oceans bathed the happy shore,
And Fancy looking, could not ask for more.

Arabia Felix* was not half so fair ;
" The Blessed Islands'^ seemed transplanted there ;
Pure women walked its flower-enameled sod,
And man was there — " The image of his God !"

* Arabia the happy.

f The Greeks located the " Blessed Islands" in the western seas.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 221

Heaven's holiest orbs lit its o'er-arching blue ;
Its laws were sacred, and its faith as true ;
While on its flag, protecting faith and law,
Both blue and stars, their radiant image saw.

Such was the land before its glory fled ;
And while were reverenced its holy dead,
From Nature's womb, the fairest child of morn,
Oppression's refuge — Freedom's latest born.

How that land perished, ask the saddened stars,
Or weeping angels at heaven's crystal bars ;
Or all the martyr dead, who died to save
Those sunset chambers by the western wave.

No deluge swept its blooming fields away,
Nor earthquakes swallowed cities in a day ;
Nor curse on atmosphere, or soil, or sea,
Blighted that garden of earth's latest Free.

Its daughters lived, the fairest of the earth ;
Still harp and timbrel led the dance of mirth ;
But the free stars upon its flag were furled,
And they, in fading, darkened all the world.

Some future sun may dissipate that night,
Or God creating, say, " Let there be light I"
But Pity wept that land's poor perished pride,
And Heaven shuddered when her HONOR died.

Good-will to each, and equal rights to all,
Was the blest creed that perished in her fall ;
' And mourning skies, beholding from afar,
Saw no such fall, since him, " The Morning Star."

The star of Hope shone latest in the West;
That dream of Empire was the last, the best ;
It, too, has set upon her darkening shore,
And Hope and Freedom visit earth no more.

Shall no Columbus find another world ?
Shall Freedom's ensign be no more unfurled ?
Shall no land be where the oppressed may come—
Its laws their refuge, and its hills their home ?

222 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

Must heavenly skies but spread o'er blasted hopes,
While troubled waters murmur down her slopes ?
And sky and water tell the sighing air,
That earth's last requiem is the word — Despair?

Oh, let us listen for some heaven-sent voice,
O'er western waves to shout aloud, Rejoice !
And bid once more, the guardian angels come
To fold their pinions on the hearth of home.

But our strained ears catch no sweet song afar,
Like that which followed Bethlehem's natal star,
"When angel feet the hills of Canaan trod,
And stooping heaven proclaimed the Son of God.

No prophet angel shouts, " She lives again !"
No new Columbus ploughs the boiling main :
And Hope and Freedom, from the eternal shore,
Look sadly back, while heavens sigh — " No MORE."

On the 16th day of April, 1866, Mr. Stephens being in
Washington city, was summoned before the Reconstruction Com
mittee of Congress, and gave the EVIDENCE which we copy in
this volume in full from the National Intelligencer of the 17th
of that month. From the thousands of comments upon it from
the public press, we cull the following :

[From the National Republican, Washington City, D. C., April 18th, 1866.]
* * # * * * *

" It is a strange coincidence that the evidence of Mr. Stephens,
a high rebel official, in all main points corroborates that of the
republican Federal officer from Arkansas. With the exception
of the number of those who engaged in the Federal service, and
the previous Union sentiments of those that Georgia has chosen
to represent her in the national councils, the story of the former
is the story of the latter. From Mr. Stephens we have the same
statement of complete submission to present circumstances.
The policy of secession is universally abandoned ; the unani
mous desire is for a return to the national relations with the coun
try ; the undivided sentiment is for obedience to and participa-

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 223

tion with the United States government. In that lies all their
chances or calculations for the future. Georgia, too, has given
the death-blow to slavery ; has repudiated rebel obligations, and
has, by the most emphatic legislation, placed her colored citizens
upon equal privileges, and subjected them to similar penalties
for misdemeanors with the white race, conceding thereby every
thing which was mooted as necessary while the stern struggle
for national existence was progressing. Mr. Stephens considers
Georgia loyal, and defines loyalty ' to be loyal to law, order, and
the constitution — to support the government under the constitu
tion.' That definition is good enough for us. It is the one
which the founders of this republic originated — which this heroic
generation rushed to arms in order to demonstrate at the dread
tribunal of war ; and it is one which will be accepted as final by
our intelligent fellow-countrymen, who will hail, with feelings of
unmingled gratitude, its adoption throughout the broad domain
of their country. Mr. Stephens says that the conduct of the
negro race is 'much better than the most hopeful looked for.'
Such testimony is cause for rejoicing, and is of more value to
that unfortunate race than all the bureau or Civil Rights bills
that human wisdom or human folly can devise. Mr. Stephens
also says, for himself, ' I should not be individually opposed to a
proper system of limited or restricted suffrage' to the colored
population. He believes, as does every constitutional American,
that this is a question solely within the jurisdiction of the States.
We regard his opinion as of great weight. It is entitled to
respect, not only from his connection with the lamentable con
spiracy against his government, but from his long career of
statesmanship in the olden days, aud his superior talents and
vast influence with his community, which no sane man will under
rate. If the negro of the South ever rises in the scale of society —
ever becomes endowed with the dignity of franchise, it will be
by the efforts and examples of such men as A. H. Stephens, of
Georgia."

[From the New York Times.]

" The same philosophical characteristics that distinguished the
speeches of Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, appear in his testimony.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

recently given before the Committee on Reconstruction. It differs
very strikingly in several respects, and in none more than in its
vein of philosophy, from the testimony of General Lee. Lee de
clined to indulge in speculative fancies ; refused to go below the
surface, or to set forth any thing that was not quite palpable
upon the face of it. He could hardly be drawn into the answer
ing of questions involving political views, and was cautious to the
last degree as to the force and bearing of every word he uttered.
Stephens was more open and free, more explicit and exact, as
well as more rhetorical, less dubious, and less fearful ; and was
not backward in exhibiting what of course he possesses — a far more
thorough knowledge of political influences and laws, and a far
more extensive apprehension of the springs of human action and
the forces that govern the popular will.

" The two names just mentioned are those of the two foremost
men in the Southern States. The testimony of no other party or
parties could be of equal importance or historical value, unless it
were that of Jefferson Davis.

" We are by no means committing ourselves to the political
philosophy of Stephens, as set forth in his testimony, when we say
that in many particulars it possesses the characteristics that are
ordinarily designated statesmanlike. Stephens displays a faith
more or less firm in principle, and a profound regard for that
which is expedient. Mistaken frequently in the apprehension of
truth — as in his celebrated ' corner-stone' blunder — he yet ex
hibits a perpetual tendency to base himself on broad and estab
lished doctrines ; but, when the application of any one of those
doctrines to the circumstances of practical life is palpably impos
sible, he would either ignore it altogether, or, for the time being,
subordinate it. He declares himself, for example, to have been a
Union man at the epoch of secession ; but finding secession in
evitable and the Confederacy an accomplished fact, he became a
leader of the new Confederacy, in order that he might do all in
his power to rescue and perpetuate the principles established in
the old constitution and the political forms established in the
original Union. So now, again, he is still a believer in the ' sep
arate sovereignty of the several States,' though it will be observed

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 225

he does not now reiterate as strongly as he proclaimed in the
South two or three years ago, the ' ultimate, absolute sovereignty'
of each State ; but while, as he alleges, his ' convictions on the
original abstract questions have undergone no change,' he accepts
the issue of the war as settling it finally against his views.

" Mr. Stephens sets forth views analogous in principle to his
own, as having controlled the action of the southern people in
the past, and as still controlling it. Circumstances, such as the
secession of South Carolina, compelled the citizens of Georgia
to act against their own convictions, and though Unionists in
principle, they fell into, indorsed, and fought for the destructive
policy of disunion. They had always believed, however, that the
State had the right of secession, and though Mr. Stephens is cau
tious on this subject, remarking that ' some may have changed
their opinion in this respect, but it would be an unusual thing, as
well as a difficult matter, for a whole people to change their con
victions upon abstract principles,' yet he reiterates with great
force that the entire State, like himself, has accepted the result
of the war on this question, or on these questions, as final, and
will in no case bring them again into dispute in the arena of war.
They tried war, he says, for the maintenance of their rights, but
having found that it destroyed them all, they will now and hence
forth seek their maintenance only by ways of peace.

" It is not in the novelty of Mr. Stephens' statements that their
interest and value lie ; but as furnishing the ablest analysis of the
grounds of Southern political action, and as personal narration
of the processes of his own intellect, during two great historical
crises, they are of enduring interest."

[From the Richmond Dispatch.]

"We publish this morning the evidence of Mr. Stephens given
before the Committee on Reconstruction. Frankly, truthfully,
and ably did Mr. Stephens reply to the Pharisees and Saddu-
cees. Their artful and entrapping questions were turned against
themselves. Mr. Stephens has more sense than all of them com
bined, and more patriotism to boot. Their whole study and voca
tion is to malign the South and excite against her the indignation
15

226 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

of the northern people, that thus they and their party may control
the officers, and the emoluments, and the fat shoddy contracts of
the government. To this it is that the welfare and peace of a
nation must be subordinate."

[From the Baltimore Sun.]

" The testimony given by Hon. A. H. Stephens, of Georgia,
before the Reconstruction Committee of Congress must have
arrested the attention of every thinking mind throughout the
country. No man is better informed upon the sentiments and
opinions of the people of the South than Mr. Stephens, and there
is no one whose testimony could be more clearly and candidly
given than his has been. It is worth to those who desire the
means of forming correct judgment for themselves whole volumes
of such crude conjectures and hearsay declarations as the com
mittee gathered and poured upon the public on the eve of the
New Hampshire and Connecticut elections.

" Mr. Stephens defines so clearly and precisely the difference
between the abstract speculative opinions of the southern people
upon the doctrine of secession and the opinions and views in re
gard to it as a practical and rational means for redressing politi
cal grievances, in view of what has occurred during the war, that
those enemies of reconstruction who found an argument against
the admission of the southern States upon their continued adher
ence to those opinions as abstract opinions are left without decent
excuse for their position. If, as Mr. Stephens tells us, there is a
settled conviction in the mind of the South that an appeal to the
forums of reason and justice, to the halls of legislation, and to
the courts, for the preservation of constitutional liberty, is the ap
propriate and only practical remedy, and not the conflict of arms,
then those who will see, cannot fail to perceive that there can be no
more danger to the peace and safety of the country from restoring
the relations of the States than there is in confiding the preserva
tion of our institutions to the keeping of any other men who may
recognize the right of revolution as an inherent right in society
whenever the ends of government are perverted and public liberty
manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffec-

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 227

tual. The clamor will doubtless be raised by some that the cloven
foot of secession is plainly revealed in the testimony of Mr. Ste
phens, and that there is danger so long as a fibre of the pestilent
heresy can be traced in the public mind ; but the good sense and
candor of the American people will not be deceived by such empty
noise.

" In another particular the testimony of Mr. Stephens is equally
significant and valuable to those who wish to form a right judg
ment of the policy to be pursued toward the southern States. It
is as to the moral character of the motives which induced the
southern people to embrace the war. They were not, he main
tains, instigated by any dislike of, or desire to overthrow the
principles of, constitutional liberty or the form of government
under which we live, but that they were as much devoted to them
as any people ever were to any cause, and they resorted to seces
sion not for the purpose of overthrowing but as a means by which
they might more securely maintain those principles and institu
tions. Grant, therefore, as they freely do, that they were mourn
fully mistaken in that particular — that they have gathered an
experience too dearly purchased to be soon forgotten — still it
remains that the blight of infamy cannot attach to them for
mistaking the proper means of securing and maintaining what,
in common with the supporters of the Union, they prize above
every thing else. Nor is it just or wise to brand with the name
of traitor, men whose hearts were throughout loyal to constitu
tional liberty. To-day those men can be as safely trusted with
the guardianship of the Union as any in the land. Perhaps it is
not too much to say that they know better how to value its bless
ings by knowing how much it has cost them to be separated from
its protecting influences, and hx>w sadly and disastrously they
erred in the measures to which mistaken zeal compelled them.

"Mr. Stephens' testimony is valuable in another particular.
Showing that the States have in good faith accepted and returned
cordially to their allegiance to the constitution, he shows that
they are unwilling to submit to injustice at the hands of Congress,
or to accept as conditions of restoration terms which that body
has no constitutional power to exact, and that the position of

228 , ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

unionists and disunionists is so far reversed between them and
the central directory, which still insists upon their exclusion
except upon guarantees unknown to the organic law, that the
epithet of disunionists belongs of right to those who obstruct, and
not to the people of the South, who ardently and honestly desire
to return to the Union. There are many minor points of great
interest in the testimony of Mr. Stephens ; indeed ever}^ part of
it is replete with comprehensive views and just and manly senti
ments. We have only adverted to the more prominent points,
in the belief that the attention which is fastened upon them will
be directed afterward to every topic upon which he spoke in the
course of his examination."

[From the Richmond (Va.) Daily Examiner.]

11 The evidence of Mr. Stephens of Georgia, before the Recon
struction Committee, has just been published ; and while we can
not agree with some of his opinions upon principles, we have
every reason to believe that he is correct in all his statements of
facts. We know of no man whose testimony should be received
by all sections with more confidence than that of A. H. Stephens.
He has never been known as a partisan ; seems never to have in
dulged in prejudices ; and in times of greatest passion and excite
ment he has remained calm and cool, without a smile or frown
for any thing, impassive and self-poised. With but little of the
' grand' about him, he has always struck us as being rather
' gloomy and peculiar.' But those very characteristics that quite
unfitted him for some of the great roles of life, mark him as a re
liable witness or an impartial judge. We confess to have had
very little admiration for some of his idiosyncracies, but for his
uprightness, his clear judgment, and his unblemished record as a
man and statesman, we have had the greatest respect.

" One main point upon which the vice-president of the late
confederacy is especially full, emphatic, and satisfactory, is that
Georgia will not agree to any further concessions ; that she will
not accept her equality in the Union upon any conditions prece
dent, and that she will rather exist as she may without that
equality than purchase it by any unworthy price. We are glad

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 229

to see that Georgia is of one mind with her southern sisters ; and
Mr. Stephens is to be thanked by every friend to States-Rights
for the clear and forcible way in which he puts the case and
enunciates the principle."

* #• * * # *

But we have already extended these extracts quite far enough
and close this branch of our subject with the following beautiful
compliment from the pen of the poet editor of the central States
— George D. Prentice :

" It is a sublime spectacle to see a man like Alexander H. Ste
phens, just returned from the confines of a northern prison, wasted
in health and in means, exhorting his countrymen to patience and
Christian forbearance. Let all Christian men emulate his noble
example. Good government is what we want. This can be
obtained only through patience, forbearance, and charity, by parti
sans of both sections."

230 ALEXANDEK H. STEPHENS.

IX.
CONCLUDING KEMARKS.

IT has not been any part of our plan to attempt a connected
biographical sketch of Mr. Stephens, but rather to afford
glimpses, like the occasional lights that adorn the shadows of
the forest. All life is a thing of light and shade, and we would
only paint the sunshine, knowing that enough cloud-land will
blend at all events with all earthly pictures. We do not say
that Mr. Stephens has no faults, that he has committed no
errors, for sin is the heritage of us all, and perfection but the
dream of the angels. We only say that we have known Mr.
Stephens long ; known him in public and private life ; known
him in those unguarded hours, and seen him in those moments
of temptation when the great enemy of souls aims at the vul
nerable heel of every mortal Achilles ; and we simply bear tes
timony that he has as few faults as any man we ever knew.
When good and ill are put into the great scales of God, which
hang

" 'Twixt Astrea and the Scorpion sign"

in heaven, and Justice weighs our worth, all of us will have
much need of mercy.

He is distinguished for kindness, uprightness, and benevo
lence. He is strictly moral, and has no bad habits or vices,
and indulges in no kind of dissipation. In temperance he is
strict, and while not objecting to an occasional glass of wine, he
eschews the habitual use of intoxicating liquors, and never
tastes distilled spirits save as a medicine. This is sometimes a
necessity from the exhaustion of speaking. He has often been
heard so say that he was never intoxicated in his life, and never
swore an oath, nor bet a cent of money.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 231

Mr. Stephens lias often shown his appreciation of the help
rendered him in boyhood, by thus helping others. Thirty-six
young men have been educated by him; many of whom now
adorn the pulpit, the bar, and other honorable vocations.

Of the unostentatious aid that he has given the destitute, the
widow and the orphan, of the naked clad, the hungry fed, the
debtor loaned or given money, the soldier and his family cared
for and supported, the sick and wounded foeman of the North
visited and consoled, his young kindred of both sexes educated
and prepared for life's great battle, and not less useful if less
costly, his patient counsel and direction of the weak and erring,
and the precept and example of honest life ; all this must be
gathered' by the wayside from the recipients, for he talks not
of it. Charity, like mercy,

" Is not strained ;

It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath ; it is twice blessed —
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes —
Tis mightiest in the mightiest ; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
It is an attribute of God himself."

The best evidence of his manner of life, and its uses, is
found in the fact of his utter disregard of money, except as a
means of doing good. He has made much over one hundred
thousand dollars at the practice of law, and yet his whole estate
to-day is not worth over ten thousand dollars, and he has
wasted no money and sustained no losses in either speculation
or trade. It has gone in the continual drain of the thousand
streamlets of charity.

He never kept an overseer on his plantation. It was carried
on by his servants under his direction by letters while he was
in Washington and Kichrnond.

His negroes all remain with him, all work well, and seem
happy, cheerful, and contented. It is their special boast that
they belong to " Mass Alic," while in his popularity and suc
cess they feel as much interest as if they were of his kindred.

232 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

In Mr. Stephens' collection of photographs, are some fine
views, recently taken, of both his birthplace and his village
home. Of the former, by the way, only the hearth-stones re
main on the spot. Among the home views, are two groups of
his family negroes, which he much prizes. One of them is of
his old servants, "Uncle Dick" and "Aunt Mat," or Eichard and
Martha. We regret our inability to reproduce them among
the home engravings of this book.

He never bought any negroes save at their own earnest re
quest, for the accommodation of themselves and families.
These two were bought in that way, and for many years before
the war were comfortably supported, without rendering any
service in return. " Uncle Dick" is now about eighty years
old, and his wife "Martha" about seventy. They still have all
their wants supplied by him, from whose door the needy,
whether white or black, never went away empty. He supports
and provides for another pensioner (" Uncle Ben") down at the
old homestead.

We could fill many pages with stories and reminiscences of
him, which his servants delight in telling to strangers — some
of kindness, some of benevolence, some of humor — but this bio
graphical sketch is already swelling beyond its intended limits.

In social qualities Mr. Stephens shines without intention or
effort. His kind, genial face wins its way at once to the heart,
and the stranger guest, approaching the great Georgian with
reverential awe, finds himself exchanging witticisms, reminis
cences, and anecdotes with a happy looking school-boy, who
has a wrinkled face and wonderful eyes. At the dinner -table,
with a pet dog or two awaiting notice and scraps from the
table ; with fat negro children looking into the door or boldly
entering for the " bread and butter," which they like best from
his hands ; with no inspiration but cold water or creamy milk ;
thus minutes lengthen into hours, as he tells of the fellow im
mortals who, with him, strode across the boards of the nation's
great stage ; of the polished but harmless wit that irradiated the

ALEXANDEK H. STEPHENS. 233

Georgia bar in its meridian days ; of the noble deeds that others
have done ; of the grand thoughts that have fallen from other
lips, and of the great and holy purposes that still, like the ashes
of flowers, breathe fragrance around the altars of our eommon
country. His prime was among those, who in other days would
have been assigned places in the constellations, or been deified
upon mythological altars ; men who have made their country's
best history and glory. As his genial eloquence spreads out
the intellectual scenery of the western world in its noontide
hour, the guest forgets that one of the mightiest actors of the
drama is the modest gentleman sitting by his side.

Yet, in his gayest humor, Mr. Stephens seldom tells a story
or an anecdote, but in illustration of truth in fact or philosophy.
On the hustings the shafts of his keen wit play like the light
nings, and the convulsed laughter or irrepressible shout of the
audience, is the evidence that the splendid flash went with the
thunderbolt that consumed his opponent. In brief, whether in
social qualities, brilliant wit, convincing eloquence, womanly
kindness, or delicate and unobtrusive sympathy, he has few
equals and, perhaps, no superiors.

Mr. Stephens is a man of extensive reading and varied acquire
ments. He is fond of books of science, travel, philosophy, and
history, but in theology has but one text-book, the little Bible
that is always by him on the small table. Few divines are
more familiar with its sacred text than he. He reads the better
works of Victor Hugo, Dickens, and others like them, and the
works of all the great masters in prose or verse. His favorite
poets are Milton, Shakespeare, Pope, Byron, Burns, and Gray.

He says that Burns' short poem addressed to a " young
friend," contains more true ethics and real chivalry than is
to be found in whole tomes of volumes written upon the same
subject. In his speeches at the bar before mentioned, he often
quotes with wonderful effect from his favorite poets. We have
said but little of his speeches at the bar, because they were all
entirely extemporaneous, and were never reported. "We have

234 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

some vivid descriptions of some of them by those who heard
them, but want of space forbids their introduction. In one of
these, in the county of Green, on the trial of a woman, poor,
desolate, and unable to employ counsel, and for whom Mr.
Stephens appeared without fee or reward, his quotation of
the lines from Burns beginning with — •

" Then gently scan your brother man,
Stitt gentler sister, ivoman, etc."

can never be forgotten by those who heard it. The whole
speech was electrical. The court-room at first filled with
mirth, soon became grave, and then melted to tears. The
evidence against his client being strong, though circumstantial,
was not deemed positive ; an acquittal was the result. Judge
Harris, who presided, in giving an account of this wonderful
speech, says to the author :

" This was the only case, either civil or criminal, tried before
me whilst on the bench of the Superior Court, in which my
admonitions were unheeded by the jury."

Few men have his power of swaying an audience with a few
simple words, whether his own or borrowed.

One reason of the early and brilliant success at the bar, of
which we have before spoken, was the fixed rule he adopted of
never taking a case until it was thoroughly examined, and he
was satisfied that the suitor applying for redress was entitled
to it under the law. He has never made a charge for advice
or legal opinion since his admission to the bar; never bringing
a case without being perfectly conversant with the law affecting
it, and having, as he supposed, the right on his side, he seldom
failed in the end. He was never non-suited in a case in his
life. He has defended many people charged with capital
offences, and some have been found guilty and sentenced to
death ; but he has always succeeded in getting new trials in
the court below, or the Supreme Court, thereby securing final
acquittal or a mitigation of punishment. None were ever

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 235

executed, in all his vast practice of thirty-two years. His
usual course was not to appear against any person charged with
an offence involving life, and in no case did he ever do so,
unless satisfied beyond doubt, not only of guilt, but that there
were no mitigating circumstances.

On several occasions, where parties were likely to become
victims of popular prejudice, he has volunteered, and saved the
accused. In his own county, some years since, he saw that a
slave woman was about to be convicted of an attempt to murder
by poisoning. The evidence before the judge and jury was
very strong, but all circumstantial. He, however, became con
vinced of her innocence, and volunteered in her defence.
Before he closed, the judge and audience were well satisfied of
the same. The jury were out but a short time, and when they
returned with a verdict of acquittal, it was received with gen
eral satisfaction. The woman still lives, and often visits Lib
erty Hall, to testify her gratitude to him whom she regards as,
under Providence, her preserver.

The establishment at Liberty Hall, since Mr. Stephens' re
turn from Fort Warren, is kept up just as it was before the
war. No change is observable in any particular. Harry Ste
phens, the faithful servant, who nursed him in some of his
severest illnesses, and who has so long been his major-domo, is
still there, with his wife Eliza and their children, five in num
ber. The oldest is a girl named Ellen, fifteen years old, and a
son Timothy, or Tim as he is called, a boy about twelve.
These, with the smaller ones, constitute the household servants.
George is the assistant gardener. The two old people we
have spoken of before. They all stayed, and took good care
of the premises while the loved and honored proprietor was a
prisoner. The routine of business has not changed, and while
Mr. Stephens pays them wages, which they spend for clothing
and things they need or want, there is no difference in the
expense to him or comfort to them. The comfortable cottages
in the yard, still open to the breeze that steals under the

236 ALEXANDEK H. STEPHENS.

shadows of the giant trees in summer, or glow with the huge
fires of the winter ; but all the time reveal the bright eyes,
and dark- brown skins, and white teeth of the occupants. The
children take learning in broken doses — that is, they study
a very little, and play a great deal.

The only regular inmate of the house with Mr. Stephens, is
John Alexander Stephens, his nephew, a son of his half brother,
John L. Stephens, deceased. This young gentleman is engaged
very successfully in the practice of the law, with a fair pros
pect of inheriting the fame and reputation of his uncle. He
has charge of Mr. Stephens' library and papers. To him we
are much indebted in the finding, arranging, and preparing the
matter of this book, where there was such a mass of material
to be condensed into so little space. Professor Eichard M.
Johnston, of Georgia, who, we understand, intends to prepare a
much larger work than this, has also kindly given us access
to some valuable papers. He had charge of all Mr. Stephens'
most valued correspondence during the imprisonment in Fort
Warren.

Amongst Mr. Stephens' peculiarities, which should not be
omitted even in this outline, is his fondness for dogs. In this
he resembles Sir Walter Scott and Henry Clay. In the earlier
part of this work we referred to Troup Frank, and Sir Bingo
Binks, his present pets, and also to the departed Kio, his great
est favorite in this line. This wonderful dog was his com
panion for twelve years. When he died, not long since, from
the infirmities of old age, he was buried as we have said in the
garden. It is Mr. Stephens' intention to erect a marble slab to
Rio's memory, with the inscription which his brother, Hon.
Linton Stephens, prepared soon after his death ; and which we
quoted in an earlier part of this biographical sketch.

It is said that the words in Webster's Bunker Hill speech,
addressed to the Marquis Lafayette, who was present — " You
are connected with two hemispheres, and two generations !" —
were but a paraphrase of an exclamation addressed by him to

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

237

w

R i o

a magnificent trophy of his hook and line, as he raised it from
the water in one of his wonted angling excursions, for relaxa
tion and recreation. Washington Irving, in his life of Gold
smith, traces two of the most beautiful lines in the Traveller to
quite as curious an origin. He says : " We hear much about
poetic inspiration, and 'the poet's eye in fine phrenzy rolling.'
But Sir Joshua Eeynolds gives an anecdote'of Goldsmith, while
engaged upon tlys poem, that is calculated to change our
notions about the ardor of composition.

" Calling upon the poet one day, he opened the door without
ceremony, and discovered him in the double occupation of
turning a couplet, and teaching a pet dog to set on his haunches.
At one time he would glance his eye at his desk, and at another
shake his finger at the dog, to make him retain his position.
The last lines on the page before him were still wet. They
form a part of the description of Italy :

238 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

" 'By sports like these, are all their cares beguiled,
The sports of children satisfy the child.'

" Goldsmith, with his usual good-humor, joined in the laugh,
caused by his whimsical employment, and acknowledged that
his boyish sport with the dog originated the stanzas."

Whether he, of whom we write, drew any of his inspira
tions or illustrations from similar sources, we know not ; but
if the half of what we have heard be true, Goldsmith never
took more child-like recreation with his canine pet than did
Kio's master with him. The first thing in the morning, upon
rising and issuing forth, was a jolly frolic with his dog. Eio
always slept in the same room with him, and when the master
was ill and confined to his bed, the faithful brute was never
out of the room, save for a few moments at a time, for days
and weeks together. He accompanied his master almost every
where he went except to Washington City, He was as well
known on the railroads throughout the State as the statesman
himself, and we have heard much, gravely told, of the sagacity,
or rather sense, of this animal, which would be hardly credible
to many readers. All that Youatt says of the poodle as a
species is said of this specimen, and much more. He would
close a door quickly and quietly upon being told, or bring a
hat, cane, or umbrella from another room upon a like com
mand. He not only knew the names of all the household, but
actually seemed to understand the subject-matter of conversa
tion. When orders were given by his master to have his
trunk brought out to go anywhere, Rio dad not need the
appearance of the article to manifest his understanding and
readiness to go. When sometimes left behind, he would go to
the depot frequently on the arrival of the trains, and if his
master did not get out would go through all the cars looking
for him, and if not found, return home to await the next day's
train. The conductors all knew him, and what he was about ;
and if, as sometimes happened, he did not get through his
search before the cars started, the train was stopped for him to

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 239

get out. When the master happened to return by any other
conveyance, a servant had only to say, "Kio, Mas' Alex's
come !" and the dog bounded off with all possible speed to wel
come and literally embrace him. His joy was manifested not
only by putting his great paws on his breast, but by loud and
protracted barking. Eeturn from an absence was always An
nounced to the village by the well-understood signal of Bio's
Urk.

Thus far has our little sketch lengthened out beyond the
first intention, and in it we have often preferred to give the
thoughts of eminent Americans rather than our own ; while
instead of merely saying that thus and at such a time and place
Mr. Stephens was eloquent, to give his own words. Of his
manner, the Promethean fire — given, not stolen — we can give
no written adequate description.

His real history during the war that he tried to prevent,
cannot be written, for it is only at the firesides of the land that
it is known. He had taken high place without power, only in
the hope of leading the new government from war to peace.
He was best known in the hospitals and by the beds of soldiers.
At the great departments, he was known as the quiet helper of
petitions for the sick and the wounded soldier, whether friend or
foe, the advocate of liberty for prisoners, or bringer of comfort
and sympathy, when he could do nothing more. Trying
always in every way he could to moderate the storm he could
not stay ; to heal the wounds he could not prevent.

As he states in his letter to Senator H. V. Johnson, he lives
always with eternity in view ; he has long since learned to
look calmly through the mists of the river of death ; and, per
haps, in the hush of his little room, when, beneath the starry
midnight of his southern skies, he lies, with no companionship
but his own habitual suffering, he has learned to listen unmoved
for the phantom oar of the boatman pale, who ferries souls across
the Stygian flood.

With an existence which is often like that of the " Man of

240 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

Uz," he bears the ills of life and complains not, but suffers and
grows strong. We would not compare any human being to
HIM " who was made perfect through suffering," but the man
we write of humbly follows —

" That path of our ascended Chief,
» Whose radiant footsteps lead to Heaven and God."

It is always a difficult and delicate task to write of the living
good, even when

" The earth looks greener where their feet have trod,
And men have hailed them as the blessed of God."

The praise that properly and worthily crowns the tomb with
immortelles, sounds like flattery in living ears. Mr. Toombs
once said of Mr. Stephens : " He would not flatter Neptune for
his trident, nor Jove for his power to thunder ;" and while we
would fain have suck the truth of us, yet to speak of one of the
greatest living orators and statesman without praise, would be
to learn the eloquence of silence. As a public man, we may
apply to him the saying of the Greeks : " What Themistocles
was to the rest of the Athenians in acute foresight, wisdom, and
vigor, Aristides was to every statesman in Greece, in incom
parable purity and integrity of public life; and no one has
dared to dispute his well won title of THE JUST."

Doubtless the severe ordeal of Mr. Stephens' boyhood, and
the sufferings of his manhood, have had much to do with per
fecting the character which we thus unhesitatingly present as a
model for the youth of America. Well may Shakespeare say,

" Sweet are the uses of adversity,
Which, like a toad, ugly and venomous,
Yet wears a precious jewel in his head."

In his energy, his triumph over poverty, ignorance, and in
firmity, his private and public usefulness, and his unquestioned
morality, his example, like that of all other good men, seems
to say :

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 241

" So live, that when thy summons comes to join
The innumerable caravan, which moves
To that mysterious realm where each shall take
His chamber in the silent halls of death ;
Thou go not, like the quarry slave at night,
Scourged to his dungeon, but sustained and soothed
By an unfaltering trust, approach thy grave
Like one who wraps the drapery of his couch
Around him, and lies down to pleasant dreams."

His noblest deeds are in keeping with the precept, "Let not
thy right hand know what thy left hand doeth," and it is no
purpose of ours to lift the vail which modest merit and Chris
tian charity draws over its holy ministrations. Such things
are laid up and numbered in the granaries of the stars, where
there are no prisons and no sickness — where all men " love one
another," and the nations learn war no more.

When the holy labors of the Universe are reckoned up,
perhaps the Judge of the quick and the dead will say unto
him, " Insomuch as ye did it unto the least of these, my disci
ples, ye did unto me."

Perhaps there never was a heart in more perfect accord with
the great popular heart, and hence in full sympathy with
human nature, than his. There is said to be an universal har
mony and accord of all things, from God the soul of things,
and that order which creates the fancied music of the spheres,
down through all us his children, and all ranks of animate and
inanimate creation. Thus the throb of life in the animalcule
is but the far, faint echo of the parent life in God.

It is thus that the skilled interpreter of those inspirations of
right drawn from the " Light that lighteneth every man that
cometh into the world," may without blasphemy, exclaim of
the voice of the great popular heart, "Vox Populi! Vox Dei!"
" The voice of the people is the voice of God." It was thus, in
the Oregon speech, that Mr. Stephens spoke of the politics of
" good- will toward men."

It is true that he who can read these vera voces ab imo pectorse
16

242 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

must always stand armed to repel the adoring instinct of
humanity, that is prone to shout — :" It is the voice of a God
and not of a man," lest, as in the case of Herod, the Lord smite
the pretender and he. be eaten of worms and give up the ghost.,

It is this sympathy with mankind, which renders Mr.
Stephens as accessible and approachable as any man who ever
lived, and enables him to wisely and judiciously aid those
whom he never refuses to see and converse with. In this
reading of human nature, in all its shades, there must be much
of that strange rapture which Washington Irving tells of in
those Magii of the Alhambra, who could interpret the voices
of the air and forest, and understand the words of birds. Ste
phens is neither Magician, Rosi- Crucian, nor Gheber, yet his
soul can arise to the unutterable grandeur of the universe, as
nature or science opens God's great book at a page of stars, or
the " Testimony of the Eocks ;" or stoop with delight, with
finger on the popular pulse — not thereby to arrange his own,
but with physician instinct which seeks to hasten or retard, to
stimulate or soothe, to know and to cure.

Stephens is one of the poets who never sing, and can/ee? if
not say —

" To me the meanest flower that blows can give
Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears."

He has suffered much. He endures with the fortitude of an
Indian, and when health returns and pain is over, no bird "re
joicing with its wings," has more full consciousness of the
blessedness of being the mere rapture of existence. May the
God of the good long continue his honest, earnest, faithful life ;
and may the unselfish labor for individuals and for his whole
country, bear fruit many days hence, even lik.e that seed sown
in faith when the yellow flood of the Nile gives Egypt's breast
its annual baptism. When he shall depart — not die —

" The honored gods

Keep Rome in safety, and the chairs of justice
Supplied with worthy men."

ALEXANDEK H. STEPHENS. 243

Since 1860 the writer of these pages has often been at Liberty
Hall, enjoying fts books, its quiet, and its hospitality. There
fore, this long talk on paper has seemed like re-gathering the
memories of home, and the pages have become leaves in a
chaplet of pleasant recollections. In closing, the feeling that
he has not said enough is blended with the fear that he has
not said the little well. Then, in bidding good-by to the sub
ject, there is much of the same sensation as when departing
from the roof-shelter beneath which so much kindness dwells,
and grasping the extended hand of the statesman, while the
lips utter parting words. The manuscript and the subject be
come interwoven, but we must leave for awhile our Georgia
home, and the Man and the Book.

Good-by, kind friend, a long good-by,
Perhaps our earthly path will sever,

Until the ways of all converge
Upon eternal shores forever.

Past life's mid-day your years have gone,
While mine are climbing manhood's noon ;

Both afternoons come fast enough —
And night ; God only knows how soon.

Yet while the sun of life remains,
Poised in the sky of time's brief day,

May Earth's Inspector find some deed
Of both, that will not pass away.

Not in the nation's archives he —
Nor in the scroll of fame will look ;

But where the record angel spreads,
Above the stars, his mighty book.

Not how illustrious, nor who praised,
Nor when the Senate's plaudits rung ;

Nor marble shone, nor canvas glowed,
Nor what the Western bards have sung.

244 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

Poor trophies these to offer, when

The eternal gates of pearl unroll ; %

And God the Judge shall ask of Time
The record of a naked soul.

But when, 'mid prostrate angel ranks,
Your soul and mine shall meet again :

The Son may answer to his Sire,

" These men have loved their fellow-men."

No holier epitaph hath glowed
Upon earth's long historic page ;

And Love, the dearest name of God,
Is crown alike for saint or sage.

Continue then those humble deeds,
Which only God and angels know ;

And thou shalt find their fruit at last,
When time's " last thunders" peal below.

I envy not thy statesman crown,
Nor music of thy magic tongue ;

Nor all the laurels ever won,
Since man hath wrote or poet sung :

But I would tell the world thy deeds
Till children emulous became ;

And Christian statesmen keep through time,
The goodness of the Stephens name.

Thou hast nor wife, nor child to take
Thy mantle as thou leavest earth ;

But children's children studying thee,
May still perpetuate thy worth.

Bright be thy setting orb of life,
Flower-strewn and green thy final sod ;

The future grant her great rewards
Beyond the sun and stars, with God.

END OF THE BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH,

SPEECHES, LETTERS, ETC,

REPORT OF THE MINORITY OF THE COMMITTEE
ON THE STATE OF THE REPUBLIC.

GEORGIA SENATE, 1842.

THE undersigned, members of the Committee on the State of
the Republic, (to whom was referred so much of the Message of
His Excellency the Governor, as relates to the Preamble and Re
solutions of the last Legislature, transmitted to the Senators of
this State in Congress, and the Address of the Hon. John M.
Berrien, one of those Senators, to the people of Georgia;) differing
so materially from the majority of the Committee in their views
upon the several subjects referred to in their Report and Reso
lutions, beg leave respectfully, and as briefly as the circumstances
will admit, to state the points of difference between them, and the
reasons of their dissent from the conclusions of the majority. In
doing this, they do not intend to travel over all the grounds oc
cupied by the Preamble and Resolutions adopted at the last ses
sion, or to discuss the various principles therein embraced, but
will confine themselves as closely as possible to the limits of the
Report and Resolutions submitted by the present majority — nor
do they feel any disposition to enter into the merits of the con
troversy between His Excellency and Senator Berrien, or to de
cide which is most chargeable with a breach of official decorum.
It seems, however, that His Excellency was no less hasty than
sensitive, in declaring that the Senator had declined a reply to
"his own constituents," but in an Address to "his," the people
of Georgia, "had been pleased to arraign his conduct." The un
dersigned think that no disrespect or arraignment of His Excel
lency was intended by the Senator in any thing contained in his
Address. It is true, that he assigns as a reason for his not re
plying immediately to the Legislature by whom the resolutions
were passed, that he did not receive them "until after its adjourn
ment." But a bare reference to the paper, will show that he does
not lay this to the charge of the Governor. His language is, that
"if it had been in the power of His Excellency, and it had been
agreeable to him to have forwarded the documents to me while
the Legislature was yet in session, my respect for its authors

(245)

246 REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE REPUBLIC.

would have induced a prompt reply." In this there is certainly
no arraignment, or censure of any person whatever, but the sim
ple declaration of the reason why the Address was not made
promptly, and to the Legislature, with a clear implication that
the cause of the delay was neither in the power or control of the
Executive. But whether the Governor has been equally courteous
in his course toward the Honorable Senator, we leave for others
to determine.

The undersigned cannot agree with His Excellency, or the ma
jority of the Committee, in the idea, thafr the Members of the
Legislature are the proper " Constituents" of the Senators in
Congress. It is true, that under the Constitution of the United
States, they elect them ; but in doing this, they act themselves in
a representative capacity. Constituent and Representative, we
hold to be correlative terms. The Constituent is one whose
rights and interests, to some extent, are confided or entrusted to
another : that other, to whom such rights and interests are so
confided or entrusted, is the Representative. The members of
the Legislature, in electing a United States' Senator, are but
exercising a delegated trust. That trust is limited in its extent,
specific in its nature, and ceases with its execution. The appoint
ment is only made through them by their own constituents ; and
the Senators, when so chosen, represent them or their interests
no more than any other equal number of the citizens of the State.
Nor are they any more responsible, or amenable to them, than
any other like portion of the mass of the people. The fact, that
the members of the Legislature of the respective States, under
the Constitution of the United States, are made the Electors of
Senators to Congress, in the opinion of the undersigned, no more
makes them the "Constituents" of the Senators, than that the
election of President and Yice President of the United States,
being made by Electors chosen in the respective States, accord
ing to the provisions of the same Constitution, make such Elect
ors the Constituents of these highest and most important officers
of the Government. The cases, for illustration, are sufficiently
analogous, and the principles applicable to one must be to the
other. If the Legislatures of the several States are the " Consti
tuents" of the Senators, then the Colleges of the Electors in the
same States are the only " Constituents " of the President and
Yice President of the United States; and the same doctrine of
instruction, of course, would apply; for if applicable in one case,
why not in the other ? And with this construction, what would
be the result of our entire system of political organization ? It
would only be necessary for the Electors in each of the States to
meet, and by their instructions, to remove from office the Chief
Magistrate of the country at every ebb and flow of party feeling,
or change in popular opinion. But the undersigned do not so
understand the Constitution; nor do they believe it was so under
stood by its framers or first expounders. They hold that the

REPORT OX THE STATE OF THE REPUBLIC.

PEOPLE of the States, and not the Legislatures, are the "Con
stituents" of Senators in Congress, and that the People of the
United States and not the Electors are the " Constituents" of the
President and Yice President of the Union. This was certainly
the opinion of WASHINGTON, who, in one of his earliest Messages
to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
Congress, spoke of the People of the country as being his and
their common "Constituents." Had he held the doctrine of the
Governor, or the majority of the Committee, he could not have
looked further or beyond the Electors, "the body from whom he
derived his office," in 'referring to his Constituents. The major
ity of the Committee say, that "the Legislature has no power to
compel a Senator to resign; but the theory of a Representative
Government, and the delicate connection between the Constituent
and Representative, imperiously demand, that whenever he ceases
to subserve the object of his appointment, he should at once sur
render the 'delegated trust — and tested by this plain and obvious
rule, Mr. Berrien will utterly defeat the end and design of a Rep
resentative Government, should he continue to retain the office
of Senator in Congress." Now, what peculiar opinions the ma
jority may entertain of the theory of a Representative Govern
ment, by which they arrive at the conclusion stated, the under
signed are wholly unable to imagine ; and as those theoretical
views are not given, the premises from which the deductions are
drawn, being unknown, the legitimacy of the conclusion must, as
a matter of course, remain a subject of mere speculation. The
undersigned, however, in arguing such a question, would state,
that they recognize no principles or premises from which to start,
but such as are to be found in the Constitution of the country.
And taking this as their rule and standard, and confining them
selves in their inquiries strictly within its plainly written and
well defined provisions, they hesitate not to say, that the conclu
sion of the majority is altogether erroneous. If the majority have
any other theory than that of the Constitution, the undersigned
beg leave to say that they are not its advocates. They know of
but one code of principles governing the question, and they are
to be found in the fundamental law of the Union — the great chart
of our Representative Government. The minority take it for
granted, that what is meant in the Report by the expression,
"when a Senator ceases to subserve the object of his appoint
ment," is, when he ceases to effect or carry out the wishes of those
whom the majority are pleased to call his Constituents; or, in
other words, to conform to the wishes of a majority of the Legis
lature. With this understanding, it seems only necessary to
compare the proposition with the principles assumed, as the
standard to render its fallacy apparent to all. Ours is a Govern
ment founded upon compact. Its principles and powers are so well
and clearly defined in the instrument of its creation, as to leave
but little latitude for theory in its construction. Nor are the

24:8 REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE REPUBLIC.

duties, obligations, and responsibilities of those who officiate in
its administration, less distinctly marked ; and the provisions of
all which, as well the powers granted, as the mode and manner
of their execution, were wisely adjusted, with proper checks and
balances, by its patriot founders, for the preservation of peace,
liberty, and happiness. And according to the provisions of that
instrument, the term of a Senator's office is fixed at the period of
six years, and is not left dependent upon the fluctuations of party
strife, or the sudden changes of factious majorities. It may be
true, that the "theory77 of the majority "demands" a different
term, or one upon different principles; but it is sufficient for us,
that the Constitution does not. The propriety of this feature in
the Government, is not now the question for remark. All that is
asked, is, that it be acknowledged as part of the Constitution,
and that as such, so long as it remains unaltered, it be maintained
inviolate. We believe, however, that there is wisdom in the clause
fixing the term of Senators as long as it is, and that it was not
so arranged or adopted without many salutary views. If the
framers of the Constitution had thought, as the majority do, that
the holding of his seat, on the part of any Senator, against the
wishes of a majority of the Legislature of his State, at anj' time,
would utterly defeat the end and design of the Government they
were forming, would they not have made the tenure of this office
dependent upon different principles ? If all the good, and the
advantages which were supposed would be derived from the for
mation of this Government could be so easily defeated, is it not
strange that so important an oversight should have been com
mitted by men so distinguished for learning, wisdom, and patriot
ism? Such an argument, even if we were left to our own unas
sisted conjectures, would do injustice to their memories. But
when with the light of their own exposition, we are taught that
this feature was incorporated for the express purpose of rendering
that branch of the National Legislature free from the influence
and control of sudden changes in popular opinion, how can we or
any one subscribe to the doctrine, that the affectuation by a Sen
ator of this very original design, is a subversion of the Govern
ment, and a defeat of the end of its creation ! And with these
views and principles, we beg leave, respectful!}^ to declare our
attachment to the Constitution of the country as it is, in prefer
ence to any undefined principles, or untried "theories of a Repre
sentative Government," entertained by those of a majority of the
Committee. This expression of opinion on the part of the major
ity, we deem no less indiscreet in another consideration. Twice,
at least, within the last four years, a majority of the Legislature
of this State differed in most of the great questions of national
politics, with both their Senators in Congress. Without stating
what the course of those majorities then was, as a precedent now,
it is sufficient for our present purpose to s&y, that the Senators
continued to retain their seats j or, in the views perhaps of the

REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE REPUBLIC. 249

majority, "ceased to subserve the objects of their appointment."
The same may be said of several other States of the Union; and
what has been the result? Has the end and design of a Repre
sentative Government been thereby utterly defeated ? And can
the majority seriously entertain the opinion, that if the Honora
ble John M. Berrien, who deservedly stands among the first in
the Senate of the United States, for learning and eloquence, and
who is no less an honor to his State, than an ornament to the na
tion, shall continue to hold his place, though he may happen to
differ at this time with the majority in the Legislature of his own
State, on many questions of public policy, that this will result in
an utter defeat of the end and design of Representative Govern
ment? We can hardly conceive that we have to do more than
barely state the proposition to cause them, however strong may
be their party zeal, at least to see the error of their position, if
not to modify the extravagance of their assertion.

We might perhaps, with propriety, here dismiss the report, and
let the balance go for what it is worth with the people. But as
there are some statements of fact, in relation to public opinion
in this State, upon certain subjects, to which our silence might
be construed into assent, and which we deem equally erroneous
as the abstract principles expressed, we must ask the indulgence
still further, to be heard upon each of these particulars. Nor
are these matters of small import, or such as the people have
little interest in. They involve some of the most important prin
ciples of the Government, and vitally concern every interest and
condition in society. None are so high as to escape their influ
ence, and none so' low as not to become the victim of their im
proper action. It is true that upon these questions, the Commit
tee have not entered into argument. They satisfy themselves by
giving merely a short declaration of facts. This perhaps is done
for the purpose rather of forestalling public opinion, or at least
to give tone to its direction. The public, nevertheless, have
great interests involved, and we wish to examine somewhat, the
authority by which they are fortified.

In the first place, it is gravely asserted that the people of
Georgia are opposed to a National Bank. By the people, we pre
sume are meant the voters of the State ; and by what authority
the majority was induced to make this declaration, we are also
unable to conjecture. The sense of the people was certainly
never taken upon the question. And we know not how the Com
mittee undertake to say for the people, what they have never
yet s-aid for themselves. Whether a majority of the voters of
this State, is for or against a Bank of the United States, we
could not feel authorized to make a positive statement, one way
or the other. For we are in want of that direct and convincing
evidence which should ever govern us, in making a declaration
of fact. But if enquired of touching our opinion of the state
of public feeling upon the subject, we should be compelled to

250 REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE REPUBLIC.

give it in direct opposition to the statement made in the
report. We mean the question of a Bank, compared with any
other system of National Finance, which has been or is now

proposed to the country. As there has been no direct
upon the subject, we, of course, in the formation of our opinion,
are left to such inferences as may seem clear and legitimate.
This is the only alternative for ourselves as well as the majority.
And by this standard, we are willing for our conclusions to be
tested. Those who claim a majority against a Bank generally,
refer to the elections of the State, and, pointing to the large vote
given in favor of General Jackson, in 1832, immediately after
the veto of the bill re-chartering the late Bank, seem exultingly
to consider the argument as closed, or at least requiring nothing
more than such confirmation, as subsequent elections have given.
We object not to the data, but only differ in our inferences. To
show the error of the inference so far as the vote given to General
Jackson was concerned, it needs only to be stated that many of
the warmest advocates of a Bank in this State, were his most
zealous supporters. Things entirely inconsistent with the sup
position that the question of Bank or no Bank, was thereby de
cided. And again, it is well known that General Jackson did
not predicate his veto, upon the want of Constitutional power in
Congress, to incorporate some sort of an institution of the kind.
But in his veto clearly admitted the existence of such power.
The friends of a Bank, therefore, compromitted no principle in
aiding him in his election, when he had shown himself with them
upon the Constitutional question ; and they had a fair and reasona
ble expectation of the union of his ability and influence in the
establishment of a new institution, upon a more permanent basis,
and with fewer objectionable features. Subsequent to this time,
little was said, in this State, upon the subject, until 1837 — after
the expiration of the Charter of the old Bank, and that general
derangement of the currency throughout the country, which soon
ensued — when a " crash" in the mercantile world was felt — an
extra Session of Congress was convened — a general suspension
of specie payments on the part of the hundreds of State Banks,
that had sprung up a short time before, was pervading the land
— and business confidence was lost, and ruin and bankruptc}^
were the necessary results to hundreds of good citizens. It was
at this time when the whole monetary affairs of the country were
thrown into the utmost confusion, and seemed approaching the
wildest disorder, as if society itself had lost its " poise or proper
balance," that this question for the first time was partially
submitted to the people of this State, in comparison with its
rival the Sub-Treasury scheme. And it is true, that in this cor
test, many who had before been opposed to a Bank, did not hesi
tate to signify their preference for it " with all its faults," to the
opposite measure .The first election thereafter for members of
Congress, before whom these questions would come for action,

REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE REPUBLIC. 251

was in 1838. The ticket known to be in opposition to a Bank,
was entirely defeated, while that which was generally .supposed
to be equally opposed to the Administration measure or the Sub-
Treasury, with Mr. Habersham, an avowed advocate of the Bank,
was elected by a very decided majority. It is true, some of
those who were then elected with Mr. Habersham, did not fully
agree with him, and one had, just before the election, declared
himself in favor of the Sub-Treasury. But this was only known
to a limited extent ; and as to the effect which the declaration of
his sentiments had where it was known, it is quite sufficient to
add, that he received the lowest number of votes of those who
were elected. Certainly the question of Bank, or a preference
for it, over the then proposed system of the Sub-Treasury, entered
more full}' into the merits of the contest in that election, than it
ever did before in any election in this State. And the result, so
far as it was an index of popular opinion, does not justify the
statement, that at that time the people of the State were opposed
to a Bank, compared with its rival system. But the undersigned
are of opinion, that if there has been any election of late years
in this State, which should with propriety be entitled to the
lead in deciding popular opinion upon this question, it was the
contest of 1840. It was then that the currency- — its derangement
and irregularities, agitated the whole country. This was the theme
of general conversation, and the topic of almost every contro
versy in politics. It is true that many other questions entered
into that contest, but the opponents of a Bank asserted in every
quarter, and proclaimed from their every press, that this was one
of the main questions. And no doubt can be entertained, but
that it was upon this, that the people were mostly excited ; for
it was in this that their interests were most deeply involved. It
was the want of some regulation of the kind, that had injured
their trade — destroyed their markets — paralyzed their energies
— dried up their resources, and had brought ruin upon them
selves. The whole people were aroused, and almost every man
was at the polls. The result is too distinct in the recollection of
all to need repetition. The ticket most favorable to a Bank
was returned by a triumphant majority. While those who had
been previously elected, when on a similar ticket after their posi
tion was known to the people, and their avowed preference for
the Sub-Treasury had been generally understood, were as sig
nally defeated. Judging from these facts, and all the influences
that operated in that election, the undersigned hesitate not to
say that in their opinion, so far as these results are to be con
sidered as indicia of public opinion, instead of their being in op
position, the}' are decidedly favorable to the existence of such
an institution in preference to the opposite system. With regard
to those late or subsequent elections which are appealed to as
being such strong confirmation of the inference, drawn in the
first instance, the undersigned would barely make this remark — .

252 KEPORT ON THE STATE OF THE KEPUBLIC.

that to the candid and considerate of all parties, it need only be
stated, that the polls at those elections show a large portion of
the people to have been absent. At the election just held for
members of Congress, near six thousand voters of the State were
not present, or at least did not vote. This election, therefore,
was not a full expression of the opinion of the State upon any
question. The absence from the polls of persons preferring a
Bank, can be easily accounted for. Men do not generally exert
themselves when exertion is useless. And so long as the present
Executive of the United States continues in office, the friends of
a Bank have no hope for its obtainment ; and hence their apathy
throughout this State at the late elections. The undersigned,
therefore, abandoning these late elections as being no proper
criterion of public sentiment in this State, upon this subject, and
they not knowing a single instance of change of opinion unfavora
ble to a Bank, on the part of any person since 1840, but on the
contrary, many instances of t'hose who had been formerly op
posed, yielding that opposition, and surrendering their own
judgments to the wisdom of the founders of the Government, and
to the experience of the most prosperous days of its history, de
claring their decided preference to a system which has been so
long and successfully tried, to any of the new and wild experi
ments which have been submitted to the country — they are bound
to give it as their opinion, that a large majority of the people of
this State regard such an institution as useful, necessary, and
proper ; and that when the opportunity comes for their action to
be felt, and when the expression of their opinion in the National
Councils, by their representatives, will not be thwarted or
checked by the caprice, or ambition of any single individual,
they will not fail to make it in as decisive tones as those which
determined the ever memorable contest alluded to before.

But, in the second place. Another broad declaration made by
the majority, and to which the undersigned cannot give their
assent, is, that "the people of Georgia are opposed to the distribu
tion of the proceeds of the sales of the Public Lands" Now, how
this conclusion is arrived at, we must confess that we are equally
unable to determine. In this case, adopting the same standard
as that assumed in the previous one, we certainly arrive at very
different conclusions from those attained by the majority. If, by
the phrase, "the distribution of the sales of the Public Lands," it
is meant to include the distribution which was lately expected to
take place, certainly the committee will not even attempt to
maintain their position ; for if we be not misinformed, a place
was left for the use of these funds in legislative appropriation
even before their reception ; and the present Governor of this
State was amongst the earliest, if not the first, in the whole Union,
to make application for the portion coming to Georgia. This, in
our opinion, would not justify us in saying that the people were
opposed to the distribution. But perhaps the majority mean only

BEPOKT ON THE STATE OF THE KEPUBLIC. 253

to say that the people are only opposed to the principle of "the
distribution," though they are willing and ready to receive their
part when it is made. That

" The right they see, and approve it too,
The wrong condemn, and yet the wrong pursue"

But this would be giving the State such a position before the
civilized and moral world, as we would be slow to acknowledge.
And as we are unwilling to see this injustice done to her charac
ter by any such unauthorized statement, we feel bound to vindi
cate l^er honor from the unwarrantable aspersion. We believe
that the State has applied for her quota because it was right and
it was just, and that, for the same reasons, she could continue to
demand it. But the question now is not the propriety of the
distribution, it is whether the people of Georgia be opposed to
it ? and in determining it as before, we only have recourse to the
indications of the past. So far as the application for her portion
of the dividend expected to be made is concerned, that is cer
tainly a strong demonstration in favor of the distribution. But
this is not all. In 1837, when the large distribution was made
of the surplus revenue of the United States, which accrued mostly
from the sales of the Public Lands, Georgia showed no formidable
opposition to the measure, but readily received her part, and
thereby added over one million of dollars to the means of the
Central Bank, to aid the people in her munificent loans. From
these examples, how can it be said that her people are opposed
to the distribution. But, again. In 1833, when the question as
to the proper disposition of the Public Lands was before Con
gress, Georgia gave some expressions of the views of her people
upon this subject, at least so far as a legislative resolve could,
with propriety, be considered as such expression. The language
of the Legislature at that time was in the following words :
"Without specifically inquiring into the means by which the
United States Government became possessed of the public lands,
or the causes which, after the war of the Revolution, induced
several of the States to transfer to that Government all, or a
great portion, of their unoccupied lands, under certain limitations
and restrictions, specified in the several deeds of cession or re-
linquishments, your committee deem it sufficient to state that
those deeds and relinquishments, and all other purchases of lands
by the United States Government, were made for the common
benefit of the several States. That it is a common fund, to be
distributed without partiality, and to inure to the benefit of all
the States." Here is a most positive declaration of sentiment
nine years ago, before any distribution had been made, that these
lands were a common fund, not for the benefit of the General
Government, to be wasted and squandered in useless extrava
gance, but for the several States — that is, each individually ; and
that this fund ought to be distributed among them without par-

254 REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE REPUBLIC.

tiality. How, then, in the face of this declaration, and after the
distribution which has been made, and Georgia's reception or
application for her portion, can we join in the assertion that her
people are opposed to the distribution ? But, as stated before,
we apprehend the object is rather to form and forestall public
opinion, than to express what it really is. For why should
Georgia be opposed to this distribution ? Has she no interest
in those lands, and no right to a part of their proceeds ? We
conceive that she has ; and that she should neither neglect her
interest, nor relinquish her rigtyt. The territory of Georgia once
extended to the waters of the Mississippi, including within its
limits the present new and flourishing States of Alabama and
Mississippi. This immense region, embracing some of the most
fertile soil on the continent, was once the property of our fathers.
Had it been kept and retained by them, it would have been worth
millions of treasure ; but for purposes more patriotic than pru
dent, they ceded this entire domain, forming the two States above
named, to the General Government, under specific limitations and
conditions. These were, that the lands, after the payment of a
certain sum of money, and making good certain titles, should be
held by the General Government as a common fund, for the bene
fit of the United States, Georgia included, and for no other pur
pose whatever. The language of the condition is as follows :
" That all the lands ceded by this agreement to the United States,
shall, after satisfying the above mentioned payment of $1,250,000
to the State of Georgia, and the grants recognized by the pre
ceding conditions, be considered as a common fund for the use
and benefit of the United States, Georgia included, and shall be
faithfully disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or
purpose ivhatever."

Similar deeds of cession were made by the other States, which
were the proprietors of those territories which now also embrace
parts of the public lands. The terms of the Virginia cession are
very much like those of Georgia. They expressly stipulated that
these lands " should be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for
the purposes specified in the cession, and for no other use or
purpose whatsoever.'1 Now, these first objects of the deeds of
cession having been fully accomplished, what do the advocates
of distribution ask, but that the remainder of these lands shall
be faithfully and bona fide disposed of, according to the terms
by which the Government acquired them ? Is it not right that
Georgia, and other States, should insist upon the fulfilment of
the contract, so far as their interests are concerned ? And if it
is right, why should it not be demanded ? Is it sufficient to be
met with the answer, that it is better for the General Government
to keep these funds to meet its own ordinary expenses, rather
than turn them over to the States to whom they rightly belong,
for fear, in case of their withdrawal, that heavier contributions
will be laid by way of taxation ? We think not. It would be an

EEPORT ON THE STATE OF THE REPUBLIC. 255

insufficient answer in any trustee, when called upon to account
for funds committed to his charge, that he had used them in the
payment of his own debts. Nor does it follow, that if these
funds be distributed according to contract, that more taxes will
be levied. The people will rather require the expenses and
extravagances of the Government to be curtailed, which would
be one of the most salutary ways of effecting that reformation.
But this reply is only intended for deception and delusion. It is
well known that millions of these lands have already been squan
dered in gifts, largesses, and donations, and are not brought in
the common treasury of the country. For years past they have
been kept as a kind of reserved fund of speculation for the po
litical gamblers for the Presidency. Millions of acres have been
given as bounties to schools and colleges, and other purposes in
the new States ; and every means has been resorted to, by the
friends of different favorites, to secure the popularity of the man
of their choice, by some new method of wasting the public do
main. And the contest now is really not between the claims of
the treasury and the friends of distribution, but between those
who advocate a partial or entire surrender of the lands to the
new States, and those who insist upon a division of their pro
ceeds, according to the terms of cession. And are the people of
Georgia willing to see these lands, and the immense interest she
has in them, either so squandered, or entirely abandoned, accord
ing to the views of different political aspirants ? Has she no
use for money, that she should be so lavish and prodigal of her
treasure ? If the General Government is in debt, it has been incurred
by its own profligacy ; and should Georgia and the other States
surrender their rights in order to sustain its credit, when their own
is permitted to go dishonored ? Let the United States account
to us for what is our due, and we will not fail to render to them
every dollar that is legally and properly exacted ; or, in other
words, let us but have our own, and we will be the better able to
pay what is theirs. Georgia is certainly entitled to her propor
tionate share of the public lands, and it does not follow that,
under any tariff regulation, even to make up the deficiency, that
her citizens- would consume, of foreign importations, the same
rateable proportion. And when our State is in debt, and our
pecfple have to be taxed to sustain its credit, is it not better
policy to be looking after her welfare, than to be consulting for
the interest of the General Government ? We need not appre
hend but that it will always be sufficiently alive to its own in
terest ; let us be but half as watchful of ours, and we shall have
nothing to fear. Under the recommendation of his Excellency,
the Governor, for heavier taxes, we believe the people of Georgia
will greatly prefer the collection and reception of that which is
due them, than to be made further subject to such burthens.
Georgia, upon occasions that are past, has not been wont to sur
render her rights ; am1 when she speaks upon this subject, we

256 REPORT OX THE STATE OF THE REPUBLIC.

believe she will do as heretofore, show an entire willingness to
yield to the General Government, and all others, what are their
legitimate dues, while she still will insist in demanding, to the
last cent, that which is her own.

In the third place : Another principle to which the people of
this State in the report are said to be opposed, is " the abolition
of the Veto Power." Had nothing else been said upon this sub
ject, or no attempt been made, as we conceive, to misrepresent
the views of our honorable Senator, in relation to it, we should
have given the proposition our hearty assent. No man in the
State, perhaps, is in favor of the abolition of the veto power.
Judge Berrien certainly is not, so far as we can judge from his
sentiments declared. No one can express his views upon the
subject more clearly than he did himself, in the Senate of the
United States. We beg leave to refer to his words, that none
may misunderstand either him, or that modification of the veto
power, of which he is in favor? "I ask," said he, "the Senate
now to consider what it is the resolution proposes as a security
against the recurrence of this state of things ? Does it seek to
abolish the Executive Veto ? No, sir ; this is not the proposition.
It is simply to modify the existing limitation. Let us now look
to the limitation which the resolution recommends. It proposes
that when a bill, which has passed both Houses of Congress,
shall be returned by the President, with his veto, all further ac
tion shall be suspended upon it, until the next succeeding session ;
in the mean time, the reasons of the President will be spread
upon the Legislative Journal — will be read, considered, submit
ted to the public, and discussed oralty, and through the medium
of the press ; and members will return to their constituents, will
mingle with and consult them. At the opening of the next ses
sion of Congress, the resolution proposes that the consideration
of the bill shall be resumed ; and then if the majority of the
whole number of Senators and Representatives elected ; after the
interval thus afforded for deliberation, for consultation with their
constituents and for the public discussion of the subject, shall
reaffirm the bill, it shall become a law."

Such are the sentiments of the Senator, and from which will
appear how great injustice is done him in imputing to him a wjsh
to abolish the veto. But the majority say, if the proposed modi
fication should be adopted, " all our rights, and the Constitution
itself, will be the sport of an irresponsible majority in Congress.
This is bold language, and upon a grave subject, and therefore
deserves particular attention. In noticing it we will suggest but
three enquiries. In the first place : will not the rights of the
people be as amply protected in the hands of a number of Repre
sentatives as by the will of one man ? Would they be less secure
with their Representatives in Congress than with the President ?
In the second place: if the Constitution should be so amended,
would Congress have any more power over it then, than they have

REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE REPUBLIC. 257

now ? Congress now lias no power over the Constitution. They
are bound by its precepts. And as the proposed amendment
confers no new power, Congress, of course, would have no more
power over it after the amendment than before. In the third
place : How can the majorities in Congress be said to be irre
sponsible ? Are they not elected by the people. Do not the mem
bers of the House hold their office for the short term of two
years ? Are they then not amenable to the people ? If they do
wrong, or misrepresent the wishes of those who elect them, will
they not be displaced, and others put in their stead ? Are they
more irresponsible than the President ?

But, in the fourth place : Another subject is mentioned in the
report, on which the undersigned were desirous that no disagree
ment would have existed either in the Committee, or the House.
We allude to the principles involved in the adjustment of the
Tariff. Nor would we notice the subject at this time, if we did
not conceive that there has been an evident attempt in this par
ticular, also, to do great injustice to the position of our
honorable Senator, in relation to it. The majority, in their first
resolution, declare that " the opinions of the Honorable John M.
Berrien, upon the adjustment of the Tariff, are in direct opposi
tion to the principles of a large majority of the people of this
State." And in their preamble, state that " a majority of the
people believe that a Tariff for protection is unequal in its opera
tions, oppressive, and unjust." From this the inference is clear,
that principles are imputed to the honorable Senator, favorable
to the enactment of a " Tariff for protection." This imputation
we deem utterly unfounded and altogether unjust. Judge
Berrien has always been opposed to a "Tariff for protection;"
or at least we supposed that this position would be granted him
wherever the author of the "Georgia Manifesto" was known.
Nor do the undersigned know with what recklessness of purpose,
a contrary position is now charged upon him. Perhaps the same
spirit, if unchecked, would lead its authors to make the same
unwarrantable allegations against the whole political party, in
this State, with which he acts. If so, our object is to repel even
the insinuation. The opinions and principles of that party, upon
the Tariff question, have always been known. They have under
gone no change or mutation. And in making a declaration of
them, we presume we would be but stating, in the main, those
held and entertained by our Senator. We are, and have been,
in favor of a Tariff for revenue, and revenue only ; and that for
no more revenue than is sufficient to support the Government in
an economical administration thereof. We hold that in levying
such a tariff, in many instances, it may be both proper and right
to discriminate. This maybe done either for the purpose of
retaliating against the policy of foreign nations, who may
subject our produce to heavy taxation, or for the purpose
of exempting some articles of foreign production consumed
17

258 KEPORT OX THE STATE OF THE KEPUBLIC.

extensively in this country, (and in some instances, by classes
less able to bear the burthens of the Government,) from so high
duties, as others more able to sustain them. And as far as such
a tariff incidentally encourages, fosters, or protects, the domes
tic industry of the country, in any branch thereof, whether
mechanical, manufacturing, shipping, or agricultural, it may
properly do so. A Tariff "for protection" to which we are and
have been opposed, is, where the Tariff is levied not with a view to
revenue, but for the prohibition, totally, or in part, of the impor
tation of certain articles from abroad, that the producers of such
articles in this country, may have our market to themselves, free
from foreign competition ; or that the price of the foreign articles
may be so enhanced by the excessive duties, as to enable the
home producer to enter the market without fear of competition.
Against this, we protest, because the means used are not legiti
mate ; and it is highly oppressive to the interests of all other
classes in society, who are the consumers of such articles. As
far as the Government, in the proper exercise of its powers, can
give encouragement to the general industry of the country, or
aid in the development of its resources, it should do it. But not
one step be3^ond that should it go.

With these views we beg leave to submit the following resolu
tions :

Resolved, That the Hon. John M. Berrien, our Senator in Congress, for
the able and distinguished manner in which he has discharged his public
duties, receives our warmest approbation, and is entitled to the thanks
and confidence of the people of Georgia.

Resolved, That we do not consider the members of the Legislature
the proper constituents of Senators in Congress ; or that the Senators in
Congress are any more responsible or amenable to them than to any
other equal number of like citizens of the State.

Resolved, That in our opinion, a majority of the people of this State
are decidedly in favor of the utility and expediency of a National Bank,
compared with any other system of Finance proposed to the country ; as
well as a distribution of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands
among the States, severally, " equitably," and " without partiality"

Resolved, That, in our opinion, the most proper and expedient way of
raising means to meet the ordinary expenses of the General Government,
is by duties upon imports ; and though in the levying of such duties, for
this main object, a judicious and proper discrimination be exercised, yet
in no instance should duties be laid for the purpose of protection, but, for
revenue only.

EOBT. A. T. KIDLEY, JOHN TOWNSEND,

A. B. REID, JAMES T. BOTHWELL,

WM. B. TANKERSLEY, EZ. BUFFINGTON
JOHN CAMPBELL.

BIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIK SEATS. 259

SPEECH ON THE RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR
SEATS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE, FEBRUARY 9th, 1844.

On the report of the majority of the Committee of Elections,
which concluded with the following resolutions for the adoption
of the House :

" Resolved, That the second section of an act for the apportionment of
representatives among the several States, according to the sixth census,
approved June 25th, 1842, is not a law made in pursuance of the Consti
tution of the United States, and valid, operative, and binding upon the
States.

" Resolved, That all the members of this House (excepting the con
tested cases from Virginia, upon which no opinion is hereby expressed)
have been duly elected in conformity with the Constitution and laws, and
are entitled to their seats in this House." •

Mr. Stephens (succeeding Mr. Thompson, of Mississippi, in
the debate) said :

MR. SPEAKER : — The gentleman from Mississippi who has just
taken his seat, in order to sustain the position assumed in the
first resolution upon your table, and which is now under consid
eration, (to wit : that the second section of the last apportion
ment act is " not a law made in pursuance of the Constitution of
the United States,") insists that the "power of districting" was
never intended to be conferred by the 4th section of the 1st article
of the constitution, either upon the general government or the
State governments ; or, in other words, that the power or right
of providing for the election of members to this House by dis
tricts was not, at the time of the formation of the Constitution,
intended or understood to be embraced in the terms, " times,
places, and manner of holding elections."

In this, sir, I wholly disagree with him ; and, as the same
view has been presented by others, and urged with some force,
notwithstanding it has not been taken by the majority of the
committee, I think it proper not to let it pass without notice ;
and more especially as, in the opinions of some, the whole merit
of the subject matter now before the House, turns upon this ques
tion. For they admit, if this power was intended to be embraced
in the language used in this clause of the constitution, Congress
has the same right to its exercise that the States have. And it
seems to me that the admission is no less frank than it is legiti
mate ; for I cannot well perceive how any more power under the
clause can be claimed for the States, than must be acknowledged,
also, to belong to Congress.

The language of the clause is in the following words :

" The times, places, and manner of holding elections of sena
tors and representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the
legislatures thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law,

260 EIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS.

make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing
senators."

And, of course, so far as the language is concerned, whatever
power over this subject is given primarily to the States, by this
clause, is also given ultimately to this government. The only
question, then, upon this point, is to settle the meaning of the
words, or the extent of their comprehension. If we refer to the
practice of the States as a rule to govern us in coming to a con
clusion upon this point, all will admit that it is decidedly against
the position assumed. Even from the beginning of the govern
ment, most of the States have exercised the power ; and in " pre
scribing the times, places, and manner of holding their elections,"
have divided their territories into districts, and directed their
elections to be held accordingly ; the legality of which, upon this
floor, has never been disputed. But to avoid the force of these
examples, those who assume the position with the gentleman
from Mississippi, say that the power of districting, which the
States have exercised, is not derived from the constitution, but
is one of the inherent rights of sovereigmty in the States, which
they possess independently of the constitution. Now, sir, this
seems to me to be retreating from one difficulty only to encounter
another, and a greater one. For I hold that the States have no
right to representation here, either inherent or of any other
character, except such as is derived through the constitution, and
in such way, mode, and manner, as was agreed upon in the con
stitution. How is it that representation is apportioned among the
States upon the federal basis, but because it was so agreed upon,
and entered as one of the terms of the same compact which de
clared that the " times, places, and manner of holding elections"
should be prescribed by the legislatures, subject to the control of
Congress ? Indeed, this view is conceded by the majority in their
report; for they say: "Whatever power the States have over
elections they derive from the constitution" — which is certainly
true ; for without the constitution there would have been no Con
gress, and no representation.

But, to settle the matter whether the power in question was
intended to be embraced in the words used, I think we have only
to refer to the history of the times, and see what those who made
the constitution understood at the time to be the meaning and
extent of the terms employed. I ask the attention of the House
to the remarks of Mr. Madison upon this subject, made in the
convention, when this clause was under consideration in that
body. And these I read, sir, only for the purpose of showing
what was then fully understood to be the extent of the powrer
conferred by the words. These remarks were made (it may be
proper for me also to add) when the second part of the clause
was under consideration ; that is, the propriety of giving the
ultimate control over the subject to Congress. " This view of
the question," said he, after some previous remarks, (see the

EIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS. 261

Madison papers, vol. 3, page 1280,) "seems to decide that the
legislatures of the States ought not to have the uncontrolled
right of regulating the times, places, and manner of holding
elections. TJiese were words of great latitude. It was impossi
ble to foresee all the abuse that might be made of the discre
tionary power. Whether the elections should be by ballot or
viva voce ; whether the electors should assemble at this place or
at that place ; should be divided into districts, or all meet at one
place ; should all vote for all the representatives, or all in a dis
trict vote for a member allotted to that district ; — these and
many other points would depend upon the legislatures, or might
materially affect the appointments." That is, if the controlling
power were not given to Congress. For, said he further: "It
seems to be as improper in principle, though it might not be as
inconvenient in practice, to give the State legislature this great
authority over the elections of the people in the general legisla
ture, as it would be to give to the latter a like power over the
elections of the representatives in the State legislatures."

That the same meaning was generally understood at the time,
is abundantly established from other sources. But I will not
detain the House by referring further thereto ; and I only refer
to these opinions now, for the purpose, as I have said, of showing
what was understood to be the import of the words, "times,
places, and manner of holding elections ;" and that no person
appeared at that time to entertain any opinion contrary to Mr.
Madison, to wit — that "they were words of great latitude ;" and
that by them, or under their authority, the States would have
power to decide " whether all the people in one State should vote
for all their representatives, or whether all in a district should
vote for a member allotted to such district." It is true, I might
use the authority of Mr. Madison here quoted, to show that he
was in favor of the incorporation of the latter part of the clause,
which gives the controlling power to Congress, and that he went
in argument so far as to say, in effect, that it would be as wrong
in principle to leave this subject entirely under the control of the
legislatures of the States, as it would be to give to tfie general gov
ernment power to control the elections of the members of the
State legislatures. But this is not my object at present, which is
only to show that the power of " districting" is not only embraced
in the words used ex m termini, but was well understood to be
so intended by those who made the constitution ; and that it is
in pursuance of the same that the States have ever since exer
cised the power. And if this point is satisfactorily established,
as I believe it is, I leave it for gentlemen to decide whether, ac
cording to their admission, Congress has not the same right to
its exercise that the States have.

There is, Mr. Speaker, another particular also, in which I do
not agree with the gentleman from Mississippi. He says that if
he believed the second section of the apportionment act to be.

262 RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS.

constitutional, he would not consent, coming as he does from a
State electing by general ticket, to hold his seat in this House.
Now, sir, I come from a State electing in the same way ; and I
believe the section of the act alluded to, and now under con
sideration, to be a constitutional law ; and that it ought to be
considered as operative and valid, touching the elections of mem
bers, in the organization of this House. Entertaining these
opinions, I have been asked how I could consistently retain my
seat as a member of this body, sworn as I am, to support the
constitution. My answer is, that I submit the question to this
House, the constitutional tribunal, for its decision. This, sir, is
a constitutional question which individually concerns me but
little ; but one in which the people of the State I have the honor
in part to represent, as well as the people of all the States, have'
a deep interest ; and one in the settlement of which the same
people have a right to be heard. The people of Georgia, sir,
have a right to representation here, either by the general-ticket
or district system. A majority of that people, I believe, agree
with me that the district system, under existing laws, is the legal
and proper one. And here I would respectfully dissent from the
opinion of one of my colleagues, [Mr. BLACK,] expressed on a
former occasion — that the people of that State were united upon
this subject, and that the prevailing opinion of both parties was
in favor of the general ticket. I think if there is any one par
ticular in which both parties of that State are more nearly agreed
than upon any other, it is the district systen. At the session
before the last of our legislature, the democratic party were
largely in the majority, and an act was past districting the State,
which was vetoed by the governor ; and the late legislature, which
was whig, passed another act of similar import, which has re
ceived the executive sanction, and which is now the law of the
State. But I barely allude to this, to put the matter right before
the House.

The question involved in the subject now under consideration,
is one upon which great difference of opinion seems to prevail ;
and it is one neither for me or a majority of the people of
Georgia, but for this House to determine. This House, by the
constitution, is made the sole "judge of the elections, returns,
and qualifications of its members," and if you say that the mem
bers elected by general ticket are legally and properly returned,
your decision, by the constitution, is final and conclusive upon
the subject ; and, in that event, a majority of the people of
Georgia say I am to be one of their representatives ; and if 3^ou
say the law of Congress is valid, and ought to be regarded as
such, why, the present delegation will retire, and another will be
sent according to the provisions of the existing law of the State.
In either event, the people, if represented at all, ought certainly
to be represented by those of their own choice.

I have been told by some, that my position was like that of a

RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS. 263

suitor at court, who claims a hearing, and at the same time,
denies his right. By no means, sir. My position is more like
that of the representative of a suitor at court, when there is no
doubt as to the right of recovery, but some difference of opinion
as to the right way to be pursued in obtaining it, and which is
not to be settled by the suitor or his representative, but by the
court.

Is a man to be deprived of his rights because he may differ
from the court as to the proper form of action to be brought ? Or,
are a people to be disfranchised, because they may differ with this
House, as to the proper and legal mode of election ? When a man
is sworn to support a constitution, sir, which provides for its own
amendment, I hold he is as much bound to support an amend
ment, when made in pursuance thereof, as he was to support the
original constitution ; and when he is sworn to support a constitu
tion which provides a tribunal for the settlement of any class of
cases arising under it, where differences of opinion may prevail,
he is as much bound to acquiesce in the decision of such tribunal
when made, and to the extent made, until reversed, in any case
so arising, as he was bound to be governed by his own opinions
in relation to it before. This, sir, is one of the first principles of
all societies, and part of the obligation of every individual im
plied when he becomes a citizen of government, or takes the oath
of allegiance. Else, why should there be a tribunal to decide
such questions, if obedience and acquiescence to the decision,
when made, should not be regarded, in every sense of propriety,
right and proper, both politically and morally ?

Sir, without this rule, there could be no order and no govern
ment ; but every man would set up his own judgment — or a much
less safe guide, his own conscience — as the rule of his own acts ;
and the most lawless anarchy would be the result.

Why, sir, suppose the resolutions upon your table be adopted,
and the sitting members from the four States elected by general
ticket be declared by a vote of the House to have .been duly
elected, and your legislation proceeds : will the constitutionality
of the acts passed by this Congress be inquirable into by the
courts of the country upon this ground ? Suppose, during the
session, some law be passed, and carried by the votes of those
members whose right to seats is now under consideration, mak
ing certain acts criminal, and subject to severe punishment ; and
hereafter, some individual, charged with a violation of that law,
should raise the question of constitutionality, and insist, by way
of defence, that it was no law, not having been passed by a Con
gress constitutionally organized : would his plea avail him any
thing? or would it be entertained by any court. Would not
every judge be bound by the settlement of that question by this
House, to whom it has, by the constitution, been wisely and
exclusively committed? I apprehend that he would, sir ; and that,
too, notwithstanding his own opinion might be opposed to that

264 BIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS.

of a majorit^y of this House upon the question now before it. The
judge would be shielded with the consciousness that, if the
constitution were violated, it would not be by his decision ; and
so, sir, with me ; if a constitutional law in the decision of this
question be disregard, it will not be by my vote or influence.
But as I am sworn to support and defend that instrument, I do
so to-day, and to the utmost of my ability ; and if I fail in in
ducing this E&ouse to agree with me in opinion upon the question,
I must yield my own to the opinions of the majority of those
whose province it is to decide it. Neither am I unsupported by
the ablest authority in the correctness of my position.

Mr. Madison, upon this subject, says :

" Has the wisest and most conscientious judge ever scrupled
to acquiesce in decisions in which he has been overruled by
the mature opinions of the majority of his colleagues, and
subsequently to conform himself thereto, as to authoritative
expositions of the law ? And is it not reasonable that the same
view of the official oath should be taken by a legislator, acting
under the constituion, which is his guide, as is taken by a judge
acting under the law, which is his.

" There is, in fact, and in common understanding, a necessity
of regarding a course of practice, as above characterized, in the
light of a legal rule for interpreting a law; and there is a like ne-
cessit}'' of considering it a constitutional rule of interpreting a
constitution." — Niles's Register, supplement to vol. 43, p. 28.

This, sir, is the rule by which I am governed ; and I have been
the more full and explicit in giving it, because some, who are
about as little noted for their sagacity as their integrity, have af
fected to feel such great surprise at what they consider the strange
inconsistency of my position.

Having said thus much upon these points, I now come, sir, to
the main question before the House, which is. the propriety of
the adoption of the resolutions upon your table, which declare
that the second section of the apportionment act, before alluded
to, is not a valid and operative law; and, in consequence, that the
elections in four of the States which have been held in disregard
thereof, are nevertheless lawful and valid.

The language of that section is in the following words : '

" That in every case when a State is entitled to more than one
representative, the number to which each State shall be entitled
under this apportionment shall be elected by districts, composed
of contiguous territory, equal in number to the number of repre
sentatives to which each State may be entitled — no one district
electing more than than one representative."

The object of the section evidently was to legislate upon the
places and manner of holding the election of members of this
House, so far as to require such elections to be held by single
districts.

The authority upon which the legislation was based, is the power

RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS. 265

given to Congress in that clause of the constitution alluded to
before. And so far as form is concerned, it is admitted by all, I
believe, that the section in question passed strictly in pursuance
of the mode prescribed in the constitution for the enactment of
laws ; that is, it passed this House, the Senate, and received the
sanction of the President, and is found in the statute-book with
the other laws of the land. And of course this House should re
quire some strong reasons to justify it in the passage of a resolu
tion which declares that, notwithstanding all these sanctions, it
is no law, and of no binding force.

And here I will remark that I agree with the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. BELSER] as to the proper rule which should be
adopted in its construction ; which is the same that all courts
adopt upon the construction of statutes touching their validity;
that is, such construction should be given as will, if possible, sus
tain the law. The power of Congress, the subject-matter of the
statute, with all its relations, should be so considered and con
strued, that the whole may, if possible, stand ; or, as the courts
sa}', " ut res magis valeat, quam pereat." Not that I intend to
insist upon any advantages that might be supposed to arise from
the latitude of this rule ; but I mention it barely because a con
trary one has been suggested by some.

I have, Mr. Speaker, been an attentive listener during the pro
gress of this debate, and I have, I believe, given no less attention
to the arguments of the gentlemen who advocate the adoption of
the resolutions, than to the report of the committee, and the rea
sons which seem to have led them to the conclusions expressed
in the resolutions. And I think, upon proper examination and
analysis, they will all be found to rest upon one of three positions :

1. That the section in question is inoperative and void, because
Congress, by the constitution, has no power to legislate upon the
subject.

2. That though Congress does possess the power of regulating
" the times, places, and manner of holding elections for members
of this House, yet it is limited in its exercise to the contingency
of the failure or refusal of the' States to do so ; which contingency
not having happened, it was improperly exercised, and therefore
its action is void.

3. That though Congress does possess the power, and as ab
solutely as the States, yet the section in question is not such a
full exercise of the power as to render it an efficient statute ; and
that it is so materially defective in itself as to be inoperative and
void as it now stands.

Those who take the first ground agree with the gentleman from
Mississippi who last addressed the House; and, as I have already
answered that view, I will say no more upon it at this time. The
report of the committee, however, and a large majority of those
who advocate the resolutions, I believe it will be admitted, do not
rest their argument upon that ground; they rely exclusively upon

266 EIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS.

the last two positions, neither of which seems to me to be any
more tenable than the first; and each of them I will examine in
its order.

The first position, then, assumed by the committee, is, that the
power of Congress over elections of members of this House, "in
prescribing the times, places, and manner," is a conditional or
contingent power, or one only to be exercised upon the condition
or contingency of the failure or refusal of the States to do so ;
and, as the contingency upon which it rests had not happened, its
exercise by the last Congress was improper and void.

[Mr. DOUGLASS (the author of the report) here interrupted, and
was understood to deny that the committee had taken that po
sition.]

" I think, Mr. Speaker, that I will be able to show, not only to
the House, but to the gentleman himself, that I am not mistaken
in the position of the report. I have it before me, and from it I
read as follows:

" The privilege allowed Congress of altering State regulations,
or making new ones, if not in terms, is certainly, in spirit and
design, dependent and contingent. If the legislatures of the States
fail or refuse to act in the premises, etc., then the conservative
power interposes, and, upon the principle of self-preservation, au
thorizes Congress to do that which the State legislatures ought to
have done."

Moreover, the report goes on to affirm that " the history of the
constitution, and especially the section in question, shows con
clusively that these were the considerations which induced the
adoption of that provision."

And again, says the report, in maintenance of the same prin
ciple :

"After the subject of this provision had been fully and ably
discussed, maturely considered and unanimously adopted, the
latter clause of the section conferring upon Congress the power
to make regulations, or alter those prescribed by the States, was
agreed to, with an explanation at the time that this was meant to
give to the national legislature the* power not only to alter the
provisions of the States, but to make regulations in case the States
should fail, or refuse altogether."

Now, sir, this is the argument ; and so far as what is said
of the explanation given at the time is concerned, even that
certainly does not warrant the conclusion that the power con
ferred upon Congress by the clause was understood, either in
spirit or design, only to be exercised in case of the failure or
refusal of the States to do so ; and that the general understand
ing at the time does not warrant such conclusion, I think
abundantly evident from the history of that period. No clause
in the constitution met with warmer opposition in the States ;
and nothing is clearer than that it was well understood that full
power thereby was given to Congress to exercise absolute and

EIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS. 267

unconditional legislation upon the subject. This is apparent
from the debates in all the States, as far as they have been
preserved ; and seven of the States ratified the constitution with
a proposed amendment that the power, in this section, should be
so far restricted as to limit its exercise by Congress to the
contingency stated. The proposed amendment offered by Mas
sachusetts is in the following words :

" The convention do therefore recommend that the following
alterations and provisions be introduced into the said constitu
tion : ' That Congress do not exercise the power vested in them
by the fourth section of the first article, but in cases where the
States shall neglect or refuse to make the regulations therein
mentioned, or shall make regulations subversive of the rights of
the people to a free and equal representation in Congress agreea
ble to the constitution.' "

The language of the amendment proposed by Yirginia is in the
following wrords :

" The Congress shall not alter, or modify, or interfere in the
times, places, or manner of holding elections for senators and
representatives, or either of them, except when the legislature
of any State shall neglect, refuse, or be disabled, by invasion
or rebellion, to prescribe the same." And, at the same time,
" enjoined upon her representatives in Congress to exert all their
influence, and use all reasonable and legal methods, to obtain a
ratification of the foregoing alteration and provision, in the man
ner provided by the fifth article of the constitution."

North Carolina proposed the following amendment :

" That Congress shall not alter, modify, or interfere with the
times, places, or manner of holding elections for senators and
representatives, or either of them, except when the legislature of
any State shall neglect, refuse, or be disabled, by invasion or
rebellion, to prescribe the same."

But it is useless to multiply these instances. Similar resolu
tions, as I have before stated, were passed by seven of the States
ratifying the constitution ; which shows conclusively that, how
ever much those States may have been opposed to the existence
of such power, yet, nevertheless, it was well understood, at the
time, that the power did exist under the constitution as ratified.

Nay, more, sir ; I have before me the journals of the House of
Representatives of the first Congress, in 1789; and, on page 86,
I find that the following amendment to the constitution, which
had been offered by Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, was acted
upon, to wit : *

"Congress shall not alter, modify, or interfere in the times,
places, or manner of holding elections of senators or representa
tives, except when any State shall refltse, or neglect, or be unable,
by invasion or rebellion, to make such election." Which was
lost. And among those who recorded their votes in the negative,
are Nicholas Gilman, Roger Sherman, and James Madison, who

268 EIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS.

were all members of the convention that formed the constitution.
Sir, can any thing be clearer, or better established, than that it
was well understood at that day that the absolute and uncondi
tional power of regulating " the times, places, and manner of
holding elections for this House," either in the case of the failure
or refusal of the States, or not, was vested by the constitution
in the general government ? And not only this ? but that, in the
opinion of the wise men and pure patriots that composed the
first Congress, it ought to remain there. And who there was no
such understanding, as stated by the majority of the Committee
of Elections, that it was to be exercised only in case of failure
or refusal on the part of the States ? That is the limitation to
which the States before-mentioned wished to restrict it by
amendment ; and that is the limitation to which the proposed
amendment in the first Congress was intended to restrict it,
which has never been ratified, leaving the power as originally
incorporated in the constitution.

Sir, is more light wanted upon this subject ? or do gentlemen,
ostrich like, expect, by hiding their own etyes, to extinguish the
light around from the vision of others ? You may, indeed, en
shroud yourself in darkness, but it seems to me that you may as
well attempt to extinguish the light at noon, so long as yonder
sun courses his path in the heavens, as to envelop this subject in
mystery or doubt, while the archives of your country remain un-
obliterated.

I come now, sir, to the arguments and reasons of those, who,
abandoning the grounds of the first and second positions, attempt
to fortify themselves under the third. They admit that Congress
does possess the power, by the 4th section of the first article
of the constitution, to regulate the times, places, and manner of
holding elections for members of this House, so far as to require
them to be chosen by districts ; which, it is also admitted, was
the object of the second section of the last apportionment act.
They admit, also, that this power in Congress is not barely an
ultimate one, to be exercised only in case of a failure or refusal
of the State to exercise it ; but that it is an absolute and con
trolling power, to be exercised at any time according to discre
tion. But they insist that the section under consideration is not
such an exercise of it as should be regarded as law — that it was
only an attempt at its exercise without such details as are neces
sary at all times to give force and efficiency to legislation — that
if Congress had gone on and divided the States into districts, its
action would 'have been both constitutional and binding; but
that, as the section now stands, it is a perfect nullity within itself,
until it shall be perfected e^her by the legislatures of the States, or
this government, in the formation of the districts, etc. ; or, in other
words, that, as it now stands, it is nothing more than a direction,
or a mandamus to the States, to form districts according to a
general principle therein set forth, which they say this govern-

RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS. 269

ment has no right to give. They insist that from the nature of
the State governments, and the Federal government, each being
confined within its own appropriate sphere of action, Congress
cannot constitutionally pass any law, which for its full execution,
will require the States to conform thereto, or perfect by their
legislation.

This view of the subject is the only plausible one to my mind
that has been presented, for considering the section in question
as inoperative as it now stands upon the statute book ; and to it
I ask the particular attention of the House ; for it is not only
strongly relied upon by the majority of the committee in their
report, but has been repeatedly urged in the debate with a great
deal of speciousness, and by no one with more clearness and
force, I believe, than by my colleague, [Mr. COBB,] who addressed
the House on yesterday ; and }Tet, I think it will be as unable to
bear the test of examination as either of the others. The strength
of the argument in this view, you will perceive, rests mainly
upon the assumed principle, that, from the nature of the Federal
and State governments, in our complicated form, in legislation
each is confined to its own sphere ; and that Congress cannot
pass a law, valid in itself, or such as should be regarded
efficient and operative, which, for its execution, will require
State legislation ; and that the States are not bound, under the
constitution, to make such legis lation, inany instance, as will be
necessary for the full execution and operation of a law of Con
gress. That the laws of Congress, to be valid, must not depend
upon such State legislation, but must operate proprio vigore, or
not at all.

Now, sir, if this assumed principle can be shown to be wrong,
the whole argument which rests upon it, as a matter of course
will be overthrown ; and that it is wrong, I think can be made ap
pear, both from the constitution itself, and repeated precedents
of legislation in our history. That the principle assumed as a
general proposition is true, I admit ; but that it is true in any
case where there is such concurrent jurisdiction, or powers oi*
legislation, if you please, given to the States and Congress over
any subject, and the controlling power conferred upon the latter,
as in the case now- under consideration, (and there are several
such in the constitution,) I am disposed to question.

I will illustrate, sir. By the constitution, it is made the duty
of Congress, every ten years, from an enumeration made, to ap
portion the number of representatives to which each State may
be entitled, according to the federal basis. And all that Congress
does, or has done from the beginning of the government, in the
exercise of this power, is barely to fix the ratio of representation,
and by law to declare the number of representatives to which
each State is entitled according to the same. Of course, it
becomes the duty of each State immediately to prescribe such
new regulations as may be necessary for conformity to the new

270 EIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS.

ratio. For instance : in all those States where the district system
was the existing mode of electing representatives, it has been
necessary for a reorganization of the districts, by State legisla
tion, in each one of them, upon each apportionment. By the last
apportionment, several of the States are entitled to a less number
of representatives than before. Suppose these States had not
reorganized their districts in conformity with the late apportion
ment act, and had sent the same number of representatives, and
elected in the same way as before, would they be admitted upon
the ground that the act was a mandamus to the States, and that
Congress could pass no law requiring conformity on the part of
the States in their legislative action ? Or is the second section
of the apportionment act under consideration anymore directory
or mandatory to the States electing by general ticket, than the
first section is to those electing by districts. All the States in
cluded in the latter class, I believe, have conformed to the first
section, and without the slightest objection, as far as I have
heard.

Why, sir, since the organization of the government, there have
been six acts of apportionment ; and without giving their dates,
or detaining the House by reading them, I will venture to say,
that there has not been one of the six which did not require (not
in words, but from the necessit}^ of the case) a majority of the
States, in pursuance of their constitutional duty, in order to
secure a representation on this floor, to pass laws reorganizing
their districts in conformity to the apportionment of Congress.

I give this as one instance of the error of the position.

Another, is the one alluded to by the gentleman from Yermont
the other day, [Mr. COLLAMER,] relating to the appointment of
electors for President and Vice-President of the United States.
In the second section of the second article of the Constitution, it
is provided that " each State shall appoint, in such manner as
the legislature thereof may direct, the number of electors, equal
to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the
State may be entitled in Congress." And in the fourth section
of the same article, it is provided that " Congress may determine
the time of choosing electors, and the day on which they shall
give their votes, which day shall be the same throughout the
United States."

And in exercise of the power hereby conferred, Congress,
by act approved 1st of March, 1792, declared that ''electors
shall be appointed in each State, for the election of a President
and Vice President of the United States, within thirtj^-four days
preceding the first Wednesday in December, 1192, and within
thirty-four days preceding the first Wednesday in December of
every fourth year succeeding the last election ; which electors
shall be equal to the number of senators and representatives to
which the several States may by law be entitled, at the time when the
President and Yice-President thus to be chosen should come into

RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS. 271

office : Provided, always, that, when no apportionment of repre
sentatives shall have been made, after an enumeration, at the time
of choosing electors, then the number of electors shall be accord
ing to the existing apportionment of senators and represen
tatives."

This, sir, has been the regulation of Congress, under which
every President of the United States, from the first, I believe,
has been elected, and to which every State in the Union has con
formed, as it was in duty bound to do, and without which there
could have been no election of chief magistrate within the time
stated.

But again. By the 16th clause of the tth section of the 1st
article of the Constitution, power is conferred upon Congress
" to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia,
and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
service of the United States ; reserving to the States; respectively,
the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the
militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

Now, sir, as a precedent, I will not refer to the extent of power
claimed under this clause, in the celebrated army bill of the ad
ministration in 1840, alluded to yesterday by the gentleman from
Virginia, [MR. NEWTON,*] and which, I believe, was defended by
many leading men upon this floor, who now denounce the second
section of the apportionment act as a mandamus to the States.
But I will ask the attention of the House to an act approved
May 8th, 1792, entitled—

" An act more effectually to provide for the national defence,
by establishing a uniform militia throughout the United States."

The third section of that act is in the following words :

" And be it further enacted, Thgit within one year after the passing of
this act. the militia of the respective States shall be arranged into divi
sions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, a* the legislatures
of each State shall direct ; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall
be numbered as the formation thereof, and a record made of such num
bers in the adjutant-general's office in each State. Each division, bri
gade, and regiment, shall respectively take rank according to their num
bers, reckoning the first lowest number highest in the rank. That, if the
same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments ; each
regiment of two battalions ; each battalion of four companies ; each com
pany of sixty-four privates. The said militia shall be officered by the
respective States as follows : To each division one major-general and two
aids-de-camp with the rank of major ; to each brigade one brigadier-
general, with one brigade inspector, to serve also as brigade-major, with
the rank of major; to each regiment one lieutenant-colonel commandant,

* The 39th section of the celebrated army bill of Mr. Yan Buren, was
in the following words : " That the legislatures of the several States, at
the earliest period of time after the adoption of the system, enact such
laws as may be necessary to enrol and organize the militia of the several
States according to the provisions contained herein." — See. Ex. Doc.
1839, '40, vol. 4, page 13.

272 RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS.

and to each battalion one major, and to each company one captain, one
lieutenant, one ensign etc."

Now, sir, this was alluded to also the other day by the gentle
man from Vermont, [Mr. COLLAMER,] and, as a precedent upon
the point now under consideration, I think it is quite analogous.
It was a law passed in 1792; which, for its full execution, re
quired action on the part of the legislatures of the States in
laying off and arranging the divisions, brigades, etc., and ap
pointing officers according to the direction of the act. There
was nothing then said about this act of Congress being a manda
mus to the States, unauthorized by the constitution, and there
fore inoperative and void, and such as the States should not re
gard. But every State in the Union immediately conformed
thereto ; and the same, I believe, is the basis of the militia
organization of the country to this day.

Nor need I be answered, as I have heard suggested in conversa
tion, that this measure was adopted before the people were much
awakened to the encroachments of the general government upon
the rights of the States. If there ever has been a period in our
history, when the line that divides the powers of the State and
federal governments from each other was more clearly defined
and better understood than at any other, it was about the time
of the passage of this act. It was then that Mr. Jefferson, the
acknowledged champion of the rights of the States, was exercis
ing his greatest vigilance in guarding his favorite object. It was
just before, that even the incorporation of a bank was considered
by him as unconstitutional, because, amongst other objections, it
was supposed to encroach upon the rights of the States, in inter
fering with their laws upon the subjects of mortmain, descent, etc.

And yet no one amongst the most zealous advocates of the
rights of the States at that day seems to have conceived the idea
that the act in relation to the organization of the militia, was in
the least degree in violation of those rights, or contained any un
authorized mandamus to control their legislation.

Nor need I be told that precedent is not constitutional power;
and that because Congress has heretofore passed unauthorized
acts, the practice should be continued. I do not refer to these
precedents for any such purpose. But as I undertook to show
that the principle upon which one of the positions assumed by
the advocates of the resolution upon your table rested, was
founded in error, I cite these examples to show that I am sus
tained in my view of construction by acts of the government,
dating back almost to its beginning; and the constitutionality or
validity of which has never been questioned. And from these in
stances and precedents, I respectfully submit whether it does not
appear that Congress may, in some cases, arising under the con
stitution, pass an act good and valid within itself; and yet one
which, for a full execution, will require conforming legislation on
the part of the States. To my mind, this seems to be clear.

BIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIE SEATS. 273

The only remaining question is, whether the second section of
the apportionment act is one of that class and description. That
it is, seems a fair inference from its striking analogy to the cases
just referred to. But to put the matter beyond doubt, if possi
ble, as it seems to me, I will give some other illustrations, touch
ing the validity of acts of Congress upon subjects over which con
current legislative power is given to the State and federal gov
ernments; answering, as I proceed, other arguments of the ad
vocates of the resolutions ; and in conclusion, show that the sec
tion in question was just such an exercise of this power by Con
gress as was originally intended by the framers of the constitution.

And first, I will take the case put by the majority of the com
mittee in the report, which I apprehend to be one of the strongest
to illustrate their position.

" Congress," say they, "possess the power under the constitu
tion to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies
throughout the United States." And further, they say, " suppose
that Congress, instead of passing the late bankrupt law, had con
tented itself with a simple declaration, similar to the second sec
tion of the apportionment act, that all laws upon the subject of
bankruptcies should be uniform in each State of the Union ; that
persons might be discharged from the payment of their just debts
upon their own application, without the consent of their creditors,
upon the surrender of all their property, except so much as the court
might allow them to retain, not exceeding three hundred dollars;
and that no man should be released from his obligations under
any law which did not conform to these abstract principles : would
these rules be valid and impose upon the States the duty of so
changing their local legislation as to conform to the abstractions
established by Congress? "If this cannot be done in case of
bankruptcy," say they, "upon what principle is it that Congress
may direct the legislative discretion of the States in regard to
elections?" I answer, the cases are not analagous. The subject
of bankruptcies is given exclusively to Congress by the constitu
tion. To make the cases similar, let us suppose that the consti
tution had declared that "the States respectively shall establish
laws on the subject of bankruptcy; but Congress may, at any
time, make or alter the same." And suppose, in different States,
various rules had been established, conflicting with each other ;
and Congress, for th§ purpose of creating uniformity upon this
subject, had then established the general principle supposed by
the committee : the cases would then be strictly analagous ; and
I apprehend that no court in the Union, under such circumstances,
would permit a discharge of a bankrupt under any State regula
tions made in disregard of the general principle thus established
by Congress.

Or take the clause of the constitution which gives Congress
the power to establish uniform laws for the naturalization of
foreigners. Suppose, instead of this power being given exclu-
18

274 EIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS.

sively to Congress, it had been given primarily to the States to
establish such laws, with the proviso that Congress might, at any
time, make or alter the same. And suppose, in some of the
States, laws had been passed requiring a residence of ten years
on the part of any alien, before he could be naturalized, or per
mitted to enjoy the privileges of a citizen ; and in other States
the period was twenty years ; and in some of the States nothing
should be required but an oath before a justice of the peace to
support the constitution of the United States ; and, under this
state of things, Congress should pass a general law declaring
that two years' residence should be sufficient ; but that, in every
instance of naturalization, the proceedings should be had before
some court of record, etc., can any man doubt that such general
law would be valid, or that any court would hold the proceeding
had upon the naturalization of any alien, valid, which did not
conform thereto? If not, no longer may the "constitution of
the United States, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, be
regarded as the supreme law of the land."

But, sir, my colleague [Mr. COBB] says that the concurrent
and even controlling power of Congress over the subject of con
gressional elections, by which they can " make" or " alter" the
regulations " of time, place, and manner," does not authorize
them barely to " annul" and " abrogate," as he says this act does.
And though I shall be able, I think, to show, presently, most
clearly, that his view of the act in this particular is incorrect ;
yet, in answer to him, here I put the case supposed by the
minority of the committee in their report.

Has not Congress the same, and even greater power over the
whole subject, than the States have ? My colleague admits that
Congress has. Then, suppose that the State of Georgia had, by
law, declared the same general principle which the act under con
sideration has, and had done nothing more, and such act had
passed both Houses of our legislature, and been signed by the
governor : would it not have operated as a repeal of the general-
ticket system ? He admits that it would. But then, says he,
would be the time for the exercise of this conservative principle
in the constitution on the part of Congress. Grant the fact : but
the case I put to him is, if the State had so declared, by law,
would she be entitled to a representation on this floor by
members elected according to the old law, or could she have
held any valid election until there had been further legislation
upon the subject, either by Congress or her own legislature ?
That is the question. And if Congress has the same power as
the State, is not the result practically the same, whether the law
was passed by this government or the State government ? But
I said his view of the law, in this particular, I conceived to be
wrong. He says the power to " make" is not a power to " un
make/' and the power to " alter" is not a power barely to " repeal
or annul ;" and that, when Congress undertakes to alter any ex-

RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS. 275

isting State mode or manner of holding elections, it must not be
a bare repeal of such mode or manner, but something should be
substituted for the provision changed. And I say, sir, such is
the fact in relation to the act under consideration ; and, without
inquiring into the correctness of his position in general, it is
sufficient for me to say that it does not apply to this case ; for
the act of Congress is not a repeal, but something is substituted
in lieu of what is altered, as far as the alteration goes. It
altered, if you please, the general-ticket, and substituted the
single-district system in its stead, which, I apprehend, was exer
cising the power over the subject conferred upon Congress in
just such a way and sense as was originally intended by the
frame rs of the constitution. Their object in giving the control
ling power to Congress, was to give Congress power to establish
general principles upon the subject of elections for the purpose
of having uniformity throughout the country, leaving the details
and particulars to the action of the State legislatures. For,
when Mr. Madison, in the Virginia convention, was asked by Mr.
Monroe, " Why Congress had the ultimate control over the times,
places, and manner, of holding elections ?" — he said, " It was
thought that the regulations of time, place, and manner, of elect
ing representatives should be uniform throughout the continent.
Some States might regulate the elections upon principles of
equality, and others might regulate them otherwise. It was
found necessary to leave the regulation of them in the first place
to the State governments, as being best acquainted with the situ
ation of the people, subject to the control of the general govern
ment, in order to enable it to produce uniformity, and prevent
its own dissolution. And considering the State government and
the general government as distinct bodies, acting in different and
independent capacities for the people, it was thought that par
ticular regulations should be submitted to the former, and the
general regulations to the latter."

Now, I would ask, what Mr. Madison could have meant by gen
eral regulations, if he did not intend to include just such a general
principle or regulation as that contained in the apportionment
act, providing that all the members of this House, in all the
States, should be elected by single districts ; and leaving, as was
originally thought best, the particular reglations — the details,
if you please — the laying off the districts, etc. — to the State gov
ernments. But so far as the argument of my colleague upon
this point is concerned, he is certainly fully answered in this :
that Congress has substituted something in lieu of the provision
altered. It repealed — or annulled, if he will have it so — the
general-ticket, and substituted in its place the single-district
system.

It seems to me, then, Mr. Speaker, to be clear, not only that
Congress may, in some instances, pass a law constitutional and
valid in itself, which will, nevertheless, require legislation on the

276 RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS.

part of the States before its operation can be full and efficient,
but that the second section of the apportionment act is just such
a law; and, in exercising the power over the subject-matter,
Congress went just so far as was originally thought to be best,
and no further ; and, having arrived at this conclusion, I will say
nothing more upon this subject, but respectfully submit to the
House whether, in the course of what has been said, it has not
been made to appear —

1. That the " power of districting " is embraced in the terms,
"times, places and manner of holding elections," as used in the
constitution, and consequently is vested in Congress.

2. That the power in Congress to regulate the times, places,
and manner of holding elections for members of this House, is
neither, in letter or spirit, conditional or contingent, dependent
upon the failure or refusal of the States to exercise it ; but is full
and absolute, and to be exercised, as all other such powers, ac
cording to circumstances, and a prudent discretion.

3. That the second section of the last apportionment act (the
object of which was to legislate upon this subject so far as to se
cure or establish uniformity of elections in all the States upon
the single-district plan) seeks to do nothing which is not clearly
within the power of Congress ; and, so far from being so imper
fect within itself as to justify its being considered inefficient or
inoperative on that account, it is just such an exercise of the
power of Congress over the premises as has often been exercised
over other subjects, under other similar powers, and just such an
one as was originally thought to be best by the framers of the
constitution in this case ; and, therefore, under no consideration,
should it be pronounced by this House as either void, invalid, or
inoperative.

And here, sir, I might perhaps properly close what I have to
say upon this occasion, but there are one or two other matters
growing out of this subject, to which I wish briefly to allude be
fore doing so.

The majority of the Committee of Elections, in their report
which is now under consideration, affirm that the "second section
of the act of apportionment is an attempt, by the introduction
of a new principle, to subvert the entire system, of legislation
adopted by the several States Of the Union, and to compel them
to conform to certain rules established by Congress for their
government.

Sir, I cannot agree with the committee in opinion that such was
either the object of the act in question, or can, in any way, be its
consequence. If so, I should be the last to 'advocate the measure.
I consider myself as one of those who hold the doctrine that the
permanency of our institutions can only be preserved by confining
the action of the State and federal governments each to its own
proper sphere ; and that, while there should be no encroachment
upon the rights of the States by this government, there should

RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS. 277

also, on their part, be no disobedience or failure to perform their
duties according to the terms of the constitutional compact.

But, sir, is it true that the second section of the act alluded to
does subvert the entire system of State legislation, or even at
tempts to do so ? Have not all the States of the Union conformed
thereto but four. Yea, all but three — for Georgia is now amongst
those which have established the single-district plan of electing
members to this House. And is not the system of our State
legislation as fixed and firm as ever ? Do we not regulate all such
matters as belong exclusively to ourselves, as fully and as abso
lutely as before ? Have we not our legislatures, our executives,
our judiciary, and all our officers, military and civil ? And do
not all things move on as smoothly and harmoniously as before?
Sir, I do not see this entire subversion and breaking up of all
the State institutions complained of by the committee ; and sup
pose it must have its origin only in the heat of their own
imagination. And I only allude to it to show the extravagance
of the views entertained by the committee upon this subject, and
which forms one of the links in that chain of argument by which
they come to the conclusions expressed in the resolutions. An
other point I would call attention to, is the remark made the
other day by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. KENNEDY].

He spoke of this as being a party question ; and said all the
democrats were made up in mind upon one side, and all the whigs
upon the other.

Now, sir, though I admit that the whigs are mostly united
upon one side of this question, and that a large majority of the
democratic party upon this floor are also united on the other side
(which I regret to see upon any great constitutional question,)
yet, if I mistake not, this feature originated with a distinguished
member of the democratic party in the last Congress, who now sits
before me [Mr. CAMPBELL, of South Carolina]. And on the
journals of that Congress, which are now before me, I see the
names of several of that party recorded in favor of the measure.

And who, sir, moved, the other day, the adoption of the
minority report ? Was it not the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
BELSER] — a member of the democratic party, and one who favored
the House also with a very able argument in favor of the validity
of the section in question.

Another gentleman [Mr. ELMER] said, the other day, that he
considered this question as involving the great principle which
at first divided parties in this country — the federal, or those in
favor of a strong national government, on the one side, and the
republican, or those opposed thereto, on the other. If so, I ask
the gentleman on which side of the line does he place himself
and his friends. Certainly he is not on that side of the question
upon which the distinguished leaders of the republican party
stood in their day. I had thought that Mr. Madison stood amongst
the first in the republican ranks. I care not by what party name

278 EIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS.

you characterize his position. In this matter, as in most others
of a political nature, I profess to belong to his school ; and I
care not whether you call him a federalist, a republican, or a
democrat. I regard the name but little. We, on the whig side,
however, certainly follow in his lead upon this question, as I
have before shown.

Upon the general policy of the single-district system, or its
relative merits, compared with the general ticket, I do not know,
Mr. Speaker, that it would be proper, at this time, to say any
thing. But I should not feel that I had discharged my duty
fully, if I permitted the occasion to pass without at least giving
the expression of my opinion quite as decidedly in favor of the
policy as the validity of the act now under consideration. I am,
sir, a district man ; and believe a large majority of the people of
both parties, of the State from which I come, upon this subject
agree with me in sentiment.

Sir, it is the most equal system. It is the most republican.
It gives every section of the State a representative. It gives the
minority in the State a voice in the national councils. It in
creases the responsibility of the representative to his constituents,
and better enables the constituents, from personal acquaintance
and intercourse, to judge correctly of the man to whom they
confide the important trust of legislating for them. But I cannot
enumerate the advantages of this system at this time. I will
barely, however, add that, if from no other consideration, I
should be in favor of it from its conservative tendency. Under its
operation, parties in the different States are more nearly balanced
against themselves, and their violence is more nearly neutralized
by its counteraction. This tends very much to check that high
degree of excitement, which otherwise would prevail on many
questions, and might be most deleterious in its consequences.
To be useful and salutary, laws must have some continuance and
stability. But if the opposite principle should prevail, or, if
even the four larger States in the Union should adopt the gen
eral ticket mode of election, who is so careless an observer
of men and things as not to see the consequences that would
result ?

The representatives from each of these States, instead of being
divided as they now are, so as almost to balance each other in
party strength, would most probably all be on the same side of
the question ; and might, perhaps, be elected by only a few hun
dred majority in their respective States ; and to the next Con
gress another delegation, equal in number and equally divided
on the other political side, might be returned by about as large
a majority the other way. The effect would be an entire change
of measures ; for the past admonishes, and the present speaks
in language not to be misunderstood, that party rules every
thing.

Sir, amongst the dangers to which our system of government

EIGHT OF MEMBERS TO THEIR SEATS. 279

is exposed, I consider as not amongst the least, the effects upon
the public interests of the country of those fearful shocks pro
duced by the sudden change of such large party majorities upon
this floor. The human system, in its soundest health and fullest
vigor and strength, cannot long sustain its healthful action
against quick transitions from the extremes of temperature. Sir,
the most deeply laid and substantially built of human edifices
cannot stand amidst the oscillations of an unsteady earth ; nor
can the government of a free people, the noblest of all human
structures, remain firm, if its elements and foundations are sub
ject to constant vibrations. Its basis is public opinion ; and the
elements of the human mind are not unlike those of the atmo
sphere about us — which, however, still, and calm, and quiet to-day,
may be roused into the whirlwind to-morrow. And as the mild
air we breathe, when put into commotion, assumes all the power
and terrific force of the tornado, laying waste and in ruin every
thing in its desolating sweep ; so with the passions, prejudices,
and ambition of men, when excited and aroused into factious
strife ; without reason or argument to control their action, every
thing relating to order, right, law, or constitution, is equally dis
regarded, and government itself cannot be saved from its ruth
less destruction. Wise legislation should always guard against
every thing tending to promote such excitements. It was in
this view of this subject, and to guard, as far as possible, against
the liability of such results, that the same wise statesman — the
pure patriot, the sage of Montpelier — to whom I have before
alluded, while the adoption of the constitution was before the
American people, urged upon them the necessity of establishing
such checks and restraints in their government as would be a
" defence for them against their own temporary errors and delu
sions'' — assuring them that, if the people of Athens had had such
provident safeguards for their protection, "they might have es
caped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the
hemlock on one day, and statues on the next."

Sir, there was wisdom and sound philosophy in these instruc
tions, which were no more proper to be duly considered and re
garded in the formation of a constitution than in every species
of legislation, when the same object can be obtained. And the
district system I consider one of those checks and safeguards
which, I trust, will never be abandoned.

I thank the House, Mr. Speaker, for its attentive hearing. I
will trespass no longer upon its patience. I have given you my
views upon this subject. It was due to myself, to the country,
and particularly to my constituents, that I should do so. I may
be wrong in my opinions. I submit them to your considera
tion ; and in the decision of the House I shall feel bound to ac
quiesce.

280 SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

SPEECH ON THE JOINT RESOLUTION FOR THE AN
NEXATION OF TEXAS.

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES,

JANUARY 25, 1845.

MR. CHAIRMAN: — It is more from a sense of duty to myself,
that my position and views may be correctly understood in the
vote I may give on the several propositions now upon the table,
as they may be severally presented when the hour of taking the
vote arrives, than from any expectation of saying any thing in
teresting to the House, that I now venture to invite the attention
of members to what I am about to offer for their consideration.
The subject before us is of no ordinary importance. Its magni
tude seems to be duly felt by every one. And seldom, perhaps,
if ever, has it been surpassed in interest by any that have ever
been discussed within these walls. It is a matter of great con
cern, as well to the people of Texas as to the people of the United
States. Both countries, therefore, are anxiously watching its
progress ; for it involves, to some extent, the harmony, well
being, and destinies of both. I have considered it a grave and
momentous question from the time of its first agitation. And
the same views must have struck not only the politician and
statesman, but the most careless observer of public affairs and
passing events. It is also a question which, to me, loses none
of its interest as its decision approaches. Its vastness and mag
nitude, like great objects in nature, swell out and enlarge as we
come nearer to it. The mountain in the distance, clothed in its
"azure hue," looks all smooth and even; but experience as well
as poetry tells us it is the distance that gives " enchantment to
the view." Surveyed at its base, in the gloomy shade of its
august frown, it no longer presents the delusive prospect of an
easy, an enticing ascent. The abrupt front and rugged surface
too plainly show the dangers and difficulties that beset and
enrivon its few and narrow passes.

So, sir, with this subject, as we approach nearer to it, its sur
face is far from appearing even and smooth. Already we see its
projecting rocks — the high impending cliffs — the deep ravines —
the frightful chasms — and sometimes, I must confess, I fancy I
hear the portentous rumbling of its slumbering volcanic fires.
May God grant that my apprehensions may prove to be founded
only in alarm, or that their destructive energies may never be
fully awakened and actively aroused.

Before attempting, however, to encounter its difficulties or to
surmount its heights, I will premise by stating, that, upon the
abstract question of the annexation of Texas, or the union of the
government of that country with this, upon just and proper prin-

SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 281

ciples, I am favorably inclined, and have been from the beginning.
But I am far from saying that I am in favor of any kind of a
union, or that I am prepared to vote, as some gentlemen have
said for themselves, for either or any of the plans for annexation
which have been referred to this committee. With me, much
depends upon the form, the nature, and the terms of the proposi
tion ; for while I might yield a willing and cordial support to
one, I should not hesitate to give a similar opposition to another.
I am far from declaring myself for Texas any how and in any
way. The benefits to be derived from all human institutions, and
the practical usefulness of all measures, even the wisest, depend
eminently on detail — and upon my opinion of the propriety of
the details of the several plans now before the committee will
depend my vote when the question comes to be taken upon them,
respectively. As much as I desire this addition to our Republic
upon what I conceive to be correct and proper principles, yet
upon others, and upon some of those now before us, I should not
hesitate to reject it, as one of the greatest possible evils with
which we could be cursed.

In what I have to say, therefore, for greater perspicuity, and
for the purpose of being better understood in relation to the
various plans, I will, if the committee will bear with me, proceed
to state —

In the first place, what kind of a proposition I will not support ;
secondly, what kind of a one I will support ; thirdly, notice some
of the objections I have heard in opposition ; and, lastly, if my
time permits, offer some of the reasons which influence me in sup
porting such a measure as I shall state.

In the first place, then, I wish it distinctly understood, that I
am opposed to the plan reported by the chairman (Mr. C. J.
INGERSOLL) of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. That is the
plan which is now immediately before us. It is an exact copy of
the treaty rejected by the Senate last spring, and which I have
never failed, upon all proper occasions, to condemn, ever since
its provisions were made known. My objections to it are two
fold. It leaves the slave vj question, upon which so much has
been said in this debate, unsettled ; and it also provides for the
assumption by this government of the debts of Texas.

My friend and colleague (Mr. HARALSON) yesterday, and
another friend and colleague (Mr. COBB) whom I now see in his
seat, the day before, stated that in Georgia men of all parties
were in favor of annexation ; but neither of those gentlemen, I
presume, would venture to assert that any party in that State are
favorable to annexation upon the terms of that treaty.

[Mr. HARALSON interrupted, and was understood to say that
what he had stated, and now repeated, was, that the people of
Georgia were in favor of immediate annexation, and he was pre
pared to carry out their wishes in any way the object could be
accomplished.]

282 SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then I suppose the gentleman is prepared to
vote for the terms of that treaty.

[Mr. HARALSON again replied by saying, as he was understood,
that he did not intend to be driven off by a quibble of that sort ;
he was ready to vote for any proper plan.]

Mr. STEPHENS continued. No quibble, Mr. Chairman. I, too,
am prepared to vote for any proper plan ; but is that treaty, the
proposition in substance now before us, a proper plan ? That is
the question.

That party with which I act in that State has always been in
favor of annexation as soon as it could be honorably, peaceably,
properly, and practically done, but no sooner.

And it is true, that the party with which my colleague acts,
during the late canvass, went for " immediate annexation," as he
stated — some of them upon one plan, and some upon another,
and some upon no plan in particular, except to get the territory
in any way possible, and then to " lottery it off" amongst the
people. And calculations, I believe, were made in some parts,
showing how many acres each voter would get in this way ; all
these " humbugs" had their day and champions, and perhaps
answered their purpose. But amongst all the schemes advocated
there, it was generally very carefully omitted to say much in
defence of that treaty. Nor do I believe that the people of
Georgia of either party, desirous as I know them in the main, of
both parties, to be for annexation upon proper terms, would be
willing to see it accomplished according to the provisions of that
measure.

The same I will venture to affirm of the people of the South
generally, of all parties.

Sir, the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
HOLMES) the other day said, what I consider, in effect, as de
claring that the Southern man who would vote for the terms of
that treaty was either " a fool or a knave."

[Mr. HOLMES rose and said, that what he had stated was, that
any Southern man who would consent to divide the Texan
territory between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding interests
would be either "a fool or a knave," and such was still his
opinion.]

Mr. STEPHENS continued. Exactly so, sir ; and so I under
stood him. And how did that treaty, or how does the plan now
upon your table, dispose of and adjust those interests ? Where
is the guarantee it contains for the security of any portion, much
less one-half of the country or territory, for the slaveholding
interests ? Upon this subject, which that gentleman thinks so
vital and important, that treaty and the plan now before us are
as silent as the grave ! And would the Southern man who should
vote to have the country equally divided between the slave-
holding and non-slaveholding interests be any more " a fool or a
knave" than the man who would vote for the acquisition of that

SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 283

extensive territory, larger than several of the largest States of
this Union together, or the Kingdom of France, as some gentle
men have said, bordering upon three of the slave States of the
Union, without any settlement of that question, or adjustment
of these interests ? Leaving it for a future House of Representa
tives, where the majority it is known will be decidedly opposed to
the slaveholding interests, to make the division ? I should not
call any man who may or might so vote either "a knave or a
fool." I use no such language toward any member on this floor.
I suppose every one will vote according to the dictates of his
judgment, and what he conceives to be for the best interests of
the country. This is the rule I claim for myself, and I am
disposed to concede it to others. But this I will not hesitate to
say : that no Southern man could pursue, in my opinion, a more
unwise course than to vote for any measure upon this subject
without a settlement and establishment of the line dividing those
interests. If slaveiy is to exist in any part of the territory, let
it be so stated. Let it be " so nominated in the bond." Let it
be inserted in the compact of union, of whatever character it may
be, whether in the form of a treaty, or a bill or joint resolution
for her admission as a State, or in any other way. Nor can I
say upon this point, with the honorable chairman of the Com
mittee on Foreign Affairs, (Mr. C. J. INGERSOLL,) who reported
this plan, which is so mum upon this most important matter
connected with it, that it is unneccessary to adjust that question
now ; that " sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." The
authority of scripture, I admit, is good, when properly used ; but,
unfortunately, it is not alwa}7^ so applied. And whoever has
read the history of the temptation in the wilderness, will doubt
less agree with me, that this is not the first instance of its
misapplication. I should rather say, let us not put off the evil
hour — let the members from different parts of the country under
stand themselves upon this question at the threshold. Distinct
understandings often avoid unpleasant differences and difficulties,
as well between States as individuals. If Texas is to be brought
into the Union, upon what terms is it to be done ? Is it to be a
free or a slave territory, or is it to be subject to the operation of
the Missouri compromise within similar limits ? The honorable
chairman to whom I have just alluded, in a paper put forth by
him last summer, said, in his classic language, that annexation
would be the euthanasia of slavery, the easy death of that
institution !

Is that the object, then, of those who advocate his plan ? Do
they intend, after carrying the measure for annexation, without
any thing being said upon slavery, to oppose the admission of
any slave State into the Union, formed out of that territory ? Is
this the object and design ? If so, why not avow it ? And, if not,
why not say at once what part shall be admitted as States with
slavery, if the people so choose ? Why leave it an open question ?

281 SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

My reason for wishing it settled in the beginning, and for oppo
sing any and all measures and plans which leave it unsettled, I
do not hesitate to make known. I fear the excitement growing
out of the agitation of the question hereafter may endanger the
harmony and even existence of our present Union. Suppose this
measure should pass — I mean the plan proposed by the Com
mittee on Foreign Affairs — and Texas shortly hereafter should
apply for admission as a State into the Union, and the restric
tions proposed for Missouri should be imposed upon her — can
any one be so blind as not to know what would be the result, or
so infatuated as not to regard the consequences ? If so, I confess
it is not the case with myself. I have an ardent attachment for
this Union. Upon its existence and continuance, our prosperity,
happiness, and safety, depend. And patriotism — true patriotism
— which, as I understand that term, means love of one's own
country above all others — compels me to declare that, as much
as I feel for the interests and welfare of the people of Texas, I
feel much more for the interests and welfare of the people of this
country; and as much as I admire the lustre of the " lone star,"
as some gentlemen have been pleased to designate our neighbor
ing Republic, I feel much greater admiration for the bright
galaxy of the twenty-six brilliant stars of our own glorious
constellation ; and rather than see her shooting irregularly from
her place, producing disorder and confusion in our well-balanced
system, I should greatly prefer to let her " beam on" with increas
ing splendor, as a fixed star in the political firmament. Though
she might never reach the first magnitude, yet her Hosition would
ever render her conspicuous amongst the nations of the earth.

But if gentlemen from the North are sincere in their profes
sion — if they consider the annexation of Texas a great national
question — if our own greatness and glory are to be increased
thereby, and our own union and harmony are not to be disturbed
— if they are disposed to abide by the compromise established at
the admission of Missouri, by which alone that harmony can be
preserved, let them say so now, and leave no door open for
future disputation, dissension, and strife. I speak plainly, and
wish to be understood. I want to see no Grecian arts practised
upon the South, or upon this country ; and I want to see no
huge "wooden horse" brought within the walls of this Con
federacy, under the feigned auspices of any false divinity.

And now I must ask to be indulged in saying something upon
the official correspondence connected with this subject, which,
though it does not relate directly to the merits of the question,
yet, nevertheless, is closely connected therewith. Against that
correspondence, its spirit, its principles and doctrines, I protest.
It has placed the annexation of Texas upon the ground of its
being necessary to strengthen the institution of slavery in the
States ; and for this object, and with this view, this government
is called upon to act and legislate in the case.

SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 285

My objection is, that the general government has no power to
legislate for any such purpose. If I understand the nature of
this government, and the ground always heretofore occupied by
the South upon this subject, it is, that slavery is peculiarly a
domestic institution. It is a matter that concerns the States in
which it exists, severally, separately, and exclusively ; and with
which this government has no right to interfere or to legislate,
further than to secure the enforcement of rights under existing
guaranties of the constitution, and to suppress insubordinations
and insurrections, if they arise. Beyond this, there is no power
in the general government to act upon the subject, with a view
either to strengthen or weaken the institution. For, if the power to
do one be conceded, how can that to do the other be denied ? I do
not profess to belong to that school of politicians who claim one
construction of the constitution one day, when it favors my
interests, and oppose the same, or a similar one, the next day,
when it happens to be against me. Truth is fixed, inflexible, im
mutable, and eternal ; unbending to time, circumstances, and
interests ; and so should be the rules and principles by which the
constitution is construed and interpreted. And what has been
the position of the South for years upon this subject? What has
been the course of her members upon this floor, in relation to the
reception of abolition petitions ? Has it not been, that slavery is
a question upon which Congress cannot act, except in the cases
I have stated, where it is expressly provided by the constitution ;
that Congress has no jurisdiction, if you please, over the subject,
and that therefore it is improper and useless, if not unconstitu
tional, to receive petitions asking what Congress cannot con
stitutionally grant ? This has been the ground assumed by the
South, and upon which these petitions have been rejected for
years by this House, until the rule was rescinded at the begin
ning of this session. And however much gentlemen from
different parts of the Union have differed in opinion upon the
extent of the abstract right of petition, and the propriety and
expediency of receiving all kinds of petitions, whether for con
stitutional objects or not, yet I believe they have always been
nearly all agreed in this, that Congress has no right or power to
interfere with the institutions of the States. This, sir, is our
safeguard, and in it is our only security ; it is the outpost and
bulwark of our defence. Yield this, and you yield every thing.
Grant the power to act or move upon the subject, yield the juris
diction, call upon Congress to legislate with the view presented
in that correspondence, and instead of strengthening, they might
deem it proper to weaken those institutions ; and where, then, is
your remedy ? I ask Southern gentlemen, where, then, is their
remedy ? We were reminded the other day by a gentleman from
South Carolina, (Mr. HOLMES,) that we were in a minority on this
floor. It is true, we are in a minority ; and is it wise in a
minority to yield their strong position, their sure arid safe

286 SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

fortress, to the majority, for them to seize and occupy to their
destruction ? No, sir ; never. Upon this subject, I tell gentlemen
from the South, and the people of the South, to stand upon the
constitution as it is, and that construction which has been
uniformly given to it upon this point, from the beginning of the
government. This is our shield, wrought in the furnace of the
Revolution. It is broad, ample, firm, and strong ; and we want
no further protection or security than it provides. But this is
not all. That correspondence not only makes slavery a national
question, and calls upon Congress to treat it as such, and legis
late in reference to it as such, but it has even thrust the whole
subject into our foreign diplomacy ; and those State institutions
which heretofore were never held to be proper topics for discus
sion and agitation, even upon this floor, are now deemed proper
subjects of legitimate correspondence between this government,
in its national character, and the most influential and powerful
Courts of Europe. Where it will end, I know not. But the
whole proceeding I consider as untimely, uncalled for, and
exceedingly improper ; and against it, as a Southern man, a
Georgian, and as an American, I protest.

Upon the institution of slavery, sir, I do not intend to speak
here, either of its origin, history, present condition, and necessity,
or of its evils and abuses. It is not the proper place. I have
been led to say what I have, in stating my first objection to the
proposed plan for the annexation of Texas ; which is, that it
leaves this an open question, for mischievous and dangerous
discussion hereafter.

The other objection to that plan is, that it provides for the
assumption of the debt of Texas — at least, to the extent of ten
millions of dollars. Nor do I consider this matter of debt " all
smoke," as another gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. RHETT)
said the other day ; or, at least, where -there is so much smoke, I
fear there is " some fire" — quite enough to "blister our fingers,"
if we handle it much. There are other obligations, at any rate,
which I think we would be doing much better to be looking after
first. We ought to be just before we undertake to be generous.
Georgia has not yet been reimbursed for expenditures made in
behalf of the common defence during the late Indian difficulties ;
and the faithful soldier, in many instances, has not yet been
successful in getting his honest dues for services and loss of
property in those campaigns. We ought certainly to pay our
own debts first ; and after that, we have other debts, still much
nearer home, if we are disposed to be liberal with the public
money. Several of the States of the Union, unfortunately, are
largely in debt. And I have not been a little surprised at the
course of certain gentlemen upon this question, who were not
long since exceedingly clamorous against the monstrous and
unconstitutional assumption of the debts of the States, which was
without foundation, and altogether gratuitously, charged upon

SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 287

their opponents, but who now see no objection at all, no con
stitutional impediment, to the assumption of the debts of a
foreign country. It is destruction to the constitution, according
to their logic,' to pay the debts of the States ; but there is no
obstacle, nothing more formidable than " smoke," which soon
disappears and vanishes, in the way of paying the debt of Texas.
There is one part of Scripture I would commend to the atten
tion of such gentlemen ; and it is that which describes the
inconsistency of a class of people of old, who " strained at gnats,
and swallowed camels."

- But who knows the amount of our liability to be incurred by
the assumption of that debt ? It is true the committee only pro
pose to pay ten millions ; but who does not know, that if we take
Texas, with her sovereignty, lands, and all her property, as that
plan proposes, we will become liable for her whole debt, let the
amount be as large as it may ? And are gentlemen prepared
thus to incur an unknown liability ?

[Here Mr. C. J. INGERSOLL, chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Relations, interrupted to explain, and stated that the
ministers of Texas had estimated the debt at between seven and
eight millions ; but the committee had put the amount at ten mil
lions, so as to cover every thing.]

Mr. STEPHENS continued. Yes, sir, I know all that ; but will
the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
undertake to say to the House that ten millions will cover the
present debt of Texas ?

[Mr. INGERSOLL replied, that he made the statement on the
authority of the Texan ministers.]

Mr. STEPHENS proceeded. Yes, sir ; but up to what time did
that estimate refer? As far back as 1841; three — four years
ago. It may have been going on and increasing ever since. I
want to know what it is at this time. If I have been correctly
informed, the authorities of Texas have not even kept an account
of their debt since 1841, and do not themselves know its extent.
If they did, why did not their ministers tell what it was in 1844 ?
Either because they did not know, or because the amount was
too frightful to disclose. Many men of fortune owed but little in
1841, who have long since been bankrupt. And people in debt
are generally in the habit of estimating their liabilities far short
of their real amount. It is sufficient for me that we have no
authentic information upon the extent of that debt at this time ;
and the absence of information is ominous of itself. I have heard
it estimated by some at twenty millions, others forty, and some as
high as sixty/ For my part, I should about as soon attempt to
count the stars in the heavens, or estimate the " number of the
dead," as to come to any accurate and satisfactory opinion upon
the real amount of that debt, or the extent of the liability which
this government would incur by a reckless assumption of it,

288 SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

wholly in the dark, and without information. This leap I am
not prepared to make.

For these reasons, I cannot vote for the proposition of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs ; and as my time is passing so
rapidly that I shall not be able to notice the various other plans,
the one offered by the gentleman from Illinois, (Mr. DOUGLASS,)
and the one by the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. WELLER,) and the
one by the gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. TIBBATTS,) and the
one by the gentleman from Alabama, (Mr. BELSER,) and the one
by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. ROBINSON,) and various
others — sixteen in all, I believe — I will briefly say, that each and
every one of them is liable to one or the other of the objections I
have stated, or other considerations growing out of the subjects
to which I have alluded. I cannot, therefore, notice them
singly and separately. All of them fall within the scope of my
objections.

And I pass on to what I proposed to do in the second place ;
which was, to state what kind of a proposition for annexation I
would support, and upon what terms and principles I would
consent to a union of Texas with this countiy These, sir, are
embodied and set forth in the plan submitted by the gentleman
from Tennesse (Mr. MILTON BROWN); and as that plan has been
printed and laid before members, and gentlemen can read its
terms at their leisure, if they are not already familiar with them,
I will not detain the committee by a recapitulation. It proposes
to admit Texas as a State at once, and leaves her debts and her
lands for her own management, just as Georgia and other States,
with their debts and rich domain, came into the Union at the
formation of the government. Not only this, it settles the
slavery question. It leaves no door open for future mischief,
discord, and strife, from that quarter. It leaves no prospect for
another Missouri agitation, which once came well nigh destroy
ing the government ; but it quiets and puts to rest forever all
disturbance on that question, and that, too, upon the terms of
the compromise agreed upon on the admission of Missouri.
With that the country is familiar, and the people in all parts
seem to be satisfied.

And, with this exposition, I shall say nothing further upon
that point, but will proceed to notice some of the objections
urged against the proposed action, which apply to this plan as
well as others. These objections are of two classes : first, those
which look to the foreign, and, secondly, those which relate to
the domestic aspect of the question. I. shall speak of each in
their order.

First, of the foreign. And upon this view I wish to be under
stood as" pay ing no regard to the various treaties which gentle
men have said so much about. I have nothing to say of the
treaty of 1803 with France, by which Louisiana was acquired, or
whether we did, by that treaty, actually get a good title to any

SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 289

portion of the country west of the Sabine or not. Nor shall I
say any thing of the treaty of 1819 with Spain, by which we got
the Floridas, and agreed upon the Sabine as the boundary
between us and the neighboring Spanish provinces in that quar
ter; or the treaty (of 1832) of amity with Mexico, after the
establishment of -her independence. All these, I consider, have
very little to do with the real merits of the question. If we did
get a good title to Texas by the treaty of 1803, we certainly
parted with it, by solemn engagement, by the the treaty of 1819.
Nor am I disposed to find fault with the treaty of 1819.
By it we got, in consideration of five million of dollars, and the
relinquishment of a disputed claim for all west of the Sabine, a
settlement for all east, and the Floridas besides ; which was a great
acquisition at that day. It was so considered by Mr. Monroe,
Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Wirt, and our own distinguished and highly
gifted Crawford — all Southern men, statesmen and patriots.
These all gave it their approval and sanction at the time; and I
take it for granted that the treaty, under the circumstances, was
not only a good one, but highly advantageous to the country.
It was all-important for us to have Florida ; and I do not see
how we could well do without it. But even if that treaty were
not a good one, we could not, in good faith, at this time, go
beyond it. We would be estopped, by our own deed and compact.
That, therefore, I think, is out of the question. Nor do I con
ceive that the treaty of 1832, between this country and Mexico,
has much more to do with the case. Has Texas acquired her
independence, and is she entitled to be considered as one of the
nations of the earth ? This is the only point, upon this view of
the subject, entitled to consideration. And I confess this aspect
of the case, in my opinion, has materially changed since this
question was first started. Then it is true, after protracted and
ineffectual efforts on the part of Mexico to re-establish her
authority, there was no actual war going on in Texas ; no fla
grant bellum raging at the time. But the armistice which had
for some time been agreed upon, and by which hostilities had
been suspended, had just terminated, and a proclamation had
been made by Mexico for a renewal of hostilities. There was
every reason to expect that another effort would be made ; and
how far, under such circumstances, it was just and proper for
this country to make herself a party to such war, as she would
have done by taking Texas to herself, and how far our national
honor and national good faith might have been involved in such
course, was a grave and important question, and well deserving
the calm and serious consideration of our government. A nation's
honor and good faith are of great value — above all price — and
should not be rashly sacrificed ; they should be guarded, watched,
and defended, with prudence, wisdom, firmness, and patriotism ;
and if error ever should be committed in regard to these, it seems
to be the safer course to let the error be in a leaning to the side
19

290 SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

of honor and good faith. But, apart from this, it was a grave
question, how far it was discreet and proper for this country to
involve herself in a war, even if, in the eyes of all the world, it
should have been viewed right and justifiable, when not in defence
of her own citizens. War at all times is a great evil ; it is the
ultima ratio regum — the last resort of nations for the redress of
grievances, when argument and reason have failed ; and while it
should never be shunned or avoided when the case arises, it
should never be courted in anticipation. All these views were
presented by the circumstances when this agitation commenced ;
but since then we have seen that Mexico has failed to act in
accordance with her proclamation ; she has failed to renew the
war. Her Congress, it is reported, has failed and refused to vote
the necessary supplies — justifying the inference that she has
abandoned the intention of making an}^ further attempt to re
establish her power and authority in Texas, and leaving the
present government in the possession of the undisputed sove
reignty of that country, and fulty authorized to be treated as
other independent and sovereign powers. Nay, more: we see
Mexico herself now convulsed with internal revolutions ; intes
tine war now rages throughout her limits ; and she seems no
longer able to maintain her own institutions. The government
in existence there so late as last year has recently been over
thrown. Divided and torn to pieces by feuds and factions, she
appears to-day much less stable, if not less capable of maintain
ing her independence, than Texas. Anarchy reigns throughout
her borders, and it would be difficult to say if she has any gov
ernment at this time, either de facto or de jure. Her claims,
therefore, I am not disposed any longer to regard. She is clearly
7wrs de combat, so far as this question is concerned; for if
Mexico has abandoned the war, or forfeited her right by unrea
sonable delay, or has proved unable to carry it on, Texas has
certainly established her independence, and is entitled to be con
sidered and acted toward as other independent nations. And
if this be so, of course our so considering and treating her can
not interfere at all with the obligations of our treaty of boundary
and amity with Mexico. The only inquiry, therefore, upon the
foregoing aspect of the question, is, whether Texas is now entitled
to be considered one of the independent nations of the earth ?
And, for my own part, I see no reason why she should not be. As
for England or France, or other countries, and their feelings and
wishes, I have nothing to say. They have nothing more to do
witti the question than any other common intermeddlers in com
munities have to do with their neighbor's negotiations. It is no
business of theirs. They have no right to say any thing ; and if
they do, they thereby become national intermeddlers, and should
be treated accordingly.

But there is another class of objections, comprising those that
grow out of the nature of our own government ; they are of a

SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 291

domestic character, and concern ourselves. These are of a con
stitutional origin, and deserve mature deliberation. It is said
that the proceedings now before us are unauthorized by the
fundamental law of the Union, and that we have no power to act
upon the subject as proposed. The gentleman from New York
(M#. BARNARD) directed his whole speech yesterday to this point,
and presented an argument which was highly complimented by
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. ADAMS) for its force and
ability. That gentleman (Mr. B.) said that the House was pro
ceeding " in contempt of the constitution," and that the proposed
object was a " fraud " upon the constitution. These strong
expressions were repeated, and fell with emphasis from the gen
tleman ; and I listened attentively to his argument, to hear what
reasons he would offer to sustain his assertion ; for I held n^self
open to conviction. And if I could see that the course I intend
to take was in contempt of the constitution, or that I was about
to commit a fraud — a " gross fraud " were his words — upon its
provisions, I should most certainly abandon the project.

When I cast my eyes, Mr. Chairman, over the surface of the
world, and survey the nations of the earth, and see that the
people of the United States alone, of all the millions of the human
family who live upon the habitable globe, are really free, and
fully enjoy the natural rights of man ; that all other parts are
dreary, wild, and waste ; and that this is the only green spot,
the only oasis in the universal desert — and then consider that all
this difference is owing to our constitution ; that all our rights,
and privileges, and interests, are derived from and secured by it,
I am disposed to regard it with no trifling feelings of unconcern
and indifference. It is, indeed, the richest inheritance ever be
queathed by patriot sires to ungrateful sons. I confess, I view
it with reverence ; and, if idolatry could ever be excused, it seems
to me it would be in allowing an American citizen a holy devotion
to the constitution of his country. Such are my feelings ; and
far be it from me to entertain sentiments in any way kindred to
a disregard for its principles, much less in contempt for its
almost sacred provisions.

But how is it ? Let us examine the matter. The gentleman
objects to the acquisition of territory, as he calls it, by joint action
of Congress, or by any action of Congress in its legislative capacity.

His arguments rested upon the assumption, that Congress, in
its legislative character, could not exercise any power which was
not expressly granted, or such as might be necessary to carry out
those which were expressly granted ; and that there was no
original substantive power granted in the constitution for the
acquisition of territory. This was not one of the original de
signs in the formation of the government, and was not one of
the objects to be attained, as specified in the constitution. He
admitted that territory might be acquired, if it became a neces
sary incident to the proper exercise of other powers, such as the

292 SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

treaty-making power, etc., but denied that the present proceed
ings proposed to exercise it in that way, and therefore was
unconstitutional.

Now, suppose I grant his position and his premises entirely,
does his conclusion, in reference to the proposition I advocate,
necessarily follow ? Do the resolutions of the gentleman f£om
Tennessee (Mr. BROWN) propose to acquire territory ? We are
often misled by the use of words. Words, some writer has said,
are things ; and much misapprehension, I think, has been pro
duced by the terms used in this debate. We have had " annexa
tion," and " re-annexation," and " acquisition of territory," until
there is a confusion of ideas between the object desired and the
manner of obtaining it. To acquire, conveys the idea of prop
erty, possession, and the right of disposition. And to acquire
territory, conveys the idea of getting the rightful possession of
vacant and unoccupied lands. If this be the sense in which the
gentleman uses it, I ask, does the plan of the gentleman from
Tennessee propose to do any such thing ? It is true, it proposes
to enlarge and extend the limits and boundaries of our Republic.
But how? By permitting another State to come into the
Union, with all her lands and her territory belonging to herself.
This government will acquire nothing thereby, except the advan
tages to be deprived from the union. And, if I understand the
original substantial design of the constitution, the main object
of its creation, it was not to acquire territory, it is true, but to
form a Union of States, a species of confederacy ; conferring
upon the joint government of the confederation, or union, the
exercise of such sovereign powers as were necessary for all
foreign national purposes, and retaining all others in th$ States,
or the people of the States, respectively. This was the design,
this was the object of the constitution itself, which is but the
enumeration of the terms upon which the people of the several
States agreed to join in the union, for the purposes therein speci
fied ; and in this wajr all the States came into it, Georgia
amongst the rest, with her rich western domain extending to the
Mississippi, out of which two States have since grown up, and
have been likewise admitted. When the government was first
formed, North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to come in for
some time. It was not until after it was organized, and com
menced operations by eleven of the States, that these two con
sented to become members of the Union. Could the United
States, those eleven which first started this general government,
be said to have acquired territory when North Carolina was
admitted ? or the twelve, which composed the United States
when Rhode Island came in ? There was in each of those cases
an addition of a State, and enlargement of the confederated Re
public, just as there will be if Texas be admitted, as proposed by
the gentleman from Tennessee, but no acquisition of territory, in
the common acceptation of that term.

SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 293

How far, and in how many ways, this government can consti
tutionally acquire territory "literally, as I have explained, Mr.
Chairman, I do not think a pertinent inquiry at this time ; but I
have no hesitation in saying, that I think it can be done in vari
ous ways, and without resorting to the exercise of incidental
powers. And upon this point the argument of the gentleman
from New York was strangely inconsistent with itself; for he
admitted that we could constitutionally acquire and hold terri
tory by the right of discovery ; and yet, where does he find this
power amongst those specified and expressly granted in the con
stitution ? I might ask, as did the gentleman from Massachsetts,
(Mr. WINTHROP,) if it was one of the original designs and
objects in forming our government " to go in quest of foreign
lands ?" There is no such object stated, and no such power
expressly given. And in the case the gentleman admitted, it
strikes me that it would be hard to point out the one to which it
is even incident.

But sir, I do not grant the position assumed by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. BARNARD). I have only been showing,
that, if I were to grant it, it would not effect my case. And I
now state, that I believe nothing is clearer than that this govern
ment can in various ways acquire territory, and that this can be
effected if desired by Congress in its legislative capacity, and
under one of the express provisions of the constitution. This I
do not adduce in support of the proceedings I advocate, or to
show that they are constitutional, but barely to expose the
fallacy of the argument of the gentleman from New York.

I read in the second clause, latter part, of the tenth section
of the first article of the constitution, the following words :

"No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty
on tonnage ; keep troops or ships of war in time of peace ; enter
into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a
foreign power," etc.

Now, suppose Congress should, in its legislative capacity, for
it could do so in no other way, grant its consent to Louisiana or
Arkansas to enter into an " agreement or compact" with Texas,
or Mexico, if you please, for the cession of certain territory bor
dering upon those States, upon the conditions that one half of
the unoccupied lands so ceded should belong to the State making
the negotiation, and the other half to be ceded to the United
States, and to be held subject to the laws regulating her other
public domain ; with the further condition, that, so soon as the
territory so ceded should become sufficiently populated, it should
be admitted as one of the States into this Union : can an}r gentle
man say that Congress has not got the power to give such consent ?
And, if such consent should be given, and such agreement and
compact be entered into, that Congress would not have, in that
way, most clearly, acquired territory in its legislative capacity,
and that under an express provision of the constitution ?

294 SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

But, as I said, I do not rely upon that view ; I do not and am
not advocating that mode of proceeding. I was only tracing the
argument of the gentleman from New York, who broadly denied
any such power to Congress. I do not propose, it will be recol
lected, to acquire territory, as I understand it, at all, but simply
to admit a new State into the present union of States. And the
authority upon which I rely is no forced construction, but the
plain simple language of the constitution, which declares, in the
first clause, third section, fourth article, that —

" New States may be admitted by Congress into this Union ;
but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdic
tion of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction
of two or more States or parts of States, without the consent of
the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of Congress."

The terms here used are broad, unqualified, and unrestricted.
"New States may be admitted by Congress into this Union."
But it is said that it was only meant by these words to give the
power to admit States formed out of the territory of the United
States, and within their jurisdiction, and not to include a foreign
State. To this I might reply, that it is the petitio principii — a
begging of the question. Whether that was the meaning and
intention, is the main inquiry ; and from the words used, no
such inference can be drawn. But the gentleman from New
York says he believes that was the meaning and intention ;
and, further, that he believes, if any other opinion had been
entertained, the constitution would never have been ratified.
Well, sir, his belief is not argument. I suppose that every true *
Mahometan verily believes that Christ was an impostor. And I
will do the gentleman from New York the justice to admit that
his faith is quite as strong ; but we are taught that we should
not only believe, but be able to give a " reason for the faith that
is in us." And here, again, I listened for the reasons of the
gentleman's faith, but heard nothing better than a repetition of
his belief.

Let us, then, examine the matter. If there is any difficulty,
we must look to the words, the objects, and contemporaneous
history. As to the words, they are quite unambiguous. The
term " State" is a technical word, well understood at that time. It
means a body politic — a community clothed with all the powers
and attributes of government. And any State, even one of
those growing up in the bosom of our own territory, upon admis
sion, may be considered to some extent foreign. For if it be a
State, it must have a separate government ; it must be a political
community of itself; it must have a government Separate from,
and to some extent independent of the Union. For if it be in
the Union, then it could not be admitted; that cannot be
admitted in which is already in. And if it is a State, and out of
the Union, seeking admission, it must be considered quo ad hoc
to be foreign. Now, as to contemporaneous and subsequent

SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 295

history. What relation did North Carolina hold to the Union
when it was first formed ? She refused to ratify the constitution,
and was most clearly out of it. The last article of the constitu
tion declared—

" The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be
sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the
States so ratifying."

But more than nine ratified ; eleven did ; leaving North Caro
lina and Rhode Island out, as before stated. The Union was
formed, and the constitution established, for those that had rati
fied, and the government proceeded to organization. North
Carolina was then certainly out of the Union. She had the
right and power to remain out. If she had, would she not have
been foreign to it ? And, consequently, was she not foreign
whenever the government went into operation without her ratifi
cation ? The case of Vermont is more in point. She was a
separate and independent community, with a government of her
own. She was not even one of the original revolting thirteen
colonies. She had never been united in the old Confederation,
and did not recognize the jurisdiction of the United States.

[Mr. COLLAMER, of Yermont, interrupted, and said, that Ver
mont did at that time fully recognize the authority of the United
States.]

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir, but not over her. She recognized
the authority of the United States as we do that of France or
England, or any other foreign power. She was a distinct, inde
pendent government within herself. She had her own constitu
tion, her own legislature, her own executive, judiciary, and
military establishment, and exercised all the faculties of a
sovereign and independent State. She had her own post-office
department, and revenue laws, and regulations of trade. The
United States did not attempt to exercise any jurisdiction over
her. The gentleman from Vermont says, that New York claimed
jurisdiction over, and finally gave her consent for the admission
of Vermont as a State. This is true. But Vermont did not
recognize the jurisdiction of New York ; she bade defiance to
it. And after years had rolled on in this situation, she treated
with New York, as one sovereign treats with another, and paid
thirty thousand dollars to New York, for a relinquishment of
that jurisdiction which she would not allow to be exercised, and
was then admitted into the Union as one of the States. These
are the facts of that case. Again : from the contemporaneous
history of the times, is it a violent presumption to suppose that
the convention, at the time this clause of the constitution was
inserted, were looking to the probability of some of the other
British colonies throwing off the government of the mother
country, and uniting with us ? We know that the old Articles
of Confederation had been adopted with that view, for they con
tained an express provision, that —

296 SPEECH ON" THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

" Canada, acceding to this confederation, and joining in the
measures of the United States, shall be admitted into and entitled
to all the advantages of this Union ; but no other colony shall be
admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by
nine States."

And as we know that the object of the constitution was to
remodel the Union, and enlarge the powers of Congress as well
as the general powers of the government — and we find in the
present constitution the clause which it contains in relation to
the admission of new States, in lieu of the one just stated in the
Articles of Confederation — is it not reasonable to suppose that
the same idea was still retained, and instead of requiring the
consent of nine States, or two thirds, for the admission of any
but Canada, that it was the intention for the future to put them
all upon the same footing, and leave it with Congress to admit
them, if a case should arise ? And is it not presumable, that if
the intention had been to withdraw the privilege before extended
to Canada in express terms, it would have been done in terms
equalty plain and explicit ?

But again : It has been said, that whatever Congress does in
its legislative capacity is of a municipal character, and partakes of
the nature of laws, which are subject to repeal ; that in this way
one Congress cannot bind another succeeding one ; and that,
though such a measure as is proposed might be adopted this
session, yet the next one might repeal it, and there is nothing in
the constitution to prevent it, etc. But is it true that Congress
can do nothing legislatively which is not municipal in its nature,
and subject to repeal ? It certainly is not. So far from this
being correct, I will venture to affirm that no action of Congress
which proposes terms to other parties can ever be constitu
tionally repealed after the terms have been acceded to, and
rights and interests have thereby accrued. Besides charters, we
have a number of such acts. All our acts relating to patents and
land grants are of this class. And how did this government
become possessed of the fertile and extensive lands of Alabama
and Mississippi, but by legislative compact and agreement with
the State of Georgia, by which they were ceded ? And could
that, or any other similar compact, be repealed ? And how does
a legislative compact between this government and a foreign
State so differ in its nature or municipal character from a similar
one with one of the States of the Union, as to be entirely null
and void, while the latter remains good, effectual, and binding ?
But I cannot dwell upon this.

Another objection offered is, that if Texas should be admitted
as a State, she could not be constitutionally represented on this
floor and in the Senate for some time ; for the constitution de
clares, that no " person shall be a Representative who shall not
have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven
years a citizen of the United States," etc., and "no person shall

SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 297

be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty
years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States," etc.
And as the people of Texas are not citizens of the United States,
it would require seven and nine years, respectively, before mem
bers to the House and Senate could be chosen, which is wholly
inconsistent, it is said, with the idea of the constitutional admis
sion of her as a State. But what is to be understood by these
clauses of the constitution ? The gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
DROMGOOLE) yesterday said that they applied only to naturalized
foreigners ; that residents of foreign acquired territory, as in the
case of Louisiana, became citizens immediately, without naturali
zation ; and, therefore, these clauses of the constitution did not
refer to that class of citizens. This may be a correct answer to
the objection ; but I have another in my mind, which ^eems to
me much more satisfactory. It is founded in the nature of our
government and the meaning of the term United States. What
are we to understand by the United States ? No particular
number of States, certainly, for an indefinite time ; no particular,
unvarying national identity, as we speak of England or France ;
but such States and such country as may be united at any given
time under the constitution. The United States, at first, were
but eleven, afterward thirteen, and now twenty-six ; and to be a
citizen of the United States is to be a citizen of either or any one
of them. All that is necessary to comply with these requisitions
of the constitution is, that the member or senator, when he takes
his seat, shall have been a citizen of one of the States for the
time required. If Texas be admitted, as proposed, she immedi
ately becomes one of the United States ; and the member coming
here, who shall have been a citizen of that country for seven
years, will of course have been a citizen of one of the THEN
United States for the time required. This must have been the
case with North Carolina, and Rhode Island, and Vermont, before
alluded to ; for before North Carolina came in, as I have said,
the Union was formed, the government was organized, and the
United States, as then formed under the constitution, were well
known. North Carolina was not one of them ; she was a State
to herself, with her own government. When she consented to
come in, arid did come in, she then became one of the United
States ; and though her members had never been citizens of the
then government, yet they had been citizens of one of those
States which formed the government at that time, and were con
stitutionally admitted. So with Rhode Island afterward ; and
particularly so with Vermont. Her people never had been citi
zens of the United States, and had never acknowledged them
selves to be citizens of either of the old thirteen States. And
yet, when she was admitted, she became one of the States of the
Union ; and her people, who had been her citizens for seven and
nine years, had been citizens for those respective terms of one of
the United States, as they then existed ; and so will it be with

298 SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

Texas and her citizens, if she be admitted into the common fra
ternity of States.

But I have not time to notice more of the objections. I have
only glanced at the most prominent of them ; and I shall now
briefly state some of the reasons that induce me to favor annexa
tion upon the principles stated.

And, to begin negatively, I will state that I am not at all in
fluenced by the military view which some gentlemen have with
much earnestness presented. It will add but little strength, in
my opinion, to our South-western border in that particular.
Such, at least, was the view entertained at the time our claim was
relinquished. The idea of an army landing in Texas, and march
ing several hundred miles over her low lands, to attack the city
of New Orleans, I consider almost preposterous. Other consider
ations apart, Texas has no ports of sufficient depth of water at
the bar to allow large ships to enter, as we see by the report of
the surve3^s of the coast before us. Galveston is the best port,
and that has but twelve feet of water at the bar. A man of war
could never enter one of her harbors.

Neither am I much influenced by the pecuniary advantages to
be derived from the union of that country with this — the benefits
of trade, commerce, etc. So far as these are concerned, the acces
sion will be to the interests exclusively of the North and West.
That section which I represent will have no part or share in them.
The North will have an enlarged market for their manufactures,
and will have a new competitor in the field against the South, in
the growth of the raw material which she now has to buy, and by
which she will be enabled to get it cheaper. The same with the
West, with their breadstuffs ; while the South will have nothing
to sell to the people of Texas, but will feel sorely her formidable
competition in the production of cotton and sugar, her great sta
ples. If I looked to these views, therefore, only, I should most
certainly oppose it, in behalf of my section; for I take it for
granted that, notwithstanding the same staples might and would
be grown in Texas, whether in the Union or out of it, yet they
would not be grown to such extent, and the whole resources of
the country would never be so speedily and fully developed out
of the Union, as they will be if once brought within the wholesome
influence of our laws and institutions. I am, however, influenced
by other considerations. These I will state.

In the first place, the people of that country are mostly emi
grants from this. They are of the Ainerico- Anglo-Saxon race.
They are from us, and of us ; bone of our bone, and flesh of our
flesh. Our sympathies are with them ; and they have an attach
ment for our institutions and form of government, and, in their
struggles for the establishment of the same, it is but natural that
we should be disposed to extend them a helping hand, though our
individual interests may not be thereby advanced.

Again: I consider it important that the cotton and sugar

SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 299

growing interests of this continent, as far as possible, should be
subject to the same laws — to prevent undue advantages, secured
by treaty, separate regulations of trade, or otherwise, in the mar
kets of the world. If Texas should remain out of the Union, and
a rivalship should spring up there to the staples of the South, our
interests might be greatly injured by regulations with other coun
tries, partial to theirs, and discriminating against ours. This
cannot be, if the whole be made subject to the same laws and
policy.

Again: A large section of that country lies upon navigable
waters flowing into the Mississippi, and must always seek a mar
ket through the outlet of that river. More than three hundred
thousand dollars worth of cotton, produced in Texas year before
last, was shipped from New Orleans ; first paying a duty upon
entering the limits of our country, and then being entitled to the
drawback upon final shipment. All this is inconvenient, and will
continue to increase. And the history of the world shows the
necessity, for the peace and quiet of a country, that the navigation
of waters should be free and equal to those who live upon their
borders. The people of the Western country, on the upper Mis
sissippi and its branches, felt the difficulties attending a contrary
state of things when Spain held the mouth of that noble stream.
Our commerce, upon arriving at New Orleans, was subject to
onerous restrictions ; difficulties threatening the peace of this
country were the result ; and to avoid them, was perhaps the con
trolling reason with Mr. Jefferson for the acquisition of Louisiana.
To avoid similar ones between this government and the people
of that section to which I have alluded, it is important that it
should be brought into this Union.

Again : I am in favor of it, because it will afford an outlet, a
retreat, for our accumulating population. It will open a new
field for the pioneer. Our people are disposed to roam. They
like new countries and new lands ; and there they will have
opened up a great Southwest within our own country, to which
the tide of emigration may flow — to which our people may go, for
the purpose of gain, adventure, and enterprise, carrying with
them their customs, their habits, their laws, and " household
gods," without incurring the liability of expatriation, or forfeiting
the inestimable rights and privileges of being American citizens.^
k With this question is also to be decided another and a greater
one ; which is, whether the limits of this Republic are ever to be
enlarged ? This is an important step in settling the principle of
our future extension. Nor do I concur with gentlemen who seem
to apprehend so much danger from that quarter. We were the
other day reminded by the gentleman from Yermont (Mr. COLLA-
MER) of the growth of the Roman Empire, which went on increas
ing and enlarging until it became unwieldly, and fell of its own
weight ; and of the present extent of England, stretching to all
sections of the world, governing one sixth of the human family,

300 SPEECH ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

and which is now hardly able to keep together its extensive parts.
But there is a wide difference between these cases. Rome ex
tended her dominions by conquests. She made the rude inhabi
tants of her provinces subjects and slaves. She compelled them
to bear the yoke ; jugum subire was the requisitions of her chief
tains ; and none who were overcome by her arms could escape
the ignominy. England extends her dominion and power upon a
different principle. Hers is the principle of colonization. Hei
distant provinces and dependencies are subject to her laws, but
are deprived of the rights of representation. But with us a new
system has commenced, suited to and characteristic of the age.
It is, if you please, the system of a confederation of States, or a
Republic formed by the union of the people of separate indepen
dent States or communities, yielding so much of the national
character or sovereign powers as are necessary for national and
foreign purposes, and retaining all others for local and domestic
objects to themselves separately and severally. And who shall
undertake to say to what extent this system may not go ? Mr.
Madison laid down the rule, in speaking of our system, which he
called the " basis of unmixed and extensive Republics," that the
" natural limit" to which it may go is " that distance from the
centre which will barely allow the representatives of the people to
meet as often as may be necessary for the administration of public
affairs." And upon this rule, in consideration of the improve
ments of the age, the facilities of travel and the transmission of
intelligence, who can say that this entire continent is too wide
and extensive? The distance from this place to Oregon and
California, in a few years, will be travelled in as short a time as it
was to Georgia when Mr. Madison wrote. Then it required from
twenty to thirty days for a Representative from that State, our
extreme Southwest at that time, to come to the seat of govern
ment ; and now the same distance is performed in three days.
And representatives from Louisiana, five or six hundred miles
the other side, now require less than half the time then required
by those from Georgia, to come from their remote districts. And
who can tell what improvements for the speed of travel are yet in
store ? New elements in nature are being daily brought into sub
serviency to man. When Mr. Madison penned the remarks I
have quoted, in 1181, the power of steam was unknown, and other
agencies now used were not dreamed of. Then it would have re
quired a whole day to have got news from this place — not this
city, for there was none here then — to Baltimore ; now it requires
but an instant, as quick as thought or lightning ; and, with com
paratively a small amount of funds, the same facilities could
be extended to Boston, Cincinnati, and New Orleans, or even to
Astoria, upon the Pacific.

We live, sir, not only in a new hemisphere, but, indeed, in a
new age ; and we have started a new system of government, as
new and as different from those of the old world as the Baconian

SPEECH OX THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 301

system of philosophy was novel and different from the Aristotlean,
and destined, perhaps, to produce quite as great a revolution in
the moral and political world as his did in the scientific. Ours is
the true American system, and, though it is still regarded by
some as an experiment, yet, so far, it has succeeded beyond the
expectations of many of its best friends. And who is prepared
now to rise up and say, " Thus far it shall go, and no further ?"

But I am in favor of this measure for another reason. It is, as
the honorable chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs said
in his opening speech, in one sense and in one view, a sectional
question — a Southern question. It will not promote our pecuni
ary interests, but it will give us political weight and importance ;
and to this view I am not insensible. And though I have a pa
triotism that embraces, I trust, all parts of the Union, and which
causes me to rejoice to see all prosperous and happy; and though
I believe I am free from the influence of unjust prejudices and
jealousies toward any part or section, yet I must confess that my
feelings of attachment are most ardent toward that with which all
my interests and associations are identified. And is it not natu
ral and excusable that they should be ? The South is my home —
my fatherland. There sleep the ashes of my sires and grand-
sires ; there are my hopes and prospects ; with her my fortunes
are cast ; her fate is my fate, and her destiny my destiny. Nor
do I wish " to hoax" gentlemen from other sections upon this
point, as some have intimated. I am candid and frank in my ac
knowledgment. This acquisition will give additional power to
the south-western section in the national councils ; and for this
purpose I want it — not that I am desirous to see an extension of
the " area of slavery," as some gentlemen have said its effects
would be. I am no defender of slavery in the abstract. Liberty
always had charms for me, and I would rejoice to see all the sons
of Adam's family, in every land and clime, in the enjoyment of
those rights which are set forth in our Declaration of Indepen
dence as " natural and inalienable," if a stern necessity, bear
ing the marks and impress of the hand of the Creator himself, did
not, in some cases, interpose and prevent. Such is the case with
the States where slavery now exists. But I have no wish to see
it extended to other countries ; and if the annexation of Texas
were for the sole purpose of extending slavery where it does not
now and would not otherwise exist, I should oppose it. This is
not its object, nor will it be its effect. Slavery already exists in
Texas, and will continue to exist there. The same necessity that
prevails in the Southern States prevails there, and will prevail
wherever the Anglo-Saxon and African races are blended in the
same proportions. It matters not, so far as this institution is
concerned in the abstract, whether Texas be in the Union or out
of it. That, therefore, is not my object ; but it is the political
advantages it will secure, with the question settled as proposed —
leaving no door open for future agitation — and thus preserving a

302 SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN WAR.

proper balance between the different sections of the country. This
is my object ; and is it not proper and right ?

If we look around, we see the East, by her economy, her indus
try, and enterprise, by her commerce, navigation, and mechanic
arts, growing opulent, strong and powerful. The West, which a
few years ago was nothing but an unbroken wilderness, embrac
ing the broad and fertile valley of the Mississippi, where the
voice of civilization was never heard, is now teeming with its mil
lions of population. The tide of emigration, still rolling in that
direction, has already reached the base of the Rocky Mountains,
and will soon break over those lofty barriers, and be diffused in
the extensive plains of Oregon. . Already the West vies for the
ascendancy on this floor ; and why should not the South also be
advancing ? Are her limits never to be enlarged, and her influ
ence and power never to be increased ? Is she to be left behind in
this race for distinction and aggrandizement, if you please ? As
one of her sons, I say no. Let her, too, enter the glorious rival-
ship ; not with feelings of strife, jealousy, or envy — such senti
ments are not characteristic of her people — but with aspirations
prompted by the spirit of a laudable emulation and an honorable
ambition.

SPEECH ON THE SUBJECT OF THE MEXICAN WAR.

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES,

JUNE 16, 1846.

The House being in Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union,
(Mr. COBB in the chair,) and having under consideration the bill making
appropriations for the Indian Department for the fiscal year ending 30th
June, 1847 —

Mr. STEPHENS said he had not intended to say any thing on
the present bill until he found the debate taking the range it had
assumed ; and he should now, following the example of others, say
not one word upon the subject properly before the committee, but
proceed to present some views upon another topic, which he would
like to have discussed at the proper time ; but as the opportunity
was not then afforded him, and as he still felt a lively interest in
regard to it, he should avail himself of the opportunity now pre
sented.

I allude, Mr. Chairman, (said Mr. S.,) to the Mexican war; and
I will state in the outset that I am not, as some gentlemen seem
to be, the advocate of war in the abstract — war for war's sake. I
hold all wars to be great national calamities. I do not maintain
that war can or should always be avoided. I do not belong to the
peace party, so called ; I am no non-resistance man ; I am far from
holding that all wars are wrong. But I do hold that they ought

SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN WAK. 303

never to be rushed into blindly or rashly. This ultima ratio — this
last resort of nations to settle matters of dispute or disagreement
between them, should always be avoided, when it can be done with
out a sacrifice of national rights or honor. And the greatest re
sponsibility rests upon those at the head of affairs, to whom are
confided the interests and destinies of a country, that they do not
disregard the heavy obligations of this most important trust.

These general principles, universally held in this age and coun
try, I believe, to be correct, shall govern me in what I have to say
upon the present occasion.

Having thus premised, I shall proceed to the subject I propose
to discuss, and shall first inquire, into the true cause or origin of
this war ; and shall then speak of the manner and spirit with which
it should be prosecuted. First, as to its cause.

The country, Mr. Chairman, at this time, is in a strange and
singular condition. We are at war with a neighboring Republic ;
an army of fifty thousand men has been authorized to be raised ;
and millions of money have been appropriated to prosecute it ; and
millions more will doubtless have to be raised and appropriated for
the same object. And yet the country seems to be anxiously
waiting information as to how this state of things has been brought
about. Some seem to consider it a necessary result from the an
nexation of Texas, or, in other words, a war that Mexico is waging
against us on account of that measure. But I intend to show, as
I think I can most clearly do, that the whole affair is properly
chargeable to the imprudence, indiscretion, and mismanagement
of our own executive ; that the war has been literally provoked
when there was no necessity for it, and could have been easily
avoided without any detriment to our rights, interests, or honor
as a nation. Indeed, sir, I may be permitted to say, that a strange
infatuation seems to have governed this administration ever since
it came into power in reference to our foreign affairs ; a war with
some power or other seems to have been its leading object. The
assertion of untenable rights in the Oregon territory looked to, if
it did not seek, a rupture with England. Happily for the country,
by the interposition of the wisdom of the Senate, that question, if
rumor be correct, is about to be settled. And in the discussion
of this question I wish to remind gentlemen of what they appear
sometimes to forget, that the executive and his cabinet are not the
country, and that it is quite possible for him and them to be wrong
without putting the country in the same condition. There is a
wide difference between the ministers and the sovereign. In this
country sovereignty resides, not in the throne or the executive,
but in the people. The administration is but the ministry ; they
are but public servants, and should be held to strict accountability.
I hope never to see the day when the executive of this country
shall be considered identical with the country itself in its foreign
relations, or when any man, for scanning his acts, however severely
when justly, shall on that account be charged with opposition to

304 SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN WAK.

his country. Such is the case only where allegiance is due to a
crown, where the people's rulers are their masters ; but, thank God,
in this country we can yet hold our rulers to an account. How
long we shall be permitted or be disposed to do so I know not ;
but whenever we cease to do it we shall become unfit to be free.

With these views and these feelings, and with this spirit, I go
into the investigation of the cause of this war, the expenditure of
so much money, the raising of so large and great a military force,
and the breaking up of the repose of that general peace with which
we have been so signally blessed for the last quarter of a century.
This is the inquiry upon which I am about to enter ; it is a grave
and important inquiry, and one to which the attention of the peo
ple of this country should be directed ; and I assert in my place,
that the immediate cause of all these things, and the present un
looked-for state of affairs, is properly chargeable upon the admin
istration ; for the advance movement of our troops, or " army of
occupation," as it is called, from Corpus Christ!, on the Nueces,
to Matamoras, on the Rio Grande, into a territory, to say the least
of it, well known to be in dispute between Texas and Mexico ; this,
I say, was the immediate occasion of hostilities ; and if our army
had been permitted to remain at Corpus Christi, where it had been
since August last, there is no evidence or reason to believe that
there would have been any outbreak between our people and the
Mexicans upon the frontier. This is my first proposition in con
sidering the cause of this war, which I trust I shall be able to make
perfectly clear ; and then I trust I shall be able to make it appeal-
equally clear that that step was unnecessary for any of the legitimate
purposes for which the army was sent to Texas ; also, that it was
improper, under the circumstances, as being calculated to irritate
and provoke hostilities ; and further, that it was a step which the
President was not clothed with the proper power legally and right
fully to take, without authority from Congress.

My first proposition is, that the immediate cause of hostilities
between our army and the Mexican forces, was the advance move
ment from Corpus Christi, upon the Nueces river, to Matamoras,
upon the Rio Grande or Del Norte. And, to sustain this, I need but
refer to the history of the case, given by the President himself in
the documents accompanying his message to the House, when he
asked us to recognize a state of war with Mexico ; a singular re
quest, by-the-by, for the President to make, when the constitution
gives Congress the sole power to declare war. Perhaps some
gentlemen may suppose that that clause in the constitution simply
means that when the President gets us into a war, it is the business
of Congress then to make it known — to declare it — or recognize
the fact. This, however, is not my understanding of it. Congress
alone has the right and power to engage in war. The President
has the right to repel hostilities ; but not by his policy with other
nations to bring on and involve the country in a war without con
sultation with Congress.

SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN WAK. 305

But to proceed with the argument and the history of the case.
Soon after the passage of the resolution of annexation last year,
it will be recollected that General Taylor, with a large portion of
the army, was ordered to Texas to protect that country and its
citizens from an invasion of Mexico, if any should be made or
threatened. He arrived there in the month of August, and took
a position at Corpus Christi, on the west bank of the Nueces, one
hundred and fifty miles this side of the Rio Grande. In the mean
time, the question of annexation may be considered as having been
settled by the people of Texas. Her convention had been called,
and her people were almost unanimous in favor of it. If
Mexico had intended an invasion on account of that act, that was
the time to have made it. But there was no invasion ; and there
is no evidence of any intention on her part to offer hostile re
sistance to that measure. Nor is there any evidence of any hos
tilities on her part until the advance movement of our army alluded
to, which took place in the month of March of this year. During
this interval of time, a regular correspondence seems to have been
kept up between General Taylor and the War Department here,
concerning the state of Mexican feeling. This correspondence
accompanies the President's message. It is copious, and I take
it to be a true exposition of the real state of affairs, as well as the
disposition of the Mexicans during that time.

On the 15th of August, then, in his first communication on this
subject after arriving at Corpus Christi, General Taylor writes :
" That General Arista was to leave Monterey on the 4th of that
month for Matamoras, with fifteen hundred men, five hundred
being cavalry." " Nor do I hear that the reported concentration
of troops at Matamoras is for any purpose of invasion."

On the 20th of August, from the same place, he wrote : " Cara
vans of traders arrive occasionally from the Rio Grande, but bring
no news of importance. They represent that there are no regular
troops on that river, except at Matamoras ; and do not seem to be
aware of any preparation for a demonstration on this side of the
river."

On the 6th of September, he wrote : That " a confidential agent,
despatched some days since at Matamoras, has returned, and re
ports that no extraordinary preparations are going forward there ;
that the garrison does not seem to have increased ; and that our
Consul is of opinion there will be no declaration of war."

On the 14th of September, he wrote : " We have no news of in
terest from the frontier ; Arista, at the last accounts, was at Mier,
but without any force ; nor is there as yet any concentration of
troops on the river."

On the 4th of October, he wrote : " Mexico having as yet made
no positive declaration of war, or committed any overt act of hos
tilities, I do not feel at liberty, under my instructions, particularly
those of July 8th. to make a forward movement to the Rio Grande,
without authority from the War Department."
20

306 SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN WAR.

On the llth of October, he wrote: "Recent arrivals from the
Rio Grande bring no news or information of a different aspect
from that which I reported in my last. The views expressed in
previous communications relative to the pacific disposition of the
border people, on both sides of the river, are continually confirmed."

All this time General Taylor was remaining at Corpus Christi.
The propositions for annexation had been before the people of
Texas, as I have said ; and it was clear and well understood that
that measure would be speedily consummated. And yet no demon
stration was made by Mexico, and no evidence of hostilities was
evinced. Nay, more, sir ; so late as the 7th of January last — some
time after annexation was complete, and after Texas had been
admitted as a State into the Union ; after that " bloodless achieve
ment " of so large a territory, of which the President spoke in his
annual message, had been fully accomplished ; and, in deed and in
truth, "without a resort to the arm of force" — General Taylor
writes from the same place, where he was still stationed, and where
he should have remained : " General Arista rests quiet, to see, per
haps, what success attends General Paredes. In this part of the
country the people are in favor of peace ; and I should judge," he
adds, " of a treaty with the United States."

But, on the 13th of January of this year, it will be recollected,
the order was given by the Secretary of War for the forward move
ment of the army to Matamoras. And this, as I assert, was the
cause of the outbreak ; for, no sooner was this known, and prepa
rations were making for that purpose in our camp, than the temper
of the people in that quarter began to change — I mean the temper
of the Mexican people living in the province of Tamaulipas, on
this side of the Rio Grande — and the tone of General Taylor's
letters immediately changed. On the 4th of February he acknow
ledges the reception of the order of the 13th January; and on the
16th of February writes : " Many reports will doubtless reach the
Department giving exaggerated accounts of Mexican preparations
to resist our advance, if not, indeed, to attempt an invasion of
Texas."

This shows that opposition to that movement had commenced,
and resistance was threatened ; and this is the FIRST intimation
General Taylor gives of any hostility in that quarter on the part
of the Mexicans, from the time he first arrived there, in the summer
of last year — six months after he had been quietly settled at Cor
pus Christi, without any offer to resist, with the border people
quiet, peaceable, and satisfied, desirous, as he thought, of peace
and a treaty with this country — with no concentration of forces,
and no disposition to fight.

On the 8th of March General Taylor commenced his forward
movement, and on the llth the whole army left Corpus Christi
for Matamoras. The next time we hear from him is on the 18th
March, when he is one hundred and nineteen miles on his route.
He then states, that " within the last two days our advance has

SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN WAK. 307

met with small armed parties of Mexicans, who seemed disposed
to avoid us. They were doubtless thrown out to get information
of our advance."

The next we hear from him is the account of the 21st of March,
of the resistance offered to his crossing the Little Colorado, and
the protest of the Mexicans against his proceeding to Matamoras.
Further on, and just before getting to Point Isabel, he was met
with a civil deputation, with the Prefect of the district of Tamau-
lipas at its head, " protesting against his occupation of the coun
try." No attention was paid to this ; his orders were imperative,
and soon the buildings at Point Isabel were seen in flames, and
all the inhabitants fled to Matamoras, except "two or three inof
fensive Mexicans."

The next we hear of General Taylor is, on the 29th of March,
at his camp, on the left bank of the Rio Grande, opposite Mata
moras. And now he writes : " The attitude of the Mexicans is so
far decidedly hostile. An interview has been held, by my direc
tion, with the military authorities in Matamoras, but with no
satisfactory result. Under this state of things, I must again and
urgently call your attention to the necessity of speedily sending
recruits to this army."

It may be well here to call the attention of the House to the
notes of the interview had with the Mexican authorities, to which
General Taylor alluded in his last letter. From these notes I
read : " General Yega then stated, that he had been directed to
receive such communications as General Worth might present
from his commanding general — going on to say, that the march
of '*>e United States troops through a part of the Mexican terri
tory (Tamaulipas) was an act of war." General Worth asked,
"Has Mexico declared war against the United States?" General
Yega: "No." General Worth: "Are the two countries still at
peace?" General Yega: "Yes." General Yega afterward, in
the interview, asked : " Is it the intention of General Taylor to
remain with his army on the left bank of the Rio Grande?" Gen
eral Worth : " Most assuredly ; and there to remain until directed
otherwise by his government." General Yega remarked, that
" we felt indignation at seeing the American flag placed on the
Rio Grande, a portion of the Mexican territory."

This interview took place on the 28th March last, soon after
General Taylor's arrival opposite Matamoras ; and it shows clearly
the state of feeling produced by this advanced movement, and
which resulted in the collision which so soon after followed. For
matters now were rapidly coming to a crisis ; and the next we
hear from General Taylor is on the 15th April, when he writes :

" I have to report, that, on the llth instant, General Ampudia arrived
at Matamoras with two hundred cavalry, the remainder of his force, Vari
ously estimated from two thousand to three thousand men, being some
distance in rear on the route from Monterey. Immediately after assuming
the chief command, General Ampudia ordered all Americans to leave

308 SPEECH ON TH-E MEXICAN WAR.

Matamorns within twenty-four hours, and repair to Victoria, a town in the
interior of Tamaulipas. He had taken the same severe measure at Rey-
nosa, on his way hither. On the 12th, I received from General Ampudia
a despatch, summoning me to withdraw my force within twenty-four
hours, and to fall back beyond the river Nueces. To this communication
I replied on the 12th, saying that I should not retrograde from my posi
tion. Copies of this correspondence are enclosed herewith. I considered
the letter of General Ampudia sufficient to warrant me in blocking up the
Rio Grande, and stopping all supplies for Matamoras, orders for which
have been given to the naval commander at Brazos Santiago."

The communication from Ampudia, to which General Taylor
refers, is in the following words :

[Translation.]
FOURTH MILITARY DIVISION. General-in-Chief:

To explain to you the many grounds for the just grievances felt by the
Mexican nation, caused by the United States Government, would be a
loss of time, and an insult to your good sense ; I, therefore, pass at once
to such explanations as I consider of absolute necessity.

Your government, in an incredible manner — you will even permit me to
gay an extravagant one, if the usage or general rules established and
received among all civilized nations are regarded — has not only insulted,
but has exasperated the Mexican nation, bearing its conquering banner
to the left bank of the Rio Bravo del Norte ; and, in this case, by explicit
arid definite orders of my government, which neither can, will, nor should
receive new outrages, I require you, in all form, and, at latest, in the per
emptory term of twenty-four hours, to break up your camp, and retire to
the other bank of the Nueces river, while our governments are regulating
the pending question in relation to Texas. If you insist in remaining
upon the soil of the department of Tamaulipas, it will clearly result that
arms, and arms alone, must decide the question ; and in that case, I advise
you that we accept the war to which, with so much injustice on your
part, you provoke us ; and that, on our part, this war shall be conducted
conformably to the principles established by the most civilized nations ;
that is to say, that the law of nations and of war shall be the guide of my
operations ; trusting that on your part the same will be observed.

With this view, I tender you the considerations due to your person and
respectable office.

God and Liberty !
HEADQUARTERS AT MATAMORAS, 2 o'clock, P. Jf., April 12, 1846.

PEDRO D'AMPUDIA.

Senor General-in-Chief of the United States Army, Don Z. TAYLOR.

In this communication it will be perceived that General Am
pudia did not order General Taylor to evacuate Texas — to go
beyond the Sabine — but to fall back beyond the Nueces, to with
draw from what he considered the Mexican district of Tamaulipas,
until the two governments should settle the pending question in
relation to Texas. General Taylor's orders, however, from the
War Department were positive ; he was to hold his position op
posite Matamoras. And what immediately ensued is well known :
first, the capture of Captain Thornton and his men ; and, soon
after, the ever-to-be-remembered battles of the 8th and 9th of May,
which, so far as the bravery and gallantry of our officers and
army is concerned, are amongst the brightest and most glorious

SPEECH OX THE MEXICAN WAR. 309

achievements in our history. I have nothing to say against that.
I have every assurance that our arms will ever be victorious, let
them come in conflict with whatever foe they may ; and whatever
laurels or honors they may win, whether on land or the ocean,
when acting in obedience to orders, I shall claim an interest in,
as an addition to the common stock of American fame. But I
am now giving the history of the circumstances that led to this
result. I have been minute in details, in tracing it to its proper
source, to show that there was no disposition on the part of Mexico
evinced to invade this country or Texas on account of annexa
tion ; and if the army had remained out of the country upon the
Rio Grande, which was in dispute between Texas and Mexico,
both claiming it, there would have been no hostility on the part
of Mexico ; or, in other words, that the cause of this war was the
taking military possession of the disputed territory. And, if fur
ther authority is wanted to establish this position, I refer to the
letter of the present Secretary of Foreign Affairs in Mexico to
Mr. Slidell, of the 12th of March last. It is in that letter in
which he gave the reasons of his government for refusing to re
ceive him as a resident minister, but not as a commissioner to
settle the question of boundary. Speaking of the views and feel
ings of the present government of Mexico upon this subject, and
their intended course toward the United States, he says :

"A lover of peace, she would wish to ward off this sad contingency ;
and, without fearing war, she would desire to avoid so great a calamity for
both countries. For this she has offered herself, and will continue to offer
herself, open to all honorable means of conciliation, and she anxiously
desires that the present controversy may terminate in a reasonable and
decorous manner.

" In the actual state of things, to say that Mexico maintains a position
of quasi hostility with respect to the United States, is to add a new offence
to her previous injuries. Her attitude is one of defence, because she
sees herself unjustly attacked ; because a portion of her territory is occu
pied by the forces of a nation, intent, without any right whatever, to
possess itself of it ; because her ports are threatened by the squadrons
of the same power. Under such circumstances, is she to remain inactive, '
without taking measures suited to so rigorous an emergency?"

From this it appears that, even up to the 12th of March last, it
was not the intention or wish of Mexico to make war against us ;
and that, in the actual state of things then, to say that Mexico
maintained " a position of quasi hostility with respect to the United
States," was " to add a new offence to her previous injuries." Can
any man doubt, then, that if our army had not been pushed for
ward to the Rio Grande, there would have been no hostility,
resistance, or war with Mexico ?

Then, sir, was this movement necessary for any of the legiti
mate purposes for which our army was sent to Texas ? There
was no invasion threatened, there was no violence offered to the
persons or property of the citizens of Texas that required this
movement to give any additional protection. Beyond Corpus

310 SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN" WAE.

Christi, where the army had been stationed for six months, there
were no citizens of the United States or Texas that I have ever
heard of. I mean, by citizens of Texas, those who acknowledge
her government, and come within the jurisdiction of her laws.
Why, then, was the army, at great cost and trouble, marched over
and across that " stupendous desert between the Nueces and the
Bravo" (Rio Grande), which the chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs stated, when he offered the resolution for the
annexation of Texas, was the "natural boundary between the
Anglo-Saxon and the Mauritanian races ?" Was there a man on
the Rio Grande that acknowledged the jurisdiction, much less
that claimed the protection, of the laws of Texas ? Wherefore,
then, was there any necessity for this move ? Can any man offer
a pretext for it but the masked design of provoking Mexico to
war ?

But this move was not only unnecessary, but improper, impru
dent, and unwise. For it was known that the friendly relations
between this country and Mexico were interrupted ; and, notwith
standing she was making no show of hostilities — her people being
pacifically inclined on the border — yet she was in an irritable
mood, if you please, and every thing calculated to excite either
her government or her people by a wise President would have
been avoided. I now speak without reference to the disputed
character of that country. Even if it were admitted that the Rio
Grande was the established boundary of Texas, as much so as
that the St. Lawrence is the boundary between us and Canada, it
was improper, under the circumstances, to send an army upon the
border of a country at peace with us, and not only this, but order
them to construct fortifications and mount heavy guns right oppo
site a peaceful town, pointing toward the main square, and ready
at any moment to " spot" any place in it. I say, sir, this was
wrong, and it was calculated to provoke, to irritate, and to bring
on a conflict, if it was not so designed. Suppose any nation should
act so toward us, and point their guns toward any or either of our
towns or cities, could any thing be done more calculated to warm
the blood of the nation, or more effectually " to prepare the hearts
of our people for war ?" Would we permit England or France to
do so toward us, or could we do so toward them without being
involved in a war ? Did Mr. Jefferson act in this way when Lou
isiana was acquired ? The western boundary of that country was
then in dispute between us and Spain. Did Mr. Jefferson send an
army of occupation to take possession of the part in dispute, or
did he wait for peaceful negotiation to settle it ?

How was it with our north-eastern boundary, another case in
point ? For half a century and upward, the line there was in dis
pute between us and Great Britain, and a large extent of territory
was claimed by each. Did any of our Presidents, in that long
interval of time, think it necessary or proper to send an army of
occupation to take possession of the disputed section ? So far as

SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 311

necessity was concerned, the argument was much stronger in the
northeast than it was upon the Rio Grande, for there were people
there claiming the protection of our laws. But not only this, sir ;
if I am not mistaken, for some time, and even during Mr. Yan
Buren's administration, a portion of that disputed country was
permitted to be occupied by British troops without opposition or
resistance on our part. I do not say0 that that was right ; but it
shows the great caution exercised by former Presidents, when the
questions and issues of peace and war were at stake, and it would
have been time enough, at least, for our troops to have made a
movement when Mexican forces had attempted to seize upon the
country. I venture to say, if a te'nth part of the prudence, and
caution, and propriety, had been exercised in the southwest that
was in the northeast, there would have been no collision with
Mexico ; and if a tenth part of the folly and blunders of this
administration in the southwest had been committed in the
northeast, when that question was open, a rupture with England
would have been inevitable ; and we might to-day, for that small
strip of territory, with an exhausted treasury and accumulated
debt, be waging an unfinished war with that country.

And I shall here, Mr. Chairman, though not exactly pertinent
to the question I am discussing, take occasion to refer to that
great statesman, through whose extraordinary talents and ability
that long protracted and much vexed question was so advan
tageously to his country finally settled. And I do it from what I
feel to be a sense of public duty to a man who rendered such essen
tial service to his country, in such a critical period in the history
of our foreign affairs. And the more cheerfully and willingly I
do it in consequence of the many gross and foul imputations that
have been attempted to be cast upon his character for his course
in that matter. So far from being a fit subject for attack and
detraction for his conduct in relation to that measure, he is enti
tled to the gratitude of the nation and the gratitude of mankind.
If a man, who has the requisite ability and patriotism for so noble
an achievement, is to be denounced for having brought to an hon
orable and peaceful settlement a question of so much difficulty as
to have baffled the powers of the ablest men of this country for
fifty years or upward — for doing what all our Presidents, from
the days of Washington down, had failed to accomplish — for
saving this country from all the consequences of a protracted war,
the loss of blood and treasure that would have been spent therein
— for saving mankind and the civilized world from all the fearful
and disastrous effects that would have been produced by the shock
and collision of the two mightiest nations on earth, brought in
battle array and deadly conflict against each, other. I say. if, for
doing all this, a man is to be denounced, assailed, and despoiled
of his good name, then, indeed —

" Worth is but a charter
To be mankind's distinguished martyr."

312 SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN WAK.

And then, indeed, may it be truly said that " Republics are un
grateful." But, sir, I do not believe this of my countrymen ; I
rely more upon their intelligence, their virtue, wisdom, and
patriotism — more upon that liberal, high-minded, generous, and
magnanimous spirit by which they are characterized. There
may be some who, with the wish but without the ability to take
the lead in the arduous ascent of fame's proud steep, would fain
attain their ends by pulling down those above them, rather than
encounter the labor and toil of honorable though hopeless com
petition ; but I trust their number is few. They belong to that
class of old —

" Who have no base to bear their rising fame
But the fallen ruins of another's name."

In this instance, however, their object is beyond their reach. In
solitary loneliness he stands high above them all — with full con
sciousness, perhaps, of the truth of what was said long since by
one well acquainted with the passions and vices of the human
heart, that —

" He who ascends to mountain tops shall find

The loftiest peaks most wrapt in clouds and snow,
And he who transcends or excels mankind
Must look down on the hate of those below."

There is a majesty in true greatness which seldom fails to com
mand the admiration of the high-minded and honorable, while it
as naturally excites the envy of the ignoble, the grovelling, and
the mean : just as there is a majesty in virtue which secures the
love and respect of the good, but never fails to arouse the hate
of the vile. This is the fate of genius, and this is the price of
renown ; for —

" Envy will merit as its shade pursue,
But, as the shadow proves its substance true,
Envied worth, like th' sun eclips'd, makes known

_ The opposing object's grossness, not its own :
And when that sun too powerful beams displays
He draws up vapors that obscure his rays :
But e'n those clouds at last adorn his way,
Reflect new glories and augment the day"

So, sir, it is with Daniel Webster. The efforts of his enemies
have been as impotent as they were reckless, and their attempted
aspersions will but add new lustre to his fame. I do not claim
to be his defender or his eulogist ; that is a distinction I do not
aspire to. But we all have reason to be proud of him as an
American. He has not only won immortality for himself, and
taken a position amongst the greatest of the earth, but added
greatly to the reputation of his country ; and, in the bright con
stellation of gems and honors that encircle and adorn his brow,
shines not least conspicuously, in my opinion, the glory of hav
ing effected the treaty of Washington. Would for the country's

SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 313

sake he filled the same place now that he did then — we might not
be in our present embarrassment !

But, sir, to return from this digression, for which I hope the
committee will excuse me.

I have endeavored to show that the movement of our arm}7 to
the Rio Grande, the immediate occasion of hostilities, was un
necessary and improper, under the circumstances. I come now
to say, what I fearlessly assert, that the President had no right,
no power, legally, to order the military occupation of the dis
puted territory on the Rio Grande without authority from Con
gress. He had no right or power to send the army beyond that
country over which Texas had established her jurisdiction. The
boundary between Texas and Mexico — I mean Texas as an in
dependent State after her revolution — was never settled. Before
the revolution the river Nueces was the southern boundary of the
department of Texas. Between that river and the Rio Grande
lay the districts of Tamaulipas, Coahuila, and others. During
and after the revolution, a portion of this country on the south
of the Nueces, about Corpus Christi, went with Texas and ad
hered to the new government ; the other portion, lying on the
Rio Grande, adhered to the old government ; and though Texas,
after her declaration, defined her boundary to be the Rio Grande,
yet she never successfully established her jurisdiction to that ex
tent. Between Corpus Christi and the Mexican settlements on
the Rio Grande is an immense desert or waste, where nobody
lives. The first settlements to the south of that unoccupied region
are on the Rio Grande, or near it, and have continued subject to
the laws of Mexico. The people are Mexicans or Spaniards. In
proof of this I need but refer to a letter from the American camp,
published in most of our newspapers, and which nobody, I pre
sume, will venture to contradict. The letter bears date the 21st
of April last, and, speaking of the country on the Rio Grande,
says : " The people are all Spaniards, and the country is unin
habitable, excepting the valley of the Rio Grande, and that con
tains a pretty dense population ; and in no part of the country
are the people more loyal to the Mexican Government." This
country, it is true, is claimed by Texas and Mexico. It is in dis
pute, and was well known to be so at the time of annexation.
For proof of this, I refer to Senator Benton's speech in the other
House upon the Tyler treaty, in which he seems to decide the
claim in favor of Mexico ; for a resolution offered by him on that
occasion is in these words :

Resolved, That the incorporation of the left bank of the Rio del Norte
into the American Union, by virtue of a treaty with Texas, comprehend
ing, as the said incorporation would do, a part of the Mexican departments
of New Mexico, Chihuahua, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas, would be an act
of direct aggression on Mexico, for all the consequences of which the
United States Would stand responsible.

One of the strong objections to the Tyler treaty was that it

314 SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN WAR.

fixed the boundary at the Rio Grande, which the resolutions that
finally passed did not do.

I refer, also, to the speech of Senator Ashley, of Arkansas, on
the resolution itself, in which he says, speaking of the resolutions
submitted by himself for that purpose :

" The third speaks for itself, and enables the United States to settle the
boundary between Mexico and the United States properly. And I will
here add that the present boundaries of Texas, I learn from Judge Ellis,
the President of the Convention that formed the constitution of Texas,
and also a member of the first Legislature under that constitution, were
fixed as they now are [that is, extending to the Rio Grande] solely and
professedly with a view of having a large margin in the negotiation with
Mexico, and not with the expectation of retaining them as they now exist
in their statute book."

Again : Mr. Donelson, our Charge to Texas, or the agent sent
on to effect annexation, in a communication on the 23d of June,
1845, to Mr. Buchanan, upon this subject, speaking of the coun
try between the Nueces and the Rio Grande, says : " That coun
try, you are aware, has been in the possession of both parties.
Texas has held in peace Corpus Christi ; Mexico has held Santi
ago [near Point Isabel] ; both parties have had occasional
"possession of Loredo and other places higher up."

But it is useless to multiply authority upon this point. All
this was well known at the time of the passage of the resolution
of annexation ; and hence the resolution was guarded so as to cover
only so much territory as was "properly included within, and
rightfully belonged to the Republic of Texas," reserving the ques
tion of boundary to be settled and adjusted between this govern
ment and Mexico by negotiation, and not by arms ; and Congress
positively refused to pass any measure of that sort which fixed
the boundary at the Rio Grande or Del Norte ; and I venture to
say that no resolution so fixing the boundarj" could have passed
this or the other House. And now what I have got to say is
this : Congress having failed to establish a boundary in that quar
ter, the President could not undertake to do it. The limits or boun
daries of a country can be fixed in two ways only : one is by nego
tiation, and the other is by the sword. The President by him
self can do neither. He maj7 make the initiative in the former
case ; but Congress can alone constitutionally draw the sword
for any purpose. I grant, if Mexico would not negotiate, would
not treat, would not come to any understanding in a friendly
manner where> the dividing line should be, where their jurisdic
tion should end and ours commence, that we would then have
a right to make a limit for ourselves, and a right, by force of arms,
to establish that limit or line. But, sir, this is a right that Con
gress only can constitutionally exercise. The President can
not do it. That is what I assert ; and I defy any man in this
House to gainsay my positions. Is there any boundary line
established between Texas and Mexico ? Every body must say

SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 315

— no. Was it not expressly omitted to establish a line in the
resolutions of annexation? Everybody must say — yes. Can
the President, then, undertake to say where the line is or shall
be, when Congress fails to speak ?

[Here Mr. PAYNE interrupted Mr. S., and wished to inquire
whether Texas could not fix, and had not fixed her boundary at
the Del Norte ?]

Mr. STEPHENS proceeded. No, sir. She had the right, if she
had the power, before annexation ; but by the resolutions of
annexation that question was expressly reserved for this govern
ment to adjust by negotiation ; and, by assenting to these resolu
tions, she consented to their conditions. There is, then, cer
tainly no fixed boundary between us and Mexico, and no boun
dary can be established but by negotiation or arms. Congress
alone was the competent authority and power to resort to the
latter method. Wiry, sir, the President, at the opening of this
session, informed us that he considered our title to the whole of
the Oregon Territory up to 54° 40' as " clear and unquestionable."
Suppose he had ordered the troops there to take possession—
had an army of occupation sent over there — and in this wa}r had
brought on a war with England without ever consulting Congress,
though we were here in session, is there a man here who could
have the face to stand up and defend him ? Would not a voice
of rebuke, indignation, and condemnation rise upon him from
every quarter of this country ? And why should not the same
be the case in the present instance ? The principles are perfectly
analogous. As to the matter of Oregon, however, I believe we
are in no danger from that score now. Notwithstanding our
title was proclaimed to be so " clear and unquestionable," a large
portion of it, it is said, is about to be given up, and a permanent
line fixed upon the 49th parallel of latitude. This is to be done
by advisement with the Senate. I, sir, have no particular com
plaint to* make against the arrangement. I leave it for the pecu
liar friends of the executive to reconcile his present position
with the position he held at the opening of this session. As for
his taking the advice of the Senate in advance, that is but a cover
of his retreat. All I have to say in reference to it is, that I re
gret that he was not equally cautious and conscientious in tak
ing the advisement of Congress before taking military occupation
of a disputed territory in another quarter. If so, we might now
be at peace with Mexico, and all our differences honorably ad
justed. But some one asks me what was the President to do ?
How was he to know where to stop, as there was no fixed line ?
I answer, his duty was a plain one. It was to keep the army
within that portion of the territory which " rightfully belonged
to Texas," or over which she had established her jurisdiction
and supremacy, where her laws extended and were enforced, and
where the people acknowledged her government. Whether that
was east or west of the Nueces made no difference. But he had

316 SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN WAR.

no authority to order them beyond such limits. This is a plain
principle, and is clearly set forth in Mr. Donelson's letter to Mr.
Buchanan of the llth July, 1845. When writing from Texas
upon this subject, he says :

" SIR : You will have observed that in my correspondence with this
government and Texas, there has been no discussion of the question of
limits between Mexico and Texas. The joint resolution of our Congress
left the question an open one, and the preliminary proposition made by
this government, under the auspices of the British and French Govern
ments, as the basis of a definitive treaty with Mexico, left the question in
the same State." " I at once decided that we should take no such posi
tion, [on the Rio Grande,] but should regard only as within the limits of
our protection that portion of territory actually possessed by Texas, and
which she did not consider as subject to negotiation."

This, sir, was right. This is what Texas expected, and this is
all that she or her citizens ever asked. This was also in sub
stance embodied in the order from the Secretary of War of the
30th July, 1845, to General Taylor, in which he said, speaking of
the views of the President upon this subject:

" He has not the requisite information in regard to the country to ena
ble him to give any positive directions as to the position yoii ought to
take, or the movements which it may be expedient to make. These must
be governed by circumstances. While avoiding, as you have been in
structed to do, all aggressive measures toward Mexico, as long as the re
lations of peace exist between that Republic and the United States, you
are expected to occupy, protect, and defend the territory of Texas to the
extent that it has been occupied by the people of Texas."

With this view it was perfectly proper for the army to be sta
tioned at Corpus Christi, while it was highly improper to send
it further south. And with this view it was perfectly proper for
this House to establish a custom-house at the same place, leav
ing the Mexicans with theirs at Santiago and Santa Fe. until the
boundary should be settled.

Gentlemen have argued this question as if the fact of its being
right for the army to be at Corpus Christi, on the west of the
Nueces, therefore it must be right for it to go to any other place
this side the Rio Grande. The President seems to take the same
view in his special message upon the Mexican hostilities. Noth
ing could be more erroneous. And had the principles of the
order of the 30th July been adhered to — had the army kept
within the limits therein prescribed, we should not now be at
war with Mexico.

I have, in this argument, Mr. Chairman, intentionally abstained
from arguing the question of Texan boundary — that is, the precise
limits to which she had rightfully established her jurisdiction and
independence, or where the dividing line between us and Mexico
ought by negotiation to be fixed. It has nothing to do with the
merits of this question. My object was to show that our boundary
in that direction is as yet unsettled, and that the Rio Grande

SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN WAR. 317

was not declared to be the boundary in the resolution of annexa
tion. I might go further, and show that it never was expected
to be by some, even at the time of annexation, and by some of its
warmest friends. Mr. C. J. INGERSOLL, who introduced the
resolution of annexation, upon this subject, said upon that
occasion :

" The stupendous deserts between the Nueces and the Bravo [the Rio
Grande or del Norte] rivers are the natural boundaries between the
Anglo-Saxon and the Mauritanian races. There ends the valley of the
west. There Mexico begins. Thence, beyond the Bravo, begin the
Moorish people and their Indian associates, to whom Mexico properly
belongs, who should not cross that vast desert if they could, as on our
side we too ought to stop there, because interminable conflicts must
ensue from either our going south or their coming north of that gigantic
boundary. While peace is cherished, that boundary will be sacred. Not
till the spirit of conquest rages will the people on either side molest or
mix with each other ; and, whenever they do, one or the other race must
be conquered, if not extinguished."

From this it would seem that he did not even wish the
boundary ever to extend to the Rio Grande. With him, how
ever, I may say, I did not then, nor do I now agree ; and, so far
as my opinion is concerned, I think the Kio Grande ought to be
the boundary, because it is a great natural boundary, much
better defined than her stupendous deserts. But I think, with
wisdom and prudence in our councils, the Rio Grande could
have been got as the boundary as well by negotiation as by arms,
and with much less treasure and with a much less " blood}1"
achievement."

And, having shown the origin of the war, and the executive
blunder connected with it, I now come to say something of its
objects, and the spirit with which it should be prosecuted.

This is the second branch of the subject I promised to notice.
What is to be the conduct of this war — its ultimate aims ? What
are its proposed ends, what is to be its consummation, and what
course should be pursued toward it ? I notice a very evident
wish on the part of those who defend the President for getting
us into it to put those who do not approve of his course in a false
position. They wish to make it appear that we are opposed to
the war — opposed to giving supplies — opposed to its prosecution.
This is not my position ; I am opposed to the manner in which it
has been brought about, but I am not opposed to its active
prosecution to a speedy and honorable termination ; and I do not
intend for others to assign me a position which I do not occupy.
I would not do a thing to check the ardor of our gallant army,
which has already won such unfading laurels on the battle-field,
or of the patriotic volunteers who have rushed to the rescue at
the hour of their country's call. Their duty and our duty is a
very different thing, under present circumstances, from what was
the President's duty before the commencement of hostilities. I
am for the honor of our arms while the conflict lasts j for energetic,

818 SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN WAR.

vigorous action, until an honorable peace can be obtained. And
whatever of means or money shall be necessary for this, I am for
giving, to the largest extent ; not failing, at the same time, to
hold the executive responsible for his errors. My course and
feelings are just as they would be if this Capitol were on fire.
The cause or origin of the* flames, whether by accident or negli
gence, or the hand of an enemy, would have no influence with me
in the course I should pursue in effecting their speediest ex
tinguishment, and using all available and proper means for that
purpose. All hands to the rescue would be my motto. And so,
sir, now the fires of war are raging on our frontier, all good
citizens should render their willing aid, as I most cheerfully do,
to put out the conflagration ; and he whose deeds are most
gallant and efficient in effecting this object, whether on the field
or in the cabinet, will be entitled to the most glory.

But, sir, I wish to know what is the design and object of the
administration as to the ends of this war. It has been brought
upon us while Congress was in session without our knowledge.
And I wish to know for what object, and with what spirit, they
intend to prosecute it. I regret the chairman of the Committee
on Military Affairs is not in his seat to answer such inquiries
upon this subject as I intended to propound to him. For,
occupying his position, I presume he must be in the confidence
of the executive. And I hope, at some early day, he, or some
other person standing in the same relation to the " powers that
be," will inform the country upon this subject. Is the object to
repel invasion, to protect Texas, to establish the Rio Grande as
the boundary ? or what other objects are had in view ? I, sir, not
only as a representative upon this floor, but as a citizen of this
republic, having a common interest with others, in every thing
that pertains to her interests, her rights, and her honor, wish to
know if this is to be a war for conquest ? And whether this is the
object for which it is to be waged ? If so, I protest against that
part of it. I would shed no unnecessary blood ; commit no un
necessary violence ; allow no outrage upon the religion of
Mexico ; have no desecration of temples, or " revelling in the
halls of the Montezumas ;" but be ready to meet the first offers
of peace. I regret that General Taylor did not have the
authority to accept the proffered armistice when it was tendered.
In a word, I am for a restoration of peace as soon — yes, at the
earliest day it can be honorably effected. I am no enemy to the
extension of our domain, or the enlargement of the boundaries
of the republic. Far from it. I trust the day is coming, and
not far distant, when the whole continent will be ours ; when our
institutions shall be diffused and cherished, and republican
government felt and enjoyed throughout the length and breadth
and width of this land — from the far south to the extreme north,
and from ocean to ocean. That this is our iiltimate destiny, if
wise councils prevail, I confidently believe. But it is not to be

SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN WAK. 319

accomplished by the sword. Mr. Chairman, republics never
spread by arms. We can only properly enlarge by voluntary
accessions, and should only attempt to act upon our neighbors
by setting them a good example. In this way only is the spirit
of our institutions to be diffused as the " leaven," until " the
•whole lump is leavened." This has been the history of our silent
but rapid progress, thus far. In this way Louisiana, with its
immense domain, was acquired. In this way the Floridas were
obtained. In this way we got Oregon, connecting us with the
Pacific. In this way Texas, up to the Rio Grande, might have
been added ; and in this way the Californias, and Mexico herself
in due time may be merged in one great republic. There is much
said in this country of the party of progress. I profess to
belong to that party ; but am far from advocating that kind of
progress which many of those who seem anxious to appropriate
the term exclusively to themselves are using their utmost exer
tions to push forward. Theirs, in my opinion, is a downward
progress. It is a progress of party — of excitement — of lust of
power — a spirit of war — aggression — violence and licentiousness.
It is a progress which, if indulged in, would soon sweep over all
law — all order — and the constitution itself. It is the progress
of the French revolution, when men's passions —

" Like an ocean bursting from its bounds,
Long beat in vain, went forth resistlessly,
Bearing the stamp and designation then
Of popular fury, anarchy."

It is the progress of that political and moral sirocco that
passed over the republics of " olden time," withering and blast
ing every thing within its pernicious and destructive range.
Where liberty once was enjoyed — where the arts and sciences
were cultivated — and literature flourished — philosophers taught
and poets sung — and where the most majestic monuments of
refinement, taste, and genius were erected, " towers, temples,
palaces, and sepulchres ;" but where now —

" Kuin itself stands still for lack of work,
And desolation keeps unbroken sabbath."

Or, to come nearer home for an illustration, it is the progress of
Mexico herself. Why is that heaven-favored country now so
weak and impotent and faithless ? Why so divided and dis
tracted and torn to pieces in her internal policy ? A few years
ago she set out in the career of republicanism under auspices
quite as favorable for success as this courtry. Her progress has
been most rapid from a well-regulated, good government, formed
on our own model, to the most odious military despotism. We
would do well to take a lesson from her history, and grow wise
by the calamities of others, without paying ourselves the melan-

320 SP.EECH ON THE MEXICAN APPROPKIATION BILL.

choly price of wisdom. They lacked that high order of moral
and political integrity without which no republic can stand. And
it is to progress in these essential attributes of national great
ness I would look ; the improvement of mind ; " the increase and
diffusion of knowledge amongst men ;" the erection of schools,
colleges, and temples of learning ; the progress of intellect over
matter ; the triumph of the mind over the animal propensities ;
the advancement of kind feelings and good will amongst the
nations of the earth ; the cultivation of virtue and the pursuits
of industry ; the bringing into subjection and subserviency to
the use of man of all the elements of nature about and around
us ; in a word, the progress of civilization and every thing that
elevates, ennobles, and dignifies man. This, Mr. Chairman, is
not to be done by wars, whether foreign or domestic. Fields of
blood and carnage may make men brave and heroic, but seldom
tend to make nations either good, virtuous, or great.

SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN APPROPRIATION, OR
"THREE MILLION BILL," IN COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE ON THE STATE OF THE UNION.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 12, 1847.

MR. CHAIRMAN : It is useless to attempt to disguise the fact, or
to affect to be blind to the truth, that this country is now sur
rounded by difficulties of no ordinary magnitude, and fast ap
proaching others which threaten to be far greater and more peril
ous than any which have ever been encountered since the founda
tion of the government.

It is true, the declaration was made the other day, by a distin
guished Senator, (Mr. CASS,) in his place, that he saw no dangers
about, he espied nothing in the prospect to cause alarm or appre
hension, and that, in his opinion, " the sentinel upon the watch-
tower might sing upon his post!"

Sir, whether this sentiment was expressed by authority, and is
to be taken as the exponent of the feelings of those who are now
wielding so recklessly the destinies of the nation, I know not ; but
to me it seems somewhat kindred to, if not the legitimate offspring
of, that spirit which prompted Nero to indulge in music and
dancing when Rome was in flames !

It strikes me, that if the question was put to the faithful and
vigilant watchman, at tlis time, "What of the night?" he would
be far from answering, that it is a fit time for revelry and song.
He would say, it is a night of storms and tempests — of gloomy
and appalling darkness, with no light to cheer the heart, and no
star to guide a hope ; nay, more, he would say, it is a night in

SPEECH OX THE MEXICAN APPKOPBIATION BILL. 321

which many of the public sentinels have abandoned their posts — .
that they have failed to sound the alarm, and that the enemy has
not only entered the city, but has seized the citadel of liberty, and
is fast battering down the constitution itself.

The country, which one year ago was quiet and prosperous, at
peace with the world, and smiling under the profusion of heaven's
bountiful munificence, by the sole and unauthorized act of the
President, has been plunged into an unnecessary and expensive
war, the end and fearful consequences of which no man can fore
see. And to suppress inquiry, and silence all opposition to con
duct so monstrous, an executive ukase has been sent forth,
strongly intimating, if not clearly threatening, the charge of treason,
against all who may dare to call in question the wisdom or pro
priety of his measures. Not only was Congress, which possesses
exclusively the war-making power, never consulted upon the subject
until after hostilities were commenced, but the right is even now
denied that body to make any legislative expression of the national
will as to the aims and objects for which the war should be prose
cuted. The new and strange doctrine is now put forth that Con
gress has nothing to do with the conduct of war ; that the Presi
dent is entitled to its uncontrolled management ; that we can do
nothing but vote men and money, to whatever amount and extent
his folly and caprice may dictate. Neighboring states may be
subjugated, extensive territories annexed, provincial governments
erected, the rights of conscience violated, and the oath of allegiance,
at the point of the bayonet, may be administered to a mixed popu
lation, embracing all varieties of races, languages, and color, and
the representatives of the people are to say nothing against these
extraordinary outrages against the first principles of their govern
ment, or render themselves obnoxious to the imputation of giving
" aid and comfort to the enemy." This is nothing less than the
assumption of the principle that patriotism consists in pliant sub
serviency to executive will — that the President is supreme, and the
" King can do no wrong."

Sir, this doctrince might suit the despotisms of Europe, where
the subjects of a crown know no duty but to obey, and have no
rights but to submit to royal dictation. But it is to be seen
1 whether the free people of this country have so soon forgotten the
principles of their ancestors as to be so easily awed by the arro
gance of power. It is to be seen whether they have so far lost the
spirit of their sires, as tamely, quietly, and silently to permit them
selves to be treated as the humble vassals of such a self-constituted
lordling.

Insolence, when indulged, not unfrequently overdoes itself by
its own extravagance. Like Ambition, it often " overleaps " its
aims. And my confidence in the character, integrity, and patriot-
ism of the American people warrants me in venturing the assertion,
that this will be the fate of this most unscrupulous attempt to
abridge the free exercise of those rights which " are dear to free-
21

322 SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN APPROPRIATION BILL.

men, and formidable to tyrants only." For a very little further
interference with the freedom of discussion, Charles X., of France,
lost his throne ; and, for a very little greater stretch of royal pre
rogative, Charles I., of England, lost his head. By reflecting upon
these examples of the past, our executive, without entertaining
any fears or apprehensions of experiencing a fate exactly similar
to either, may yet learn some profitable les&ons — lessons that will
teach him that there are some things more to be dreaded than the
loss of a throne, or even the loss of a head — amongst which may
be named the anathema of a nation's curse, and the infamy that
usually follows it.

Moralists tell us that nations as well as individuals are some
times punished for their follies and crimes. It may be that there
is in store for us some terrible retribution for the fraud, and de
ception, and gross iniquity practised upon the people of this
country in the election of this man to office. But if, in the inscru
table ways of Providence, he, who has been thus fraudulently
elevated to power, should be the ill-fated instrument of our chas
tisement, the punishment may be just, but he will take no honor
in its execution. If the result of his mischievous councils should,
in any way, prove disastrous to our institutions — the stability,
harmony, and permanency of the government — which there is
now abundant cause seriously to apprehend, he will certainly have
no place in the grateful remembrance of mankind. Fame he will
have ; but it will be of the character of that which perpetuates the
name of Erostratus. And the more deeply blackened than even
his, as the stately structure of this temple of our liberties is grander
and more majestic than the far-famed magnificence of the Ephesian
dome.

The crisis, sir, requires not only firmness of principle, but
boldness of speech. As the immortal Tully said, in the days of
Catiline, when Rome was threatened with the most imminent
dangers, the time has come when the opinion of men should not
be uttered by their voices only, but " inscriptem sit in fronte
unius cujusque quid de Eepublica sentit" — it should even be
written upon the forehead of each one what he thinks of the He-
public — there should be no concealment. In what I have to say,
therefore, I shall use that character of speech which I think befit
ting the time and occasion.

The absorbing topic, both in this House and the country, is
the war with Mexico. This is the subject which, above all others,
demands our consideration. To this the bill upon your table
relates. And upon it I propose to submit some views as briefly
as possible. I do not, at this time, intend to discuss the causes
of the war, or to recount the blunders and folty of the President,
connected with its origin. This I have done upon a former occa
sion ; and all the facts, I believe, are now well understood by the
country. The President may repeat, as often as he pleases, that
it was "unavoidably forced upon us." But such repetition can

SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN APPROPRIATION BILL. 323

never change the fact. It is a war of his own making, and in
violation of the constitution of the country. And so history,
I doubt not, will make up the record, if truth be fairly and
faithfully registered in her chronicles.

But, sir, the war exists, and however improperly, unwisely, or
wickedly it was commenced, it must be brought to a termination,
a speedy and successful termination. By the unskilfulness or
faithlessness of our pilot, we have been run upon the breakers ;
and the only practical inquiry now is, how we can be extricated
in the shortest time, and with the greatest safety. This is the
grave question which now engages public attention, and which,
as patriots and statesmen, we ought to decide. And, in my
opinion, this great question, relating as it does to the interest,
the honor, and permanent welfare of the country, necessarily
involves another of no small import and importance, and that is,
for what objects should the war be waged ? Before the ways and
means can be devised for bringing it to an honorable conclusion,
there must be some agreement as to the ultimate ends and pur
poses for which it should be prosecuted. This should be first
settled. No system should be adopted until there is a distinct
understanding upon this great and essential point. All wars, to
be just, must have some distinct and legitimate objects to be
accomplished — some rights to be defended and secured, or some
wrong to be redressed. And one of the strangest and most
singular circumstances attending this war is, that though it has
lasted upwards of eight months, at a cost of many millions of
dollars, and the sacrifice of many valuable lives, both in battle
and by the diseases of the camp, no man can tell for what object
it is prosecuted. And it is to be doubted whether any man, save
the President and Ms Cabinet, knows the real and secret designs
that provoked its existence. Upon these points up to this time,
as was remarked the other day by a distinguished senator in the
other end of the Capitol, (Mr. CALHOUN,) we are left "only to
inference." This, sir, is a strange spectacle, but it is neverthe
less true. And I submit it to this House and this country,
whether it shall be permitted longer to exist ? When the people
are called on to spend their treasure and blood, should they not
know the reason of the call and the ends proposed to be attained ?
In 1812, before a resort to arms was had against Great Britain,
the subject was maturely considered for weeks and for months,
and a public manifesto of our wrongs was given to the world in
justification of the righteousness of our cause. The grievances
and oppressions that led to the war of the Revolution were em
bodied and set forth in the Declaration of Independence, which
will remain forever, not only an unanswerable vindication of the
course of our fathers, but an enduring monument of the wisdom
and patriotism of the age in which they lived.

But, sir, where now is your declaration or manifesto ? It is
true that the President, in his last annual message, gave us a

324 SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN APPROPRIATION BILL.

long list of Mexican aggressions upon the commerce and trade
of our citizens, running back to a date anterior even to that of
the existence of that nation as a separate and independent politi
cal body. But this was done, everybod}^ knows, more in an
attempt to justify himself for a violation of law, than to take the
consultation or advice of Congress. JPor he knew, though he
failed so to say, that these spoliations, however wrongful, had
been duly acknowledged, and had been settled by treaty. The
amende honorable had been made, so far as national honor was
concerned. They had been merged in a debt by acknowledg
ment, and payment had been promised. It is certainly now too
late to go beyond our own treaty, solemnly ratified, to find
causes to justify the present quarrel. It is useless to tell the
Country now what Gen. Jackson and others said in 1836, '38, and
'39, and the recommendation of war then made; for everybody
knows that since that time these differences have been adjusted
by negotiation.

It is true Mexico failed to pay the instalments as they became
due, according to the terms of the stipulations of 1843, and I
admit that this would have been a proper subject for the Presi
dent to have submitted to the consideration of Congress, if he
had chosen, for them to have taken such a course as they might
have thought most advisable. But, I am far from saying, and I
take this occasion to assert it, that if he had so done, that I
should have been for declaring war on that account. The amount
was but about two millions and a half. And, it is admitted on
all hands, that the failure to pay arose solely from inability.
Mexico had done all in her power to meet her engagements.
She had even resorted to the extreme expedient of forced loans
to raise the money. Sir, I am no advocate of that relic of bar
barism which justified vengeance against the persons of those
who, by misfortune or otherwise, were unable to meet their obli
gations. The spirit of this age has tended greatly and wisely to
relax the rigor of the laws, so far as debtor and creditor is con
cerned. It may now be a man's misfortune not to be able to
meet the conditions of his bond, but it is no longer a crime.
And I see no reason why the same principle should not be
applied to nations as well as individuals. Certainly we have too
many illustrious examples amongst ourselves, not only of default,
but open repudiation, to be foremost in establishing this princi
ple of coercion. How many of the States of this Union set the
example which Mexico but too closely followed ? If arms are
to be resorted to compel the payment of debts, what would
become of Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Indiana,
and Arkansas, to say nothing of Texas ? Arkansas owes you,
sir, half a million of dollars herself. The Smithsonian fund, which
was received by this government, was to that amount vested in
her bonds, and we are bound for it. This is one fifth of what
Mexico owes. Yet Arkansas is unable to pay even the interest

SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN APPROPRIATION BILL. 825

But who here would rise and recommend war against her because
of her inability? I mention these States from no feelings of
unkindness to them. Some of them, which for a time suspended,
have already commenced payment. They all would, doubtless,
pay if they could. And I can but believe that the day will come
when this stain, if gentlemen will have it so, will be attached to
no State in the Union. But, sir, I should not have been in favor
of presenting to the world the shameless spectacle of going to
war to make other people comply with their engagements, when
we have so many instances of default amongst ourselves. Again,
sir, it would have come, I fancy, with a very bad grace from this
administration to recommend war against Mexico for the collec
tion of a stipulated indemnity for her spoliations on the com
merce of one of our citizens, so long as the French affair remains
unadjusted. If our honor, which gentlemen now seem to regard
so tenderly, is involved in this matter, why have they slept so
long over the wrongs of France, committed near half a century
ago ? That spoliations, to the amount of at least five millions,
were made by that government against the property of citizens
of this, no one denies. It is believed by some that these claims
were assumed by this government. If so, why have they not
been paid ? Why did the President, who would make us believe
that he looked so anxiously after such matters, veto the bill
which passed, at the last session to render that justice which had
been so long deferred ? Was it upon the grounds that this gov
ernment had never assumed the debt ? Well, then, why should we
not now compel France to render the proper indemnity ? Is she
less obnoxious to the charge of offering an insult to our flag than
Mexico ? And where is the justification, the consistency, or
honor, of the policy that would resort to war to compel the pay
ment of two millions and a half from a weak people, unable to
pay, when five millions have been suffered to remain unadjusted
so long by a nation abundantly able, and who would be a " foe
worthy our steel ?"

But I intended, however, upon this point, barely to say that, if
this subject of claims against Mexico had been submitted to Con
gress by the President, with a recommendation of war for their
enforcement, I should have voted against it. But, sir, this House
knows, and the world know^s, that these claims were not the cause
of this war. And, though they must be looked to and provided
for in the settlement of the present controversy, yet this results
rather as a necessary incident of the war, "than from their being
in any way one of its primary objects.

And I again propound the question, for what object or objects
ought the war to be prosecuted ? This is the returning, the im
portant, and the leading question. It overrides all others ; and
upon its determination my position depends. If the end aimed at
be the settlement of the matters of difference between the two
countries honorably, I am for as " vigorous a prosecution of the

826 SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN APPROPRIATION BILL.

war" for these objects as any one ought to be. And whatever
may be necessary to sustain the honor of the country, so long as
the conflict lasts, shall not be withheld by my vote. But if it is
to be a war of aggression and conquest I am opposed to it, utterly
and unconditionally. And it was to test the sense of the House
upon this subject I submitted some resolutions a few days ago,
which are in the recollection of all. Those resolutions have been
assailed and denounced with a spirit, in my opinion, displaying
more of partizan zeal than due deliberation for the best interest
of the country. It is not my object now to enter at large into
their explanation or defence. I will barely say, that they had no
reference to the conduct of the war. They involved neither the
disgrace of retreat, nor the committal of any one upon the ques
tion of whether defensive or offensive operations would be the
better policy. Whether a line of military posts should now be
established and defended, until our enemy shall get in a humor to
treat ; or whether the most desolating invasion should be pushed
forward, as one gentleman has argued :

" Even until

The gates of mercy shall be all shut up,
And the flesh'd soldier, rough, and hard of heart,
In liberty of bloody hand shall range,
With conscience wide as hell, mowing like grass,
Their fresh, fair virgins and blooming youth."

[Here Mr. TIBBATTS rose and said, he supposed the gentleman
referred to him ; but he did not mean by the quotation he used to
indicate the spirit with which the war should be prosecuted.]

Mr. STEPHENS continued. Sir, I am glad to hear the disclaimer.
I understood the gentleman so to argue. And without expressing
any opinion upon the system of operations to be adopted, I will
take occasion to say, that I hope never to see the fame and char
acter of this country tarnished by such a policy as that.

But the resolutions I allude to involved none of these questions.
They looked simply to a clear and specific declaration of the
objects aimed at, with a disavowal of the intention of permanent
conquests.

Am I asked what good can result from such an expression by
Congress ? I answer, much. In the first place, it is due to
Mexico to let her know distinctly what we want. At this time
there is nothing that so excites, unites, and animates her people
as the instincts of national existence. They look upon the war,
not as one resulting from a dispute about an unsettled boundary,
but a war of religion and races. The motto with them is, "Ser, 6
no ser ;" " To be, or not to be," is their watchword. They are
fighting for the integrity of their country ; their homes, their fire
sides, and their altars. Let them know that you aim at no such
objects ; that peace is what you want — an honorable peace, and
nothing more ; and you will do more to effect it, than you will

SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN APPROPRIATION BILL. 327

do by storming a hundred fortified towns, or capturing as many
armies.

But in the second place it is due to ourselves. For although
the President has said more than once that he is desirous of ob
taining " an honorable peace," and that " the war is not waged
with a view to conquest," yet I suppose that no friend of his on
this floor will even venture to presume that anybody at all con
versant with the unparalleled duplicity by which his whole ad
ministration has been eminently distinguished, would be willing
to do him so great injustice as to say that he believes him.
Actions are often more to be relied on than words. And every
act of his in relation to our affairs with Mexico, even before
the commencement of hostilities, as well as since, displays his
policy too clearly to be mistaken. What other construction can
be put upon his order to our naval officers in the Pacific in the
summer of 1845, long before the rupture occurred, which he
seems then to have been devising. What other language does the
order to Col. Stevenson speak? Here it is ; let all men judge for
themselves :

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 26, 1846.

SIR : The President having determined to send a regiment of volunteers
around Cape Horn to the Pacific, to be employed in prosecuting1 hostilities
to some province of Mexico, probably in Upper California, has authorized
me to say, that if you will organize one on the conditions hereinafter spe
cified, and tender its services, it would be accepted. It is proper it should
be done with the consent of the Governor of New York. The President
expects, and, indeed, requires, that great care should be taken to have it
composed of suitable persons — I mean of good habits — as far as practi
cable, of various pursuits, and such as would be likely to remain, at the
end of the war, either in Oregon, or in any other territory in that region
of the globe which may then be a part of the United States. The act of the
13th' May last, authorizes the acceptance of volunteers for twelve months,
or during the war with Mexico. The condition of the acceptance, in this
case, must be a tender of service during the Avar ; and it must be explicitly
understood that they may be discharged, without a claim for returning
home, wherever they may be serving at the termination of the war, pro
vided it is in the THEN territory of the United States, or may be taken to
the nearest or most convenient territory belonging to the United States,
and there discharged.

The men must be apprized that their term of service is for the war ;
that they are to be discharged as above specified ; and that they are to be
employed on a distant service. It is, however, very desirable that it should
not be publicly known or proclaimed that they are to go to any particular
place. On this point, great caution is enjoined.

The communication to the officers and men must go so far as to remove
all just grounds of complaint that they have been deceived in the nature
and the place of the service.

It is expected that the regiment will be in readiness to embark as early
as the 1st of August next, if practicable. Steps will be immediately
taken to provide for transportation.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

W. L. MAKCY, Secretary of War.

Colonel J. D. STEVENSON, New York city.

328 SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN APPROPRIATION BILL.

Does not this show some " view" to conquest — some idea of
having some territory in some distant region of the globe, which
was not ours at the beginning of the war ? What other meanings
have the provincial governments established in California and New
Mexico ? Hear the proclamation of Commodore Stockton, made,
if not in obedience to orders, at least without objection or rebuke :

" I, Robert Stockton, Commander-in-chief of the United States forces
in the Pacific ocean, and Governor of the Territory of California, and
command er-in-chief of the army of the same, do hereby make Jcnoivn to
all men, that having, by right of conquest, taken possession of that ter
ritory, known by the name of Upper and Lower California, 1 do now
declare it to be a Territory of the United States, under the name of the
Territory of California."

Again ; hear the proclamation of General Kearny :

"The United States hereby absolves all persons residing within the
boundaries of New Mexico from any further allegiance to the Republic
of Mexico, and hereby claims them as citizens of the United States.
Those who remain quiet and peaceable, will be considered good citizens,
and receive protection ; those who are found in arms, or instigating others
against the United States, will be considered as traitors, and treated
accordingly."

Does not this look like conquest in its fullest accomplishment —
the subjugation of the people, and the change of their allegiance?
To what else could the President have referred in his last annual
message, when he congratulated the country upon " the vast extent
of our territorial limits ?"

Why, Mr. Chairman, the evidence is overwhelming. What
other object has the bill upon your table, and what is all this de
bate about the " Wilmot proviso," but a quarrel in advance about
the partition of territory, and the division of spoils intended to
be wrested from Mexico. Sir, do gentlemen, or the President,
suppose that, after the success of the trick of the " Kane letter,"
the people of this country are such absolute dupes as to be im
posed upon by such jugglery as this ? But if such be not the
design of the President and his party in this House, why did they
not so declare by their votes ? Why were those resolutions so
summarily rejected that sought nothing but a clear expression of
the legislative will upon this subject ? All these things afford
" confirmation strong as proofs of Holy Writ" that the President,
his denial to the contrary notwithstanding, is looking to the dis
memberment of Mexico, and the subjugation of a portion of her
territory.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I undertake to say that, however this war
was commenced, whether by an invasion on the part of Mexico,
or by the President, in assuming to establish a line of boundary
by arms, when he knew full well that that was a matter unsettled
between the two governments, its continuance can be justified
upon but two grounds only ; and if gentlemen know of any others,
I should like to hear them openly declared. These two grounds

SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN APPROPRIATION BILL. 329

relate to the settlement of the question of boundary, which is the
only ostensible cause of the war, and the payment or recognition
on the part of Mexico of her debt, acknowledged by way of indem
nity for the claims of our citizens. The first is the main one, the
other secondary, and resulting, as I have said, as a necessary
incident attending a state of war.

And when gentlemen speak of an honorable peace (and there
are none, I believe, who do not so declare themselves), I wish to
know what they mean by those terms ? What, in their opinion,
will constitute " an honorable peace ?" I, too, profess to be in
favor of "an honorable peace;" and by an honorable peace, I
mean the honorable settlement of the matters in dispute; and so
long as this object is had in view, I am ready and willing to give
all assistance and means necessary for its accomplishment, not
only by voting men and money, so long as any is left in the trea
sury, but even taxation upon the people, if it should come to that.
But, beyond this, the attainment of a peace upon the terms I have
mentioned, I shall never go. And if gentlemen upon this floor,
or the President, have any other purpose covered under the terms
of "an honorable peace," what is it? Do they suppose that the
people of this country hold in such slight remembrance the prin
ciples upon which their government is founded, as to be prepared
to sustain a war waged for an object no higher or nobler than that
which springs from an unhoty lust of dominion and the spread of
empire ? Do they suppose that this country, which has not yet
arrived to the full vigor of manhood, has so soon forgotten the
lessons of its early instruction, as to be ready to enter upon that
wild career of military prowess which has been the bane of so
many nations which have gone before us, and has been the destruc
tion of all former republics ? If this be the calculation of those
who mean by " an honorable peace" nothing short of exacting
from Mexico some of her departments or States, be it so ; but I
beg to protest against it, not only for myself, but for the country
also. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I am mistaken in the charac
ter or spirit of the American people. I know that for courage and
bravery they are unsurpassed, if not unequalled, by any people in
the world. I am also fully persuaded that they too highly appre
ciate the rights and privileges they enjoy ever to permit them to
be assailed by any enemy, however strong ; that they hold in too
high estimation the rich inheritance bequeathed to them ever to
allow it to be wrested from them by any force, however powerful ;
that they also too tenderly and sensitively cherish that high sense
of honor which characterized their fathers ever to permit a public
injury to go unredressed, or a national insult to pass unatoned.
But I am far from believing they are prepared to set themselves
up as the reformers of the world, either in government or religion.
As they value their own institutions, and would risk every thing,
life, fortune, and all, in their defence, so they respect those of
others, and have no disposition to interfere with them. Sir, I am

330 SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN APPROPRIATION BILL.

no enemy to the enlargement of our boundaries, when it can be
properly done. But free institutions never did, and never will,
enlarge the circuit of their extent by force of arms. The history
of the world abounds with many melancholy examples in illustra
tion of the truth of this position. No principle is more dangerous
to us than that of compelling other nations to adopt our form of
government. It is not only wrong in itself, but is contrary to the
whole spirit and genius of the liberty we enjoy ; and, if persisted
in, must inevitably result in our downfall and ruin. No instance
is to be found upon record of any republic's having ever entered
upon such a hazardous crusade, which did not end in the subver
sion of its own liberties and the ultimate enslavement of its own
people. And, before embarking upon so dangerous an enterprise,
I trust we shall have some security and guarantee that we shall, at
least, escape the fate of those whose examples we follow. Sir, I
very much fear that the people of this country are not sufficiently
awake and alive to the mischievous and ruinous schemes of those
to whom they have for a time confided the management of public
affairs. Mr. Madison long since uttered the prophetic warning,
that " if a free people be a wise people also, they will NEVEP.
FORGET that the danger of surprise can never be so great as when
the advocates of the prerogative of war can sheath it in a symbol
of peace" And never in our history did the times so strongly
require a practical consideration of this solemn admonition.

But some gentlemen, who will not directly avow the principle
of conquest as the object of the war, yet take the position that
territory must be acquired as its result, by way of indemnity for
what Mexico owes us and the expenses of the war — that she
is unable to pay in money, and territory must be taken. Now,
sir, I am equally opposed to this ; for how could any of the
Mexican territory so acquired by possibility be considered an
indemnity*! An indemnity is something to save from loss —
something of pecuniary value ; but how could these departments
of Mexico — California and New Mexico, if you please — converted
into American territories or provinces, be of any such value to
us ? Will you make a Sicily of one, and place it under the
Prsetorship of a Yerres to exact tribute from the inhabitants, and
in this way secure indemnity ; and make a Bombay of the other,
and place it under the rule of a Hastings, who, by grinding
oppression, shall cause annual streams of treasure to flow in
your coffers ? How else can this acquisition in any way ever be
of any value or source of profit ? So far from being an indem
nity, who does not know that they would necessarily be the
cause of largely increased expenditures — forts and fortifications
would have to be erected — all requiring heavy appropriations of
money, besides continual expenditures necessar}7" to keep up ter
ritorial governments. And whence would come any thing in the
nature of reimbursements to meet these heavy outlays, to say
nothing of the enormous cost of their acquisition ? Would it

SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN APPROPRIATION BILL. 331

come from the sale of public lands ? These are already held in
fee by legal proprietors, as is generally known. How then can
this be called an indemnity, either for the debt that Mexico owes
us, or the expenses of the war ? The bonds of Mexico, if never
paid, would be a much better indemnity; for they would at
least be free from continual expense. Sir, by this acquisition we
would get nothing but the empty right of jurisdiction and
government over an unwilling people, unused to the restraints
of law, which will be the source of incalculable troubles and
difficulties, which no wisdom can now foresee. What will be done
with the people themselves ? Are they to be made citizens ?
Spaniards, Indians, Mestizoes, Mulattoes, Negroes, and all?

Sir, it seems to me that every consideration of patriotism, as
well as sound judgement, requires us to say at once to Mexico,
that we do not desire a dismemberment of her Confederacy —
that we do not want any of her territory acquired in this way.

Would there be any thing disgraceful in making such a pro
clamation as this ? Has it any thing to do with a withdrawal of
our troops, or the dishonor of a retreat from the enemy ?

Mr. Chairman, some gentlemen seem to have strange notions
of national disgrace and national dishonor. I do not profess to
be very well informed in such matters, but I may be permitted
to say, that according to my opinion of national honor, we
should not lose half so much by a withdrawal of our army, not
only to the Rio Grande, or the Nueces, or even to the capital
itself, as by the passage of this bill now under consideration.
The withdrawal of the army might be a very unwise policy, but
it could never be considered a disgraceful one. We have
triumphantly met our enemy upon too many battle-fields for any
policy we might adopt to be subject to such imputation. The
valor of our arms, I trust, will never be considered as tarnished
for refusing to strike a fallen foe. The victories of Palto Alto,
Resaca cle la Palma, and Monterey will not soon be forgotten.
In all of which the greatest glory of the achievement was the
mercy and the magnanimity shown to the vanquished. Our
honor, therefore, could not suffer by any disposition of our
arms. But, sir, this bill proposes to obtain a victory, not by the
gallantry and chivalry of our troops, but by the corrupting
influence of money ; the policy it adopts is not to conquer a
peace but to buy one. It rests upon the principle that national
honor is a merchantable commodity — a thing to be bought ; and
I suppose, if occasion should offer, to be sold also. And yet, it
is advocated by those who thrust themselves forward as the
exclusive champions of the character and fame of the country. I
have no admiration for such honor as this, and quite as little
patience with its advocates. Our fair escutcheon shall never be
tarnished by such a blot by my sanction. I have as little
regard for the honor of such a transaction, as I have use for ter
ritory so obtained.

332 SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN APPROPRIATION BILL.

To be even driven from the field after a manly resistance would
not, in my opinion, be so disgraceful as to sue for quarters by paying
tribute to the enemy. For, after all, the fortunes of war do not
always turn to the advantage of the bravest, the most valiant, or
the most deserving. And the greatest honor is often acquired
where success falls far short of being equal either to the justice
of the cause or the merit of the effort. But never yet have I heard
of a nation that increased the lustre of its fame or the valor of its
arms by offering money to suspend a conflict. Is it said that Con
gress made a similar appropriation at the request of Mr. Jefferson
when Louisiana was acquired — and to Mr. Monroe when Florida
was obtained ? Sir, the cases are not analogous. We were not
then at war. Those acquisitions were made by purchase — fairly,
honorably, and peaceably effected. And with what face can those
who advocate such an ignominious proceeding as this, which has
no parallel even in the corruptest Courts of Europe, where states
manship consists in intrigue and diplomacy, charge that open
declaration of purpose which I propose, with involving in any
degree a compromise of national honor ? If we do not aim at the
dismemberment of Mexico — if we do not desire any of her terri
tory as the result of this war, either under the appellation of con
quest, or the more specious but less true cognomen of indemnity
is there any thing disreputable to our character in so declaring
to the world ? Sir, for one, I repeat, I do not want any territory
acquired in this way, nor do I believe the people of this country
desire it.

And besides the reasons already offered, which of themselves
would ever control me, there are others of great importance,
growing out of the nature of the union of these States, which
should be gravely considered before bringing in this new element
of strife. Who can sit here and listen to the debates daily upon
this question, and look unmoved upon the prospect before us ?
This Wilmot proviso, and the resolutions from the Legislatures
of the States of New York and Pennsylvania, and Ohio, all of the
same character and import, speak a language that cannot be mis
taken — a language of warning upon this subject, and which the
country, if wise, would do well to heed in time. They show a
fixed determination on the part of the North, which is now in the
majority in this House, and ever will be hereafter, that, if terri
tory is acquired, the institutions of the South shall be forever ex
cluded from its limits ; this is to be the condition attached to the
bill upon your. table ! What is to be the result of this matter?
Will the South submit to this restriction ? Will the North ulti
mately yield ? Or shall these two great sections of the Union be
arrayed against each other ? 'When the elements of discord are
fully aroused, who shall direct the storm ? Who does not know
how this country was shaken to its very centre by the Missouri
agitation ? Should another such a scene occur, who shall be
mighty enough to prevent the most disastrous consequences ?

SPEECH ON THE MEXICAN APPROPRIATION BILL. 333

The roaster spirit of that day is no longer in your councils.
Shall another equally great and patriotic ever be found ? Let not
gentlemen quiet their apprehensions by staving off this question.
It has to be met, and better now than at a future clay. It had better
be decided now, than after more blood and treasure has been
spent in the pursuit of that which may ultimately be our ruin.
Upon the subject of slavery, about which so much has been said
in this debate, I shall say but little. I do not think it necessary
to enter into a defence of the character of the people of my sec
tion of the Union, against the arguments of those who have been
pleased to denounce that institution as wicked and sinful. It is
sufficient for me and for them that the morality of that institu
tion stands upon a basis as firm as the Bible ; and by that code
of morals we are content to abide, until a better be furnished.
Until Christianity be overthrown, and some other system of
ethics be substituted, the relation of master and slave can never
be regarded as an offence against the Divine laws. The charac
ter of our people speaks for itself. And a more generous, more
liberal, more charitable, more benevolent, more philanthropic, and
a more magnanimous people, I venture to say, are not to be
found in any part of this or any other country. As to their
piety, it is true they have " none to boast of" But they are free
from that pharisaical sin of self-righteousness, which is so often
displayed elsewhere, of forever thanking the Lord that they are
not as bad as other men are.

As a political institution, I shall never argue tjie question of
slavery here. I plead to the jurisdiction. The subject belongs
exclusively to the States. There the constitution wisely left it ;
and there Congress, if it acts wisely, will let it remain. Whether
the South will submit to the threatened proscription, it is not my
province to say. The language of defiance should always be the
last alternative. But as I value this Union, and all the blessings
which its security and permanency promise, not only to the
present but coming generations, I invoke gentlemen not to put
this principle to the test. I have great confidence in the strength
of the Union, so long as sectional feelings and prejudices are
kept quiet and undisturbed — so long as good neighborhood and
harmony are preserved amongst the States. But I have*no dis
position to test its strength by running against that rock upon
which Mr. Jefferson predicted we should be finally wrecked. And
the signs of the times, unless I greatly mistake them, are not of
a character to be unheeded. With virtue, intelligence, and pa
triotism, on the part of the people ; and integrity, prudence,
wisdom, and a due regard to all the great interests of the country,
on the part of our rulers, a bright and a glorious destiny awaits
us. But if bad counsels prevail — if all the solemn admonitions
of the present and the past are disregarded — if the policy of the
administration is to be carried out — if Mexico, the " forbidden
fruit," is to be seized at every hazard, I very much fear that those

334 SPEECH ON THE TERRITORIAL BILL.

who control public affairs, in their eager pursuit after the unen*
viable distinction of despoiling a neighboring Republic, will have
the still less enviable glory of looking back upon the shattered
and broken fragments of their own confederacy. And, instead
of " revelling in the halls of Montezuma," or gloating over the
ruins of the ancient cities of the Aztecs, they may be compelled
to turn and beholcl in their rear another and a wider prospect of
desolation, carnage, and blood.

Mr. Chairman, it was asked by him who spake as man never
spake, " What shall a man be profited, if he gain the whole world
and lose his own sowZ?" And may I not, with reverence, ask
what we shall be profited as a nation, if we gain any part, or even
the whole of Mexico, and lose the Union, the soul of our political
existence ? The Union is not only the life, but the soul of these
States. It is this that gives them animation, vigor, power, pros
perity, greatness, and renown ; and from this alone spring our
hopes of immorality as a common people.

SPEECH ON THE TERRITORIAL BILL : [" CLAYTON
COMPROMISE."]

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

AUGUST 7, 1848.

The House having under consideration the two Messages of the Presi
dent in relation to Peace with Mexico and the organization of Territorial
Governments for New Mexico and California —

Mr. STEPHENS obtained the floor, and said :

Mr. SPEAKER: The messages of the President now under
consideration embrace subjects of grave and momentous interest,
involving the peace, the happiness, the prosperity and honor, as
well as perhaps the safety, of the Republic. There are many
topics alluded to in these messages which require the calm and
dispassionate consideration of this House, and also the mature
and deliberate consideration of the people of this country. So
far as this House is concerned, I do not believe that the proper
consideration can be given to them at this session. The time is
too short, even if the prevailing temper here was not unsuited,
as it is, from the excitement of a Presidential canvass, to enter
upon the investigation with that freedom from passion and cool
ness of judgment so essential for wise and prudent action. I
intend, therefore, before taking my seat, to move that the further
consideration of these messages be postponed for the present,
and that they be laid on the table, to come up at the next session
of Congress. Before making that motion, however, I wish to
submit some views upon one of the subjects embraced in them.

SPEECH OX THE TERRITORIAL BILL. 835

I wish I had time to speak of all of them, particularly the Presi
dent's attempted justification for the exercise of those extraordi
nary powers which he claims as his legitimate right, as a
conqueror under the laws of nations, but one hour will not allow
this. And I intend, at this time, to confine myself to one topic
only, which is the organization of territorial governments in New
Mexico and California.

[Here Mr. INGE, of Alabama, interrupted, and said that, from
the intimation of the gentleman, he supposed he was going to
discuss the slave question ; and if so, he hoped he would not
close his speech by moving to lay the subject on the table, but
would allow the opportunity for a reply.]

Mr. S. continued by saying : It is not my object, Mr. Speaker,
to prevent a reply. My intention was only to save time. If the
gentleman from Alabama, or any other gentleman, wishes to con
tinue this discussion, I, individually, have no objection, and, so
far as the argument I shall submit is concerned, I shall certainly
interpose no obstacle to any reply that any gentleman may desire
to make. I therefore now notify the gentleman that I shall not
make the motion just intimated.

The President, Mr. Speaker, in his reply to the resolutions of
inquiry which passed this House some days ago, calling for in
formation touching the character and form of government in
these late conquests, seems to have misconceived the object and
scope of those resolutions ; and, in his message, refers only to
those governments which were established by his own order, and
which he says necessarily ceased at the termination of the war.
Now, sir, my object was not only to inquire into that subject, but
also to be informed of the nature and character of the govern
ments which would necessarily exist there upon the displacement
or dissolution, of those which were temporarily, illegally, and
unconstitutionally, in my opinion, set up by himself. Before we
can legislate properly for any people,, and particularly the people
of a conquered province, we must know something of the nature,
character, and form of their government, and something of the
laws in existence and in force in the country at the time of the
conquest.

The object and intention of my resolutions was to get some
information upon this point, as well as others. But upon this the
answer to the call of the House is silent, and the absence of this
information constitutes of itself a very good reason for opposi
tion to any legislation by Congress over these territories, until
it can be obtained. But, sir, I have much graver reasons than
this for my opposition to the Territorial bill which was rejected
the other day, in this House, on my motion. It is my object, at
this time, to speak upon that measure which some gentlemen are
pleased to call the " Compromise bill," but which might be more
properly entitled Articles of Capitulation 011 the part of the
South. So fa* from being a compromise, that bill proposed

336 SPEECH ON THE TEKEITOEIAL BILL.

nothing short of an abandonment of the position of the South, and
a surrender of the just rights of her people, to an equal participa
tion in the new acquisitions of territory. The surrender was
covert, but it was no less complete and absolute.

This I intend to show. Never was any measure more grossly
misnamed or miscalled. It was no compromise in any sense of
the word. A compromise is a mutual yielding of rights, for the
purpose of adjusting and settling differences and difficulties.
But, in this case, there was no such mutual concession. The
whole question was to be left, in the last resort, to the Supreme
Court of the United States, upon whose decision one party was
either to get all or lose all. And entertaining not the slightest
doubt that under it the South was to lose all, I adopted the
speediest and most effectual means of defeating it.

A gentleman from Virginia, the other day, [Mr. BAYLY,]
intimated that the bill was laid upon the table for party effect
and for party purposes ; and he seemed to express great regret
at the defeat of the measure. Sir, so far as the action of this
House was concerned, I can answer for nobody but myself. I
undertake to answer for no party, no partisan, and no other man.
I know not b}^ what motives others were actuated ; perhaps the
motives were as different and as numerous as the members them
selves. But so far as I was concerned, I can tell the gentleman
from Virginia, and the country, that I was goverened by my own
deliberate judgment upon the real character of the measure ; and
I trust I shall be able to show him and the country that I under
stood what I was doing when I met that bill with firm resistance
at the very threshold of your action. It was in my opinion just
such a measure as no man in this House from any quarter ought
to have voted for, and particularly no man from the South.

And this, sir, I affirm, in the first place, because, while it was
urged as a compromise and a settlement of the agitating ques
tion which now so greatly distracts the public mind, it really
settled nothing, but opened wide the door for greater and more
alarming excitement. Those gentlemen of the North who advo
cated it, claimed it as a complete triumph of their principles ;
while those of the South, I suppose, were prepared to go to their
constitutents, and tell them that it fully secured all their rights.
Now, sir, I do not believe in compromises or settlements that are
not fully and clearly and distinctly understood on both sides at
the time.

What is the point of difference now between the two great
sections of the Union? The North insists upon the policy of
excluding the institutions of the South from the whole of the new
territories, while the South contends that she is, in justice,
entitled to an equal share of whatever country may be acquired
by the common blood and treasure of all. And how was this
difference proposed to be comprised and settled ? Simply by the
adoption of a measure, upon the meaning and import of which

SPEECH ON THE TEEKITORIAL BILL. 337

leading men on both sides, at the time, differed as widely as they
did upon the main question itself. So far from settling the ques
tion, or "pouring oil upon the troubled waters," such a measure
could but have multiplied difficulties, increased excitement, and
" added fuel to the flame." For this reason, in my judgment, the
bill should have met favor from no quarter. The real question,
the great issue between the two sections of the country, has to be
met sooner or later, and no shifting of responsibility, in order to
get a postponement for the purpose of carrying a Presidential
election, or relieving a candidate from an almost universally
condemned position, will successfully evade it. And when it is
met, I want it met fairly and squarely.

But, in the second place, Mr. Speaker, it is my object to show
that, for far greater and more controlling reasons, no southern
man should have voted for that measure. I do not often make
sectional appeals upon this floor — never, unless to repel attacks,
or to maintain what I believe to be right and just. In this in-
'stance, I feel bound to do so, no less in obedience to my own
inclination, than from a sense of duty to those whose honor and
interests have been confided to my charge. And that duty I shall
this day discharge, faithfully and fearlessly, let the consequences
be what they may. That bill, I repeat, proposed a total aband
onment and surrender of the rights of the South. Not an open
abandonment, but a covert one. I do not mean to say that those
gentlemen who favored it, and who regret that it did not pass, so
considered it. But such would have been, nevertheless, its effect.
And I will invite the close attention of those gentlemen who
differ from me upon this subject to the views I shall present, and
the positions I shall assume. For I not only challenge, but I
defy a refutation of them.

To be understood more clearly, I will read the terms of the
bill itself, so far as it relates to slavery in New Mexico and Cali
fornia. It will be seen that all legislation by the territorial
governments " respecting the prohibition or establishment of
African slavery" was to be prohibited ; and all questions relating
to titles to slaves there, or their right to freedom, was to be left
ultimately to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States. Here are the words of the bill —

" SEC. 26. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power of said
Territory shall, until Congress shall otherwise provide, be vested in the
Governor, Secretary, and Judges of the Supreme Court, who, or a
majority of them, shall have power to pass any law for the administration
of justice in said Territory, which shall not be repugnant to this act, or
inconsistent with the laws and Constitution of the United States. But
no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil,
respecting an establishment of religion, or respecting the prohibition or
establishment of African slavery ; and 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 resi-

22

338 SPEECH OX THE TERRITORIAL BILL.

dents. All the laws shall be submitted to the Congress of the United
States, and, if disapproved, shall be null and void."

And in the 31st section, after providing for the organization
of territorial courts, the following provision is found :

;' 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 circuit courts of the United States ; 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, that a writ of
error or appeals shall be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States
from the decision of the supreme court created by this act, or any judges
thereof, or of the district courts created by this act, or of any judges
thereof, upon any writ of habeas corpus involving the question of per
sonal freedom, etc."

The bill contains nothing else which bears materially upon the
subject of slavery. It merely prohibits the territorial govern*
ment from passing any law upon the subject ; and leaves the
southern man, who may be inclined to go there with his slaves,
to contest his rights to the best of his abilities with the courts of
the territory in the first instance, and then, if he chooses, with the
Supreme Court of the Union.

All that the bill does is to guard against the passage of any
law for the protection of the master ; but opens wide the door of
expensive and almost endless litigation between him and his slave,
without affording him even the shadow of a semblance of a hope
that his rights, at the end of the law, will ever be recognized or
enforced.

The most interesting of all questions, Mr. Speaker, to the
South upon this point, is, by what law will the territorial courts
in the first instance, and the Supreme Court of the United States
in the last resort, decide the question of freedom between
the master and slave ? It is not the province of courts, in their
judicial character, to make laws ; they can only decide upon
laws after they are made. And, in the absence of legislation by
Congress, and the territorial governments, upon this subject, l>y
what law, I ask, will the courts decide questions between the
master and his slave in these territories ? This, sir, is a great
and vital question for us to consider — not as partisans, but as
statesmen, and as legislators — before we refer a subject of so
much interest to their decision. It is certainly a matter of the
utmost importance to the people of the South that they should
not be left in ignorance upon it. And, so far as my ability goes,
they shall not be.

I set out, then, by stating that, according to the best, ablest,
and most approved writers on public law, and according to the
decisions of the courts in England in analogous cases, and
according to the repeated decisions of our own Supreme Court,
to which this bill proposed to refer this matter, (in the absence

SPEECH OX THE TERRITORIAL BILL. 339

of such legislation as I have alluded to,) the law by which the
courts would decide questions of slavery there, is the law which
was in force in New Mexico and California, upon that subject, at
the time of the conquest. The general principles, which I under
stand to be recognized and well settled amongst civilized nations
in modern times, in relation to conquest, are, that all the laws
which were in force in the conquered country at the time of the
conquest, are held to continue in force until altered or modified
by the conquering power, except such as may be inconsistent
with the fundamental law of the conquering power, or inconsis
tent with some stipulation in the final treaty, or such as were
purely political in their character, and concerned only the rela
tions between the people and their former sovereign or ruling
power. This I state as a proposition which no man can contro
vert. In barbarous times, when a people were conquered, they
might, by the laws of war, be put to the sword, or be reduced to
the condition of slaves. With the progress of civilization, how
ever, this principle has been modified. According to the modern
doctrine, the relations of the people toward their sovereign or
ruling power, in whatever form of government, are changed ; but
their relations toward each other and their laws, as before stated,
remain until modified or altered by the new governing power.

Upon this subject Grotius, in his work, (Book III., chapter xv.,
section 9,) citing the case of the Jews, which might, perhaps, be
referred to from much higher authority, says :

" Thus the government continued among the Jews in the Sanhedrim,
even after Archelaus had been stript of his kingdom, And Evagoras,
King of Cyprus, (as Diodorus relates,) said he would obey the King of
Persia, but that as one king did another."

Upon the text above, so far as it relates to the Jews, the
author has a note in the following words :

" That is to say, they judged according to their own laws, as did most
of the people dependent upon the Roman Empire. For the rest, before
Archelaus was banished to Vienna, the complete soveregnity was no
longer in the Jewish nation."

In another place, Book 1, chapter iii., section 22, note 3, the
same author says :

" They, (the Jews,) likewise followed their own laws, and punislied their
own delinquents, according to the customs of their own country."

This, however, was the case only so long as the Romans per
mitted it. For Josephus expressly observes, " that, after Jeru
salem was taken by Romulus, the Jews lost their liberty, and
became subjects." From this it will be seen that even in that
early day, after the conquest of their country, the laws and
customs of the Jews were continued until changed and abrogated
by the conquerors — the Romans. Upon the same point Yattel
says, in his work upon the law of nations, page 451 :

340 SPEECH ON THE TERRITORIAL BILL. ^1

"A prince taking a town or a province from his enemy, can justly
acquire over it the same rights only as belonged to the sovereign against
whom he had taken arms. War authorizes him to possess himself of
what belonged to his enemy ; if he deprives him of the sovereignty of a
town or province, he acquires it as it is, with all its limitations and modi
fications."

Again, he says, on page 452 :

" But at present war is less terrible to the subject ; things are trans
acted with more humanity ; it is against one sovereign that another
makes war, and not against the quiet subjects. The conqueror lays his
hands on the possessions of the state, on what belongs to the public while
private persons are permitted to retain theirs. They suffer but indirectly
by war, and to them the result is, that they only change masters."

And, again, the same author says, on page 453 :

" We are always to remember, that the law of nations permits no injury
to be done to an enemy, unless in taking measures necessary for a just
defence, and a reasonable security. Some princes have only imposed a
tribute on it, others have been satisfied with stripping it of some privi
leges, dismembering a province, or keeping it in awe by fortresses ;
others, as their quarrel was only with the sovereign in person, have left
a nation in the full enjoyment of all its rights, only setting a sovereign
over it. But if the conqueror thinks proper to retain the sovereignty of
the vanquished state, and has such a right, the manner in which he is to
treat the state still flows from the same principles. If the sovereign be
only the just object of his complaint, reason declares, that by his con
quests he acquires only such rights as actually belonged to the dethroned
sovereign ; and, on the submission of his people, he is to govern it accord
ing to the laws of the state."

These authorities sustain the position I assumed. They could
be multiplied to a much greater extent. But I said the same
principles had been settled by solemn adjudication in the English
courts, and I now ask the attention of the House to one case de
cided by Lord Mansfield in 1114. It is the case of Campbell vs.
Hall, reported in 1st Cowper, 205. The principles involved in
it are very analogous, indeed, to many that may arise out of our
late war, and the conduct of our executive in assuming the power
to lay and collect duties in the Mexican ports, out of our own
citizens, without authority of law.

Campbell, the plaintiff, was a natural born subject of the
Kingdom of Great Britain, and on the 3d of March, 1163, pur
chased a plantation in the Island of Granada, which had been
taken from the French l>y the British arms in open war some
time before. The King, by virtue of his royal prerogative, im
posed a duty of four and a half per cent, upon all sugars expor
ted from the Island of Granada. Campbell paid the duty, and
then brought an action against the collector for the money. The
whole doctrine and principle of conquest as recognized by the
courts of Great Britain seem to have been discussed. The reporter
says the case was elaborately argued four several times, and Lord
Mansfield finally delivered the unanimous opinion of the court

SPEECH ON THE TERRITORIAL BILL.

And in that opinion I call the attention of the House to the
following principles, stated on the 208th and 209th pages of the
1st volume of Cowper's reports :

"A great deal has been said, and many authorities cited, relative 'to
propositions, in which both sides seem to be perfectly agreed ; and which
indeed, are too clear to be controverted. The stating some of those propo
sitions which we think quite clear, will lead us to see with greater per
spicuity, what is the question upon the first point, and upon what hinge
it turns. I will state the propositions at large, and the first is this :

A country conquered by the British arms becomes a dominion of the
king in the right of his crown ; and, therefore, necessarily subject to the
legislature, the parliament of Great Britain.

The 2d is, That the conquered inhabitants once received under the king's
protection, become subjects, and are to be universally considered in that
light, not as enemies or aliens.

The 3d, That the articles of capitulation upon which the country is sur
rendered, and the articles of peace by which it is ceded, are sacred and in
violable according to their true intent and meaning.

The 4th, That the law and legislative government of every dominion
equally effects all persons and all property within the limits thereof; and
is the rule of decision for all questions which arise there. Whoever pur
chases, lives, or sues there, puts himself under the law of the place. An
Englishman in Ireland, Minorca, the Isle of Man, or the Plantations, has
no privilege distinct from the natives.

The 5th, That the laws of a conquered country continue in force, until
they are altered by the conqueror : the absurd acception as to Paganz,
mentioned in Calvin's case, shows the universality and antiquity of the
maxim. For that distinction could not exist before the Christian era;
and in all probability arose from the mad enthusiasm of the Croisades.
In the present case the capitulation expressly provides and agrees, that
they shall continue to be governed by their own laws, until his majesty's
further pleasure be known.

The 6th, and last proposition is. that if the king> (and when I say the
king, I always mean the king without the concurrence of parliament,) has
a power to alter the old and to introduce new laws in a conquered country,
this legislation being subordinate, that is, subordinate to his own authority
in parliament, he cannot make any new change contrary to fundamental
principles: he cannot exempt an inhabitant from that particular domin
ion ; as, for instance, from the laws of trade, or from the power of parlia
ment, or give him privileges exclusive of his other subjects ; and so in
many other instances which might be put."

The fourth and fifth of these propositions contain the principles
upon which I rely. The fifth contains in express terms what I
have stated, that " the laws of a conquered country continue in
force until they are altered by the conqueror."

Some stress in this case seems to have been laid on the terms
of capitulation at the time of the conquest. Amongst other things
it is said, it was expressly stimulated " that Granada should con
tinue to be governed by its present laws until his Majesty's fur
ther pleasure." So far as that is concerned, the case is identical
with the conquest of New Mexico and California. General
Kearny, ill his proclamation at Santa Fe, on the 22d August,
1846, uses thi<* language :

042 SPEECH ON THE TERRITOEIAL BILL.

"It is the wish and intention of the United States to provide for New
Mexico a free government, with the least possible delay, similar to those
in the United States ; and the people of New Mexico will then be called
on to exercise the rights of freemen, in electing their own representatives
to the territorial legislature. But until this can be done, the laws hitherto
in existence will be continued until changed or modified by competent au
thority ; and those persons holding office will continue in the same for the
present, provided they will consider themselves good citizens, and are
willing to take the oath of allegiance to the United States."

And in his proclamation at Monteray, in California, on the 1st
day of March, 1847, he uses similar language, as follows :

" It is the desire and intention of the United States to procure for Cali
fornia as speedily as possible a free government like that of their own
territories, and they will very soon invite the inhabitants to exercise the
rights of free citizens in the choice of their own representatives, who may
enact such laws as they deem best adapted to their interest and well-being.
But until this takes place the laws actually in existence, which are not re
pugnant to the Constitution of the United States, will continue in force un
til they are revoked by competent authority ; and persons in the exercise
of public employments will for the present remain in them, provided they
swear to maintain the said Constitution, and faithfully discharge their
duties."

These proclamations were the terms of the capitulation. By
the promises and assurances therein given, the people were in
duced to surrender, and offer no further resistance to our arms.
And according to the opinion of Lord Mansfield just read, the
terms of the capitulation in each case, by the laws of nations,
would he held "sacred and inviolable according to their true
intent and meaning." But, sir, the same rule would apply even
if there had been no such terms of capitulation. The capitula
tion only increases the obligation to adhere to the general rule
that the laws of a conquered people, with the exception before
stated, continue in force until altered by the new governing or
conquering power.

It remains for me now to show that the same principle has been
repeatedly recognized and settled by our own Supreme Court.
For this purpose I refer, first, to the opinion given by Chief Jus
tice Marshall in the case of the American Insurance Company
et al. vs. Carter, 1st Peters, 542. In this case that learned judge
used the following language :

" The constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union
the powers of making war and of making peace ; consequently that govern
ment possesses the power of acquiring territory either by conquest or by
treaty. The usage of the world is, if a nation be not entirely subdued, to
consider the holding of conquered territory as a mere military occupation
until its fate shall be determined at the treaty of peace. If it be ceded
by the treaty, the acquisition is confirmed, and the ceded territory be
comes a part of the nation to which it is annexed ; either on the terms
stipulated in the treaty of cession, or on such as its new master shall im
pose. On such transfer of territory, it has never been held that the re
lations of the inhabitants with each other undergo any change. Their

SPEECH ON THE TERRITORIAL BILL. 343

relations with their former sovereign are dissolved, and new relations are
created between them and the government which has acquired their terri
tory. The same act which transfers their country, transfers the allegi
ance of those who remain in it. And the law, which may be demonstra
ted political, is necessarily changed, although that which regulates the
intercourse and general conduct of individuals, remains in force until al
tered by the newly created power of the State."

Again, in the same case, page 544, he uses this language :

" It has been already stated, l^hat all the laws which were in force in
Florida, while a province of Spain, those excepted which were political in
their character, which concerned the relations between the people and
their sovereign, remained in force until altered by the government of the
United States."

In the same case, Mr. Justice Johnson, of South Carolina, in
giving his separate opinion, used the following language. I read
from 1st Peters' Reports, page 51T :

" The right, therefore, of acquiring territory is altogether incidental to
the treaty-making power, and perhaps to the power of admitting new
States into the Union ; and the government of such acquisitions is of
course left to the legislative power of the Union, as far as that power is
uncontrolled by treaty. By the latter we acquire, either positively or
sub modo, and by the former dispose of acquisitions so made ; and in
case of such acquisitions, I see nothing in which the power acquired over
the ceded territories can vary from the power acquired under the law of
nations by any other government over acquired or ceded territory. The
laws, rights, and institutions of the territory so acquired remain in full
force until rightfully altered by the new government."

Here it is expressly affirmed, that the laws, rights, and institu
tions of the country so acquired, remain in force until rightfully
altered by the new government.

But, sir, this principle has been repeatedly decided by the
same tribunal. I have another case before me, in 12 Peters'
Reports, page 410, in which the same doctrine is held, and a
long list of cases cited in which it is also affirmed. This is the
case of Strother vs. Lucas — and was an action of ejectment
for two lots of ground in St. Louis, Missouri. And where it
became necessary to review the laws that were in force there at
the time of the acquisition of Louisiana, Judge Baldwin gave
the opinion of the court, and used the following language :

" The State in which the premises are situated, was formerly a part
of the territory, first of France, next of Spain, then of France, who ceded
it to the United States by the treaty of 1803, in full propriety, sovereignty,
and dominion, as she had acquired and held it, (2 Peters, 301, etc.,) by
which this government put itself in place of the former sovereign, and
became invested with all their rights, subject to their concomitant obliga
tions to the inhabitants. (4 Peters, 512 ; 9 Peters, 736 ; ..10 Peters, 330,
335, 726, 732, 736.) Both were regulated by the law of nations, according
to which the rights of property are protected, even in the case of a con
quered country, and held sacred and inviolable when it is ceded by treaty,
with or without any stipulation to such effect; and the laws, whether in
writing or evidenced by the usage and customs of the conquered or ceded

344: SPEECH ON THE TERKITORIAL BILL.

country, continue in force till altered by the new sovereign." (8 Wheaton,
589 ; 12 Wheaton, 528, 535 ; 6 Peters, 712 ; 7 Peters, 86, 87 ; 8 Peters,
444. 465 ; 9 Peters, 133, 736, 747, 748, 749 ; Cowper, 205 ; 2 Veasy, sr.,
349; 10 Peters, 305, 330, 721, 732, etc.)

Here, again, is a clear and distinct recognition of the same
principle with the declaration that the " laws, whether in writing
or evidenced by the usage and custom of the conquered or ceded
country, continue in force till'altered by the new sovereign," with
a long list of authorities upon the^same point, which I deem it
useless to consume the time of the House by referring to, even
if my brief hour would admit. Gentlemen can take them and
read them at their leisure. But why need I say more upon this
point? Is it not well known and perfectly notorious in this
country that all the local and municipal laws which were in force
in Florida and Louisiana, at the time of their acquisition, are
still in force, except so far only as they have been altered since ?
Upon what other principle is it that the civil law prevails in
Louisiana to this day ?

And now, Mr. Speaker, if such be the decisions of our own
Supreme Court upon this point, as I presume no gentleman
upon this floor will venture to gainsay or deny, there is but one
other question left, and that is, what was the law upon the sub
ject of slavery in California or New Mexico at the time of their
conquest ? This is an important question. The whole merits of
the case turn upon it. And upon this point I suppose there can
be no doubt. Slavery was abolished, then, in 1829. I have before
me the decree as it appears in Niles' Register, vol. 37, page 219.

MEXICO— TOTAL ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.
" The President of the Mexican United States to the inhabitants of the

Republic, greeting :

" Desiring to signalize in the year 1829 the anniversary of our indepen
dence by an act of national justice and beneficence, that may turn to the
advancement and support of so important a result ; that may consolidate
more and more public tranquility ; that may co-operate to the aggrandize
ment of the republic, and return to an unfortunate portion of its inhabit
ants those rights which they hold from nature, and that the people pro
tect by wise and equitable laws, in conformity with the 30th article of
the constitutive act.

"Making use of the extrordinary faculties which have been granted by
the Executive, I thus decree :

" 1. Slavery is forever abolished in the republic.

" 2. Consequently all those individuals who until this day looked upon
themselves as slaves, are free.

" When the financial situation of the republic admits, the proprietors
of slaves shall be indemnified, and the indemnification regulated by law.

"And in order that the present decree may have its full and entire exe
cution, I order it to be printed, published, and circulated to all those
whose obligation is to have it fulfilled.

" Given in the Federal Palace of Mexico, on the 15th of September,
1829.

"Signed, "VICENTE GUERRERO,

" LAURENZO DE ZAVALA."

SPEECH ON THE TERRITORIAL BILL. 345

This decree provided that the f>wner of slaves manumitted
should be indemnified when the financial situation of the country
would allow it. And I have before me another act of the
Mexican Congress of 183T upon the same subject. This act I
find in volume 8 of the Laws of Mexico, which embraces the acts
of 1836 and 1831:

[Translation.]
An act abolishing slavery in the republic.

"ART. 1. Slavery, without any exception, is, and shall remain, abolished
throughout the entire republic.

"ART. 2. The owners of slaves manumitted by this act, or by the decree
of 15th September, 1829, shall be indemnified for the interest they held
in them, which interest shall be estimated by duly considering the per
sonal qualities of the slaves ; to which end one appraiser shall be nomi
nated by the commissary-general of the place, or by the person who sup
plies his place ; another shall be nominated by the owner ; and in case of
discord in their opinions, a third shall be nominated by the constitutional
alcalde of the vicinity, to which no objection shall be interposed. The
decision of the appraisers, or a majority of them, shall be absolute and
final. The indemnification of which this article makes mention shall not
extend in any respect to those colonists of Texas who have taken an
active part in the revolution of that department.

"ART. 3. The original proceedings in regard to the appraisement men
tioned in the preceding article, shall be given gratis to the owner, by whom
they will be presented to the supreme government, who will give orders
to the treasury department to issue the corresponding scrip for the
respective value of the property.

"ART. 4. The aforementioned scrip shall be paid or satisfied in that
mode which may appear to the government the most equitable, conciliat
ing as far as practicable the rights of the individuals with the actual
situation of the public treasury." [April 5, 1837.]

From this I take it for granted that nobody will deny that
slavery was abolished in California and New Mexico at the time
of their conquest by our arms. If a slave at that time had
brought an action for his freedom against his master before the
courts of the country, does any man doubt but that the courts
under the law then in force would have declared him to be free ?
And as our Court has decided that in all such cases the laws of
the acquired territory in force at the time of the acquisition shall
remain in force as the law of the place until altered by com
petent authority, can any man doubt that they would decide the
question just as the Mexican courts would have decided it at
that time ?

It is with pain I have heard allusions made to the present
composition of the Court — five Judges from the South, and four
from the North ; and that, therefore, the question would be safe
for the South in their hands, as we had a majority of the bench.
I consider such an argument a gross imputation upon the Court ;
and no greater disgrace could be attached to the members of it,
or to the country, than a decision made from any such considera
tions. No judge, whether from the North or South, could ever

346 SPEECH ON THE TEREITOKIAL BILL.

be influenced by such motive?, until he became as corrupt and as
debased as the execrable Impey — the infamous tool of Hastings.
If I thought such motives could operate upon the Court, that
would be the last body in the world I would refer the deci-
sion of any question to. They should not decide upon the life
of my dog if I could prevent it. But while I am no advocate of
referring any political question to the decision of that Court,
I am nevertheless bound to believe that they would decide
honestly to the best of their judgment. Such I believe have
been the decisions to which I have alluded. And after readiiK,
those decisions, can any man doubt as to how they would decide
the supposed case ? I put the question to the good sense and
calm judgment of the House.

Sir, it is useless to attempt to evade or get round this point.
It is not for me, at this time, to say any thing about the correct
ness of these decisions. That is not the subject now before
me or the House. It is my duty to know the law as the Court
has decided it, and to let my constituents know it likewise ; and
not to jeopard their rights by any such reference of them.

[Here Mr. STANTON of Tennessee, asked Mr. STEPHENS if the
constitution of the United States does not recognize slavery?]

Mr. STEPHENS continued. Yes, sir; the constitution recognizes
slavery, but only when it is not prohibited by the laws of the State,
or place, or for the purpose of protecting it there. The constitu
tion recognizes slavery in Tennessee and Georgia, and in all the
States where slavery exists by law ; but it does not recognize it
in New York or Ohio, or in any State where it is prohibited by
the law of the State, except so far as it provides for the recapture
of runaway slaves. The constitution recognizes and guaranties
slavery wherever it exists by the local law, but it establishes it
nowhere where it is prohibited by law. The constitution, as I
have stated, expressly recognizes slavery, even when it is prohib
ited by the law of the place, but only so far as to provide for
the recapture of a runaway slave. If my slave escapes, and gets
into a free State, the constitution secures me the right of pur
suing and retaking him ; but if I voluntarily take my slave into
a State where slavery by law is prohibited, I have no right to re
take him ; he becomes free. No man will question this. And if
slavery is prohibited by the local law of the newly acquired terri
tory, the only guarantee the constitution affords the slaveholder is
the right of recapture if he escapes and gets, into those territories.
The constitution, I say, fully and amply recognizes slavery where
it exists, but it establishes it nowhere where it is prohibited by
law. It is important that the public mind at the South should
not be misled upon this point. The constitution no more estab
lishes or carries slavery into States or territories where by law it
is prohibited, than it establishes or carries any other right of a
citizen which depends upon the local law.

The constitution secures to all the citizens of all the States and

SPEECH ON THE TERRITOEIAL BILL. 347

territories of this Union the rights to which they are entitled by
the laws of the place. If Virginia, or Georgia, should abolish
slavery, the constitution would no more re-establish it there, than
it has re-established it in Pennsylvania, New York, and other
States where it has been abolished. The constitution no more
carries the local law of slavery of any State into a State or terri
tory where by law it is prohibited, than it carries any other local
law ; no more than it carries the law of interest upon money, the
statute of limitations, the laws of distribution, or the penaf laws
of a State. And, sir, if this compromise bill had passed, how
could the master have been protected against the theft or pur
loining of his slaves ? By what law would he have sued to reco
ver him ? By what law would the sale and evidences of title in
slaves have been determined? Each of the slave States has its
own laws upon this subject. And if the constitution carries the
laws of the States into these territories, does it carry the laws of
all or any particular one ? And if any one, which is it ?

Mr. Speaker, this is a question too clear to admit of argument.

Mr. STANTON again interrupted, and was understood to say,
the gentleman then holds, that it is within the power of Congress
to extend slavery into territory where by law it does not exist.

Mr. STEPHENS. My position, Mr. Speaker, is this : That slavery
is an institution which depends solely upon the municipal laws of
the place where it exists ; and if it was prohibited by law in these
territories at the time of the conquest, it cannot exist there until
the laws of the place be altered by the competent law-making
power for the territory. In regard to these territories and the
rights of the South, I hold that, when the stipulations of the late
treaty shall be complied with, and the money paid which is pro
vided for in it, they will constitute an acquisition, made at the
cost of the common blood and treasure of the whole Union, to
ward which the South contributed as generously as the North,
and in which the South is entitled to a just and equal participa
tion ; and that it is the duty of Congress to see to it, that the
just and equal rights of my section are guarded, protected, and
secured by all necessary legislation. The right to acquire and to
hold territory brings with it the duty to govern it. The Supreme
Court has so decided, and in governing, it is the duty of Congress
to act justly and fairly toward the rights and interests of all
who are entitled to an equal share in the common domain. This,
sir, is my position, and upon it I shall stand or fall.

The same position, I see, was taken by a meeting of the demo
cratic party in the city of Macon, in my own State, not long since.

Amongst other resolutions, as I see in the papers, they de
clared—

" That our Senators and ^Representatives in Congress should see to it,
that the rights of the Southern people should not be endangered during
the period the territories shall remain under the control of the United
States, either from the continuance of the municipal laws of Mexico, or
from the legislation of the United States."

348 SPEECH ON THE TERRITORIAL BILL.

I stand upon the principles of this resolution. It is the true
ground, in my opinion, for southern men to occupy. I shall
never give my sanction, while I have a seat upon this floor, to
any legislation on the part of Congress by which the rights of
the southern people to an equal and just participation in these
territories, while they remain as territories, shall be endangered,
nor shall these rights ever be endangered or surrendered, by my
approval, by "a continuance of the municipal laws of Mexico."
This Compromise bill, sir, did, in my opinion, endanger and sur
render the then rights of the South, by a " continuance of the muni
cipal laws of Mexico," which were of force at the time of the con
quest, and by which slavery was abolished there. Sir, I set out
by stating that I should not only challenge, but defy, a refuta
tion of my position ; and I now repeat the same. The rights of
the South are not only endangered, but totally abandoned in this
compromise. Its passage would have been worse for the South
than the Wilmot proviso in express terms. For if the principles
upon which its southern friends advocated it be true — that is, if
by the constitution, the southern slaveholder has a right to carry
and hold his slaves in these territories, notwithstanding the ex
isting municipal law of Mexico, by which slavery is abolished
there, then, of course, the same right would exist even if the
Wilmot proviso wer,e passed. And the proviso, if passed, being
in contravention of this constitutional right, of course the Supreme
Court would be bound to decide it null and void. So that the com
promise secures no rights to the South which they would not have
even under the Wilmot proviso itself. But, on the other hand, if the
Supreme Court, should, under the Compromise bill, decide against
the slaveholder, on the ground that the existing laws of Mexico,
at the time of the conquest, were in force there until altered by
some competent authority, then, sir, we should be bound by it
forever ; for we could not come and ask Congress to alter the
law against the compromise, even although the court might say
that Congress had the power either directly to alter it, or to allow
the territorial legislature to do it ; for we all understand that a
compromise is a final settlement, and all parties are bound in
honor to abide by it.

Then, sir, what are we of the South to gain by this compro
mise ? Nothing but what we would have, even with the Wilmot
proviso — the poor privilege of carrying our slaves into a country
where the first thing to be encountered is the certain prospect of
an expensive lawsuit which may cost more than any slave is
worth ; and, in my opinion, with the absolute certainty of ulti
mate defeat in the end, and with no law in the meantime to pro
tect our rights and property in any way whatever ! This, sir, is
the substance of the compromise, even in the most favorable view
it can be presented ! And this is the security for the South which
I had the temerity to reject! Would that the people of that sec
tion may ever have men upon this floor of such temerity ! I did

SPEECH OX THE TERRITORIAL BILL. 349

reject it — and I shall continue to reject all such favors. If I can
get no better compromise, I shall certainly never take any at all.
As long as I have a seat here, I shall maintain the just and equal
rights of my section upon this as well as upon all other questions.
I ask nothing more, and I shall take nothing less. All I de
mand is common right and common justice; these I will have in
clear and express terms, or I will have nothing. I speak to the
North, irrespective of parties. I recognize no party association
in affiliation upon this subject. If the two parties at the North
combine, and make a sectional issue, and by their numerical
strength vote down the South, and deny us those equal rights to
which I think we are in justice entitled, it will be for the people
of the South then to adopt such a course as they may deem proper.
I do not stand here to make any threats in their name, nor have
I authorty to commit even my own constituents to any course of
policy. They must do that for themselves. My commission here
extends only to the maintenance of their rights upon all ques
tions and measures that may come before me in this House. And
this I shall do at all hazards. Nor shall I be awed or intimi
dated in the discharge of this high duty by any of the trembling
alarms of the official organ, that the " Union is in danger ;" that,
unless agitation upon this subject is quieted, the "free soil
movement" in the North will sweep every thing before it, and that
the government itself will be endangered. Such appeals may
have their effect upon the hearts of the timid. I am, myself, not
quite so easily terrified into a surrender of my rights, and those
of my constituents. This editor, however, or rather his master,
would have exhibited much better judgment, and a great deal more
patriotism, if he had shown a little more foresight upon this sub
ject. If the country is environed by dangers and difficulties which
threaten its ultimate safety, it is the result of his own reckless,
lawless, and unconstitutional measures ; if an ominous agitation
is felt by all ; if the government shakes to its centre ;. if the very
pillars of the temple of liberty rock in their places, he best knows
what incendiary hand — what Guy Fawkes, collected and fired the
explosive elements. He may repeat until doomsday, " we wash
our skirts of all the consequences." But he will find his skirts
too deeply stained to be so easily washed. This is but the fren
zied ravings of the guilty Macbeth, who, when in his distempered
vision he fancied he saw the ghastly spirit of the murdered
Banquo, exclaimed —

" Shake not thy gory locks at me,
Thou cans't not say I did it."

But this government editor, nor the President whom he serves,
need not suppose, that because he is trembling and quaking with
fear at sights, spirits, or spectres dire, which the consciousness of
his own misdeeds cause to haunt his disturbed brain, that, there
fore, everybody else feels the same unsteadiness of nerve with

850 SPEECH ON THE TERRITORIAL BILL.

himself. I look upon this question now just as I did two years
ago, when this war of conquest commenced. I raised my voice
against it then. I saw what would be the result. I was prepared
for the present storm with all its fury. And I am as unmoved
now as I was then. I saw the northern Democrats supporting
the policy of conquest for the purpose of acquiring free territory.
I was opposed to the whole policy, because I considered it con
trary to the spirit of our constitution to wage a war of conquest
under any circumstances. But I was determined then, if territory
should be acquired, that the rights of my section to an equal par
ticipation in it should be secured, so far as my ability could con
tribute to the accomplishment of that end. And I stand upon
the same ground now ; and I shall never surrender it so long as
the question is open. And no alarms about the Union, or the
ravings of brainless scribblers and heartless demagogues, who
croak and prate upon subjects on which they are profoundly igno
rant, shall ever cause me to shrink from the open and fearless
maintenance of it — even though I may stand solitary and alone.

I have no objection to compromising the question, but I have
only two plans of compromise : one is, a fair division of the terri
tory by clear and distinct lines, by which every one may know
exactly to what extent his rights will be protected. I care not
much whether it be by an extension of the Missouri line, or
whether it be by adopting as a line one of the mountain ranges,
giving the South all on this side, and the North all on the other.
I am, however, rather in favor of the latter ; but shall insist upon
some fair and just division. That is one plan of compromise I
shall favor, and if I cannot get that, I have but one other to offer,
and that is, to reject the territory altogether. Let us keep our
money which is to be paid for it, and let Mexico keep her pro
vinces and her people. Mr. Polk, in his message, speaks of the
late treaty as the supreme law of the land. This I consider as an
intimation that this House, in his opinion, will be bound to vote
the appropriations to carry it into effect. If so, I barely intend
here to say, that I wholly disagree with him. True, the treaty-
making power is confided in this country to the President and
Senate. But, sir, the President and Senate have no right or power
to make a treaty which imposes an obligation on the part of the
House of Representatives to carry it into effect. This principle I
understand to have been fairly settled as the republican doctrine
of 1796. I have the Journal of the House of that year before
me, and I find, on page 499, the following resolution upon that
point :

" 1st. Resolved, That it being declared by the second section of the
second article of the constitution, ' that the President shall have power,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, pro
vided two-thirds of the Senators present concur,' the House of Kepre-
sentatives do not claim any agency in making treaties ; but that when a
treaty stipulates regulations on any of the subjects submitted by the con-

SPEECH ON" THE TERRITORIAL BILL. 35 j.

stitution to the power of Congress, it must depend for its execution, as to
such stipulations, on a law or laws to be passed by Congress ; and it is
the constitutional right and duty of the House of Representatives, in all
such cases, to deliberate on the expediency or inexpediency of carrying
such treaty into effect, and to determine and act thereon as, in their judg
ment, may be most conducive to the public good."

Upon the passage of this resolution, the yeas and nays were
taken, and it was adopted by a vote of 54 to 3T. Every Repub
lican in the House, I think, voted for it. Amongst others, I see
the distinguished names of James Madison, Albert Gallatin, Win.
B. Giles, Nathaniel Macon, Abram Baldwin, and many others.
The same principle has been settled by the Supreme Court.

I have not time to enlarge upon this argument now. I only
intend to state the principle, and show the authority, that the
country may not be misled upon this point. The late treaty is not
the supreme law of this land yet, and will not be until the laws
necessary to give it effect are passed. Mr. Polk has not yet asked
us to appropriate the money ; and when he does, it will be (in the
language of the resolution for which James Madison, and all the
other old Republicans in the House of IT 96, voted) our constitu
tional right and duty to deliberate on the expediency of making
the appropriation. And I now state, that, if I am here when
that appropriation is made, I shall exercise this constitutional
right, and I shall never vote one dollar from the common treasure
of this Union to pay for these territories, if the institutions of my
section are to be wholly excluded from them. Nor will I vote one
dollar to carry this treaty into effect until I have this matter set
tled, and what I consider the rights of the South secured. And
I believe this is the great lever of the South upon this question.
Let the bill organizing territorial governments be linked with the
appropriation of the money, and let the South present an unbroken
front against paying a dollar, if their institutions are to be ex
cluded, and I shall have some hopes yet of obtaining justice.

Now, sir, you know something of the only plans upon which I
intend to compromise this business. But, as I said before, if in
all this I should be defeated — if the South will not stand with me
upon this point — if the combined vote of the North carry the
Wilmot proviso — then, sir, it will be for the people of the South
to take their own course, such as they may deem their interest and
honor demand. It is not for me to indicate that course. But one
thing I will say, that I shall be with them in whatever course they
may take. Their interests are my interests ; their fortunes are my
fortunes ; their hopes are my hopes ; and whatever destiny awaits
them, awaits me also.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I think that I have conclusively shown
that this miscalled Compromise bill ought not to have received^
support from any quarter, and particularly from the South.

As I have but a few moments left, I will recapitulate my posi
tions, that no man may mistake or misunderstand them.

352 ADDRESS BEFORE THE MARYLAND INSTITUTE.

The first is, that, by the bill, the whole subject of slavery in
California and New Mexico, without any legislation on the part
of Congress or the territorial governments, one way or the other,
is referred to the Judiciarj7 to determine, whether it can legally
exist there or not.

2d. That the Constitution of the United States fully recog
nizes, and amply protects, the institution of slavery where it
exists by the laws of the State or place ; but it does not estab
lish it anywhere, where by the laws of the place it is prohibited.

3d. That California and New Mexico, being territories acquired
by conquest, all the laws which were in force there at the time
of the conquest not inconsistent with the Constitution of the
United States, or the stipulation of the treaty of peace, or which
were purely of a political character, are, according to well settled
principles, and the adjudications of our own courts, still in force.

4th. That as slavery did not exist there at the time of the con
quest, but had been prohibited by express law, the Supreme Court
of the United States, to whom the matter was to be referred in
the last resort, could not be expected, from the principles of nu
merous decisions already made, to decide otherwise than that
slavery cannot be protected there until the existing law abolishing
it be altered by competent authority.

5th, and lastly. That these positions being uncontrovertible,
the bill offered, as it was, as a compromise and a final settlement
of the question, amounted to nothing but a total abandonment
and surrender of the rights of extending the institutions of the
South to those territories.

ADDRESS BEFORE THE MARYLAND INSTITUTE IN
BALTIMORE, IN COMMEMORATION OF THE BIRTH
DAY OF WASHINGTON.

ON THE EVENING OP THE 23D FEBRUARY, 1852.

RESPECTED AUDITORY — Ladies and Gentlemen :
I need not assure you that I feel very much embarrassed in
rising to address you under the circumstances in which I appear
before you. I had expected to be preceded by another gentleman,
who would have presented the most prominent points for the
evening's entertainment ; but I find myself in the foreground in
stead of the shade of the picture. I am also admonished by the
place of our assembling, a building dedicated to mechanical skill
»nd art, that all who bring offerings for exhibition here should
have them perfected by the exactest rules of correct taste and
due proportion. What I have to say will be the crude thoughts
which the time and occasion suggest. When I gave my reluctant

ADDRESS BEFORE THE MARYLAND INSTITUTE. 353

consent to be thus situated, I said to the friend who urged me to
it, as no other person could be got to assume the task, " Well,
prepared or unprepared, I'll speak. It shall not be said that the
Birthday of Washington goes begging for an orator." You will
please, then, bear with me. Besides your kind indulgence, I have
but one support on which I rely, and that is, the consciousness
that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
The occasion presents a theme with which all our hearts should
be full. It is our country, our whole country and nothing but
our country ! We have just heard read the farewell address of
the father of this our country. This may justly be considered
the last will and testament of our common parent to us his chil
dren. It bequeaths a rich legacy of wise lessons and precepts
which deeply concern our future political welfare that should
never be forgotten.

I propose, first, to say something of the author of these les
sons, and then say something of the le§sons themselves, and
their bearing upon our present and coming interests.

In speaking of WASHINGTON, it is not my object to attempt a
delineation of his character, or to pronounce a eulogy becoming
his. name and his memory. Well might I shrink from an under
taking which the ablest and the best men in his own day and
ours have failed to succeed in. There are some things in nature
that defy the power of the pencil ; and WASHINGTON'S is a
character that no hand can protray. Its merits are to be appre
ciated only by the emotions it excites by actual contemplation ;
we must look at it, behold it, and study it to realize its grand
proportions and gigantic structure. Some suppose and maintain
that circumstances make men : that circumstances made WASH
INGTON. Not so. Men make circumstances. It is true that
events and accidents may occasionally give position and notoriety
to even small men ; and in the whirl of public affairs undeserving
men may sometimes get attached to their names ami memory
what we call distinction and fame. Such indeed may well be
styled the creatures of circumstances. But those great events that
mark epochs in the history of nations and in the history of the
world are the works of men, and they always bear upon them the
impress of the master-spirit of the times. Great men make the
subjects of history ; little men only figure in them. All great
ness is, of course, comparative ; and with mind it is in some
respects as it is with matter — a similar law obtains in the intel
lectual to that which we witness in the material or physical
world. There is something in mind not unlike what is called
gravity or gravitation in bodies. Each and every one within the
sphere of its influence acts and is acted upon by all others. But
the larger, denser, and greater always predominates in its power
over the smaller and weaker. The lesser is subject to the
influence of the greater. This is true of the heavenly bodies, as
our school books teach us. A similar principle governs mind
23

854 ADDRESS BEFORE THE MARYLAND INSTITUTE.

and intellect. And tested by this principle, where does WASH
INGTON stand ? What was his influence over his associates, and
who were his associates ? They were FRANKLIN and JEFFERSON,
and HANCOCK AND HAMILTON, and MADISON, SAMUEL ADAMS and
JOHN ADAMS, JAY, LEE, and PATRICK HENRY, and many others
who will live in history as peers amongst the greatest men, both
as orators and statesmen, that this earth has ever given birth to.
" There were giants in those days." Intellectual giants. No
mistake about that. And these were the men on the stage with
WASHINGTON when the greatest drama of the world came off —
the American Revolution — and the establishment of the Consti
tution of the United States. I speak of those events as constitu
ting the greatest drama of the world — because, though history may
give us an account of more bloody battles and more tragical inci
dents, yet never had there been before, nor has there been since,
any thing like a similar contest, in which the true principles of
human liberty were no.t only involved but successful.

The success of our arms and the establishment of our indepen
dence was but a scene in that dramatic act. The great work
was the establishment of the principle of self-government
amongst men. That was no easy task. Every age has produced
men who could win victories and overturn empires. But no age
ever before or since has produced men who had the ability, the
forecast, the integrity, the will, the patriotism, and the philosophi
cal statesmanship to construct a form of government, or political
organism, by which rational liberty — liberty regulated and pro
tected by law — could be enjoyed equally by every citizen of the
State. Such is American liberty. And in it is involved a pro
blem that the law-givers of the world from the days of Moses to
the meeting of the Philadelphia Convention were not able to
solve. But by them it was solved — we live happily and prosper
ously under the success of the experiment. And" who was first
amongst *hese greatest of the world's great men ? To whom
were all eyes in every peril and in every danger turned ? To
whom did all look in the field as well as in the cabinet ? It was
WASHINGTON. Great as were Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Jay,
and Hamilton, and Adams, they all looked to Washington as the
ruling spirit of the day. He was, if you please, the great central
sun about and around which the others, as lesser orbs, revolved
in their majestic spheres, each being himself the centre of an
other but a smaller system. When the struggle with the parent
country first commenced, all looked to him to lead the armies to
victory and triumph. When the articles of union needed revision,
all looked to him. to give directions to their councils. When the
constitution was formed, all looked to him as the man to put the
system in operation. View him when you will or where you will
— in the parlor or in the public councils, in the army or in the
convention, as general or as President, in adverse or propitious
fortunes — and you will see him at all times " first in peace, first

ADDRESS BEFOEE THE MARYLAND INSTITUTE. 355

in war, and first in the hearts of his countrymen !" Tell me not
that such a man owes his greatness to circumstances. He bore
nature's stamp of true nobility of soul. He had the genius not
Only to throw off a government which was then the best the
world had, but to reconstruct and establish another and a better
in its stead.

There are many points in this great man's character that it
might be agreeable to dwell on. It is often no less pleasant than
profitable to philosophize on character. With this view biogra
phies are entertaining and instructive. Character is motive ex
emplified by action ; and its study is the best key to those secret
causes which often determine the fate of nations. In Washing
ton's character there is nothing more striking than the entire ab
sence of selfishness — that nutriment on which unholy ambition
feeds. His action was prompted by a sense of duty, and from no
desire of what is commonly called glory. Office with him was a
high trust which he never sought and which he never held either
for its honors or emoluments. He never flattered either the king
when he was a subject, nor the people when he was chosen to be
their ruler. And no man could ever say that he was deceived by
him. Truth, fidelity, temperance, frugality, sobriety, fortitude,
courage, patience, forbearance, with undeviating integrity and
honesty — that honesty which you have just heard read as an in
junction in his farewell address as the best policy in all things —
shine as bright virtues in his character. What lessons might
be taken from a study of his life and acts by many t)f those in our
day who aspire to statesmanship by no nobler deeds than tricks
and intrigues ; by scheming, contriving, colluding, cheating, mis
representing, and even by

" Bending the pregnant hinges of the knee,
Where thrift may follow fawning."

You see in him none of the wily arts of the demagogue or crafty
politician. In all things he was open, frank, bold, and right.
There was about him a perfect simplicity of character as well as
grandeur. Some men we read of, we contemplate with emotions
similar to those we experience in beholding a beautiful landscape
— such are Fenelon, Addison, or Sir Walter Scott. Others have
those traits which awaken feelings akin to the terrible — such are
Genghis Kahn, Tamerlane, and Buonaparte. But in Washington
we have an approximation to the highest order of the moral sub
lime. What virtue was wanting in him, or what vice was ever
laid to his charge? Some venture criticism from the fact that
he availed himself of the assistance of others in the preparation
of some of his State papers. This only shows his juster claims
to true greatness. Wise men will always avail themselves of all
the aids they can procure to carry out and perfect their high de
signs. Sir Christopher Wren did none of the manual labor in the
erection of that magnificient creation of genius which will render

356 ADDRESS BEFORE THE MARYLAND INSTITUTE.

his name as enduring as the dome of St. Paul's. He was the de
signer, the architect, the constructor. So with Washington. He
planned, he superintended the structure. The aids contributed
to him by others were no more to the grand result his genius gave
by the proper application, than the quarrying the stone and dress
ing the marble were to the designer and real constructor of that
towering monument to his memory of which your city may justly
be proud. He had command of the intellect of that age. And
he brought proper materials, from whatever quarter he found
them, to aid in rearing and finishing the majestic temple of Ameri
can liberty which is now the wonder and admiration of mankind.
He was the master builder, and in him was

" A combination and a form indeed,
Where every god did seem to set a seal
To give the world assurance of a man."

It is said that perfection is not the lot of human nature. It
is also said that the sun has spots on it. If there be any defect
or blemish in the character of him whose birthday we now cele
brate, they must be like those spots on the sun— they can't be
seen, at least, with the naked eye. No one has ever yet seen
them in his case, even with a telescope. No, I am too fast ! It
has lately been discovered by one from abroad, whose advent
amongst us has been hailed by certain latter-day saints in poli
tics as a second Messiah, that he was slightly touched with a
certain species of obliquity in his political vision ; that he did
not see straight ; that he was in great error, at least in some of
those precepts which we have heard to-night.

This brings me to that part of my subject. I was first to
speak of the counsellor, and then of his counsels. The heed we
give to advice should depend somewhat upon the worth and es
timation we have for him who gives it. The teachings we have
heard to-night, then, should certainly be respected in considera
tion of the source from which they come. They relate mainly,
so far as I shall allude to them, to two subjects.

The first is the relation which the people of the States bear
towrard each other in the compact of union.

The second is the relation which we as a people bear towards
other nations.

Both these subjects are of vast importance to the peace, quiet,
and prosperity of the people of the United States, and on both
did Washington dwell in his last words to his countrymen, with
the earnestness of a departing father in his dying injunctions
upon the children of his love and his hope. The first of these
objects with him was the union of the States. For he saw that"
without union we should soon be without liberty. He had not
read history in vain. He saw that if once the States were divided,
border jealousies and dissensions would soon spring up ; that
wars the most implacable would follow ; and that our career, so

ADDRESS BEFORE THE MARYLAND INSTITUTE. 357

nobly begun, would be cut short, and end ultimately in despot
ism. Hence he has invoked us to look to the Union as the "pal
ladium of our political safety and prosperity," and to frown
down the " first dawning of every attempt to alienate any por
tion of the people of one section of our country from the rest, or
to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various
parts." I am here to-night to advocate the Union upon these
principles. What has it not already done for us ? What rapid
and unprecedented advancement have we made under its influ
ence in commerce, in art, in science, and in every thing that
elevates, ennobles, and dignifies man ! What would have been
our condition without it ? Impoverished, discordant, and bel
ligerent petty sovereignties, without power at home and without
respect abroad !

We cannot, therefore, be too ardent in our attachment to the
Union, when we consider its objects, -and what it is capable of
effecting, so long as those objects are kept in view. But allow
me, fellow-citizens — and I have the privilege as well as the
pleasure of thus addressing you under the provisions of this
Union — to say that upon the subject of the Union and its pre
servation we must not let our zeal take the place of knowledge.
The Union, with the constitution as its basis, is a complicated
and delicately constructed system of government. It is a politi
cal organization, and it is with it, as it is with all other organi
zations, or organisms, there are certain general principles that
must be looked to when we consider what will probably disturb
its operations. Its best friends, then, will be those who most
carefully study those general principles, which may be denomi
nated the laws regulating its existence. To understand how to
preserve it requires a thorough knowledge of its nature ; its
organic structure, as well as the relations and functions of all
its parts. Life in my body is an emanation from the animal
organism of the various parts of my physical frame. To pre
serve this life I must observe the general laws or principles that
regulate it.

The Union is founded upon the constitution — this is the life, the
spirit, and soul of our body politic. To preserve it there are cer
tain general principles to be observed. One of the first of them
is a constant attention to the objects for which it was formed. The
life and spirit of the Union spring from the objects for which it
was formed. To preserve its life and spirit, the bare name with
out the substance, must always be held subordinate to the original
or vital principle.

, When the soul has departed the dead body may remain for a
while, but the energies and functions of the living man will be
gone to return no more. So with our government. Nothing is
more essential to its existence and preservation than that har
mony and domestic tranquility in all its parts which were amongst
the prominent objects of its creation. Every attempt, therefore,

358 ADDRESS BEFORE THE MARYLAND INSTITUTE.

to alienate the affections of the people from their government, as
well as every attempt to invoke the action of their government
on such objects as will have this tendency, should be indignantly
frowned down by every true lover of his country, wherever his
lot may be cast. This is patriotism. I am not one of those who
believe that patriotism is indigenous to any particular locality
in our country more than another. It is a plant of as spontane
ous and luxuriant a growth upon the green mountains of Ver
mont and the granite hills of New Hampshire and Massachusetts,
as it is upon the broad savannahs of the South or the rich prairies
of the West. Bad and reckless men may be found in all sec
tions. But we have never yet passed a crisis (and we have had
many in our history) when there was not patriotism enough in
all parts, when thoroughly aroused, to rescue us from difficulty.
From this fact alone the friends of the Union upon the princi
ples of the constitution, here to-night, have abundant reason to
indulge a confident hope for the future. But I must pass on.

The other point I promised to allude to is the subject of our
foreign relations. This is becoming a matter of grave and mo
mentous importance for the consideration of the American people.
It was a matter that the far-seeing eye of Washington did not
overlook. Hence his emphatic and solemn warning which you
have just heard " against the insidious wiles of foreign influence,
(I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) thejealo\isy of a free
people ought to be constantly awake" This was the language of
the patriot and sage in his last words to his countrymen. The
hand that penned it has long since returned to its mother dust ;
but the same voice still comes from his tomb at Mount -Ye rn on,
and here this night, I invoke you, for his sake, if not for your
own, to hearken to that voice. Again he says : " The great rule
of conduct for us in regard to foregin nations is, in extending our
commerecial relations, to have with them, as little political con
nection as possible." From that day to this — for more than half
a century — we have followed that advice. Our motto from that
time to this, in the language of Mr. Jefferson, has been " Friend
ship with all nations — entangling alliances with none." And I
am proud to say that no American — no son of Washington, not
even the most degenerate — was the first to advocate a change of
this policy. It was reserved for the son of another and a dis
tant clime — a man, too, who had abandoned his own country
in the hour of her peril, to come here to teach us how to make
ours great, prosperous, and powerful. For the honor of Ameri
cans, I say, be it spoken, that this first attempt to arraign
the wisdom of Washington on this question of our foreign policy*
was made by a foreigner. Would that I could say that no
American had yielded to " the insidious wiles of his influence."
But the virus has taken effect ; it is spreading through the land ;
and we now hear it openly proclaimed in many places, that it is
time for us to assume our position amongst the nations of the

ADDRESS BEFORE THE MARYLAND INSTITUTE. 359

earth ; that it is time we had a foreign policy. What does this
language mean ? Is it intended by those who use it to convey
the idea that we have gone on for upward of sixty years in a
career of prosperity never before equalled, without any foreign
policy ? Was not the rule laid down by Washington, and acted
on by every President from his day to this, a policy ? It was a
policy. It was and is the policy of attending to our own business,
and letting other nations alone. It was and is the policy, the
time-honored policy, of non-intervention. It may not be a foreign
policy, but it is a Washington policy ; by an observance of which
we have come to be what we are — one of the first nations of the
earth. Are we to be told that it is now time for us to assume a
place amongst the powers of the world ? Did not our forefathers
do that when they compelled Great Britain, in 1783, to acknowl
edge our sovereignty and independence ? Had we no position
amongst the great nations when France sought our alliance in
1795 and '96, which overture was rejected? Had we no position
in 1812, when we again met in combat our old enemy, and the
most formidable foe then in the world ? Had we no position
when British fleets were driven from our seas, and her invading
armies were cut down and beaten back from our shores ? Were
the heroic deeds of our naval officers, to whose memory a marble
monument has been erected on the capital grounds, performed
before we bad sufficient power to be felt ? Was the gallant and
daring defence of your own city, which you have put in monu
mental remembrance on your own public square, all done without
a foreign policy, and before we were enabled to take a place
amongst the nations of the earth ? Be not deceived my fellow-
countrymen, we have had a policy from the beginning. It is a
good policy ; it has worked well. Let us adhere to it.

And, above all, lend no listening ear to those who come from
other countries to teach you the principles of republicanism.
Yield not to the tempter. The father of your country forbids. It
was in an evil hour that our great first parents touched the for
bidden fruit. They were happy in their paradise ; their wily
enemy came from other regions. Imagine for a moment the
scene, when the guardian angel of that innocent and noble pair
took his last departure from them ; when he was called away
from his charge of watching over and protecting them. Hear
the last whispers of his voice, beware of foreign influence. It was
thus that Washington, our deliverer, defender, and guardian spirit,
spoke to us on taking his last parting leave. Had they heeded
the warning given to them, they had not fallen. May we as a
nation never fall ag they did !

The right, fellow-citizens, to interfere in circumstances that
might happen, I do not mean to discuss. I grant that we have
all the attributes and powers of a full-grown nation, so far as our
foreign relations are concerned. But the right to do a thing and
the policy or propriety of doing it are quite different questions.

360 ADDEESS BEFORE THE MARYLAND INSTITUTE.

Any man can get into a fight when he pleases. And so can we.
Intervention to prevent intervention is very much like getting
into a fight to prevent a fight. Intermeddlers with other people's
business generally come off worsted. Be not misled by appeals to
your sympathy. It is for no want of the profoundest sympathy for
the misgoverned tribes of the race of man in all parts of the world
that I speak as I do. It was for no want of sympathy for them
that Washington spoke as he did. I wish that all nations had as
good a government as we have. But we should riot peril our own
life in hopeless efforts to rescue that of others. Let us not, in a
fit of misguided zeal for the liberties of mankind, lose our own.
All men are not suited for constitutional free government. One
of the most common of the popular errors of the day is that any
people having the wish to be free also have the ability to be free.
This is a great mistake. Constitutional liberty, or liberty regula
ted by law — the only liberty that is worth the name — is not so
easily acquired. If it were, we would not to-day be the
only people on earth in its enjoyment. It is true, the people of
almost any nation, with a firm resolution, can overthrow the
strongest of despotisms, but they can not build up a republic in
its stead. This requires more than physical force. It requires
virtue, intelligence, morality, patriotism, and statesmanship. Bru
tus and a few associates found no difficulty in removing Caesar
from an imperial throne. But they did not thereby restore lost
freedom to Rome. France found but little difficulty in bringing
Louis the XVI. to the block; but France did not thereby estab
lish a republic. She found even less difficulty in driving Charles
the X. from the kingdom he had so badly governed ; but she did
not thereby succeed in establishing a good government for the
people. Louis Philippe had in like manner in a short time to be
carried to her Tarpeian Rock. It is now just four years since she
made her last effort at republicanism. And what do we now be
hold ? Louis Napoleon — a President King !

And so it will be, I fear, with all the nations of Europe, until
there be a change in the minds, habits, education, and modes of
thinking on the part of their people. Liberty, in their estima
tion, is licentiousness, lawlessness. They do not understand or
appreciate its first principles. Men,, to be capable of maintaining
law and order in a free government, must be schooled in the ele
mentary principles.

Suppose the autocrat of Russia four years ago had taken sides
with the exiled Louis Philippe, and we had intervened to prevent
his intervention. What would have been our condition to-day ?
After the expenditure of millions in money, and the loss perhaps
of hundreds of thousands of our bravest sons in foreign wars, we
should have found the people of France shouting huzzas to the
emperor in the person of the ''nephew of his uncle." All such
crusades are idle. And if to-day we should go and surround
" poor down-trodden Hungary" with a wall so high and so deep

ADDRESS BEFORE THE MARYLAND INSTITUTE. 361

that a Russian could neither scale it nor undermine it, and leave
the people of that ill-fated country to perfect "fair play" amongst
themselves, I should expect nothing with more certainty than
that, in quite as short a time as France has been trying the ex
periment, we should have her fickle and restless population cry
ing out for the restoration of the House of Hapsburg ! Why
then, again, I ask in the language of Washington, " Why quit our
own to stand on foreign ground ? Why be interweaving our des
tiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and
prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest,
humor, or caprice ?

Here, perhaps, I should stop. But there are some reflections
growing out of these topics which, it seems to me, may be appro
priately connected with them. It is now just one hundred and
twenty years since Washington was born. What was the condi
tion of our country then ? What is it now ? And what is it to
be one hundred and twenty years hence, if we continue to follow
that line of policy which has marked our past career ? Baltimore
then was hardly a hamlet ; now her population is over one hun
dred and seventy thousand, and the canvas of her commerce
whitens every sea on the face of the globe, while her productive
industry turns out an annual yield of twenty millions of dollars I
What is true of Baltimore in improvement and advancement is
true of almost every other part of our common country — not in
extent, but in a relative degree. In 1T32, the population of the
colonies which afterward became the United States, was less,
perhaps, than two millions. The population of the United States
now is over twenty-three millions. Then an unbroken wilder
ness extended from a border near us to the distant Pacific. The
great valley of the Mississippi was reposing under the shade of
her primeval forests, in which the silence of centuries remained
unbroken by the voice of civilization. Now behold her teeming
population, her* cultivated plains, her villages, towns, and cities,
springing up as if by magic, and her majestic rivers alive with
her accumulating commerce. See the hundreds and thousands
of emigrants annually quitting the despotisms of the old world,
and taking shelter and protection in this our favored land ! To
these we give a hearty welcome. We offer a safe retreat for the
exile, and a peaceful quiet home for the emigrant, but no theatre
for foreign propagandists.

But these are not all the subjects suitable for our contempla
tion on this occasion- What advancement have we made since
this government was formed, in letters, in mechanic arts, in dis
coveries, in inventions, and in science ? Consider the number and
character of our schools of learning, our academies, colleges, and
universities ; colleges for the education of women as well as men.
See what steam has done under the power and control of Ameri
can genius, fostered lay the influence of our free, wise, and ben
eficent institutions. Behold the mysterious workings of the tele-

362 ADDRESS BEFORE THE MARYLAND INSTITUTE.

graph. It was Franklin's honor to " weave his garland of the
lightning's wing," and " with the thunder talk as friend to friend."
But it has been Morse's glory, in our own day, to seize the spirit
of the lightning itself, and to make it the swift messenger of our
thoughts. What has caused this mighty change ? Need I tell you
it is the spirit of our institutions ? It is that government which
makes us not only one people, but a people with whatever diver
sity of interests or pursuits having all alike security at home
and abroad. That government which heretofore has looked to
our own safety, welfare, peace, quiet, prosperity, and domestic
tranquillity, without meddling with the affairs of others, further
than to give them the influence of a noble example. Shall this
state of things continue ? Shall we go on in the bright career we
have commenced ? Have we a national immortality before us ? Or
is the sun of our glory soon to go clown in darkness to rise no
more ? These are questions which will spring up in the anxious
mind ; but to them no answer can be given. They involve the
subtle problems of human destiny. Provfdence has wisely veiled
the future from our vision. All we have to do is with the
present. Let us take care that that is done rightly, and we need
not fear for what shall come after.

But bear with me when I assure you that I have s.n abiding, a
living hope that there are richer treasures of national greatness
in store for us than we have yet attained. You may call it su
perstition, or call it what you please ; but I believe there is a
superintending Providence that controls the destinies of nations
as well as the fortunes of men. When we look at this country,
and consider the circumstances under which its settlement by our
ancestors was first made, and trace its history from Plymouth and
Jamestown to the present day, have we not many evidences to
impress our minds with the belief that we are. a peculiar and a
favorite people, and that we have some high mission yet to per
form ? See the perils we have passed ; see the hand of deliver
ance when hope has been sinking in despair ! How often, in the
war of the revolution, in the formation of the constitution, and
its adoption by the States, did our fortunes seem to be trembling
in an uncertain balance ? How often since then have we passed
safely through crises of danger, when the stoutest of patriot
hearts beat with apprehension that all might be lost ?

Some who now hear me, doubtless recollect how it was in the
darkest hour in the war of 1812 ; when the Capitol was smoulder
ing in ruins ; when the Hartford Convention was in session ;
when secession and disruption were threatened ; when the future
assumed its blackest robes, and men's spirits sunk within them !
It was then that the victory of New Orleans was hailed as the
voice of a friendly messenger from some distant world. The
great battle had been fought, the victory was won, the war was
ended. Peace soon reigned again in the land, and with it came
the smiles of fraternal feeling and brotherly love between all parts

ADDRESS BEFORE THE MARYLAND INSTITUTE. 363

of the Union. Again, we had the Missouri agitation, which
seemed at one time to be the rock on which we should split. Yet
the spirit of compromise prevailed. After that came the nullifi
cation crisis. At one time a collision of arms seemed to be inev
itable ; force was preparing against force. Had one gun been
fired, who can tell what we should now have been ? But in the
very last moment the spirit of compromise, the presiding genius
of this favorite republic, ruled the hour, and all was safe.

Then, last of all, came the late fearful agitation of the slavery
question, the lively recollections of which are. so fresh upon the
memories of us all. Perhaps at no period in our past history
was the danger of disunion ever more imminent and threatening
than it was then. Yet dark and terrible as was the night, it was
not without a dawn — a return of light, and with it hope ! The
spirit of compromise again hovered over the country, and with
it came deliverance ! Now, in all this is not the hand of Provi
dence visible ? If like contests and conflicts of interests had ex
isted amongst the people of any other nation in the world, would
not the sword have been drawn long since ? Let us then take
new hope for the future. Let the true friends of the country,
the friends of the constitution and the principles of the constitu
tion, the friends of the Union upon the principles and for the ob
jects of the Union, never despair. We have a great duty to
perform — a grand and high mission to fulfill. We have but be
gun in our rising ascent. Our forefathers and our fathers did
much. But they got only slight glimpses of what we see around
us. Our realization of the fruits of their labors are already far
above their most sanguine anticipations :

" While, from the bounded level of 'their' mind,
Short views 'they took' nor ' saw' the lengths behind :
' We,' more advanced, behold with strange surprise,
New distant scenes of endless 'progress' rise.
So pleased at first, the towering Alps we try —
Mount o'er the vales and seem to skim the sky.
The increasing prospect ' starts' our wandering eyes ;
Hills peep o'er hills and Alps on Alps arise !"

Who can tell what wonderful discoveries and developements
are yet to be attained by the present generation, or those, who
shall succeed them ?

These are reflections pleasant to indulge in on an occasion
similar to the present. They address themselves alike to the old
and young — the fathers and the sons, as well as the mothers and
daughters of the land. And it is a source of great pleasure to
me to see so many of my fair countrywomen out to honor with
their presence the ceremonies of this celebration. No class in
society have a greater interest in perpetuating the insftutions of
this country than they have. For here alone woman is truly
elevated to that high position for which she was intended, and
which she fiUs with so much dignity, influence, and power. You

364 ADDRESS BEFORE THE EMORY COLLEGE SOCIETIES.

have, my fair countrywomen, a bright example set before you in
the character of the mother of him who is the subject of this
evening's reminiscences. May you imitate her virtues, and may
your " last end be like hers." Let us all then, old and young,
fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, take for our motto :
" Our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country ;"
may her progress be onward and upward.

ADDRESS BEFORE THE FEW AND PHI GAMMA
SOCIETIES OF EMORY COLLEGE, OXFORD, GA.

"Nil tarn difficile, quod non Solertia vincat"

JULY 21, 1852.

RESPECTED AUDITORY — Ladies and Gentlemen :
In the order of these exercises, the closing part has been
assigned to me. And it is not without some hesitation and reluc
tance I enter upon its performance. The field to me is compara
tively a new one. Such audiences as I am accustomed to address,
are of a character quite different from that of the one now before
me. And those subjects and topics with which I am most
familiar, are unsuited to this time and place. If, therefore, I
had been governed by the precepts of a classic maxim, which
the circumstances that surround me very forcibly suggest, per
haps I should not have been so presumptuous and disregardful
of its prudent admonitions as to have yielded my assent to
appear before you at all on the present occasion.

But where duty calls, obedience is an obligation. These
pleasant grounds and academic groves, it is true, present no
forum for public debate — no tribunal for the adjudication of dis
puted rights, and no rostrum for the discussion of mooted ques
tions of public policy. They enclose, however, a consecrated
nursery of mind. Here intellectual scions are nurtured and
fostered until they attain sufficient growth and vigor to be trans
planted into other places in the world of society without, not only
for ornament, but usefulness. Here, too, is erected an altar
dedicated to learning, to letters, and to the general promotion
of knowledge. And upon such an altar, it may well be con
sidered the duty of every one to contribute his offering, when
required, according to his ability, even though it be but a " mite."
It is under the influence of such considerations you see me here.
And it is, doubtless, under the influence of feelings of a somewhat
like character, that this large and imposing assembly have come
up from different and distant quarters of the country on this
returning commencement, to manifest the interest they feel in the
objects for which this institution was founded, as well as to par-

ADDEESS BEFORE THE EMORY COLLEGE SOCIETIES. 365

take of the pleasure which its increasing success is calculated to
impart. Here we see persons of all conditions and ranks in life ;
persons of all classes and pursuits — the statesman, the divine,
the journalist, the physician, the lawyer, the teacher, the mer
chant, the mechanic, the planter, and the farmer, the high and
the low, the learned and the unlearned, the gay and the grave,
the old and the young, fathers and sons, mothers and daughters,
all congregated together, and all filled with a common object !
That object is the noble cause of education, mental improve
ment, advancement, refinement and progress ! How interesting
and gratifying it is to behold such a spectacle! How impressive
the fact is, as a distinguishing characteristic of our people !

All nations and states, as well as individuals, have their pecu
liar characteristics. Those unmistakable marks of tastes, habits,
and inclinations, which not only assign them their true position
amongst their cotemporaries, but which are the unerring indicia
of the tendency of their course in the untried and uncertain
future which lies before them. In all countries and in all ages,
the people have had, as they always will have, such public dis
plays and demonstrations as never fail to manifest these distinc
tive qualities. In ancient Greece they had their g3^mnasia, and
Olympic games. In Rome they had their saturnalia and gladia
torial shows. In Spain, to this day, they have their bull fights,
and their carnivals. While, with the wild Indians of this conti
nent, the green-corn dance and the ball play, are as old as their
legends.

But with us, (I speak now of Georgia,) the great gala day in
country, village, and town — the day when all business is sus
pended, and the whole people turn out to catch and enjoy the
prevailing spirit of the occasion — is the day of the school exhibi
tion and the college commencement. We see this at all our acade
mies, seminaries, and universities, both male ami female, for
which the State is so much distinguished. It is such a turn out
that we witness here to-day. And who that rightly reads the
signs of the times does not see in these manifestations, the germ
of increasing power and greatness? Lord Bacon said, "knowl
edge is power." And Solomon said, long before Bacon, "A wise
man is strong." What is true of one man in this particular, is
true of communities and States. The seat of empire over men
as well as nature, never fails in the end to follow the seat of
intellectual power.

This display then, and the intellectual feast which has been so
profusely spread out for the common enjoyment of all during
the continuance of these ceremonies have much in them to cheer
and encourage, not only the faculty, founders, and patrons of
Emory College, but all who feel an interest in the position which
our State is destined to occupy amongst her sisters, in that con
federacy of States, which now stands first amongst the powers
of the world !

366 ADDRESS BEFORE THE EMORY COLLEGE SOCIETIES.

But after so much has been said, and so appropriately, ele
gantly, and eloquently said, not only by my seniors who have
just addressed you, (Dr. George F. Pierce, the President, and
Hon. George R. Gilmer,) but even by my juvenile competitors,
wherewithal shall I, at the close of these scenes, essay to enter
tain an audience so assembled, and animated with such feelings
and objects.

" A word fitly spoken," we are told " is like apples of gold in
pictures of silver." What important results often depend even upon
a word ? And what greater results still oftener depend upon the
time and manner of the utterance of that word? What word,
then, can be "fitly spoken" at this time during the few moments
I shall trespass upon your patience.

It has occurred to me that perhaps I could do no greater ser
vice to those young gentlemen at whose call I appear before you,
than to address some views, particularly to them, upon a matter,
which, of all others of an earthly nature, must be of the deepest
interest and concernment to them. I mean the subject of their
future success in life.

It is not my purpose to say any thing that may be considered
as trenching in any degree upon what was so well and "fitly"
said by the reverend and distinguished head of the faculty, in
his parting admonitions to the graduating class. My object is
to present some thoughts outside of that sphere of topics to
which he alluded.

The most difficult and perplexing problem ever submitted to
the youthful aspirant is the problem of life. The great question
how he shall succeed! This is the subject which most of all
gives him anxious thoughts by day and by night. All seem to
be duly impressed with the consciousness of the fact that they
have a part to perform in the interesting and complicated drama
of the world', upon whose stage they are about to enter ; and all
seem to be sufficiently possessed of those laudable impulses of
our nature which inspire them with an earnest desire to perform
that part well. But the anxious inquiry with every one is as to
the means. What are the requisites ? How shall, and how can,
the object desired be accomplished ?

I propose, young gentlemen of the two societies, with your
kind indulgence, to point out some of those qualities or elements of
character which may be deemed as essential requisites for success
in whatever profession, pursuit, or business, life's destiny may
be cast ; those elements which every one should duly consider,
.who looks to worthy deeds and honorable achievements as the
foundation of that name and reputation which he would leave
after him. It is only to those whose aspirations for distinction
rest upon this basis, that these remarks are intended.

And to the consideration of such, the first of these requisites
which I submit, is self-knowledge. It has been said, and said
with truth to a considerable degree, that " every man is the ar-

ADDRESS BEFORE THE EMORY COLLEGE SOCIETIES 367

chitect of his own fortunes." As it is essential for a builder to
be thoroughly acquainted with the tools and implements which
he is to use in the erection of any structure, so is it essential for
a man, who would build to himself a name, to be thoroughly
acquainted with the instruments which he has to use in his pro
jected work. These instruments are his natural powers and
capacities ; his talents and tastes ; his passions and prejudices ;
his abilities, mental and physical. And the only means, by
which he can become acquainted with them, is a perfect knowl
edge and understanding of himself. That a knowledge of others
is important, is generally conceded. Hence the common remark
that such an one " will make his way through the world because
he understands men," or that such an one " will never succeed
because he knows nothing of human nature." Such remarks are
founded on experience and justified by observation. They are
not always made, however, with the consciousness or reflection
that the surest means of knowing others is to know oneself.
The best way for any one to become acquainted with human
nature is to become acquainted with the workings of his own
mind. He that understands himself well, will not fail to under
stand mankind. The door that opens the way to a knowledge
of human nature, stands at every one's own breast ; let him who
would enter " knock and it sha^l be opened unto him." But this
knowledge of which I speak embraces a great deal more. It
unfolds to him who makes its acquisition his study, the secret
springs of his own action. It discloses those motives by which
the conduct is governed, and by which the character is formed
and moulded. It makes known to one his errors, weaknesses, and
frailties ; all of which a wise man will endeavor fully to compre
hend and understand. He that would be "timely wise" rather
than " wise in time," should make it his business to know his own
imperfections before they be discovered by others. He should be
as ful\y conscious of what he cannot perform as what he can.
And he should be as fully aware of his defects as of his excel
lences ; of his demerits as of his merits.

There is nothing from which the mind so generally shrinks
as from this sort of examination. I therefore urge it as a matter
of primary importance. Men are often so blinded to their own
errors and defects, that they become offended with those who are
so adventurous as even to intimate their existence. Of all frail
ties, this is the most common and the most lamentable. For all
men have their errors in judgment and in action.* And how can
these errors be corrected without their being known ? The object
of every man should be at all times and under all circumstances
to " see himself as others see him ;" and to know from his knowl
edge of his own mental and moral constitution, what would be
his views, feelings, and inclinations, under an entire change of
condition and situation from that in which he may happen to be
placed How few ever attain this knowledge! A striking

368 ADDRESS BEFORE THE EMORY COLLEGE SOCIETIES.

illustration of the want of it, we have in the character of one
who figures in sacred history.

When Elisha the prophet approached Damascus, Benhadad,
the King of Syria, sent Hazael as a messenger to meet him, and
to inquire whether he should recover from a disease with which
he was afflicted ; the inquiry was answered, " apd the man of God
wept !"

Whereupon Hazael said, "Why weepeth my Lord?" Elisha
knowing that this man in the change of fortune which awaited
him would, after the death of Benhadad, be King of Syria,
replied, because he knew the evil that he would do the people of
Israel ; their strongholds he would set on fire ; their young men
he would slay with the sword, and that he would spare neither
helpless mothers nor infant children. Hazael swelling with in
dignation at such an imputation said, "But what? Is thy ser
vant a dog that he should do this great thing ?"

Hazael was ignorant of his own nature ! All these things
which he then considered as so enormous and monstrous that no
man, who was not as mean in his estimation as a vile dog, would
do, he afterward did ! And how many thousands of people are
to be met with who are just as ignorant of themselves as Hazael
was of himself ? What changes do we not often see in the con
duct of men with a change in their condition, position, fortune, or
prospects ? How few can bear success ? How many sustain
themselves gallantly under adversit}^ but make shipwreck with
the first gales of prosperity ? Young gentlemen, the cause of this
is attributable in part to the want of that knowledge to which I
refer. " Know thyself" is a maxim which has been handed down
from the schools of Grecian philosophy. It is time-honored.
Let it be fixed in your memory, and never forget that it is essen
tial for every man to be thoroughly acquainted with his own
mind and the principles by which it is governed, who would direct
that mind to the achievement of great ends. . "9 '

Next to self-knowledge is self-government. The first of these
is necessary to the second. By the first a man becomes acquainted
with the elements or powers with which he is naturally endowed,
and by the second he is enabled to control those powers most
efficiently toward the accomplishment of any purpose he may desire.

The, utility of self-knowledge consists, mainly, in furnishing
that information which enables its possessor to suppress his pas
sions, to curb his propensities, to control his prejudices, to correct
his errors, to guard his weak points, and to cultivate and im
prove his virtues. To do these things is the office of self-
government.

It is this thorough discipline or mastery of a man over himself
and his faculties, whether great or small, that enables him to
marshal all his resources and to put forth all his energies to the
greatest advantage on every occasion. This is no small matter.
But its importance in all the vocations of life can never be over-

ADDRESS BEFORE THE EMORY COLLEGE SOCIETIES. 369

estimated. It implies system, method, arrangement, and prepa
ration in all things. It is to a man, with the instruments of
action subject to his control, what military discipline is to a
general with veteran troops under his command.

A few trained bands, will put to route whole* armies of un
disciplined and ungoverned raw recruits. And in the conflicts
and struggles of life, the well prepared, self-poised man, with all
his forces properly arrayed and promptly obedient to his call, will
often vanquish and utterly demolish a negligent and unguarded
rival of vastly superior natural powers.

This one idea of self-government, or thorough mental discipline,
is suggestive of thoughts enough to occupy more of your time
than I have alloted for all I intend to say. Without it genius can
effect nothing. Without it the powers of the greatest intellects
can never be brought to act efficiently for the accomplishment of
any great or useful purpose. We may look upon such minds,
and some such are to be met with, as we contemplate great un
controlled powers of nature. What a mighty waste of water we
behold at Niagara ? There we see power sufficient, under proper
control and direction, to turn the machinery of the world ; but,
without it, calculated only to excite our amazement and wonder.
So with the greatest geniuses ; without control, discipline, and
self-government, their powers may dazzle, may excite admiration
and astonishment, but that is all. They seldom effect any thing
really good or useful.

Another of those requisites, deemed essential to honorable suc
cess, is integrity of principle. This implies uprightness in all
things, in thought as well as in action. This is the granite for
mation, on which true greatness rests. This is the primitive
rock that lies beneath the upper strata of character. And in the
man of true worth and real merit, it will never fail to show itself
when he is thoroughly probed, wherever his lot may be cast,
whether in the lowest valleys or on the highest mountains of this
world's places of humility or distinction. Character to be endur
ing should be based upon truth, justice, and honesty. By these
principles the man of integrity is governed in all his dealings and
intercourse with men. There is with him no duplicity, no equiv
ocation, and none of those crafty wiles which mark the cunning,
the deceitful, and the disingenuous. He is open, frank, and candid
in all matters. In his estimation the standard of virtue is the
standard of honor, and every thing that does not square by this
rule is not only low and mean, but corrupt and contaminating.
He would rather fall in the maintenance of the right, than enjoy
an ill-gotten success in the wrong. For there is a divinity within
which tells him that :

"Truth crushed to earth will rise again ;

Th' eternal years of God are hers !
But error wounded, writhes with pain,
And dies amidst her worshippers !"
24

370 ADDEESS BEFOEE THE EMORY COLLEGE SOCIETIES.

Times may change but he does not change with them. He is the
same in prosperity and adversity. The severest tests only
prove the unswerving steadiness with which he pursues his pur
pose. Such a man can never be seduced by flattery or awed by
power.

Many instances in illustration of this principle and element in
character might be given. Two that occur to me, and which are
familiar, perhaps, to many who hear me, may not be inappropriate.
One is the memorable reply of Lord Coke to James I., King of
England. This monarch commenced that series of usurpations
which rendered his House so ingloriously distinguished, by
attempting to control the decision of the judges in a matter per
taining to his prerogative, by extorting a promise, in advance, that
their decision should be as he desired it. For this purpose they
were brought before the king in person. Upon the direct ques
tion whether they would so decide, all the judges except Coke,
yielding to the weakness of human nature, in the presence of that
sovereignty from whom they held their places, answered readily
in the affirmative. When the question was put to him, he
replied: " When the case happens, I shall do that which it shall
be jit for a judge to do /"

All his associates, and even the king, were abashed and hu
miliated by the stern and independent language of the chief
justice.

The other instance occurred in the reign of James II. Insti
gated by the same love of power and disregard of the well
settled rights of the people that had marked the course of his
predecessors, this king was endeavoring to subvert the religion
of the realm. His ever to be remembered Declaration of Indul
gence notorious^ against law, and particularly offensive to all
Protestants, had not only been made public by the royal procla
mation, but, by orders in council, had- been directed to be read
in each church and chapel by the officiating minister, on particu
lar days, named, before the regular service. Never was greater
commotion produced in that kingdom by any State paper than
that wkich was produced by this mandate of James. All classes
were struck with consternation. The bishops in body petitioned
and remonstrated. The king was unyielding and inexorable.
To disobey was to incur the royal displeasure with all its conse
quences, while to obey would be a violation of their sense of duty
.to their Church and to their God ! The 20th of May, 1688— a
day which will never be forgotten by the readers of the annals
of England — was the day fixed for the performance of this ser
vice in the metropolis of the empire. All London was aroused
\,o the greatest degree of excitement. Thousands flocked to the
churches to see what would be done. Speculation was rife as to
the course the clergy would pursue. The minions of the crown
boasted that no one would dare to disobey His Majesty's edict.
It was on that day, and under sugh circumstances, that Samuel

ADDRESS BEFORE THE EMORY COLLEGE SOCIETIES. 371

Wesley, the father of John Wesley and Charles Weslej7, ascended
the pulpit before thousands of people, whose breasts were beating
with doubtful and anxious expectation. When all were in the
greatest suspense as to what he would do, that venerable divine
rose and announced in emphatic language, as his text, these words :
" Be it known unto thee, oh King, that we will not serve thy gods,
nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up." The
usurpation of the crown was defied, and the integrity of principle
was vindicated in the act ! Had Samuel Wesley left no other me
morial than this, it was sufficient to render his name immortal.
This was the first decisive step in that rapid succession of move
ments which drove James from the throne, and brought about
the revolution of 1688, and which secured the establishment of
those principles of English liberty which enter so largely into
our own American institutions. Coke was one of the most dis
tinguished of those who met with manly firmness the first en
croachment of power on the part of the first of the Stuarts ; and
Wesley should be equally distinguished for his lead in that
resistance against the usurpations of the last of the same line
which resulted in the expulsion of that house from power
forever.

But again. For success in life, it is essential that there should
be a fixedness of purpose as to the object and designs to be
attained. There should be a clear conception of the outlines of
that character which is to be established. The business of life,
in whatever pursuit it may be directed, is a great work. And in
this, as in all other undertakings, it is important in the outset to
have a clear conception of what is to be done. This is the first
thing to be settled. What profession, what vocation, is to be
followed. The only rule for determining this is natural ability
and natural aptitude, or suitableness for the particular business
selected. The decision in such case should always be governed
by that ideal of character which a man, with high aspirations,
should always form for himself.

The artist who has laid before him the huge misshapen block
of marble, from which the almost living and breathing statue is to
spring, under the operation of his chisel, first has the ideal in his
mind. The magnificent temple at Jerusalem, with all its halls
and porticos, entrances, stairways, and arches, was designed by
Solomon in all its grand proportions and awangements, before
the foundation stone was laid. The first thing with the sculptor,
the architect, or the painter, is the grand design. This being
fixed every thing afterward is directed toward its perfect consum
mation. So it should be with the great work of life. When the
course is determined upon, to secure the object in view, it should
be steadily pursued. You will pardon an illustration of the im
portance of this consideration by a reference to an incident in the
life of one of the most distinguished men of our own country. I
allude to Mr. Webster

372 ADDRESS BEFORE THE- EMORY COLLEGE SOCIETIES.

He, it may be known to you, was the son of a New Hampshire
farmer of very limited means. All the hopes of the father were
centered in his son. To put him through college was an object
of great desire with him. This he succeeded in doing, but not
without some pecuniary embarrassment, as may be the case with
some of those fathers whom I now address, in their efforts to give
an education to some of these young gentlemen now about to leave
this seat of learning. Before young Daniel had left the walls of his
Alma Mater, he had made up his mind to devote himself to the law.
For the first year after his graduation, he taught school for the
stipulated salary of three hundred and fifty dollars. At the expi
ration of that time, with this small capital in hand, he set out for
Boston to enter upon the course that he had marked out for him
self. He was admitted as a student of law in the oflice of a dis
tinguished counsellor in that city. Soon after, and while he was still
pursuing his studies, the clerkship of the court of common pleas
of his native county of Hillsboro, in New Hampshire, became
vacant. The emoluments of that office were about fifteen hundred
dollars per annum. Some of his friends, from the best of motives,
no doubt, procured the appointment for young Webster, supposing
it would be very acceptable to him. The information was first
given to his father, and he was requested to forward it to his son.
The father was delighted, and he conveyed the intelligence to the
son in such language that left no doubt of his earnest desire for its
prompt acceptance. Such was his respect for the feelings of his
father, that Mr. Webster could not send a reply in writing, but
went immediately, in person, to make known to him that he could
not accept the place. This he did by gradually unfolding his
views and inclinations on the subject.

" What," said the father, after he found from the son's conver
sation that he was speaking against accepting the place ; " what,
do you intend to decline this office?"

"•Most assuredly," replied the son, when the question came
direct, " I cannot think of doing otherwise."

The father at first seemed angry ; then assuming the air of one
who first feels the pangs of disappointment in realizing long cher
ished hopes, he said:

" Well, my son, your mother always said that you would come
to something or nothing; become a somebody or a nobody." The
emphasis showed that he thought his son was about to become " a
nobody."

The reply of the son was : " I intend, sir, to use my tongue in
Court, and not my pen ; to be an actor, and not the register of
other men's actions." Nobly has that pledge been redeemed !

From this incident, parents, mothers as well as fathers, may
learn a lesson. And that is not to be too hasty or rash in coming
to the conclusion concerning any son, however headstrong he may
seem, that he will ultimately turn out to be " a nobody."

The decision with Webster, though young, as to his future

ADDRESS BEFORE THE EMORY COLLEGE SOCIETIES. 373

course had been made. The ideal of that character which he de
sired to establish had been formed. And to the fixedness of pur
pose with which he adhered to it on that trying occasion, when the
strongest inducements of parental entreaty and pecuniary gain
were presented to divert him from it, the world is indebted for
that name and fame which are the pride and admiration of his
countrymen, and that towering reputation which sends its light
and effulgence to the remotest regions of civilization.

Another example of the same principle of fixedness of purpose
may be given in the character of Mr. Calhoun, who was so long
one of Mr. Webster's most distinguished rivals in the Senate of
the United States. They both entered life about the same time,
though under very different circumstances: And the lives of both
afford striking illustrations of that element of character of which
I am now speaking. Mr. Calhoun from his earliest youth fixed
his mind upon politics. Not the arts and tricks, and chicanery,
of the mere politician or diplomatist, but what maybe more properly
termed the science of government ; the knowledge and thorough
understanding of those principles and laws of human actions
which lie at the foundation of all civil society, in whatever form it
may be found ; and the regulations and modifications of which are
necessary for the surest enjoyment of rational constitutional liberty.

In no branch of learning, perhaps, has mankind been slower in
their progress than in understanding the true principles of govern
ment, the origin of its necessity, the sanction of its obligations,
together with the correlative powers and duties of those who govern
and those who are governed. This was most pointedly demon
strated in the able, ingenious, and admirable address which mairy
of us listened to with so much pleasure in this place last night.
(The address of Mr. L. Q. C. Lamar before the Crescent Society.)

To this most abstruse subject, which had engaged so much of
the time and attention of the profoundest thinkers, that the world
ever pi^duced, the great Carolinian brought all the energies of his
subtle and powerful intellect. It seems to have been the absorbing
theme of his life. Nothing diverted him from it. To master it
was his object. Nor was he unequal to the work undertaken. All
questions of public policy, whether in the cabinet or in the legisla
tive councils, seem to have been considered, examined, and analyzed
by him according to the strictest principles of abstract philosophy.
But his labors were not confined to the consideration and investi
gation of temporary questions connected with the administration
of his own government. His objects were higher. His purposes
were more comprehensive. He looked to achievements more per
manent, as well as more substantial, than the acquisition of those
transitory honors which accompany a forensic display or a tri
umphant reply in debate. To such an end his efforts for years
were directed. The result was the production of a Treatise or
Disquisition, as he calls it, on government, which has been pub
lished since his death, and which, though it has as yet produced

374 ADDRESS BEFORE THE EMORY COLLEGE SOCIETIES.

but little sensation in the public mind, at no distant day will doubt
less be regarded as the crowning glory of his illustrious life. This
treatise has no particular reference to the government of the
United States. But it discusses the elements and principles of all
forms of government. Reduces them to system and the rules of
science. I take this occasion thus to speak of it in this connection
to commend it to your careful perusal and close study. It ought
to be a text-book in all our schools, and its principles ought to be
familiar to every citizen in the country — old and young. In my
judgment it surpasses every thing that ever was produced on the
same subject, from Aristotle to Locke and Burke. The work is
short, compact, and well condensed, but clear and perspicuous in
style and arrangement, and I venture to say that it is one of the
few books of this age which will outlive the language in which it
was written.

I have one other point only to present — that is, energy in exe
cution. And though last in order, it is far from being least in im
portance. By this I mean application, attention, activity, perse
verance, and untiring industry in that business or pursuit, whatever
it may be, which is undertaken. Nothing great or good can ever
be accomplished without labor and toil. Motion is the law of
living nature. Inaction is the symbol of death, if it is not death
itself. The hugest engines, with strength and capacity sufficient
to drive the mightiest ships " across the stormy deep," are utterly
useless without a moving power. Energy is the steam power, the
motive principle of intellectual capacity. It is the propelling
force ; and, as in physics, momentum is resolvable into quantity of
matter and velocity, so in metaphysics, the extent of human ac
complishment may be resolvable in the degree of intellectual
endowment and the energy with which it is directed. A small
body driven by a great force, will produce a result equal to, or
even greater, than that of a much larger body moved by a con
siderably less force. So it is with minds. Hence we often see
men of comparatively small capacity, by greater energy alone,
leave, and justly leave, their superiors in natural gifts far behind
them in the race for honors, distinction, and preferment.

This is the real vis vitas or that principle in human nature
which gives power and vim to the efforts of genius toward what
ever objects such efforts may be directed. It is this which
imparts that quality which we designate by the very expressive
term "force of character ;" that which meets, defies, and bears
down all opposition. This is, perhaps, the most striking charac
teristic of those £reat minds and intellects which never fail to
impress their names, their views, ideas, and opinions indelibly
upon the history of the times in which they live. Men of this
class are those pioneers of thought, who, sometimes even "in
advance of the age," are known and* marked in history as origin
ators and discoverers, or those wTho overturn old orders and
systems of things and build up new ones. To this class belong

ADDKESS BEFORE THE EMORY COLLEGE SOCIETIES. 375

Columbus, Luther, Cromwell, Watt, Fulton, Franklin, and Wash
ington. It was to the same class that General Jackson belonged.
He not only had a clear conception of his purpose, but a will and
energy to execute it. And it is in the same class, or amongst the
first order of men, that Henry Clay will be assigned a place ;
that great man to whom we have had such frequent allusion dur
ing these exercises, and whose recent loss the nation still mourns.
Mr. Clay's success, and those civic achievements, which will ren
der his name as lasting as the history of his country, were the
result of nothing so much as that element of character which I
have denominated energy. Thrown upon life at an early age,
without any means or resources save his natural powers and
abilities, and without the advantages of any thing above a common
school education, he had nothing to rely upon but himself, and
nothing upon which to place a hope but his own exertions. But,
fired with a high and noble ambition, he resolved, young as he
was, and cheerless as were his prospects, to meet and surmount
every embarrassment and obstacle by which he was surrounded.
His aims and objects were high and worthy the greatest efforts ;
they were not to secure the laurels won upon the battle-field, but
those wreaths which adorn the brow of the wise, the firm, the
sagacious and far-seeing statesman. The honor and glory of his
life was —

" Th' applause of list'ning senates to command.
The threats of pain and ruin to despise,
To scatter plenty o'er a smiling land,
And read 7m history in a nation's eyes !"

This great end he most successfully accomplished. And if he
had aspirations for a position, in his own estimation, even higher,
yet no one now, or hereafter, can ever indulge the opinion that
its attainment would have added anything to that full measure of
fame with which he has descended to the tomb ! In his life and
character you have a most striking example of what energy and
indomitable perseverance can do, even when opposed by the most
adverse circumstances.

Young gentlemen, I have given you this brief sketch of some
of those elements of character which may be deemed essential for
success in those exciting scenes and uncertain conflicts through
which life's journey will lead you. One word, in conclusion, by
way of application.

It is the reply of Cardinal Richelieu upon a memorable occa
sion as we have it in the play. In one of the most critical points
in the fortunes of the cardinal, as well as of France, it became a
matter «of the utmost importance that a particular paper should
be obtained by him to be presented to the king. The cardinal
was prime minister as he had been for a number of years. A con
spiracy had been formed on the part of some of the nobles, not
only against him, but against the throne itself. These nobles

376 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO PREVENT FRAUDS, ETC.

had succeeded, as part of their plan, in alienating the king from his
minister. The paper contained the positive evidence of the con
spiracy and treachery of his and the king's enemies. His fate,
and the fate of his sovereign, depended upon his getting imme
diate possession of the paper. He was a man of energy, and had
never before been thwarted or unsuccessful in any enterprise.
For years he had ruled France with almost absolute sway. At
this juncture, when nothing could save his fortune but the paper
in question, Richelieu called to his assistance a young man of
spirit and courage, and enjoined upon him the arduous and diffi
cult task of securing and bringing to him the packet. But the
young man, being duly impressed with the importance of his mis
sion, and providing in his mind for the various contingencies that
might happen, says " If I fail " —

Richelieu, not allowing the sentence to be finished, and stop
ping the utterance of a possibility of a doubt touching his success,
replies :

"Fail! Fail!

In the lexicon of yoinh, which Fate reserves
For a bright manhoud, there is no such word
As— fail /"

So say I to you in entering upon that career that lies before
you. If, at any time, fears and doubts beset you as to your suc
cess. If the world grows cold. If friends forsake and enemies
combine. If difficulties multiply, and even environ you. If the
future assume its darkest robes without a ray of light or hope.
Never despair. Never give up. Banish your apprehensions.
Rely upon yourselves. And recollect that to the man who knows
himself thoroughly, who governs himself properly, who stands
firmly on principle, who has a fixed purpose to do something
worthy of future remembrance, and who applies himself with
energy in its execution, there is no such word as fail !

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO PREVENT FRAUDS UPON
THE TREASURY OF THE UNITED STATES— IN
DEFENCE OF MR. CORWIN— AND THE GALPHIN
CLAIM.

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

JANUARY 13, 1853.

The bill under consideration, Mr. Speaker, is reported* by the
Select Committee of this House appointed to investigate the
Gardiner claim. I do not see any connection which it has with
the business submitted to that committee. It seems to be before
the House anomalously. I suppose it must have got here by

SPEECH OX THE BILL TO PREVENT FKAUDS, ETC. 377

unanimous consent. The committee certainly had no authority
from this House to report it. So far as the bill, therefore, is
concerned, I shall treat it as an independent measure before this
House, as if reported by any individual, and I shall not connect
its merits with the investigation of the Gardiner claim, for I see
no legitimate connection between it and the subject referred to
that committee for investigation. The bill, I believe, is in sub
stance the same as one introduced into the Senate by a Senator
from North Carolina [Mr. BADGER]. In the remarks which I
shall make upon its merits, I shall necessarily, in noticing the
topics of discussion which it has given rise to, introduce some
of the subjeets which the gentleman have alluded to in the pro
gress of the debate. The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. OLDS,] for
instance, who, I believe, addressed the committee first upon this
subject, and whose speech is reported for the first time in the
Globe of this morning, seems to consider the report of this bill
by that committee as confirming his original remarks in relation
to the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Corwin. I do not so con
sider it. I do not consider that there is any thing in the report
of the committee which can justify such an inference. I take this
occasion to state to this House that I think the investigation and
report of that committee fully and completely exonerates the
Secretary of the Treasury from that improper connection with
the Gardiner claim which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OLDS]
seemed to entertain the opinion or suspicion that he held. I
notice the following in the report of the gentleman's remarks,
and I shall be brief upon this point :

" Mr. Speaker, 1 will not say that at the time I offered the resolution
calling for this committee of investigation, that I had not a settled con
viction upon my mind, that Corwin must have known, or at least have
strongly suspected, the fraudulent character of this claim. That convic
tion has not been changed, but greatly confirmed, by the evidence re
ported by the committee. But, sir, notwithstanding these convictions, I
had no purpose of making any such charge in the resolution, knowing
the utter impossibility of proving a man's thoughts or impressions.
Nothing in the language of the resolution, or in the remarks with which 1
accompanied the resolution, can be construed into such a charge."

Now, sir, I have the remarks of the gentleman as made before
this House, in which he says :

" Through the investigation of Congress, their Galphinism has been ex
posed ; and Crawford, loaded with the execrations of the American people,
has received his passport to perpetual infamy. But Corwin still remains
unwhipped of justice. True, sir, his catspaw and accomplice in the fraud
is loaded with irons, arid is branded by public sentiment as a perjurer and
forger ; but the master-moving spirit, the head and brains in the fraud,
through the negligence of this House, is still permitted to control the
Treasury of the United States."

Mr. OLDS. That is a quotation from a speech made in July
upon entirely another question, in which I referred incidentally

378 SPEECH ON" THE BILL TO PEE VENT FKAUDS, ETC.

to the Galphinism of the country. It had no connection with this
resolution whatever.

Mr. STEPHENS. These were remarks made by the gentleman in
connection with this subject. Is he prepared now before the
House to say that he takes this expression back ?

Mr. OLDS. No, sir. I say that the remarks I made at the time
I offered this resolution, show that I intended to make no such
call upon the House for investigation.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then, if the gentlemen does not take them back,
or modify them, he should make them good. They were remarks
made by him in this House and to the country before this com
mittee was raised, as one of the reasons for raising the committee,
though they may not have been made at the time the committee
was ordered. Now, then, the gentleman ought either to sustain
this charge before the House, or modify it. I must consider it
as a part of the remarks made by him, which induced the House
to raise the committee. This was the gist of the accusation. It
is not my purpose at all to discuss the merits of the Gardiner
claim ; that is, whether it was founded in justice, or whether it
was a. fabricated fraud from beginning to end. That was not
even before the investigation committee. I am free to state, how
ever, from reading the report of 4his investigation carefully, I
concur with the other gentlemen, that my impression is that it is
fraudulent. But the subject referred to that committee to in
vestigate, and which, so far as their report is concerned, is now
before the House, is his (Mr. Corwin's) " improper" connection
with the claim ; because the very resolution offered by the gentle
man, and passed by this House, stated that —

" Whereas a strong suspicion rests upon the public mind that fraudu
lent claims have been allowed by the late Mexican Claim Commission,
with one of which it is suspected that Thomas Corwin, Secretary of the
Treasury, has been improperly connected: Therefore,

"Resolved; That a committee, consisting of five members of this House,
be appointed by the Speaker, to investigate all the facts touching the
connection of the said Thomas Corwin, the present Secretary of the
Treasury, with the said Gardiner claim; what fee, if any, he was to
receive for his services as agent or counsel for said Gardiner ; what
interest, if any, other than his fee interest, he purchased and held, either
directly or indirectly, in said claim, and the amount paid, or stipulated
to be paid therefor, and condition of such purchase ; at what time he
ceased to act as the counsel or agent of said Gardiner ; to whom and for
what consideration he disposed of his fee interest ; to whom and for what
consideration he disposed of his one fourth interest in said claim."

The only question, therefore, so far as the report of that com
mittee is concerned, is, whether the Secretary of the Treasury
was improperly connected with the claim of which there was a
suspicion of fraud attached to it. That is the only question.
Well, sir, does not this report of the committee, raised at the
instance of the gentleman from Ohio, sufficiently show to us and

SPEECH OX THE BILL TO PEE VENT FRAUDS, ETC. 371)

to the country, that there was no improper connection at all on
the part of the Secretary of the Treasu^ with the claim ? The
gentleman from Ohio attempts to argue not ; and the whole of his
speech seems to be a sort of censure upon the committee that was
raised at his own instance ; at least it so struck me. He seemed
to be grumbling at their conclusion. What is that conclusion of
the committee on the real point in issue ? Here is their language :

"No testimony has been adduced before the committee proving, or
tending to prove, that the Hon. Thomas Corwin had any knowledge that
the claim of the said Gardiner was fraudulent, or that false testimony or
forged papers had been or were to be procured to sustain the same."

The testimony before the committee shows conclusively that
Mr. Corwin had no interest whatever in this claim after he be
came Secretary of the Treasury ; and the committee say that
there is no evidence showing, " or tending to show," that even as a
private citizen, in his vocation as an attorney, he knew any thing at
all of the fraud. There is nothing then connecting Mr. Corwin
improperly with the claim. But, says the gentleman, the com
mittee have reported this bill. Now it is to that point that I
wrish to speak briefly, because this bill was not reported by any
authority conferred on the committee, nor does it touch the case
before them. I do not intend to let the gentleman escape in this
way. I call the attention of the House to this fact, that if Mr.
Corwin, as Secretary of the Treasury, had been improperly con
nected with this claim — as was intimated in the original charge
— there would have been no necessity at all for any special bill
to reach his delinquency.

Sir, the founders of our government, in one of the first acts
passed by Congress, after the organization of the government,
sufficiently protected the Treasury of the United States in this
particular. If Mr. Corwin acted improperly, you need pass no
new law for others ; you can now prosecute him, and visit upon
him the punishment he deserves ; you need not let him pass from
defect of the law. I call the attention of the House to the act
creating the Treasury Department in 1789 to show that there is
no necessity for this bill to meet any future case similar to that
then before the committee. I read the eighth section of that act :

" SEO. 8. And be it further enacted, That no person appointed to any
office instituted by this act shall, directly or indirectly, be concerned or
interested in carrying on the business of trade or commerce, or be owner,
in whole or in part, of any sea vessel, or purchase, by himself or another
in trust for him, any public lands or other public property, or be con
cerned in the purchase or disposal of any public securities of any State or
of the United States, or take or apply to his own use or emolument or
gain, for negotiating or transacting any business in the said Department
other than what shall be allowed by law ; and if any person shall offend
against any of the prohibitions of this act, he shall be deemed guilty of a
high misdemeanor, and forfeit to the United States the penalty of $3,000,
and shall, upon conviction, be removed from office, and forever thereafter
incapable of holding any office under the United States," etc.

380 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO PREVENT FRAUDS, ETC.

Sir, if Mr. Corwin, as Secretary of the Treasury, was "improp
erly connected" with this claim against the treasury, as charged,
here is a law of the country that has been in existence since 1789,
under which you can proceed against him, and by which you can
not only displace him, but disgrace him forever. If, therefore,
the committee undertook to recommend this bill to meet Mr.
Corwin's case, I beg to inform them, and the gentleman from
Ohio, that their work is but an act of supererogation. Here is a
law quite sufficient for them or him to act upon. My object, sir,
is to disconnect this bill, upon which I intend to speak hereafter,
entirely from the matter and case referred to that committee.
But I wish to premise a few remarks upon the facts reported by
that committee, and which have been commented on in the
debate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, these facts are, that Mr. Corwin, while he
was a Senator of the United States, was employed as an attorney
before the Board of Commissioners to adjudicate claims against
Mexico in behalf of Gardiner, a claimant, and that he also took an
interest by assignment in his claim. These facts are admitted.
The gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. JOHNSON,] argued yesterday
that it was malum in se ; that it was wrong in itself for a mem
ber of Congress to appear as an attorney for fee or reward before
any such tribunal. Is that gentleman right in that position ? If
he is, Mr. Corwin did something wrong in itself, and deserves
censure. If not, he is certainly above reproach of even the most
fastidious in what he did. Let us refer to our history on this
subject. Every gentleman who hears me knows that it is usual,
and has been from the beginning of this government, for Senators
and members of the House to appear as counsel for fee and
reward or compensation before the Supreme Court of the United
States, to appear before any of the courts of the Union, and before
commissioners appointed to adjudicate claims similar to these —
before just such tribunals as this was. Nay, more ; I believe
that even anterior to our Revolution, Dr. Franklin did not con
sider it malum in se to receive fees and act as agent for several
of the colonies before the proper departments of the government
of the mother county — Great Britain. He was the regular
agent, first of Pennsylvania, then of Massachusetts, and of
Georgia, perhaps others of the colonies. I maintain, therefore,
that there is nothing in the thing itself which, by the general con
sent of our countrymen, even the wisest and the best, is, or has been
considered, wrong in acting as counsel or attornej7", or agent for
proper compensation in such a capacity. I believe it is a histor
ical fact, that after the Jay treaty, there was a commission insti
tuted for the adjudication and settlement of claims provided for in
that treaty, and that the ablest attorneys in the country at that
time, appeared before the board thus constituted — amongst them
members of Congress.

Again, at the close of the last war with England, under a con-

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO PREVENT FRAUDS, ETC. 381

vention, a similar board was constituted. The celebrated Mr.
Pinkney, of the State of Maryland, a distinguished member of
this body — an honor to his State, and an honor to his country — a
man whose eloquence was perhaps never surpassed — a man whose
integrity never was questioned, so far as I know — he, sir, ap
peared, as I am informed, before that commission, and argued
important cases as attorney for parties in interest. Who ever
heard his conduct questioned ? Who ever heard an imputation
cast upon his character, for thus advocating the rights of those
who sought the aid of his legal counsel ? I give him as one in
stance amongst others. But further still, I have a paper before
me from which it appears that the Hon. George M. Dallas, while
he was Vice-President of the United States, received fees for pro
secuting, with others, a claim before one of the departments —
others were engaged with him in the same case, members of
Congress of the highest character and the strictest purity. How
can men thus employed be said to be employed against the Trea
sury of the United States ? In most instances, the only question
is, who among several claimants shall receive a particular fund?

But, sir, I come down even to this very tribunal before which
Senator Corwin agreed to appear as counsel. He was not
the only member of Congress who appeared or agreed to ap
pear there as counsel. And if there1 was any thing improper
in his connection with it, was it not so with other members of
Congress ? Mark you, I do not allude to these facts by way of
casting imputations upon any of the gentlemen whom I shall
name, but I do n6t intend, sitting here in this hall, to permit a
false impression to go before this country, or that Mr. Corwin,
who is a distinguished lawyer, shall be made a scape-goat of by
any gentleman upon this floor. Mark you, that the whole charge
sustained is, that Mr. Corwin, while a Senator, was employed by
Dr. Gardiner to represent his claim as one amongst other law
yers before the Board of Commissioners. For the testimony is
conclusive that, perhaps, knowing the statute of 1789, which I
have read, if from no other consideration, he disconnected him
self from that relation before he assumed the position of Secre
tary of the Treasury.

But the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OLDS] says that the transfer
of his interest was all a farce. Well, if so, the issue is between
him and his committee. They do not report that it was a farce,
that it was an unconditional transfer of all his interest in the
claim. I am bound, therefore, so to consider it. Well, then, sir,
was Mr. Corwin the only distinguished Senator who appeared as
counsel before that Commission ? I have not seen the docket,
but I speak from information which has been communicated to
me, and which I have no doubt is correct. I am informed that
the honorable Senator from Missouri [Colonel BENTON] ap
peared in a case there. I am informed that the honorable Se
nator from Louisiana [Mr. SOULE] appeared in a case there. I

382 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO PllEVENT FRAUDS, ETC.

believe that the honorable Daniel Webster appeared as counsel
there in two cases. The honorable Mr. BRIGHT, a Senator from
Indiana, appeared there also in four cases, as I am informed.
Whether those gentlemen appeared for fee or reward, I do not
know. I come now to this House ; and mark me again, that I
do not intend to cast any imputation upon any gentleman, be
cause I do not consider myself that there was any wrong in it.
There was no law against it, and it had been the custom of the
country from the beginning for men holding such positions to
act in such capacity. But I am informed that the honorable Mr.
HOWARD, of Texas, appeared before that Commission in behalf of
some claimants. The honorable Mr. EWING, of Tennessee, who
was then, but not now, a member of this House, appeared there
as counsel, or represented some party, as I am told. The hon
orable Mr. PHELPS, of this House, did the same thing.

Mr. PHELPS. The gentleman from Georgia is mistaken in rela
tion to that matter.

Mr. STEPHENS. Well, sir, I shall be glad to be corrected. I
only speak from information received from others, as I have
stated.

Mr. PHELPS. Permit me, then, to make a brief statement.
When the Mexican commission assembled, one of my constitu
ents handed me his memorial, with the request that I would send
it to the commission with the proofs accompanying it. I did so
send it. My constituents then desired me to appear before the
commission, if necessary, and attend to the case. Action was
had upon the case, but I never appeared before the commission.
I only inquired of one of the commissioners what action had
been had upon it. I received no compensation for it whatever.
I attended to the business as I would attend to any other busi
ness of my constituents. But I do not appear as counsel in
the case. t

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I wish to ask the gentleman from
Missouri this question : Did you ever receive any compensation
for your action before this commission ?

Mr. PHELPS. I did not appear before that board at all, nor did
I receive any compensation for filing the memorial.

Mr. HOWARD. As the gentleman from Georgia has mentioned
my name in this connection, I desire to state that two constitu
ents of mine sent cases to me which I filed before the board. I
presented them, however, without having exacted or received any
compensation.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then I understand the gentleman from Texas
did appear before the board, but received no compensation
for it.

Mr. HOWARD. I will state that I received petitions and papers
made out, some of which I corrected, one petition I redrafted, and
signed them. The witnesses are unimpeached, and they swear
as counsel, and presented them before the board, but I never

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO PKEVENT FRAUDS, ETC. 383

received any compensation nor charged any. I have never
charged or received any pay for business to which I here attend
to before the departments.

While I am up, however, I will state that I do not myself con
sider an appearance before such a board as any thing improper
in itself. I agreed to this report, however, because I think it is
better for the representatives and the country that members of
Congress should not appear before such commissions, and not
because I considered such an appearance as any thing improper
in itself. I shall take occasion to state my reasons for this
opinion before the debate closes.

Mr. STEPHENS. What I was informed, then, is true, that these
gentlemen did act as counsel before this board. Mr. PHELPS did
not appear before the board in person, because it was not
necessary ; but as the papers presented by them were for con
stituents, they did not charge or receive any compensation for
their services. On that point, as I stated, I was not informed as
to either or any of the gentlemen named by me.

Mr. PHELPS. I did not appear before the board at all. I
merely handed in the papers.

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman did not appear, because it was
not necessary. I presume there is no question that neither of
these gentlemen received any compensation for their services.
But the gentleman from Texas very correctly states, in my
opinion, that it was nothing unusual or improper in members of
Congress in appearing before such a board as counsel for com
pensation.

Mr. STANTON, of Tennessee. Will the gentleman allow me to
make a statement ?

Mr. STEPHENS. Be brief.

Mr. STANTON. I do not know whether the gentleman from
Georgia has my name as appearing before this commission or
not, but I did appear there, in one case for a constituent of mine,
who employed me as his counsel, and paid me for it. I drew his
memorial, and presented it before the board. I did not think
the commission allowed him half as much as he was entitled to,
but he paid me in accordance with his own proposition.

Mr. STEPHENS. I did not have the gentleman's name ; and it is
very possible other members of Congress appeared about whom
I have no information.

Mr. STANTON. I will state further, Mr. Speaker, that I have
attended to business for my constitutents and others, a thousand
times, and never received a cent for my services, and never
would receive a cent, although money has been repeatedly
offered me.

Mr. STEPHENS. It seems, then, that the two gentlemen, Mr.
Howard and Mr. Phelps, happened to have the papers of con
stituents, in consideration of which, they did not charge them for
their services; but if the papers had been presented by others,

384 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO PREVENT FRAUDS, ETC.

according to the statement of the gentleman from Tennessee,
[Mr. STANTON,] and of the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. HOW
ARD,] tliGy would have considered it nothing improper to have
appeared before that commission, any more than to have ap
peared before the Supreme Court as counsel.

Now, my point was, to show from the whole legislative history
of the country, that such a connection has never been deemed
improper, that there is no legislation against it. This I think I
have established. The only department of the government in
relation to which such a connection is prohibited by law is that of
the Treasury. That is the only department in which public officers
are prohibited from holding such a relationship. In the war
department there is no law against either the head of it or any
subordinate being interested in a claim, or prosecuting a claim
pending before the Treasury. In the State clepartment there is
no such prohibition, or in any other department. Here, and in
this connection, I beg to call the attention of the House to the
investigation which was had in 183T, before the memorable com
mittee of Mr. Wise. You recollect, perhaps, that amongst other
charges of impropriety preferred by Mr. Wise, was, that the
heads of some of the departments were speculating in the public
lands, and with having interest in, and with prosecuting claims
against the government. The position of General Jackson, and
of the party then in power, of which he was emphatically the
head, was, that there was no law against it, and that if the
head of any of the departments, except the treasury, or any of
the officers of the government, had a claim against the govern
ment, or was disposed to invest his money in speculating in the
public lands, that it was no well-grounded charge against the
integrity of such officer. I have the report of that committee
before me, with the remarks of Mr. Wise upon it. These papers,
I think, fully sustain this position.

The Secretary of State was charged at that time with being
largely interested in a land company in the State of Alabama.
Witnesses were put upon the stand and questioned as to that
fact. The question was so modified and restricted as to make
the witness answer whether the Secretary of State had been in
terested in any land speculations " contrary to law." There was
no law against it, and the question was not permitted to be pro
pounded touching the matter without this modification. The
inference was clear that he was, or if he was, that it was his
legal right to be so interested.

Well, sir, with this distinct allegation as to the Secretary of
State, what said General Jackson to this committee ? "If you
are able to point to any case where there is the slightest reason
to suspect corruption or abuse of trust, no obstacle which I can
remove shall be interposed to prevent the fullest scrutiny by all
legal means." This Tie said to Mr. Wise. He had specified the
speculations of the Secretary of State in public lands. But that

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO PREVENT FRAUDS, ETC. 385

was no case of " corruption and abuse," in the opinion of General
Jackson, because it was not against any law.

General Jackson held that there was no corruption in the
charge, if true, because there was no law against it ; and his
friends in this House on the committee would not allow the
question to be put.

And I say, sir, you must first define crime before you go
hunting criminals. You must first proclaim by law what is
wrong, and what you intend to hold up to public odium, before
you can hold Mr. Corwin, or Mr. Anybody else, up as a public
malefactor for breaking your law. Your law must first be made
and published. Where there is no law there is no transgression.
Therefore you cannot rightfully charge the Secretary of the
Treasury, as a Senator of the United States, with being "im
properly" employed as counsel before the Board of Mexican Com
missioners, which is the issue in this matter, until you declare by
law that a Senator shall not be so employed, and until he then
shall have rendered himself obnoxious to the provisions of your
law. When all this takes place, his conduct will fall within the
range of those acts which are called " mala prohibita" and not
even then within that class denominated " mala in se," unless
there be positive corruption.

But, sir, there is another matter brought into discussion, to
which I beg the indulgence of the House for a short reference to.

The investigations of Mr. Wise's committee were connected
with other matters beside speculations in land, and one of which
has been alluded to in this debate. It was freely admitted by
the then Secretary of State — Mr. Forsyth — that he had been em
ployed as attorney, and was so employed while Secretary of
State, to prosecute against the government what is well known
as the Galphin claim. General Jackson knew, and the country
knew, that Mr. Forsyth admitted this. It was not denied. He
was Secretary of State, and admitted the fact before the commit
tee. Here is his evidence. Yet no one censured Mr. Forsyth ;
and no one then dared to impugn his honor for it. That then
and now stands above reproach — because it was his legal right
to do so. The Secretary of the Treasury was by the law of 1789
prohibited from prosecuting or becoming interested in claims
against the government. But, as I have said, there is no law
prohibiting this in the heads of the other departments. Now, I
beg the indulgence of the House, by way of digression, to allude
somewhat to this claim, which others have associated with " Gard-
inerism," as they call it. I addressed a former House upon the
same subject. But there are many here who I doubt not know
but little of its merits. The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. OLDS,]
in his speech, alludes to " Galphinism," or the " Galphins." He
says, that after the decease of the lamented Taylor, when Mr.
Fillmore entered this hall to take the oath of office, followed by
the Cabinet of General Taylor, Corwin heard the murmur from
25

386 SPEECH OX THE BILL TO PREVENT FRAUDS, ETC.

the galleries, "there come the Galphins," which reached every
part of the hall.

Well, sir, the gentleman may have heard such a murmur, but I
did not, and never heard of it until I saw it in his speech.

Now, sir, I intend to say something on this Galphin claim.
Gentlemen may, if they choose, continue to cry out Galphiu
fraud ; but they shall not do it without the exposure which is due
to the truth, as well as right and justice.

Mr. Speaker, I am here to-day to defend that claim against any
one who may be bold enough to assail it. I hold myseFf ready to
say and maintain that there was no fraud in the Galphin claim.
I saw this claim alluded to in a paper the other day as the " Gal
phin swindle." Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask this House to hear, not
as partisans, what I have to assert in vindication of the truth in
this matter. I feel it my duty to do it, in vindication of
people whom I know, descendants of Galphin, and men who under
him have received their just rights — rights which were long
delayed at the door of public justice. Some of these gentlemen
reside in the State of Georgia, and some reside in the State of
South Carolina — as high-minded, honorable, and chivalrous men
as ever trod the face of the earth ; men who would scorn to take a
dollar from the government which was not justly their due.
Some of these parties I know — and I will vindicate them, and I
will vindicate the truth of history, whenever they or their con
duct in this matter are assailed or maligned. There was, sir, no
fraud in the Galphin claim. In the maintenance of what I say,
I shall assert facts and nothing but* facts, which are uncontro-
verted in the past and incontrovertible for all time to come. And
when I am done, I want to see the man rise up here in the face
of these facts and say that there was fraud in the payment of that
just debt.

These are the facts : In 1773, the Cherokee Indians and the Creek
Indians in the State of Georgia, were indebted to certain traders
to a considerable amount of money. They had nothing to pay it
with. This was while Georgia was a British colony. These In
dians agreed to cede to the Crown of Great Britain a certain
amount of land — two millions and a half of acres, or thereabouts
— in consideration of which Great Britain was to take the lands
and discharge their debts to these traders. The treaty was made
in 1713. On the 2d of May, 1775, a certificate was made out by
commissioners appointed according to the treaty, to George
Galphin for £9,791 15s. 5d. The war of the Revolution broke
out in 1116. The land was not sold to Great Britain, nor the
debt or any part of it paid ; and in 1777 Georgia took possession
of the lands. She gave them as bounty to the soldiers who
would go and occupy them. She used them in our national de
fense in the war of the Revolution ; and George Galphin, in that
day, did your country and the infant colony of Georgia most es-

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO PREVENT FKAUDS, ETC. 387

sential service in preventing the Indians from making inroads
upon the defenceless inhabitants of that unprotected frontier.

I speak from history and the records of the country — Galphin
was true to the cause of his country and her struggle for inde
pendence. And I state here, that the only section of our State
which was not at some period of the w.ar taken by the British,
was where settlements were made on those lands, in the county of
Wilkes. There the British flag has never waved since the Decla-
tion of Independence. Nay, more ; a fort erected by these, set
tlers, bearing the name of Washington, on the site of the present
town of Washington — the name continued from that day to this
— was the first place, as I believe, on this whole continent, named
in honor of the Father of his country. This, I say, I believe. I
do not state this as a historic fact ; for there may have been some
place so called at an earlier date ; I think not, however ; and
until the contrary be shown, I shall claim this honor for my
State, and the people of the county of my birth.

But to proceed with my narrative. The State of Georgia, in
1180, passed an act binding and obligating herself to pay to any
of those Indian claimants who were true to the country, the
whole amount awarded to them by the commissioners under the
treaty, and for which the lands were bound in equity and good
faith, with interest at six per cent. George Galphin was one of
them. By her act she assumed this debt of Galphin for £9,791
15s. 5d, with interest at six per cent, per annum. Did not this
solemn act create a just debt ? But Galphin died in It 80, very
soon after the act passed.

George Walton, a signer of the Declaration of Independence,
from the State of Georgia, testified himself, in 1800, that he
knew George Galphin; that he ''enjoyed his friendship in his
lifetime ;" that he was a patriot, and had rendered essential ser
vices to the country. Mr. Walton further stated that he was on
the committee in the Georgia Legislature that framed the law of
1180, providing for the payment of these claims; that he was
chairman of that committee ; that he drew the act, and well re
collected "its motives, its sincerity, and its intention of justice,"
and that it was an honest debt, due to that " venerable man."
Did George Walton want to " swindle" anybody ? Did George
Walton plot fraud against your Treasury? — George Walton the
man who risked his life for the liberties you enjoy ? Was he
sneaking about to get his arm into the Treasury ? Sir, he was
made of sterner stuff, and you may howl against the Galphins as
long as you please, but while I stand upon the testimony of the
man who stood by this country in its darkest hour, I shall feel no
dishonor in defending the rights of that man whose friendship he
enjoyed while living.

I say there never was a juster claim against the State of
Georgia than this. She pledged to him the amount of his debt,
which wras £9,191 15s. 5d. in sterling money, and six per cent.

388 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO PREVENT FRAUDS, ETC.

interest. Well, the old man died a month or two after — the
venerable old man, as the patriot Walton called him. I saw
some time ago a toast given at a dinner, with this idea — that the
history of this administration would be written in the blood of
the Galphins. And who, sir, was Galphin ? He was one of the
most distinguished men living on the frontiers of your country, a
man who stood by the patriots who won your liberties and
achieved the independence of your country. I state further that
his daughter was married to John Milledge, of Georgia, a man
whose name the capital of our State still bears in the city of Mil-
ledgeville, and we do not feel dishonored by this perpetuation of
the name of a man who was thus connected and allied with
George Galphin ? And whoever wants the history of this admin
istration written in the blood of the Galphins, wants it written in
the blood of some of the purest and noblest men who periled their
all for the rights and liberties of their country.

Now, sir, this claim was presented to the legislature of the
State of Georgia, in 1793, by his son. The committee to whom it
was referred, reported in favor of it. And it was presented to
several legislatures after that up to 1826 ; but it was not paid,
though almost every committee to whom it was referred reported
in favor of it, as a just debt against Georgia. Do you ask why it
was not paid ? I will tell you, in my opinion, simply because
they did not have the money. For the same reason, I fear that
most of our States will fail to pay their debts when the question
shall be between refusal and very high taxation.

Well, why was it presented here? I will tell you. In 1790,
the general government passed what is known as the assumption
act. That is, the general government brought into a general
account the contributions of each State, either to the general
defence, or the particular defence of the common country, during
the common struggle of the war for our national independence.
At this time Galphin was dead, and Georgia had not paid this
£9,791 15s. 5d. She had pledged herself to pay for the lands she
had taken possession of and disposed of, but she had not paid the
debt, and did not bring it into the account on the settlement
under the assumption act of 1790. The settlement under the
assumption act was thought for a long time in Georgia to be a
final settlement, and that she could not go behind it. Well, in
1832, the State of Yirginia, came before Congress, and pre
sented claims to a large amount under these circumstances : She
stated that during the war of the revolution, she had by law
promised to pay to certain officers in her State line, raised for her
own particular defence, certain annuities for life, upon certain con
ditions set forth in an act of her general assembly. A number
of these officers insisted that they had complied with these condi
tions, and claimed their compensation according to contract.
She had resisted these claims for a long time, but finally her
courts, which were open against her, had decided in favor of the

SPEECH OX THE BILL TO PREVENT FRAUDS, ETC. 389

claimants, and judgments to a large amount were rendered against
her, and the State then came and asked Congress to re-open the
assumption act of 1T90, or at least to pay these claims, upon the
principles of that act ; because she said that her liability to these
officers was of the same nature as the advances for the particular
defence that she had made, and which had been brought into the
account under the assumption act of 1190. Congress, in 1832,
assumed the liability and paid it ; and in doing that, Congress
did right; because Virginia, in IT 90, did not know that she was
liable, or would be liable for those claims. You paid under that
act nearly a million of dollars, perhaps more.

Now, then, the representatives of Galphin came and asked the
general government to pay them £9,*Z91 15s. 5^., with interest at
BIX per cent. ; which was the liability or debt of Georgia, incurred
for the particular defence of that part of the common country not
included in the act of IT 90, just as they did 'the Virginia claims,
and identically upon the same principles of equity and justice and
right. In 1836, the Senate passed a resolution requesting the
President of the United States (General Jackson) to write to the
Governor of Georgia, to get all the information in his possession
upon the subject. In January, 183T, General Jackson so wrote ;
and Governor Schley, of Georgia — a political friend of General
Jackson — answered the inquiries soon after, and amongst other
things said, " that there is justly due to the heirs of George Gal
phin the sum of nine thousand seven hundred and ninety-one
pounds fifteen shillings and five pence sterling money of Great
.Britain," etc., etc. ; il and the only question now is, whether
Georgia or the United States ought to pay the money" The
claim, like many others, remained for several years ; but in August,
1848, Congress passed a law requiring the Secretary of the Treas
ury " to examine and adjust " it, and " to pay the amount which
may be found due to Milledge Galphin, executor of George Gal
phin, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appro
priated ;" and in pursuance of that law the principal and interest
of that debt was paid. That sir, is Galphinism ! — its height, its
length, its breadth, and depth. There it stands in all its naked
deformity. Look upon it, examine it, scrutinize it, and tell me
where is the " swindle," and who have been the " swindlers."
When the case was last presented to Congraes, whose hands was
it put into ? Into the hands of George McDuffie, of South Caro
lina. Who presented it ? George McDuffie ! Did he* want to
commit a fraud against your treasury ? Was he a swindler ? It
went before a committee, and who constituted that Committee ?
Messrs. Ashley, Breese, Berrien. Westcott and, Webster. They made
a report to the Senate, and spread it before the country in 1847.
The bill passed the Senate. There was no formidable opposition,
because the grounds upon which it was presented and sustained
were too clear, as I believe, to be avoided. Here was the act of
Georgia obliging her to pay that debt — as solemn a debt as ever

390 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO PREVENT FRAUDS, ETC.

was contracted. It was for particular defences, and was put
upon precisely the same grounds of assumption as the Yirginia
claims, and no one could escape the force of the reasons.

In 1848 it was before the same committee in the Senate. That
committee was composed of the same gentlemen who constituted
the former committee, with one or two exceptions — a committee
of able and practical men. They reported again in favor of it.
Were they the " Galphins " who perpetrated this monstrous fraud ?
The distinguished Senator from Michigan, [General Cass,] when
Secretary of War, said that there was no doubt but that the
claim was just, and the only question was, which should pay it,
Georgia or the United States. Was he one of the swindlers ?

Early in 1848, the bill came into this House,'and was laid upon
your table. The report was printed, and the case referred to a
committee of this House. I have before me the names of that
committee, and they are all honorable men, and unimpeachable.
One of the gentlemen upon that committee (Mr. Pettit) is nomi
nated by his party, I see, to be a Senator from the State of Indiana.
Was he a swindler ? Did he think it was a great fraud ? Was he
trying to cheat the public ? Is he one of those with whose blood it
is the desire of some to write the history of this Administration ?
Do you want to write the history of the Administration in the
blood of General Cass, of Mr. Forsyth, of Governor Schley, the
blood of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, and in the blood of
the distinguished individual to whom I have just alluded ? Are all
these men Galphins ? I believe the gentleman from Ohio said that
they, the " Galphins," were buried so deep, that the hand of resurrec
tion would never raise them up. But the Democracy in Indiana,
it seems, has imparted new life to one of them — has " galvanized "
him, at least, by sending him to the Senate.

I heard a gentleman inquire how this Galphin claim passed
through this House. I say it passed this House by the unani
mous vote of every man in it, when any one man's voice could
have prevented it. It stood upon its own merits. No speech was
made in its behalf. It had no advocate but the plain, short, strong
argument of the committee. Their printed report lay upon your
desk for six months. It was taken up and acted upon at a time
when no bill could pass, that did not receive the unanimous sup
port of every man ii* the House. Your Journal shows this fact.
It passed in August, 1848. Were all in this House then Gal
phins ? It was passed, and carried to Mr. Polk for his signature.
Did not he understand all about Galphin ? Was not Mr. Forsyth
a feed attorney, and did he not prosecute it while Secretary of
State under Jackson ? Did not Mr. Wise report then, that this
Galphin claim was about $150,000 ? Was not Mr. Polk, as Speaker
of this House at that time, conversant with all these facts ? It is to
be presumed that he was. At any event he signed the bill two
days after it passed. Is he, too, one of the famous family of the Gal
phins ? Mr. Walker, his Secretary of the Treasury, paid the prill-

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO PREVENT FRAUDS, ETC. 391

cipal, but did not pay the interest, because, as he stated in his
testimony, he did not have time to investigate that point. But,
he said — and mark it — that whatever Qalphin's debt was, this gov
ernment, by the act of 1848, had assumed it fully. The act of
Georgia of 1780, pledging to Galphin £9,791 15s. 5d., with interest
at six per cent, per annum, was not before him. But who can say,
with that act before him, he would not have paid the interest ac
cording to his testimony ? For he said, whatever the debt was
which was due to Galphin, the act of 1848 had assumed. And
who can say that £9,791 15s. 5^., with six per cent, interest, was
not due to Galphin by the act of Georgia of 1780 ? If any man
is bold enough to do so, let him do it. My time will not permit
me to discuss this subject at any greater length, and I trust the
House will pardon this digression.

What I have said I have stated for the House and the country.
The facts, as I have stated, are uncontroverted in the past, and
will remain incontrovertible for all time to come, and I defy their
controversion here or anywhere.

I am here to resist all party clamor that may be brought against
this claim. I suppose that many of these expressions, such as
" Galphins," by party heat, emanate from partisan feeling, and
without any distinct or definite idea of what are meant by them.
But I say that the character of every man should be defended by
those who love truth and justice. The character of the hum
blest, alike with the character of the highest, shall, at all times,
receive defence from me, when I can defend it. I care not if the
name of wrongful accusers is legion, I will face them all, if neces
sary. I do not care to join with the shouting multitude barely
because they are strong in numbers. I do not fancy the taste of
those who play upon expressions because they catch the popular
cant or whim of the day. It is an easy matter to pander to the
passions or prejudices of the uninformed.

Sir, this is the "facilis descensus Avemi," the downward road
of the demagogue. It is easy to travel it, and, to some, it seems
to be a pleasant jaunt ; but to vindicate the truth, to stand up for
the right against the majority, " Hie labor, hoc opus est." I shall
do it, or attempt to do it, sir, though I be ^minority of one.

' I have nothing to say, at this time, about the connection of the
then Secretary of War with it. Mr. Crawford was interested in
the claim, and was Secretary of War when the interest was paid —
that is all. I will, however, ask, when the offer was made to have
the justice and legality of the allowance referred to the Supreme
Court of the United States, who prevented it? The Senate
Journal will show.

Did they want to commit a fraud upon the Treasury ? Was
Mr. BUTLER, of South Carolina, Mr. ATCHISON, of Missouri, Mr.
TURNEY, of Tennessee, and a number more whom I need not name,
were they all Galphins ? But I am done with this ; and I am also

392 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO PKEVENT FRAUDS, ETC.

done with the matters alluded to in the report of the committee on
the Gardiner case.

I have shown that the committee fully acquitted Mr. Corwin of
the charge of being improperly connected with the claim, and that
this bill has really no connection with the duty assigned to them.

This bill, with amendments, I intend to vote for ; but I shall
not vote for it as it is, because, under its provisions, any member
might be put in the penitentiary for going down to the Pension
Office and filing the memorial of any of his constituents for a
bounty land warrant. With amendments which shall prevent
members of Congress from attending to such business " for fee
or reward," I shall vote for it. I am in favor of such a prohibi
tion in future, not because there has been any thing dishonorable,
disreputable, or corrupt, or " malum in se" in such acts, and not
because I think that Messrs. Dallas, Webster, Benton, and Stan-
ton, or Corwin, did any thing wrong in what I have stated, for I
do not, but because I think that we should establish a rule for the
future by which honorable men can act so as not to subject them
selves to unjust imputations. The bill thus amended would, if
even made retrospective, never touch any act of mine. But I
make, however, no boast of that. I have never looked upon such
acts in others as at all disreputable, much less as grounds of
charging corruption. I think it wise and proper that such a re
gulation should be made. And why? Because honest, unim
peachable men, such, in my opinion, as Webster, and Corwin, and
others acting in that capacity, may be a sort of cloak for those
wrho may be unscrupulous and corrupt.

Mr. STEVENS, of Pennsylvania. As the gentleman intends to vote
for the bill, which it is almost treason to say is an impeachment
upon the whole House, I would inquire whether he intends to
extend its provisions to prevent members from advocating cases
before the Supreme Court of the United States ; and if he does
not, why does he make the distinction ?

Mr. STEPHENS. I shall vote for that, but I do not know whether
it will be incorporated with the bill or not. I will state candidly
to the gentleman, as I did in a conversation on this matter with a
distinguished gentlerMin yesterday, who said that he thought it
proper not to extend the prohibition to the Supreme Court, that
I think the prohibition should extend to members of Congress
practicing in that court, as well as before boards of commission
ers — and why? The impeaching power is with the House of
Representatives, and the trying power with the Senate ; and I
ask what kind of influence would be more powerful than Con
gressional influence upon a judge who felt guilty, and knew that
an impeachment was to be made ? Would he not favor a distin
guished member of Congress who was counsel in a case before
him for trial, quite as much as a member of a board of commis
sioners ? I will, if possible, vote for the extension of the pro
visions of this bill to the Supreme Court. If I cannot get that, I

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO PREVENT FRAUDS, ETC. 893

shall vote for the bill in the best shape I can get it. I am for
establishing a rule by which every one can regulate his conduct,
and then right and wrong will not be left to the capricious judg
ment of -friend or foe. Let it be written in the law, and then all
can equally stand or fall by the law, and not the uncertain stand
ard of men's opinions.

[In the progress of the debate Mr. STEPHENS having repeated
his belief* from the disclosures, that the Gardiner claim was
wholly unfounded, but that the matter was undergoing judicial
investigation before the proper courts, Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee,
inquired of him if the proof of its being a fabrication was not so
conclusive as to cause the President to institute suits for the
recovery of the money, and prosecutions for forgery and perjury,
etc. ; and whether Mr. STEPHENS would say that Mr. Corwin, if
these cases should be decided against Gardiner, would repay what
he had received from the treasury of the United States.]

Mr. STEPHENS. I will answer the gentleman. I admit that the
President has done what he said, and it is a fact that he did it long
before this clamor in the House was raised. The President had
this man arrested under a suspicion that reached him, I think,
long before the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. OLDS] moved in the
matter. The President upon suspicion did it, and he did right ;
and this committee, of which the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
JOHNSON] is a member, knows and reports that the President has
been vigilant — and the papers in the report show that Mr. Cor
win too has been active and vigilant in getting at the truth of the
matter. I grant these facts, and I state them because the case is
now pending, and is yet to be tried. The President has been
vigilant, Mr. Corwin has been vigilant, and am I to be asked what
he will do in anticipation of that judgment ?

Mr. Gardiner, it is true, was put in prison. He has given bail ;
he has found sureties ; he says that he will vindicate his character.
Is Mr. Corwin, or any one else, to prejudge him ? I never believed
much in those Mexican claims when we went to war to get them ;
when we were told there were six or seven millions of them, that
we ought to go to war to make Mexico pay them. I thought
then that they were most of them nothing but batches of fraud.
But I will do justice even to a Mexican claimant. I will not pre
judge his case. Let him come into court. I, as a grand juror,
say that I believe the suspicion is a strong one that his claim is a
fraud. But he shall or should have his day in court before he is
condemned. He claims the opportunity of vindicating himself,
according to the laws of the country, and according to the treaty,
and he should have it. My opinion is, that he will not do it.
Mr. Corwin's opinion is, doubtless, that he will not do it. The
President is of the opinion, I imagine, that he will not do it ;
and hence they institute these proceedings against him. But I
will not crush even a worm ; bad even as I believe Gardiner to be, I
will not prejudge him, nor denounce Mr. Corwin in anticipation

394 SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.

of his act, depending upon a future judgment in court. Now, the
gentleman says, suppose Gardiner shall be found guilty by this
court, would I defend Mr. Corwin for holding this money ? I
do not consider that the evidence discloses that Corwin has
received one dollar of this money from the treasury of the United
States. The testimony is, that he did buy what he thought was
a good title, and sold it without warranty, with a quit-claim.
That is a matter between him and his assignee. Mr. Law, or
some one under him, it seems, got Mr. Corwin's interest in it.

But my opinion is, that when the case in court is proven to be
fraudulent, if it shall be so proven, that the same vigilance which
arrested Gardiner ought to pursue every man who holds a
portion of it ; the one fourth stands on the same footing as
the other three fourths. I have no reason to doubt that Mr.
Corwin would be just as vigilant, and the President would be
just as vigilant, in ferreting out the one as the other. I do
not care in whose pocket it is to be found. How Mr. Corwin
will act toward his assignee I do not know. Whether he will
feel under obligation to make good what he sold without war
ranty or condition, I do not know. And it will be time enough
to moot the propriety of his conduct in this matter after the case
shall be found by the court to be fraudulent, if that shall ever be,
and after George Law, or his assignees, who got the money, shall
fail to respond.

SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES,

FEBRUARY IT, 1854.

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

I WAS very anxious day before yesterday, Mr. Chairman, when
the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. MEACHAM,] and the gentle
man from New York, upon my left, [Mr. FENTON,] addressed the
House upon the subject of the Nebraska bill, to make some re
marks upon the same subject in reply to them. I desired to do
so at the time, but the opportunity was not afforded me. And
though I have lost some of the ardor of feeling which the occa
sion then excited, yet I think it important that these positions
should be answered, and it is for that purpose that I rise to
address the committee to-day. I assure /ou I shall be as brief
as possible.

The gentleman from Vermont, [Mr. MEACHAM,] if I under
stood the train of his argument, opposed the Nebraska bill, as
presented to the House, mainly upon the ground that it declares
the eighth section of the act of 1820, preparatory to the admis-

SPEECH OX NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 395

sion of Missouri into the Union as a State, inoperative, because
it is inconsistent with the principles of the acts of 1850, known
as the compromise of that year. This eighth section of the act
of 1820 is that clause which, without any relation to the State of
Missouri, prohibits slavery forever from all that part of the
territor}^ acquired by the Louisiana cession outside of Missouri
north of 36° 30' north latitude. The argument of the gentleman
consisted of the following series of assumptions :

First, that that restriction or prohibition was in the nature of
a compact, or contract, as he called it.

Secondly, that it had been continuously adhered to from that
time to this.

Thirdly, that the measure now proposed would be a violation
of that compact.

Fourthly, that this breach of good faith would be attended
with disastrous consequences to the peace, quiet, and repose of
the country.

This, sir, was the outline of his argument. ISTow I propose to
take up these positions, and show to the House, if not to the
gentleman himself, that in every particle they are untenable.

In the first place, I state that that eighth clause of the act
preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, restrict
ing slavery north of 36° 30', never was a compact. It never had
any of the requisites or characteristics of a compact. A compact
between whom ? Between the North and South ?

Mr. MEACHAM. I used the word "contract," not "compact."

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman from Vermont used the word
"contract," as I said, but others have used the word "compact,"
and, in this connection, they both mean about the same thing.
But what I was about to affirm is, that that " great Missouri com
promise" which Mr. Clay proposed, and with which his fame is
identified, had nothing to do with this restrictive clause of the
act of 1820. That compromise [Mr. CLAY'S] was in the nature
of a "compact." It was a "compact" between the general
government and the State of Missouri. I am aware that the
general opinion on this subject is very erroneous. This Mr.
Clay fully explained in 1850. The common idea is, that Mr.
Clay was the author of the prohibition of slavery north of 36°
30r. But such is not the fact. He did not even vote for it.
That proposition came from a gentleman from Illinois. The
compromise that Mr. Clay offered was afterwards. Its history is
this: The people of Missouri, under the act of 6th March, 1820,
went on and formed a State constitution, which contained a
clause authorizing the legislature to pass a law to prevent the
immigration of free negroes ; and when application was made for
admission as a State into the Union, Congress refused 'the ad
mission, unless that clause should be expunged. It was then
that Mr. Clay brought forward his measure. Here it is :

396 SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.

Resolution providing for the admission of Missouri into the Union on a
certain condition.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Umted
States of America in Congress assembled, That Missouri shall be admitted
into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects
whatever, upon the fundamental condition that the fourth clause of the
twenty-sixth section of the third article of the constitution, submitted on
the part of the said State to Congress, shall never be construed to author
ize the passage of any law, and that no law shall be passed in conformity
thereto, by which any citizen of either of the States in this Union shall
be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and immunities
to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of the United
States : Provided, That the Legislature of the said State, by solemn
public act, shall declare the assent of the said State to the said funda
mental condition, arid transmit to the President of the United States, on
or before the fourth Monday in November next, an authentic copy of the
said act ; upon the receipt whereof the President, by proclamation, shall
announce the fact ; whereupon, and without any further proceeding on
the part of Congress, the admission of the said State into this Union
shall be considered as complete.

JOHN W. TAYLOR,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JOHN GAILLARD,

President of the Senate, pro tempore.
Approved, March 2 1821.

JAMES MONROE.

This proposition, when submitted to the people of Missouri,
and acceded to by them, as it was, may very properly be called
a " compact." For there were parties to it — the general govern
ment on one side, and the people of Missouri on the other — both
agreeing to it. But not so with the eighth section of the act
referred to — there were no such parties to it — that was nothing
but a law, with no greater sanction than any other statute that
may give place to subsequent legislation. There was no com
pact about it. Missouri never gave her sanction to it. She
could not have been any party to it. She had no right to the
territory outside of her limits. She had no power or authority to
make any compact concerning it.

But the gentleman argued as if he considered this eighth
section of the act of 1820, fixing the line of 36° 80', north of which
slavery should be forever excluded, and which is commonly
called the "Missouri compromise line," as a contract between the
North and South, as the parties. How, then, stand the facts
upon this point of view ? How did this eighth section get into the
bill of 1820 ? It was in this way — the North insisted upon a
restriction against the admission of Missouri as a State, which
required her to abolish slavery within her limits, as a condition
precedent to her admission — the House passed a bill with such
restriction — to which the South were in mass opposed. In the
Senate, on motion by Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, that clause con-

SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 397

taining a restriction on the State was stricken out, and this eighth
section inserted in lieu of it. The South in mass were opposed
to the State restriction, as I have said ; but many of her members
— a majority of two, I believe — voted for the substitute as the
lesser evil of the two. In this way the substitute was carried as
an amendment to the bill. This amendment was agreed to in the
House by a vote of 134 to 42. Among these 42 noes are to be
found the names of several of the most prominent men of the
South. In this way this line of 36° 30' was incorporated in the
bill of 1820, preparatory to the admission of Missouri as a State.
And to this extent, and no other, can it be called a compromise,
a contract, or compact. It was literally forced upon the South
as a disagreeable alternative, by superior numbers, and in this
way went upon your statute book as any other law passed by a
majority of votes. So much, then, sir, for this " compact," or
contract. Now let us see, in the second place, how it has been
fulfilled or adhered to from that day to this.

The gentleman says it has been acquiesced in and conformed
to for thirty'years ; and he asks, with much solemnity, if we are
now about to violate and abrogate it ? I have shown, sir, that
the South was in no sense a party to this Congressional restric
tion north of 36° 30', except as -a vanquished party, being out
voted on the direct question ; protesting against it with all her
might and power. Yet, sir, notwithstanding this, and notwith
standing a large majority of her people from that day to this, as
I think I ma}7" safely affirm, have held that clause of the Missouri
act to be unconstitutional, as it was based upon the principle of
a division of the common territory between the free States and
slave States of the Union, for the sake of peace and harmony,
the South did patriotically yield, and was willing for all time to
come to abide by it. I say was, because of this " Missouri com
promise," and the principles upon which it was founded, it may
now be said " Illium fuit."

The issue I make with the gentleman upon this branch of his
speech is, that this agreement or contract, as he argued it, between
the North and the South as to the line of division between slave
territory and free territory, has not remained undisturbed
and inviolate for thirty years, as he affirms. It has been shame
lessly disregarded by Congress repeatedly, and in principle was
entirely superseded, as I shall show, by the principles established
by your legislation in 1850.

But as much as the arrangement was originally obnoxious to
the South, the charge of violation of it cannot justly be made
against her. No, sir ; no, sir ; it was the North that refused to
abide by her own bargain. This I affirm. Now let us see how
the record stands upon the subject. The first time that this
question came up afterward, was within twelve months from the
date of the act itself and before the same Congress. It came up
on the application of Missouri for admission, in pursuance of

398 SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.

the provisions of the very act that contains the " covenant." She
had formed a State constitution in pursuance of it ; she had violated
none of its conditions. The whole South were for letting her be ad
mitted, and the entire North nearly, were against it. Here is the
vote rejecting her admission — the vote was 79 for it, and 93 against
it — the North in mass, almost, against it. Why was this refusal ?
If they recognized the provisions of the act of March preceding as
containing any section binding upon them in the nature of a " con
tract," or " compact," why did they refuse to fulfil it? The
pretext assigned was, that the constitution of Missouri contained
a clause empowering the legislature to pass a law to prevent the
introduction' of free persons of color, as I have stated. But this
could have been nothing but a pretext, for at that very day Mas
sachusetts had a similar law in actual force upon her statute
book. The truth is, the North at that early day showed that she
did not regard the provisions of the act of 1820 as at all obliga
tory upon them as any thing like a compact. The real objection
to the final admission of Missouri as a State was, that slavery
was tolerated within her limits by her constitution'. It was the
old question, which gave trouble before this " contract" of 1820
was made. It was then that Mr. Clay's compromise was
adopted. Twelve months, therefore, had not passed before the
North repudiated this compact by refusing Missouri admission
without another compromise.

Well, the next time this question arose was on the admission
of Arkansas into the Union in 1836. This State was formed out
of a part of the Louisiana purchase south of 36° 30'. By the
terms of the Missouri " contract," the gentleman from Yermont
admits that she was to come in as a slave State. Did the North
then so recognize and act upon these terms ? The gentleman
from New York [Mr. FENTON] said that this division line had
been approved by the North for thirty years. If so, I ask him
when or where? Did they raise no objection when Arkansas
applied for admission ? Let us see ; here is the record.

Mr. John Quincy Adams, in this House, June 13, 1836, moved
an amendment so as to make a section of the bill for the admis
sion of that State read thus : • ^ ,

11 And nothing in this act contained shall be construed as an assent by
Congress to the article in the constitution of the said State relating to
slavery and to the emancipation of slaves," etc.

" Still harping on my daughter."

On a vote, the effect of which was to allow this amendment,
there were eighty in favor of affording the opportunity.
There were one hundred and nine on the opposite side, which
prevented its being offered. Of these eighty votes, some were
from the South. The object may have been to get a vote upon
this distinct question of the recognition by the House of the line
established in 1820. But after the amendment was ruled out on

SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 399

the direct vote for the admission of Arkansas with a constitution
tolerating slavery, though she was south of 36° 30 ', there are
fifty-two names under the lead of Mr. Adams, in the negative —
every one of them, I believe, from the North — I have the journal
before me. And amongst these names I see Heman Allen,
Horace Everett, Hiland Hall, Henry F. Jones, and William
Slade. The entire delegation from Vermont, and the gentleman's
[Mr. MEACHAM'S] own predecessor upon this floor, or he who
then represented a portion of the same constituency that that
gentleman now does, recorded his vote against the admission of
Arkansas. Did he or his colleagues have any other objection to it
except that it was a slave State ? If they regarded the line of
36° 30' as- a solemn covenant between the North and South, why
did they not give it their sanction at that time ?
The gentleman spoke of ''honor" —

" I thank thee, Jew, for teaching me that word."

Where was the "honor" of the representatives of Vermont on
that occasion ? In whose keeping was it placed ? I suppose in
the hands of their constituents, of whom the gentleman was one.
The representatives from the gentleman's own State did then
unanimously — most dishonorably, if he chooses so to characterize
their conduct — repudiate that " contract" which the South never
offered to disturb, until it was totally ' abandoned by an over
whelming majority at the North, as I shall presently show. I
have shown that it was, disregarded within twelve months after it
was made, and refused to be sanctioned by the representatives of
the gentleman's own State in 1836, the first time it came up
again.

I will now go on, and show the gentleman and the House,
when it came up again, and when finally it was utterly repudi
ated by the almost entire North —

Mr. MEACHAM (interrupting). I would inquire of the gentle
man if the senators from Yermont did not vote for it ?

Mr. STEPHENS. For what ?

Mr. MEACHAM. For the admission of Missouri.

Mr. STEPHENS. I am not speaking of the Senate, but of the
House, I have none but the House records before me. I am
dealing with members . in this body, or those who preceded us
here. If the gentleman desires, he can answer for his predeces
sors from the State of Yermont on this floor.

The next time any thing was said in our legislation about the-
" Missouri line of 36° 30'," was on the annexation of Texas.
That measure was carried with that line in it, but not by
northern votes. It was the South, still willing to abide it, that
carried it then. There were one hundred and twenty-five
northern votes given on that occasion. Of these, only fifty-one
were for the annexation with this line established in it ; while
there were seventy-four — a large majority — who refused to give

400 SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.

it their sanction. I do not mean to say that all who voted
against that measure were opposed to that line of settlement.
Many of them had other reasons. And I know full well, for I
was here, that of those fifty-one northern men who voted for it,
many of them would not have voted for the recognition of that
line if the question had come up by itself. But those resolutions
of annexation were so presented that they had to be taken as a
whole, or not at all. I allude to this vote, merely because it was
the next time in order when the question came up, and the vote
certainly fails to show that the North, or even a majority of them,
gave it their sanction. For that reason only I allude to it.

I come down now to another step of our progress — to the
period from the year 1847 to 1850. The gentleman from Yermont
[Mr. MEACHAM] had a map for illustration, which he exhibited to
us. He pointed out to us the boundary of the Louisiana purchase.
It commenced at the mouth of the Sabine, ran up that river to
the 32° of north latitude ; thence due north to the Red river ;
thence up that river to the 100° of west longitude from Green
wich ; thence due north to the Arkansas river, and up that river
to the 42° of north latitude, and thence due west to the South
seas or the Pacific ocean. By this map, and his demonstrations
from it, it appears that we had a title ceded to us from France to
territory extending to the Pacific ocean. "Well, that of course
included Oregon — that is, according to the gentleman's map, we
derived title to Oregon under the cession from France in 1803,
and that territory was part of the Louisiana purchase. Mr.
Jefferson so considered it, and sent Lewis and Clarke to explore
the country.

Well, then, how did the South act toward this " solemn com
pact," as it is now called — the line of 36° 30' — when we came to
organize a territorial government for Oregon in 1847 ? The
southern boundary was the 42° of north latitude, and of course
the whole of it lay north of 36° 30'. At this time (in 1847) we
were in a war with Mexico, and it was well understood to be the
policy of the administration to acquire territory from that govern
ment, which, in all probability, would, to some extent, be south
of the line 36° 30'. From the votes of the House, upon what was
well known as the " Wilmot proviso," the South had just reasons
to apprehend that it was the fixed determination of a majority of
the North to disregard entirely what is now called the " sacred
covenant of 1820." When, therefore, the bill to organize a
territorial government for Oregon came up in this House on the
15th of January, 1847, Mr. Burt, of South Carolina, to take the
sense of the North directly upon the question of abiding by this
line of 36° 30', moved, as an amendment to that clause in the bill
which excluded slavery forever from the territory, these words :

— " inasmuch as the whole of said territory lies north of 36° 30' north
latitude, known as the line of the Missouri compromise."

SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 401

The object of this amendment was to put a direct test to the
North whether they intended to recognize the principle upon
which the controversy on the subject of slavery in the territories
was disposed of in 1820 or not. Sir, the North understood the
question fully and clearly, and they met it promptly — their
response was, that they did not. Here is the vote upon this
question : there were in this House then 82 votes for Mr. Burt's
amendment, and 113 against it! Of these noes, every man was
from the North. Every southern man in the House voted for it.
And of the 82 who voted to adhere to the principle of that
adjustment, not as something too sacred to be touched, but for
the sake of peace and quiet, there were, I believe, but six from the
whole North — they were Douglas and Robert Smith, from Illinois ;
Cunningham and Parish, from Ohio; Charles J. Ingersoll, of
Pennsylvania, and Hastings, of Iowa. Every man from Vermont
and New York voted against it.

In the face of this record the gentleman from Vermont, [Mr.
MEACHAM,] and the gentleman from New York, [Mr. FENTON,] in
their places upon this floor, two days ago, declared that this
" Missouri compromise" had met the approval of the North foi
thirty years. The South, in this instance, proposed it unani
mously as a " peace offering," and it was almost as unanimously
rejected by the North. " Honor," I think, the gentleman said.
They rejected it over territory to which we derived title by the
very cession alluded to in the act of 1820. And so thoroughly
opposed were they to giving it their approval, and so bent upon
its total abrogation, that they refused to affirm the principle when
they got all by the affirmation. " Honor!" indeed ! But sir, to
proceed. This bill was defeated in the Senate, I believe. It did
not become a law. The question came up again in 1848. Another
bill was brought forward to establish a territorial government for
Oregon. The Senate put in the following amendment :

" That the line of 36° 30' of north latitude, known as the Missouri com
promise line, as defined by the eighth section of an act entitled ' An act
to authorize the people of the 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 6, 1820, be, and the same is hereby,
declared to extend to the Pacific ocean ; and the said eighth section, to
gether with the compromise therein effected, is hereby revived, and
declared to be in full force and binding for the future organization of the
territories of the United States, in the same sense and with the same
understanding with which it was originally adopted."

It came up for action in this House on the llth of August,
1848. On the question to concur with the Senate in this amend
ment, the yeas were 82, and the nays 121. I have the vote before
me. This was a proposition to revive and declare in force a
provision which is now claimed to have been held all the time as
a sacred compact — almost as sacred as the constitution itself; and
26

402 SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.

it was rejected by an overwhelming majority in this House — re
jected, sir, by the North. The South was again unanimous for
it. From the North at this time, I think, there were but four
votes for it — Birdsall, from New York ; Charles Brown, Charles
J. Ingersoll, and Brodhead, from Pennsylvania. Here is the
Journal. This proposition in the Senate was moved by Mr.
Douglas. It received every southern vote in that body, and was
opposed by every northern vote, except Douglas, Dickinson,
Bright, Cameron, Hannegan, Sturgeon, and Fitzgerald. The
vote on the adoption of it in that body was 33 to 21. Mr. Cal-
houn, who was well known to be opposed to the principle on which
it was founded, gave it his support.

But upon the rejection of this amendment by the House, and a
disagreement between the two Houses upon it, the amendment
was lost, and the Oregon bill passed, and received the sanction
of the President without this recognition of the Missouri com
promise, but in the face of its open repudiation and abrogation
by the North. This, sir, is the truth of history, and so let it be
written. And with what sort of face can gentlemen, with these
facts before them, rise up here and say that this compromise has
been undisturbed and acquiesced in for thirty years ? But, sir,
there is still another chapter in this history.

At the close of the war with Mexico extensive territories, as
was expected, were acquired — territories extending south as well
as north of the line of 36° 30' — constituting a public domain of
hundreds of thousands of square miles, purchased by the common
blood and common treasure of the people of the South as well as
the North. The policy of the advocates of the " Wilmot proviso,"
from the beginning, had been to appropriate the whole of this
immense region exclusively to the North. Hence their uniform
hostility to the Missouri compromise, because that was founded
upon the principle of division. Their determination was to have
all. The South was still willing to divide, notwithstanding the
policy which she ever advocated was to leave all the territories
open for the occupancy and colonization of the .people of the
whole country, from whatever section they might emigrate, with
the liberty of forming such institutions, upon a republican basis,
as they might deem most conducive to their happiness, interest,
and prosperity, without any congressional restriction or dictation
whatever. This was always the doctrine maintained at the South.
She was willing to divide, only as an alternative between that and
a greater evil. To an entire exclusion, by act of Congress, she
had made up her mind never to submit, let consequences be what
they might. This was the state of things upon the assembling
of the Thirty-first Congress. The events of that Congress are
too recent and vivid upon the recollection of all to need a
rehearsal. > The majority of the North still proclaimed their
determination to -appropriate the whole of the public domain to
themselves. Both sections stood in hostile array against each

SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 403

other. The strife became so embittered and fierce that legisla
tion was paralyzed, and every thing seemed to threaten confusion
and anarchy . The South again repeatedly proposed a settlement
upon the Missouri line. The proposition was made in this
House, on the part of the South, for the last time, on the 13th
day of June, 1850. It was in these words:

" Provided, however, That it shall be no objection to the admission
into the Union of any State which may hereafter be formed out of the
territory lying south of the parallel of latitude of 86° 30', that the
constitution of said State may authorize or establish African slavery
therein."

This proposition was rejected in committee of the whole upon
a count by tellers — ayes 78, noes 89. It was the last time, sir, it
was ever offered. When the North had again, .and again, and
again, for three years, refused to abide by it, the South, driven to
the wall upon it, was thrown back upon her original rights under
the constitution. Her next position was, that territorial restric
tion by Congress should be totally abandoned, not only south of
36° 30r, but north of that line too ! Upon this ground she
planted herself on the 15th day of June — the debates in this
House on that day were more exciting, perhaps, than ever upon
any day since the beginning of the government. It was upon
that day I put the question directly to a distinguished gentleman
then here from Ohio, [Mr. VINTON,] whether he would vote for
the admission of any slave State into the Union, and he refused
to say that he would. The determination, as manifested by the
votes of the majority of the North, was to apply legislative re
striction over the whole of the common territory, in open and
shameless disregard of the principles of the so-called Missouri
compromise, notwithstanding the gentleman from Vermont says
that it has been adhered to and held inviolate for thirty years.
It was on that day, sir, that a aistinguished colleague of mine,
[Mr. TOOMBS,] then on this floor, now in the other wing of the
Capitol, made that speech which has become somewhat famous in
our State, in which he said, with eloquence seldom heard within
these walls :

" We do not oppose California on account of the anti-slavery clause in
her constitution. It was her right, and I am not even prepared to say
that she acted unwisely in its exercise — that is her business ; but I stand
upon the great principle that the South has a right to an equal participa
tion in the territories of the United States."

-£**######

" Deprive us of this right and appropriate this common property to
yourselves — it .is then your government, not mine. Then I am its enemy ;
and I will then, if I can, bring niy children and my constituents to the
altar of liberty, and, like Hamilcar, I would swear them to eternal hostility
to your foul domination. Give us our just rights, and we are ready, as
ever heretofore, to stand by the Union, every part of it, and its every in*
terest ; refuse it, and, for one, I will strike for independence."

404 SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.

It was then, when the North had refueed all compromise, and
went into the contest for " the whole or none," that the South
took up the gauge, planted herself upon her original ground,
armed, as she conceived, in the panoply of truth ; and her repre
sentatives boldly meeting those arrayed, not only against her
rights, but a great principle of free government, face to face, said :

" Lay on, Macduff ;
And damn'd be he that first cries, Hold, enough !"

The grounds she then took were, that there should be no settle
ment of this territorial controversy, but upon the recognition of
her original principles, which were, that all congressional restric
tions upon this subject were wrong, and should be totally aban
doned. This was the basis of her ultimatum, as then proclaimed.
It was offered in this House on the 15th day of June, 1850. No
decision was had on it. It was offered two days after in the
Senate to the then pending compromise bill in the Senate. This
proposition was in these words :

'•And1 when the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be ad
mitted as a State, it shall be received into the Union with or without
slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of admission."

The whole question of slavery or no slavery was to be left to
the determination of the people of the territories, whether north
or south of 36° 30r, or any other line. The question was to be
taken out of Congress, where it had been improperly thrust from
the beginning, and to be left to the people concerned in the matter
to decide for themselves. This, I say, was the position originally
held by the South, when the Missouri restriction was at first pro
posed. The principle upon which that position rests lies at the
very foundation of all our republican institutions ; it is that the
citizens of every distinct and separate community or State should
have the right to govern themselves in their domestic matters as
they please, and that they should be free from intermeddling
restrictions and arbitrary dictation on such matters, from any
other power or government in which they have no voice. It was
out of a violation of this very principle, to a great extent, that
the war of the Revolution sprung. The South was always on the
republican side of this question, while the North — no ; or, at
least, I will not say the entire North, for there have always been
some of them with the South on this question ; but I will say,
while a majority of the North, under the free-soil lead of that
section, up to the settlement of the contest in 1850 — were on the
opposite side.

The doctrine of the restrictionists or free-soilers, or those who
hold that Congress ought to impose their arbitrary mandates
upon the people of the territories in this particular, whether the
people be willing or unwilling, is the doctrine of Lord North and
his adherents in the British Parliament toward the colonies
during his administration. He and they claimed the right to

SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 405

govern the colonies "in all cases whatsoever," notwithstanding
the want of representation on their part. The doctrine of the
South upon this question has been, and is, the doctrine of the
whigs in 1775 and 1776. It involves the principle that the citi
zens of every community should have a voice in their government.
This was the doctrine of the people of Boston in 1775, when the
response was made throughout the colonies. " The cause of Boston
is the cause of us all." And if there be any here now who call
themselves whigs arrayed against this great principle of republi
can government, I will do toward them as Burke did in England ;
I will appeal from "the new to the old whigs."

I say nothing of the constitutional view of the question. When
1 have been asked if Congress does not possess the power to im
pose restrictions or to pass the "Wilmot proviso,"! have waived
that issue ; I never discuss it. On that point I have told my
constituents, and I tell you, I treat it as Chatham treated it in
the • British Parliament, when the question of power to tax the
colonies without representation was raised there. That question
Chatham would not discuss ; but he told those who were so
unjustly exercising it, that if he were an American he would re
sist it. The question of power is not the question ; the question
is, is it right thus to exercise it ? Is it consistent with represen
tative republican government to do it ? That is the question.
Where do you new latter-day whigs from the North stand on
this question ? Will you take the side of Lord North and the
British tories, and maintain that it is the duty of this great
government, with its superior wisdom, to legislate for the freemen
of this country, as free-born as j^ourselves, who quit your State
jurisdictions and seek new homes in the West?

And where do you, calling yourselves democrats from the
North, stand upon this great question of popular rights ? Do
you consider it democratic to exercise the high prerogative of
stifling the voice of the adventurous pioneer and restricting his
suffrage in a matter concerning his own interest, happiness, and
government, which he is much more capable of deciding than you
are ? As for myself and the friends of the Nebraska bill, we
think that our fellow-citizens who go to the frontier, penetrate the
wilderness, cut down the forests, till the soil, erect school-houses
and churches, extend civilization, and lay the foundation of future
States and empires, do not lose by their change of place, in hope
of bettering their condition, either their capacity for self-govern
ment or their just rights to exercise it, conformably to the con
stitution of the United States.

We of the South are willing that they should exercise it upon
the subject of the condition of the African race amongst them, as
well as upon other questions of domestic policy. If they see fit to
let them hold the same relation to the white race which they do in
the southern States, from the conviction that it is better for both
races that they should, let them do it. If they see fit to place them

406 SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.

on the same footing they occupy in the northern States, that is,
without the rights of a citizen or the protection of a master, out
casts from society, in worse condition than Cain, who, though
sent forth as a vagabond, yet had a mark upon him that no man
should hurt him — I say, if they choose to put this unfortunate race
on that footing, let them do it. That is a matter that we believe
the people there can determine for themselves better than we can
for them. We do not ask you to force southern institutions or
our form of civil polity upon them ; but to let the free emigrants
to our vast public domain, in every part and parcel of it, settle
this question for themselves, with all the experience, intelligence,
virtue, and patriotism they may carry with them. This, sir, is our
position. It is, as I have said, the original position of the South.
It is the position she was thrown back upon in June, 1850. It
rests upon that truly national and American principle set forth in
the amendment offered in the Senate on the 17th of June, which I
have stated ; and it was upon the adoption of this principle that
that most exciting and alarming controversy was adjusted. This
was the turning point ; upon it every thing depended, so far as
that compromise was concerned.

I well recollect the intensity of interest felt upon the fate of that
proposition in the Senate. Upon its rejection in the then state of
the public mind depended consequences which no human forecast
could see or estimate. The interest was enhanced from the great
uncertainty and doubt as to the result of the vote. Several north
ern senators, who had before yielded the question of positive
restriction — that is, the " Wilmot Proviso" — had given no indica
tion of how they would act upon this clear declaration that the
people of the territories might, in the formation of their State con
stitutions, determine this question for themselves. Among these
was . Mr. Webster. Just before the question was put, and while
anxiety was producing its most torturing effects, this most re
nowned statesman from New England arose to address the Senate.
An immense crowd was in attendance. The lobby, as well as the
galleries, were full. All eyes were instantly turned toward him,
and all ears eager to catch every word that should fall from his
lips upon this, the most important question, perhaps, which had
ever been decided by an American Senate. His own vote, even,
might turn the scale. That speech I now have before me. In it
he declared himself for the amendment. His conclusion was in
these words :

" Sir, my object is peace — my object is reconciliation. My purpose is
not to make up a case for the North, or to make up a case for the South.
My object is not to continue useless and irritating controversies. I am
against agitators North and South; I am against local ideas North and
South, and against all narrow and local contests. I am an American, and
I know no locality in America. That is my country. My heart, my sen
timents, my judgment, demand of me that I should pursue such a course
as shall promote the good, and the harmony, and the union of the whole
country. This I shall do, God willing, to the end of the chapter."

SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 407

The reporter says :

[" The honorable Senator resumed his seat amidst the general applause
from the gallery."]

Yes, sir ; he did. I was there, and witnessed the scene ; and no
one, I fancy, who was there, can ever forget that scene. Every
heart beat easier. The friends of the measure felt that it was safe.
The vote was taken — the amendment was adopted. The result
was soon communicated from the galleries, and, finding its way
through every passage and outlet to the rotunda, was received
with exultation by the crowd there ; with quick steps it was borne
through the city; and in less than five minutes, perhaps, the
electric wires were trembling with the gladsome news to the re
motest parts of the country. It was news well calculated to make
a nation leap with joy, as it did, because it was the first step taken
toward the establishment of that great principle upon which this
territorial question was disposed of, adjusted, and settled in 1850.
It was a new step in our governmental history. From the begin
ning, nothing had been the cause or source of so much sectional
feeling and strife as this question of slavery in the territories — a
question so nearly allied in principle to the old controversy between
the colonies and the mother country.

With the colonies the question was not so much the amount of
taxation ; it was not the small duty on tea — that was far from
being oppressive — but it was the principle on which it was placed ;
it was the principle asserted and maintained in the "preamble,"
that our forefathers resisted by arms. And Mr. Webster well said,
on some occasion, that the American Revolution was " fought
against a preamble." That preamble asserted the right, or power,
of the home government to govern the colonies in all cases. It
was against that principle the war was commenced.

The cause of right in which the men of '76 engaged, was vindi
cated in the success of the revolution and the disruption of the
British empire. And, as a coincidence worthy to be noted, it so
happened that this kindred principle of the proper and just rights
of the people of our territories, or colonies, made its first step
toward ultimate success on the anniversary of the battle of Bunker
Hill. It was on the ever memorable 17th day of June. It was on
that day (1775) the blow was struck, by the colonists at Boston,
against the unwise, unjust, and arbitrary policy of Lord North,
And it was on the same day, just seventy-five years after, that the
unwise, unjust, and arbitrary policy, to say no more of it, of this
general government — attempting to compel the people of our ter
ritories to adopt such institutions as may please a majority of
Congress, without consulting the rights, interests, or wishes of
those immediately concerned — was, for the first time, abandoned
by the American Senate without a blow. It is fortunate for us,
and fortunate for millions that shall come after us, that it was
abandoned without a blow. Had the restrictionists of this country
beld out as Lord North's ministry did in their policy, it might

4:08 SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.

have ended in consequences most disastrous to our common well-
being, and the hopes of mankind. But they did not. The power
of truth prevailed. Patriotism trampled over faction. And as
soon as this great American principle — I so call it because it lies
at the foundation of all our republican institutions — was vindicated
in the Senate, the House did not again resume the subject. We
waited until the bills came from the Senate. The same provision
as that I have read was put in the New Mexico bill. That swept
away the restriction that had been put in the Texas annexation
resolutions over all that part of Texas lying north of 36° 30', in
cluded in the present territory of New Mexico. The House took
up these bills, after they were passed by the Senate with these
amendments, with this new principle incorporated in them, and
gave them their sanction.

This, sir, is what is called the compromise of 1850, so far as this
territorial question is cdncerned. It was adopted after the policy
of dividing territory between the two sections, North and South,
was wholly abandoned, discarded, and spurned by the North. It
was based upon the truly republican and national policy of taking
this disturbing element out of Congress, and leaving the whole
question of slavery in the territories to the people, there to settle
it for themselves. And it is in vindication of that new principle —
then established for the first time in the history of our govern
ment — in the year 1850, the middle of the nineteenth century —
that we, the friends of the Nebraska bill, whether from the North
or South, now call upon this House and the country to carry out
in good faith, and give effect to the spirit and intent of those im
portant measures of territorial legislation. The principle of those
territorial acts was utterly inconsistent with every thing like Con
gressional restriction. This is what we wish to declare And
this principle, carried out in good faith, necessarily renders all
antecedent legislation inconsistent with it inoperative and void.
This, also, we propose to declare.

The restriction imposed by the eighth section of the act of 1820
— thrown into that act out of place and without any legitimate
connection with ft, like a fifth wheel to a wagon — is just such an
tecedent legislation. The principle on which it was based has
been abandoned, totally abandoned, as I have shown, by those
who now contend for it, and superseded by another, a later, a bet
ter, and a much more national and republican one. We do not pro
pose to repeal " any compact," or to violate faith in any sense — we
only invoke you to stand upon the territorial principle established
by what is known as the compromise of 1850. That has alread}r
received the sanction of an overwhelming majority of the American
people, as I doubt not it always will receive when fairly presented.
I have seen it suggested, that if a proposition should be made to
extend the provisions of this bill to the guarantee to the South in
the Texas annexation resolutions for the admission of slave States
from Texas south of 36° 30', that such proposition would certainly

SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 409

defeat it. By no means, sir ; those who reason thus show nothing
so clearly as how little they understand the real merits of the
question.

That guarantee, secured in the Texas resolutions, so far as the
character of the institutions of such States, hereafter to be formed,
is concerned — that is, whether they be slave or free — is, itself,
in perfect accordance with the present provisions of this bill.
That guarantee was not that those new States should be slave
States, but that the people there might do as they please upon the
subject. The reason that the guarantee was important, at the
time, was, because the policy of Congressional restriction had not
then been abandoned. The South never asked any discrimination
in her favor from your hands. All that the South secured by
those resolutions, so far as the character of the States is concerned,
was, simply, that they should be admitted at a proper time, " either
with or without slavery," as the people may determine. As to the
number of States, that is a different question. So that if you
should repeal that so called guarantee for slave States, by extend
ing this, bill to that country, you would only erase to fill again,
with the same words. We ask no discrimination in our favor.
And all we ask of you men of the North is, that you make none in
your own. And, why should you ? Why should you even have
the desire to do it ? Why should you not be willing to remove
this question forever from Congress, and leave it to the people of
the territories, according to the compromise of 1850 ? You have
greatly the advantage of us in population. The white population
of the United States is now over twenty millions. Of this number,
the free States have more than two to one, compared with the
South. There are only a little over three millions of slaves.

If immigration into the territories, then, should be assumed to
go on in the ratio of population, we must suppose that there would
be near seven white persons to one slave at least ; and of these
seven, two from the free States to one from the South. This is
without taking into the estimation the immense foreign immigra
tion. With such an advantage are you afraid to trust this ques
tion with your own people ? — men reared under the influence of
your own boasted superior institutions ? With all the prejudices
of birth and education against us, are you afraid to let them judge
for themselves ? Are your "free-born " sons, who never "breathed
the tainted air of slavery," such nincompoops that they cannot be
" trusted out without their mothers' leave?" It must be so, or
else another inference is legitimate and clear ; and that is, that
notwithstanding all your denunciations of the " hated and accursed
institution," you have an inward consciousness that it is not so
bad after all, and that the only way you can keep wise, intelligent,
and Christian men, even from New England itself, from adopting
it, is to set yourselves up as self-constituted guardians and law
makers for them. I consider your policy and the tenacit}^ with
which you hold to it, as the fullest and amplest vindication of tha

410 SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.

institutions of the South against all your misrepresentations, abuse,
and billingsgate about them.

I think, sir, I have shown conclusively that the line of 36° 30',
known as the Missouri compromise line, never was a1" compact," in
any proper sense of that term. And even if it was that it has been
disregarded, broken, and trampled under foot by the parties who
have lately so signalized themselves as its champions and defenders.
I have shown, that while the South was opposed to the policy by
which it was adopted, and took it as a disagreeable alternative,
yet she never offered to disturb it, but was willing to abide by it
for the sake of peace and harmony. I have shown, also, that the
present measure is no " breach of faith," but that its object is to
carry out and give effect to the great territorial principle established
in 1850.

It remains for me now to say something upon the last part of
the speech of the gentleman from Vermont; and that is, the great
excitement that this measure is likely to produce. The country
was in peace and quiet, says the gentleman, until this bill was in
troduced. Well, sir, who raises any excitement now ? Whence
does the opposition come? And what are the reasons for it?
The North, it is said, is to be excited. And excited about what ?
Why, because Congress, when this bill passes, will have recognized
the territorial principle established in 1850, and declared all ante
cedent legislation over the territories of Kansas and Nebraska
inconsistent with that principle inoperative and void. And what
is the harm or mischief to be done ? Why, nothing, but extending
to the freeman of Kansas and Nebraska that privilege which ought
to be the birthright of- every American citizen — to have a voice in
forming the institutions, and passing the laws under which he is
to live. That is all. Who, then, is to be agitated at this mon
strous outrage ? Why, nobody but those who wish to impose an
unjust restriction upon a freeman's franchise ; nobody but those
who deny to a portion of their fellow-citizens a fitness or capacity
for republican government. Nobody but those who would main
tain the same policy on the part of the general government toward
the people of the territories which Lord North and his tory con
federates, on the part of England, held toward the colonies. That
there may be, and that there are, some such bodies, I do not doubt.
But who are they, and what is their force ? They are nothing but
the fragments of the old "Wilmot proviso," " Free-Soil," and
"Abolition Phalanx," attempting to rally their broken and routed
columns by this hypocritical cry about the sacredness of compacts.
Whoever expected to see the New York Tribune and the Evening
Post, and such newspapers, pouring forth their invocations in
behalf of the "sanctity of the Missouri compromise?" The men
who thus cry aloud now are the very same who denounced every
man at the North who voted to maintain that line, while the ques
tion was open, as a "dough face " and "traitor." They thought
then that they had the world in a swing, and would have every

SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.

thing their own way ; not satisfied to have " the Wilmot " fixed
upon all territory north of 36° 30', they determined to have it
fixed upon the whole of the public domain. With this spirit they
went into the contest. And so far from getting it fixed where it
was not, they came out of the contest with the establishment of a
principle, which took it off where it was fixed before. Like the
man that failed properly to use his talent, they had taken away
from them " even that which they had." They went a " wooling,"
and came back thoroughly " fleeced" themselves — hence their des
peration. That such men may rail, and rave, and rage, may be
expected. Let them rage on. Had they, and men of like opin
ions before them, never thrust their unjust and anti-republican
territorial policy in the halls of Congress, there never would
have been sectional strife within these walls. Whatever of party
conflicts we might have had growing out of questions of legislation
for so vast a country as ours is, with all its complicated and diver
sified interests, we should have been saved from this lamentable
quarrelling about State institutions, which threatened such fearful
consequences in 1850.

But, sir, we are told that discord once reigned in heaven. The
evil spirit of pride and ambition, craving powers and prerogatives
not proper or legitimate, entered the breasts of those admitted
even to the presence of the Most High ; jealousy, envy, and hate
produced not only words, but blows, between archangels minis
tering round his throne.

" Long time in even scale
The battle hung."

These unholy conflicts, so unsuited to that place, were never
composed until Heaven's First-Born, clothed in the majesty of
divine power, arose and hurled the factious hosts from the empy
rean -battlements to the bottomless pit below.

" Nine days they fell ; confounded chaos roared,
And felt tenfold confusion, in their fall,
Through his wild Anarchy : so huge a rout
Encumber'd him with ruin. Hell, at last,
Yawning, received them whole, and on them closed :
Hell, their fit habitation, fraught with fire
Unquenchable, the house of woe and pain.
Disburden'd Heaven rejoiced, and soon repaired
Her mural breach, returning whence it rolled."

From that profound deep, below which there was no lower
deep, they still sent up much cursing, wailing, howling, and
hissing.

So, sir in these halls, sacred to national purposes, and those
objects for which the government was formed, we have had peace-
destroying feuds and unseemly conflicts engendered and insti-
gaced by the fell demon of " Restriction," or " Wilmot proviso,"
which once stalked with insolent brow, in our very midst. These

412 SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.

scenes lasted until the Genius of our country rose in its might, on
the 1*7 th of June, 1850, armed with the great American principle of
self-government, which had borne our fathers through the struggle
of the revolution, and drove the hideous monster, with all his impi
ous crew, from the Capitol — cast them out and hurled them down
ward to that low deep from which their plaintive howls now ascend.

These convocations at the Tabernacle and at Chicago and else
where — the ravings of the infidel preacher, Theodore Parker, and
all his weaker followers — are but the repetition of the pandemo
nium scenes ; there consultations were held, and grave debate
had, how the banished fiends should regain their lost estate,
"Whether by open war or covert guile." These manifestations
may be expected. We have had them before — yea, and much
more violent, too. When the compromise of 1850 was passed,
these same men declared open war against its provisions. " Re
peal!" " Repeal!" was blazoned upon their banners; mobs were
got up in Boston, in Syracuse, and at Christiana ; blood was shed
by these resisters of the law. The spirit of the North was ap
pealed to in fanatic accents. That spirit answered in prompt and
patriotic tones of popular reprobation at the ballot-box, just as it
will do again. These threats of what will be the fate of, and
" political graves" of, northern men who vote for this bill, can
fright nobody but old women and timid children. They are
worse than ghost stories — we have heard them before.

I recollect well with what eloquence a gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. ROOT] some years ago, in this House, spoke of the deep
degradation that awaited every man at the North who should
dare to vote against the Wilmbt proviso. No patronage of the
government could save him ; no land office, ever so remote, could
keep him from being hunted down, ferreted out, and held up to
the just scorn of an indignant constituency. But his prophetic
warning came far short of becoming history. Northern men did
abandon the proviso. In doing so they acted wisely, justly,
nobly, and patriotically ; and so far from digging their political

f raves by the act, they have but planted themselves deeper and
rmer in the hearts, love, affection, and admiration of their coun
trymen.

The same "scare-crow" was held up to northern men who
occupied national ground on the admission of Missouri. It was
said then that they would find "their graves" in the ground
where they stood. And some pretend now to say that such was
the fact. But in the record I have before me, I see, among' the very
few from the North who did then stand up for the right against
the huge clamor that was raised against them, the names of Bald
win, from Pennsylvania ; Holmes, of Massachusetts ; and Storrs,
of New York ; and Southard, of New Jersey. Where did South
ard find his grave? Mr. Baldwin was afterwards one of the
judges of the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Holmes,
when Maine was admitted as a State, was elected to the Senate,

SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 413

and held that highly honorable post, for aught I know, as long as
he wanted it.

Mr. Storrs, who was a man of great talents, never lost the con
fidence of his constituents. Had he not been cut down by death
at an early age, he might, and most probably would, have attained
the highest honors of the country, not excepting the chief magis
tracy itself. These statesmen found "political graves" where
many of those who now rail so fiercely would, doubtless, be very
willing to find theirs. But of those who espoused the side of the
restrictionists at that time I do not see the name of a single man
who ever attained high political distinction in this country. Their
very memories, in most instances, have passed away, and their
" graves," if they have any, would be about as hard to find as that
" of Moses in the wilderness."

So much, then, for these threats. They are but the "ravings,"
and "howlings," and "hissings" of the beaten and routed ranks
of the factionists and malcontents. They are the wailings of the
politically condemned, coming up from the bottom of that deep
pit where they have been hurled by a patriotic people for the good,
the peace, quiet, and harmony of the whole country. We need
not expect to silence them — the friends and advocates of the com
promise of 1850 did not expect or look for that at the time. That
would have been a forlorn hope ; and though many of the enemies
of the compromise, of the North, who were beaten in the great
battle of 1852, have since seemingly surrendered and begged for
quarters, pretending to be ready to acquiesce, I must be permitted
to say on this occasion, without any wish to push myself in the
New York contest, I have very little confidence in the integrity
of their professions. They fought the compromise as long as
there was any prospect of making any thing by fighting it.
When whipped, routed, and beaten, then, like craven and mer
cenary captives, they turned to power, to see if any thing could
be made there by subserviency and sycophancy. I have no faith
in their conversion — never have had any. Warmed into life again by
the genial rays of executive patronage, I have always thought, and
still think, that they will only become the more formidable when
ever the occasion offers for their real principles to manifest them
selves. Hydrophobia can never be cured — it will break out on
the changes of the moon. And so with the disease of negro-
mania. Sir, the viper will hiss and even sting the bosom that
nurtures and fosters it. Whether I am right in this anticipation,
or whether this administration is right in its present policy, we
shall see.

But we who stood by the compromise of 1850, and intend to
stand by it now, and carry it out in good faith, are not to be
moved by any clamor got up by its old enemies ; nor are we to be
shaken in our purpose by any mistaken appeals in behalf of the
" sanctity of compacts," coming from a source even as respectable
as that of fhe National Intelligencer. That paper, in a late article,

414 SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.

seems to consider the line of 36° 30' almost as binding as the consti
tution — the bare " suggestion" for a departure from which should
arouse the friends of the constitution everywhere. If so, why
did not that paper raise the alarm in 1836, when Mr. Adams, in
this House, backed by fifty-two northern votes, made something
more than "a suggestion" to depart from it?

In 1845, when a majority of the North voted against the annex
ation of Texas with this line in it, why was not its voice again
raised? In 184*7 and 1848, when it was completely set at
naught and trampled upon by the North, as I have shown, why
was it not then raised ? Then the contest was fierce and hot
between those who stood by that line and those who were for its
total obliteration. For three long years when this contest raged,
why did the Intelligencer never say one word in behalf of its
maintenance and preservation ? That was certainly the time for
any one who regarded it as imbued with " sanctity " and " sacred-
ness" to speak. It is too late now. The old principle in our ter
ritorial policy has passed away, and we have in its stead a new
one. We are not, therefore, to be shaken in our purpose to carry
out this new principle by any such clamor or appeals. Our pur
pose is fixed, and our course is onward. What little agitation
may be got up in Congress, or out of it, while this debate lasts,
will speedily subside, as soon as this new principle is once more
vindicated. Why do you hear no more wrangling here about
slavery and freedom in Utah and New Mexico ? Because by this
new principle, the irritating cause was cast out of Congress, and
turned over to the people, who are most capable of disposing of
it for themselves. Pass this bill — the sooner the better — and the
same result will ensue. This shows the wisdom and statesman
ship of those jby whom this principle was adopted as our settled
policy on this subject in 1850. A cinder in the eye will irritate
and inflame it, until you get it out ; a thorn in the flesh will do
the same thing. The best remedy is to remove it immediately.
That is just what the compromise of 1850 proposes to do with
this slavery question in the territories whenever it arises. Cast
it out of Congress, and leave it to the people, to whom it very
properly and rightfully belongs.

In behalf of this principle, Mr. Chairman, I would to-day
address this House, not as partisans — neither as whigs or demo
crats, but as Americans. I do not know what you call me, or
how you class me, whether as whig or democrat, in your politi
cal vocabulary, nor do I care. Principles should characterize
parties, and not names. I call myself a republican, and I would
invoke you, one and all, to 'come up and sustain this great repub
lican American policy, established in 1850, for the permanent
peace, progress, and glory of our common country. If any of
you are convinced of its propriety and correctness, but are afraid
that your constituents are not equally convinced, follow the
example of Mr. Webster, after his 7th of March speech, when

SPEECH ON NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 415

the doors of Faneuil Hall were closed against him. Meet your con
stituents, if need be in the open air, and, face to face, tell them
they are wrong, and you are right. I think, sir, that great man,
on no occasion of his life, ever appeared to greater advantage in
the display of those moral qualities which mark those entitled to
lasting fame, than he did in the speech he made in an open
barouche before the Revere House, in Boston, to three thousand
people who had assembled to hear what reason he had to give for
his course in the Senate. He stood as Burke before the people
of Bristol, or as Aristides before the people of Athens, when he
told them above all things to be "just." In that speech Mr.
Webster told the people of Boston, You have conquered an inhos
pitable climate ; you have conquered a sterile and barren soil ;
you have conquered the ocean that washes your shores ; you have
fought your way to the respect and esteem of mankind, but you
have yet to " conquer your prejudices. That was indeed speaking
" vera pro gratis." And that was a scene for the painter or sculp
tor to perpetuate the man in the exhibition of his noblest qualities
far more worthy than the occasion of his reply to Mr. Hayne, or his
great 1th of March speech. Imitate his example — never lose the
consciousness that " Truth is mighty and will ultimately prevail."
The great "truth" as to the right principle of disposing of this
slavery quesion in the territories, was first proclaimed by the Con
gress of the United States in 1850. It was as oil upon the waters.
It gave quiet and repose to a distracted country. Let it be the
pride of us all in this Congress to re-affirm the principle — make it co
extensive with your limits — inscribe it upon your banners — make
it broad as your constitution — proclaim it everywhere, that the
people of the common territories of the Union, wherever the flag
floats, shall have the right to form such republican institutions as
they please. Let this be our pride; and then with a common
feeling in the memories and glories of the past, we can all, from
every State, section, and territory, look with hopeful anticipa
tions to that bright prospect in the future which beckons us on in
our progress to a still higher degree of greatness, power, and
renown.

416 SPEECH ON THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

SPEECH IN REPLY TO THE REMARKS OF MR. MACE,
OF INDIANA, ON GIVING NOTICE OF HIS INTEN
TION TO INTRODUCE A BILL TO RESTORE THE
MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

DECEMBER 14, 1854

MR. CHAIRMAN: In taking the floor on this occasion, it was not
my purpose, nor is it my purpose now, to re-open or go into a dis
cussion of the general merits of the Kansas-Nebraska bill which
was passed at the last session of Congress. The gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. MACE] came forward on yesterday, and, in a very
formal manner, announced the determination, for the future, of the
opponents to that measure. Repeal is their policy. Prohibition
of slavery is again to be put upon Kansas and Nebraska. I con
sidered the merits of the question as settled at the last session. I
consider them as settled now. Revolution never goes backward —
always forward. The argument in and out of Congress, and
throughout the Union, on the great movement made by the Na
tional Legislature on this question, was then conclusive, and, by
the passage of that bill we took a grand step in that progress
which characterizes this age. There never will be any backward
movement in this matter — at least in my -opinion. I have no
apprehensions on that score ; and I repeat, that I do not rise for
the purpose of opening, or again canvassing, the merits of the
Nebraska-Kansas bill. But the gentleman from Indiana gave
utterance to some remarks to which I deem some reply proper.
He seemed to think and argue that the late elections at the North
conclusively showed that the public sentiment there, by the late
elections, had passed the sentence of public condemnation on the
bill referred to, and demand its immediate repeal. He spoke of
that as a fixed fact. The gentleman from Maine, [Mr. WASH-
BURNE,] who succeeded him in the discussion, indulged in the
same line of argument. Now, I wish to state to these gentlemen,
to this committee, and the country, that I draw no such inference
from the late elections. It is true that the results were very
astonishing to some, though not to me, and took many men, in
And out of power, by surprise.

I ask the honorable gentleman from Indiana how he reaches
the conclusion that these elections set the seal of the public con
demnation upon the friends of the great movement of the last
session ? I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there was no man more
zealous in his opposition to the bill then passed, not even excepting
the gentleman from Indiana himself, than yourself, and you will
pardon me, sir, the illustration. Even you, sir, from the city of
brotherly love, are no longer returned to the seat which you have
filled with so much ability, and in which you have voted with me
on many questions of public policy — always excepting this partio-

SPEECH ON THE MISSOUKI COMPKOMISE. 417

ular measure. Now, I ask the gentleman from Indiana whether
that is a proof that the people of Philadelphia agree with him and
with you, Mr. Chairman ? I might argue, following his line, that
this, your defeat, was the seal of reprobation on your course.
But, sir, the truth is, your course on that bill, I take it, had but
little to do in your defeat one way or the other. Again, Mr.
Chairman, my honorable friend from another district in Pennsyl
vania, who sits to my right, [Mr. HIESTER,] with whom I had a
conversation at the last session just previous to the passage of
the bill, and who was quite as zealous in his opposition as you or
the gentleman from Indiana, has also been defeated in the can
vass for re-election. I do not recollect the majority against him.
I have not attempted the Nerculaneum excavating process of
ascertaining the depths to which he has been buried in this popu
lar irruption — the majority against him I do not know, but it was
decided. The gentleman from the first district of Pennsylvania,
[Mr. FLORENCE,] who voted and ardently supported the measure,
has been re-elected. I also see that the gentleman from the Berks
district, [Mr. JONES,] has been again returned. Another gentleman
from Pennsylvania, [Mr. PACKER,] and an advocate of the Kansas-
Nebraska bill, has been returned. In fine, I find that some who have
voted for it and some who have voted against it have been returned
to Congress. Why, sir, in Pennsylvania a gentleman ran for gover
nor who was known to be opposed to the bill, and a gentleman ran
for canal commissioner on the opposite ticket, and was known to be
in favor of the measure. The opponent of the bill was elected by
thirty-seven thousand majority, while its advocate was elected
canal commissioner by, I believe, one hundred thousand majority.
Now, what is to be legitimately inferred from this state of things ?
Certainly, not that the people of Pennsylvania had put their seal
of reprobation on Nebraska. I should infer that the Nebraska
question had nothing or very little to do with the election — it
was an element only in the canvass. Now, when the gentleman
wishes to appeal to the results of an election as evidence of any
thing he must admit that the question claimed to be decided by
it ought to be the sole, leading, and paramount question in the
canvass. If such be the case, appeal can be made to the result.
But when you find a Nebraska man elected canal commissioner of
Pennsylvania by one hundred thousand majority, and an anti-
Nebraska man elected governor by thirty-seven thous'and majority,
it simply shows that this question could have had very little to do
with the results. How was it in Massachusetts ? There is the
honorable gentleman from that State, [Mr. GOODRICH,] who was
alluded to yesterday in connection with the gentleman from
Indiana, as associated with those who got up the Kansas and
Nebraska Emigration Society. There is another, [Mr. ELIOT,]
who came here and took the lead in favor of the repeal of the
fugitive slave law ; and the gentleman who sits immediately in
my rear [Mr. WALLEY,] who was distinguished in his opposition
27

418 SPEECH ON THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

to the bill — all were zealous in their opposition to the bill, all
were candidates for re-election, and all were left at home. All,
sir, fell before the destroying angel which came in the night, and
they knew not whence the blow came. It certainly did not come
from the quarter to which the gentleman from Indiana alludes ;
for if the anti-Nebraskaites struck down such men as those to
whom I have referred, they did not back their friends as we do
ours down South.

Mr. Chairman, now let me turn to the State of Illinois. I
allude to her with pleasure, for I believe there was not a single
northern State where the principles of the Nebraska bill were so
openly and widely promulgated and considered, and so fairly
represented and met as in that State. The distinguished sena
tor who had charge of the bill in the Senate, stood in the front of
the battle, never giving ground, never yielding an inch, and the
distinguished and gallant gentleman upon this floor [Mr. RICH
ARDSON] who had charge of it here, met the people of Illinois
everywhere on its merits. If there is a State north which may
be appealed to as one where there was any thing like a contest on
the question, it was Illinois. And what was the result ? There
were but three men from that State who voted for the Nebraska
bill, and now we have four Nebraska men from Illinois. It seems
Nebraska gained strength by discussion there. We had but three
men before, and now we have got four.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Will the gentleman tell me what
the popular vote of Illinois was upon the Nebraska question ?

Mr. STEPHENS. The only test of the popular vote in the entire
State of Illinois that I know upon that question, was upon the
State treasurer, and the Nebraska candidate carried it by a large
majority — three thousand majority, I have heard. In Congress,
Nebraska gained one member.

Mr. WASHBURNE. I must correct my friend from Georgia in
regard to the fact of the vote in Illinois upon State treasurer. It
is true that Mr. Moore, the Nebraska man, was elected, I have
seen it stated, by about eighteen hundred majority. But it should
be stated, in connection with that fact, that the man who ran
against him — Mr. Miller — was not known in the southern part of
the State as a candidate, and was not voted for at all in that part
of the State.

Mr. STEPHENS. I suppose so ! [Laughter.]

Mr. WASHBURNE. And I will say further, that if Mr. Miller had
received his party vote in that part of the State where he was not
known as a candidate, he would have been elected by some five or
six thousand majority.

Mr. STEPHENS. Well, sir, I do not think the people of Illinois
could have been exceedingly offended and outraged. by this meas
ure, if they did not take the trouble to have their candidates in
opposition known. And yet, the gentleman from Illinois wants
to have us believe that if they could only have had their candi-

SPEECH ON THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 419

dates known, they would have been elected by five or six thousand
majority.

Mr. WASHBURNE. I will state to the gentleman that the candi
date regularly nominated declined, and the other candidate was
brought out only a short time before the election.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then I can only say that their candidate ran
before the popular demonstration had got hold of him, [laughter ;]
and it only shows that the first candidate saw the handwriting
upon the wall, and was more prudent than the last one. [Renewed
laughter.]

Mr. RICHARDSON. With the permission of the gentleman from
Georgia, I will make a single correction. My colleague states
that Mr. Moore was elected treasurer of Illinois, because his oppo
nent was not known as a candidate in the southern part of the
State. Sir, the facts are against my colleague. It is true that in
some of the southern counties he received but few votes ; but it is
also true, that in all the counties he received some, so that it was
known that Mr. Miller was a candidate in all the counties in the
State.

While I am up, I want to state the reason why the first candi
date declined. He was nominated as the republican, fusion can
didate, and was brought out by that party. And I hesitate not
here to declare that if he had continued in the field he would have
been beaten by more than ten thousand votes. But the candidate
who was brought out at last was indorsed by all the leading whigs
in the State, as a sound radical whig. He was run by the whigs
and supported by the fusionists, which accounts for his receiving
as heavy a vote as he did.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then the interruption of the gentleman on my
left, [Mr. WASHBURNE,] after all, amounts to but very little. He
says Moore was elected by eighteen hundred majority. That is
quite enough for my purpose.

Mr. WASHBURNE. How much was Mr. Pierce's majority ?

Mr. STEPHENS. It is not material to me what Mr. Pierce's ma
jority was. The popular vote in Illinois, at the recent election, was
in favor of sustaining the principle of the Nebraska bill. That is
my point. I do not care whether the majority was eighteen hun
dred, or five thousand, or eighteen thousand. I am willing to
take it at eighteen hundred. I heard it was three thousand.
The gentleman has heard that it was eighteen hundred ; but the
difference is immaterial. It is given up that a majority was in
favor of the principle of the Nebraska bill. So much for the
popular condemnation there.

Now, then, take the State of New York — for I must be brief
upon this point. There was but one candidate for governor in
that State who was openly and avowedly in favor of the repeal of
the Nebraska bill. I mean Mr. Clark. New York gave but few
votes upon this floor, for the bill. I think it is generally conceded,
that if there is any State in the Union that is particularly unsound

420 SPEECH ON THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

on tliis question, as gentlemen speak, it is New York. Well, sir,
New York, with all its anti-slavery organizations ; with its Syra
cuse convention, where every thing was done that could be done
to rally the freemen of the North, as it was said ; with its emigra
tion society ; with all this, how many votes did Mr. Clark get ?
Not more than one third of the votes of the State. Clark got one
hundred and fifty-odd thousand votes ; Seymour got some three
hundred less — one hundred, and fifty-odd thousand votes ; and
Ullman and Bronson, together, received about the same number,
one hundred and fifty-odd thousand more. • So that, in the great
State of New York, where this question was made pre-eminently a
test, in the recent election, not one third of the votes of the State
were given for the anti-Nebraska candidate. And yet the late
election in New York is held up as a popular demonstration in
opposition to the principle of the Nebraska bill. Sir, no such con
clusion can be drawn ; and the same may be said in reference to
the elections in Pennsylvania, in New Jersey, in Michigan, in
Indiana ; so far as furnishing any popular demonstration upon
this subject, they amount to nothing. No person can draw any
legitimate inference from them, in reference to this question.
Some say it was the Know-Nothings ; some say it was the temper
ance men ; and some say it was the anti-Nebraskaites, that caused
the defeat.

Sir, I am not prepared to say what it was that caused these, to
some people, so strange results. I am inclined to think that the
man down in North Carolina was about right when he said it was
General Malcontent that caused it. Some were discontented
because of the appointments of the President to office ; some were
discontented because it was improper to send such a man as Mr.
Soule to Madrid ; some were discontented because it was wrong to
send such a man as Mr. Belmont abroad ; some were dissatisfied
at the appointment of Mr. Yroom ; some at Mr. Dix ; some at the
turning out of Bronson ; some at the organization of the cabinet —
some at one thing and some at another. Some said one thing
and some another. There was general discontent and dissatis
faction — whether rightfully or wrongfully it is not my purpose
now to discuss. But the administration had pursued such a,
course as to make a large party of malcontents — men bent upon
breaking up things — this class, the North Carolina man calls the
" Hamshackles ;" the designation is a good one. Yes, sir, it was
General Malcontent and the great party of the " Ramshackles"
that triumphed at the North at the late elections, and not the anti-
Nebraskaites.

But the gentleman from Indiana referred to the South. He said
lie wanted the members from the North to get on the same high
stand that the representatives of the South occupied. I suppose
he intended what he said in this connection as a compliment to
the South, inasmuch as he wanted his people to occupy the same
position ; but, if I comprehend what he said, I do not receive it as a

SPEECH ON THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 421

compliment. He said that southern members upon this floor first
ascertained the wishes, and then voted on all questions as their
constituents wished — that they would stand by the interests of
their constituents and represent their wishes. Sir, I say to the
gentleman, that I think he is just as much mistaken in this as he
was in reference to the popular elections of the North. I can
speak, however, only for myself. It is not true that, in my
course as a member of this House, I look solely to what my con
stituents wish. The first question that addresses itself to my
mind is, whether any measure presented here is right ? I send no
letters home to know what they think there about it ; I never have
and never shall. I consult my own judgment and act accordingly.
If I think a measure is right, that it is proper, that it is just, I
vote for it ; and if I do not, I vote against it. Upon the merits of
every question I am responsible to my constituents ; and when I
go home to them, an intelligent and patriotic people, if they do
not approve my conduct, they can send another in my place.
Sir, I believe that this is the general position of southern men.

But the gentleman says that when southern men's measures are
vetoed, they raise their voices in tones of thunder until they carry
them. Sir, I do not believe there ever was a southern measure
vetoed. I do not recollect one. The South has never asked any
thing from your government that called for a veto. There is the
difference between us. The South asks but few favors from you.
It is a class of gentlemen from the North Who ask aid from the
government. Why, we never come here in that attitude. Let me
ask the gentleman when any measure from the South was ever
vetoed ? when the South ever asked any thing that required the
exercise of the veto power ?

But the gentleman said that he admired the South, because
"knowing their rights, they dared maintain them." That I take
as a compliment. And now, what is his position? Why, the
South "knowing their rights, and daring to maintain them," he
would have the North to rise up and prevent her from getting her
known and acknowledged rights ! If we know our rights, and
they are our rights, and we dare maintain them, why ought not
the North, why ought not the gentleman — I will not say the
North — to grant us our rights? Have we ever asked any thing
but what was right ? Now, I say, with all due respect to the gen
tleman, that the true position of the South is this: we "ask
nothing but what is right, and we submit to nothing that is wrong."
That is the position that the South has always occupied, as I re
member her history.

Now, sir, upon the subject of internal improvements which the
gentleman alluded to, has the South ever asked legislative aid in
that particular ? I do not speak now, sectionally, or against the
North ; but look at the whole history of our government. Who is
it that is constantly appealing here for legislative aid and legisla
tive patronage ? Who ask for fishing bounties ? Who ask for

4-22 SPEECH OX THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

protection to navigation ? Why, the people of the South, if they
were permitted to use or employ foreign vessels in their coast
trade, would be greatly benefitted thereby. But American ship
ping must be protected, and who is it that asks that protection,
not only on shipping, but almost every thing else ? Who is it
that wants a duty upon coal? Who upon iron? Who upon
woollen goods ? Who upon shoes, hats, leather, cotton fabrics — •
every thing? Why, it is the industrial interests of the North.
We of the South, it is true, sometimes grumble and complain : but
the great majority of the people of the South have yielded to what
they consider in some instances very heavy exactions, for the sup
port of government. But when did we ever come up and ask any
aid from the government of the United States ? The constant
prayer of the South to you has been to stay your hands. All that
we ask of you is, keep your hands out of our pockets. That is all
that the South ask, and we do not get even that. It is true, sir,
that in my own State we have asked some little favors, but very few.
Some years ago we asked that you should take the obstructions
out of the mouth of the Savannah river — not obstructions that
nature put there, but that were put there during the revolutionary
war, to keep out a foreign fleet — put there, not by the citizens of
the State, but by public authority. It seems to us nothing but
right and just that the general government should remove those
obstructions ; but we have asked in vain for that. The gentleman
says that the representatives of the North come here and pass
river and harbor bills, which are vetoed, and the wishes of their
constituents are thereby defeated. Well, sir, we have some rivers
in the South quite as navigable as those in Indiana ; but when did
Georgia, or South Carolina, or Virginia, or the South generally,
come and ask Congress to clear out those rivers ?

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not going into a discussion of this
question of internal improvements, or the constitutional power. I
am going to address a plain, common-sense argument in reply to
the gentleman from Indiana, who said that when the South asked
any thing she got it, or that when a southern measure was vetoed,
the South thundered and thundered upon this floor, until she got
what she wanted, while northern measures were defeated by vetoes.
I repeat, that a southern measure has never been vetoed. But
how does the' "gentleman stand when he comes here and asks us,
out of the public treasury, to clean out the rivers in his State ? I
will state here, in passing, that I believe Congress has the consti
tutional power to clean out harbors, and construct roads when it
is necessary either for the collection of the public revenue, or for
military purposes. I did what I could last Congress to get the im
provement of Boston harbor, as well as of various other harbors
that I believed to be necessary for the collection of the revenue.
I was also in favor of removing the obstructions in the mouth
of the Mississippi river. This is sufficient to show my general
position on this subject. Now, a few words on the material

SPEECH ON THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 423

matter alluded to by the gentleman, the improvement of western
rivers.

In the State of Georgia, we have never asked for any harbor
improvements except for the removal of those obstructions at the
mouth of the Savannah river, and we never got that, as I have
stated. We have never asked the general government to clean out
our rivers. But we have a country of hill and valley, and we have
to get to market with out products — for we grow some things in
Georgia for market, notwithstanding that, in the opinion of the
gentleman from Indiana, we are a heaven-accursed, slavery-doomed
land — we grow some products in Georgia, I say, for market, and
how do we get them to market ? Do we come here and ask aid of
the general government ? No, sir. Why, in my State, we have
now upward of a thousand miles of railroad in full operation.
How did we obtain it ? We took our surplus capital, and with it
we bought human labor, human energy, bone and sinew — we
bought the strong arms of our own citizens, as well as of foreign
ers, to come and dig down the hills and fill up the valleys, and
lay down the superstructure of our railroads — we bought the iron,
when we could get it, in this country, and we went abroad for it
when we could not get it here, and notwithstanding all that, when
we brought our iron into the country, we had to pay duty upon it
to the general government. Twenty millions of dollars have been
spent in Georgia in constructing highways to our markets. That
is the way we got our thousand miles of railroad. So far from
coming here and receiving assistance from the government, we
have actually had to pay a tax for the privilege of bringing our
iron into the country. Georgia has paid not less than a million
and a half of dollars as a duty on iron, into the treasury for the
privilege of building her own works of internal improvement.
Now, I would ask any candid man — I would ask the gentleman
himself — if it is just, not only to tax Georgia for the privilege of
constructing' her highways, but then to take those very taxes that
we have paid to open rivers in Indiana ? It does not strike me
that that is very just. I am speaking now to men of commoL
sense. I am not talking of what you can constitutionally do. Is it
not an unjust abuse of power to do it, even if you have the power ?

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CAMPBELL] told us, the other
day, what the "great West " would do. I have a great respect
for the great West, and I will do every thing which I think right,
and proper, and just, to develop the resources of that section of
the country. I am willing, as I have said, to open the mouth of
the Mississippi, because the State of Louisiana cannot do it, and
to take the snags out of that great river. But when I am appealed
to to clear out every little river, and open up every little harbor,
and make works of improvement throughout the country, or in
any section of it — I do not care which or what — barely because
the people of such section want it, and send men here to ask and
vote for it, I say it is unjust to dispose of the public money in any

424 SPEECH ON THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

such way, and I shall not do it. I ask every man now, who looks
on these questions as he should, if it is not manifestly unjust ?

Now, the gentleman [Mr. MACE] says, in speaking of the Mis
souri compromise, that, by the Missouri compromise, slavery had
been prohibited north of 36° 30', and that slavery was to exist
south of 36° 30'. I wish to correct the gentleman. The South
has never asked that slavery should be extended by this govern
ment anywhere, south or north. The Missouri compromise of
1820 never established such a principle — never. The act of 1820,
by which Missouri was to have come into the Union, but never
did, prohibited the existence of slavery north of 36° 30 ' ; but it
said nothing at all on the subject south of that line. The South
never asked such a guarantee. The guarantee which the South
has asked, and which has been established in the passage of the
Nebraska bill, and which the South will never yield, was simply
that the people on every foot of American soil, north or south,
east or west, shall, when they come to form their State constitu
tion, do as they please upon the question of African slavery, and
shall come into the Union either with or without it, as they shall
then determine for themselves. The South does not ask you that
a slave State shall be admitted from Texas, unless the people
there so determine. What we insisted on in the Texas annexa
tion resolutions was, that the people there might be permitted to
settle this matter for themselves. And this is all the guarantee
we secured; all that we then asked ; all that we asked in 1850 ; all
that we asked in the Nebraska bill, and what we will ever main
tain is, that the people in every organized community, in every
territory, when they come to form their own institutions, shall
do as they please in that respect, and come into the Union either
with or without slavery, as they wish. I say, sir, that is the
southern doctrine ; and I say, also, that it is American doctrine.
That is what I mean by national doctrine.

The gentleman [Mr. MACE] said yesterday he w&s a national
man. National ! Why, sir, he is against his own section. Not
only is he against the South, but he is against his own people.
According to his doctrine his own people cannot be trusted in
the territories. He must be their guardian — a self-constituted
protector. He says that members of Congress set up to be
masters of their constituents, that they did not know what their
constituents wanted, and that they came here last session to be
their masters by voting for Nebraska against their wishes. No,
sir, it is the gentleman himself who wants to be master. Of whom ?
Of his own fellow-citizens ! He and the men who embrace his doc
trine virtually say that when the people go from the North or
South into a territory they become unfit to govern themselves.
This is what the gentleman said about masters :

" The doctrine sought to be established now is this, that we come up
here as the masters of the people, that we come here not bound to consult
with them at all, and that we may pass laws which we know they will

SPEECH ON THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 425

disapprove of, and then call upon them, as loyal subjects, to acquiesce in
our acts and cease their grumbling."

The gentleman says that that is what we do. I say to the
gentleman, "thouart the man." That is exactly what you do.
Why does he offer his bill to abolish slavery in Kansas and
Nebraska ? because he says the people there will have it if we do
not. Why does he then propose to pass a law for them which he
knows they will disapprove of, and then call on them as " loyal
subjects to acquiesce in our acts, and cease their grumbling?"
He says that when men go from Massaschusetts, or from Indiana,
or from Illinois, or from Ohio, or from Georgia, and get over into
the territories, they shall not govern themselves as they please,
but as we please. We, the Nebraska men, on the contrary, treat
them as freemen, as our equals, and let them do as they please.
Who, then, are the masters, or would-be masters ? I say, sir, it is that
class of men who set themselves up as the only safe guardians,
protectors, and law-makers for men who have no choice in their
election, and to whom they are in no way responsible. Oh, but
the gentleman says, pass this bill, say, b}7 law, that slavery never
shall go into these territories, and then the people can do just as
they please, just as they did in Iowa, and can form State consti
tutions against slavery, as Iowa did, and come into the Union as
that State did. Why, sir, the gentleman's idea of liberty on the
part of the people to do as they please is very much like a story
that I heard told by the late Justice McKinley, of the Supreme
Court. The incident occurred in Lexington, Kentucky, I be
lieve. A member of Congress from that State had given very
much dissatisfaction to his constituents by some vote ; and they
went through the form of burning him in effigy. Accordingly
they got up a torch-light procession to inarch to his house, and
as they were going along with a great deal of " noise and some
confusion," some person on the side-walk, not partaking of the
feelings of the crowd, but believing it to be an outrage rather,
whispered this opinion to a man next to him. One of the rowdies
in the procession, who overheard the remark, stepped up and
said to him, " What is that you say ? You think that this is a
great outrage, do you ?" "Yes, I do," was the answer. " Then,
sir," replied his questioner, " I want to let you know that this is
a free country, and that we will do as we d — d please, and you
shan't say nothing !" [Laughter.] That is the way the gentleman
[Mr. MACE] would give freedom to the territories. Oh, yes, he
will make it a free territory. He will have his way, and the peo
ple there "shan't say nothing." He would give them precisely
that sort of freedom which closes the mouths of freemen. That
sort of liberty he would have which says to freemen, " You shall
do as I please — it is a free country, it is true ; but I will have my
way, and you shall not say a word. You shall not elect Whit-
tield, or any man who would favor the introduction of slavery."
["Laughter.]

4:26 SPEECH ON THE MISSOUEI COMPROMISE.

Now, sir, the gentleman [Mr. MACE] yesterday notified the
country, and notified the House that Nebraska never should
come in as a slave State. This is plain and direct language. It
presents the issue fairly. It is bringing up that question which
has been thrice settled by this country. And, without pretend
ing to speak prophetically, I will venture the opinion, that if
Nebraska comes here with a slavery constitution, she will be ad
mitted ; and the great body of these gentlemen who occupy the
position of the gentleman from Indiana, will be at that time
buried so deep under popular condemnation, that their voices
against it will never reach the Capitol. A great national princi
ple is involved in this question which the people of this country
are not going to ignore. National men will be sent from the
North as well as from the South. Men will be sent to Congress
who stand upon principles, and will not "back and fill," and
be on one principle for one week, one month, and one moon, and
upon another principle another week, and month, and moon.
The gentleman's principles do not set by him a twelvemonth.
And if he changes in the future as rapidly and radically as he
has in the past, even he, if here, may yet vote for her admission
as a slave State.

In some things I was surprised at the gentleman's speech
yesterday ; for I recollected very well the remarks he made with
reference to this Nebraska bill before it passed, and the amend
ment which he offered. I beg to call his attention, and the
attention of the House, to the report of his remarks — made on the
22d of May, the Saturday before it passed :

" Mr. MACE moved to insert in the first section ' and the territorial
legislature shall have the power to admit or exclude slavery at any time
by law.' He said he offered the amendment in good faith, and for the
purpose of testing the sincerity of members from the western States, and
more especially the sincerity of those of the delegation from Indiana, who
were to vote in favor of the bill.

" Mr. ENGLISH. If the amendment be adopted, will my colleague give
the bill his support ?

" Mr. MACE. I will."

Mr. MACE. What reasons did I give ?

Mr. STEPHENS. The only reasons he gave are those I have read.
He said that he offered the amendment in good faith, for the
purpose of testing the sincerity of members, and more especially
the sincerity of the members of the delegation from Indiana whs
voted in favor of the bill ; and he said that if it was adopted — that
is, if the legislature should have the power to settle the question
at any time, he would vote for the bill. Now, he wants to deprive
the legislature, or the people in convention, from ever being
empowered to settle it, as they want to do, at all. Perhaps when
the people do settle, as they now have the power to do it, he
may yet sanction it, notwithstanding they may adopt a slavery
constitution.

SPEECH ON THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. 427

Mr. MACE. Did the gentleman vote for my amendment ?

Mr. STEPHENS. I did not, and for the reason given, that by the
bill we had given the people all the power that we could under
the constitution. We could not grant more, and they could not
exercise more if we had granted it. We had done all we could on
our part, and we could not give them more. The government of
the territories, in my opinion, devolved upon Congress, in the
first instance. It was our duty to govern them, or provide
governments for them. I stated then to the country, and now
state, that I believe it was right and just for us to turn over our
powers to the people, all the powers at least that they can exer
cise under tne constitution. So far as my vote was concerned, I
gave the people all the power that they could exercise under the
constitution. We could not give them more, and why should the
gentleman have asked to give them, more?

The gentleman from Indiana said that he would vote in good
faith to give the people of these territories power to admit
slavery ; but now he comes forward and wants to deprive them
of the power of passing any law by which slavery may be tolerated.
I did not know then whether Kansas would be a slave State or
not. I do not know now whether it will be or not, but this does
not make the slightest difference in my vote. Men may indulge
in whatever speculations they please. If Kansas should come
here with a constitution excluding slavery, and ask admission
into the Union as a State, while I am a member upon this floor,
I should vote for her admission. At least that feature in her
constitution will not cause me to vote against her admission. I
voted for the admission of Iowa, and I have voted for the admis
sion of every northern State, since I have occupied a seat upon
this floor, when I have been in my place. I was not here when
California was admitted, but I defended her admission.

I want gentlemen from the North, and the gentleman from Indi
ana, to understand the South, or at least the position of some of her
representatives. We stand upon principle. We do not advocate
a measure to-day because it votes money into the pockets of our
constituents, or because it is favored by them or advances their
interests, and then to-morrow array ourselves in opposition to it,
because we think a different result follows from its operation, but
we stand, particularly on this question, upon the fixed and im
mutable principles upon which the constitution itself rests. In
the beginning, in the middle of our history, and up to this time,
there we have always stood. The South, in 1820, maintained
the principle that a State has the right to come into the Union
with such institutions, republican in their character, as she might
adopt. Missouri was denied admission, and the South did
reluctantly consent that slavery should be excluded north of 36°
30', provided Missouri should come in as she pleased. But
Missouri was again denied admission — she did not come in under
this act of 1 820. I will not, however, go over this ground again

428 SPEECH ON THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

now. The North would not adhere to the principles of the act
of 1820. When the strife of 1850 became intolerable, when the
ship of State seemed about to go down, and when southern men
were still standing on deck with flag-staff in their hands appealing
to northern patriots to come to the rescue, and stand upon the
old platform, occupied by them when the Missouri question arose
— that is, the State-rights doctrine of letting each State settle this
matter for itself — whether in accordance with the wishes of the
North or South — it was then that this principle, incorporated in
the Nebraska bill, was first established. This principle now fol
lows the American flag wherever it floats, whether in California,
Utah, New Mexico, or southern Texas. The same stars and
stripes, with the same principles inscribed upon their broad folds,
now wave far up in Kansas and Nebraska ! Let them go, knit
together, one and inseparable, over every foot of American soil.
This, sir, is my wish, and this, sir, I think, will be the result ; I
therefore say to the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. WASHBURNE,]
that he will not live to see the day, in my opinion, when this
great movement, this revolution in American politics, will ever
roll backward. Its course will rather be onward. There are
some other topics to which I wish to allude.

Why is it that gentlemen object so much to the introduction
of slavery into Kansas, if the people of that territory desire it to
go there ? When I made a speech at the last session upon this
subject, I stated that I would vote for the principle of allowing
the people of any section of the country to come into the Union
and form institutions as they please. This I said when I knew
there might be twice as many people there from the North as
from the South, and the chances of emigration I knew would
greatly preponderate in favor of the North. I am willing, now,
to abide by that principle. I have no desire to deprive the peo
ple of any State or territory in our common country of the right
of adopting such institutions for their government, when they
become States, as they please. It is anti-American, and entirely
at war with the spirit of the age, about which we hear so much.
I ask why the people of any section of the country should be
prevented from adopting the institutions of the South, if they
wish them ? Socially, morally, and politically, or in any aspect
of the question, is there any reason for depriving them of such
right ? Is it for the sake of humanity that gentlemen are not
willing for the people of Kansas to assign the African the same
condition there that he occupies in the South, if they think it
best to do so ? Are gentlemen willing to degrade their own race
by not permitting them to vote upon matters relating to their
own government, while they are endeavoring to elevate the negro
to the standard of the white man ? You may degrade the white
man, but you cannot raise the negro to the level you purpose.
It is impossible. You have to reverse a law of nature first. Men
may indulge in philanthropic speculations as much as they please,

SPEECH ON THE MISSOURI COMPEOMISE. 429

but here is the great immutable law of nature, and they cannot
avoid it. * I am not here to argue whether decrees of the Most
High are right, wise, and just. There is a difference, a vast
difference, established by the Creator between the different races
of men. For "myself, I believe that he who made us all is just,
and that he made the white man as he made him, and that he
made the negro as he made him — for wise and just purposes.
Some vessels are made for honor and some for dishonor ; one
star differeth from another star in magnitude as well as in
brilliancy. I believe, too, that the system of government, as
adopted by the South, defining the status or relation of these two
races, is the best for both of them ; and I am prepared to argue
that question with the gentleman, here or anywhere. Take the
negroes in Indiana, take them in the North generally, and com
pare their condition with those of the South. Take them in
Africa ; take them anywhere on the face of the habitable globe ;
and then take them in the southern States, and the negro popula
tion of the South are better off, better fed, better clothed, better
provided for, enjoy more happiness, and a higher civilization,
than the same race has ever enjoyed anywhere else on the face
of the world. Could Howard the philanthropist, who has left an
undying fame for his deeds of humanity, have taken the same
number of Africans from their native country and raised them
from their barbarous condition to that of the slaves of the South,
he would have added much to that stature of immortality which,
in his day, he erected to himself. It would have greatly added
to that reputation, which now sanctifies his memory in the hearts
and affections of mankind.

Look at the three millions of Africans as you find them in the
South ; and where is the man so cold-hearted, and cold-blooded,
as would wish to put them in the condition that their forefathers
were, or their kindred now are in Africa ? What has done so
much for these people but that which is so much denounced by
inconsiderate fanatics ; men and women, too, who find fault with
what they know nothing about ?

Again : take our negroes, and compare their condition with that
of the free negroes of the North. I have the result of the census
returns before me, and from that it appears that the increase of
the free people of color in the United States, from 1840 to 1850,
was only ten and ninety-five hundredths per centum. This shows
that their condition cannot be very good, or desirable ; and to
this increase is to be added, too, the fugitive slaves, and those
who have been emancipated. With all these sources of increase,
that increase has only been ten and ninety-five hundredths per
centum.

Now, how is it with the slaves — the down-trodden, the abused,
the half-starved slaves ? Their increase, during the same period,
was twenty-eight and fifty-eight hundredths. Is there any such
result to be presented at the North, where they are free and left

430 SPEECH ON THE MISSOUKI COMPROMISE.

to themselves ? How can your missionaries in philanthropy and
crusaders in benevolence account for this ?

But some people say that slavery is a curse to the white man.
They abandon the idea that it is a curse to the negro. They say
it weakens, impoverishes, and demoralizes "a State. Let us see.
They say there can be no high social, moral, or material develop
ment under the institution of slavery. I have before me some
statistics on this point — statistics relating to material develop
ment. But, before alluding to them, I will say upon the subject
of morals, that I saw a table of crimes made out in the census
office for 1850. From those statistics it appeared — I speak from
memory ; I have not the paper before me — that the number of
convictions for crimes of every grade, in Massachusetts, the land
of " steady habits," and where we hear so much of the immoral
effects of slavery, with a population under one million, was seve
ral thousand ; while in the State of Georgia, with a population
not so great, the similar convictions are less than one hundred.
I say, then, upon the score of crime, upon the score of morals, I
am ready to compare my State with that of Massachusetts, or
any one of the free States. Where, then, is the moral curse which
arises from slavery ?

A few facts in reference to physical development. I had occa
sion, some time since, for another purpose than the present, to
look a little into the statistics of Georgia, compared with those
of other States. I selected the State of Ohio, because it was one
of the most prosperous of the North — often styled, and, perhaps,
justly too, the giant of the West. According to the census
returns in 1850, Ohio had of improved lands 9,851,493 acres —
Georgia had only 6,318,479 acres, the cash value of the Georgia
land so improved and under culture was $95,753,445, while the
cash value of the Ohio lands was returned at $358,758,603 — Ohio
had nearly one-third more land in a state of improvement than
Georgia had, and returned at more than three times the cash
value of the Georgia lands. The whole population of Ohio was
1,908,480, the whole population of Georgia, white and black, was
905,999. The population of Ohio, therefore, was more than double
that of Georgia. Here we see her free labor more than double in
number, working one third more land, worth, by valuation, more
than three times that of Georgia. From these elements it might
not be surprising to see her agricultural products greatly exceed
ing those of Georgia, without resorting to the " curse of slavery"
to account for it. But how stand the facts ? Ohio produced the
following articles :
Wheat.. 14,487,351 bush, at 80 cents $11,589,880

Buckwheat 638,050

Indian corn 59,078,695

Rye 425,918

Barley 354,358

Oats 13,472,742

40
30
50
50
25

255,224
17,723,608
212,959
177,179
3,368,182

SPEECH ON THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

131

Peas and beans,

60,168 bush, at 1 dollar

Irish potatoes 5,057,769 "

Sweet potatoes 187,991 "

Tobacco 10,454,449 Ibs.

Cloverseed 103,197 bus.

Flax '. . . . 446,932 Ibs.

Flaxseed 188,880 bus.

Maple sugar 4,588,209 Ibs.

Molasses 197,308 gals.

Wine 48,207 "

Garden products returned in money, value . ,
Orchard " " " " .

40 cents
50 "

7 "

4 dolls.
10 cents
75 "

6 "
35 "

1 dollar

$60,168

2,023,107

. 93,995

731,811

412,748

44,693

141,660

275,292

69,057

48,207

214,004

695,921

Aggregate $38,137,695

This list includes nearly every agricultural product of the earth
in that State, except hay, which is omitted, because in Georgia
there is no return for fodder, which, in that State, answers the
same purpose of hay in Ohio, as food for stock. The quantity of
each product produced is given from the census tables. The
values run out are such as are believed to be the usual average
values of each article in that State, except the products of gar
dens and orchards, which are taken from the tables — no other
values are put upon the products in the tables. The estimate
above stated is believed to be a fair one. Now let us take up the
returns for Georgia and place upon them a like estimated ave
rage value. Here we have :

Wheat 1,088,534 bushels at $1 00.

Indian corn 30,080,099 " 50.

Cotton— bales 499,091 400 Ibs. at 8.

Eice 38,950,691 Ibs. at 4.

Peas and beans 1,142,011 bushels at $1 00.

Sweet potatoes 6,986,428 " 25.

Irish potatoes 227,378 " 50.

Oats 3,820,044 " 37£

Cane sugar 1,642 hhds. 1,000 Ibs. 6.

Molasses 216,150 gallons at 25.

Orchard products of

Garden products of

$1,088,534
15,040,049
15,970,912
1,558,027
1,142,011
1,746,607
113,689
1,432,516
98,520
54,037
92,766
76,500

Aggregate $38,414,168

An amount so far from falling under that of Ohio as might
have been expected, actually exceeds it about a quarter of a mil
lion, without extending the Georgia list to rye, barley, tobacco, and
other articles which are produced in that State. Away, then, with
this prating cry about slavery paralyzing the energy of a people,
and opposing the development of the resources of a country.

If I were to take the statistics of any other State, and go
through them in the same way, I have no reason to doubt that
an equally favorable result to Georgia would follow I took the

4:32 SPEECH IN REPLY TO MB. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO.

State of Ohio, not as any disparagement to her, but to show that
even in the South, where they say the soil is sterile, and the popu
lation inert, and cursed with slavery, as it is said to be, Georgia,
with one half of the population, and only two thirds of the value
of land, exceeds in agricultural products by'one quarter of a mil
lion of dollars the great giant of the West.

Now, then, if the people of Kansas, the people of Nebraska, or
the people of any other portion of our territory, going from old
Massachusetts, going from New York, or from Indiana, or from
the South, learning and consulting wisdom from the past, and
profiting by experience from all parts of the Union, should think
it practically best for the happiness of themselves and for their
posterity in the far distant future, to adopt the social institutions
of Georgia in preference to those of Indiana, if they prefer the
institutions of the South to those of the North, I say they should
not be deprived of their right to do it, and the gentleman from
Indiana, and those who act with him, should not set themselves
up as judges and " masters" to control the matter.

[Here the hammer fell.]

"GEORGIA AND OHIO."

SPEECH IN REPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO.
DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

JANUARY 15, 1855.
A correspondent of the Macon Messenger, says of this speech —

" I have been present at all the debates of the present session,
both in the Senate and House, and I assure you that the house
which your able representative drew together this morning was
the largest that has assembled during the present Congress— in
fact it reminded the " old inhabitants" of the times when throng
ing and anxious crowds poured into the galleries and filled up
all the vacant places, to hear Calhoun, Clay and Webster."

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the
Union on the Pacific railroad bill, Mr. STEPHENS said : —

Mr. CHAIRMAN. I do not propose to discuss the Pacific rail
road bill. Some weeks ago, sir, the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. MACE] gave notice of his intention to introduce in this
House a bill to prohibit slavery in Kansas and Nebraska, and ac
companied that notice with a speech, to which I replied. To the
remarks then submitted by me, the honorable gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. CAMPBELL] made a reply. That speech of the gentle
man from Ohio has been, according to the notice which he gave,
considerably amplified and elaborated, as it appears in the Globe.

SPEECH IN EEPLY TO ME. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO. 433

It is to that amplified and elaborated speech that I intend to de
vote what I have to say on this occasion.

Mr. CAMPBELL. It is very true, Mr. Chairman, as the gentle
man from Georgia [Mr. STEPHENS] remarks, that I did, pursu
ant to notice, amplify and enlarge my remarks, as is usual, under
similar circumstances. Still, it is certainly but just to me that
the gentleman should couple with his notice of the fact, the fur
ther truth that I permitted him to elaborate, just as much as he
desired, the various remarks made by him during the hour al
lotted to me. I submitted to him all the notes of that speech,
and gave him the opportunity of making, in his remarks, all the
alterations that he desired to make. And even after the proof-
sheets were prepared, I again extended the same courtesy to the
gentleman, or rather, I made the proposition to him that he
might amplify just as much as he desired. I wish this statement
to go with the suggestion of the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. STEPHENS. If the gentleman has no other more pertinent
interruption to make during my remarks, I trust he will permit
me to proceed without thus encroaching upon my time.

It is true, Mr. Chairman, that I revised and corrected that
portion of the remarks made by myself. It is true that the
gentleman submitted the proof-sheets of his speech, as printed,
to me, but I did not choose to reply in that way to any matter,
except such points as were drawn out in the debate between us
on this floor, in that speech. I chose to reply here, and in the
way I now propose to do. This was what I was just going to
state if I had not been interrupted. As to the amplification of
his speech I do not object. I did not state the fact in the spirit
of objection. It is not to that point I was speaking. But this
was my object in stating the fact : Inasmuch as, in the speech
published, I do appear to have appeared and taken part in a dis
cussion with the gentleman on some points ; and, inasmuch as
there are many matters elaborated in the published speech,
which are inserted before my answers to the gentleman's interro
gatories, it may, to some not aware of the reason, seem strange
that I made no reply to the gentleman upon these points. It is
for this reason I made the statement, and it is for the purpose
of replying to the gentleman's statistics, I now desire to occupy
some of the time of the committee. I do not object to the gen
tleman's amplification. Not at all, sir. But, sir, I have some
thing to say in reply to these statistics, which were not exhibited
by the gentleman on the floor. I have, sir, a great deal to say in
reply to them ; and I therefore avail myself of this opportunity
— the earliest that I have had — to reply to them. I have more
to say in reply to them, much more than I can speak in one hour,
the limited time that I have.

But, sir, before going into the statistics given in the forepart
of the gentleman's speech, in which he attempted to reply to some
of the positions assumed by me in answer to the gentleman from
28

434 SPEECH IN REPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO.

Indiana, [Mr. MACE,] I wish to state a few things in passing ;
and I will here say that, so far as my consistency is concerned,
(the main object of the gentleman's attack,) I have nothing now
to add to what I have heretofore said. My record may stand as
it is made up. I have no desire to change or modily it in the
least ; not even to cross a t or dot an i. By it, as it stands, I am
willing to abide while Hying, and by it to abide when dead. It
was not made for a day, or for an election, but for all time to
come. But to proceed.

The gentleman from Ohio, in the tenor of his argument, makes
me use language which I did not utter on this floor — or, at least,
he seems to put words into my mouth that I did not use. Now,
when an argument is not staged fairly, it argues either a want of
comprehension, or a consciousness of the want of capacity or
ability to answer it on the part of one who thus fails fairly to
present it. Either alternative does not bespeak much for the
formidable qualities of an opponent. I have, Mr. Chairman, too
high a regard for the intelligence of the gentleman, to think
that he did not understand my argument. I believe that his ob
ject was rather to size the argument to his capacity to reply to
it, as he supposed.

For instance, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman says in his speech,
" we are told that the South gets nothing, that the South asks
nothing." Now, sir, in my reply to the gentleman from Indiana,
[Mr. MACE,] I spoke of the great fact, well known, living, and
" fixed fact," that the industrial pursuits of the South do not, in
the main, look for the protection or fostering care of the gov
ernment, and that the general industrial pursuits of the North
do. I did not say that the South gets nothing, or that the South
asks nothing. I said that the South asks but few favors ; and I
repeat it, sir. Nor am I to be answered by being told that
General Jackson and Mr. Clay — southern men — were in favor of
fostering, as far as they could by proper legislation, the interests
of the North. That does not disprove the fact which I uttered,
that the South does not generally look to the government for
protection, and that the North does. Sir, it rather proves the
opposite, and confirms my statement. Because I stated that the
industrial pursuits of the North look to the government for pro
tection, is that statement disproved by the fact that southern
men, or even myself, have voted to favor those interests, as far
as was consistent with public duty ? So far from disproving, it
tends rather to establish it. What I stated on this point was in
reply to the gentleman from Indiana, whose tone of argument
was, that the South carried measures promotive of their interests
by bluster.

But, sir, to come down to the argument as the gentleman states
it ! If he cannot or does not wish to meet me on the ground that
the South asks but few favors, as I stated it, and that the North
does look more to the government for its fostering care to pro-

SPEECH IN REPLY TO MB. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO. 135

tect its various interests than the South does, very well, I will
meet him on his own ground. If he cannot answer my position, but
must size my argument so as to make it stand as he has it,
that " the South asks nothing, and gets nothing," I will com«
clown even to his ground, so far as his answer is concerned.

The gentleman says, in the first place, putting the language in
my mouth, "The South asks nothing, gets nothing;" and he
then replies, " Certainly not," and refers us to the acquisition of
Louisiana. And then, putting the words in my mouth, again he
says, " The South asks nothing."

" ' The South asks nothing !' • In 1803, we paid fifteen millions to get
Louisiana.

" ' The South asks nothing f In 1819, we paid five millions to get
Florida.

" ' The South asks nothing !' In 1845, her policy brought Texas into
the Union, with a promise that she might carve herself up into five
States.

" ' The South asJcs nothing /' Her Texas annexation brought the war
with Mexico, and more territory was demanded as 'the fruits of that
war.' "

I think he does great injustice to the North when he says that
the acquisition of Louisiana was for the exclusive benefit of the
South.

Mr. CAMPBELL. It is true that, at the time I made a reply to
the gentleman from Georgia, I caught the idea which he presented,
that the South asked nothing, from his manner of expression, and
those were the words which I used at the time as they were
reported.

Mr. STEPHENS. I cannot yield to the gentleman unless he be
very brief.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I call the attention of the gentleman to what
he did say. He did say, as reported, " all that we ask of you is
to keep your hands out of our pockets. That is all the South
asks, and we do not even get that."

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir. The gentleman will find not only
those words, but others in my speech " as reported," all going to
establish the leading point in that part of the argument, that the
South asked but " few favors" compared with the wants of the
North. That was my position, and not that we asked " nothing"
or got "nothing." Some of these favors I specified; but, in the
main, I asserted, or meant, in substance, to assert, as every one
well understood, that the greatest desire of the South was, that
the general government would keep its hands out of her pockets.
And this is true ; and the gentleman did not attempt to reply to
it, except as I have stated. I come now, then, to the gentleman's
reply to the position that the South " asks nothing." To this he
says, "that we paid $15,000,000 for Louisiana." To this I say,
it was not the South alone that secured the acquisition of
Louisiana. Nor was it alone for the benefit of the South. There

436 SPEECH IN REPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO.

were but twenty-three votes in this House against that acquisi
tion. It was a national acquisition. Sustained by national men
from all sections, there was hardly a show of opposition to it
from any quarter. I should suppose that Ohio would be the last
State in this Union to raise her voice against that measure, or
hold that it was exclusively for the benefit of the South. What
would have become of her trade and commerce if Louisiana and
the mouth of the Mississippi were still in the hands of Spain or
France ? If the fifteen millions of money, which we paid, be the
grounds of the gentleman's objection, al^that has been more than
refunded by the sale of public lands embraced within the limits
of that acquisition. These sales, up to this time, have amounted
to $25,928,732 23, besides what is yet to be realized from the
hundreds of thousands of square miles yet to be sold. So the
fifteen millions was no bonus to the South, even if the South had
carried the measure for their own benefit.

Again, was the acquisition of that territory made to extend the
southern area of the country ? Let us examine this view of the
subject. What extent of territory was comprised within the
limits of Louisiana ? It extended not only far up the Mississippi
river, to Iowa and Minnesota, but westward to the Rocky moun
tains even, without now mooting the question, whether Oregon
was not then acquired. Grant, for the sake of this argument,
that Oregon was not then acquired. The territory of Louisiana
stretched from the extreme south on the gulf to the extreme
north on parallel 49° of north latitude. All that immense domain,
including Kansas and Nebraska, was part of it. Was all this
southern territory ? The object of the gentleman from Ohio in
alluding to this subject seemed to be to intimate that all this
acquisition was for the South. But how is the fact ? Let us look
at it. By this acquisition, taking all the Indian territory into
account, the South acquired only 231,960 square miles, while the
North got by it 66*7,599 square miles ! Is this the way that the
South is to be taunted ? When the very acquisition, held up as
the taunt, brought more than double the extent of territory to the
North that it did to the South !

Again, in the acquisition of Florida, the gentleman from Ohio
says that the South carried that measure at a cost of $5,000,000.
This is the tenor of his argument. Sir, this measure was not car
ried by the South, nor for the South exclusively. There was not
even a division in this House on the question. As to the extent
of the acquisition, if we did not get Oregon when we acquired
Louisiana, we certainly acquired it when when we purchased
Florida. It was by the treaty then made that we got Spain's
relinquishment to Oregon. The North, by this measure, got
308,052 square miles of territory, including the territories of
Oregon and Washington, while the South got only the State of
Florida, 59,268 square miles. If the South carried this question
by her votes, I ask were those who gave the votes sectional in* their

SPEECH IN REPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO. 437

policy ? Did not the South, if that be the gentleman's argument,
gain quite as much, nay, more, nay, double, nay, more than five
times as much territory for the North in that acquisition, as she
obtained for herself? Again, in the acquisition of Texas, consid
ering the Mexican war as part of that proceeding, as the gentle
man does, the South only secured 23t,504 square miles, while the
North secured 632, 157 square miles, including California, New
Mexico, and Utah.

The gentleman says, that the North is opposed to acquisitions ;
that she never looks outward, she looks inward ; and that while
the South is always looking to the extension of territory, the
North is looking to the improvement of what we have. This, so
far as looking to acquisition is concerned, I think is not true of
the North entirely. It may be true of some men there. But it is
not true of all her statesmen. In the early history of this coun
try, there were men at the North, and one in particular, who had
no such circumscribed views as those attributed to the North
generally. The man to whom I allude stands first, in my opinion,
of all the northern statesmen of his day. Indeed, he stands, in my
judgment, amongst the men of his day — next to him who has no
equal in any age or country. That man hailed from New York,
and for strength of judgment, for profound thought, for far-seeing
statesmanship, he has never been equalled by any of the illustrious
men since brought upon the public arena by that honored State.
That man, sir, was Alexander Hamilton ; and at the formation of
our constitution, after that provision in the original draft, that
new States to be formed out of territory then belonging to the
United States might be admitted into the Union, was so modified
as to leave out the restriction, so that other States (not confining
it to the then territory of the Union) might come in, Mr. Hamilton
is said to have expressed the opinion, with approbation, that, in
time, we should get Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Mexico, and even
ultimately squint toward South America. That was the man, sir,
who, in his day, was, every inch of him, a " Sampson in the field,
and a Solomon in council." Nay, more; he was one of those
gifted geniuses who caught from the " sunrise of life" that "mys
tical lore" which enabled him to see those coming events which
were casting their " shadows before."

I take this occasion thus to speak of Mr. Hamilton, because he
is a most striking exception to the gentleman's remark, and, also,
because in his day it suited the purposes of many of his cotempo-
raries to detract from his merits, his name, and his character ;
men who barked at his heels, just as the wolves and the hyenas
do, upon the track of the noble king of the forest ; men who never
met him in open conflict but to be vanquished, and many of whom
even quailed from his presence.

But, sir, let us look for a moment, to all our acquisitions. So
far as Louisiana is concerned, if the gentleman begrudges the
money paid for it, even if it had not been reimbursed by the sale

438 SPEECH IN REPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO.

of lands, the State of Georgia, alone, has long since more than
paid that debt by her munificent grant. She ceded to the "United
States that large territory out of which the two nourishing States
— Alabama and Mississippi — have since been made ; out of which,
and from which, you have realized, by sale of lands, much more
than the whole cost of Louisiana. I have now before me a table
of the proceeds of the sale of the public lands in the States of
Alabama and Mississippi. It amounts to $32,205,612 18; the
consideration paid to Georgia was $1,250,000 ; with the extin
guishment of the Indian title within her own limits; all this
amounted to about $11,000,000; so that if it be the amount of
money that lays heavily upon his breast, it may be some consola
tion to the gentleman to know that from this grant by Georgia, a
southern State, you have a clear gain of over $20,000,000.

But, let us look at all our acquisitions. There are now, accord
ing to the census report, belonging to the United States, 2,936,166
square miles of territory, including States old and new,. as well as
territories. There have been acquired, outside of the old thirteen
States, 2,599,105 square miles. Of all these 2,599,105 square
miles thus acquired, there lies north of the line of 36° 30', 1,845,101
square miles, and there lie south of it but 753,404 square miles.
Here, sir, take Louisiana, take Florida, take Texas, take all our
acquisitions, the Georgia and other State grants or cessions, leav
ing out the Mesilla valley, acquired at the last session of Congress,
which is a small item, and you see this astounding fact, in answer
to the remarks of the gentleman on this point, that 1,845,701
square miles of these acquisitions lie north of 36° 30', and only
753,404 lie south of it ! If all north of 36° 30' is to be considered
northern territory, then the North has • got by acquisition more
than double what the South has !

Will the gentleman, then, pretend to answer me, when I say,
that the South asks but few favors, by pointing to these acquisi
tions ? Were these especial, peculiar, and great favors to the
South ? When I have shown that they were carried by patriots
from all sections of the Union, and that more than double the
square miles acquired north of that line which is usually
referred to as defining northern and southern limits ? — am I, I
say, to be thus answered in the face of these facts ? Sir, if the
wild boy in the forest, with his bow and arrow, were vain enough
to imagine that he could bring down the moon by the prowess of his
arms as a huntsman, and should as vainly make the attempt, he
would not come further short of his mark than the gentleman from
Ohio does by letting fly such a shaft as this, either at me or my
argument.

But again, he asks, who was it, at the last session of Congress,
chat desired to place in the hands of the President $10,000,000 for
the acquisition of Cuba ? I can say to him that I did not, and if
there is any gentleman upon this floor from the South that did, I
did not know it. I know of no such movement in this House,

SPEECH IN REPLY TO ME. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO. 439

either at midnight or open day, or any other period of the twenty-
four hours. But I tell the gentleman, in passing, as he has
alluded to Cuba, that I am for the acquisition of that island. I
believe its acquisition would promote the best interest of the
island and of this country ; and that it would promote the interest
of Ohio more than of Georgia. I am not governed by sectional
feelings or interests on this question. Its acquisition would
advance the interests of both countries ; and it would advance the
interest of the North quite as much, if not more, than the South, so
far as its trade and its commerce is concerned. But I was not, and
am not, for putting $10,000,000, or any other sum in the hands of
this administration to buy it. I do not believe that they desire it. I
have never believed that it was either their wish or policy to obtain
it, as several of the most ardent friends of Cuba on this floor very
well know. I gave them this opinion long ago, when some of
them questioned its correctness. The sequel will show whether I
was right or not. But, sir, as I have been drawn into saying
thus much on this subject, it may be proper that I should say
more. I am not for this acquisition upon any plan or principles
inconsistent with the strictest national honor and national faith.
But I am in favor of a repeal of those laws on our own statute
book which make it penal and punishable as a crime of high grade
for an American citizen to take part in any revolution that may
take place in Cuba — any effort of the people there to throw off
Spanish domination and oppression ?

If the people of Cuba were permitted to exercise their own free
will and volition, unawed by the superior power of Spain, as I am
informed and believe, they would not remain a day, much less a
month or year, longer, under the heavy taxes, burdens, and exac
tions of that country which now claim their allegiance only to
oppress and to plunder them. And if they do thus desire to
throw off the yoke of their oppressors, why should we punish
American citizens for no reason but aiding them in their patriotic
attempt ? Why should we keep the peace for Spain ? When did
she, by her conduct toward us, put us unfler such obligations ?
Was it when she held the mouth of the Mississippi, or Florida ?
Was it when she armed the savages of the frontiers against our
undefended people ? Was it when she nurtured in her bosom
such enemies to our peace — such wretches as Ambrister and
Arbuthnot — whom General Jackson had to hang without judge
or jury ? When, I say, did Spain, by her comity and good neigh
borhood, put us under an obligation to punish our citizens for
aiding the native Cubans not only to rid themselves of present
heavy and onerous burdens and unjust impositions, but to pre
vent that ultimate destiny which French and English policy has
concocted for them? In this matter I may have a little more
sympathy for my own race than the gentleman has. Why should
we hold while Spain skins ? I feel no disposition to stand by and
see one of the fairest islands of the world — the Queen of the An-

440 SPEECH IN EEPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO.

tilles — despoiled, rifled, and plundered, and then made a St. Do
mingo or a Jamaica of, any more than I would to see a stately ship,
well freighted, pillaged by pirates, scuttled, and then sent adrift
to sink, without one hand to save. This, sir, is pretty much the
present condition of Cuba. She is now undergoing the pillaging
process ; how soon she will be scuttled and sent adrift to sink I
know not. Sir, Mr. Webster, as early as the delivery of his
Panama speech, intimated very strongly that the policy of thir
country never would or could allow Cuba to pass into other hands
than those of Spain. Mr. Everett in his celebrated and most
masterly letter on the proposed tri-party treaty, very clearly fol
lows up the same views. And Mr. Clay is generally understood
to have maintained, until the day of his death, that this country
ought to go to war rather than permit Cuba to fall into the hands
of England. But who, sir, would not infinitely prefer to see
England hold it, than to see her policy carried out of extirpating
the white race there and filling the island with Guinea negroes
and African savages ? If the first would justify a national war,
the latter may, in my opinion, much more justify us in barely per
mitting such of our citizens, as see fit, to prevent it, if they can.
If such a course should bring acquisition by the free choice of the
people of Cuba, without consulting Spain, I say let it bring it. It
is a matter in which I should be governed much moVe by the
wishes of the people of Cuba than the interests of Spain.

Our trade with Cuba is now large ; but this would be greatly
augmented if it were part of this country, and under our laws. We
should not only be relieved of the heavy duties paid on our exports
there, but the productions of the island consumed in this country
would be largely increased, and her capacity to consume our pro
ducts, agricultural and manufactured, be increased in the same
ratio. I have a document before me that gives the amount of
duty levied and paid now on our exports there upon being intro
duced into the island. On beef is $3 14 per barrel ; pork, $4 89
per barrel; hams, $3 14; lard, $4 19; lumber, $5 60; hoops, $8 39;
coaches, $261. But I cannot read all. The same document gives
the price of a cargo , shipped from New Orleans to Havana, of
flour, hams, and lard — valued at New Orleans at $6,121 52 — on
which the duties paid were $8,028 93. This cargo was made up
of such articles as Ohio produces in abundance. These are her
staples. Would it not, therefore, be greatly to her interest to
have the same aceess to the markets of Havana as to New
Orleans ? I cannot now dwell, indeed scarcely refer, to the vast
interest that shipping men and merchants generally, as" well as
manufacturing capitalists, have in this acquisition.

So far as the African and slavery is concerned, I ask the gen
tleman, and the candid of all parties everywhere, whether the con
dition of that population would not be better under our govern
ment than under the Spanish government? If there be real
sympathy for the African, and real opposition to what is called

SPEECH IN KEPLY TO MB. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO. 141

the atrocities of the slave trade, would not that trade be imme
diately abolished on the island becoming part of the United States ?
View the subject, therefore, commercially or politically, as it affects
interests North or South, what rational objection can there be to
it ? Why, then, should gentlemen be opposed to it, either in open
day, or, if need be, at midnight ?

Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to dwell on the subject as long
as I have done, I only intended to make a very brief reply to the
gentleman's remark about a ten million affair, of which I know
nothing ; but, in passing, I have taken occasion to tell him what I
am for. And I repeat, in conclusion on this point, that, on the
score of humanity, on the score of public interest and statesman
ship — indeed, in every point of view, where is the objection to the
acquisition of Cuba, if it can be honorably and properly acquired ?
I see none, but an obstinate, fixed, and blind dogmatical nonsense.

With this digression I pass to those other points in the gentle
man's speech to which I wish to reply. In the remarks submitted
by me, Mr. Chairman, on the occasion referred to, I made an ex
hibit of statistics, showing that Georgia, with less than half the
population, with nearly a third less land in quantity, and less than
a third in value, compared with Ohio, not only equalled, but ex
ceeded, that State in her agricultural productions, according to
the census returns of 1850. This I did, not for the purpose of
showing, as the gentleman argues, that the labor of an African
slave is better calculated to develop the natural resources of a
country than the labor of an American freeman, but for the pur
pose of showing the utter futility of the argument against African
slavery founded upon the assumption that it is inconsistent with
such development, even in a highly prosperous degree. It was
from no unkind or ungenerous feeling toward Ohio, her people, or
her interests, on my part, that I selected that State for the com
parison. On the contrary, it was because I looked upon her as
one of the most, if not the most, prosperous of all our northern
States ; and, also, because Georgia and Ohio are both eminently
agricultural States. The comparison of States engaged in similar
pursuits is much better to illustrate the working of different sys
tems, than that of States whose people follow different pursuits.
So much, then, for my object. To the statistics exhibited in pur
suance of that object, and that object only, the gentleman has made
an elaborate reply. That reply it is my purpose now to review.

What I said on the former occasion, together with the calculations
then presented, I have before me, and ask attention to it. To wit :

" I had occasion, some time since, for another purpose than the present,
to look a little into the statistics of Georgia, compared with those of other
States. I selected the State of Ohio, because it was one of the most pros
perous of the North — often styled, and, perhaps, justly too, the giant of
the West. According to the census returns in 1850, Ohio had of improved
lands 9,851,493 acres — Georgia had only 6,378,479 acres ; the cash value
of the Georgia land, so improved and under culture, was $95,753,445,
while the cash value of the Ohio lands was returned as $358,758,603 —

44:2 SPEECH IN REPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO.

Ohio had nearly one third more land in a state of improvement than
Georgia had, and returned more than three times the cash value of the
Georgia lands. The whole population of Ohio was 1,980,329, the whole
population of Georgia, white and black, was 906,185. The population of
Ohio, therefore, was more than double that of Georgia. Here we see her
free labor more than double in number, working one third more land,
worth, by valuation, more than three times that of Georgia. From these
elements it might not be surprising to see her agricultural products greatly
exceeding those of Georgia, without resorting to the ' curse of slavery ' to
account for it. But how stand the facts ? Ohio produced the following
articles :

Wheat 14,487,351 bushels, at 80 cents ,

Buckwheat 638,060

Indian corn 59,078,695

Eye 425,918

Barley 354,358

Oats 13,472,742

Peas and beans 60,168

Irish potatoes 5,057,769

Sweet potatoes 187,991

Tobacco 10,454,449 Ibs.

Cloverseed 103,197 bushels,

Flax 446,932 Ibs.

Flaxseed 188,880 bushels,

Maple sugar 4,588,209 Ibs.

Molasses....- .. 197,308 gals.

Wine f 48,207 "

Garden products returned in money, valu<

Orchard " " " " 695,921

Is, at 80 cents . . . . $

^11,589,880

40 " ....

255,224

30 "

17,723,608

50 " ....

212,959

50 "

177,179

25 " ....

3,368,182

1 dollar ....

60,168

40 cents ....

2,023,107

50 " ....

93,995

7 " ....

731,811

s, . 4 dolls

412,748

10 cents

44,693

s, 75 " ....

141,660

6 " ....

275,292

35 " ....

69,057

1 dollar....

48,207

214.004

Aggregate $38,137,695

" This list includes nearly every agricultural product of the earth in
that State except hay, which is omitted, because, in Georgia, there is no
return for fodder, which, in that State answers the same purpose of hay
in Ohio, as food for stock. The quantity of each product produced is
given from the census tables. The values run out are such as are believed
to be the usual average values of each article in that State, except the
products of gardens and orchards, which are taken from the tables — no
other values are put upon the products in the tables. The estimate above
stated is believed to be a fair one. Now let us take up the returns for
Georgia, and place upon them a like estimated average value. Here we
have :

Wheat 1,088,534 bushels at $1 00 .... $1,088,534

Indian corn 30,080,099 " 50 15,040,049

Cotton— bales 499,091 400 Ibs. at 8 .... 15,970,912

Rice 38,950,691 Ibs. at 4 .... 1,558,027

Feas and beans 1,142,011 bushels at 1 00 .... 1,142,011

Sweet potatoes 6,986,428 " 25 .... 1,746,607

Irish potatoes 227,378 " 50 .... 113,689

Oats 3,820.044 " 37£.... 1,432,516

Cane sugar 1,642 hhds., 1000 Ibs. 6 .... 98,520

Molasses 216,150 gallons at 25.... 54,037

Orchard, products of

Garden, products of 76,500

Aggregate $38,414,168

SPEECH IN REPLY TO ME. CAMPBELL, ~OF OHIO. 443

" An amount, so far from falling under that of Ohio, as might have been
expected, actually exceeds it above a quarter of a million, without extend
ing- the Georgia list to rye, barley, tobacco, and other articles which are
produced in that State. Away, then, with this prating cry about slavery's
paralyzing the energy of a people, and opposing the development of the
resources of a country."

In commenting upon these exhibits, or tables, the gentleman
files no objection to the items of products, except the article of
hay, which, he says, ought not to be omitted in the Ohio list. He
complains, however, of the prices or values, and the basis on which
the estimates are founded. He objects to putting Georgia wheat
at one dollar, and Ohio wheat at eighty cents. This is what he
calls a " sliding scale." He insists that the products of both
States should be placed on the same basis, and estimated on the
same scale of prices. This is what he calls the basis of equality.
On this point we are at issue, and, in determining this issue, I am
willing to abide by the principles laid down by the ablest writers
on political economy. The basis of my calculations, was the usual
or average rates of prices in each State, respectively, at that time.
I did not make those calculations to answer the purpose of an
hour speech here, or an electioneering campaign. But I based
them upon principles that will stand the test of time, and which
can never be successfully assailed. If the committee will indulge
me, I will give the gentleman the principles referred to. I read
from Adam Smith :

" There is in every society or neighborhood an ordinary or average rate
of both wages and profit in every different employment of labor and stock.

" There is likewise in every society or neighborhood an ordinary or
average rate of rent," etc.

Again:

" These ordinary or average rates may be called the natural rates of
wages, profit and rents, at the time and place in which they commonly
prevail."

The* same principles are laid down by all writers upon the same
subject. * The basis upon which the value of any products of in
dustry are to be, or should be, estimated, in comparing one country
or State with another, is not that of equality as the gentleman
proposes, but the ordinary or average rates or values at the time
and places respectively. I gave the ordinary average values of
the Georgia products at the time, soon after the census was taken,
and the place — Georgia — where they were produced. I did the
same by Ohio.

Here, sir, I might leave the subject, so far as the principles are
concerned upon which the estimates were made, and so far as the
gentleman's objection to the sliding scale is concerned ; but so far
as the justice or correctness of the scale adopted for Ohio pro
ducts is concerned, I have this to say : That if there is any inac
curacy in it, or injustice done to Ohio by it, as a whole, no one is
more chargeable with it than the gentleman himself. And this, I

444 SPEECH IN EEPLY TO ME. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO.

say, in my own vindication. For it so happens that I have pre
served the calculations made by me in the construction of these
tables more than two years ago, and amongst the papers I find a
memorandum, given to me, upon my request, by the gentleman
from Ohio, which furnished me with the data upon which I framed
the Ohio table. These tables, as I said before, were prepared soon
after the census was taken, for quite another purpose than their
exhibition in this place. And here is the paper, with a list of the
products grown in Ohio, which I submitted to him with a request
that he would put down opposite each article its ordinary average
value or price in Ohio, at that time. This he did ; and here is the
paper :

About the average
at Cincinnati.

Wheat per bushel 80 cents.

Buckwheat. 40 "

Eye 50

Barley 50

Maple sugar, per pound 6

Molasses, per gallon 35

Irish potatoes, per bushel 40

Sweet potatoes, per bushel 50

Oats, per bushel 25

Tobacco 7

Peas and beans 1 dollar.

Cloverseed 5 "

Flaxseed 75 cents.

Indian corn 35 "

He put the price of wheat at 80 cents per bushel ; buckwheat at
40 cents, rye at 50 cents, and so on. The whole list is identical
with the value in the table I made for Ohio products, with the ex
ception of Indian corn, which he put at 35 cents, and cloverseed
at $5. I put Indian corn for Ohio at 30 cents, and cloverseed at
$4 ; because other gentlemen from Ohio, whom I likewise consulted
on the subject, gave it as their opinion that 30 cents for corn, and
$4 for cloverseed, were fair average rates for those articles. And
moreover, his average was for Cincinnati. And I wished to get
as near as possible to the average for the State. In Georgia I did
not take the Savannah or Augusta prices of wheat or corn, but
what I thought a fair average throughout the State. Fairness and
accuracy were my objects.

Now, sir, the gentleman in reply to me on the facts deduced
from his list of prices, has given another list, vastly different
from the one he furnished me with. Let us look at some of these
changes — 80 cents a bushel was what he put wheat at on my list ;
$2 per bushel is what he now rates it at — Indian corn he then put
at 35 cents per bushel ; he now puts that article, at 90 cents. The
changes in these two products, without going further in the in
vestigation, make a difference of over $45,000,000 in favor of
Ohio ! This is " sliding" with a vengeance, as we say sometimes
down South ! And it is in this way that he now gets the Ohio

SPEECH IN REPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO. 145

products to run up to $145,838,232 51. And no wonder! Sir,
I based my calculations and estimates upon principles from which
I will never slide ; upon these principles the tables prepared by
me were given to the world. 1 maintain them now. As the dis
tinguished gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON,] when in the
other wing of the Capitol, said of his plan of the Mexican war —
these tables, sir, "will do to keep." And I intend to keep them ;
not, however, in my pocket, as I believe he kept his plan of the
war, but to use another phrase of that honorable gentleman, I
intend to keep them by spreading them upon the " parliamentary
history of the country."

But I will not let the gentleman off with this exposition, which
is certainly quite enough to establish the accuracy and fairness
of my tables. What he complains most of, is what he calls the
sliding scale — that is, fixing Georgia wheat at $1, and Ohio wheat
at 80 cents. He insists that the estimation for both States should
be on the same scale of prices. Well, sir, I will meet him on
that ground. I will take as a basis for the value of the products
of both States, the very paper he furnished me with for Ohio. I
will bring the scale of prices of Georgia products down to the
average which he put upon similar products in Ohio, but not in
New York.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I suppose the gentleman would not misstate
my positions, and I beg leave to set him right.

Mr. STEPHENS. Be very brief, for I have no time to spare.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Then I will not take up the gentleman's time ;
I merely say that he does not state my position correctly.

Mr. STEPHENS. I understand the gentleman's position, as he
stated it, to be, that the products of Ohio, and those of Georgia,
should be taken at New York prices.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I said I considered it as the great market of
the country.

Mr. STEPHENS. Very well. Then I was not mistaken in his
position. He insists that the products of both States should be
estimated at New York prices, which, I say, is as erroneous as
to estimate the value of the lands in each State at New York
prices. New York is not the market for Georgia sweet potatoes,
or Ohio corn, or Ohio hay. The proper basis for the value of
each is the average values in each State, upon the plan on which
my tables were framed. But, for the sake of the argument, I say,
I will adopt, as a basis, the Ohio prices, as the gentleman gave
them to me himself, and make the Georgia products square with
that basis, so far as we produce similar articles. I will bring
Georgia corn from fifty cents down to thirty-five, and raise
Georgia potatoes up to fifty cents, which is just as absurd as it
would be to estimate a town lot in the small village in which I
live at either Cincinnati or New York prices, for the same quan
tity of land. And I will put cotton, which Ohio does not pro
duce, at the commercial value fixed upon it for that year at the

4:46 SPEECH IN EEPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO.

custom-houses, which is quite as fair as to put it at the Cincinnati
market price, inasmuch as it would cost quite as much to get it
there as to the sea-board. By House Doc. No. 136, 1st sess. 32d
Congress, the price of the cotton crop embraced in the census
returns, was valued at 11^ cents, and a little over. Then, sir,
estimating the values of the products of both States, not at New
York prices, but at Ohio prices, as given by the gentleman, and
putting cotton at the actual value placed upon it officially, by
this official report which I hold in my hand, how stands the re
sult ? I have made the calculation. I have the result before
me. Here are the figures :

OHIO LIST.

Wheat

14,487,351 bushels at

80....

$11,589,880

Buckwheat

, 638,000 " at

40

255,220

Indian corn

59,078,695 ' " at

35....

20,677,543

Eye ,

, 425,918 " at

50....

212,959

Barley

354,358 u at

50....

177,179

Oats

13,472,742 " at

25

3,368,185

Peas and beans

60,168 " at

$1 00....

60,161

5,057,769 " at

40

2,023,181

Sweet potatoes

, 187,991 " at

50....

93,907

Tobacco

10,454,449 pounds at

rt

731,895

Gloverseed

103,197 bushels at

$5 00....

515,985

Flax

446,932 " at

10....

44,693

Flaxseed

188,880 " at

75....

141,660

Maple sugar

4,588,209 pounds at

6....

275,292

Molasses

197,308 gallons at

35

69,057

Wine

48.207 " at

$1 00....

48,207

Garden products

214,004

Orchard products

695,921

Aggregate $41,204,870

GEORGIA LIST.

Wheat 1,088,534

Indian corn 30,080,079

Cotton— bales 499,091

Kice 38,950,691

Peas and beans 1,142,011

Sweet potatoes 6,986,428

Irish potatoes 227,378

Oats 3,820,044

Barley ... 11,501

Cane sugar— hhds 1,642

Molasses 216,150

Tobacco 423,924

Eye 53,750

Orchard products

Garden products

bushels at
at

400 Ibs. at

pounds at

bushels at

" at

at

" at
at

1,000 Ibs.,
gallons at
pounds at
bushels at

80.
35.
1H

4~
00.
50.
40.
25.
00.

6.
35.

7.
50.

$870,827

10,528,034

22,625,458

1,558,027

1,142,011

3,493,214

' 90,951

955,011

11,501

98,520

75,652

29,644

26,875

92,766

76,500

Aggregate $41,675,021

And on this basis of calculation the Ohio products amount to

SPEECH IN REPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO. 447

$41,204,870, and the Georgia products to $41,675,021 ; making a
balance in favor of Georgia of $470,151- — near half a million —
and larger, by $193,678, than the balance in her favor upon the
system, which was the correct one, adopted by me at first. So I
meet the gentleman upon his own ground, and results similarly
favorable to Georgia are arrived at.

But the gentleman insists that hay should not be left out of
the Ohio list of products. My reasons for leaving it out were
given before. It is because there is no return in the census for
fodder or shucks, that species of forage that we use for stock in
Georgia. We produce at least 600,000,000 pounds of fodder, esti
mating 1,000 pounds to every 50 bushels of corn ; besides im
mense quantities of corn shucks, which constitute the food for
our stock, just as hay does in Ohio. For this large and valuable
product there is no return.

But the gentleman says that, in Ohio they make more corn than
we do, and hence more fodder. Not so, sir. In Ohio they do not
save their fodder ; at least it is not usual with them to do it.
They put their labor upon saving hay. We grow an immense
amount of grass in Georgia, but we do not cut it or save it. We
put our labor in saving corn blades and shucks ; and we might as
well claim our uncut grass in our cornfields, as a product to go
into the estimate, as for the gentleman to claim the unsaved
corn blades which grow on their corn stalks. And beside this,
sir, there is no return in the census for cotton seeds, which, in
Georgia, amount in value, annually, at a moderate estimate, at
not less than $1,000,000. So, for these reasons I did omit the
article of hay, as I stated, and did so properly, as I conceive;
and with its omission, and the omission of the corresponding
products of Georgia, upon the gentleman's own basis of calcu
lation — not his last one, of $Few York prices, but the basis he
gave me two years and upwards ago — Georgia, with a popula
tion of less than half that of Ohio, and with land a little over
two thirds in quantity, and something under one third in value,
produced, in 1849, according to the census returns, agricultural
products exceeding those of Ohio in amount nearly $500,000.

But, sir, I do not intend to stop here with the gentleman and
his statistics. I will even follow him to Xew York, and his prices
there. I have his tables of estimates by which he made the annual
products of Ohio amount to $145,838,232 51, and those of
Georgia to only $65,488,267 18. These tables are not given in
his pamphlet speech though they appeared with the speech as
published in the Globe. But I intend to preserve them, whether
he does or not. I shall preserve them as we do uncurrent coin
in my country. For that purpose I have brought them here this
day to exhibit to the House and the Country ; and, in the face of
the gentleman, the House, and the country, to nail them to the
counter as spurious in their' elements and composition. Upon
what principle can he estimate Ohio hay at $16 per ton, because

448 SPEECH IN REPLY TO MB. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO.

hay sells in New York at that price, when, perhaps, a bundle of Ohio
hay never went there for sale in the world ? Upon what principle
can he put Ohio wheat at $2 per bushel, because wheat sells in
New York city at that price, when, by his own account of it, in
the list furnished me, he put its price in Ohio at 80 cents ? Nay,
more — upon what principle is it that he now puts Georgia sweet
potatoes at 50 cents per bushel, when they are notoriously selling
in New York at 25 cents a half peck, or $2 a bushel ? I have a
daily New York paper before me, giving the market price of
sweet potatoes at the rates I have mentioned. Upon what
principle is it, I say, that the gentleman makes up a table of such
a^character as this ? Why did he not give the New York prices
to the entire list of Georgia articles, if he took that as the
national market ? The difference in the Georgia products, in his
table, on this one article of sweet potatoes, amounts to more than
ten millions of dollars against Georgia. It is for this, and divers
other great errors, I nail his table to the counter, here in open
day, that the results deduced from them may not mislead the
uninformed and unsuspecting elsewhere or anywhere.

But, sir, I said I would take up his results, attained, as they
were, and meet the gentleman even on this, his own, ground of
last retreat, in a comparison of the agricultural prosperity of the
two States, according to all just and correct principles ofrpoliti-
cal economy. And it is upon such principles alone, I will treat
or argue such a subject.

According to his exibit, the cash value of the Georgia farms

is $95,753,444

Value of farming implements and machinery, is 5.894,150

This gives a capital of $101,647,594

The cash value of the Ohio farms is $358,758,603

Farming implements and machinery is 12,750,585

This gives a capital of $371,509,188

The products of Georgia, upon the principle of his calcu
lation, which I have exhibited, amount in value to $65,488,267

And those of Ohio to 145,838,232

In this way the gentleman arrives at the conclusion, where he
boastingly says, that Ohio was ahead of Georgia, annually,
$80,349,965.

But let us see how such a conclusion can be drawn, even if the
results were as he has figured them out, upon any sound princi
ples of political economy. According to these well-settled prin
ciples, in comparing the relative prosperity of any State, or
business, with another, the amount of the capital, as well as the
products, is to be taken into the account. All writers upon this
science — for it is a science, and one of the profoundest of the

SPEECH IN REPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO. 449

sciences which real philosophers ever taught — lay this down as
one of the axioms, or the postulates, upon which they build their
systems. However they may disagree upon other matters, all
agree upon this fundamental truth. Mr. McCulloch, whose work
I have before me, after stating that the species of labor, or kind
of employment, is not to be looked at so much as its results,
says:

" It is not, therefore, by the absolute amount of its capital, but by its
power of employing that capital with advantage — a power which, in all
ordinary cases, is correctly measured by the common and averaged rate
of profit — that the capacity of a country to increase in wealth and popu
lation is to be estimated."

And further on, he says :

" The average rate of profit would seem to be, on the whole, the best
barometer — the best criterion of national prosperity."

Now, what is here stated of national prosperity, or the capacity
to produce wealth, is as true of States as of nations. And the
main object of the gentleman from Ohio seemed to be to show,
that the capacity of Ohio, with her free labor, was much greater
in the production of wealth, or the development of her resources,
than that of Georgia, with her slave labor. Then, sir, let the
case stand as he puts it. Ohio, with free labor, on an investment
of $371,509,188 in capital, produces, with her labor, $145,858,232.
This is 39 per cent. That is the Ohio product toward capital,
bears the ratio of 39 per cent., while Georgia, on an investment of
capital of $101, 647, 594, produces, withher labor, $65,488,267, whic^
is 64 per cent. And this is just 25 per cent, in favor of Georgia
upon the gentleman's own extravagant and erroneous assump
tions. The gentleman may say that the value of the slaves should
be added to the Georgia capital. Not so, sir ; for the purposes of
this argument and the object of the gentleman, which was to show
the superiority of voluntary over involuntary, or free over slave
labor, in the amount of production and in the development of a
country's resources. The question he presents has but a single
point, and that is, the productiveness of labor. Here we have
Ohio labor as it is, whether free or hired — which is a way of buy
ing at a high price — working her capital in land, and suitable
implements in husbandry, and producing, in gross, at the rates
of 39 per cent, on capital ; and Georgia labor as it is, whether
free or bought, working her capital of the same character in like
business, throwing off like productions, in gross, at the rates of
64 per cent, on capital.

But the gentleman says that the live-stock in each State should
be taken into the account of the annual products. This is a most
singular idea. But let it be done, and then how stands the
result? Still more favorable to Georgia. Every step he takes
plunges him deeper in the mire of his errors. For Georgia has
much more live-stock, in proportion, either to her population,
white and black, or capital, than Ohio has. Of neat cattle,
29

4:50 SPEECH IN REPLY TO MB. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO.

Georgia has 1,097,528. Ohio, with about double the population,
has only 1,358,947. This is exclusive of swine or hogs. For
when the gentleman talks of driving Ohio fat hogs to Georgia,
he must be reminded that Georgia has more hogs than Ohio has.
Georgia, by the census, had 2,168,617 hogs, while Ohio, with
her much larger population, had only 1,964,770. But if the
whole value of the live-stock in each State be taken into the ac
count, I say the result will still be more favorable to Georgia.
The Ohio live-stock is put down at $44,121,741. In Georgia it is
put down at $25,728,416. If these amounts be added to the
respective products before stated, we shall have the Ohio aggre
gate, as the gentleman states, $189,959,973, and the Georgia
aggregate, $91,216,683. We should then have the Georgia
capital, of $101,647,594, producing $91,216,683, which is 89 per
cent, and the Ohio capital, of $371,509,188, producing $189,959,
973, which is only 51 per cent. Being a production at the ratio
of 38 per cent, on capital in favor of Georgia.

I have, Mr. Chairman, gone through with this illustration more
for the purpose of exposing the fallacies of the gentleman than
for any other purpose ; and to show that, notwithstanding his
most untenable assumptions as to the basis of prices, and his
want of adherence, even to his own basis, first, in not abiding by
his own list furnished me for Ohio products, and then in not
putting Georgia potatoes at the New York <5ity market price,
when he adopted that basis ; that, notwithstanding all this, his
effort to make it appear that the agriculture of Ohio, under her
system of labor, is more prosperous than that of Georgia under
her system, has, according to the soundest principles of political
economy, most signally failed. I, therefore, leave this branch of
the subject where I left it before. The same exhibits I then made
on this subject, I again make, and hold them up to the strictest
scrutiny. Their results may astonish many who have never
devoted attention and investigation to the subject ; but the
principles upon which they are founded, and the great truths
they illustrate, may be railed at, but they can never be refuted.

But, Mr. Chairman, my time is fast passing away, and I too,
must pass hurriedly on.

The gentleman says there are other statistics besides those of ag
riculture ; and he goes into an enumeration of several classes of them
in comparing the physical, as well as as intellectual, developments
of Ohio with. Georgia ; he instances manufactures, public improve
ments, colleges, churches, and some others I can. only glance at.

The first he gives, is the following table:

MANUFACTURES, ETC.

Per cent
Capital invested. Raw material. Annual product. profit

Ohio $29,019,538 $34,677,937 $62,647,259 49.97

Georgia 5,460,483 3,404,917 7,086,525 36.06

Ohio ahead $23,559,055 $31,273,020 $55,560,734 13.91

SPEECH IN REPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO. 151

From this table one would suppose that Ohio had the capital
here stated invested in manufactures, with the result stated ; but,
sir, by turning to the census returns, we shall find that much more
is covered by the et caetera than by manufactures ; under this et
csetera come mechanic arts and mining. But in the census I find
no clue to what these mechanic arts are, or the details of mining —
I do, however, to manufactures proper, which is the heading title of
the table. We have in the census (Compendium, page 180) the man
ufacture of cotton, woollens, pig-iron, wrought iron, iron castings,
and distilleries and breweries ; these are all the detailed heads of
manufactures proper that the census gives — and the whole capital
in Ohio, invested in all these branches together, is but $6,161,644.

Here are the exact amounts taken from the census :

Capital invested in manufactures of cotton $297,000

" woollens 870,220

pig-iron 1,503,000

wrought iron 164,800

" iron castings 2,063,650

distilleries and breweries 1,262,974

$6,161,644

I do not include fisheries and salt making, for how they can be
properly classed with manufactures I cannot imagine ; so that et
csetera covers a large portion of the $29,019,538, set down by the
gentleman under the head of manufactures, etc. And now, sir, I
will take up two of the most important of these manufactures
proper, to wit : cotton and woollens, and see how they stand, re
spectively, in Ohio and Georgia :

Product. Per cent.

$2,135,044 55
88,750 56

Product. Per cent.

$394,700 33
1,111,027 31

No. of
establishments.

Cotton. 35
Woollen 3

GEORGIA MANUFACTURES.

Value
Capital invested. Raw material. Cost of labor.

$1,736,156 $900,419 $276,818
68,000 30,392 19,615

OHIO MANUFACTURES.

No. of
establishments.

Cotton 8
Woollen 130

Capital invested.
$297,000

870,220

Value
Raw material.

$237,060
578,423

Cost of labor.

56,691
257.215

From this it appears that, in the manufacture of cotton and
woollens, (which are those things that the mind generally turns
to when speaking of manufactures,) so far from the State of Ohio
being 13.91 per cent, ahead, when we take the ratio of capital to
production, she is, in the first, 22 per cent., and in the other, 25
per cent, behind. I have not looked into the manufacture of iron,
to see how the result would stand, because Georgia has very little
capital invested in that business, and Ohio has certainly not
enough to make it a matter of great importance there.

452 SPEECH IK BEPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO.

Under the head of distilleries and breweries, I find that Ohio
has a capital invested of $1,262,974, in which they used 330,950
bushels of barley, 3,588,140 bushels of corn, and 281,750 bushels of
rye; out of which, they made 96,943 barrels of ale, and 11,865,
150 gallons of whiskey! But the price of the corn or grain is
not given, so that it is impossible to tell what ratio the value of
the product in this business bore to the investment. But it may
be that it is under this head that a very heavy percentage was
counted, which increased the mean average on manufactures in
all branches taken as a class. But in Georgia, on the manufac
ture of cotton, the production, after taking off the cost of labor
and raw material, bears to capital invested the ratio of 55 per
cent. ; in Ohio but 33 per cent. In Ohio, on woollen manufac
tures, the similar ratio of product to capital is 31 per cent. ; in
Georgia 56 per cent. 1 I cannot dwell upon these things.

Mr. CAMPBELL. You are wrong there.

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir. I am never wrong upon a matter I
have given as close attention to as I have given to this.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I can prove it.

Mr. STEPHENS. You had a chance to show that I was wrong
once before, but you signally failed. Try it again.

I come, now, to railroads. The gentleman says that Ohio has
2,367 miles of railroad in operation, while Georgia has but 884
by the census, placing Ohio 1,485 miles ahead. Very well, sir. This
is a very good showing ; and if she had five times as many more
miles, it would have nothing to do with what I said about
agricultural products. But, sir, as favorable as this showing
seems to be for Ohio, if we look a little into the matter, it will
not be so bad for Georgia as the gentleman seems to imagine. I
find, by looking into the Railroad Journal, and taking all the
roads in Ohio and Georgia — the condition of which is given in
that publication — that 1,071 miles of the Ohio roads, which have
a capital of $18,094,102, have, also, a funded debt of $12,225,400 ;
while in Georgia, 553 miles of her roads, the capital of which is
$9,099,975, have a funded debt of only $732,401.

From this it appears that the roads in Ohio, as far as I have
been able to get information, are two thirds unpaid for ; while in
Georgia less than one twelfth of hers is unpaid for. If all the
roads in each State, therefore, stand in a similar condition ; or
if the 1,071 in one, and 553 in the other, may be taken as a
sample for the whole in each State, then Georgia has more road
completed and paid for than Ohio has. Two thirds of 2,367, the
number of miles of the Ohio roads, is 1,578, which taken from that
sum, leaves only 789 miles in operation and paid for. While
one twelft'h taken from 884 miles of the Georgia roads, leaves
811 miles complete and paid for. And why should not these
improvements, boasted of, as they are, as evidences of prosperity,
be subjected to this test? Is it any more evidence of the thrift
or prosperity of a people, that they have railroads for which they

SPEECH IN EEPLY TO ME. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO. 453

are heavily encumbered, than it is of the thrift or prosperity of a
man, from the fact that he accumulates property by running in
debt for it ? A man's real thrift can only be correctly ascertained
by knowing not only what he has, and what he makes, but what he
owes. And the same principle is equally applicable to States or
communities. With this view of the subject therefore, and
especially when we take into consideration the much greater
population of Ohio than Georgia, the railroad showing is, by no
means, prejudicial to the character of the latter State, for that
sort of progress, which pays as it goes, and which never fails in
the end to secure the most lasting and permanent prosperity.

But the gentleman says that " there is another sort of develop
ment to be considered — that of the mind." And he Cites to us
the colleges in Ohio, 26 in number, against 13 in Georgia, putting
Ohio 13 ahead. Now, sir, let us see if he is entitled to this
boasting exultation upon any just principles of comparison.
Ohio, it is true, has, by the census returns, 26 colleges, while
Georgia has but 13. But Ohio has a white population of 1,955,
050, while Georgia has but 521,512. Ohio, therefore, might very
well be expected to have more colleges ; but if the gentleman
claims the number of colleges as evidence of greater develop
ment of mind, Ohio ought to have a number equal to the ratio of
her population to that of Georgia. And, upon this basis, she
ought to have 48 instead of 26, so that she is realty 22 behind
what she ought to have, instead of being 13 ahead.

But, sir, there is another view of this subject that the gentle
man did not present, but which is one much more interesting
to those looking after mental development than the number of
colleges, and that is, the number of pupils or students at them.
Georgia, at her 13 colleges, by the census, has 1,535 pupils ; and
Ohio, to have as many, in proportion to her population, ought to
have 5,852, but, in fact, as the returns show, she has only 3,621.
So, here again, upon the basis and ratio of white population, she
is 2,231 behind. Georgia, by the census, has one pupil at college
for every 339 of her entire white population, and Ohio has only
one for every 539 of hers. In this particular, Georgia, by the
census returns, is not only ahead, and a long ways ahead, of Ohio,
but of every State in the Union, and of any and every other State
or nation in the civilized world ! This I will set down as a legiti
mate "set-off" against the gentleman's array of those who cannot
read and write in Georgia. On this head he says, that Ohio has
but one to every twenty-nine of her population who cannot read
and write, while Georgia has one to every twelve of hers. I shall
not dispute the returns of the census takers on this head, either
in Georgia or Ohio ; but there is one singular fact about it which
strikes me as something worthy of note, and that is, that out of
the foreign population — alien born — of 218,099, in Ohio, there
should be found no more than 9,062 adults who cannot read and
write. If this be true, then much that we hear said of the isnor-

454 SPEECH IN KEPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL; OF OHIO.

ance and want of intelligence on the part of that class of people,
cannot be well founded.

But I have this to say of this showing against Georgia : Much of it
is owing to some important facts in her history. Georgia, it is true,,
as the gentleman says, was one of the old thirteen States ; but, in
point of settlement, she should be ranked junior to several of the
new States, particularly Ohio : It has not been twenty years since
she got possession of her entire territory. And for forty years
after independence was declared, she had possession of but little
over half of it. It was held by the aborigines, while the Indian
title to at least two thirds of the Ohio territory — if I am not
mistaken — was extinguished by the treaty of Greenville, in 1195.
Ohio was admitted as a State in 1802 ; and, as early as 181*7, the
Indian title was extinguished throughout her territory, with the
exception of some small reservations. It was not until 1838 —
more than twenty years afterward — that the Indians were re
moved from that large and fertile section of our State known as
the Cherokee country. This is now, by far, the most densely
populated of any part of the State. The policy of Georgia in
lettering off her lands in small tracts of 202 J, and 160, and 40
acres each, without any price, except the grant fees, naturally
induced the landless, and the most indigent, whose means for
education in early life had been most limited, in the neighboring,
and even distant, States, to look to her cheap domain for homes
whenever any portion of it was expected to be opened for settle
ment. Many of these pioneers, uneducated themselves, went into
the woods, with hardly any thing save a horse and a cart, an axe
and a gun, a wife and, perhaps, not a few " little ones." Without
convenient schools for several years, the older members of the
rising families grew up as their fathers had done. Amongst this
class is to be found much the greater number of those adults
amongst us who can neither read nor write ; but, with industry
and frugality, where labor meets with the returns it does with us,
competency and comforts soon followed. Then came "men ser
vants and maid servants ;" and then, also, commenced that
physical development which it is my pride here to-day to exhibit
in such a high degree of prosperity ; and, what to me is a source
of still more pride and gratification in contemplating the working
of our institutions, is, that many of that great number of students,
both male and female, who now crowd our colleges and halls of
learning, with such distinguishing honor to the State, are the
younger sons and daughters of parents who, thirty and forty
years ago, commenced life's career in our then wilderness, poor,
illiterate, and destitute, as I have described. Moreover, Georgia
has never received any aid from this government for educational
purposes. Ohio has received 69,120 acres of land for colleges,
which, at government prices, is $86,400. She has, besides, re
ceived, for common schools, 704,488 acres of land, which, at the
same estimated rates, makes more than $800,000. And, for

SPEECH IN EEPLY TO MB. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO. 155

internal improvements, she has received 1,050,287 acres more.
And to this may also be added over half a million of dollars she
has received as a percentage on the amount of land sales in her
limits. Georgia has been your benefactor to the amount of
millions in the grant of public domain, but the recipient of none
of these favors. She made herself what she is by her own exer
tions, energy, and enterprise.

But, sir, I pass on to churches. The gentleman gives us this
table :

No. of Churches. Accommodation. Value. Average Value.

Ohio 3,936 1,457,294 $5,793,099 $1,471

Georgia 1,862 627,197 1,269,359 679

Ohio ahead.. 2.074 830,097 $4,523,740 $792

Here the gentleman again, as usual with him, sets down Ohio
as ahead! But let us see if such be the fact. Ohio has more
churches, it is true, and ought to have, for she has more people.
But how does the number of churches stand in proportion to the
population in each State ? By the census, the church accommo
dation in each is as follows : Georgia 2.05 to every 1,000 popu
lation ; Ohio 1.99 to every 1,000 population ; that is, Georgia has
over two churches to every one thousand of her entire population,
white and black, while Ohio has less than two to the same portion
of her population. To have her full,ratio of churches, according to
population, to be equal to Georgia, Ohio ought to have 4,059, in
stead of 3,936. So that, so far from being two thousand and seventy-
four ahead, as the gentleman says, she is really, and in fact, 123 be
hind^ It is true that Ohio buildings are estimated at a higher
cost or value than those in Georgia ; and this may be according
to the fact. But with us we do not look so much to the splendor of
architecture, or the outward appearance of our temples of wor
ship, as we do to having a house of some sort where the people
of all classes, including the "poor," yea even the "slave," may
have " the gospel preached to them."

Now, sir, as the gentleman has seen fit to leave the original is
sue of the comparative agricultural developments of the two
States, and has given us statistics on other matters, I will follow
his example, and call attention to one or two other subjects
which will throw some light upon the workings of their respec
tive social systems. The exhibition of churches is only one side of
the moral picture. Let us turn it and look at the other. How
stands the lists of crimes in these States ? By the census, in
Georgia, during the year for which the returns were taken, there
were but 80 criminal convictions in the whole State, while in
Ohio there were 843 ! There were in Georgia, in the peniten
tiary, 89 convicts ; in Ohio there were 406 ; and of these 406
then in prison for crime in Ohio, 44 of them were blacks ! Forty-
four out of a free black population of 25,279 ! This is a most

456 SPEECH IN REPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO.

striking fact, showing the immorality of that particular class of
people, as well as their degradation. If crime existed in the same
ratio amongst the whites in that State, there would be over three
thousand of them in the State prison ! The gentleman spoke of
"carrying the war into Africa." I thought that was the last
place he would be disposed to carry it, as the sable sons of that
umbrtunate land seem to be his especial favorites. But as he
has carried it there, it is but proper that the result should be duly
chronicled.

Again, the general condition of a people is, to some extent, in
dicated by the amount of want and destitution amongst them.
On this head, comparing Georgia with Ohio, the census presents
the following results :

Paupers. Annual cost of support.

Georgia 1,036 27,820

Ohio 2,513 95,250

But, Mr. Chairman, my time is nearly out. There are many
other matters, I did wish to allude to, which I must pass over
and omit. I wanted to say something about the present condi
tion of things in some of the Northern States, particularly in the
city of New York, where it is now found that there is, after all,
something in life worse than being required, or even made to
work. This is the great evil the negro in the South is subjected
to, in the opinion of those who rail so much against our social
system. But that greater evil which is now felt in New York, is
the want of work to do, by which means may be earned to keep
from starving. " Hunger is a sharp thorn" was, a few days ago,
the banner motto, borne by thousands in that great mercantile
metropolis. Under our system, sir, we never have such sq§nes.
We have, it is true, our afflictions of diseases, and epidemics, and
disasters of drought, floods, and hurricanes ; but the wail of
thousands crying for bread, has never yet, under the blessings of
heaven, been heard in our land of sunshine and plenty, "cursed,"
though it be, with slavery ! Even the curses of our enemies seem
to fall as blessings on our heads. We have a " Social Provi
dence," to use a late very appropriate designation given by the
New York Tribune, which prevents all this. A system by which
capital, accumulated in the years of plenty, is required to sustain
labor in the years of want. These matters I wished to go some
what into, but I cannot. But enough has been said to show a
development, whether considered physically, moralty, socially, or
intellectually, quite sufficient to place Georgia (with domestic
institutions as much abused as they are by those who know so
little about them) fully alongside of Ohio, "the giant of the
West," or any other State of this Union. That was my proposi
tion, and I think I have made it good.

I want, in conclusion, however, to say a few things, Mr.
Chairman, about one of our great staples. I omitted it in its
proper place, but it will do, perhaps, just as well here. I mean

SPEECH IN EEPLY TO MR. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO. 457

the article of cotton ; and I wish to say what I do on that sub
ject, from the fact that I have seen it stated that the Ohio hay
crop was equal to the Georgia cotton crop, and that the hay crop
of the United States annually is quite equal in importance, as an
agricultural product, to this great southern, or, I should rather
say, national staple. Those who thus think, or talk, or argue,
take a very narrow, imperfect, and unphilosophical, as well as
unstatesmanlike view of the subject. As io> the mere money
value of this article, or its excess in value over the other, it is
not my purpose to speak ; that — great as, in fact, it is — is a
small matter, infinitely small when placed by the side of other
larger and more comprehensive considerations of the question.
Some things have values extrinsic as well as intrinsic. Cotton
is eminently one of these. Gold and silver are not so much en
titled to be placed on the list of such things as it is. The ex
trinsic value of these metals arises from their agency as the
adopted representatives of all values. With their displacement,
however, many substitutes could be obtained. But what substi
tute could be procured for the agency of cotton ?

Let us look, for a moment — and I have but a moment or two
left — into some of the relations of this product to the active busi
ness operations of the world. To illustrate, I will state simple
facts. These facts are collected from the very able report I hold
in my hand. It was made by Mr. Andrews, a northern man. It
is Ex. Doc. No. 136, 1st sess. 32d Cong. Full credit, therefore,
may be given to the facts. They come with the stamp of the
highest authority. From this document it appears that the cotton
crop of this country gives employment to at least 120,000 tons
of inland steam tonnage, and 1,000 persons in transporting it to
points for shipment. It gives employment to 50,000 American
seamen, and one million of American tonnage in its coastwise
shipment. It gives employment to 800,000 tons of American
shipping, and 40,000 American seamen, in its foreign shipment.
Twenty-five thousand other persons, at least, are engaged in re
ceiving and shipping it. It gives employment to at least 100,000
operatives in American factories, whose annual wages are over
$1*7,000,000. In these factories there are invested eighty millions
of American capital, which turn out, annually, at least seventy
millions worth of products ! With these facts before him, the
writer of the report uses this language. I ask the attention of
the committee to it, because it is no less graphic than truthful :

" Every interest throughout the land — at the North and the South, in
the East and the West, in the interior, and on the Pacific as well as the
Atlantic coast — receives from it (cotton) active and material aid. It pro
motes, essentially, the agricultural interests in those States where cotton
is not produced. It is the main source of the prosperity of the mechanic,
the artisan, and other laboring classes, as well as that of the merchant,
and manufacturer in every section of the Union. Everywhere it has
laid, broad, and deep, and permanent, the foundations of the wealth and

458 SPEECH IN REPLY TO ME. CAMPBELL, OF OHIO.

strength of the United States, and of their independence of foreign nations.
More than any thing else has this product made other nations, even the
most powerful* dependent on the ' United States of America.' More than
any other article, nay, more than all other agricultural products united,
has cotton advanced the navigating and commercial interests of the
eastern Atlantic States, and of the whole Union. It, more than any
other agricultural product, has cherished and sustained those interests,
not merely by its direct contribution, but by awakening commerce in
other countries, from which they have received profitable employment.
Neither the whale fisheries, nor the mackerel and cod fisheries have been
of the same importance and value to those interests as the annual cotton
crop of the United States, since the war of 1812, has been, for its trans
portation coastwise and exportation to foreign countries. Like the light
and heat of the sun, the genial effects of this inestimable blessing which
Providence has bestowed upon this favored people, reach every portion
of the land. They extend to every city, and town, and village, and ham
let, and farmhouse — to the ship, to the steamboat, to the canal barge,
and to the railroad."

Yes, sir, throughout the length and breadth of this vast Con
federation of States, there is not a tenement, whether cabin or
palace, where the life-giving and life-sustaining influence of this
southern product is not felt and realized. And besides this, it
may be added that the same article gives employment, and the
means of supporting human life, to at least three millions of
persons in Europe, and the investment of at least three hundred
millions of their capital ! Figures almost fail, sir, to calculate
the extent of the influence of this article upon the comfort, the
happiness and well being of mankind. The one sixth, at least,
of all these results is due to that portion of this product contri
buted by Georgia. This sketch gives us but a slight glance at
some of the extrinsic values of cotton, to which the money value,
to the grower, great as it is, is but a drop in the ocean. But
who, in the face of these facts, and these grand results, can be
bold enough to maintain that this product of the South, in value
and importance, is to be put in the balance and weighed down
by the hay crop of the North? Or, that the cotton crop of
Georgia, that contributes one sixth of all these results, is, in like
manner, to be put in the scales against the hay crop of Ohio ?
The dried grass, the cow food, that sustains life for a season in
their herds of cattle ; though they were countless in number !
The subjects hardly allow a contrast, much less a comparison ;
and whoever attempts it, does injustice, not only to his own in
telligence as a statesman, if he has a spark of it about him, but he
does gross injustice to one of the most important elements of
his country's greatness ! To adopt the figure of the author of
the report I have just read from, we might much better compare
the lard lamps, or wood fires, or whatever else lights up the dwel
lings of tite nineteen hundred thousand inhabitants of that State
every night, to the full blaze of the " glorious king of day" at
noon shedding abroad, not only light, but heat, animation, and
life upon a smiling world around us.

LETTER ON KNOW-NOTHINGISM. 459

LETTER TO JUDGE THOMAS W. THOMAS, ON THE
SUBJECT OF KNOW-NOTHINGISM.

ELBERTON, GA., 5th MAY, 1855.

HON. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS :

DEAR SIR : — A rumor prevails in this section, to a considerable
extent, that you will decline to serve us in the next Congress, and
the chief reason assigned is, that it is supposed a large number of
your political friends have gone into the secret order called
Know-Nothings. Many of your friends desire to know if this
rumor be true. It is considered an important period in our
national affairs, and your retiring at this time would be felt as a
loss by those who have relied on you through so many trying
scenes.

What are your opinions and views of this new party, called
Know-Nothings ? Knowing your willingness to give your opinion
on all matters of public concern, I am induced to make the in
quiry, and request permission to publish your reply.

Yours truly,

THOMAS W. THOMAS.

CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., 9th MAY, 1855.

DEAR SIR : — Your letter of the 5th inst. was received some days
ago, and should have been answered much earlier, but for my
absence from home. The rumor you mention in relation to my
candidacy for re-election to Congress, is true. I have stated,
and repeated on various occasions, that I was not, and did not
expect to be, a candidate — the same I now say to you. The rea
son of this declaration on my part, was the fact, that large num
bers of our old political friends seemed to be entering into new
combinations with new objects, purposes, and principles of which
I was not informed, and never could be according to the rules of
their action and the opinions I entertain. Hence my conclusion
that they had no further use for me as their representative ; for I
presumed they knew enough of me to be assured if they had any
secret aims or objects to accomplish that they never could get my
consent, even if they desired it, to become a dumb instrument to
execute such a purpose. I certainly never did, and never shall,
go before the people as a candidate for their suffrages with my
principles in my pocket. It has been the pride of my life, here
tofore, not only to make known fully and freely my sentiments
upon all questions of public policy, but in vindication of those
sentiments thus avowed, to meet any antagonists arrayed against
them, in open and manly strife — "face to face and toe to toe."
From this rule of action by which I have up to this time been gov
erned, I shall never depart. But you ask me what are my opin
ions and views of this new party called " Know-Nothings, " with

4:60 LETTER ON KNOW-NOTHINGISM.

a request that you be permitted to publish them. My opinions
and views thus solicited, shall be given most cheerfully, and as
fully and clearly as my time, under the pressure of business, will
allow. You can do with them as you please — publish them or
not, as you like. They are the views of a private citizen. I am
at present, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, literally one
of the people. I hold no office nor seek any, and as one of the
people I shall speak to you and them on this, and on all occasions,
with that frankness and independence which it becomes a freeman
to bear towards his fellows. And in giving my views of " Know-
Nothingism," I most truly say, that I really "know nothing"
about the principles, aims or objects of the party I am about to
speak of — they are all kept secret — being communicated and made
known only to the initiated, and not to these until after being first
duly pledged and sworn. This, to me, is a very great objection
to the whole organization. All political principles, which are
sought to be carried out in legislation by any body or set of men
in a republic, in my opinion ought to be openly avowed and pub
licly proclaimed. Truth never shuns the light nor shrinks from
investigation — or at least it ought never to do it. Hiding places,
or secret coverts, are natural resorts for error. It is, therefore, a
circumstance quite sufficient to excite suspicion against the truth
to see it pursuing such a course. And in republics, where free
discussion and full investigation by a virtuous and intelligent
people is allowed, there never can be any just grounds to fear any
danger even from the greatest errors either in religion or politics.
All questions, therefore, relating to the government of a free
people, ought to be made known, clearly understood, fully dis
cussed, and understandingly acted upon. Indeed, I do not believe
that a republican government can last long, where this is not the
case. In my opinion, no man is fit to represent a free people
who has any private or secret objects, or aims, that he does not
openly avow, or who is not ready and willing, at all times, when
required or asked, candidly and truthfully, to proclaim to the
assembled multitude not only his principles, but his views and
sentiments upon all questions that may come before him in his
representative capacity. It was on this basis that representative
government was founded, and on this alone can it be maintained
in purity and safety. And if any secret party shall ever be so far
successful in this country as to bring the government in all its
departments and functions under the baneful influence of its con
trol and power, political ruin will inevitably ensue. No truth in
politics can be more easily and firmly established, either by reason
or from history, upon principle or authority, than this. These are
my opinions candidly expressed.

I know that many good and true men in Georgia differ from me
in this particular — thousands of them, I doubt not, have joined
this secret order with g'ood intentions. Some of them have told
me so, ay d I do not question their motives. And thousands more

LETTER ON" KNOW-NOTHINGISM. 161

will, perhaps, do it with the same intentions and motives. Should it
be a short-lived affair, no harm will, or may come of it. But let it suc
ceed — let it carry all the elections, State and federal — let the natural
and inevitable laws of its own organism be once fully developed
— and the country will go by the board. It will go as France did.
The first Jacobin club was organized in Paris on the 6th Novem
ber, 1789, under the alluring name of "the Friends of the Consti
tution," quite as specious as that we now hear of "Americans
shall rule America." Many of the best men and truest patriots
in Paris joined it — and thousands of the same sort of men joined
the affiliated clubs afterward — little dreaming of the deadly fangs
of that viper they were nurturing in their bosoms. Many of these
very men afterward went to the guillotine, by orders passed secretly
in these very clubs. All legislation was settled in the clubs — mem
bers of the national assembly and convention, all of them, or most
of them, were members of the clubs, for they could not otherwise
be elected. And after the question was settled in the clubs, the
members next day went to the nominal halls of legislation nothing
but trembling automatons, to register the edicts of the " order,"
though it were to behead a monarch, or to cause the blood of the
best of their own number to flow beneath the stroke of the axe. Is
history of no use ? Or do our people vainly imagine that Americans
would not do as the French did under like circumstances ? "Is thy
servant a dog that he should do this thing?" said the haughty, self-
confident Hazael. Yet, he did all that he had been told that he
would do. " Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he
fall." Human nature is the same compound of weak frailties and
erring passions everywhere. Of these clubs in France, an elegant
writer has said :

" From all other scourges which had afflicted mankind, in every
age and in every nation, there had been some temporary refuge,
some shelter until the storm might pass. During the heathenism
of antiquity, and the barbarism of the middle ages, the temple of
a god or the shrine of a saint, afforded a refuge from despotic
fury or popular rage. But French Jacobins, whether native or
adopted, treated with equal scorn, the sentiments of religion and
the feeling of humanity ; and all that man had gathered from his
experience upon earth, and the revelations he hoped had been
made him from the sky, to bless and adorn his mortal existence,
and elevate his soul with immortal aspirations, were spurned as
imposture by these fell destroyers. They would have depraved
man from his humanity, as they attempted to decree God out of
his universe. Not contented with France as subject for their
ruthless experiments — Europe itself being too narrow for their
exploits, they send their propagandists to the new world, with
designs about as charitable as those with which Satan entered
Eden."

This is but a faint picture of some of the scenes enacted by that
self-same party, which was at first formed by those who styled

462 LETTER ON" KNOW-NOTHINGISM.

themselves " The Friends of the Constitution." And where did
these " secret Councils " we now hear of, come from ? Not from
France, it is true — but from the land of isms, where the people
would have gone into anarchy long ago, if it had not been for the
conservative influence of the more stable minded men of the South ?
And what scene have we lately witnessed in the Massachusetts
legislature, where the new political organism has more fully de
veloped itself than anywhere else. What are its fruits there?
Under the name of " The American Party," they have armed them
selves against the constitution of our common country which the}7
were sworn to support — with every member of the Legislature, I
believe, save eight, belonging to " the order," they have, by an over
whelming majority vote, deposed Judge Loring, for nothing but
the discharge of his official duty, in issuing a warrant as United
States commissioner, to cause the arrest of the fugitive slave,
Burns. In reviewing this most unheard-of outrage upon the con
stitution, the National Intelligencer, at Washington, says it "shud
ders for the judiciary." And if they go on as they have, well may
the country " shudder," not only for the judiciary, but for every
thing else we hold most sacred. " If these things be done in the
green tree, what may you expect in the dry."

But I have been anticipating somewhat. I was on the prelimi
nary question ; that is, the secresy which lies at the foundation
of the party — that atmosphere of darkness in which "it lives, and
moves, and has its being," and without which probably it could
not exist. I do not, however, intend to stop with that. I will go
further, and give, now, my opinions upon those questions which
are said to be within the range of its secret objects and aims. The
principles, as published, (or those principles which are attributed
to the order, though no body as an organized party avow them,)
have, as I understand them, two leading ideas, and two only.
These are a proscription by an exclusion from office of all Catho
lics as a class ; and a proscription of all persons of foreign birth
as a class ; the latter to be accomplished not only by an exclusion
from office of all foreigners who are now citizens by naturalization,
but to be more effectually carried out, by an abrogation of the
naturalization law for the future, or such an amendment as would
be virtually tantamount to it. These, as we are told, are the great
ostensible objects for all this machinery — these oaths — pledges —
secret signs — equivocations — denials, and what not. And what I
have to say of them, is, that if these in deed and in truth be the
principles thus attempted to be carried out, then I am opposed to
both of them, openly and unqualifiedly.

I am opposed to them "in a double aspect," both as a basis ol
party organization, and upon their merits as questions of public
policy. As the basis of party organization, they are founded upon
the very erroneous principle of looking, not to how the country
shall be governed, but who shall hold the offices — not to whether
we shall have wise and wholesome laws, but who shall "rule us,"

LETTEE ON KNOW-NOTHINGISM. 463

though they may bring ruin with their rule. Upon this principle,
Trumbull, who defeated General Shields for the Senate in Illinois,
can be as good a " Know-Nothing " as any man in the late " Macon
council," though he may vote, as he doubtless will, to repeal the
Fugitive Slave law, and against the admission of any slave State
in the Union ; while Shields, wrho has ever stood by the consti
tution, must be rejected by southern men because he was not born
in the country. Upon this principle, a Boston atheist, who denies
the inspiration of the Bible, because it sanctions slavery, is to be
sustained by Georgia " Know-Nothings" in preference to me,
barely because I will not "bow the knee to Baal," this false polit
ical god they have set up. The only correct basis of party organ
ization is an agreement amongst those who enter into it upon the
paramount question of the day. And no party can last long
without bringing disaster and ruin in its train, founded upon any
other principle. The old national whig party tried the experiment,
when there were radical differences of opinion on such questions,
and went to pieces. The national democratic party are now trying
a similar experiment, and are experiencing a similar fate. This is
what is the matter with it. Its vital functions are deranged —
hence that disease which now afflicts it worse than the " dry rot."
And what we of the South now should do, is not to go into any
" Know-Nothing" mummery or mischief, as it may be, but to stand
firmly by those men at the North who are true to the constitution
and the Union, without regard either to their birth-place or reli
gion. The question we should consider is not simply who
" shall rule America," but who will vote for such measures as will
best promote the interests of America, and with that the interests
of mankind.

But to pass to the other view of these principles — that is, the
consideration of them as questions of public policy. With me,
they both stand in no better light in this aspect than they do in
the other. The first assumes temporal jurisdiction in "forum
con scientist" — to which I am quite as much opposed as I am to
the spiritual powers controlling the temporal. One is as bad as
the other — both are bad. I am utterly opposed to mingling reli
gion with politics in any way. whatever ; and especially am I op
posed to making it a test in qualifications for civil office. Religion
is a matter between a man and his Creator, with which governments
should have nothing to do. In this country the constitution guar
antees to every citizen the right to entertain whatever creed he
pleases, or no creed at all if he is so inclined ; and no other man has
a right to pry into his conscience to inquire what he believes or
what he does not believe. As a citizen and as a member of society,
he is to be judged by his acts, and not by his creed. A Catholic,
therefore, in our country, and in all countries, ought,, as all other
citizens, to be permitted to stand or fall in public favor and esti
mation upon his own individual merit. " Every tub should stand
upon its own bottom."

464 LETTER ON KNOW-NOTHINGISM.

But I think of all the Christian denominations in the United
States, the Catholics are the last that southern people should join
in attempting to put under the ban of civil proscription. Eor as
a church they have never warred against us or our peculiar insti
tutions. No man can say as much of New England Baptists,
Presbyterians, or Methodists ; the long roll of abolition petitions
with which Congress has been so much excited and agitated for
years past, come not from the Catholics ; their pulpits at the north
are not desecrated every Sabbath with anathemas against slavery.
And of the three thousand New England clergymen who sent the
anti-Nebraska memorial to the Senate last year, not one was a
Catholic, as I have been informed and believe. Why then should
we southern men join the Puritans of the North to proscribe from
office the Catholics on account of their religion ? Let them and
their religion be as bad as they can be, or as their accusers say
they are, they cannot be worse than these same puritanical ac
cusers, who started this persecution against them, say that we are.
They say we are going to perdition for the enormous sin of hold
ing slaves. The Pope, with all his followers, cannot, I suppose,
even in their judgment, be going to a worse place for holding what
they consider the monstrous absurdity of " immaculate conception."
And, for my part, I would about as soon risk my chance for heaven
with him, and his crowd too, as with those self-righteous hypo
crites who deal out fire and brimstone so liberally upon our heads.
At any rate, I have no hesitancy in declaring that I should much
sooner risk my civil rights with the American Catholics, whom
they are attempting to drive from office, than with them. But, sir,
I am opposed to this proscription upon principle. If it is once
begun, there is no telling where it will end. When faction once
tastes the blood of a victim, it seldom ceases its ravages among
the fold so long as a single remaining one, be the number at first
ever so great, is left surviving. It was to guard against any such
consequences as would certainly ensue in this country, if this
effort at proscription of this sect of religionists should be successful,
that wise provision to which I have alluded, was put in the fun
damental law of the Union. And to maintain it intact, in letter
and spirit with steadfastness at this time, I hold to be a most
solemn public duty.

And now, as to the other idea — the proscription of foreigners —
and more particularly that view of it which looks to the denial of
citizenship to all those who may hereafter seek a home in this
country, and choose to cast their lots and destinies with us. This
is a favorite idea with many who have not thought of its effects,
or reflected much upon its consequences. The abrogation of the
naturalization laws would not stop immigration, nor would the
extension of the term of probation, to the period of twenty-one
years, do it. This current of migration from east to west, this
exodus of the excess of population from the old to the new world,
which commenced with the settlement of this continent by Euro-

LETTER ON KNOW-NOTHINGISM. i65

peans, would still go on. And what would be the effect, even
under the most modified form of the proposed measure — that is of
an extension of the period from five to twenty-one years, before
citizenship should be granted ? At the end of the first twenty-one
years from the commencement of the operation of the law, we
should have several millions of people in our midst — men of our
own race — occupying the unenviable position of being a " degraded
caste " in society, a species of serfs without the just franchise of a
freeman or the needful protection due to a slave. This would be
at war with all my ideas of American republicanism as I have been
taught them, and gloried in them from youth up. If there be
danger now to our institutions, (as some seem to imagine, but
which I am far from feeling or believing,) from foreigners as a
class, would not the danger be greatly enhanced by the proposed
remedy ? Now, it is true, they are made to bear their share of the
burthens of government, but are also permitted, after a residence
of five years, and taking an oath to support the constitution, to
enjoy their just participation in the privileges, honors, and immu
nities which it secures. Would they be less likely to be attached
to the government and its principles under the operation of the
present system, than they would be under the proposed one which
would treat them as not much better than outcasts and outlaws ?
All writers of note, from the earliest to the latest, who have treated
upon the elements and component parts, or members of commu
nities and States, have pointed this out as a source of real danger —
that is, having a large number of the same race not only aliens by
birth, but aliens in heart and feeling in the bosom of society.

Such was, to a great extent, the condition of the Helots in
Greece — men of the same race placed in an inferior position, and
forming within themselves a degraded class. I wish to see no
such state of things in this country. With as at the South, it is
true we have a " degraded caste," but it is of a race fitted by
nature for their subordinate position. The negro, with us, fills
that place in society and under our system of civilization for which
he was designed by nature. No training can fit him for either
social or political equality with his superiors ; at least history
furnishes us with no instance of the kind ; nor does the negro
with us feel any degradation in his position, because it is his
natural place. But such would be the case with men of the same
race and coming from the same stock as ourselves. And what
appears not a little strange and singular to me in considering
this late movement is, that if it did not originate with, yet it is
now so generally and zealously favored by so many of those men
at the North who have expended so much of their misguided
philanthropy in behalf of our slaves. They have been endeavor
ing for years to elevate the African to equality, socially and politi
cally, with the white man. And now, they are moving heaven and
earth to degrade the white man to a condition lower than that held
by the negro in the South. The Massachusetts " Know-Nothing"
30

466 LETTER ON KNOW-NOTHINGISM.

Legislature passed a bill lately to amend their constitution, so
as to exclude from the polls in that State hereafter all naturalized
citizens, from whatever nation they may come ; and yet they will
allow a runaway negro slave from the South the same right to
vote that they give to their own native born sons ! They thus
exhibit the strange paradox of warring against their own race —
their own blood — even their own " kith and kin," it may be, while
they are vainly and fanatically endeavoring to reverse the order
of nature, by making the black man equal to the white. Shall we
second them in any such movement ? Shall we even countenance
them so far as to bear the same name — to say nothing of the same
pledges, pass-words, signs and symbols ? 'Shall we affiliate and
unite ourselves under the same banner, with men whose acts show
them to be governed by such principles, and to be bent upon such
a purpose ? This is a question for southern men to consider.
Others may do it if they choose ; but, I tell you, I never shall ;
that you may set down as a "fixed fact" — one of the fixedest of
the fixed. I am not at all astonished at the rapid spread of this
new sentiment at the North, or, rather, new way of giving em
bodiment and life to an old sentiment, long cherished by a large
class of the northern people, notwithstanding the paradox. It
is true " Know-Nothingism" did not originate, as I understand its
origin, with the class I allude to. It commenced with the laborers
and men dependent upon capital for work and employment. It
sprang from the antagonism of their interests to foreigners seek
ing like employments, who were under-bidding them in the amount
of wages. But money capitalists of that section, the men who
hold the land and property in tl^eir own hands, wishing to dis
pense with laborers and employees, whose votes at the polls are
equal to their own, seized upon this new way of effecting their
old, long-cherished desire — and the more eagerly as they saw
that many of the very men whom they have ever dreaded as the
insuperable obstacle between them and their purpose had become
the willing, though unconscious instruments of carrying that
purpose out, which, from the beginning, was a desire to have a
votingless population to do their work, and perform all the labor,
both in city, town and country, which capital may require. And
as certainly as such a law shall be passed, so far from its check
ing immigration, there will be whole cargoes of people from other
countries brought over, and literally bought up in foreign ports,
to be brought over in American ships to supply the market for
the labor throughout all the free States of the Union. The Afri
can slave tr.ade, if reopened, would not exhibit a worse spectacle
-in trafficking in human flesh. And those most deluded men of the
North who started this thing, and who are now aiding to accom
plish the end, may find they have but kindled a flame to con
sume themselves. The whole sub stratum of northern society will
soon be filled up with a class who can work, and who, though
white cannot vote. This is what the would-be lords of that sec-

LETTER ON KNOW-NOTHINGISM. 467

tion have been wanting for a long time. It is a scheme with
many of them to get white slaves instead of black ones. No
American laborer, or man seeking employment there, who has a
vote, need to expect to be retained long when his place can be
more cheaply filled by a foreigner who has none. This will be
the practical working of the proposed reformation. This is the
philosophy of the thing. It is a blow at the ballot box. It is an
insidious attack upon general suffrage. In a line with this policy,
the "Know-Nothing" governor of Connecticut has already re
commended the passage of a law denying the right of voting to
all who cannot read and write. And hence the great efforts
which are now being made throughout the North, to influence the
elections, not only there, but in spending their money in the pub
lication of books and tracts, written by " nobody knows who,"
and scattered broadcast throughout the southern States, to in
fluence elections here by appealing to the worst passions and
strongest prejudices of our nature, not omitting those even which
bad and wicked men can evoke under the sacred but prostituted
name of religion.

Unfortunately for the country, many evils, which all good men
regret and deplore, exist at this time, which have a direct ten
dency wonderfully to aid and move forward this ill omened cru
sade. These relate to the appointment of so many foreigners —
wholly unfit, not only to minor offices at home, but to represent
our country as ministers abroad. And to the great frauds and
gross abuses which at present attend the administration of our
naturalization laws — these are the evils felt by the whole country,
and they ought to be corrected. Not by & proscription of all foreign
ers, without regard to individual merits ; but, in the first place,
by so amending the naturalization laws as effectually to check
by holding to strict accountability at the polls in our elections
and prevent these frauds and abuses, and, in the second place,
all those public functionaries, who, either with partisan views or
from whatever motive, thus improperly confer office, whether high
or low, upon undeserving foreigners, to the exclusion of native-
born citizens better qualified to fill them. Another evil now felt,
which ought to be remedied, is the flooding, it is said, of some of
the cities with paupers and convicts from other countries. These
ought all to be unconditionally excluded and prohibited from
coming amongst us. TJJiere is no reason why we should be the
feeders of other nations' paupers, or either the keepers or execu
tioners of their felons — these evils can and ought to be remedied
without resorting to an indiscriminate onslaught upon all who by
industry, enterprise and merit may choose to" better their condi
tion in abandoning the respective dynasties of the old world in
which they may have chanced to have been born, and by uniting
their energies with ours, may feel a pride in advancing the pros
perity, development and progress of a common country not much
less dear to them than to us. Against those who thus worthily

4:68 LETTER ON KNOW-NOTHINGISM.

come, who quit the misruled empires of their "fatherland," whose
hearts have been fired with the love of our ideas and our insti
tutions, even in distant climes, I would not close the door of
admission. But to all such as our fathers did at first, so I would
continue most freely and generously to extend a welcome hand.
We have, from such a class, nothing to fear. When, in battle or
in the walks of civil life, did any such ever prove traitor or recreant
to the flag or cause of his country ? On what occasion have any
such ever proven untrue or disloyal to the constitution ?

I will not say that no foreigner has ever been untrue to the
constitution ; but, as a class, they certainly have not proven them
selves so to be. Indeed, I know of but one class of people in the
United States at this time that I look upon as dangerous to the
country. That class are neither foreigners or Catholics — they
are those natives born at the North who are disloyal to the
constitution of that country which gave them birth, and under
whose beneficent institutions they have been reared and nurtured.
Many of them are "Know-Nothings." This class of men at the
North, of which the Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Con
necticut " Know-Nothing" legislatures are but samples, I consider
as our worst enemies. And to put them down, I will join, as
political allies now and forever, all true patriots at the North and
South, whether native or adopted, Jews or Gentiles.

What our Georgia friends, whether whigs or democrats, who have
gone into this " new order," are really after, or what they intend
to do, I cannot imagine. Those of them whom I know, have assured
me that their object is reform, both in our State and federal
administrations — to put better and truer men in the places -of
those who now wield authority — that they have no sympathies as
party men or otherwise with that class I speak of at the North,
that they are for sustaining the Union platform of our State of
1850, and that the mask of secrecy will soon be removed when
all will be made public. If these be their objects, and also to
check the frauds and correct the abuses in the existing naturaliza
tion laws, which I have mentioned, without the indiscriminate
proscription of any class of citizens on account of their birth
place or religion, then they will have my co-operation, as I have
told them, in every proper and legitimate way, to effect such a
reformation — not as a secretly initiated co-worker in the dark for
any purpose, but as an open and bold^,dvocate of truth in the
light of day. But will they do as they say ? Will they throw off
the mask? That is the question. Is it possible that they
will continue in political party fellowship with their " worthy
brethren" of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and
the entire North ? Every one of whom elected to the next Con
gress is our deadly foe I Do they intend to continue their alli
ance with these open enemies of our institutions and the constitu
tion of the country under the totally misnamed association of the

LETTER ON KNOW-NOTHLNTGISM. 469

"American party," the very principle upon which it is based
being anti-American throughout ?

True Americanism, as I have learned it, is like true Christianity
— disciples in neither are confined to any nation, clime, or soil
whatsoever. Americanism is not the product of the soil ; it
springs not from the land or the ground ; it is not of the earth, or
earthy; it emanates from the head and the heart; it looks up
ward, and onward and outward ; its life and soul are those grand
ideas of government which characterize our institutions, and dis
tinguish us from all other people ; and there are no two features
in our system which so signally distinguish us from all other
nations as free toleration of religion and the doctrine of expatria
tion — the right of a man to throw off his allegiance to any and
every other State, prince or potentate whatsoever, and by naturali
zation to be incorporated as a citizen into our body politic. Both
these principles are specially provided for and firmly established
in our constitution. But these American ideas which were pro
claimed in 1789 by our " sires of 16," are by their " sons " at this day
derided and scoffed at. We are now told that " naturalization" is
a "humbug," and that it is an "impossibility." So did not our
fathers think. This " humbug " and " impossibility " they planted
in the constitution ; and a vindication of the same principle was
one of the causes of our second war of independence. England
held that " naturalization" was an impossible thing. She claimed
the allegiance of subjects born within her realm, notwithstanding
they had become citizens of this republic by our constitution and
laws. She not only claimed their allegiance, but she claimed the
right to search our ships upon the high seas, and take from
them all such who might be found in them. It was in pursuit of
this doctrine of hers — of the right of search for our " naturalized "
citizens — that the Chesapeake was fired into, which was the im
mediate cause of the war of 1812. Let no man then, barely
because he was born in America, presume to be imbued with real
and true " Americanism," who either ignores the direct and posi
tive obligations of the constitution, or ignores this, one of its
most striking characteristics. As well might any unbelieving
sinner claim to be one of the faithful — one of the elect even — ,
barely because he was born somewhere within the limits of Chris
tendom. And just as well might the Jacobins, who " decreed God
out of his universe," have dubbed their club a " Christian Associa
tion," because they were born on Christian soil. The genuine
disciples of "true Americanism," like the genuine followers of the
Cross, are those whose hearts are warmed and fired — purified, ele
vated and ennobled by those principles, doctrines and precepts
which characterize their respective systems. It is for this reason
that a Kamschatkan, a Briton, a Jew, or a Hindoo, can be as good
a Christian as any one born on " Calvary's brow," or where the
" Sermon on the Mount" was preached ! And for the same reason
an Irishman, a Frenchman, a German, or Russian, can be as

470 LETTEK ON KNOW-NOTHINGISH.

thoroughly "American" as if he had been born within the avails
of the old Independence Hall itself. Which was the "true Ameri
can," Arnold or Hamilton ? The one was a native and the other
was an adopted son. But to return. What do our Georgia
friends intend to do ? Is it not time that they had shown their
hand ? Do they intend to abandon the Georgia platform, and go
over, "horse, foot and dragoons," into a political alliance with
their open enemies ? Is this the course marked out for them
selves by any of the gallant old whigs of the 7th and 8th Con
gressional districts ? I trust not, I hope not. But if they do not
intend thus to commit themselves, is it not time to take a reckon
ing and see whither they are drifting? When "the blind lead
the blind" where is the hope of safety? I have been cited to the
resolution which, it is said, the late Know-Nothing convention
passed in Macon. This, it seems, is the only thing that the 600
delegates could bring forth after a two days'*" labor " — and of it
we may well say, " Monies parturiunt ridiculus mus nascitur" —
" The mountains have been in labor and a ridiculous mouse is
born." It simply affirms most meekly and submissively what no
man south of Mason and Dixon's line for the last thirty-five
years would have ventured to deny, without justly subjecting
himself to the charge ofincivism — that is, that " Congress has no
constitutional power to intervene by excluding a new State apply
ing for admission into the Union on the ground that the consti
tution of such State recognizes slavery." This is the whole life
and soul of 'it, unless we except the secret blade of Joab which it
bears toward Kansas and Nebraska, concealed under a garb.

It is well known to all who are informed, that in the organic
law of these territories the right of voting, while they remain terri
tories, was given to all who had filed a declaration of intention to
become citizens. This was in strict compliance with the usual
practice of the government in organizing territories ; and under
this provision that class of persons are now entitled to vote.
Kansas, in two elections under this law, has shown that an over
whelming majority of her people are in favor of slavery. Now,
then, when Kansas applies for admission as a slave State, as
she doubtless will, a southern " Know-Nothing," under this
resolution can unite with his " worthy brethren" at the North,
in voting against it, upon the ground that some have voted for
a constitution recognizing slavey, who had not been "natural
ized," but had only declared their intention. For this resolution,
in its very heart and core, declares that the right to establish
slave institutions "in the organization of State governments,
belongs to the native and naturalized citizens," excluding those
who have only declared their intention. A more insidious at
tack was never made upon the principles of the Kansas and
Nebraska bill. And this is to be the plank on which northern
and southern " Know-Nothings" are to stand in the rejection of
Kansas. But the main objection is to the resolution. Why did it

LETTEE ON KNOW-NOTHINGISM. 471

stop with a simple denial of the power of Congress to reject a State
on account of slavery ? Particularly when it had opened the door
for the rejection of Kansas on other grounds by way of pretext.
Why did it not plant itself upon the principles of the Georgia
resolutions of 1850, and say what ought to be done in case of the
rejection of a State by Congress because of slavery ? So far from
this it does not even affirm that snch rejection by their " worthy
brethren" of the North would be sufficient cause for severing their
party affiliation with them for it ?

Again, I would say not only to the old whigs of the 7th and
8th Congressional districts, but to all true Georgians, whether
whigs or democrats, union men or fire-eaters, whither are you
drifting ? Will you not pause and reflect ? Are we about to wit
ness in this insane cry against foreigners and Catholics a fulfil
ment of the ancient Latin proverb : " Quern Deus vultperdere prius
dementat!" " Whom the gods intend to destroy they first make
mad!" The times are indeed portentous of evil. The political
horizon is shrouded in darkness. No man knows whom he meets,
whether he be friend or foe, except those who have the dim glare
of the covered light which their secret signs impart. And how
long this will be a protection even to them, is by no means cer
tain. They have already made truth and veracity almost a by
word and a reproach. When truth loses caste with any people-
is no longer considered as a virtue — and its daily and hourly
violation are looked upon with no concern but a jeer or a laugh,
it requires very little forecast to see what will very soon be the
character of that people. But, sir, come what may, I shall pur
sue that course which a sense of duty demands of me. While I
hope for the best, I shall be prepared for the worst ; and if the
" worst comes to the worst," as it may, I shall, in common with
my fellow-citizens, bear with patience my part of the .common ills.
They will affect me quite as little as any other citizen, for I have
but little at stake ; and so far as my public position and character
are concerned, I shall enjoy that consolation which is to be derived
from a precept taught me in early life, and which I shall ever
cherish and treasure, whatever fortune betides me :

"But if, on life's uncertain main,
Mishap shall mar thy sail,
If, faithful, firm and true in vain,
Woe, want, and exile thou sustain,
Spend not a sigh on fortune changed."

Yours, most respectfully,

ALEXANDER H STEPHENS.

HON. THOMAS W. THOMAS, Elberton, Ga.

4:72 SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL.

SPEECH AT THE CITY HALL, IN AUGUSTA, ON THE
OCCASION OF HIS ANNOUNCING HIMSELF A CAN
DIDATE FOR RE-ELECTION TO CONGRESS IN 1855.

FELLOW CITIZENS : Two years ago, or a little less, I appeared
before you, in the same place where I now stand. I had been
put in nomination for Congress informally, by a portion of the
people in this, as well in several other counties of the district.
In responding to that call, on that occasion, I stated, as many
of you doubtless recollect, that I had no pledge to give, except
that if I should be returned, it would be my utmost endeavor so
to discharge my duties as your representative, that no man in
the district, or in the State, whether whig or democrat, should,
upon the expiration of my term of office, have just reason or
cause to say, that his rights, interest, or honor, or the rights,
interest, or honor of Georgia, had suffered detriment at my hands.
With this pledge I was elected. The term of office to which I
was so chosen expired the 4th of March last. My acts, as your
representative, are known to all of you; they have been sub
jected to the most rigid scrutiny ; and before proceeding further
with what I have to say this night, I wish to ask if there is a man
in this very large assembly, called together without distinction
of party, who feels that the pledge then given has not been re
deemed ? Is there a whig here, or a democrat, or a " know-
nothing," or an " anti know-nothing" — a Protestant, or a
Catholic — a native, or a naturalized citizen, who will say that he
feels that his rights, interests, or honor, or the rights, interests,
or honor of the district or State, as far as they were committed
to me, have sustained injury in my hands ? If so, let him speak.
Let him name in what I came short of duty, or what single act I
did, of which he has cause to complain ? I pause for a reply ! No
one answers. Then may I not be bold enough to presume that
my public conduct during the official term which is now termi
nated, meets the approbation of all ?

[Here a suggestion was made to Mr. Stephens to go to the
front steps of the Hall, as a great many persons were outside and
could not get in, who were desirous of hearing. To this Mr.
Stephens said : he would greatly prefer to speak in the house,
but, as he wished all to hear, he would leave it with the audience ;
in this matter as in all others he would cheerfully bow to the will
of the people, even if it were against his own. The desire for him
to go to the steps being very generally expressed he acquiesced,
and proceeded to the front steps of the Hall, where he continued
his remarks as follows :]

Fellow Citizens : — In obedience to the general wish, and that
all may hear, I shall proceed with what I have to say as soon as
you get composed. I cannot, however, speak to you as I wish,

SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL. 473

standing as we are in the dark — I always like to see the faces
of people I address and to look them in the eye. I had just put
a question to those in the large room within, whether there was
whig or democrat, or any man in the 8th Congressional district
present, be his politics what they may, who upon a review of my
public conduct as his representative in the Congress terminated
last March, can say that he has cause lor aught to complain
against me ? Had his rights, interest, or honor, suffered in my
hands ? To this question thus put, there was no gne there who
said that they had. The same question I now repeat to this much
larger multitude without. If there be one here who has aught to
complain against me, in the redemption of the pledge made two
years ago, let him now speak ? No one says that he has. Let
the past, then, be considered as settled. No representative could
ask for more than that his official conduct should meet with uni
versal approbation. So much then for the past — I come now to
the present and the future.

Since the termination of my official relation to you as repre
sentative, new questions, new issues, new principles, and new com
binations of parties, for new objects and purposes, have become
the absorbing themes of polit^Rl agitation and excitement. As
I differed on these new questions and issues with many of my old
friends, who were still looking to me, as they informed me, as
their next representative in Congress, I felt it no less due to them
than to myself to let them know that I could never consent to be
their representative to carry out these new purposes, principles,
and objects as far as I was enabled to understand them. A
strong sense of duty required me to retire from a position where
it might be supposed that I would even hold office conferred by
those who consider these new questions and issues as the para
mount questions of the day. This I did. My position was made
known, and my opinions on these questions were fully given in a
letter to a friend, with which you are all familiar. Since the
publication of that letter, I have been appealed to by several,
who inform me that they belong to the "New Order," as it is
called, and who say, that while they disagree with me in many
things in the letter, yet they look upon all those questions as of
minor and secondary importance when compared with others that
will most probably arise in the next Congress, on which they do
agree most fully and heartily with me ; and that it is their desire
that I shall be their representative again, notwithstanding this
difference of opinion. Besides these, I have received a great
many urgent appeals not only from old political associates out
side of the order, but from those who have heretofore been oppo
nents, to allow my name to go again before the people of the
district for re-election. This class agree with me not only upon
what should be the paramount questions of the day, but also upon
the principles set forth in my letter to Colonel Thomas. These
appeals, from these different sources, have not been without their

474 SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL.

effect upon me. But other considerations have also contributed
in producing that determination in response to these various
calls, which it is my purpose on this occasion to announce to you.
I have heard that it has been said that I had declined being a
candidate because a majority of the district were " Know-Noth
ings," and I was afraid of being beaten. Now, to all such who
entertain any such opinion of me, I wish to say that I was influ
enced by no such motive. I am afraid of nothing on earth, or
above the earjh, or under the earth, except to do wrong — the
path of duty I shall ever endeavor to travel, " fearing no
evil," and dreading no consequences. Let time-servers, and
those whose whole object is to see and find out which way the
popular current for the day and the hour runs, that they may
float upon it, fear or dread defeat if they please. I would rather
be defeated in a good cause than to triumph in a bad one. I
would not give a Jig for a man who would shrink from the dis
charge of dutjr for fear of defeat. All is not gold that glitters ;
and there is no telling the pure from the base metal until it is
submitted to the fiery ordeal of the crucible and the furnace. The
best test of a man's integrity and the soundness of his principles
is the furnace of popular opinioi^feind the hotter the furnace the
better the test. From that test I have never shrank, and never
shall. All that I wanted after my principles were made known
to the people, was to be satisfied that any portion of them in the
district — as small even as Gideon's hosts of three hundred —
desired me to go before the district with these principles and in
advocacy of them ; before them I was willing to fall, if the people
so said. Bare success, depending often upon the fickle goddess of
fortune, or luck, or chance, or even temporary delusion, is not a
divinity at whose shrine I pour oblations.

Having been satisfied, therefore, that there are three hundred
who do thus desire me to be a candidate again, and also to let
those who seem to know so little of me or the motives by which
I am governed, understand that I am not afraid to run or afraid
to do any thing that I may think right, whether it is attended
with success or defeat, I am here to-night. I have travelled from
a distant part of the State where I first heard these floating
taunts of fear — as having come from this district — for the sole
and express purpose of announcing to you, one and all, and in
this most public way, to announce to the other counties, without
distinction of party, that I am again a candidate for Congress in
this district. The announcement I now make. My name is
hereby presented to the district. Not by any convention under
a majority or a two third rule — but by myself. Do with it as you
may each of you think proper. I have no other pledge or promise
to give but the one given before — that is, if I should be elected,
I shall endeavor to discharge my duties as that no man in the
district shall have just cause to feel that his rights, interests or
honor have suffered injury in my hands at the expiration of my

SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL. 175

term of office ; or that the rights, interests or honor of our com
mon State have sustained injury, so far as they may be committed
to me as one of the representatives.

I know, fellow-citizens, that many of you differ with me upon
those exciting questions, which are now dividing — and most un
happily, too, as I conceive — dividing our people. I know, too,
what a difficult and unpleasant task it is to speak to a people in
opposition to the strong inclinations of their minds — not to say
settled convictions, prejudices and fixed judgments. But I should
be untrue to you as well as myself this night, if I did not say
something to you upon these questions. Many of you, I doubt
not, perhaps most of you, from what I have heard, belong to the
''new order." I have therefore before me the very unpleasant
and difficult task alluded to. To go with the current is often the
"facilis descensus averno." But to oppose it, "hie labor est."
How few will undertake it ! History furnishes us with but few
instances. It is easy to join the shouts of the multitude, but it
is hard to say to a multitude that they are wrong. When
Themistocles conceived the proposition of burning all the fleets
of the other Grecian States by stratagem, so that Athens might
hold dominion over the seas, he desired that his scheme might
be submitted to the judgment of Aristides. This, by general
accord was granted, for all had the most unbounded confidence
in the integrity, as well as wisdom, of the man to whom the ques
tion was referred. Had Aristides courted popular favor then at
the expense of right, how easy was the road to attain it.' But
hear his judgment :

" Oh, Athenians ! what Themistocles purposes would be greatly to the
advantage of Athens, but it would be unjust !"

He was a man who dared to speak the truth to a people against
what appeared to be their temporary interest. And in his noble
vindication of the right against the wrong policy proposed at that
time, he prevailed. Now in the same spirit I wish to say to all
of you who are in " this order," that the whole movement, in my
opinion, is wrong; wrong in its aims and objects, wrong from
beginning to end, and exceedingly unjust. I wish no man to con
sider me as intending to be personally offensive in any thing that
I may sa}'. I would talk to you, not only as a friend, but as a
brother, upon this subject. Your numbers here, or in the district,
make no difference ; I would be willing to go into one of your
lodges or councils, where every man would be against me, if I
could be admitted without first having to put myself under
obligations never to tell what occurred therein, and there speak
the same sentiments that I shall utter here this night. Bear with
me then, while I proceed. Don't think or imagine that I make
any personal application of any remark or illustration that may
seem to be offensive. Many of my best friends on earth are in
your order, and besides this, no man who knows me can believe

476 SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL.

that I would, without provocation, intentionally offend any mortal
on earth. It is not my nature to do it. I believe you are in
pursuit of a great wrong, and I must tell you so. Discriminate,
if you please, between yourselves and the thing spoken of —

" Vice is a monster of such frightful mien
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen."

It is to exhibit and hold up even to yourselves the great evils
and dangers to be apprehended from this "new," and (I think)
most vicious political " monster" that I would address you — and
against the influences of which I would warn and guard you, as
well as the rest of our people. And I would do it with the same
earnestness that I would warn and entreat the best friends in the
world, to beware of the insidious and poisonous serpent, he might
be fostering in his bosom. For as of "vice," so it may be with
this — " new order :"

"Yet, seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace."

And with the general embrace by the people of this country,
comes, in my opinion, political ruin and death. My views on this
subject have been given In the letter alluded to. But as I have
seen some remarks and criticisms on the views thus presented by
anonymous writers, who spout of me in the dark through the
newspapers, their names and characters being unknown, I will take
this occasion to notice some of them, not so fully perhaps as I shall
on some future occasion. Several complain most bittferly that I
compared the machinery of this organization to the Jacobin clubs of
France. And one undertakes to correct me in a point of history
as to the first name assumed by that order. He says it was not
the " Friends of the Constitution," but the " Friends of the Revo
lution." In this I may be contradicted but not corrected. The
first society instituted in Paris, which, afterwards, became the
society of the Jacobins, was organized under the specious name
of the " Friends of the Constitution." Let this anonymous writer
produce his authority — Thiers is mine. Again, he says I com
plained of the secrecy of the principles of the party, and yet soon
found out that one of the principles of the party was that " Amer
icans shall rule America." I found out no such thing. On the
contrary, I showed that (if what was attributed to them be true,
but of which there was then no reliable information within my
knowledge) while they assumed the specious title of "Americans
shall rule America," yet they aimed at putting a large class of as
good and as true native-Americans as the writer himself, under the
ban of civil proscription. Are not the descendants of Catholic
Marylanders as much American b}T birth as the New England de
scendants of the Puritans that landed on Plymouth rock ? While
the specious outside title of the party is, that " Americans shall
rule America," when we come to look at its secret objects as they

SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL. 477

leak out, we find that one of its main purposes is not that " Amer
icans shall rule America," but that those of a particular religious
faith, though as good Americans as any others, shall be ruled by
the rest.

But it is said, " the proscription is not against a religious but a
political enemy. The Romish church being as much a political
party as the abolitionists are ; far more dangerous, because more
powerful." Was a bolder assertion, without one fact to rest upon,
ever attempted to be palmed off upon a confiding people ? The
Romish church a political party ? Where are its candidates ?
How many do they number in our State legislatures or in Congress ?
What dangers are they threatening, or what have they ever plotted ?
Let them be named ? More dangerous than the " Abolitionists 1"
How, when and where ? Was it when Lord Baltimore, a Catholic,
established the colony of Maryland, and for the first time on this
continent established the principle of free toleration in religious
worship ? Was it when Charles Carroll, a Catholic, signed the
Declaration of Independence ? or do the dangers arise from the
fact, that the Catholics of New England will not join certain Pro
testants there in waging a war against the South, and what they
denounce as "the sin of slavery?" That they have not, and do
not join in this crusade against us is admitted. It cannot be de
nied. Of the three thousand New England clergymen who sent
the anti-Nebraska memorial to the Senate last year, not one was a
Catholic. I stated as I had been informed and believed, and now
state again. But the reason assigned for this by one of my assail
ants is, that these Christian ministers could not, "with self-
respect," ask a Catholic to unite with them in it. Well, if this was
the reason, and if, as the same writer says, they are more dangerous
to us than the abolitionists, backed by these Christian ministers
who have so much self-respect — why did they not get up one of
their own ? Why have they never gotten up one yet ? But the
time, says the writer, has not yet come for the Catholics to act in
this matter. Well, then, let us wait until it does come. The time
for them to act has not yet come. That, I expect is much nearer
the truth as to the reason why none of their names were 011 the
anti-slavery memorial, than any sense of " self-respect" which pre
vented those who did sign it from asking their co-operation. But
the time for the abolitionists, and the three thousand Protestant
clergymen to act — and to act most hostilely, dangerously, and
unchristianly against us, has come. This is not denied. The
dangers from these are pressing upon us. Let us then put them
down, even with Catholic aid, if we can. The other dangers we
are told of, exist only in conjecture. They may come — this is all
that can be said of them ; but if a fire were raging in one part of
your city, how unwise would it be to draw off your engines and
all means for extinguishing it, and start to a remote place where
all was as yet safe, to guard that point merely because a fire might
break out there ? But it is said that great danger is to be appre-

478 SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL.

bended from the Catholics, because of a " secret order" amongst
them, known as Jesuits.

" No one," says this writer, " knows, or possibly can know, the extent of
their influence in this country. One of them may eat at your table, in
struct your children, and profess to be a good Protestant, and you never
suspect him. Their great aim is to make their mark in America, Per
jury, to them, is no sin, if the object of it be to spread Catholicism or ac
quire political influence in the country."

Whether this be true of the Jesuits or not, I cannot say. But
I submit it to the consideration of candid minds, how far it is true
of the "new order" of " know-nothings," which is now so strenu
ously endeavoring to make its mark in America, and to gain
political influence in the country, not only by putting down all
foreigners, and all native born citizens who may be of Catholic
faith, but also all other native born citizens who will not take upon
their necks the yoke of their power. Do not hundreds and thou
sands of them go about daily and hourly, denying that they belong
to the order, or that they know any thing about it ? May they
not, and do they not " eat at your table," attend your sick, and
some of them preach from your pulpits, and yet deny that they
know any thing about that " order," which they are making such
efforts to spread in the land ? I do not say all of them do this —
but is it not common with "the order" thus, by some sort of "equi
vocation and slippery construction," to mislead and deceive those
with whom they converse ? By way of excuse for all this, we are
told that our Saviour, on more occasions than one, enjoined on
those whom he addressed, "to see thou tell no man." But it is
one thing not to speak, and quite another to speak falsely or un
truthfully. Our Saviour never told his disciples or others, to
misrepresent, to deceive, or to deny the truth. Whether thus to
deceive, equivocate, and prevaricate be one of the obligations of
this "new order," which is to effect such reformation in morals
and government amongst us, and " to put an end to the reign of
small men and suppress corruption," I know not, but that it is one
of the general effects of the institution wherever it gains a foot
hold, all must admit. You know it is so. A question was once
propounded to our Saviour, which he never answered. It was put
by Pontius Pilate soon after he was betrayed by Judas Iscariot
under the secret sign of a kiss, and just after Peter denied that he
belonged to the "order" or society of his disciples. The question
was, " What is truth ?" He did not answer it. He had but a little
while before been betrayed by one of the twelve, and another had
just denied that he knew him. The sa«ae question I put to you,
fellow-citizens, this night — "What is truth?" Were I to answer
it, I should say it is the foundation of all virtue, all religion, all
integrity, all honor, and every thing valuable in human character,
human society, and man's civilization. There is nothing worse
that can be said of any man or any people indicating a destruction
of morals or personal degradation, than that " the truth is not in

SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL. 479

him." It is the life and soul of all the virtues, human or divine.
Tell me not that any party will effect reformation of any sort, bad
as we now are, in this land, which brings into disrepute this prin
ciple, upon which rest all our hopes on earth, and all our hopes
for immortalit}". And my opinion is, that the Protestant minis
ters of the gospel in this country, instead of joining in this New
England puritanical prescriptive crusade against Catholics, could
not render a better service to their churches, as well as the State,
in the present condition of morals amongst us, than to appoint a
day for every one of them to preach to their respective congrega
tions from this text, "what is truth?" Let it also be a day set
aside for fasting, humiliation, and prayer — for repentance in " sack
cloth and ashes " — on account of the alarming prevalence of the
enormous sin of lying ! — I speak strongly, earnestly, and fervently,
because I so feel. I speak plainly, too, because the times require
it. Was there ever such a state of general distrust between man
and man before ? Could it ever have been said of a Georgia gen
tleman, until within a few months past, that "he says so and so,"
but I don't know whether to believe him or not ? Is it not bring
ing Protestanism, and Christianity itself, into disgrace, when such
remarks are daily made (and not without just cause) about church
communicants of all our Protestant denominations ? — and by one
church member even, about his fellow-member? Where is this
state of things to lead to, or end, but in general deception, hypoc
risy, knavery, and universal treachery ? Unless this great monster
vice of the day is held up to the public gaze that it may be seen,
looked at, hated, and abandoned speedily, as it ought to be.

But it is said again, that David and his men kept secret from
Saul — that Moses was at the head of a secret movement when he
delivered Israel from Egypt — that Alfred the Great rescued his
country in a similar manner from the domination of the Danes —
that Samuel Adams and others, habited like Indians, in 11T3,
struck the first blow for American independence. This may all
be true — but they were all revolutionary movements. When any
people have cause for revolution in their government, secrecy, and
even conspiracy may be justified; but not until then. How is it
here ? Is revolution the object ? If so, the analogy may hold
good ; not otherwise. Our government is founded upon public
virtue, public intelligence, and public integrity. Why then with
hold any proposed measure from the scrutiny of public, open, and
fair discussion ? Why say that the principles of a party are pub
lished, when the very existence of the party is denied by most of
its members ? Who could believe or trust a party so discredited
by their own words ? The tyranny of old parties is the excuse
for this. Tyranny ! Tyranny indeed ! Was ever such tyranny
fceard of in any old party in this country as that which this " new-
order" sets up ? They attempt not only to tie up the consciences
of their members, and bind them by obligations strong as oaths,
but to control their liberty as freemen to vote as they please —

480 SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL.

this is apparent from their ritual, which has come to the light
(not, however, by their consent), and which I had not seen when
my letter was written. In this we see that by the second degree
each member is sworn to vote as the majority may order, even
against his own preference and judgment. In the old parties, in
their greatest corruption, a conformity with the will of the majo
rity was altogether optional. But in this new party all option,
all discretion, all right of preference in voting possessed by free
men, is taken away — or attempted to be taken away by a previous
oath. Was tyranny ever more exacting or more monstrous in
subjecting the will — the free choice of its victims to its humor and
control ? But the first degree, as it is called, is that which aims
the most fatal blow at the principle on which our government was
founded. It is this which marks the movement, whatever men
may think of it, with a revolutionary character. In taking this
very first step, the members of the party are required to agree
and swear to make a test as to qualification for office, which the
constitution of the United States provides shall not be made.
Members of the order may deny it and say, as some do, that they
" are pledged for religious freedom to every church ; be it Catholic
or Protestant." But every one of them knows — and whether they
deny it or not, there is a secret monitor within, that tells them
they have pledged themselves never to vote for any Roman
Catholic to any office of profit or trust ? They have thus pledged
themselves to set up a religious test in qualifications for office
against the express words of the Constitution of the United
States ? The words of the constitution are :

" But no religious test shall ever be required, as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States."

"And the Lord commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the Garden
thou mayest freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
thou shalt not eat of it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die."

So of all the reasons you may have or objections or disqualifi
cations in the selection of men to office or places of public trust
under the United States. You may make any other test but this
religious test — the test of " good and evil11 in the conscience of men
— that you. cannot make under the constitution — that test our
great lawgivers — with Washington, the father of his country, at
their head said " shall not be required," — this is the forbidden
fruit — of it thou shalt not eat and live.

Their very organization is not only anti-American, anti-repub
lican, but at war with the fundamental law of the Union, and,
therefore, revolutionary in its character — view it as you will, what
is it but an attempt to nullify and practically to destroy this pro
vision of the constitution ?" Thus silently and secretly to effect
for all practical purposes a change in our form of government.
And what is this but revolution ? Not an open and manly rebel-

SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL. 481

lion, but a secret and covert attempt to undermine the very
corner stone of the temple of our liberties ? I have no idea that
you who hear me and thousands of others who have unwittingly
gone into this organization, took any such view of the subject,
and perhaps do not even now. But what else can you make of
it ? How can you make that or any thing a test for office which
the constitution says shall not be made a test without violating
both the letter and spirit of that instrument.

This movement, fellow-citizens, as little as you may think of it,
is revolutionary in its character. And though at first appearance
it may seem to be a very peaceful and bloodless revolution, yet
the " end" is to come after. It is the first step in this country
since the adoption of the constitution, which, if followed up, will
lead inevitably to civil war, and ultimately to an overthrow of
this government. It proposes to put a large class of as true na
tive born citizens as any in the United States, under the ban of
civil proscription. And whenever any government denies to any
class of its citizens any equal participation in the privileges, immu
nities, and honors enjoyed by all others, it parts with all just claims
to their allegiance. Allegiance is due only so long as protection
is extended ; and protection necessarily implies an equality of right
to stand or fall, according to merit, amongst all the members
of society or the citizens of the commonwealth. When native
Catholics, therefore, or any other class of citizens, be they Metho
dist or Baptist or Presbyterian, are practically denied the
equality of right in the administration of their government, they
will naturally become its enemies ; and they ought to — the result,
sooner or later, will be strife — civil discord and civil war. Men
so situated sooner or later will fight ; the best of our Protestant
friends, under like circumstances, would fight too. For the best
of men, after all, have enough of the old leaven of human nature
left about them to fight when they feel aggrieved — outraged and
trampled upon ; and strange to say, when men get to fighting about
religion they fight harder, and longer, and more exterminatingly
than upon any other subject. The history of the world teaches
this. Many of the bloody wars that rest as a blot and stain upon
Christendom attest it. The tendency of this movement, there
fore, so far as this branch of it is concerned, is to civil war — just
as inevitably as a collision of two engines meeting on your rail
road track, unless checked in their progress. It is the first
movement of the kind since the formation of our government.
Already we see the spirit abroad which is to enkindle the fires
and set the faggots a blazing — not by the Catholics — they are com
paratively few and weak ; their only safety is in the shield of the
constitutional guarantee ; minorities seldom assail majorities ; and
persecutions always begin with the larger numbers against the
smaller. But this spirit is evinced by one of the numerous re
plies to my letter. He says : " We call upon the children of the
Puritans of the North and the Huguenots of the South, by the
31

482 SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL.

remembrance of the fires of Smithfield and the bloody St. Bar
tholomew, to lay down for once all sectional difficulties, "etc., and
to join in this great American movement of proscribing Catho
lics. What is this but the tocsin of intestine strife ? Why call
up the remembrance of the fires of Smithfield, but to whet the
Protestant appetite for vengeance ? Why stir up the quiet ashes
of bloody St. Bartholomew, but for the hope, perhaps, of finding
therein a slumbering spark from which new fires may be started ?
Why exhume the atrocities, cruelties, and barbarities of ages gone
by from the repose in which they have been buried for hundreds
of years, unless it be to reproduce the seed and spread amongst
us the same moral infection and loathsome contagion ? just as it
is said the plague is sometimes occasioned in London by disen
tombing and exposing to the atmosphere the latent virus of the
fell disease still lingering in the dusty bones of those who died
of it centuries ago ?

Fellow-citizens — Fellow-Protestants — Fellow-Americans — all
who reverence the constitution of your country, I entreat .you,
and I invoke you to give no listening ear to such fanatical ap
peals. These sleeping embers, if stirred, may kindle fires that
you cannot extinguish, but in which you yourselves and all you
hold most dear, may be consumed. It was to guard against all
such scenes as were witnessed at Smithfield, and such butcheries
as were inflicted upon poor, inoffensive Catholics in their turn by
infuriated Protestants, that that wise provision was put in our
constitution, with the view of forever excluding religion from
politics. As long as the constitution shall be preserved and main
tained in its letter and spirit on this subject, such scenes can
never occur with us. What is the chiefest of all our liberties
that we boast of but that every man in this country can sit down
under his own vine and fig tree and worship God as he pleases,
while there is none to molest or make him afraid ? Why is it that
on each Sabbath morning in your city, you -see the various con
gregations assembling peaceably and quietly to their respective
churches — some to the Baptist, some to the Methodist, some to
the Presbyterian, some to the Episcopal, some to the Catholic,
and some doubtless to various others, but all to their own liking ;
and after service, returning in the same quiet, peaceful, and Chris
tian manner to their homes ? Why are such scenes witnessed
every seventh day in the week throughout this confederacy of
States ? It is not so in other countries, and why is it so in this ?
And why has it been so ever since the government was formed ?
It is because of that provision in our constitution which secures
the right of conscience, and banishes from this land the fell
demon of religious intolerance. The object of this movement is
to nullify that provision — to strike it down — to paralyze, if not
to cut off this strong arm, outstretched for the protection of all.
It was put there by Baldwin, the Pinckneys, Madison, Hamilton,
uucl Washington. Were they ''small men," "demagogues," and

SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL. 483

"tricksters," or am I to be denounced as a "small man," "a
demagoguge," and " trickster" for upholding, maintaining and
defending what they, in their profound wisdom and far-reaching-
forecast, saw was necessary ? Be not deceived. Be not tempted.
Let not this, our American Eden, be the theatre of another fall.
Recollect that the great arch enemy of the moral government of
the universe approached our common mother, Eve, in the garden
of innocence, under the guise of a serpent, the subtlest of all
animals. He approached her, too, with a lie in his mouth. He said,
to her, that if she eat of the forbidden fruit "thou shalt not
surely die." She believed him— she was deceived — she ate — she
fell, and with " her fall came all our woes." Our great lawgivers,
Washington, the father of his country, at their head, have said
•' But no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to
any office of public trust in the United States." Will you obey
his precepts, and follow those who adhere to them, or will you
yield to that most fatal temptation with which you are at this
time beguiled ?

The blow that is now being aimed at your ablest and most ex
perienced public men — your best statesmen — under the cry of
" small men," "demagogues," and "party tricksters," is not the
least ominous of the signs of the times. Nor is it a very modern
movement either. There was one of the sort in England once ;
Jack Cade was at the head of it there ; the first step in his revolu
tionary attempt was to set aside all who knew more of the laws of
the realm than he or his associates did. Koine also was the
theatre of many such movements. France has had many of them
too. But Greece, to which reference has been made by one of
these " know-nothing" writers, is the last country in the world
that those who raise this cry of "down with public men, however
long tried and found worthy," should point us to. It is true, when
we cast our eyes upon the land of Homer and Plato, we see

" 'Tis Greece, but living Greece no more."

We recollect that it is there that liberty once flourished — that
there heroes fought, and poets sung, and philosophy reared
her temples of arts and sciences, while statesmen directed public
affairs. But we recollect, also, that the day of her fall was pre
ceded by just such movements as the present, which unfortu
nately succeeded in persuading the people to ostracise some of
her ablest and best men, and to give hemlock to others. It was
then that political ruin and moral desolation came upon her.
And the same result may be expected to come upon us when the
same policy is pursued. When the words of wisdom are no
longer listened to — when the oldest and most faithful sentinels
upon the watch-towers are removed — when the principles of the
constitution are disregarded — when those "checks and re
straints," put in it, as Mr. Madison has told us, for "a defence
to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions,"

434 SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL.

are broken down and swept away — when the whole country shall
have been brought under the influence of the third degree of this
" know-nothing" order, if that time shall ever come, then, indeed,
may the days of this Republic, too, be considered as numbered.
And, then, some wandering bard, in contemplating what we now
are, in connection with what we shall then be, may well exclaim,
as one did of Greece,

" Shrine of the mighty ! can it be,
That this is all that remains of thee !"

I wish to s&y something to you about this third degree — the
Union degree as it is called. For under this specious title, name,
or guise, the arch-tempter again approaches us, quite as subtly as
under the other of "Americans shall rule America." The obliga
tion taken in this degree is "to uphold, maintain, and defend"
the Union, without one word being said about the constitution
Now, as much as we all, I trust, are devoted to the Union, who
would have it without the constitution ? This is the life and soul
of it — this is its animating spirit. It is this that gives it vitality,
health, vigor, strength, growth, development, and power. With
out it the Union could never have been formed, and without it,
it cannot be maintained or held together. When the animating
principle of any living organism is extinguished, this is death, and
dissolution is inevitable. You might just as well expect that the
component parts of your bodies could be held together by some
senseless incantations after the vital spark has departed, as that
this Union can be held together by any "know-nothing" oaths
when the constitution is gone. The basis of the Union is the
constitution. The first degree of this new order, I have shown,
strikes down one of the main pillars of that stately fabric. That
pillar is religious toleration. It also strikes at another, which is
the principle of expatriation and naturalization. The second de*
gree strikes at the independence of every freeman who takes it,
by an attempt to deprive him of the power to exercise his own
free will in the choice of his rulers. But the third is worse even
still ; for it proposes that, which, in effect, would be to transfer
the destinies of this country not to the constituted authorities
under the constitution, but to the irresponsible body of a grand
national know-nothing council, whose mandates are to be obeyed,
and whose decrees are to be carried out, let come what may.
This same writer, to whom I have alluded, and who leads the van
in this crusade against me, says in his reply to my letter, " We
would just as soon trust our political destinies in the hands of the
national council of know-nothings as in the Congress of the
United States." Are the people of this country prepared for
this ? Are you prepared for this ? If not, " awake, arise, or be
forever fallen !" For to this complexion it is coming fast. The
constitution is to be ignored. It is to be done away with. Con
gress is to be done away with', except in so far as its members

SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL. 135

may be necessary, as the dumb instruments for registering the
edicts of an invisible but all-powerful oligarchy. We are to have
an " Imperium in Imperio." Our present government is to be
paralyzed by this boa constrictor, which is now entwining its coils
around it. It is to be supplanted and displaced by another self-
constituted and secretly organized body to rise up in its stead — a
political " monster, "more terrible to contemplate than the seven-
headed beast spoken of in the Apocalypse. Under this new organ
ization how would you stand? Should your rights be assailed,
or your lives, liberty, and property be put in jeopardy, where
would be your remedy or redress ? Under this third degree, your
hands would be tied ! Like sheep, you would be led to the
slaughter, or like Sampson, when shorn of his strength, you would
be delivered over, " bound hand and foot," to the Philistines.
Your strength is in the constitution ; with it you are powerful
and invincible ; without it you are weak and impotent. Suppose
that during next Congress, Kansas shall apply for admission into
the Union, which is not improbable, as a slave State, and she
should be rejected in violation of the constitution on account of
slavery, as she certainly will be if the northern know-nothings
can have their way? For there is not a single know-noth
ing elected to the next Congress from the entire North who will
vote for her admission on such application. In the event of her
rejection, then, what will you or can you do, if you and your pub
lic men are bound by the obligation of this third degree ?

This brings us to the consideration of those graver and far
more important questions which affect foreign-born naturalized
citizens. Gen. Shields, one of these Senators from Illinois, who
thus maintained the constitution and our rights under it, is a
foreigner himself — a son of the Emerald Island. His eyes first saw
the light in the land of Curran, Grattan and Emmett ; but his
feelings on that account were not less ardent for the institu
tions of his adopted country. Since then he has been beaten,
not only for giving that vote, but because he was not born in
this country ; and his seat has been filled by the native " know-
nothing," anti-Kansas, free-soiler Trumbull ! Now, with whom
should we affiliate politically ! With the gallant Shields and his
associates, " who fighting fell, and falling fought" the battles of
the constitution, or with his successor, whose votes upon all si
milar questions will doubtless be hostile to us ? If the votes of
foreigners who are crowding in the new States of the northwest
give us such senators, it, in my opinion, should be par amount over
and above all others with us at this time. For, are all the dan
gers which even by possibility may be conjectured from the in
fluence of Catholics and foreigners in our country, to be com
pared with those which are now pressing upon us ? And being
pressed, too, by the leading spirits at the North of this know-
nothing movement, which southern men are invoked to join?
On such questions, involving not only our own peace and quiet

486 SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL.

but the peace and quiet of the whole countiy, arid the very ex
istence of the Union itself, with whom should we ally ourselves —
with our friends or our enemies ? What says the dictate of pa
triotism, good sense, and duty ? Were there no other considera
tions, this one alone would be sufficient with ine in determining
my course. I would not join the know-nothings, if for no other
reason but the odium of the northern alliance. I know that the
effort is being made at this time to make the southern people be-
live that the foreign vote, as it is called, in the United States, is
cast with the abolitionists — that foreigners, as fast as they flock
to our shores, are transported to the northwest, where the}7 are
naturalized, and thus " manufactured" into free-soil voters. This
is done to get up a counter feeling ; but it will not do, for the
fact is not as stated. Some foreigners may be free-soilers and
abolitionists — and some doubtless are — but it is an undeniable
truth, that the great majority of the foreign-born voters in this
country have, on these questions, always cast their votes on the side
of the constitutional rights of the South. Coming to our country
from distant climes, in anticipation of the blessings of good gov
ernment which they promised themselves to be able to enjoy here, a
large majority of them have always been true to the constitution
from which alone those blessings can flow. This is particularly the
case in the northwest, the section generally referred to. To that sec
tion we are now mainly indebted for all our aid on constitutional
questions. All New England gave us but two votes for the Kansas
bill in the House, and three in the Senate ; while Indiana alone gave
us five in the House and two in the Senate ; and Illinois three in the
House and two in the Senate ; and Iowa one (half she had) in the
House and two in the Senate. And every one of these, members
as well as senators, owed their election, to a considerable extent, to
this class of voters. Jones and Dodge of Iowa, Bright and Pet-
tit from Indiana, Cass and Stuart from Michigan, Shields and
Douglas from Illinois — and such men as the two Aliens, Harris
and Richardson in the House, from Illinois, are sustained by
them. Then we have no reason to complain of them ; nor have
the true friends of the constitution and the Union in any part of
the United States, any reason to complain of them. These mem
bers and senators may all have been indebted to a considerable
extent for their election to the same class of voters ; but they are
not free-soilers, though they may be foreigners by birth.

Under these circumstances then, fellow-citizens, what ought
we to do ? My position is that we should, without any regard
to past or present party organization, in a national point of view,
stand by those men at the North who stand by the constitution, and
who thus standing, must necessarily stand by us and the Union
— be they native or naturalized, Protestant or Catholic, whig or
Democratic — I do not include the northern know-nothings, for
there is not one of the class I mention in their crowd — no, not
one, that I have ever heard of; but if there is I would embrace
him too. I know it has been asserted that some of the Boston

SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL. 487

know-nothings are sound upon these constitutional questions.
And the same writer I have so frequently alluded to, who re
plied to my letter, has said that thirty-one guns were fired the
other day, in Boston, when the bill of the know-nothing legis
lature of Massachusetts, deposing Judge Loring for issuing the
warrant for the arrest of the fugitive slave Burns, was vetoed by
the governor. But I have yet to learn that there was a single
know-nothing gun in that number. They were doubtless firexl
b}r the same men, or men with like spirits, hearts, and sentiments
with those who made Boston Common quake with a hundred
rounds when the Kansas bill passed. These are the men who
still breathe the Old Bunker Hill atmosphere ; these are the men
I will stand by — they are true to the constitution with all its
guaranties. Men of like patriotism are to be found throughout
the entire North. And if the whole South would but discrimi
nate, and stand in solid body by those at the North, and those
only, who do stand by the constitution and all its guaranties,
then we should have nothing to fear, either for the Union or our
rights under it. This was the principle and basis upon which
the Georgia resolutions of 1850, or the Georgia platform, as it
is called, was enacted. Without wishing to speak much of my
self, I may be permitted to sa}^, as part of the history of the
times, that I aided in the construction of that platform ; I was a
member of the convention that formed it ; I took my position on
it then, and have never abandoned it, and never shall. Even be
fore the convention met — during the canvass preceding the elec
tion of members to it — I advanced the same principles from the
same place I now stand. There were many then whose ardor
and zeal, in my opinion, were a little ahead of the " sober second
thought" — they were for something more energetic ; they be
lieved that the whole North had become unsound and untrust
worthy ; that the fugitive slave law would never be executed,
and that the time for the South to act had come. Others of us
thought differently. We told them that the fugitive slave law
would be executed ; that while the Utah and New Mexico bills
did not go as far as we wished, yet they contained nothing hostile
or directly aggressive upon our rights. But, on the contrary,
we had in them recovered the great principle which was lost by
the South on the Missouri question in 1820. That principle, thus
rescued and recovered, required the restriction against slaveiy
over Kansas and Nebraska, which had been resting on those terri
tories for thirty years, to be taken off. All this many of you recol
lect. Well, what has been the result ? The fugitive slave law is
now daily executed with as little difficulty almost as any other
act upon your statute book. The only question now, in regard
to that, is not its execution, but whether it shall be repealed or
not. And when the time came for governments to be orga
nized in Kansas and Nebraska, the old odious and anti-republi
can restriction against the South, put on in 1820, was taken off in

488 SPEECH IN AUGUSTA CITY HALL.

pursuance to the principle established in 1850. This was accom
plished during the last Congress. People from the South can
now go to Kansas with their slaves if they wish — and many of
them are doing so.

In two elections already held there, those who are in favor of
slavery are decidedly in the majority. The probabilities, there
fore, are, that she will apply for admission into the Union as a
•lave State. Shall she be so admitted if she so applies ? That
is the great question which is now coming up in the distance, and
which must be paramount to all others. My position is that she
shall. The position of the Georgia Resolutions of 1850 is not
only that she shall, but that if she should be rejected by Congress
because of slavery, it would justify resistance on the part of the
South. I so maintained in 1850, I so maintain now ; and shall
so maintain in the halls of Congress if you see fit to send me as
your representative there. The issue involves a principle which
the South ought not, and cannot, consistently with her safety and
honor, ever surrender. As much as I admire this government
— as much as I am devoted to the Union, whenever it puts me
and mine, or in other words, whenever it puts the people of the
South and her institutions under the ban of its proscription, I
shall be its enemy.

But, are we or our institutions in any such danger, perhaps
some may be ready to ask ? To this I answer, none whatever,
if we are but true to ourselves. We are, however, in very great
danger if we falter or blunder at this time.

The great struggle will be on the admission of Kansas. Let
us not, then, ally ourselves with any party, North or South, hos
tile to that measure — that is the first point to see to. Let us, in
the next place, act, co-operate, and affiliate in party associations
with those men, and those men only at the North, who sustain
the principles of the Kansas and Nebraska bill, and the princi
ples of the Georgia Resolutions of 1850.

If we do this, if the whole South will do this, all will be safe —
Kansas will be safe — our rights will be safe — the constitution
will be safe — the Union will be safe. And then if " know-noth-
ingism" and all other attempts at unjust class proscription be
abandoned, as I trust they will speedily be, we shall go on as we
have commenced, in that high career of national happiness, pros
perity, and greatness, which all things in our past history so sig
nificantly point out to us as our manifest destiny.

Fellow-citizens — I am through with what I have to say. You
have my views and opinions fully and freely given upon all the
exciting questions which are likely to enter in the approaching
canvass ; with these, you have my name before you as a candi
date. Act towards them and me on the clay of election as becomes
freemen. Do just what you may think in your own independent
judgments will be most conducive to the interests, peace, honor,
and general good of all.

DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFEK. 489

I have seen it stated in the newspapers by some unknown
writer, that my letter to Col. Thomas will be my political wind
ing sheet. If you and the other voters of the Eighth Congressional
District so will it, so let it be ; there is but one other I should
prefer — and that is the constitution of my country ; let me first
be wrapt in this, and then covered over with that letter and the
principles I have announced this night ; and thus shrouded, I
shall be content to be laid away, when the time comes, in my last
resting-place, with'out asking any other epitaph, but the simple in
scription carved upon the head-stone that marks the spot — "Here
sleep the remains of one who dared to tell the people they were
wrong when he believed so, and who never intentionally deceived
a friend or betrayed even an enemy."

DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER, OF TENNESSEE,
ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ESTABLISH
OR PROHIBIT SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES
OF THE UNITED STATES.

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

JANUARY It, 1856.

I ask the indulgence of the House but for a few moments. I
wish to make some inquiries of the honorable gentleman from
Tennessee, [Mr. ZOLLTCOFFER,] in reference to some remarks made
by him in the debate yesterday. He is reported as having said :

" My opinion is, that the advocates of the constitutional power of Con
gress to establish or prohibit slavery in the territory of the United States
— though they may live in the South — though they may profess to be the
advocates of the constitutional rights of the South — are doing to the South
more damage, and are more dangerous, than the abolitionists of the
North."

I wish to ask the gentleman from Tennessee what he means by
that declaration ; and also if he knows any gentlemen, or any
persons, at the South, who advocate the constitutional power of
Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories ?

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I am pleased that the gentleman from Geor
gia has put the question to me, and I shall be obliged to him, and
to the House, not to confine me strictly to a categorical answer.
My conviction is, that the theory that the Congress of the United
States has the constitutional power to draw a greographical line
through the public territories, and to say where slavery shall exist,
and where slavery shall be prohibited forever, is a theory giving to
Congress a power which the constitution has never conferred
upon this body. My opinion is, that this theory has done more
damage to the constitutional rights of the southern States of the

490 DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER.

Union than 'the open warfare of northern abolitionists upon the
institutions of the South. I do not mean to be understood as
saying, that gentlemen who entertain this theory of the constitu
tion are less patriotic than gentlemen who believe as I do, that
the constitution does not confer that power ; but my position is,
and what I wish to be understood as saying is, that the theory is
an erroneous and most dangerous one. And here let me remark,
that many gentlemen of the South, whose patriotism I have never
doubted, have fallen into a belief of this theory ; and some gen
tlemen have gone so far as to demand that the Congress of the
United States should mark out the line dividing the territory be
tween the North and the South, and thereby determine forever
where slavery should go, and where it should be prohibited. But
I am gratified that many of those gentlemen have changed their
opinions.

The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STEPHENS] asks me to point
him to a man of the South who entertains such opinions. I would
say to him that my understanding is, that the gentleman from
Georgia himself [Mr. STEPHENS] has, upon the floor of this House,
maintained, with regard to the territory acquired from Mexico,
that unless Congress would extend the Missouri compromise line
to the Pacific — would, by a geographical line divide the territory,
and determine forever where slavery should exist, and where it
should be prohibited, that he had no other alternative than to
return the territory to Mexico. " Let us keep our money which
is to be paid for it," said he, " and let Mexico keep her provinces
and her people." That was his position as I understood it. I am
gratified that the gentleman who then warred against the princi
ple of " non-intervention " has changed his opinion, and now
stands before the country as an advocate of the principle of " non
intervention " by the federal government with the territories of
the Union, upon the subject of slavery. My opinion is, that the
new States, to be carved out of the public territories, when they
shall be admitted into this Union, should come in upon an equal
footing with the old States, under the plain letter of the consti
tution — that they should come in full-fledged, with all power for
determining their fundamental and constitutional laws, as is con
ceded to the old States of the Union. I repeat, I do not mean
to say that gentlemen who entertain the opinions I ascribe to
him are less patriotic than those who embrace the principle of
non-intervention ; but I mean to say that such opinions are more
dangerous to the South, particularly when presented by southern
gentlemen, than when presented by open and avowed aboli
tionists.

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman is mistaken in attributing to me
any such position or opinions as he seems, from the record he
refers to, inclined to assign me. I did not then, or ever, advocate
the constitutional power in Congress to prohibit slavery in the
territories ; but I maintained that upon the principle of compro

DEBATE WITH ME. ZOLLICOFFEB. 491

mise I should be satisfied with nothing but a fair division of this
territory. I have always, and I do now maintain, as an original
question, that the territories of the United States are the com
mon domain, in which the people of all the States have an equal
interest ; and that the people of the States who choose to settle
them should determine their domestic institutions for themselves,
as they please, when they come to form their State constitutions.
But when the North would not permit the South to enjoy all in
common, to colonize all in common, and to settle all in common,
without restriction, then only on the principle of division, as an
alternative, would I compromise the question at all. Now, sir •

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER, (interrupting.) Will the gentleman from
Georgia allow me to read his declared opinions ?

Mr. STEPHENS. Not now. I know all about my declared opin
ions. I do not wish to have my time now taken up by reading.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Yery well, sir.

Mr. STEPHENS. If the gentleman has any thing there in contra
diction to what I say I will, when I get through, hear him read
it ; but I do not wish now to be diverted from other points. The
gentleman stated to the House, when he began, that those gen
tlemen who voted for the Missouri line — the geographical line —
where slavery might exist, and where it should not, were more
dangerous to the interests of the people of the South than the
abolitionists of the North. Does he believe that those men who
in 1820 — when the South was pressed to the wall — when they
took that measure only as an alternative — when the North in
sisted on .having every foot of the country, and when only by a
small majority, the South reluctantly took this line, in lieu of
total prohibition — does he believe, I ask, that those men were
more dangerous to the South than the abolitionists of the North
were ? Does he say that your Lowndeses and Clays, with a
majority of the southern members, were more dangerous to the
rights and interests of the South and the peace of the country
than the avowed abolitionists ?

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Perhaps the gentleman does not understand
me. I again repeat, and I wish to be properly understood, that
this theory has done more damage and is more dangerous to the
constitutional rights of the South than the open efforts of aboli
tionists. Many patriotic men at the period to which the gentleman
alludes, fell, as I believe, into the error in submitting to what they
regarded as the smaller of two evils, namely : in admitting that the
federal government has the power to bind the States which are yet
to be formed out of the territories of the United States in the charac
ter of their domestic institutions forever. I feel that that theory
is more dangerous to the South than the open warfare of the
abolitionists.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then I wish the gentleman from Tennessee to
state what theory he means ? Does he know any southern man,
in the beginning, in the middle, or down to the present, or at any

4:92 DEBATE WITH ME. ZOLLICOFFER.

time in the progress of this controversy, who ever entertained
such a theory as he speaks of? And does he know of any south
ern man who ever voted for a division of the public domain,
except as an alternative ? Did the offer to divide even originate
with southern men ? Has it ever been defended by southern men,
except as an alternative ?

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. If the gentleman from Georgia will allow
me, I will read an extract from his speech in 1850, on the subject.

Mr. STEPHENS. Now, sir, you may read it.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. On the 13th of June, 1850, the honorable
gentleman from Georgia is reported, in the Globe, as saying :

"Ihave/rom the beginning been, as the gentleman from Mississippi
says he is, in favor of the extension of the Missouri compromise line, or
some other fair and just division of the territory. But I want no division
which will not give as ample protection and security to the South in the
enjoyment of her portion, as it does to the North. The extension of the
Missouri compromise, without the recognition of slavery south of that
line and all necessary protection, would, in my opinion, be a perfect
mockery of right, just as much so as the doctrine of ' non-intervention.'
This was my position two years ago upon this floor, and upon which I
then declared I should stand or fall. I hold that, upon the acquisition of
these territories, their government devolved upon Congress, and that it
was the duty of Congress to pass all necessary laws for the fair and equal
enjoyment of them by all the people of the United States, or such of them
as might go there with their property of every description.

"As a difference of opinion exists between the North and South
upon the subject of slavery, I thought, and still think, that for the pur
pose of such just and equal enjoyment, a division of the territory would
be best. TJiat Congress had power to pass all such laws I never doubted
— indeed I was amazed at the position of those who claime^ the constitu
tional right to carry and hold slaves there, and yet denied to Congress
the power to pass laws for the protection of these rights. The doctrine
of ' non-intervention1 denied that power."

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir, and I indorse every word of that
now.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. STEPHENS. I ask the indulgence of the House to permit
me to conclude my remarks.

The GLERK. There being no objection, the gentleman is at
liberty to proceed.

Mr. READE. Will the gentleman from Georgia allow me to ask
him a single question, so that I may be sure I understand him
correctly.

Mr. STEPHENS. Certainly.

Mr. READE. I want to ascertain whether I understood the
gentleman from Georgia, in the extract just read by the gentle
man from Tennessee, to have spoken of the principle of non-in
tervention as a mockeiy ? I want to understand that extract
correctly. Did the gentleman from Georgia speak of the princi
ple of non-intervention as a mockery ?

DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER. 493

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. That is what I understand his language to
amount to.

Mr. STEPHENS. One at a time — and one thing at a time, Mr.
Clerk. What I wish the House right here to understand clearly,
is this : " Non-intervention," as the word was used at that time
by me, was a term altogether different in its meaning, and import,
and practical effect from the same word as it has more recently
been used on this floor and elsewhere. At the time of the acqui
sition of Mexican territory, there were local laws — as I under
stood them — prohibiting slavery. I held it to be the duty of
Congress then, to annul those laws, and to open up all the terri
tory to the free and unrestricted colonization of the people of all
the States of the Union. There was then already "intervention"
against us. Non-intervention over that territory at that time
would have been exclusion, particularly in connection with the
idea that the people there should never be permitted to change
the existing status, as I showed in that speech from which the

fentleman has read an extract, or some other, or at least thought
showed. This was my opinion upon a question, however, on
which southern men differed. But it is proper for the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. READE], and the House, to understand
the import with which the term " non-intervention" was used by
me in that speech. It was that " non-intervention" which, in my
judgment, would have absolutely excluded a portion of the people
of the Union from a just and fair participation in the use of com
mon territory, and I wished all to be equal participators therein.

Now, sir* in that speech from which the gentleman has read, I
was speaking of a settlement of this controverted question on the
principle of division, as the people of the North could not in jus
tice be permitted to take the whole territory — every foot of it,
north, south, east, and west, which they were claiming, and
seemed determined to have. My theory was, and the whole
southern theory was, as I understood it, as an original question,
to leave the whole territory free to colonization by all alike, and
without restriction anywhere. But, sir, when we were forced to
the wall, when we were outvoted by a large majority from the
North, when we had no hopes of getting that theory of ours real
ized, then we were willing, as I said, in consequence of this sec
tional disagreement, as an alternative, to have the territory
divided with the same guarantee against the previous interven
tion against us on one side of the line, to the people of the South,
as there was on the other side to the people of the North.

The House will indulge me also in another idea. In the speech
to which the gentleman from Tennessee has alluded, he quotes me
as having expressed astonishment as to the power of Congress to
do what I thought ought to be done ; that is, to institute govern
ments for the territories, and to effect what I desired. Now on
this subject, in both aspects of it, there was a division of senti
ment as well North as South. I held that Congress had power

494 DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER.

to govern or to provide governments, and to pass such laws as
were necessary to give security to slave property, which some,
holding the doctrine of " non-intervention," as then used and un
derstood, denied. I was amazed at some gentlemen who held
that by virtue of the constitution alone we could hold slaves in
the territories, and yet denied the power to protect them. I
hold the same sentiments now. I held that it is the duty of Con
gress to protect slave property as well as other property in the
common territory of the United States, just as it might protect
any other kind of property. That is what I held to be the power
and duty of Congress. I did not hold that it had the unqualified
power to prohibit. Now I ask the gentleman again, does he know
any man in the southern county who advocates, or even defends,
the unlimited constitutional power of Congress to prohibit slavery
in the territories ?

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I would ask the gentleman from Georgia,
whether in 1848 he did not, on this floor, take the position, with
reference to the territory acquired from Mexico, that there were but
two courses to pursue ; that there were but two alternatives with
him. I ask him if he did not state, that unless the federal govern
ment extended the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific ocean,
so that slavery should exist forever on one side of the line, and
should not exist on the other, his only alternative was to return
the territory to Mexico ? I ask him if he did not demand that
Congress should not merely protect slavery in the territory on
one side of a geographical line, but should prohibit it on the
other ? I ask him if he did not demand that, and demand it as the
only alternative to the returning the territory to Mexico ?

Mr. STEPHENS. Only, Mr. Clerk, by way of compromise.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Ah !

Mr. STEPHENS. It was only as a compromise that I would agree
to or demanded the extension of the Missouri line, recognizing
and protecting slavery south of the line as well as excluding it
north. This was the only plan of division, itself an alternative,
that I would agree to. I was then in favor of running that line
through to the Pacific — not as an original proposition, but as an
alternative — to settle the question upon some principles of justice,
as the South and North differed upon slavery, and the North, so
far from letting the South have the free common use of all, seemed
bent upon not letting her have any. But the North would not agree,
then, even to that — they would not divide. An overwhelming
majority in this House were opposed to it. On the 15th day of
January, 184*7, a large, an overwhelming majority in this House
repudiated the adoption of that line by way of settlement — a line,
or a principle rather, which the South was forced to adopt in 1820,
not as a theory of her own, but as her only alternative.

Now, Mr. Clerk, I voted in 1848, as all the men from the South
upon this floor voted, to extend that line to the Pacific coast. It
was no measure of our choice.

DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER. 495

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I suppose I do not misunderstand the gentle
man from Georgia. I now understand him to express the opinion
that the Federal government has no constitutional power to re
strict slavery in any of the territories of the United States ; yet,
in a spirit of compromise, he was willing, in this instance, that
the constitution should be violated in the measure proposing to
restrict slavery in half the territoiy, and that the Federal govern
ment should thus do what the constitution itself prohibited.

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir, I hold no such doctrine. The gentle
man can assign me no such position. I voted to extend the line
as an alternative ; but I did not hold, nor do I now hold, that I
violated the constitution in thus voting. And I want to know
of the gentleman from Tennessee if he would not have voted for
the extension of that line if he had been here ? When the whole
South united in agreeing to extend the line as an alternative, by
way of compromise, in 1848, I want to know of the gentleman
from Tennessee — and I call the attention of the House to his
answer — whether he would not, if he had been here, have voted
with the South for that extension ? Would the gentleman, or
would he not ?

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Mr. Clerk, it will be remembered that when
this little sparring between the gentleman from Georgia and
myself commenced

Mr. STEPHENS. I do not yield to the gentleman, except to
answer my question.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I will give the gentleman a direct answer.

Mr. STEPHENS. Very well ; go on.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I say it will be remembered that this little
sparring between the gentleman from Georgia and myself grew
out of the fact, that when the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
[Mr. FULLER,] for whom I have been voting as a candidate for
speaker, denned his position the other day — when he announced
himself as occupying the high national position which he did, the
gentleman from Georgia rose and complimented him upon having
revised his opinions and corrected his position before the House
and country. I confess, sir, that I could not help supposing
that those compliments were ironically tendered, and I stated,
in reply, that it would be well to remember that other gentle
men had corrected their positions besides the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.

And now, sir, in reply to the interrogatory of the gentleman
from Georgia, I have to say that from the day of that crisis in
1850, when I saw what I saw in the Nashville Southern conven
tion, as it was called — when I saw that body demanding the ex
tension of the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific — when I
saw that body advocating the exercise by the Federal govern
ment of the power to prohibit and permit the extension of slavery
upon the respective sides of a certain geographical line through
the territories belonging to the government, a power that I felt

196 DEBATE WITH ME. ZOLLICOFFER.

was not delegated by the constitution — when I saw that position
taken by the extreme men of the South, sir, I planted myself
upon the position, that the people of the territories, when they
come to form State governments for themselves, had the sole right
to determine for themselves whether they would have slavery or
not.

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman has not answered my question.
I ask again whether in 1848, when the proposition was sent down
from the Senate proposing to extend the Missouri line to the
Pacific coast, would the gentleman from Tennessee have voted
for it ?

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Well, Mr. Clerk, I will answer the gentle
man in this way

Mr. STEPHENS. I cannot give the gentleman my time except for
a direct answer to my question. I want to know whether, when
Congress was providing governments for the territories acquired
from Mexico, he would, if he had been here, have voted for the
extension of the Missouri line through those territories or not ?

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. The time has been, Mr. Clerk, when the
great body of men at the South, for the sake of choosing what
they considered the smaller of two evils, had fallen in with this
Missouri compromise line ; but, sir, my own opinion is, that had I
at that time occupied a seat upon this floor I should have felt it to
be my duty to investigate the subject with care, and to vote delib
erately upon that investigation ; and that I should have voted to
sustain the principles recognized in the compromise measures of
1850.

Mr. STEPHENS. My question is, would the gentleman have voted
for the Missouri compromise line at the time I have stated ?

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. My answer is, that I would have voted in
accordance with the principles of the compromise acts of 1850,
to leave the people of the territories to determine the question
of slavery for themselves, when they came, to form a State
government.

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman said he would give me a direct
answer. He has not. Now I wish to put to the gentleman from
Tennessee another question — that is, whether, when those South
ern men he has spoken of, before they got the principles of 1850,
now carried out in the Kansas bill, chose the less instead of the
greater evil, as he has said, when every man from Tennessee,
every man from Georgia, every man from South Carolina, in a
word, every man, whig and democrat, south of Mason and
Dixon's line, voted for that measure, were they acting upon a
theory more dangerous to the South than abolitionism itself?

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. The principles of 1850 and of the Kansas-
Nebraska bill were then urged, and are as old as the constitu
tion. I -repeat what I stated at the very outset, and I do not
mean to be understood as saying that those gentlemen were less
patriotic in their motives than those who understood, as the gen-

DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER. 497

tleman from Georgia now understands, the principle of non-inter
vention in the Nebraska and Kansas bill, or that their theory was
more dangerous than abolitionism itself; but I say, nevertheless,
that the theory, whoever may entertain it, that the power exists
in the Federal government to determine forever, for the States
to be formed out of the territories of the United States, the fun
damental constitutional principles of those States — to determine
whether slavery shall exist there or not — is a theory more dan
gerous to the South than the overt movements of abolitionism
itself.

Mr. STEPHENS. I am here to defend that theory so far as my
action under it is concerned. I say it was a wise theory, looking
to the peace of the country under the circumstances. I say it
was a just theory so far as it was founded on the principle of a
fair division of the territory, but it was not, nor is now, any
favorite theory of mine. I preferred another — the principle es
tablished in 1850. Still, there was nothing so aggressive in it
as that the country might not have been satisfied with it if it had
been abided by. I acted on it only as an alternative. Nor do I
hold that the whole South in adhering to it were more dangerous
to themselves than abolitionism itself. Nor, sir, do I hold that
a division of territory, as stated, violates the constitution of the
United States. This I say, while I also maintain that the con
stitution gives to Congress no original or substantive power to
prohibit slavery in the territories of this country. The gentle
man cannot find in any remarks that I have ever made, that I
have advocated the existence of any such power. I never have
entertained any such opinion. I have always warred against i1^
from the beginning.

I have always maintained that this theory of the creation of
territorial governments was outside the contemplation of the
constitution. It rests upon a power resulting from the acquisi
tion of territory which the constitution never contemplated.
But when acquired, the duty devolves upon Congress either to
govern it or to provide a government for it. And in governing
or providing governments, Congress has no power, either express
or implied, direct or incidental, to pass any law which would de
prive any portion of the people of the several States of their right
to a just and fair participation in the public domain. But a law
or regulation, looking to the disposition of the public domain as
common property, based upon the principle of division between
the two sections, disagreeing, as they do, upon the subject of
slavery, I hold, may be constitutional, or, at least, not violative
of it. While the exercise, therefore, of such power by a general
exclusion would be wholly unconstitutional, yet, under circum
stances qualified as I have stated, it might be properly exercised.
As I understood the honorable gentleman from Illinois [Mr. RICH
ARDSON] to hold, the other day, the exercise of this power may or
might be perfectly consistent with the constitution, just, and
32

498 DEBATE WITH MR, ZOLLICOFFER.

proper in one instance, and wholly inconsistent with it, unjust,
and improper in another.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Mr. Clerk, I desire to say, that if I have not
done justice in every respect to the position taken by the gentle
man from Georgia, on a former occasion, I desire now to do so.
I sent, some fifteen minutes ago, to the Congressional library for
a copy of the Congressional Globe, containing the remarks of
the gentleman from Georgia, to which I have referred, upon
which the statement I have made, as to his position, was predi
cated. I have not yet received it. I hope to receive it presently,
and then I will give to the House the record upon which I based
my opinion.

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman misapprehends me if he sup
poses that I ever held the idea or opinion that Congress has the
general or unlimited power to exclude slavery from the territo
ries of the United States. Never, sir ; but I have held, and I do
hold now, that the power in organizing governments and dispos
ing of the common territory can be properly and constitutionally
exercised on the principles of a fair division. The gentleman
seems to belong to a class of men who argue that if Congress
can exclude slavery from a part, on the principles I speak of, it
could therefore exclude it from all the territories.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. That is the position of the gentleman's can
didate for the speakership, as announced last Frida}7 in his place,
that if you can exercise power over a part of the territory, you
can over the whole of the territory.

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir. I indorse every word that the gentle
man from Illinois has said on this subject. He says that he
voted for the extension of the Missouri compromise line, and that
he did not think in doing so that he was violating the constitu
tion. I think so too. He says that the exercise of the power,
other than by compromise, or a fair division of territory, would
be wrong and unjust, and violatiue, if not of the letter, at least of
the spirit of the constitution. So I say too. And why would it
in my opinion be unconstitutional to exclude slavery from all
the territories ? The constitution is silent on the subject of the
government of the territories. I have always maintained that
the power was an incident and resulting one'; and as I look on
all resulting powers, this one is to be fairly and justly exercised.
When exercised in that way, I hold that it is constitutional. If
not, it is wrong and unjust, and tantamount to a violation of an
express provision of the constitution. It is a violation of the
spirit of the constitution, because of its injustice.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. If Congress has the power to exclude slavery
from one half of the territory, has it not the power to exclude it
from all the territory ?

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir. That is the point. It would be unjust ;
and for that very reason no such power of general exclusion could
be properly exercised. The government of the United States,

DEBATE WITH ME. ZOLLICOFFEE. 499

under the operation of the revenue laws, and not within the pur
view or contemplation of any of the granted powers of the govern
ment, acquired a surplus revenue. It was never contemplated by
the constitution that such a fund should be amassed. A distri
bution of the fund fairly and justly between all the States, I hold,
was perfectly constitutional. But suppose the North had said,
" Here is a case outside of the constitution. There is not a word in
that instrument on the subject. The fund has been unexpectedly
acquired under the operation of the government ; but it shall not be
divided among all the States equally ; it shall be taken exclusively
by those where slavery does not exist ; that no slavehol^ing State
shall touch a dollar of it." Would that have been constitutional ?

This is an apt case in point of illustration, for the constitution
is silent on the subject. It was never contemplated by that in
strument that a surplus fund should be accumulated ; but such a
fund did accumulate, and may again. The power of distribution
was a resulting power, and, when fairly and justly exercised, was
constitutional. I do not now discuss the expediency of the dis
tribution, but the constitutionality of it. I do not doubt that it
was constitutional if the distribution was fair and just, but it
would have been nothing short of usurpation for the North to
have taken the whole of it. That is my answer, and so with the
territories. Here was an acquisition of public domain, which the
constitution never looked to or provided for, made by the com
mon treasure, by the common blood of northern men and southern
men — men from all sections contributed in acquiring it. In some
States slavery existed, in others it did not ; and was it not right
that the people of all the States should have an equal enjoyment
of, or a just and fair participation in, this public domain ? Just
as in the case of the surplus fund ; when that fund came to be
divided, it would have been monstrous, and unjust, and violative
of the constitution — of its spirit, if not of its letter — if the distri
bution had not been an equal and a fair one.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I have at length been able to obtain, and will
read the extract on which I based my opinion of the gentleman's po
sition. My object in doing so, at this time, is merely to show that
I had no purpose to misunderstand or misrepresent him. I call
attention to the following extract of a speech delivered by the
gentleman in 1848, on the floor of this House.

" I have no objection to compromising the question, but I have only two
plans of compromise ; one is, a, fair division of the territory by fair and
distinct lines, by which every one may know exactly to what extent his
rights will be protected. I care not much whether it be by an extension
of the Missouri line, or whether it be by adopting as a line one of the moun
tain ranges, giving the South all on this side and the North all on the
other. I am, however, rather in favor of the latter ; but shall insist on
some fair and just division. That is one plan of compromise I shall favor ;
and if I cannot get that, I have but one other to offer, and that is, to reject
the territory altogether. Let us keep our money which is to be paid for it,
and le* Mexico keep her provinces and her people."

500 DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER.

Mr. STEPHENS. Well, sir

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Let me proceed.

Mr. STEPHENS. Show in what I differed then from what I now
state. Why do you bring my records to back what I now say ?

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I do not say that it differs from what the gen
tleman has said in the last few minutes ; but there does seem to me
to be some difference between it and the non-intervention banner
which he so boldly flaunted on yesterday.

Mr. STEPHENS. Not at all, sir. Permit me to repeat just here
that my original view was, that Congress should not interfere or
intervene, against us ; that Congress should leave the common
territory free and open to colonization by all alike. This was
what I desired ; this is what we have now got. But when that
speech was made, this hope was a foregone conclusion; the hand
of Congress against us could not be stayed. None of us ex
pected, if the territory should be acquired, that intervention
against us by Congress in some way or other could be prevented.
We were voted down. I, however, was still willing, as an alter
native, to compromise on the old principle of division ; but if I
could not get even that, then my last alternative was not to take
the territory. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. RICHARDSON]
and the senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS], and a few more, not
exceeding half a dozen, I believe, were the only gentlemen from
the entire North who voted to give us any showing at all — men
who seem to be now hunted down. While the gentleman is read
ing me a lecture in reference to the honorable gentleman from
Pennsylvania, to which I will reply, his whole argument seems to
be to hunt down Mr. RICHARDSON.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I think that assumption a little unkind to me.
I feel that such is not my wish ; but that, when southern men
seem to be hunting down sound and national men of the North,
who stand with me, both sides of the question should go before
the people.

Mr. STEPHENS. Let me go on, if you please.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I will say that I now understand the gentle
man's position to be somewhat different from what I supposed.
I understand that, as a matter of compromise, he was willing to
see this geographical line run to the Pacific ; that slavery should
exist on one side, and be excluded from the other. I now under
stand him to say that he believes that Congress has power to
make this disposition.

Mr. STEPHENS. I do.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. And I understand him at the same time to
say that, while Congress has power to prohibit slavery from one
half of the territory, it has not the power to prohibit it from
three quarters. This, I must confess, to me is inexplicable.

Mr. STEPHENS. It may be so to the gentleman; it does not
seem so to me. I say that there is no violation of constitutional
power to divide fairly and justly, but it would be violative of

DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER. 501

every just principle of the constitution to take the whole. If
that is inexplicable to the gentleman, I suppose it will not so
appear to others. I suppose that this was the view of all the
gentlemen from the South acting with me on the extension of the
Missouri line ; at least, it is the ground upon which I stood.

Now, Mr. Clerk, I am willing that the gentleman shall search
all my records, and bring them up here and read them. I think
that, upon this point, the gentleman will find that I have never
changed sides, or positions, or opinions. If I were to do it, I
would not hesitate to avow it ; I wish the gentleman to know
that. But I wish the country also to know that my opinions
upon this point, so far as I am a proper judge of them, have been
the same since I first came to Congress, and just such as I enter
tained before I came here. The position of the South from the
beginning was, that Congress ought not to interfere or intervene
against us upon this subject. That is my position, and always
was, as an original question. That was the southern ground
anterior to the Missouri restriction in 1820. That was only sup
ported by southern men as an alternative. It was when the
South was voted down by the North, and when the South was
about to lose the whole of the territory, that she consented to
the principle of a division ; and I say that Congress has the
power, in my opinion, to divide fairly and justly, but no power
to give the whole, exclusively, to one section, just as in the case
I have put about the surplus revenue.

Now, sir, the gentleman remarked that my allusion to the gentle
man from Pennsylvania, [Mr. FULLER,] was unkind. I disclaimed
yesterday — I disclaimed most emphatically yesterday — and I do
again to-day, any intention of alluding to the gentleman from Penn
sylvania in an unkind spirit. I did it because I thought the occa
sion required it : I thought it due to the progress of our cause here.
I felt extremely gratified at the announcement of the gentleman's
opinions, and so I said then. I say now that my intention was
not to cut down the gentleman from Pennsylvania at all, but it
was to strengthen him and to strengthen his friends and our
cause at the North — it was to give our friends every assurance
and induce them to stand firm ; for we have evidence now that
if they do so, the great principles established in 1850, and car
ried out in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, will ultimately prevail in
this country, notwithstanding the clamor at the first elections
against it.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I am happy to hear that I misapprehend the
purpose of the gentleman ; but when he, by implication, stated
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania had seen new light —

Mr. STEPHENS. I did not say that he had seen new light.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Well, that light had dawned upon him.

Mr. STEPHENS. I did not say that.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. The impression upon my mind was that the
gentleman did imply this in what he said.

502 DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER.

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir. What I said was

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Well, Mr. Clerk, may I be allowed to ask
the gentleman, in order that I may be able to understand his
position — for I have some difficulty in understanding him —
whether he believes the Missouri compromise line to have been
constitutional or unconstitutional ?

Mr. STEPHENS. I believe that it was constitutional.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Well, that is what I understood his position
to amount to at first.

Mr. STEPHENS. I believe it was founded upon the principle of
a fair division of the territory as it was then understood, and as
such it violated no constitutional provision. I ask the gentleman
from Tennessee now again, whether he would not have voted for
it if he had been here ?

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Mr. Clerk, I can only repeat what I attempted
to say in reply to the same question a few minutes ago. Had I
been a member of the House at that time, my opinion is, that I
would have done what it has been my uniform habit to do — that
I would have investigated every question upon which I was called
to vote upon its constitutional principles; and my opinion is,
that upon an investigation such as I gave to this question in 1850
and in 1854, 1 should have come to the conclusion that there was
nothing in the constitution authorizing the Federal government
to exercise the power of prohibiting the new States to be formed
out of the territory of the Union from adopting such permanent
institutions as they chose to adopt when thej7 came in as States.
I should, therefore, have held that the Missouri compromise was
in derogation of the constitution ; that is, that there was nothing
in the constitution authorizing such an act ; and that, inasmuch
as the power is claimed upon that clause of the constitution which
authorizes Congress to make " all needful rules and regulations"
for the territory and other property of the Union, and inasmuch
as a regulation permanently prohibiting the States to be formed
out of that territory from acting for themselves when they took
on themselves sovereignty, was not a "needful rule," that Con
gress had no such power. That is my present opinion.

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman, then, was opposed to it, and
would not have voted for it. I understand him to say that he
would not have voted for the Missouri compromise.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. For the third time, I will endeavor to make
myself definitely understood.

Mr. STEPHENS. I have asked the question whether the gentle
man would have voted for the extension of the Missouri compro
mise. The gentleman has been several times upon the floor, and
has not answered that question.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. My opinion is, that, had I been a member of
that Congress, I would have investigated the question, and that,
having investigated it, I would have come to the conclusion that
the Missouri compromise was not authorized by the constitution ;

DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER. 503

and I would, of course, have voted against it, and sustained the
principle -incorporated in the compromise bills of 1850. That
is what I mean to say, and have, in substance, several times re
peated.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then I understand the gentleman to say that,
in 1848, he would have voted against the whole South, upon the
principle that all the southern members of the Senate and of this
body were more dangerous to the South than the abolitionists
themselves ! After investigating and groping about and looking
in the dark for a light, he would have come to the conclusion that
Congress had no such power, and would have voted for the princi
ples established in 1850. Sir, the principles established in 1850
were the principles of the South from the beginning. But when we
were looking to an extension of the Missouri line, we had no
hope of getting the principles of 1850. This Missouri line of
division was sustained by the South only as an alternative all the
time. The South took it in the beginning reluctantly. But the gen
tleman attributes to me, and those who thus sustained it, the
doctrine that Congress has the general original power to exclude
slavery from the territories. Now, I have said, and repeat, I
hold no such doctrine. On the contrary, I have said to this
House and to the country everywhere, that if Congress were to
exercise such power, I should be for resisting it. While I was
willing to divide fairly in 1848, and while that was the only com
promise I was for, and while I stood upon the same principle in
1850, I proclaimed to the country that if we did not get a fail-
division, if the North took the whole territory, I was for resist
ance. Now, I want to know where the gentleman is going to
stand in such a contingency ? He thinks, as I do, that such an
exercise of power would be unconstitutional. Suppose a majoritj''
of this House should restore the Missouri restriction, and sup
pose it should pass the Senate, and receive the executive
approval, what are you going to do ?

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. The explanation which the gentleman has
amplified to-day is the same which he made yesterday, and I am
very willing that he should extend the explanation.

Mr. STEPHENS. The floor is mine, and I cannot yield to the
gentleman, unless he undertakes to answer my question.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFEE. I certainly will.

Mr. STEPHENS. Suppose I say, that the restoration of the Mis
souri restriction is established, what is the gentleman going to
do? Suppose Congress does exercise the power to exclude
slavery from the territories — which the gentleman thinks is a
violation of the constitution — what is he going to do ? What
measure will he recommend to the people of the South ? What
theory of government is he going to act upon ?

Mr. ZOLLICOFFEE. I hold that my friend from Georgia has not
the right to make up supposed cases, and put a catechism to me
upon any wild imaginary hypothesis.

504 DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER.

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman himself first commenced the
system of catechising on supposed cases. He offered the reso
lution declaring that the opinions of candidates should be known,
and followed it up by a long string of questions.

Mr. ZOLLICOFPER. Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a
question ?

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir, a hundred of them ; and I wrant you
to answer mine.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. In what clause of the constitution do you
find the power authorizing Congress to make a fair division of the
territories ?

Mr. STEPHENS. I do not find it at all.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. You have a higher law, then, than the con
stitution ?

MR. STEPHENS. No, sir ; I do not recognize any higher civil
law than the constitution. I have said before, that the government
of the territories was outside of the constitution, springing from
a resulting power incident to the acquisition, and that a fair
division was not violative of it. That is what I said. Now
answer my question, and I will answer you a dozen more, if you
put them to me. My question is, what will you recommend your
people to do, provided the restriction is restored, or Congress
does exercise the power of excluding the people of the southern
States from an equal participation in the territories ?

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I will do that which a southern man, loyal
and true to the constitution, should clo when that question arises.
I do not recognize the right of the gentleman from Georgia to
interrogate me upon supposed cases which may never arise.
Upon my record I will answer, and I hold him to his. When the
time shall come, I shall be prepared to act as a southern and a
national man, regarding the rights of every section of this
Union. Upon the gentleman's own record I have interrogated
him ; but I have put no question to him as to what he would do
in a supposed state of things which may never happen. When
the crisis comes upon the country, I shall be prepared to take
that course which a patriotic man, living in the South, and
devoted to the principles of the constitution, should take.

Mr. STEPHENS. As the gentleman has announced to the coun
try who are the best friends and who are the worst enemies of the
country, and that certain men of the South in the Senate and in
the House, though patriotic in their motives, are worse enemies
of the South than even the abolitionists, I think it is but right
that the South should be enlightened as to what his position
would be, if the event I have supposed should happen.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Do I understand the gentleman to maintain
that the South assumes the power, and has used it in prohibiting
slavery from the territories ?

Mr. STEPHENS. Southern senators, and members of the House
from the South, upon this floor, did vote for a division upon the

DEBATE WITH MB. ZOLLICOFFER. 505

line of 36° 30', and they did unanimously vote to extend it to
the Pacific ocean. They did it reluctantly, as an alternative for
some show of justice, but I take it for granted that every one of
them did what he thought was right, under the circumstances, as
the lesser of two evils ; and that none of them thought they were
violating the constitution of the United States. But the gentleman
says that those who thus voted were the worst enemies of the
South.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I have stated to the House, and I have re
peated it again and again, that I did not say that those gentlemen
who conceded the constitutional power of Congress to prohibit
slavery, were less patriotic than those who construe the constitu
tion as I do. I did not say they were worse enemies of the
South. I did say, that in my opinion the theory, that the Federal
government has the right to act for the States to be formed out
of the territories of the Union, in forming their permanent dom
estic institutions, is a theory most dangerous to the South, and
the more dangerous when entertained by gentlemen living in the
South.

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman will not answer my question.
Beit so. The South can judge best who acts upon a theory most
dangerous to her interests. My position was and is this : I was
willing to divide as an alternative only, but a majority of the North
would not consent to it', and now we have got the great principle,
established in 1850, carried out in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, that
Congress, after removing all obstructions, is not to intervene
against us. This is the old southern republican principle, ob
tained after a hard and protracted struggle in 1850 ; and I say,
if Congress ever again exercises the power to exclude the South
from an equal participation in the common territories, I, as a
southern man, am for resisting it. The gentleman from Tennes
see does not say what he would do in that contingency.

The gentleman upon my left wishes to ask me a question.

Mr. HOWARD. I understand the gentleman to say that he was in
favor of an equal division, because it was just and fair. He says
the territories, being outside of the constitution, the giving the
whole of them to one part, would be unconstitutional, because
unfair.

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir, I did not say " the giving to the one or
the other," but "the giving exclusively to one."

Mr. HOWARD. Was it constitutional to take from either one of
those parties the share they got upon a just division ?

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir ; and that was not done ; the North her
self would not abide by the division contemplated. The idea on
which the line was first established in 1820 was, that Missouri
should come into the Union as a slave State, and tliat slavery
should be excluded from all of the Louisiana purchase north of 30°
30', with a toleration of it south of that line, if the people chose.
But at the next session of Congress, in 1821, the North voted

506 DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER.

Missouri out. She was denied admission on the terms of the act
of 1820. The whole South was for it, and the almost entire
North against it. The North would not stand by the compromise
intended to give her an exclusive part. The Missouri line con
templated division, therefore, has virtually been a dead letter
from that day to this ; the North, or a majority of her represen
tatives in Congress, repudiated it themselves : the South never
did ; they stood by it in 1821. And in order to see whether the
North looked upon it, and considered it as a living principle, and
not a repudiated offer to compromise upon the principle of divis
ion, the South proposed in 184T and in 1848, as an alternative in
lieu of the " Wilmot proviso " on the Oregon bill, to abide in good
faith by it. But this proposition, voted for by every southern
senator and representative upon this floor, was voted down, again
and again, by an overwhelming majority from the North. They
thus repudiated it over the very territory which we acquired
with Louisiana : the same repudiation was again and again carried
in this House in 1850, when the South was unanimously for
standing in good faith by the principle. Therefore the South
never even got the admission of Missouri by their agreeing to
take as an alternative a division on that line, and we were thrown
back, in 1850, upon our original principles, which were, that there
should be no congressional restrictions at all ; but that the peo
ple settling the territories from all sections of the "Union should
regulate this matter of slavery for themselves. That is the prin
ciple, as I understood, that the South stood upon in 1820, before
the Missouri restriction was moved. It was the old republican
principle ; it was the principle that the Congress of the United
States could not, on general principles, justly and rightly legislate
for a people who are not their constituents ; and I say to those
gentlemen who call themselves republicans upon this floor, that,
in assuming that misapplied title, they do violence to every prin
ciple consecrated by the name they espouse.

The old republican idea of a representative government, acted
on in the beginning, was a very different thing from what you
proclaim at this time. At the time of the formation of our con
stitution, every State in the Union but one was a slave State ;
and were the}'' not all republican States ? The constitution saj^s,
new States may be admitted ; and the only thing you have to
look at, upon the application of any for admission, is to see that
its constitution is republican in its character, and you, gentlemen,
who call yourselves republicans now, say that if the constitution
tolerates slavery it is not republican, and, therefore, your fathers,
your republican fathers, with slavery existing in every State but
one, did ngt know the meaning of republicanism.

According to your interpretation of the term, they acted upon
an idea that would have excluded every one of the old thirteen
from the Union but one — Massachusetts alone could have been a
Union by herself upon your principles. Is it supposed that the

DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER. 507

other twelve would have disputed over the character of a State
constitution, to be admitted into the Union, because it was not
republican, if it only embraced the same principles of republican
ism as their own ? I state to these gentlemen who call them
selves " republican," that they desecrate every principle conse
crated by the name they bear, not only in this view, but they do
so again when they undertake to set up that they are better
judges of what is right in the territories, and better legislators
for the people of Kansas and Nebraska, than the people of those
territories are for themselves. They do so when they set them
selves up as the masters and judges of the proper institutions of
the people of Kansas. The people of Massachusetts, and the
people of the other northern States, not content with attending
to their own business, set themselves up to be superior to the
people of Kansas and Nebraska, and pretend that they can know
their interests and determine them better than they can them
selves. Sir, I utterly deny the republicanism of their pretensions.

Mr. STANTON (interrupting) made an inquiry of Mr. STEPHENS,
which the reporter did not distinctly hear.

Mr. STEPHENS. I am going to bring my remarks to a close ;
and I would ask the republicans in this House, and particularly
the gentleman from Ohio, who objects to my proceeding, to listen.
I read, sir, what Mr. John Quincy Adams, who, I believe, was as
violent an anti-slavery man in his sentiments as any man, said to
the abolitionists at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in November, 1843:

"As to the abolition of slavery in the district of Columbia, I have said
that I was opposed to it — not because I have any doubts of the power of
Congress to abolish slavery in the district, for I have none. But I regard
it as a violation of republican principles to enact laws at the petition of
one people which are to operate upon another people against their consent. As
the laws now stand the people of the district have property in their slaves."

Just upon the principle of its being anti-republican, Mr
Adams would not legislate for the people of this district against
their consent. He did not question the power.

Mr. STANTON (interrupting). I must make a question of order.
I do not think it advisable, in a discussion of this kind, that a
•speech of this so'rt should go out to the country without there
being an opportunity first to have it replied to.

Mr. STEPHENS. I shall not trespass on the time of the House
more than a few minutes longer.

The CLERK. The clerk would state that the House, by unani
mous consent, permitted the gentleman from Georgia to proceed.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I ask my colleague [Mr. STANTON] to
withdraw his objection and allow the gentleman from Georgia to
proceed with his remarks. If we are to have a debating society
here, I will seek an opportunity to reply to the gentleman, and,
therefore I desire that he shall be fully heard.

Mr. STANTON withdrew his objections.

Mr. STEPHENS. It is not my intention, Mr. Clerk, to trespass

508 DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER.

on the indulgence of this House, nor shall I do it. I have been
brought into the discussion much further than I had any idea of
when I rose. But there is one remark which I wish to make be
fore concluding what I wished to say ; and that is in regard to
the doctrine of squatter sovereignty, of which several gentlemen
have spoken. I think the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. CARLILE]
spoke this morning — if I understood him aright — of the principle
of squatter sovereignty embraced in the Kansas-Nebraska bill.
Now, these terms of " squatter sovereignty" and " non-interven
tion" are words which have been differently understood by differ
ent gentlemen, and differently by the same gentlemen at different
times, as I have stated. I wish to say that, as I understand
" squatter sovereignty" now, and as I have always understood it,
there is not a particle of it in the Kansas bill. What I under
stand by " squatter sovereignty" is the inherent and sovereign
right of the people of the territory settling on the common
domain to establish and set up governments for themselves,
without looking to Congress, and independently of Congress.

Now, sir, that idea was embraced by some gentlemen in 1848
and 1850, as part of their doctrine of " non-intervention" by Con
gress ; and with this view I call the attention of the gentleman
from Tennessee [Mr. ZOLLICOFFER], who has read from my speech
in 1850, when I used the term ''non-intervention." Many per
sons embraced that with the other views, in connection with that
term which I have referred to. Against that doctrine, with that
understanding of it, I always stood opposed, and am opposed
now. There is not a single feature, not a particle of " squatter
sovereignty" in the Kansas bill, on that idea. Why, sir, their
whole organic law emanates from Congress. Their legislature,
their judiciary, every department and the whole machinery of
their government proceeded from Congress ; the inherent sover
eign right of the people to establish a government independently
of Congress is not recognized in a single clause of that bill. If
gentlemen mean by squatter sovereignty this principle, I say to
them that there is not a particle of it in that bill ; and I am as
much against it as anybody.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Will the gentleman from Georgia allow me
to ask him a question ? ,

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I would be pleased to know whether the
gentleman from Georgia interprets the Kansas-Nebraska bill to
give to the people, to the legislative body, of the territories of
Kansas and Nebraska the power to abolish slavery during the
existence of the territorial government ?

Mr. STEPHENS. I answer the gentleman. I think that the
Kansas-Nebraska bill gives to the people of the territory, grants
io them all the power that Congress had over it, and no more.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Do you believe that Congress had no power
to abolish slavery in that territory during its territorial existence ?

DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER. 509

Mr. STEPHENS. I think it would be unjust and a great wrong
for Congress to exercise any such power.

.Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Do you think it would be unconstitutional ?

Mr. STEPHENS. I think there is no power in the constitution to
do it, and it would be wrong from any resulting power, denying
as it would an equal and just enjoyment of the public domain by
all the people — and unjust, and tantamount to usurpation to do
it. Sir, I was going to say that the gentleman holds that Con
gress has no such power —

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER (interrupting). Do you believe that Congress
had the power at all ?

Mr. STEPHENS. Hear me through What I was going to say
is, that all the power which Congress possessed over the terri
tories on this subject is, in this bill, given to the people. And
the gentleman holds that Congress could not prohibit slavery.
If so, the people then cannot. Now, what I hold is, that the
constitution is silent upon the subject. But any such act by
Congress in the case supposed would be an act, in my opinion,
of gross injustice, and would be tantamount to an open violation
of any of the express provisions of the constitution. All the
power, however, which Congress had over the subject is granted
to the people, and they have got none else. I say this, and that
I voted for the bill with this understanding of its import, and a
determination that whatever the people of that territory should
do on the subject of slavery, whether their legislatures should
pass laws to protect it or to exclude it, or simply leave it with
out protection, I should for myself abide by their acts. I was
for taking off an odious discrimination and an unjust restriction
by Congress against the South, and leaving the question for those
to determine who, going from all sections alike, were most deeply
interested in it, according to the principles of the territorial bills
of 1850.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I do not wish to misunderstand the gentle
man from Georgia ; and I therefore ask him whether I am to
understand him as saying that it would be wrong and unjust for
Congress to prohibit slavery in the territory; yet that it has the
constitutional power to do so, and that Congress conferred that
power upon the territory?

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir ; the gentleman, it seems, wishes to
make me say what I did not say. I never said that Congress
had the power to prohibit slavery in the territories.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. The gentleman from Georgia misappre
hends me, if he supposes that I intend to represent him as saying
what I did not understand him to say.

Mr. STEPHENS. Yery well, then ; do not make me say what I
have not said.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. It seems, then, that I misapprehend the
gentleman ; but that certainly was my understanding of the pur
port of his answer to the question which I put to him.

510 DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFEB.

Mr. STEPHENS. Well, then, the gentleman was not attending
to what I did say, because the whole tenor of my remarks shows
that, in my opinion, there is no direct, or distinct, or original
power conferred on Congress by the constitution to exclude
slavery from any of the territories, or any portion of them ; but
on the acquisition of territory, not contemplated by the constitu
tion, a fair division of the country might be made, as I have
stated, between the parties interested, by way of compromise. I
mean to say, I do not think such division violates the constitu
tion ; but in no other sense do I hold that Congress could consti
tutionally agree to the exclusion of slavery from any of the common
territory, or any part of it.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. That I may not misapprehend the gentleman
from Georgia, as it seems I have done, for I find it difficult to
understand him, I must ask him another question. I understand
him to say that in the spirit of compromise, Congress has the power
to abolish slavery in a part of the territory — say in one half of
the territory. Now if Congress has the power to abolish slavery
in half the territory, has it not also the power to abolish it in the
whole ?

Mr. STEPHENS. / have not used the word " abolish" in this
connection to-day ; but I say no to his question.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Well, "prohibit!"

• Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir, I have used that word, and exclude,
and restrict. I now say distinctly that it does not follow, in my
opinion, that because Congress could constitutionally provide for
the exclusion of slavery over part of the territory on the princi^
pie of division I have been speaking of, that therefore the unlim
ited power exists to exclude it from the whole. I deny, in toto,
the existence of such unlimited or unqualified power in Congress
on the subject.

Mr. TODD. Will the gentleman from Georgia allow me to ask
him a question ?

Mr. WASHBURN, of Maine, also made the same request at the
same time.

Mr. STEPHENS. I will allow both gentlemen to put as many
questions to me as they please. I will first hear the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, [Mr. TODD.]

Mr. TODD. I understand the gentleman from Georgia to assume
the position, that the power does not exist in the constitution to
determine what shall be the institutions of the territories belong
ing to the United States. Now I desire to ask the gentleman
wherein that power resides ? Does it reside in the people of the
territories, or does it reside in Congress ? If it does not exist in
the constitution, from whence does the gentleman derive it ?

Mr. STEPHENS. I do not think it exists anywhere, while the
territorial condition lasts, neither in the people of the territory
nor in Congress. The public domain, while it remains a territory
of the United States, is the common property of the people of the

DEBATE WITH MB. ZOLLICOFFER. 511

several States, to be disposed of by Congress, under the limita
tions of the constitution, for the just and equal enjoyment or use
of the people of all the States, and there is no general or unlimited
power existing anywhere, either in Congress or the people of the
territory, or anybody else, to deprive any citizen of the United
States from going there with his property, of whatever kind it
may consist, so long as it is a territory. I have as much right to go
there with my property as the gentleman from Pennsylvania has
with his ; and the people of Georgia have as much right to go
there with their property as the people of Pennsylvania have with
theirs. The unlimited power to exclude slavery, and that is the
idea I suppose the gentleman is upon, exists nowhere in my
opinion.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania seems to be hunting for the
power, and because he cannot find it in one place, he takes it for
granted that it must exist in another. His logic is about as good
as that of the man who undertook to prove that Columbus was
not the discoverer of America ; that this honor was due to some
Norwegian navigators, who it was claimed discovered it, I be
lieve about the year 900, at any rate, several centuries before Co
lumbus. The reasoning by which this conclusion was arrived at
was, that a Norwegian vessel, about that time, set out from the coast
of Norway, sailing west, which was never heard of afterward ; and
the argument was, that those on this vessel must have gone to Ame
rica, for if they did not, where else did they go to ? [Laughter.]

Mr. TODD. Do I understand the gentleman correctly ? I under
stood him to say that he advocates the principle of the Kansas
and Nebraska bill, because it is based upon the great republican
principle of the right of the people to settle their own institutions
for themselves.

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir ; on this subject.

Mr. TODD. I understand the gentleman to say that the people
have not that right, and that Congress has not the power to
clothe them with that right. Now, I want to know where this
great representative principle, of which the gentleman speaks,
resides, and how it is to be exercised, if neither Congress nor the
people possess it ?

Mr. STEPHENS. It is to be exercised by the people when they
form their State constitution. That is my view of how and when
the power is to be properly exercised ; that is what I conceive
the old republican idea was.

Now, sir, I will hear the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. WASH-
BURN,] who desires to ask me a question.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Maine. I understood the gentleman from
Georgia to say that he believed that Congress has no power to
abolish slavery in the territories, but that the power resides in
the people ; and again, that the people of the territories have no
power except that delegated to them by Congress. I understood
the gentleman to lay down these two propositions. Now, the

512 DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER.

question I have to ask is this : if the people of the territories
have no power except that given to them by Congress, and Con
gress has no power to exclude slavery in the territories, where
do the people of the territories get the power to exclude it
there ?

Mr. STEPHENS. The people have, in my opinion, the power to
exclude it only in a State capacity, or when they form their
State constitution. Then they get it where all the States get it.
The people, in a territorial condition, are but new States in em
bryo : this latent power of full sovereignty, when they assume
State form, then develops itself; as wings to rise and fly, though
latent in the chrysalis, do nevertheless develop themselves in full
beauty, vigor, and perfection at the proper time. But I have this
further to say in reply to the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. WASH-
BURN.] That gentleman, and I suppose a majority of this House,
hold that Congress has the full and absolute power to exclude
slavery from the territories. Well, sir, if Congress has such
power it has conferred that power upon the people of Kansas
and Nebraska. I hold that Congress has not such unqualified
power ; but if it has, as the gentleman believes, then the people
of those territories possess it under the bill. This is evident
from the language of the bill itself.

" 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 terri
tory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth
section of the 'Act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the
Union, approved March 6, 1820, which being inconsistent with the princi
ple of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and terri
tories, 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 :
Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or
put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the
act of 6th March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or
abolishing slavery.' "

Now, sir, as I have stated, I voted for this bill, leaving the
whole matter to the people to settle for themselves, subject to no
restriction or limitation but the constitution. With this distinct
understanding of its import and meaning, and with a determina
tion that the existence of this power being disputed and doubted,
it would be better and much more consistent with our old-time
republican principles to let the people settle it than for Congress
to do it. And although my own opinion is that the people, under
the limitations of the constitution, have not the rightful power to
exclude slavery so long as they remain in a territorial condition,
yet I am willing that they may determine it for themselves, and
when they please. I shall never negative any law they may pass,

DEBATE WITH MR. ZOLLICOFFER. 513

if it is the result of a fair legislative expression of the popular will.
Never ! I am willing that the territorial legislature may act upon
the subject when and how they may think proper. We got the
congressional restriction taken off. The territories were made
open and free for immigration and settlement by the peo
ple of all the States alike, with their property alike. No
odious and unjust discrimination or exclusion against any class
or portion : and I am content that those who thus go there from
all sections, shall do in this matter as they please under their
organic law. I wanted the question taken out of the halls of
national legislation. It has done nothing but disturb the public
peace for thirty-five years or more. So long as Congress under
takes to manage it, it will continue to do nothing but stir up
agitation and sectional strife. The people can dispose of it better
than we can. Why not then, by common consent, drop it at
once and forever ? Why not you, gentlemen, around me, give up
your so-called and so-miscalled republican ideas of restoring the
Missouri restriction, and let the people in the far off territories
of Kansas and Nebraska look after their own condition, present
and future, in their own way ? Is it not much more consistent
with Mr. Adams's ideas of republicanism for them to attend to
their own domestic matters, than for you or us to undertake to
do it for them ? Let us attend to our business, and let them
attend to theirs. What else keeps this House disorganized and
suspends all legislative business ? I wished, sir, in voting for the
Kansas bill, and in carrying out in good faith the great princi
ples established in 1850 — that memorable epoch, the middle of the
nineteenth century — and fixing them as the basis and rule of
action on the part of the general government in her territorial
policy, to get rid of this disturbing question here, by referring it
unrestrictedly, as far as I could under the constitution, to the
people. If they have not the power to settle it while a territory,
as a matter of absolute right — ex debito justitia, I was willing, so
far as I was concerned and had the power to do it, to give it to
them as a matter of favor — ex gratia. I am willing, as I say,
that they shall exercise the power ; and, if a fair expression of
the popular will — not such as may be effected by New Eng
land emigrant aid societies, or other improper interference,
but the fair expression of the will of the hardy pioneers, who
going from all sections without let or hindrance, seek new
lands and new homes in those distant frontier countries — shall
declare, in deliberate and proper form under their organic
law, that slavery shall not exist amongst them, and if I am
here at the time, I shall abide by their decision. I, as a member
upon this floor, never intend to raise the question of their con
stitutional power to adopt such a measure. I shall never attempt
to trammel the popular will in that case, although I may think
such legislation wrong and unjust, and not consistent with con
stitutional duty on the part of those who enact it. Yet it will
33

514 DEBATE WITH ME. ZOLLICOFFEB.

lie a wrong without anty feasible remedy, so far as I can see. I
am for maintaining with steadfastness the territorial bills of 1850
— the principle of leaving the people of the territories, without
congressional restriction, to settle this question for themselves,
and to come into the Union, when admitted as States, either with
or without slavery, as ihey may determine. This principle was
recognized and established after the severest sectional struggle
this country has ever witnessed, and after the old idea, whether
right or wrong in itself, whether just or unjust whether constitu
tional or unconstitutional, of dividing the territories between
the sections, was utterly abandoned and repudiated by the party
that at first forced it as an alternative upon the other.

The Kansas and Nebraska act carries out the policy of this new
principle instead of the old one. The country, with singular unan
imity, sustained the measures of 1850 ; and all that is now want
ing for the permanent peace and repose of the whole Union upon
all these questions, is an adherence to the measures of 1850, both
" in principle and substance" &s the settled polic}r of Congress
upon all such matters. That the people of all sections will come
ultimately, and that before long, to this stand, I cannot permit
myself to doubt. Let us hear no more, then, of repeal. Let us
organize this body upon a national basis and a national settle
ment. Let us turn our attention to the business of the country
which appropriately belongs to us. Yes, sir, the great and diver
sified interests of this truly great and growing country of ours,
about which we talk and boast so much, and about which we have
so much reason to talk and boast. Let us look to the fulfillment
of the high and noble mission assigned us. Do not let the party
watchwords of " liberty and freedom " for the black man, which
some gentlemen seem always ready to repeat, cause you to forget
or neglect the higher objects and duties of government. These
relate essentially to our own race, their well-being, their progress,
their advancement. Let the inferior race in our midst take that
position for which, by a wise Providence, it was fitted, and which
an enlightened and Christian civilization in the different sections
of our common country, may think proper to assign it.

Mr. Clerk, we hear a great deal now-a-days about Americanism
— and by not a few of those, too, who call themselves, par excel
lence, republicans. Now, sir, has America — with her hundreds
of millions of foreign trade, and millions almost beyond count of
internal and domestic trade — with all her incalculable resources
of commerce, agriculture, and manufactures in a state of rapid
development — has America, the asylum of the misruled, misgov
erned, and oppressed of all climes — the home of civil and religious
liberty — the light of the world and the hope of mankind, no higher
objects to occupy our attention than those questions which, what
ever may be their merits touching the condition of the African
race in the several States and territories, do not properly come
within the purview of our duties to look after here ? — questions,

SPEECH IN THE KANSAS ELECTION" CASE. 515

the discussion of which in this hall can have no possible effect
but to create agitation, stir up strife, array State against State,
section against section, and to render the government, by sus
pending its legislative functions, incapable practically of perform
ing those great and essential objects for which alone it was ex
pressly created.

These views I submit to the considerate attention of all. I
shall trespass no longer upon your indulgence. I thank the
House for their kindness in hearing me. I must apologize for
the time I have occupied the floor. I had no idea, when I arose,
of speaking ten minutes. I barely wished to say to the gentle
man from Tennessee, [Mr. ZOLLICOFFER,] that those gentlemen
from the South, who had voted for the Missouri line, could not,
because of such votes, be justly held or considered the advocates
of the constitutional power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the
territories ; and but for his extended reply, bringing out new
matter, I should not have taken up the ten minutes allotted.

SPEECH ON THE RESOLUTION FROM THE COMMIT
TEE OF ELECTIONS ASKING FOR POWER TO SEND
FOR PERSONS AND PAPERS IN THE KANSAS
ELECTION CASE.

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

MARCH 11, 1856.

Mr. SPEAKER : It is not my desire to prolong this debate, nor
do I expect to present any new points on the merits of the ques
tion before the House. I wish, and intend only in what I have
to say, to enlarge upon and enforce some of the points made in
the minority report on your table. I wish, too, in what I have
to say to have the ear of the House rather than the ear of the
country ; not that I do not want the country to hear what I say,
but my main object is to address myself this morning particu
larly, especially, and emphatically, to the attention of the House
and upon the questions before us. These, sir, are grave ques
tions. They are questions involving principles of the first mag
nitude. They are questions of a judicial as well as political char
acter of the highest order, far above the small consideration of
which of two men shall have a seat as delegate here. In deciding
them, we sit not as legislators but as judges. Our decision upon
this resolution, whatever it may be, will be an important prece
dent in the future history of this country. We should, therefore,
not act without due deliberation, careful reflection, and a full un
derstanding of the principles involved ; and we should also be

516 SPEECH IN THE KANSAS ELECTION CASE.

stripped, as far as possible, of all party bias and all political
prejudice.

The proposition before us is one of an unusual character. It
is for this House to exercise one of its extraordinary powers ;
that is, the power to send for persons and papers in a case be
fore us, sitting as a court, judging of the qualifications, election,
and return of one who occupies a seat as a territorial delegate
upon this floor. Now, sir, I do not question the power of the
House to exercise the authority invoked. The gentleman on my
right from Pennsylvania, [Mr. KUNKEL,] in his remarks yester
day, spoke as if he thought those of us who oppose the reso
lution now pending denied the power to send for persons and
papers in cases of contested elections ; and he cited cases in
which it has been done. On this point I wish to be distinctly un
derstood ; I do not deny the power in a proper case. Though
no instance of its exercise has occurred since the act of Congress
of 1851, regulating the mode of taking testimony in cases of con
test for seats here ; and no case need ever occur, as far as I can
see, so long as that law remains on the statute book. Its pro
visions are full and ample. But should the case occur where it
may be necessary, in order to get proper and competent testi
mony to establish any fact that the House can legitimately and
properly inquire into in such investigations, to send for per
sons and papers, I do not question their power to do it. What
I maintain is, that the power can be rightfully exercised only
when it is done to procure testimony which is in itself rele
vant, pertinent, competent, and admissible, to prove such facts as
the House can properly consider and look into. Nor do I wish
to be understood as being inclined in the slightest degree to op
pose investigation in this case to the fullest extent that can be
properly gone into by us. Within these limits, I am in ftivor of
the House taking the widest range and greatest latitude of inves
tigation. But is the question before us such a one as would
allow a hearing of the testimony sought to be obtained, even if
it were at hand ? I think it is not. It is to this point I now
speak.

What, sir, is the character of the testimony which is asked to
be sent for ? And what is the object of it if obtained ? Sift the
whole matter — get rid of the rubbish — go through both reports ;
and does not the real gist of this application amount to this : The
memorialist wishes witnesses sent for to prove the invalidity of
the law of a territory of the United States, under which a sitting
delegate was elected, on the ground that the members of the
legislative assembly of that territory which passed it were not
properly and legally elected. Is not this a fair statement of the
proposition as it now stands before us ? It was to get this clear
view of its merits before the House that I moved, when it was
here before, to refer the proposition back to the committee, to
have their reasons and grounds for making it reported to the

SPEECH IN THE KANSAS ELECTION CASE. 517

House. We now have their reasons ; we now know what is their
object ; and have I not stated it fully and fairly ? Then, sir, is
the testimony competent if it were here ? Mark you ; we sit as a
court. Would it be admissible in the trial of any case in an}7"
court — in a criminal case, for instance — to permit a party to offer
evidence to impeach the validity of the law under which the ac
cused was arraigned, by showing that the legislature that passed
the law was not properly elected and legally constituted ? The
validity of a law may be inquired into and judged of by a court,
on some grounds which might be stated. The constitutionality
of a law may be decided upon — that I do not question — but never
upon this ground. The rules governing all courts in passing
upon laws and construing statutes, I need not here state. But
no court, in judging of the validity of a statute on any of the
grounds they take cognizance of, will ever allow an inquiry into
the legality of the election of the members of the legislature that
passed it. No case can be found of this character in the whole
history of civil jurisprudence.

The reason courts of law will not allow such inquiries^o be
made before them is, that the decision of all such questions prop
erly belongs to another tribunal — to the Houses respectively of
the law-making power itself; and their decision, when made, is
considered as the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction,
which no other court will inquire into it. And this House, sitting
as a court as it now does, cannot inquire into any fact invalidat
ing or impeaching the validity of any law either of the United
States, a State, or territory, which any other court could not in
quire into. I assert this as a principle that cannot be successfully
assailed. I call upon gentlemen who occupy a contrary position
to show a case, if they can, in this or any other country, where
the validity of a law in any court of justice was ever allowed to
be impeached by inquiring into the legality of the election of the
members of the legislature that passed it. That is what we are
now called upon to do ; and that is what I assert we have no
right to do. Why, sir, it is a fundamental maxim of the English
law, laid down by Sir Edward Coke, illustrated by Sir William
Blackstone, and inforced by every writer on the subject, both
English and American, that it is an inherent right of the high
court of Parliament — from which, as a model, all our legislative
parliamentary bodies have sprung — to settle for itself all ques
tions touching its own organization ; and when such questions
are thus settled, they cannot be inquired into elsewhere.

What is the question now before us ? Under that clause of
the constitution which secures to this House the right and power
to judge of the qualifications, elections, and returns of those who
may be entitled to hold seats on this floor, we have brought to
our consideration the right of the sitting delegate of the territory
of Kansas. Into his qualifications, election, and return, we have
full power to go, and to determine all questions pertaining either

518 SPEECH IN THE KANSAS ELECTION CASE.

to his qualifications, his election, or return. But in doing this,
we are asked to take a step further, and to judge not only of his
election, return, and qualifications, but to go into an investiga
tion and judge of the qualifications, elections, and returns of the
members of the legislative assembly of Kansas, which passed the
law under which it is admitted he was elected. I say, sir, accord
ing to the principle which I have laid down, no case in the parlia
mentary history of England, from which all our institutions have
sprung, or in this country, can be adduced to justify or warrant
it. I beg leave to call attention to some authority on this point.
I read from Sir Edward Coke, (4 Inst., p. 15 ;) in speaking of
the high court of Parliament, he says :

" And as every court of justice hath laws and customs for its direction,
some by the common law, some by the civil and common law, some by
peculiar laws and customs, etc., so the high court of Parliament, suispropriis
legibu$ et conseutudinibus subsistit. It is lex et consuetudo parliamenti.

" And this is the reason that the judges ought not to give any opinion
of a matter of Parliament, because it is not to be decided by the common
laws, \^tsecundum legem et conseutudinem parliamenti ; and so the judges
in divers parliaments have confessed."

On any matter relating to the constitution, organization,
rights or privileges of the members of the House of Lords, the
Commons cannot interfere. In like matters, relating to the
organization of the House of Commons, the Lords cannot
interfere. No other court in the kingdom can interfere.
The highest court of the realm — the King with the prerog
atives of the Crown — cannot interfere. On all these mat
ters each House is a court with full, ample, absolute jurisdic
tion over the whole subject. And when they are determined by
that court, with full and competent jurisdiction over the subject-
matter, its judgment cannot be inquired into by any other tribu
nal. Sir Edward Coke says further, on page 50, same volume :

" Thus much have we thought good to set down concerning knights,
citizens, and burgesses ; because much time is spent in Parliament con
cerning the right of elections, etc., which might be more profitably em
ployed pro bono publico."

This latter remark is not very inapplicable to our condition.
But the author goes on :

" Now, to treat more in particular (as it hath been desired) of the laws,
customs, liberties, and privileges of this court of Parliament, which are
the very heart-strings of the commonwealth," * * * "would take up a
whole volume of itself. Certain it is, as hath been said, that curia par
liamenti suis propriis legibus subsistit.'1

And he goes on to say that it does not belong to the justices
of England, or the barons of the exchequer, to judge of any of
these coming within the jurisdiction of this court of Parliament.
Now, sir, 1 invite attention to what Sir William Blackstone says
on this subject in his Commentaries, with which all of us ought

SPEECH IN THE KANSAS ELECTION CASE. 519

to be familiar. After referring to these remarks of Coke, and
affirming them, he says, in vol. 1, p. 163 :

" It will be sufficient to observe that the whole of the law and custom
of Parliament has its original from this one maxim, ' that whatever matter
arises concerning either House of Parliament ought to be examined, dis
cussed, and adjudged, in that House to which it relates, and not elsewhere.
Hence, for instance, the Lords will not suffer the Commons to interfere in
settling the election of a Peer of Scotland ; the Commons will not allow
the Lords to judge of the election of a Burgess ; nor will either House
permit the subordinate courts of law to examine the merits of either case."

All such matters are to be decided by the Houses of Parlia
ment, respectively, -not arbitrarily, but according to the usages,
customs, and precedents in like cases, which constitute the lex
parliament!, or law of Parliament ; but when decided, whether
right or wrong, there is no power to reverse the decision. Just
so, sir, with us ; when this House passes judgments upon the
qualifications or election of a member here, it is final and conclu
sive. Here the matter is to be examined, discussed, and ad-
judged ; and, when adjudged, it cannot be inquired into else
where. So with every legislative body. On this point, I now
call the attention of the House to what Mr. Justice Story says
upon the same subject in speaking of this clause, in his treatise
upon the constitution of the United States. After quoting the
clause of the constitution which provides that each House shall
judge of the qualifications, elections, and returns of its own mem
bers, he says, in vol. II., p. 295.

'•The only possible question on such a subject is as to the body in which
such a power shall be lodged. If lodged in any other than the legislative
body itself, its independence, its purity, and even its existence and action,
may be destroyed or put into imminent danger. No other body but itself
can have the same motive to perpetuate and preserve these attributes ; no
other body can be so perpetually watchful to guard its own rights and pri
vileges from infringement, to purify and vindicate its own character, and
to preserve the rights and sustain the free choice of its constituents. Ac
cordingly, the power has always been lodged in the legislative body by the
uniform practice of England and America.'11

If more authority is desired on this point, I refer to Kent's
Commentaries, Tucker's, and to all writers on the subject. It is
the uniform practice of this country, adopted from England, to
leave the adjudication of all questions touching the elections and
returns of members of legislative bodies to those bodies them
selves. The principle runs through all our State legislatures. It
lies at the foundation of all our representative institutions. It is
recognized even in all our voluntary associations and conventions,
whether civil or ecclesiastical. There can be no efficient political
legislative organization without it ; and when the legislative bodv
to which the question belongs, has made its decision, there is no
appeal to any other power. It is a final judgment rendered. It
is so with the decision of this House on such questions. It is so

520 SPEECH IN" THE KANSAS ELECTION CASE.

with the decisions of the Senate on like questions. It is so with
the State legislatures, and it should be so in Kansas. If the elec
tion of any members of the legislature there, either of the House
or the Council, was illegal, the proper place for an inquiry into it
was there. And if any person wishing to contest those elections
failed to present their case there before the proper tribunal, they
cannot come here to do it. If we inquire now into the legality of
those elections for the purpose of disregarding or invalidating the
law passed by the legislature under which the sitting delegate
was elected, why may we not inquire into the validity of the law
of Congress organizing that territorial government, upon the
grounds that some of the members of this House who voted for
it in the last Congress were not properly elected ? Or on the
ground that some of the Senators who voted for it were chosen
by members of State legislatures not properly elected ? And this,
too, on the still further ground that some of the sheriffs or return
ing officers in the State elections for members of the legislature
perhaps were not legally elected or qualified ? If you open the
door to such an investigation as that now sought, where are we
to stop ? Who can see the end of this beginning ? Whose vision
can take in the wide extent of that vast region of uncertainty,
insecurity, abounding in hidden unseen dangers and perils, your
course may lead to ? I hold, sir, that if a law should be passed by
the votes of members now upon this floor who may hereafter be
turned out because of the. illegality of their election, the validity
of such law so passed can never be inquired into either by any
court of the land, or even by ourselves, on the ground of its hav
ing been so passed. And though a law may be passed in a State
or territorial legislature by the votes of members who may after
ward be turned out, because of the illegality of their election,
yet the validity of such a law can never be questioned in conse
quence of that fact. But if the principle, now advocated for the
first time in our history, shall be established, and the precedent
be followed up, you unhinge all legislation ; you bring every thing
like law amongst us into uncertaint}7, doubt, and confusion :
you cut the "heart-strings," as Coke says, of our whole system
of government ; you take the first step, and, if it be pursued, that
which will prove to be a fatal step towards political and social
anarchy. I enter my protest here this day against it.

I repeat, sir, these are grave questions. I give you, Mr. Spea
ker, and the members of the House, as my fellow-judges in this
matter, my views of the rules which should govern us in the
judgment we are to render in this case. Weigh them as they
deserve, and give them such consideration as the}7 merit.

But the gentleman at my right, [Mr. KUNKEL,] who addressed
us yesterday, asked, if the allegations be true as here made, that
a set of usurpers assumed to be the legislature of the territory ;
are we to be bound by that assumption ? I say to him, no. . The
countenance of any usurpation and the exercise of prerogatives,

SPEECH IN THE KANSAS ELECTION CASE. 521

not duly belonging to any body of men, even ourselves, is what I
am against. There must be something more than a bare assump
tion of legislative authority to entitle the acts of any body of men
to be recognized as emanating from a body clothed with power to
make laws. The law-making power of this country must rest
upon some better showing than bare assumption. It must come
into being in the proper and legally constituted way. This is
well understood in America. We are not by any means legiti
mists, in the European sense of the word ; but we recognize that
government as legitimate which springs into existence by the will
of the people, as expressed under the forms of law passed by the
regularly-constituted authority of the land. A government so
presenting itself we regard not only as the government of the
people de facto, but de jure.

And now, sir, how is it with regard to this legislature of Kansas ?
We have a law of Congress authorizing it. It is familiar to all.
That law organized the territory of Kansas ; that law permitted
the people there, under the direction of the governor, to hold
elections for members of the territorial legislature, with power to
pass laws regulating the election of a delegate to Congress. This
organic law of the territory emanated from ourselves. This law
we are bound to recognize. A governor was appointed in pur
suance of it. The governor, the judiciary, the whole machinery
of the government there was legally constituted by ourselves — by
Congress ; and the forms prescribed, through which this territorial
body exercising legislative functions came into existence, emana
ted from the highest authority known to us under the constitution.
These facts are admitted. No person questions the public law
creating the territorial legislature. Nobody questions the legal
appointment of Governor Reeder. Nobody questions the procla
mation he issued to hold an election on the 30th of March, 1855,
for a territorial legislature in pursuance of our law. These are
all admitted facts. If any thing irregular, then, attended the
election of its members, it presented a question to be inquired
into and adjudged by the proper authority just as similar matters
are inquired into and settled in other elections of legislative
bodies — just as we inquire into such matters pertaining to our
own organization. When, therefore, it is admitted that an elec
tion for members of the territorial legislature was held in Kansas
on the 30th of March, as stated in pursuance of law, under the
direction of the legally-constituted authorities of the country, we
are bound to recognize the body so coming into life as legitimate in
its origin. It certainly did not spring from usurpation ; nor does it
rest its claims of legitimacy upon bare assumption. It had its
birth in a legal way.

But here comes the argument from the other side that it was
spurious, because the members who constituted it were not
properly elected in conformity to the laws under which it was
created. Well, sir, that was a judicial question to be settled and

522 SPEECH IK THE KANSAS ELECTION CASE.

determined by the lex parliament, according to the authorities I
have cited, and the universal practice of this country in like cases.
It does not come within the purview of the powers of this House
to settle that question. It was an inherent right in the Houses
of the Kansas legislature to judge and decide upon the qualifica
tions, elections, and returns of their own members respectively.
This power, says Story, by universal practice in England and in
this country, is lodged in every legislative body to determine for
itself. It is, indeed, one of the vital functions of the organism.
The question was a judicial one, which somebody was to deter
mine ; and what body was it ? The courts of the country (say all
the authorities) cannot take cognizance of it. Governor Reeder,
as it appears from the papers before us, insisted that it was his
right, under the law empowering him to prescribe the rules
governing the election, to decide it ; and the two Houses of the
legislature insisted that it was their parliamentary and legal right
to decide it. My opinion is, that the Houses were correct in their
position. But, be that as it may, the merits of the question be
fore us are not affected by it either way ; for, if Reeder, as gover
nor, had the right, it is an admitted fact that, out of twenty-six
members composing the House of Representatives of Kansas, he,
as governor, claiming the right to judge of this matter, did judi
cially, and not ministerially, award certificates to seventeen of
these members, as having been duly and properly elected on the
30th of March, in pursuance of his proclamation duly and legally
made. And like certificates he gave to ten out of the thirteen
members composing the council. Thus a large majority of both
branches of the legislature were adjudged by him to be duly
chosen and returned members thereof — members whose election,
he now says, was carried by an invasion, and that they held the
places which he assigned them by nothing but usurpation ! I
am not now upon the question of his estoppel ; I am considering
the question of his right to judge, and, in that view, the effect of
his judicial judgment rendered in the case. Keep in mind that,
upon every question before any tribunal which has the sole and
absolute right to judge in the matter, when the final judgment is
rendered, it is forever conclusive upon the points embraced in it.
Elections were held in May, by order of the governor, to fill the
places of the nine members and six councilmen rejected by him
at the March election. To those elected in May to fill those
places he gave like certificates. Every man who took his seat in
the legislature at its organization was adjudged and certified by
the governor to be entitled to it. The legislature, therefore, if
the governor had the right to judge, was legitimately and legally
constituted ; and their claims to be recognized as the proper law-
making power of the territory rests not upon bare assumption or
usurpation. And, on the other hand, if the Houses had the right
to settle these questions touching their organization, the result is
the same ; for they too, settled the question the same way as to

SPEECH IN THE KANSAS ELECTION CASE. 523

the original seventeen members of the House and ten councilmen,
and their judgment must be conclusive upon the fact that a
majority of both Houses were properly constituted. In either
view, therefore, we may take as to the hands in which this power
of judging was lodged, the question is a closed one; it is res
adjudicatse, and we have no right now to open it. I repeat, I am
not now upon the point of Reeder's individual or personal estop
pel in law. What I affirm is, that this question, from admitted
facts, is closed ; judgment has been rendered, and there is no
appellate jurisdiction in this House, nor in any other tribunal.
We can no more open this question than we can that of the
proper organization of any State legislature.

The gentleman on my right to whom I have alluded, [Mr. KUN-
KEL,] said, in the course of his remarks yesterday, that we, this
House, have got a right to go, and have often gone, into an inquiry
into the validity of the laws of the States in judging of elections
to this House. Sir, I do not deny this. I admit that we may
pass upon and judge of the validity of any law coming before us
in such cases, just as any court may do, and upon just such
grounds and such grounds only as courts may properly do. The
grounds upon which this inquiry is sought courts will never in
quire into, and we have no right to do it. There are some matters
touching legislation and the rules governing the law-making power
which must be considered as closed ; and when judgment is
rendered in them it must stand until the great day of judgment.

Mr. SIMMONS. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a
question ?

Mr. STEPHENS. With pleasure.

Mr. SIMMONS. I ask whether a judgment is valid for any pur
pose whatever, until it be shown that the party, in whose name it
is, is the true party ?

Mr. STEPHENS. To ascertain the true and proper party is part
of the proceedings before judgment. That is one of the matters
to be settled by the judgment, and when once settled by judg
ment finally rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction over
the subject-matter, it, is settled forever. Whether the party in
whose favor it be rendered be the true party or not, cannot be
inquired into afterward or elsewhere. And so in this instance
persons presented themselves as the elected representatives of
the people of Kansas, in their legislature. They presented their
credentials: the governor claiming the right to pass judgment
judicially in their favor, certified that they were the proper and
true party. They then took up their own credentials in the usual
way of legislatures, and came to a similar judgment, as to a large
majority in both Houses. That judgment, viewed either way
you please, is final on that occasion. That is my answer to the
gentleman.

But the gentleman from Pennsylvania, in speaking of the

524: SPEECH IN THE KANSAS ELECTION CASE

inconsistency of Governor Reeder 's course — for even he seemed
ready to admit his great inconsistencies

Mr. KUNKEL. No, sir ; I said it was not necessary to my argu
ment to prove that Governor Reeder was consistent.

Mr. STEPHENS. And the gentleman added that he* could not
speak for his consistency. Now, what I was about to submit to
the House is, whether anybody can defend his course ? I intend
to speak of the facts as they are detailed before us in these
reports, and as we know them to be. He was duly appointed
governor of Kansas. He accepted the trust and was in office,
when, according to his own showing, the election which took
place in that territory on the 30th of March was held in pursu
ance of his own proclamation. Twenty-six members of the
House of Representatives, and thirteen members of the Legisla
tive Council, were elected. These were the numbers of which
the Houses were respectively composed. He assumed the right
to judge of the election returns of these members. The rules
governing the elections were prescribed by himself, and very
rigid ones they were. The judges of elections were required not
to allow any non-resident to vote, and to take an oath that they
would not. These returns were submitted to him, and he exam
ined them. He ratified the returns, and gave certificates to sev
enteen members of the House, and rejected but nine. He gave
certificates to ten members of the council, and rejected three.
He ordered a new election to be held, to fill the places of those
vacated by himself, but the two Houses, as I have stated, assum
ing the right to judge of the qualifications of their own members
after they met, decided in favor of those who had the highest
number of votes on the first election.

But, sir, it was three months and upward from the holding of
this March election until the legislature met. He then said
nothing of what we now hear of the manner of this election. But
he, as governor, upon being notified that they were organized in
obedience to his own call, addressed them as the legally assem
bled and constituted legislature of the territory. As late as the
21st of July, after the Houses had acted upon the subject of the
contested seats in the cases of the nine members and three council-
men rejected by him, he again addressed them in a message, and
in it he says nothing of an invasion. He says nothing of subju
gation — nothing of "martial music" and "artillery" — nothing of
" border ruffianism" — nothing of their action in the cases of con
test referred to. But he addressed them then as the legally con
stituted legislature of the territory. If, therefore, Governor
Reeder had the right to judge of the election returns, as he
claimed, was not his acquiescence in the decision of the Houses
on matters pertaining to their organization an affirmance on his
part of their judgment in those cases ? And at his instance shall
we now go behind, not only the judgment of the Houses of the

SPEECH IN THE KANSAS ELECTION CASE. 525

legislature on these questions, but his affirmance of that judg
ment by an official act of Governor Reeder himself.

But, sir, I wish to notice some other matters that have dropped
in this debate. Another gentleman from Pennsylvania, on my
right, [Mr. CAMPBELL,] gave as a reason why this investigation
should be gone into — why we should set aside Governor Reeder's
own judgment in this case — that he was a gentleman of high
character — a man of worth, standing high in the estimation of
the people of his State, and that this investigation was due him
as such. Well, Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that, if what
Governor Reeder now says be really true, he certainly has for
feited and lost all just claims he may have had to the high and
exalted opinions of his countrymen ; he certainly shows himself
guilty of the most flagrant and gross dereliction of duty that any
public officer in the whole history of the country was ever guilty
of. The gentleman from Pennsylvania must admit that if the
territory committed to his charge was invaded by an armed force,
by which the legally qualified voters of the territory were driven
from the polls in every district save one, and the polls seized by
non-residents, who by violence carried the election — if that be
true which Governor Reeder now affirms to be true — if that took
place which he now says did take place, and he silently sat by
and saw all, and afterward recognized these invading hordes as
the duly elected legislature of the people, as he certainly did,
then he was guilty of a base disregard of his official duty, with
out a parallel in our history, and one that no depth of infamy
and degradation would be too low to assign him to for.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman from Georgia
will allow me, I desire to ask him, if these things can be substan
tiated, why deny to Governor Reeder this investigation ? Gov
ernor Reeder is ready to prove that his course was consistent,
honorable, and proper. I ask that the gentleman will hear him,
and then decide.

Mr. STEPHENS. Governor Reeder can never show that his
course was proper and becoming an officer in his position, if
what he states be true. I am not for this investigation, because
I do not think it is right to make it. I do not regard it as a
part of my duty to make improper investigation to sustain a
man who, by his own statement, shows himself to have been
guilty of a gross disregard of his official duty. So far as he is
concerned, his showing makes no favor with me. When a man
comes here, and on his own statement, out of his own mouth,
makes it appear, if his statement is to be credited, that he was
guilty of the grossest neglect of duty, it does not commend him
to my favor. Such statements or calls for investigation have
not much force in inducing me to follow his example in the com
mission of a wrong, or in disregarding my official duty. But
what I was about to say was, that if his statement be true, he is
not now entitled to that high encomium which the gentleman

526 SPEECH IN THE KANSAS ELECTION CASE.

pronounced upon him. If he, as governor of a territory, per
mitted such unheard of outrages to be committed there without
a word of complaint, but giving his sanction to the whole of
them — which upon his own showing, you must admit he did —
then he is not entitled to that high position which the gentleman
says he occupied in the estimation of the people of Pennsylvania
before he left that State.

It may be true that Governor Reeder, while in Pennsylvania,
was a gentleman of good character and high standing. That
does not show that he is entitled to be held in the same estima
tion now. His course, by which he may have justly forfeited
that character, we have before us. Neither is his present posi
tion, contrasted with his former, an isolated or singular one. A
gentleman once occupied a position in this country second to no
one then living. For thirty-six ballots he held the votes of this
House, in even balance for the chief magistracy of the coun
try. He stood shoulder to shoulder with a head quite as high
as that of Jefferson himself. Who stood higher then than he ?
Who shone brighter then than these two men ? Twin-brothers in
politics, as two morning stars they appeared rising together in
the day-dawn of our nation's glory ; but disappointed hope, and
blasted ambition, caused Aaron Burr — like Lucifer — like the
archangel, standing high in heaven, next to the throne itself, to
fall, and from his fall to rise no more. It may be so with Gov
ernor Reeder. A man he may have been of high character, fair
fame, and high ambition; but his ambition has "overleaped
itself," and fallen on the other side. History, I dare say, will
assign him his true position. There let him rest. We are to deal
with the facts as they appear before us.

The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. BINGHAM,] the other day,
said the legislation of the territory of Kansas was null and void
upon its face. He wished no better evidence of the invalidity of
the laws than that which is to be found upon their inspection.
He read one of their acts, which makes it penal for any individual
to steal a slave, or to induce him to run away from his master,
or to harbor such slave. Such a code he pronounced more infa
mous than that of Draco, and asked whether we were bound to
recognize as valid any such law as this, and some others he men
tioned. Why, sir, there is a law in the gentleman's own State,
Ohio, that punishes any person who entices an apprentice to run
away, or who harbors him after he has run away. Whoever har
bors an apprentice escaping from the tyranny, perhaps, of his
master — an orphan boy, it may be — whoever gives him bread in
his wanderings — as the gentleman was very pathetic I must fol
low him — under the Ohio law is subject to indictment and pun
ishment. The man that would give one, thus in distress, shelter
and a cup of water

Mr. BINGHAM. Did Ohio law make it a felony ?

Mr. STEPHENS. No, sir; but it makes it a crime. The only

SPEECH IN THE KANSAS ELECTION CASE. 527

difference between your law and that of Kansas is as to the grade
of crime and the extent of punishment.

Mr. BINGHAM. What law does the gentleman refer to 1
Mr. STEPHENS. I refer to the law in reference to apprentices,
and the enticing them away. I am not complaining of the law,
but only showing how the gentleman's declamation can be an
swered. Every community, sir, must judge for itself in all such
cases, both as to the grade of the crime and the punishment to
be inflicted. But to the gentleman, in this case, I would say as
Scotland's poet said to the "unco guid" of his day —

" Oh, ye who are so good yourself,

So pious and so holy ;
Ye've nought to do but mark and tell
Your neighbor's faults and folly.

" Ye see your state with theirs compared,

And shudder at the niffer ;
But cast a moment's fair regard,
What makes the mighty differ !"

It is only on the point as to the extent of the punishment that
the Ohio laws, in this instance, differ from those of Kansas.
Now what I maintain is, that if any of these laws of the territory
be not good laws or wise laws suited to the people there, let them
be changed by the people in the regular legislative way. We
belong, sir, to a government of law ; and it is the duty of every
good 'citizen to sustain the law as it exists, until it is changed
and modified by the proper authority, or until he is ready for
revolution. What characterizes the United States and distin
guishes us above all other nations more distinctively than this —
that here we have a government of laws emanating from those who
are controlled and governed by written constitutions ? If our
laws are wrong we have but to go to the polls — to the ballot-box
— to have them amended, corrected, and suited to the public
wants. To the ballot-box and not the cartridge-box, the people
should go to settle questions touching the character of their laws.
" Inter arma silent leges." If, by the Kansas law regulating the
election of a delegate on this floor, any person is allowed to vote
who were not entitled to vote under their organic law, and any
such person in the late election did so vote, and Governor Reeder
had gone into the contest, and had come here showing us that
such illegal and improper votes had been polled for the sitting
member, and that he had received a majority of the legal votes
of the territory, I should not have hesitated in doing what I could
to give him the seat. But he did no such thing. He and his
friends set themselves up in opposition to the law, denied its force
and validity, and are now attempting to overthrow the only gov
ernment and system of laws in that territory to which the people

528

SPEECH IN THE KANSAS ELECTION CASE.

can look with confidence and security for the protection of their
lives, liberty, and property.

This clamor, sir, about a majority of the people of Kansas being
opposed to General Whitfield's election here will not do : it will
not bear the test of notorious facts. If it were so, why had he
no competitor at the polls ? Where was Reeder that he did not
show his relative strength with him before the people ? This is
not the first time that General Whitfield was a candidate before
them. He was elected in November, 1854. At that time he had
competition. I have before me the official poll made out and en
tered upon the executive minutes by Governor Reeder himself.
Here are the entrie s :

"December 4, 1854. — The judges of the several election districts made
return of the votes polled at the election held on the 29th day of Novem
ber last, for delegates to the House of Representatives of the United
States, from which it appeared that the votes in the said several districts
were as follows :

DISTRICTS.

2

ll

f£ >•

*l
i-i

J. A. Whitfield
received —

IR. P. Flenniken
received —

John B. Chapman
rec eived —

Charles Robinson
received —

S. C. Pomroy
received —

P. Blood
received —

W. L. Garrison
received —

First

46

188

51

9

2

2

1

1

235

20

6

_

.

.

.

Third

40

.

7

1

.

>

_ ,

.

Fourth

140

21

_

.

_

m

_

_

Fifth

63

4

15

.

_

»

_

_

105

.

_

.

_

_

.

_

597

_

7

Eighth

16

_

_

• _

m

_

_

"NTinth

9

31

Tenth

2

6

29

••

_

m

•

_

Eleventh

237

_

3

5

.

_

.

_

Twelfth

31

9

_

1

_

_

_

_

Thirteenth

69

.

1

_

_

_

_

_

130

23

"

"

Fifteenth

267

_

39

_

m

_

Sixteenth

222

_

80

_

.

_

.

_

49

~m

13

2,258

248

305

16

2

2

1

1

"December 5, 1854. — On examining and collating the returns, J. W.
Whitfield is declared by the governor to be duly elected delegate to the
House of Representatives of the United States ; and same day the certifi
cate of the governor, under the seal of the territory, issued to said J.
W. Whitfield of his election.

Here the number of votes appear officially and in full, in all
the election districts in that territory, numbering from one to

SPEECH IN THE KANSAS ELECTION CASE. 529

seventeen. There is the poll, examine it — for J. W. Whitfield,
2,258 ; for J. A. Whitfield, which was by mistake for his name,
248; making his real, entire vote 2,506; and for Flenniken, his
highest opponent, only 305. The whole number of votes polled
were 2,833 ; so that Whitfield in that contest received more than
eight times the number of votes polled for Flenniken, his highest
opponent, who was the candidate of Eeeder and his party, and
who now pretend to be a majority in the territory. At the last
election Whitfield got 2,936 votes, without opposition.

Mr. CRAIGE. What has become of Flenniken ?

Mr. STEPHENS. Flenniken flunked ! The last I heard of him
he was on his way back east, where he came from. [Great
laughter and applause upon the floor and in the galleries.] He
has never been in the territory since, as I have been informed.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the investigation now sought
is right, for the reasons I have given. I am opposed to it in toto.
But if it is to be gone into, would it not be much better to send
out a commission, as is suggested by the minority of the com
mittee of elections ? Nay, I go further. Would it not be much
better to send a committee of the House — the committee of
elections themselves, if you please ? . If we are to go through
with this exceedingly complicated affair, would it not be better
for the committee to go to the hundreds and thousands of wit
nesses that may have to be examined, than to bring such a
"cloud" of them to the committee? — as the " mountain cannot
convenient^ come to Mohammed, is it not better for Mohammed
to go to the mountain ?" Send the committee out there
if a full investigation is what you are determined on, with the
same power in the premises ; and let them make their investiga
tions upon the "battle grounds," if they are to be found in the
vicinage of the voters. If you are going a-fishing for all the
facts in real earnest, why not make a complete drag of it at once ?
Send out the arms of your net far and wide, and make a
thorough haul over the whole broad territory, and bring to land
every thing, whether fish, eel, or serpent ?

But, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I am against this resolution
for another reason. I am against it because it is but a part and
parcel of a policy now pursued by some men in Kansas and else
where, which cannot be looked upon in any other light than revo
lutionary in its character. .Gentlemen cannot be mistaken in this
particular. There are men in Kansas who seem to have resolved
on rebellion. They were among the original enemies of the Kan
sas bill. When their leaders were beaten in this House and in
the Senate, and that great measure of sectional and national
equality was carried against and over their votes, they betook
themselves to new schemes to prevent its potent influence in
allaying agitation, and to make it the occasion of continued strife
and discord. The territory was not left to settlement by the
people of all the States equally and fairly, as the laws of climate.
34

530 SPEECH IN THE KANSAS ELECTION CASE.

soil, locality, production, and population might determine ; but
emigrants from distant points were stimulated, if not hired, to
go there with no purpose but mischief. Their main object was
not to become bona fide settlers, but to control the first elections.
In this they were beaten, as fully appears in the present sitting
delegate's first election, which I have shown. The}'' were also
beaten in the first election of members to the legislature, as ap
pears from the certificates before alluded to, given to the mem
bers of that body by Governor Reeder himself. And now,
disappointed, discontented, and disaffected at these series of
defeats in their designs and objects, they are about to betake
themselves to the last resort of malcontents, a trial of physical
force. Arms are collected — fortifications are built — munitions
of war are provided — Sharpe's rifles are procured — volunteers
are invoked — aid and assistance from a distance are looked for —
money is raised — and hostility against the existing legally-con
stituted authorities is openly avowed. The telegraphic dispatches
of this morning announce that the government proclaimed by
the Topeka convention is to go into operation at all hazards. All
these movements are lawless, insubordinate, and insurrectionary.
Governor Reeder may be considered as at the head of them, the
commander-in-chief of the whole of them ; and his movement
here can but be viewed as a part of his general plan of operations.
Any countenance he may seem to receive, therefore, at our hands,
can but favor his ulterior designs. This must be all he looks for.
He cannot expect to be voted a seat on this floor.

Now, sir, let us pause and reflect. How far in this business
do you intend to proceed ? Are you going to back those de
luded men in Kansas, whom Governor Reeder represents here,
while they stand with arms in their hands'? We see by the
President's proclamation that he intends that the laws of that
territory shall be executed, as it is his duty to do. Now, which
side are you going to take, when Sharpe's rifles and Federal
artillery are brought in array against each other in this threat
ened conflict ? Ought we to do any thing calculated to inspirit
or encourage any misguided portion of the people of this country
to put themselves in open, hostile, armed resistance to the laws ?
What is this but treason as expounded by our courts ? Our his
tory, as a united people, dates back for more than seventy years ;
and no conviction for this highest crime known to society has
ever, as yet, marred that history. No nation perhaps ever ex
isted in the world so long, of which the same can be said. I feel
the prouder of my country because it is so ; and long may the
day be hence before, if ever, such a case shall occur. I trust
that my eyes, at least, will never see the light of that day when
American soil shall be stained with a traitor's blood. Some per
sons in Kansas may have, under their delusion, gone very far ;
but I trust that the locus penitentia in every such heart will be
found before the last extreme step be taken. Let us be careful,

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS. 531

at any rate, that we do nothing here in this matter which may
tend to encourage them to take that step. Let it be our aim and
our object rather to " pour oil on the troubled waters." Ours is
a government of laws. Let us, then, in our action in this case,
set a good example, not only to the people of Kansas, but to the
whole country, by adhering strictly ourselves to the principles
and precepts of the laws established for the government of all
our deliberations and proceedings here. This investigation pro
poses to lead us into an inquiry into subjects over which I. think
I have clearty shown we have no proper or legitimate jurisdiction.
Let us not, then, assume powers and prerogatives which do not
belong to us, in our attempting to see if another body has not
done it ; and, particularly, let us not do it for bare party pur
poses, when the only effect of it may be to put in hazard the
peace and quiet of the country. These, sir, are my views and
opinions upon the proposition before us.

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS AS A
STATE UNDER THE TOPEKA CONSTITUTION.

[NOTE : — In this speech, Mr. Stephens took occasion to review and set
at rest the charges, as to the mariner the Kansas Act passed against the
rules. Also his views on slavery at large. ED.]

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES.

JUNE 28, 1856.

The House having under consideration the bill reported from the com
mittee on territories, providing for the admission of Kansas into the
Union as a State, with the constitution prepared at Topeka by the free-
State party,

Mr. STEPHENS said ; I propose, Mr. Speaker, before I proceed
to what I have arisen mainly to say on this occasion, to ask the
consent of the House to allow me now to offer the amendment
which I stated yesterday I wished to propose to the bill now
before us.

Mr. WASHBURN, of Maine. If the gentleman asks that consent
now, I shall object to it, as I shall at all times.

Mr. STEPHENS. On the motion to commit the bill to the Com
mittee of the Whole on the state of the Union, the amendment
is not in order, unless by unanimous consent.

Mr. WASHBURN. I understand that to be a side measure, in
tended to destroy the bill, and I shall object to it now, and at all
times.

Mr. STEPHENS. I state to the gentleman that I have no side
blows for this bill, nor is my amendment intended as any side

532 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS.

measure. I wish my proposition to come distinctly before the
House as a substitute for the pending bill. I am opposed out
and out to this bill as it now stands. I want no misunderstand
ing on that point. I will, however, vote for the substitute ; and
what I want is a direct vote between the bill now pending, and
the substitute offered as an amendment. But as the gentleman
from Maine will not allow me to offer my proposition as an
amendment, I now move to amend the motion to commit this bill to
the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, by adding
to it, " With instructions to report this amendment in lieu of the
original bill ;" in other words, with instructions to strike out all
in the original bill, and to insert my amendment in lieu thereof.
That is the motion which I submit to the House and upon it I
shall proceed with what I have to say.

It is immaterial to me, Mr. Speaker, if I can get a vote in the
House on the proposition submitted by me, whether it goes to
the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, or not. I
am myself prepared to v6te on it to-day, either in the House, or
in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. But I
am inclined to think that it had better go to the committee. We
can then take up this amendment, and consider it in detail. It
may be some gentleman would suggest modifications, which I
would accept. We can then discuss the merits of the original
bill. Its friends can amend that, if they wish. My amendment
can be put in such form as a majority of the committee may
desire, if a majority be favorable to its objects. I therefore shall
vote for the reference. But the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr.
CAMPBELL,] the other day said, that the motion to refer or com
mit, made by the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. DUNN,] and
which is now pending, was equivalent, if successful, to a defeat
of the bill. The gentleman from Maine, [Mr. WASHBURN,] also
followed in the same line. Now, I told these gentlemen, day
before yesterday, and I state it again to the House, that I do
not consider the motion to commit the bill to the Committee of
the Whole on the state of the Union, if carried, as equivalent to a
defeat of the measure at all. By no means, sir. What is the ar
gument of those who say a reference of the bill is tantamount to
its defeat ? Nothing better than this, as argued b}7 the gentleman
from Maine, to wit : that all the friends of the Kansas bill, two
years ago, when that bill was referred to the Committee of the
Whole on the state of the Union, considered it as equivalent to its
defeat. That is his argument, and the authority adduced by him
to sustain it. Sir, it is immaterial to me what certain friends of
the Kansas bill may have thought would be the effect of its ref
erence, when it was referred If they consider that reference as
equivalent to its defeat, the sequel showed that they were in error.
That is all. It was referred. It was considered two weeks in
committee, and it was then passed.

Mr. WASHBURN. Will the gentleman allow me to say that that

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS. 533

wa^s simply because they broke down the rules of the House in
two instances. If they had not, they never could have got that
bill out of the committee.

Mr. STEPHENS. Will the gentleman state what two instances.

Mr. WASHBURN. In the first place, by deciding that under the
119th rule you might strike out the enacting clause of the bill.
In the second place, by rising and reporting the bill to the House
when there was no quorum voting, as everybody knows.

Mr. RICHARDSON. The gentleman from Maine is ^otally mis
taken when lie says there was no quorum.

Mr. STEPHENS. I hope the gentleman from Illinois will let me
proceed. The gentleman from Maine is mistaken in both his in
stances. The record shows that the tellers, Mr. CLINGMAN and
Mr. SAPP, reported 103 in favor of the motion, and 22 against it.
That is more than a quorum — one hundred and eighteen was a
quorum — one hundred and twenty-five voted. Though a great
many present refused to vote, nwre than a quorum, however, did
vote on the motion to strike out. It does not require a quorum
to vote on a motion to rise, as every one knows. And as far as
the violation of the 1 1 9th rule in concerned, I have this to say
to the gentleman — as I said the day before yesterday — that
nothing can be clearer than that every thing done in the commit
tee on the passage of the Kansas bill under the 119th rule, was
legitimate and proper ; and that no rule of this House was violated
or overrode on that occasion. This I intend to show beyond
cavil or doubt. The charge that there was no quorum voting is
answered by the record, as I have stated ; then as to the two
other charges — for besides the charge relating to the 119th rule
now made, the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. WASHBURN,] or some
other gentleman, said, two days ago, that there was another rule
violated. What one I do not know — for no one was mentioned
— but the statement was, that the committee had violated the
rules of the House by setting aside other bills having priority in
the order of business on the calendar to the Kansas-Nebraska
bill. That was one statement ; and I think it was also said that
upward of a hundred bills were thus set aside to reach this one.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have the rules of the House before me, and
ask the attention of the House to the 135th rule:

" In Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, the bills shall
be taken up and disposed of in their order on the calendar ; but when ob
jection is made to the consideration of a bill a majority of the committee
shall decide, without debate, whether it shall be taken up and disposed of,
or laid aside ; provided, that general appropriation bills, and, in time of
war, bills for raising men or money, and bills concerning a treaty of
peace, shall be preferred to all other bills at the discretion of the commit
tee ; and when demanded by any member, the question shall first be pui
in regard to them."

Even in times of war, appropriation bills, and bills relating to

584 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS.

treaties of peace, have no other preference, except that the ques
tion of taking them up first shall be first put. A majority may lay
even them aside.

Sir, could a rule be written more plainly ? Can language be more
clear or more distinct than this — that when the House goes into
the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and when
the first bill in order is read by the clerk, and a gentleman objects
to taking it up, it is then submitted to the committee whether it
will be takQji up or not ; and a majority of the committee have the
expressly-granted power to determine, without debate, whether
they will then act on it, or lay it aside for other business ; and
so on to the second, and so to the third, and to the fourth, and to
the one hundred and fiftieth, if you please ? Was it not perfectly
competent for a majority of the Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, when the Kansas bill was in committee, to
pass over other bills, and take up that bill when they wished to
do so?

This they did. Each bill was laid aside as it was reached.
The}^ had a right to do it. They violated no rule in doing it.
The number of bills laid aside to reach it was only eighteen, I
think. But if the number had been legion — if there had been one
hundred, or five hundred, or a thousand, it would have made no
difference.

Sir, the rule in this case is as clear as it could be made ; and
the action of the committee on that occasion was strictly in
order. This I maintain, and defy an answer or reply to it.

Now, then, sir, as to the 119th rule.

When the committee on that occasion had laid aside the first
bill, and the second bill, and the third bill, and so on, until they
had come to the Kansas bill, the eighteenth in order — which they
had a right to do — they took it up for consideration ; and after it
had been discussed for two weeks in committee, which was as
long as was thought proper by the House, the 119th rule was
resorted to, to stop debate in committee and bring the subject
before the House for a vote. That rule is as follows :

" A motion to strike out the enacting words of a bill shall have prece
dence of a motion to amend ; and, if carried, shall be equivalent to its
rejection."

Under this rule, a motion was made by myself in committee to
strike out the enacting words of the Kansas bill — a motion which
took precedence of all motions to amend, as the rule says. The
motion was properly put ; and it was carried by a vote of one
hundred and three for it, to but twenty-two against it, as I have
said. Where, then, was there any violation of the rules in this ?
But the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CAMPBELL,] who says he
wishes to reply to what I say, insisted the day before yesterday
that this 119th rule never was intended to apply in committee.

The rule, in its language, was too clear, too overwhelming, too

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS. 535

unanswerable; but to avoid its conclusiveness against him, he said
it was made to apply to the House, and not to the Committee of the
Whole, etc. Well, sir, let us see how this subterfuge will avail the
gentleman. The history of this rule, as given in our Manual, is
as follows :

aln 1814, a Committee of the Whole struck out the first and only sec
tion of a bill, and so reported to the House. Mr. Speaker Cheves refused
to receive the report, on the ground that it was tantamount to a rejection
of the bill, which the committee had not power to do." Just as the
gentleman now says. " After this, that the merit of questions might be
tested in Committee of the Whole, rule 119 was adopted."

This history clearly shows that it was expressly adopted for
the Committee of the Whole, etc.

I have produced this additional authority to show that there
was no violation of the rule on the occasion alluded to — that the
Committee of the Whole on the Kansas bill did just exactly what
the rule intended that they might do, and fully empowered them
to do. But gentlemen say, if this rule was intended to be applied
to the Committee of the Whole, why has it never been put in
practice before ? That was the argument of the gentleman from
Maine.

Well, Mr. Speaker, my reply to him is, that it has been put in
practice before. It was adopted in 1822. Ten days after its
adoption, on the 2d of March, 1822, first session of the Seventeenth
Congress, I find the journal of the House record thus:

" The House took up and proceeded to consider the bill for the relief of
Benjamin Freeland and John M. Jenkins ; and the amount reported there
to from the Committee of the Whole House, on the 14th instant, being
read as follows : 'striking out the enacting clause of said bill,'

" The question was put on concurring with the Committee of the Whole
House in the said amendment,

"And passed in the affirmative."

Here the committee did the very same thing, ten days after the
rule was adopted, that was done on the Kansas bill. What did
the House do ? Did they say that the Committee of the Whole
had acted improperly ? No, sir. The Journal says : " The ques
tion was taken upon concurring with the Committee of the Whole
on said amendment, and it passed in the affirmative."

I find in the first session of the Eighteenth Congress, on the
22d of May, this record :

" The question was then taken to concur with the Committee of the
Whole House on striking out the enacting words of the bill from the Sen
ate, entitled, 'An act relative to the Patent Office, and to the salary of
the Superintendent thereof,'

"And passed in the affirmative."

Again, sir, in the first session of the Twenty-First Congress, I
find on the journal this record :

" The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on
the bill (No. 127) for the relief of Walter Livingston, deceased, and after

536 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS.

some time spent therein, the Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. Storrs,
of New York, reported the same, with the enacting clause stricken out,

" The question was then put, that the House do concur with the Com
mittee of the Whole House in striking out the enacting words of said bill,

"And passed in the affirmative — yeas 84, nays 59."

I find in the same Congress, in the action of the House on the
bill for the relief of John Robinson, that

"The question was then put to concur with the Committee of the
Whole House in striking out the enacting words of the bill (No. 175) for
the relief of John Kobinson,

"And passed in the affirmative.

" So the land bill was rejected."

Sir, I shall not go on with this record. It is sufficient for me
to state to those gentlemen who complain of my motion under
this rule, that their not knowing that such a motion had ever been
made before does not seem to me to be an argument of much
merit or force. I show you, Mr. Speaker, the House, and the
country, the rule. No man can question that. I show you, also,
its history ; and from that, that it was made for just such a pur
pose as the one I applied it to. No man can now gainsay that.
I go further, and show you the practice of the House under it.
No man can any longer question that. Then, sir, how can gen
tlemen rise up here, and say that the passage of the Kansas and
Nebraska bill was accomplished by overriding the rules of the
House ? Gentlemen may have been surprised and astonished at
the parliamentiary tactics practiced under the rule ; they may
never have dreamed of how the friends of a measure, in committee,
could vote to strike out the enacting words — thus apparently de
feating it — and then, when it was so reported to the House, re
verse their position, disagree to the report of the committee strik
ing out the enacting words, and then pass it. They may not
have understood the process by which a bill might be temporarily
apparently killed by its friends in Committee of the Whole, for
the purpose of getting it out, and then revived again in the House,
by disagreeing with the report of the committee ; but this is the
whole of it. This is the ground of all this clamor about the viola
tion of the rules of the House, in the passage of the Kansas bill —
for it is nothing but clamor.

The charge of a violation of rules has not the semblance of a
fact to rest upon. And let no man hereafter say that sending a
bill to the Committee of the Whole is equivalent to its defeat.
Our rules requiring this committee, and directing how business
shall be disposed of in it, are wise and proper. And the rules,
when properly administered, work harmoniously for the perfection
and despatch of legislation. It is only those who do not under
stand them who see confusion and mystery in them. Where,
then, was the wrong or the fraud perpetrated on the rules in the pas
sage of the Kansas bill ? It exists only in the fancy of gentle
men who declaim so violently on the subject. I said, sir, I in-

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS. 537

tended to vindicate the action both of the committee and the
House on that occasion, and put the matter beyond all future cavil
or doubt. This, I think, I have done. Now, sir, I intend also, with
the same confidence, to vindicate the principles of that bill against
the equally unfounded assaults which have been made upon them.
What, sir, are those assaults ?

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CAMPBELL] said the other day,
and again says, that the passage of the Nebraska bill was the
origin of all the troubles in the countiy. Sir, what troubles does
he allude to ? What troubles have we upon us ? Standing in my
place in the Hall of the Representatives of the United States, I
ask to-day, what troubles is the country laboring under ? Were
any people of the world ever more prosperous than the people of
the United States now are ? We are at peace with all other na
tions ; we hear of 110 complaint about Federal taxes or high tariffs ;
we hear of no disarrangement of the currency or of the finances
of the* country ; we hear of no clamor against banks ; our tables
are not loaded down with petitions or remonstrances against
grievances of any sort ; thrift and plenty seem to be smiling over
the land from one extent to the other. Our commerce was never
more flourishing ; agriculture never yielded a more bountiful sup
ply from the bosom of the earth to the tillers of her soil than it
now does, nor was the average value of products ever higher.
Industry, in every department of business, whether upon the
ocean or the land, never had more inducements to ply its ener
gies, not only for competency and comforts, but for the accumu
lation of riches and wealth. Never did labor, in all its branches,
receive more readily than it now does fair and justly compen
sating wages. Our internal and foreign trade was never in a
more flourishing condition. What are the troubles, then, of which
the gentleman speaks ? Why, sir, if one could cast his eye over
this wide republic at this time, and see the thrift and prosperity
in every department of industry, arising from our benign institu
tions, he would almost be compelled to exclaim, that all the trou
bles of which we hear grow out of nothing but that exuberance of
liberty and multitude of blessings which seem to be driving us on
to licentiousness. This we see in the mobs at Cincinnati, Louis
ville, New Orleans, in this city, and in San Francisco. The laws
have been set aside ; force has been resorted to ; arms have been
used ; and men have been slain. But the absorbing theme now
is the " civil war," as it is called, in Kansas. This is the an
nouncement made in a neighboring city, the commercial metropo
lis of this Union, the other night, according to a report of their
proceedings which I find in a newspaper, to a large crowd of peo
ple there assembled. I see it was proclaimed that civil war was
raging in Kansas ; and that that assembly gave shouts of applause
at the announcement ! These are the troubles, I suppose, of
which the gentleman speaks — troubles produced not by this Kan
sas bill, but by the mischievous designs and reckless purposes of

538 SPEECH ON" THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS.

those who, in their efforts to defeat the quiet and peaceful opera
tion of the sound purposes of that bill, have for some time been
engaged in their unholy work of attempting to get up civil war
in the country, and can now shout in applause at even the most
distant prospect of success.

This, sir, is the work of that class of restless malcontents, who
have for years been endeavoring to produce a sectional conflict in
this country; who have no regard for the constitutional equality
of the States of this Union ; who repudiate the most sacred obli
gations of that compact which binds us together, and who have
proclaimed that the constitution itself is a league with death and
a covenant with hell ! How far they shall be permitted to go on
with their work until checked by a sound reactive public senti
ment — how far they shall get sympathy and co-operation from
those whom they are now attempting to mislead — how far they
may be successful in their long cherished wish for civil strife, I
cannot say. That is a problem for the future to settle ; tliat de
pends upon the virtue, intelligence, and integrity of the people.
But that they ought not to succeed — that they ought not only
to be discouraged, but rebuked and condemned in every part of
this country, and lay every man who has a spark of patriotism in
his bosom, as well in the North as in the South, I this day main
tain. But the gentleman from Ohio says all this comes from the
Kansas bill. How ? In what way ?

What is there wrong in that Kansas measure ? It has been
said that it is a fraud. It has been said that it is the greatest of
iniquities. It has been said that it is a crime against God. It
has been said that it is a crime against nature. Well, sir, what
is this fraud, this iniquity, this crime against nature and against
God ? It is the simple declaration of the principle that the people
of the territories of Kansas and Nebraska — the pioneer freemen
there — our own brothers in flesh and blood — going there from
every State of the Union, for the purpose of settling that distant
frontier — there to build up new homes for themselves and their
posterity — should have the right, without limitation or restriction
from any quarter, save the constitution of the United States, to
form and mould just such institutions for their own government
as they pleased — a right which lies at the foundation of all our
State governments, and upon which the whole republic, in its
several parts, is built and established. This is the fraud, this is
the iniquity, this is the great crime of crimes, the security to the
people of the territories of the right of self-government under the
constitution. The amount of the crime is, that freemen shall be
permitted to make such constitutions, republican in form, for
their own government, without dictation or control from any other
power, as they please. Tell it wherever you go, that this was the
monstrous outrage committed by an American Congress in 1850,
the middle of the nineteenth century, on the territories of Utah
and New Mexico, and repeated by the same body in 1854, on the

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS. 539

territories of Nebraska and "bleeding Kansas!" This is the
whole of it — nothing more and nothing less. These troubles we
now hear of — these efforts to get up civil war — these shouts at
the announcement that civil war has already commenced — are
but part and parcel of that spirit which animated a portion, and
only a portion, of the opposition to the Kansas bill, during the
pendency of that measure in this House. That same spirit at the
North that had so bitterly opposed the establishment of this
great principle of territorial policy in 1850 could not bear the
idea of its being carried out in the future.

I recollect very well, sir, that while the Kansas bill was pro
gressing here, a newspaper in the city of New York, edited by a
man of great ability, untiring energy and industry, and who is
now the head and front — the animating spirit of the present
opposition and civil war champions, undertook to lecture this
House as to our duty in regard to that bill. We were told then by
him what an enormous wrong it would be ; and when the measure
was about to pass, an editorial in that paper reached here, from
which I wish to present some extracts, to show that it is the same
spirit now at work :

" We urge, therefore, unbending determination on the part of the
northern members hostile to this intolerable outrage, and demand of them,
in behalf of peace — in behalf of freedom — in behalf of justice and humanity
— resistance to the last. Better that confusion should ensue — better that
discord should reign in the national councils — letter that Congress should
break up in wild disorder — nay, better that the Capitol itself should blaze
by the torch of the incendiary, or fall and bury all its inmates beneath its
crumbling ruins, than that this perfidy and wrong should be finally
accomplished."

This is the language of the New York Tribune in reference to
the Kansas bill a few days before it passed. Yes, sir, even then
that editor declared that it was better that this Capitol should be
burnt by the torch of an incendiary — better that the government
should go into dissolution, than that the people colonizing and
settling Kansas and Nebraska should be just as free as the peo
ple of New York, or, as he states it, than that this act of perfidy
and wrong should be finally accomplished. What wrong did the
act contain ? Wrong to whom ? to whom was there any thing in
it either wrong or unjust ? Was it wrong to the people of the
South, one large section of the Union, to permit them to enjoy an
equal and fair participation of the public domain purchased by the
common blood and common treasure of all? Was it wrong or
unjust to permit the people of New York, Massachusetts, and
other States of the North going into a new territory, to be as
free there as they were in their native homes ? Was it wrong
or unjust to allow all from all the States, who might be disposed
to quit the old States, and seek to better their fortunes by cut
ting down the forests of the West, turning up its virgin soil, and
making the wilderness to blossom as the rose, to enjoy the same

540 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS.

rights which their fathers did in the early formation of all our
present State constitutions and governments? Whom, I say, did
the bill wrong ? To whom did it deal any injustice ? Was it
the slave, the African, whom his southern master might take
there ? How could it be unjust even to him ? Is not his condi
tion as much bettered by new lands and virgin soils as that of his
master? Is not expansion of that portion -of southern popula
tion quite as necessary for their comfort and well-being as it is
for the whites ? Would you keep them hemmed in in their
present limits, until subsistence shall fail, and starvation shall
effect the objects of a misguided humanity ?

Without stopping here to say a word upon the subject of
southern society, and the relation which the negro there sustains
to the white man, either as to the necessity of that relation, or
its wisdom or propriety, does it work any wrong or injury to the
slave to take him from old lands to new lands ? Is not his con
dition bettered by the change ? And have we not new lands
enough for all? Your Topeka convention, which formed the
pretended free-state constitution now before us, proposed to
exclude the negro and mulatto forever from that country. Upon
the score of humanity, then, even toward the " poor negro," about
whom so much sympathy is attempted to be excited, 1 ask,
which does him the greater wrong, the Kansas bill, or the project
of • your free-state constitution ? Who, to him, is the good
Samaritan in this case ? The free-soil Levite, who would leave
him to starve without land to work ? or his humane southern
master, who is willing to provide both land and shelter, food and
raiment ? Where, then, is the wrong of this bill ? It consists in
nothing but permitting the freemen of our own race to settle this
question of the status of the African amongst themselves, as
they in their wisdom and patriotism may think best for the hap
piness of both races, just as the freemen of our own race did in
each of the old thirteen States of the Union.

But, sir, the House did not heed this lecture of the editor.
The bill passed this body ; it passed the Senate ; it received the
constitutional approval of the executive, and became the law of the
land. The revolutionary spirit, however, which invoked the
burning of the Capitol, did not stop with defeat in all three
of the departments of legislation. Members of Congress, with
others, beaten in the House of Representatives, beaten in the
Senate, failing in their threats and denunciations of the execu
tive, betook themselves forthwith to plotting schemes to defeat
the will of the people as constitutionally expressed. Societies
were formed, one of them by members of this House, immediately
after the bill passed; money was raised; circulars were issued
— all with the avowed purpose of sending people to Kansas to
prevent the peaceful and quiet operation of the wise and beneficent
principles of the territorial law — movements having a direct
tendency to kindle this civil war of which we now hear.

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS. 541

The Capitol fortunately was not burnt — that suggestion did
not take. Disorder did not reign here — that suggestion did not
take. But bodies of men were organized — not allowing the
legitimate laws of nature, of climate, and of soil to determine the
character of the pioneer population from all the States alike who
might choose to make settlement there. Men were sent out in
large companies, with arms and munitions of war; Sharpe's
rifles were sent ; artillery was sent. What for ? Did these
colonists go to Kansas as our forefathers sought homes at Ply
mouth, St. Mary's, Jamestown, and Savannah ? Or did they not
rather go as the train-bands of Cortes and Pizzaro went forth
thirsting for the conquest of the Montezuinas and the Incas ?
Was not their sole object to effect by force and violence what
they had failed to do by legislation ? What other meaning can
be put upon the following manifesto which was published in
the "Herald of Freedom," their organ at Lawrence, the head
quarters of these emigrants in the territory : .

" Come one, come all, slaveocrates and nullifiers ; we have rifles enough,
and bullets enough, to send you all to your (and Judas's) ' own place.' ' If
you're coming, why don't you come along?' "

Was not this a direct invitation to arms? And whatever
troubles or disturbances exist in Kansas, let them not be charged
to the Kansas bill, but to those who have sworn in their wrath
that that bill never shall work out its natural and legitimate
results, if they can prevent it. As well might the wars about
points of doctrine and religious creeds which have disgraced
Christendom, be charged upon the heavenly principles of the
gospel. Christ himself said that it was impossible but that
offences in this world of wickedness would come. When bad
men are at work, they cannot be prevented. The principles of
that bill are in no way responsible for any outrages or trampling
upon rights by parties on the other side of the controversy, got
up and provoked in that territory by designing men outside, for
mischievous purposes. And the friends of that bill — those who
stand pledged to its principles — condemn outrages on either or
both sides alike.

But a word, sir, as to the nature and extent of these difficulties.
Are they not greatly exaggerated and magnified ? Let us look
at the facts. Some men, it is true, have been killed — some on
both sides. And what else could have been expected ? What
other result could have been looked for by those instigating the
movements I have alluded to ? The first man killed in the terri
tory was Davis. He fell by the hands of those calling them
selves free-state men. Then Dow, a free-state man was killed by
Coleman ; but the quarrel between them arose about a land claim.
It was a private and personal matter. Coleman immediately
gave himself up to the legal authorites, claiming to have acted
in self-defence. Whether he did or not, I do not know, and will

542 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS.

not pretend to say ; but a friend of Dow, of the name of Bran
son, having made threats of avenging his death, was arrested
under a peace warrant, and, while in the hands of an officer, was
rescued by a party of free-state men. Warrants were taken
out for these, and they took shelter in Lawrence, where they
put themselves in defiance of the civil authorities. The posse
was called out to aid in the arrest, and this led first to the seige
of Lawrence, and then to the capitulation of December last. In
this war, no lives were lost. Two or three other homicides had
been committed in the territory ; but in all, from the organiza
tion of the territory, up to the attempted assassination of Sheriff
Jones, I think not exceeding half a dozen ! In what part of tlie
United States, sir, in the same length of time, with the same
population they have in Kansas have there been fewer murders
or deaths by violence ? How many were killed in the riots last
year in Cincinnati ? How many in Louisville, Kentucky ?

I venture to say to-day, that with all this clamor about civil
war in Kansas, more lives have not been lost there, since the
organization of the territory, than have been in several of the
large city elections of the United States within the last twelve
months. It is not my wish to make light of these things, but
to take a calm and dispassionate view of them. A strong and
general tendency to disregard law and order is one of the most
lamentable evils of the day. It is not confined to Kansas, but it
is seen and felt everywhere. And our object, and that of all good
men, should be to check it rather than excite it.

Then, sir, as to the election in Kansas and the laws passed by
their legislature. One word upon this point. The first election
was held there for a delegate to Congress in November, 1854.
That there were illegal votes on both sides -I have no doubt ; but
I believe it is admitted by every one that, notwithstanding the
efforts of the emigrant aid companies to prevent it, General
Whitfield had much the larger number of the legal votes of the
territory, and was duly elected. In March afterward greater
efforts were made to carry the legislature. The result was the
commission or certificate of election by Governor Reeder himself
to a large majority of both branches of that body. They were
therefore legalty constituted as a legislative body. There may
have been illegal voting on both sides, as there is doubtless in all
our elections. But upon the well-settled and fixed principles on
which all our representative institutions rest, and without a
maintenance of which there can be neither " law nor order," that
is now a closed question. The laws, therefore, of that legislature
must be observed and obeyed until repealed or modified by legis
lative power, or set aside by the courts as void. And upon the
character of these laws I wish to make but a passing remark.
The gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. COLPAX,] pointed out quite a
number of them the other day, which he said were very bad ones.
Well, sir, I am not going to discuss their respective merits.

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS. 543

Perhaps some of them are bad ; it would be an extraordinary
code if it were otherwise. I know the advocates of the present
government in the territory — the law-and-order party there —
do not themselves approve of all of them. I will read what
they say on the subject :

" The law for the protection of slave property has also been much mis
understood. The right to pass such a law is expressly stated by
Governor Reeder in his inaugural message, in which he says : 'A terri
torial legislature may undoubtedly act upon the question to a limited and
partial extent, and may temporarily prohibit, tolerate, or regulate slavery
in the territory, and in an absolute or modified form, with all the force
and effect of any other legislative act, binding'until repealed by the same
power that enacted it.' There is nothing in the act itself, as has been
charged, to prevent a free discussion of the subject of slavery. Its bear
ing on society, its morality or expediency, or whether it would be politic
or impolitic to make this a slave State can be discussed here as freely as
in any State in this Union, without infringing any of the provisions of the
law. To deny the right of a person to hold slaves under the law in this
territory is made penal ; but, beyond this, there is no restriction to the
discussion of the slavery question in any aspect in which it is capable of
being considered. We do not wish to be understood as approving of all
the laws passed by the legislature ; on the contrary, we would state that
there are some that we do not approve of, and which are condemned by
public opinion here, and which will no doubt be repealed or modified at
the meeting of the next legislature. But this is nothing more than what
frequently occurs, both in the legislation of Congress and of the various
State legislatures. The remedy for such evils is to be found in public
opinion, to which, sooner or later, in a government like ours, all laws must
conform.

Mr. COLPAX. What is the date of that ?

Mr. STEPHENS. Last November. Now, sir, I have examined
this whole code of laws, and as a whole, some few exceptions
out, I say that no State in the Union has better ones. There
are some in it I do not approve — there are some in all the codes
I have ever seen that I do not approve. I will not go to the
gentleman's State, or to any other gentleman's State, to find laws
that I do not approve. We have plenty of them in my own State.
And the gentleman ought to feel highly blessed if he has none in
Indiana that he disapproves. We have a great many in Georgia
I do not approve. There is one in particular which I fought in
the legislature -and opposed before the courts with all the power
that I had. It was a law making it penal to bear concealed
deadly weapons. I am individuallj' opposed to bearing such
weapons. I never bear weapons of any sort ; but I believed that
it was the constitutional right of every American citizen to bear
arms if he chooses, and just such arms, and in just such way,
as he chooses. I thought that it was the birthright of every
Georgian to do it. .1 was defeated in our legislature. I was
defeated before our courts. The question went up to the highest
judicial tribunal in our State, the Supreme Court, which sustained
the law. In that decision all had to acquiesce. Sir, the people

544 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS.

in all the States have to obey the laws as pronounced and ex
pounded by the courts. The difference between a republic and a
monarchy is, that the one is a government of laws, subject to be
changed by the people ; the other is a government dependent
upon the caprice or whim, and arbitrary will of one man. And
when the people of a republic array themselves against their laws,
the first step is into anarchy, and then comes monarchy. The
speech of the gentleman from Indiana is sufficiently answered by
the address of his own party adopted at Pittsburg, though those
who issued it seemed not to be conscious of the effect of the admis
sion. That address, after specifying the same objectionable
laws in the Kansas code which he has, says :

" That these despotic acts, even if they had been passed by a legisla
ture duly elected by the people of the territory, would have been null and
void, inasmuch as they are plainly in violation of the Federal constitution,
is too clear for argument. Congress itself is expressly forbidden by the
constitution of the United States to make any laws abridging the freedom
of speech and of the press ; and it is absurd to suppose that a territorial
legislature, deriving all its power from Congress, should not be subject to
the same restrictions."

The latter is a very clear proposition, to my mind. Neither
Congress nor a territorial legislature can pass any law abridging
the freedom of speech or of the press. This is, indeed, too clear
for argument. I indorse that part of the Pittsburg platform.
But not a single disturbance in the territory has grown out of
either of these laws complained of as despotic. But if there had —
if these laws be so clearly unconstitutional and so manifestly
violative of the freedom of speech and of the press, why should
not any party aggrieved refer the question to the judicial tribu
nals ? If the case is so clear, why not go to the courts ? There
are Federal courts in the territory; and an appeal can be taken
to the same high tribunal that all of us in such matters have to
appeal to in the last resort, the Supreme Court of the United
States.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio (interrupting). I rise to propound a
question, if it is entirely agreeable to the gentleman from Georgia,
and not otherwise.

Mr. STEPHENS. Perfectly agreeable ; but I hope the gentleman
will not take much of my time.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I was similarly responded to on a former oc
casion, and I shall take warning and occupy but a moment of
the gentleman's time. Why did not you, and those who sought
to disturb the time-honored compromise of our fathers of 1820,
if they regarded the eighth section of the Missouri act as uncon
stitutional, resort to the courts to test its constitutionality ?

Mr. STEPHENS. There is a case of that sort now before the Su
preme Court.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Why, instead of bringing all this trouble on
the country, did he not then resort to the courts?

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS. 545

Mr. STEPHENS. Why, Mr. Speaker, it was first my duty as a
legislator, believing it to be wrong, to vote to repeal it, and I did
so [laughter] ; and if the Congress of the United States had not
repealed it, and I had been personally affected by it in the terri
tory, then I might have resorted to the courts.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Did not the gentleman vote to repeal it be
cause of its unconstitutiouality?

Mr. STEPHENS. Standing as it did, I did, for that and other
reasons. As long as it stood as a regulation founded on the
principle of a division of the territory, I was willing to abide by
it ; but when it was abandoned and repudiated as such, it was,
in my judgment, an odious and unjust restriction. But I do not
wish the gentleman to divert me from the line of argument I was
pursuing.

Mi*. CAMPBELL. If the gentleman voted to repeal it in 1854 be
cause it was unconstitutional, why did he vote to fasten it upon
Texas in 1846, unless, in the meanwhile, there was a change in
the constitution ?

Mr. STEPHENS. For the very reason that I have just stated.
In 1845, on the annexation of Texas, I voted for it, upon the
principle of a division of the territory. Congress has a right to
pass all needful laws and regulations for the territory as property.
So said Mr. Madison. This includes the power to divide, if neces
sary or needful for public peace and harmony. When I voted
for it, it was upon that principle. And, sir, it was in 1850, after
the gentleman's party had repeatedly— in 1846, 184?, 1848, 1849,
and 1850 — denied, repudiated, and scouted at what they now call
the time-honored compromise of our fathers of 1820, that I voted
for the re-establishment of the old principle in our territorial
policy, of leaving the public domain open for the free and equal
settlement and colonization of the people from all the States
alike, without congressional limitations or restrictions upon any.
This principle was re-established in 1850 — after the one proposed
in 1820 had been abandoned — and this principle I voted to carry
out in 1854 in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the gentleman explain to the House and
to the country, how it is that a measure may be constitutional
which excludes slavery on one side of a given line, in a terri
tory belonging to the people of the States in common* and un
constitutional on the other ?

Mr. STEPHENS. My explanation of the point the gentleman
makes is this. Upon the principle of a division of the territory
as public property between the two sections, it might be consti
tutional to set aside a portion to one, by fixed lines and bounda
ries, while the appropriation of the whole of it to that section
would be manifestly wrong, unjust, and therefore unconstitu
tional. Just as in the case of the division of the surplus revenue
— public property — among the States, the part assigned to each,
on division fairly and justly made, was constitutionally held.
35

546 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS.

But, if some States had taken all, to the exclusion of the rest,
that would have been manifestly unjust, and therefore unconsti
tutional. But I have given my views at large upon this subject
once before this session.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Well then

Mr. STEPHENS. I do not wish the gentleman to divert me from
my argument by a continuation of questions upon other subjects.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I hope I may be fortunate enough to get the
floor at the expiration of the gentleman's hour, and therefore will
not press my inquiries now on this interesting point.

Mr. STEPHENS. Now, sir, just here I wish to say a word more
about " that time-honored compact of our fathers,'' which it is
said has been violated. Mr. Speaker, I say that the fathers who
made this republic, from the beginning of it, from the date of
the constitution and up to 1820, never in a single instance ex
ercised the power of excluding the migration of slaves from any
of the States of this Union to the common territory. The gen
tleman now claims to follow the fathers of the republic. Well,
I suppose General Washington, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Jefferson,
are as eminently entitled as any others to occupy that position.
Mr. Jefferson, especially, is often quoted by those holding seats
on this side of the house. Mr. Jefferson, it is said, was against
slavery. I grant that. But how ? Mr. Jefferson was in favor
of every State retaining arid exercising jurisdiction over the sub
ject for itself. Mr. Jefferson was himself opposed to the passage
of that restriction, in 1820, now called a time-honored compact.
I do not care as to what his abstract opinions were. I believe he
was for providing for the gradual abolition of slavery in Vir
ginia. But his plan was for the people of Virginia to do it for
themselves, without any interference from abroad or influence
from this government — I mean after the present constitution was
formed and adopted. I have Mr. Jefferson's sentiments here be
fore me on this particular Missouri restriction when it was passed
It is immaterial what his opinions of slavery were. What did he
think of that measure ? The author of the Declaration of Inde
pendence is often appealed to as authority by the gentleman's
party. Sir, if the departed Jefferson could return from the realms
above — if the seals of the tomb at Monticello could be broken,
and that spirit could be permitted to revisit the earth, believe you
that he would speak a different sentiment to-day from that he
uttered then ?

Here is the letter which Mr. Jefferson wrote. It is too long
to read the whole ; but in this letter to Mr. Holmes, of Maine,
dated the 29th of April, 1820, after strongly condemning the es
tablishment of a geographical line, and the attempt to restrain
the " diffusion of slavery over a greater surface," he says:

"An abstinence, too, from this act of power would remove the jealousy
excited by the undertaking of Congress to regulate the condition of the
different descriptions of men composing a State. This, certainly, is the

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS. 547

exclusive right of every State, which nothing in the constitution has taken
from them arid given to the general government. Could Congress, for
example, say that the now freemen of Connecticut should be freemen,
and that they shall not emigrate into any other State ?"

This is plain and explicit on the very question.
Again, in a letter to Mr. Madison on the same subject, he
says;

"I am indebted to you for your two letters of February 7 and 19.
This Missouri question, by a geographical line of division, is the most
portentous one I have ever contemplated * * * * is ready to risk the
Union for any chance of restoring his party to power, and wriggling him
self to the head of it."

The allusion here is evidently to Rufus King, who was the first
mover of the restriction. Such, sir, were the sentiments of him
who was not only the author of the Declaration of Independence,
but the author of the ordinance of 1T8T under the old confedera
tion. This is what he said of the restriction of 1820, under our
present constitution.

Here is also Mr. Madison's emphatic opinion against the same
measure. I cannot take up my time in reading it. I state the
fact, and challenge contradiction. Jefferson was against the re
striction of 1820; Madison was against it; and Jackson was
against it. No man can deny these facts. It was reluctantly
accepted by the South, however, as an alternative, and only as an
alternative, for the sake of peace and harmony. And who are
those now who call it a sacred compact ? Those very men, the
gentleman and his party, who denounced every man from the
North as " a doughface," who, from 1846 to 1850 was in favor of
abiding by it for the sake of union and harmony. Not a man
can be named from the North who was willing to abide by that
line of division during the period I have stated who was not de
nounced by the gentleman and his party as " a doughface." Who
now are the " doughfaces ?" And if the gentleman wishes to know
what tree brought forth that bitter fruit of which he spoke the
other day, I will tell him. It was not the Kansas tree, but that
old political upas planted by Rufus King in 1820. It grew up,
it nourished, and it sent its poisonous exhalations throughout this
country till it came well nigh extinguishing the life of the repub
lic in 1850.

Mr. CAMPBELL. That tree was planted when— [Cries of "Or
der !" ''Order!"] — when slavery was first brought to the shores
of America. [Cries of " Order !" " Order !"]

Mr. STEPHENS. Well, then, Mr. Speaker, it is much older than
the Kansas bill. It was planted before the government was
formed. The constitution itself was grafted upon its stock.
The condition or slavery of the African race, as it exists amongst
us, is a " fixed fact" in the constitution. From this a tree has
indeed sprung — bearing, however, no troubles or bitter fruits.
It is the tree of national liberty, which, by the culture of states-

548 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS.

men and patriots, has grown up and flourished, and is now send
ing its branches far and wide, laden with no fruit but national
happiness, prosperity, glory, and renown.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the gentleman from Georgia read the
preamble to the constitution ?

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes ; and I believe I can repeat it to him. It
is " in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, in
sure domestic tranquillity."

Mr. CAMPBELL. "And secure the blessings of liberty to our
selves and our posterity."

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, sir, to themselves and their posterity — not
to the negroes and Africans. And what sort of liberty ? Con
stitutional liberty ; that liberty which recognized the inferior
condition of the African race amongst them ; the liberty which
we now enjoy ; the liberty which all the States enjoyed at that
time, save one (for all were then slaveholding except Massachu
setts). That is the sort of liberty. None of your Socialism
liberty. None of your Fourierism liberty. Constitutional lib
erty. " Law and order" abiding liberty. That in the liberty
which they meant to perpetuate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to return from this digression — I was on
the subject of the Kansas laws — I had a good deal to sa}r on that
point I must now omit ; for I have a good deal I wish also to say
on the measure immediately before us, and the amendment which
I have submitted, and my time is rapidly passing away. I shall
proceed, then, to the bill and the amendment.

The bill under consideration proposes to admit Kansas as a
State at once under the Topeka constitution. I am opposed to
it ; because that constitution was formed without any authority
of law, either from the territorial authorities or from Congress.
It was formed in open opposition to law ; it was formed by men
in open rebellion, with arms in their hands, against the only
Iegall3r-constituted government in the territory. The leaders
most conspicuous in getting it up are now under arrest for
treason. Whether they are guilty or not, I will not even express
an opinion. That is a question for the courts — the Federal
courts — not the courts created by the territorial legislature, but
the United States courts, with an appeal to the Supreme Court
of the United States — to determine. I do not wish in any way to
interfere with that judicial question. Let these gentlemen stand
or fall according to their guilt or innocence, as it may be made to
appear before the proper tribunals, at the proper time. Let us
not, in the meantime, prejudge the case either for or against them.
The man who claims to be governor under this Topeka constitu
tion is now in custody awaiting his trial for the highest offence
known to the laws and constitution of the United States.

I am opposed to this bill, because we have no evidence that a
majority, or any thing like a majority, of the people of Kansas are
in favor of this pretended Topeka constitution. It is an ex parte

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS. 549

proceeding from beginning to end. It was got up by a party.
It was contrived by Governor Reeder ; and though he and his
associates now place the whole grounds of their justification upon
the plea that the territorial legislature was composed of usurpers
— that the election was carried by an invasion of non-residents,
who passed laws that they cannot submit to, yet it must be
recollected by all fair-minded men that this legislature, however
elected, was organized under the auspices of Governor Reeder
himself. He was the judge of the election returns of its members
in the first instance, and he duly commissioned a large majority
of both branches of it, and gave his own official certificate that
they were duly elected. If what is now asserted by him and
others be true, why did he not at the proper time arrest it ? Why
now lay a complaint at the door of the President for not prevent
ing an invasion of Kansas, or setting aside the legislative election,
while he, as governor, made no complaint to the President ? He
was the sentinel placed upon the watch-tower in Kansas. The
only cry heard from him by the President or the country, during
this now-pretended invasion, and for several long months after
ward, was, "All's well!" He recognized this legislature after it
was organized, and after he knew full well how it was elected. I
must therefore receive with many grains of allowance what he now
asserts, all tending toward nothing more strongly than the im
peachment of his own official integrity. His position is not such
as to warrant me, as a fair man, now to back him in his present
revolutionary movement. I see no sufficient grievance even
alleged to justify me in doing it.

Grant that some of the laws passed by the legislature, that
Reeder certified to as having been duly elected, were bad laws —
not a single case of oppression, growing out of any one of these
laws, has arisen. I was on this point when interrupted by the
gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. CAMPBELL.] How does it appear but
that the courts would pronounce these laws unconstitutional, as
some on this floor maintain that they are ? Why resort to revolu
tion until the courts fail ? Nay, more : if a majority of the people
of Kansas are opposed to these laws, as is so boldly asserted on
this floor, why can they not have them repealed by the next
legislature, soon to be elected, even if the courts should sustain
them ? The next legislature is to be chosen in October. Why not
settle that question at the ballot-box ? Is not that a fair and just
way of settling such questions ? Is it not the way we have to do
in all our States ? Are those who press this ex parte constitution
upon us afraid of the ballot-box ? Whatever else may be said of
the acts of the Kansas legislature, they certainly secured the
purity of the fountain of political power. Here is a part of their
election law :

" SEC. 24. If any person, by menaces, threats, and force, or by any other
unlawful means, either directly or indirectly, attempt to influence any
qualified voter in giving his vote, or to deter him from giving the same, or

550 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS.

disturb or hinder him in the free exercise of his right of suffrage, at any
election held under the laws of this territory, the person so offending shall,
on conviction thereof, be adjudged guilty of misdemeanor, and be punished
by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the
county jail not exceeding one year.

" SEC. 25. Every person who shall, at the same election, vote more than
once, either at the same or a different place, shall, on conviction, be ad
judged guilty of a misdemeanor, and be punished by fine not exceeding
fifty dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding three
months.

" SEC. 26. Every person not being a qualified voter according to the
organic law and the laws of this territory, who shall vote at any election
within this territory, knowing that he is not entitled to vote, shall be ad
judged guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished by fine not exceeding fifty
dollars.

" SEC. 27. Any person who designedly gives a printed or written ticket
to any qualified voter of this territory, containing the written or printed
names of persons for whom said voter does not design to vote, for the
purpose of causing such voter to poll his vote contrary to his own wishes,
shall, on conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished
by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the
county jail not exceeding three months, or by both such fine and
imprisonment.

" SEC. 28. Any person who shall cause to be printed and circulated, or
who shall circulate, any false and fraudulent tickets, whith upon their
face appear to be designed as a fraud upon voters, shall, upon conviction,
be punished by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprison
ment in the county jail, not exceeding three months, or by both such
fine and imprisonment.

" This act to take effect and be in force from arid after its passage." —
Chap. 52, p. 281.

Does any free man want a better security for his sovereign
right of suffrage than is here given ? Does this look like the work
of " border ruffians," who were looking to carry elections by fraud
or violence ? But it is said that in the same law it is provided that
no man shall be entitled to vote who has been guilty of a violation
of the fugitive slave law passed by Congress ! Well, sir, is this
an onerous restriction ? Ought men who set themselves up in open
violation of the laws of our country to complain of being deprived
of the right of having a voice in making laws ? Are not certain
offenses in all our States grounds of denying suffrage ? But the
great question is, cannot this provision of the election law be re
pealed by the next legislature if a majority of the honest people
there are against it ? The case then presented by the governor
and his associates in the Topeka movement is not such as to
justify, in my judgment, this revolution which they have set on
foot, and now ask Congress to approve and sanction. Besides
this, Mr. Speaker, the evidence is very strong to my mind, if not
conclusive, that this Topeka constitution does not meet the ap
proval of a majority of the people of Kansas. When it was
submitted to popular vote, only about seventeen hundred in the
whole territory approved it. Now, sir, I am for no such judg-

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS. 551

ment either way — I am for fair dealing in this matter on both
sides.

I wish for nothing but a fair expression of the will of the bona
fide residents of Kansas upon this subject. When 1 voted for
the Kansas bill, I did so, not for the purpose of making it a slave
State, unless a majority of the white freemen there desired it ; and
if they did desire it, I was for permitting them to exercise the
same power over the subject that the freemen of the other States
of the Union exercise over the same subjects within their respec
tive limits. I never regarded the success of that measure as a
triumph of the South over the North, further than it was a tri
umph of this great constitutional principle of equality over that
sectionalism of a party at the North, which denied it. Whether
Kansas or Nebraska would be slave States or free States, I did
not know. I left that to time, climate, soil, and the people, to
settle. And now, sir, though upon general principles I am opposed
to the admission of any State into the Union without population
sufficient to entitle them to a member on this floor, according to
the ratio of representation, yet, in the present case, if gentlemen
are so anxious to press the admission of Kansas, I am willing to
forego the usual inquiry into the exact amount of population there.
I will waive that point. I do not know the number of people
there. Gentlemen on the other side vary in their estimates from
sixty thousand to ninety thousand. I think it would be best first
to ascertain the facts. Still I will, I say, waive that point ; and
if gentlemen are so anxious for the admission of the people of
that territory, whatever may be their numbers, as a State, I meet
them, and offer the substitute to this bill which I have submitted.
Mine is an alternative proposition. If Kansas is to be admitted,
let it be done in a fair, just, and proper way, and not at the in
stance of any irregular, illegal, and revolutionary convention of
only a portion, and a very small portion at that, of the people of
the territory. The plan I submit is the same offered by my col
league [Mr. TOOMBS] in the Senate. I suppose gentlemen have
read it. I cannot now read it. Its main features are to provide
for the admission of Kansas, under such constitution as her people
may form, at as early a day as is practicable.

It provides, first, for the taking of a census. This is to be
done by five commissioners, to be appointed by the President,
and ratified by the Senate.

It provides, secondly, for an election to be held in the terri
tory on the first Tuesdaj^ after the first Monday in November
next, (the day of the Presidential election in the States,) for dele
gates to a convention to form a State constitution.

Representation in this convention is to be according to the
number of voters in the several counties and districts, as shall
appear from the census, which is, amongst other things, to ex
hibit the names of all the actual residents of the territory at the
date of the passage of the bill.

552 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS.

These commissioners are to appoint the officers to conduct the
election. Returns are to be made to them, and they are to judge
and determine all questions relating to the election, and to give
certificates of the same.

Three months' residence in the county is required to entitle
any one to vote.

And to guard the purity and sanctity of the ballot-box, so that
the untrammeled voice of the people may be heard, let it be as it
may, these stringent provisions are inserted :

SEC. 10. And be it further enacted, That every white male citizen of the
United States, (including Indians of like description qualified by existing
laws to vote,) over twenty-one years old, who may be a bonafide inhabi
tant of. said territory at the passage of this act, and who shall have resided
three months next before said election in the county in which he offers to
vote, and no other persons whatever, shall be entitled to vote at said elec
tion ; and all persons qualified as voters may be elected delegates to said
convention, and no others.

SEC. 11. And be it further enacted, That if any person, by menaces,
threats, or force, or by any other unlawful means, shall directly or indi
rectly attempt to influence any qualified voter in giving his vote, or deter
him from giving the same, or disturb or hinder him in the free exercise of
his right of suffrage, at the election provided for by this act, the person so
offending shall be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and be punished by
fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not exceed
ing one year, or by both, at the discretion of the court.

SEC. 12. And be it further enacted, That any person not being a quali
fied voter, according to the provisions of this act, who shall vote at the
election herein provided for, knowing that he is not entitled to vote, and
any person who shall, at the same election, vote more than once, whether
at the same or at different places, shall be adjudged guilty of a misde
meanor, and punished by fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars,
or by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or both, at the discretion
of the court.

SEC. 13. And be it further enacted, That any person whatsoever, who
may be charged with the holding of the election herein authorized to be
held, who shall wilfully and knowingly commit any fraud or irregularity
whatever, with the intent to hinder or prevent, or defeat a fair expression
of the popular will in said election, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and
punished by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment
not exceeding two years, or both, at the discretion of the court.

But, sir, my time will not allow me to go more into details.
The object of the bill, from the beginning to the end, is to pro
vide for as fair an expression of the popular will of the territory
as human ingenuity can devise. By the expression of that will,
when thus made, I shall abide, let it be which way it may. For
your bill as it stands, I can never vote. Against the substitute
I offer, who can raise any objection that is in favor of disposing
of this question upon principles of fairness, of justice, of law,
of order, and of the constitution ? I present the distinct issue
between these two measures to the House and the country.

I am constrained, Mr. Speaker, to believe that all this clamor
we hear about "free Kansas," and "down-trodden Kansas," and

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS. 553

"bleeding Kansas," arises much more from a desire and hope of
exciting by it sectional hate and the alienation of one portion
of the Union from the other, than from any wish to have even
" free Kansas" admitted into the Union, or from any conviction
that a majority of tlie people there are in favor of this Topeka
constitution. The object, I am constrained to believe, is not so
much to get another State added to the Union, as it is to use
the question to produce a severance of those States now united.
Why these violent denunciations against one whole section of the
confederacy ? Why is such unbridled vituperation indulged in
toward southern men and southern institutions ? Why these
shouts of joy in New York on the announcement that " civil
war" was raging in Kansas ? What other construction can be
put upon the movement of a late sectional convention held in
Philadelphia to nominate party candidates for President and
Yice-President ? What is the meaning of all these appeals to the
passions and prejudices of the people of the northern States,
exciting them to rise up against their southern brethren ? Is it
not part and parcel of that same spirit which proclaimed that it
were better that the Capitol should blaze by the torch of an
incendiary, and wild disorder ensue, than that the free people of
Kansas and Nebraska should regulate their own domestic insti
tutions in their own way? That is all that the advocates of the
Kansas bill asked ; that is all it was designed to effect ; and that
is all I this day ask this House to join me in carrying out in
good faith to the letter and spirit.

To show the House and the country some of the grounds for
my belief, touching the ulterior objects of some of those who are
joining in this " Kansas cry" at the North, I ask attention to an
editorial of the New York Courier and Enquirer of the 26th inst.
In this, that editor says :

" We are in the midst of a revolution, the origin of which is sectional,
and its avowed object to gratify the grasping ambition of the slave power ;
and a civil war waged in beRalf of freedom and in resistance of slavery
extension is a fitting accompaniment of an attempt on the part of the
South and their co-laborers of the North, to trample on the principles
and guarantees of the constitution, by the extension of slavery into free
territory through the direct legislation of the general government."

Here it is announced that we are in the " midst of a revolu
tion, the origin of which is sectional." But most strange to say,
the cause of it is charged upon the South ; and stranger still,
that cause is asserted to be an attempt on the part of the South
to " trample on the principles and guarantees of the constitution,
by the extension of slavery into free territory through the direct
legislation of the general government." Was ever accusation
more groundless and utterly unfounded, than this against the
South? The South never asked Congress, by legislation, to
extend slavery ; nor has it ever been done by any such legisla
tion. All that the South ever asked, or now asks, is to leave

554: SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS.

the question to be settled by those who are to be affected
by it.

General Jaroes Watson Webb, the editor of this paper, (the
Courier and Enquirer,) was a delegate to the late Philadelphia
convention, the object of which was to embody this sectional
movement of the North against the South. In that convention
he made a speech. Prom that speech, as reported in the New
York Times, we are not left to inference as to what is the design
and intention of the leading spirits controlling it. In. speaking
of the people the convention represented, he says :

" They ask us to give them a nomination which, when put fairly before
the people, will unite public sentiment, and, through the ballot-box, will
restrain and repel this pro-slavery extension, and this aggression of the
slavocracy. What else are they doing? They tell you that they are
willing to abide by the ballot-box, and willing to make that the last appeal.
If we fail there, what then? We will drive it back, sword in hand, and
so help me God! believing that to be right, I am with them. [Loud
cheers, and cries of ' Good !']"

This was in no common town or city meeting. But it was in
that great northern sectional convention lately assembled at
Philadelphia, that these sentiments received such bursts of
applause. There is, I say, no mistaking the object of the lead
ers of this movement. They evidently intend to use this Kansas
question to make as much political capital out of it as they can
to aid them in carrying the election, by which means they hope
to get power to " crush out" the South, as they suppose ; but, if
they fail in the election, then they are, sword in hand, to join
the revolutionists in Kansas.

In the first editorial I read from, in this mammoth sheet, (the
Courier and Enquirer,) issued the 26th instant, and written,
doubtless, by General Webb himself, who seems to be the Mag
nus Apollo of the black republican hosts, are these significant, as
well as studied, words :

" The remedy is to go to the polls, and through the ballot-box repu
diate the infamous platform put forth at Cincinnati, and over which the
black flag of slavery waves with characteristic impudence ; and failing in
this, do as our fathers did before us — stand by our inalienable rights, and
drive back with arms those who dare to trample upon our inheritance.
There is no boasting and no threat in this. It is the calm language of
honest, conscientious, and determined freemen, wafted to us by every
breeze from the West ; and they are already acting in strict conformity
with their avowed determination."

Now, sir, I care as little for these belligerent manifestoes of this
redoubtable general of the Courier and Enquirer, as I did two
years ago for the "blazing" and "incendiary" bulletins of his co-
temporary of the Tribune. I refer to them only to show the pur
poses at work ; and I put the question directly to this House : Are
you going to allow this subject to be used for any such purposes ?
If you want Kansas admitted as a State, do I not offer 3^011 a fair,
liberal, and just proposition for accomplishing that object? Do

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS. 555

you wish to go before the country with the question, to inflame
the public mind at the North, to move their passions, to stir up
their blood, and prepare their hearts for a war of extermination
against their southern brethren ? — " to drive them back, sword in
hand, in case you fail in the election ?" If so, then be it so. But
be it known to you, that you will have to take the question with
the issue this day joined. Between you and me — between these
two propositions, I am willing that the people North, as well as
the South, may judge. Nothing would afford me more pleasure
than to argue the question with you before any intelligent con
stituency in the republic.

Patriotism, as I have heretofore found it, is the same every
where. Nor has it in days past been confined to any locality
in this broad land. It is, I believe, indigenous wherever the na
tional flag floats. In the forests and ship-yards and market towns
of Maine it is to be found ; in the factories, workshops, and com
mercial houses of the old Bay State it is to be found. In State
street and Fane nil Hall its voice has often been heard. So on
the White Mountains of New Hampshire and the Green Mount
ains of Vermont ; on the hills and valleys of Connecticut, Rhode
Island, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. It is a plant
that heretofore has grown with as much vigor on the most sterile
soil of the East as it has upon the fairest plains of the South or
the richest prairies of the West. I cannot believe that a change
of political climate has rendered it an exotic in any part of this
country yet. Upon nothing, however, should I rely in present
ing this issue everywhere, but upon the reason, justice, intelli
gence, virtue, integrity, and patriotism of the people ; upon these
all our republican institutions must rest ; when they fail all that
we hold dear must go with them. And if the North shall decide
to follow General Webb, let the responsibility rest upon him and
them.

I cannot believe that the great body of honest business people
of the North are prepared to join a set of reckless leaders in this
crusade against the South, or will lend their influence and aid in
kindling a civil war in Kansas which may extend until it involves
the whole country. This I cannot believe, and will not believe,
for the present at least. It is for them to determine whether
they will or not. That question they will have to meet, not only
on this issue, if the majority of this House so determine, but
upon that other, and at this time more absorbing, issue of the
Cincinnati platform. That platform bears no black flag as this
" sword -in-hand" general asserts. Black flags belong to those
who think more of black men than they do of the white man, and
who exhibit more sympathy for the well-provided African race
than they do for the suffering and oppressed poor of their own.

The flag of the Cincinnati platform on this subject bears no
principles inscribed upon its broad folds but those of the consti
tution. The friends of the Union under the constitution must

556 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS.

and will approve them everywhere ; while none but the enemies
of one or the other of these, or both, can denounce them. Upon
this great sectional question all national men, I care not of what
party — all true-hearted patriots, who look from the bright his
tory of the past with hopes to a brighter future before us, must
and will give those principles, announced at Cincinnati, their
sanction and approval. The issue on this subject presented at
Cincinnati is nationalism against sectionalism — the issue pre
sented at Philadelphia is sectionalism against nationalism.

Are we, Mr. Speaker, to remain a united people ? Are we to
go on in that high career of achievement in science, in art, and in
civilization, which we have so conspicuously entered upon ? Or
are we to be arrested in our upward course long before reaching
the half-way point toward ultimate culmination ? Are our deeds
of glory all numbered ? Are the memories of the past to be for
gotten, and the benefits and blessings of the present to be derided
and rejected ? Is the radiant orb of day brightening the morn
ing of our existence to be darkened and obscured, and with it
the light of the world extinguished forever? And all this be
cause Congress, in its wisdom, has thought proper to permit the
free white men of Kansas to determine for themselves whether
the negro in that territory shall be the same nondescript outcast,
neither citizen nor slave, amongst them, that he is in sixteen
States of the Union, or whether he shall occupy the same condi
tion there in relation to them which a Christian philanthropy
has assigned him in the other fifteen States. I say Christian
philanthropy, notwithstanding the remarks of the gentleman
from Indiana, [Mr. DUNN,] and the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr.
GIDDINGS,] the other day, denouncing slavery as a violation of
the laws of nature and of God ! To those remarks, though my
time is short, I wish very briefly to reply before I close.

Even, however, if slaveiy be sinful, as they affirm, or their lan
guage implies, permit me here to ask, is not the sin the same whether
the slave be held in Georgia, Carolina, or in Kansas ? Is it any
more sinful in one place than another ? But are these gentle
men correct ? Is African slavery, as it exists in the South,
either a violation of the laws of nature, the laws of nations, or
the laws of God ? I maintain that it is not. It has been recog
nized by the laws of nations from time immemorial. The high
est court in this country, the Supreme Court of the United
States, has so decided the laws of nations to be. And where do
we get the laws of nature but in nature's works about us ?
Those general rules and principles by which all things in nature,
according to their kinds respectively, seem to be regulated, and
to which they seem to conform, we call laws; and in the handi
work of creation nothing is more striking to the philosophic
observer than that order is nature's first great law.

Gradation, too, is stamped upon every thing animate as well
as inanimate — if, indeed, there be any thing inanimate. A scale,

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS. 557

from the lowest degree of inferiority to the highest degree of
superiority, runs through all animal life. We see it in the insect
tribes — we see it in the fishes of the sea, the fowls of the air, in
the beasts of the earth, and we see it in the races of men. We
see the same principle pervading the heavenly bodies above us.
One star differs from another star in magnitude and lustre —
some are larger, others are smaller — but the greater and superior
uniformly influences and controls the lesser and inferior within
its sphere. If there is any fixed principle or law of nature it is
this. In the races of men we find like differences in capacity and
development. The negro is inferior to the white man ; nature
has made him so ; observation and history, from the remotest
times, establish the fact ; and all attempts to make the inferior
equal to the superior is but an effort to reverse the decrees of the
Creator, who has made all things as we find them, according to
the counsels of his own will. The Ethiopian can no more change
his nature or his skin than the leopard his spots. Do what you
will, a negro is a negro, and he will remain a negro still. In the
social and political system of the South the negro is assigned to
that subordinate position for which he is fitted by the laws of
nature. Our system of civilization is founded in strict con
formity to these laws. Order and subordination, according to
the natural fitness of things, is the principle upon which the
whole fabric of our southern institutions rests.

Then as to the law of God — that law we read not only in .his
works about us, around us, and over us, but in that inspired Book
wherein he has revealed his will to man. When we differ as to
the voice of nature, or the language of God, as spoken in nature's
works, we go to that great Book, the Book of books, which is the
fountain of all truth. To that Book I now appeal. God, in the
days of old, made a covenant with the human family — for the re
demption of fallen man : that covenant is the corner-stone of the
whole Christian system. Abram, afterwards called Abraham,
was the man with whom that covenant was made. He was the
great first head of an organized visible church here below. He
believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
He was in deed and in truth the father of the faithful. Abraham,
sir, was a slaveholder. Nay, more, he was required to have the
sign of that covenant administered to the slaves of his household.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Page, bring me a Bible.

Mr. STEPHENS. I have one here which the gentleman can con
sult if he wishes. Here is the passage, Genesis xvii. 13. God
said to Abraham :

" 13. He that is born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money
mast needs be circumcised ; and my covenant shall be in your flesh for
an everlasting covenant."

Yes, sir, Abraham was not only a slaveholder, but a slave
dealer it seems, for he bought men with his money, and yet it

558 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS.

was with him the covenant was made by which the world was to
be redeemed from the dominion of sin. And it was into his bosom
in heaven that the poor man who died at the rich man's gate was
borne by angels, according to the parable of the Saviour. In the
20th chapter of Exodus, the great moral law is found — that law
that defines sin — the ten commandments, written by the finger of
God himself upon tables of stone. In two of these command
ments, the 4th and 10th, verses 10th and 17th, slavery is expressly
recognized, and in none of them is there any thing against it —
this is the moral law. In Leviticus we have the civil law on this
subject, as given by God to Moses for the government of his
chosen people in their municipal affairs. In chapter xxv., verses
44, 45, and 46, I read as follows :

"44. Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have,
shall be of the heathen that are round about you ; of them ye shall buy
bondmen and bondmaids.

" 45. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among
you, of them ye shall buy, and of their families that are with you which
they begat in your land : and they shall be your possession.

" 46. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after
you, to inherit them for a possession ; they shall be your bondmen for
ever; but over your brethren, the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one
over another, with rigor."

This was the law given to the Jews soon after they left Egypt,
for their government when they should reach the land of promise.
They could have had no slaves then. It authorized the introduction
of slavery amongst them when they should become established in
Canaan. And it is to be noted that their bondmen and bond
maids to be bought, and held for a possession and an inheritance
for their children after them, were to be of the heathen round
about them. Over their brethren they were not to rule with
rigor. Our southern system is in strict conformity with this in
junction. Men of our own blood and our own race, wherever
born, or from whatever clime they come, are free and equal. We
have no castes or classes amongst white men — no " upper ten-
dom" or "lower tendom." All are equals. Our slaves were
taken from the heathen tribes — the barbarians of Africa. In our
households they are brought within the pale of the covenant,
under Christian teaching and influence ; and more of them are
partakers of the benefits of the gospel than ever were rendered so
by missionary enterprise. The wisdom of man is foolishness —
the ways of Providence are mysterious. Nor does the negro feel
any sense of degradation in his condition — he is not degraded.
He occupies and fills the same grade or rank in society and the
State that he does in the scale of being ; it is his natural place ;
and all things fit when nature's great first law of order is con
formed to.

Again : Job was certainly one of the best men of whom we read
in the Bible. He was a large slaveholder. So, too, were Isaac

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS. 559

and Jacob, and all the patriarchs. But, it is said, this was under
the Jewish dispensation. Granted. Has any change been made
since ? Is any thing to be found in the New Testament against
it ? Nothing — not a word. Slavery existed when the gospel
was preached by Christ and his Apostles, and where they
preached : it was all around them. And though the Scribes and
Pharisees were denounced by our Saviour for their hypocrisy and
robbing " widows' houses," yet not a word did He utter against
slaveholding. On one occasion He was sought for by a centu
rion, who asked him to heal his slave, who was sick. Jesus said
he would go ; but the centurion objected, saying : " Lord, I am
not worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof ; but speak
the word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man
under authority, having soldiers under me ; and I say to this
man, go, and he goeth ; and to another come, and he cometh ;
and to my slave, do this, and he doeth it." Matthew viii. 9.
The word rendered here " servant," in our translation, means slave.
It means just such a servant as all our slaves at the South are. I
have the original Greek.

(Here the hammer fell. Mr. STEPHENS asked that he might be
permitted to go on, as long as the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
CAMPBELL] had taken up his time. He had but a little more to
say. Mr. GIDDINGS, of Ohio, objected ; and what follows is the
substance of what he intended to say, if he had not been cut off
by the hour rule.)

The word in the original is doulos, and the meaning of this
word, as given in Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon, is this
— I read from the book: " In the family the doulos was one bound
to serve, a slave, and was the property of his master — ' a living
possession,' as Aristotle calls him." And again: "The doulos,
therefore, was never a hired servant, the latter being called mis-
thios," etc. This is the meaning of the word, as given by Robin
son, a learned doctor of divinity, as well as of laws. The centu
rion on that occasion said to Christ himself, " I say to my
slave do this, and he doeth it, and do Thou but speak the word,
and he shall be healed." What was the Saviour's reply? Did he
tell him to go loose the bonds that fettered his fellow man ? Did
he tell him he was sinning against God for holding a slave ? No
such thing. But we are told by the inspired penman, that :

" When Jesus heard it he marvelled, and said to them that followed :
Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
And I say unto you that many shall come from the east and west and
shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of
heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into utter
darkness ; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said
unto the centurion, Go thy way, and as thou hast believed so be it done
unto thee. And his servant [or slave] was healed in the selfsame hour."

Was Christ a " doughface ?" Did He quail before the slave
power ? And if he did not rebuke the lordly centurion for speak-

560 SPEECH ON THE BILL TO ADMIT KANSAS.

ing as he did of his authority over his slave, but healed the sick
man, and said that he had not found so great faith in all Israel
as he had in his master, who shall now presume, in His name, to
rebuke others for exercising similar authority, or say that their
faith ma3r not be as strong as that of the centurion.

In no place in the New Testament, sir, is slavery held up as
sinful. Several of the Apostles alluded to it, but none of them —
not one of them, mentions or condemns it as a relation sinful in
itself, or violative of the laws of God, or even Christian duty.
They enjoin the relative duties of both master and slave. Paul
sent a runaway slave, Onesimus, back to Philemon, his master.
He frequently alludes to slavery in his letters to the churches,
but in no case speaks of it as sinful. To what he says in one of
these epistles I ask special attention. It is 1st Timothy, chapter
6th, and beginning with the 1st verse :

" 1. Let as many servants [douloi, slaves in the original, which I have
before me] as are under the yoke [that is, those who are the most abject of
slaves] count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of
God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

" 2. And they that have believing masters, [according to modern doc
trine, there can be no such thing as a slaveholding believer ; so did not think
Paul,] let them not despise [or neglect and not care for] them, because
they are brethren ; but rather do them service, because they are faithful
and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

''3. If any man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome words,
even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is ac
cording to godliness :

" 4. He is proud, [or self-conceited,] knowing nothing but doting about
questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil
surmisings.

" 5. Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the
truth, supposing that gain is godliness : from such withdraw thyself"

This language of St. Paul, the great Apostle of the Gentiles, is
just as appropriate this day, in this House, as it was when he
penned it eighteen hundred years ago. No man could frame a
more direct reply to the doctrines of the gentleman from Ohio,
[Mr. GIDDINGS,] and the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. DUNN,]
than is here contained in the sacred book. What does all this
strife, and envy, and railings, and " civil war" in Kansas come
from, but the TEACHINGS of those in our clay who teach otherwise
than Paul taught, and " do not consent to wholesome words, even
the words of our Lord Jesus Christ ?"

Let no man, then, say that African slavery as it exists in the
South, incorporated in, and sanctioned by the constitution of the
United States, is in violation of either the laws of nations, the
laws of nature, or the laws of God !

And if it "must needs be" that such an offence shall come from
this source, as shall sever the ties that now unite these States
together in fraternal bonds, and involve the land in civil war, then
" wo be unto them from whom the offence cometh !"

SPEECH ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC. 561

SPEECH ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1856,
THE COMPROMISE OF 1850, AND THE KANSAS-
NEBRASKA ACT OF 1854.

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES,

JANUARY 6, 1857.

The President's Annual Message being under consideration, on a motion
to refer and print.

Mr. SPEAKER : I have no desire to prolong this debate. If the
House had not manifested so decided an indisposition to take a
vote the other clay, I should have remained silent. A discussion
on the President's message, and the subjects embraced in it, on a
motion to print and refer, such as this, commenced and continued
as it has been, is unusual in this House. These topics are gener
ally considered in Committee of the Whole after the message
has been referred. But this discussion, to me, thus far, has not
been uninteresting, and to the countiy, I trust, it will not be
unprofitable.

We have just passed an important crisis in our history — one of
the most important, if not the most important, perhaps, in it. We
are even now in the midst of events which will hereafter be marked
as an epoch in the politics of the country. The issues in the late
presidential election brought into array two great parties, (I shall
speak only of two, because the contest was mainly between them,)
organized upon principles well defined, well ascertained, and di
rectly antagonistical, hostile, and conflicting. Old parties were
dismembered and broken up ; and men who looked upon these
principles thus put in issue as paramount to all others, took their
position accordingly, without reference to past associations,
formed upon issues no longer vital or living. The principles en
tering into the canvass were clearly and openly proclaimed, and
the issues on them squarely met on both sides. These issues in
volved the harmony, if not the stability of the republic. I do not
augment its importance when I say that the result was a fearful
one. It was so considered and felt from one extremity of the
Union to the other. The conflict is now over. The issue, so far
as the election was concerned, is now decided. The result is
known. The immediate danger is past. The public mind, so
lately wrought up to the highest degree of excitement, is quiet
ing ; and we may do well, now that the campaign storm is over,
and its perils surmounted, to recount some of the incidents, and
as voyagers of another kind, take new reckonings for our future
course. With these feelings I enter this debate.

And may I not pause here in the beginning to congratulate the

House — congratulate the country, and to congratulate even you,

Mr. Speaker, against your will, upon our safe deliverance ? Am

I not right in assuming that the news of the result of the late

36

562 SPEECH ON THE PKESIDENTIAL ELECTION", ETC.

election, which we are considering, as it winged its flight through
the land, made the great majority of the people throughout this
vast republic breathe freer, easier, and deeper, everywhere ? To
men of every class it brought joy and gladness. To the plough
man, as he was treading his furrow — to the mechanic, as he ap
plied himself to his daily toil — to the merchant at bis counter — to
the banker at his desk — to the mariner, as he breasted the surges
of the sea, as well as to the statesman pondering over questions
of deep interest to all. To men of every grade and occupation,
including some even of those, I believe, who stood in opposition to
those with whom I acted, all breathed freer and easier when the
result was known. The whole country was relieved from an un
certain apprehension. Men felt relief. Trade felt it. Commerce
felt it. Business in its every department — in its quickened energy
and activity — in its various channels, felt it. And, sir, I can say
for myself, I never addressed the House before upon any subject
with greater personal gratification than I do at this time, in re
view of the questions which characterized the late contest, and
the principles which I consider as having been sustained by the
popular verdict rendered.

Sir, what are those questions and principles ? Let us look at
them, and examine them according to their intrinsic merits.
Some gentlemen seem not to understand them; some seem to
overlook them ; some seem not to appreciate them, or to under
rate them ; while others still seem disposed to divert the mind
from the great leading issues to minor points, and attempt to
create the impression that the election turned upon the latter, and
not the former, and that nothing of real and vital importance has
been determined. The issues were dodged, say they, in some
sections, and differently expounded in different sections. This
is the case with the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. H. MARSHALL,]
who so earnestly addressed the House a few days ago, and who
I regret is not now in his seat. Hence his repeated sallies upon
" squatter sovereignty," and the different opinions entertained by
some persons at the North, as well as the South, touching the
power of the territorial legislature of Kansas to exclude slavery.

Now, sir, I do not intend to follow those wrho either ignore,
overlook, underrate, or endeavor to divert attention from the main
and essential facts of the case. In what I have to say to-day I
shall come directly to the subject. I maintain that two great
principles have been sustained and vindicated in the late election,
both embracing a policy vital to the harmony of the two great
sections of the country, and essential to the preservation and
continuance of the union of these States.

These principles are : first, that there shall be no congressional
prohibition of slavery in the common territory. This principle
was openly, boldly, and universally advocated on the one side,
and as fearlessly and fiercely denounced on the other. Besides
this there was another principle, just as boldly and unequivocally

SPEECH ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC. 563

maintained on one side, and as fiercely assailed, though not so
openly denounced in convention, on the other ; and that is,
secondly, that new States arising and springing up in the com
mon territories may and shall be admitted as States into this
Union either with or without African slavery, as the people there
in may determine for themselves when they come to form their
State constitution. These, sir, were the great and essential prin
ciples of the late contest. They were proclaimed at Cincinnati,
on the one side, in the following words :

"Resolved, That claiming fellowship with, and desiring the co-operation
of all who regard the preservation of the Union under the constitution as
the paramount issue, and repudiating all sectional parties and platforms
concerning domestic slavery, which seek to embroil the States and incite
to treason and armed resistance to law in the territories, and whose avowed
purposes, if consummated, must end in civil war and disunion, the Ameri
can democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the
organic laws establishing the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, as em
bodying the only sound and safe solution of the ' slavery question,' upon
which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can re
pose in its determined conservatism of the Union — non-intervention by
Congress ivith slavery in State and territory, or in the District of Co
lumbia.

" 2. That this was the basis of the compromises of 1850, confirmed by
both the democratic and whig parties in national conventions, ratified by
the people in the election of 1852, and rightly applied to the organization
of territories in 1854.

" 3. That by the uniform application of this democratic principle to the
organization of territories, and to the admission of new States, with or
without domestic slavery, as they may elect, the equal rights of all the
States will be preserved intact, the original compacts of the constitution
maintained inviolate, and the perpetuity and expansion of this Union in
sured to its utmost capacity of embracing in peace and harmony every
future American State that may be constituted or annexed with a repub
lican form of government."

" Resolved, That we recognize the right of the people of all the terri
tories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and
fairly expressed will of a majority of actual residents, and whenever the
number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a constitution with or
without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of
perfect equality with other States."

These principles involving the constitutional rights of nearly
one half the States of this Union, and the equality of the States
themselves, and without which the Union of the States cannot
and ought not to be maintained, so clearly and distinctly set
forth, and inscribed upon the banners of one party, were just as
distinctly controverted and assailed by their opponents in the
canvass ; for though the platform put forth by the other great
party to which I allude, in its organization at Philadelphia, says
nothing about the admission of a slave State, yet their policy leads
to the same result as if the denial had been openly proclaimed.
Their principles were announced in the following words :

*' That the constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the

564 SPEECH ON THE PEESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC.

territories of the United States for their government, and that, in the
exercise of this power, it is both the right and the duty of Congress to
prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism — polygamy and
slavery."

Thus, sir, was the issue distinctly made and joined. The
friends of the Union under the constitution on the one side rallied
against the enemies of both, as I conceive, arrayed on the other.
There was no dodging or evasion anywhere, on the part of those
at least who maintained the constitutional right. The contest
was fierce. The issue, so long as the result was doubtful, was
well calculated to awaken fearful apprehensions. The battle was
gallantly fought — the victory nobly won. Sectionalism has been
signally rebuked and constitutionalism gloriously triumphant.
Nor am I disposed to consider the victory thus achieved as a
barren triumph only. It must and will tend to settle, if it has
not permanently settled, questions of the gravest import and
highest importance. It has effectually re-affirmed upon a rehear
ing the principles established in 1850. That is a great point
gained. The principle then adopted in our territorial policy was
that there should be no congressional restriction against slavery
in the territories.

The Wilmot proviso was put down and abandoned ; and the
people settling and colonizing the public domain from all the
States alike, without hindrance, limitation, or control by Congress,
were left to form and mold their institutions without any restric
tions except those imposed by the constitution of the United
States, with the right guarantied of being admitted into the
Union either with or without slavery, as they might determine
for themselves. This policy, adopted in 1850, being the basis of
what is known as the compromise measures of that year, has, I
say, been re-affirmed. It was thought by many, on the adoption
of this policy in 1850, that agitation upon the subject of slavery
would cease, so far as the territories were concerned, at least.
But subsequent events have shown that the snake was " scotched"
only, not "killed;" and it may be now that it is only scotched
again, and not yet killed. How this will be time must determine ;
but, judging from the past, we have reason to hope. The prin
ciples entering into the contest between Mr. Jefferson and the
elder Adarns were not more clearly marked out, and squarely
met on both sides, than ihey have been in this ; nor were they,
in my judgment, more essential to the preservation of the liber
ties of this countr}7", upon constitutional principles, than the ques
tions just decided; and hereafter, sir, in the distant future, if
that bright future awaits us which I can but hope does, 1856 will
be looked back to and dated from, just as 1801 has been in our past
history.

I stood by the policy adopted in 1850, and now I trust firmly
established, not because I thought it gave the people of the South
the full measure of their just rights, but for reasons and consid-

SPEECH ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC. 565

eratious which I need not now enumerate — for the same rea
sons I stood by it in 1854, when it was carried out in the
Kansas-Nebraska bill; and for the same reasons, with a re
newed steadfastness of purpose, I stood by it in its greatest
peril in 1856.

Much, sir, has been said about the Kansas bill in this debate.
Much was said about it in the late canvass. It was the leading
topic everywhere, and its principles were made the turning point
everywhere ; indeed, the issue — the great issue in the contest,
was made with the direct view of having its principles and policy
approved and endorsed or rejected and repudiated by the people.
It is because this measure, so directly in issue, has been so tri
umphantly sustained, that I so much rejoice in the result. No
man can say that this issue was dodged. It was presented by its
friends in the organization of this House at the beginning of the
last session. It was the basis of the organization at Cincinnati,
and formed one of the most prominent features in the programme
of principles there announced. And while it was not named in
so many words in the Philadelphia programme, yet all know that
the party there assembled was organized mainly in opposition to
that measure and the principles upon which it was based. In
the newspapers, and on the hustings, nothing was railed against
so bitterly and unceasingly as the "iniquity," "the cheat," and
"the infamy," of the Kansas bill. This measure, therefore, may
be considered as one of the things most emphatically endorsed by
the people in the late election.

I am the more rejoiced at this, because I know something of the
difficulties attending its passage — the violence, the passion, and
fanaticism evoked against it. I well remember the opinions then
given — that the North never would submit to it ; and that the
seats then filled by those who voted for it from that section,
would never again be filled by men of like sentiments. By indig
nant constituencies, such members were to be driven forever from
the public councils. Forty-four members from the North in this
House voted for the bill, only one of whom, I believe, acted with
its enemies in the late struggle for its maintenance. To the pres
ent House, owing chiefly to causes I need not mention, only eigh
teen were returned from that section in favor of it. This was
matter of great boast at the time. But, sir, to the next House,
we have forty-nine members already chosen from the North at the
late elections, upon the distinct issue of their advocacy of this
bill. This is five more than the number originally for it ; the
cause grows stronger instead of weaker. This is one of the re
sults of the late election, particularly gratifying to me in itself.
It shows what men of nerve, with fidelity to the constitution, re
lying upon the virtue, intelligence, loyalty, and patriotism of the
people, can effect. Language would fail me in an attempt to
characterize as they deserve those sterling and noble spirits who
bore the constitutional flag in the North against the popular preju-

566 SPEECH ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC.

dice and fanaticism of the people of their own section, in this
contest.

Sir, it is an easj' thing for a man to drift along with the pop
ular current. Any man can do that. Honors thus obtained are
as worthless as they are cheap ; but it requires nerve — it requires
all the elements that make a man, to stand up and oppose men
in their errors, and advocate truth before a people unwilling to
hear and receive it — to speak to those who " having ears, hear
not, and haAdng eyes see not." History furnishes some examples
of this sort; but the history of the world, in my judgment, has
never furnished nobler and grander specimens of this virtue than
the late canvass in the North. When a man discharges his duty
upon any occasion, he deserves respect and admiration ; but
when a man discharges his duty against the prevailing prejudices
of those around him, and even against his own natural feelings
and inclinations, that man commands something higher than
respect and admiration. The elder Brutus, who sat in judgment
and pronounced sentence against his own son, silencing the ad
verse promptings of a father's heart, made himself the " noblest
Roman of them all ;" and those statesmen at the North to whom
I allude, who had the nerve, in the crisis just passed, to stand up
and vindicate the right, under the circumstances in which they
were placed, give to the world an instance of the moral sublime
in human action never surpassed before. Our history furnishes
no parallel with it. The}^ bore the brunt of the fight. To them
the preservation of the republic is due ; and if our republic
proves not to be ungrateful, they will receive patriots' rewards —
more to be desired than monuments of brass or marble — honored
names while living, and honored memories when dead.

But eulogy is not my object at this time. I have to speak of
principles on this occasion — not men ; and I intend to speak par
ticularly of the principles of the Kansas bill. This I do, because
many affect not to understand them, and some say that different
constructions are put upon them by different people. This, sir,
is the case with almost every act of legislation. The constitution
itself is not free from the charge of admitting different construc
tions ; but whatever difference in construction may exist in refer
ence to the Kansas bill, this difference arises not so much from
the words of the bill as from the constitution. The gentleman
from Kentucky to whom I allude, [Mr. H. MARSHALL,] said he
would have voted for it with one construction, and against it with
another. That the bill and its principles, with whatever construc
tion, has been sustained by the elections, he and all must admit.
The question of repeal has been put to rest.

Now, then, as to the nature, character, objects, effects, and
principles of the bill. What does it do, and what wras it intended
to accomplish ? On this point I affirm and maintain that it did but
carry out in good faith the principles and policy of the territorial
acts of 1850, upon the subject of slavery — the New Mexico and

SPEECH ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC. 567

Utah bills for which that gentleman voted, and for the main
tenance of which both he and I were pledged, and for the main
tenance of which both the old whig and democratic parties were
most solemnly pledged. The gentleman admits that he stood
pledged to carry out the principles of the New Mexico and Utah
bills upon the subject of slavery. This is what I maintain the
Kansas bill did, and that it is subject legitimately to the same
construction upon the subject of slavery as those bills are, and
none other. I have the bills all before me. Let us then com
pare them in all the essential particulars, so far as the vexed
question of slavery is concerned.

But before doing so, let me premise by restating, what all must
admit, that the basis of the policy adopted in 1850 was the
abandonment of the " Wilmot proviso" — another name for con
gressional restriction, and the establishment of the principle of
" non-intervention" by Congress, either for or against slavery in
the territories. The object was to stay the aggressive hand of this
government, and to quiet sectional agitation, by removing this
cause of excitement from the halls of Congress, and leaving the
question, as to their domestic institutions, to be settled by the
people to be affected by them at the proper time, and in the
proper manner, under the constitution of the United States ; and
that it should be no objection to the admission of any new State
into this Union, because of its constitution recognizing or tolera
ting slavery. The principle of a division of the territory proposed
in 1820, having been repudiated by the North, a return to original
principles was found to be the only safe solution of the question.
With this view and object the New Mexico bill contains these
clauses :

"SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That all that portion of the terri
tory of the United States bounded as follows," etc., etc., etc., "be, and the
same is hereby erected into a temporary government, by the name of the
territory of New Mexico: Provided" etc., etc.: "And provided further,
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
constitution may prescribe at the time of admission."

"SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power of the
territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with
the constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act."

"SEC. 17. And be it further enacted, That the constitution and laws of
the United States which are not locally inapplicable shall have the same
force $nd effect within the said territory of New Mexico as elsewhere
within the United States."

These are all essential clauses in the New Mexico bill upon
the subject. Those in the Utah bill I need not read ; for if not
identical in words, they are in substance. I will now read the
provisions of the Kansas bill on the same subject :

" SEC. 19. And be it further enacted, That all that part of the territory
of the United States included within the following limits," etc., etc., " be,
and the same is hereb'y created into a temporary government, by the

SPEECH ON THE PKESIDENTTAL ELECTION, ETC.

name of the territory of Kansas ; and when admitted as a State, or States,
the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the
Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the
time of their admission."

"SEC. 24. And be it further enacted, That the legislative power of the
territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with
the constitution of the United States, and the provisions of this act."

" SEC. 32. And be it further enacted,'" * * * " that the constitution
and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall
have the same force and effect within the said territory of Kansas as else
where within the United States, except the eighth section of the act
preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March
6, 1820, which being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by
Congress with slavery in the States and 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 : Provided, That nothing herein con
tained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation
which may have existed prior to the act of 6th of March, 1820, either
protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing slavery."

From this expose it will be seen how clearly the policy, marked
out in the New Mexico and Utah bills in 1850, was followed in
the Kansas and Nebraska bill in 1854. The clauses in that por
tion of the bill relating to Nebraska are identical in substance
with those I have read concerning Kansas. The second section
of the New Mexico bill is identical in substance with the nine
teenth section of the Kansas bill. The seventh section of the New
Mexico bill, which confers power — and all the power possessed
by the territorial legislature under that bill — is identical in sub
stance with the twenty-fourth section of the Kansas bill, confer
ring like powers upon the territorial legislature there. In both
the power is granted to legislate upon all rightful subjects of
legislation consistent with the constitution of the United States, and
the provisions of the organic act. All the powers the legislature
of New Mexico holds, it possesses by virtue of the grant in the
seventh section ; and all the powers the legislature of Kansas
holds, are by virtue of a similar grant in the twenty-fourth section
of the Kansas bill. If the territorial legislature, in the one case,
can rightfully exclude slavery, then it can in the other ; and if it
cannot in New Mexico, then it cannot in Kansas ; for the flirty-
second section of the Kansas bill, about which so much has been
said, on account of its repeal of the Missouri restriction, and its
" squatter sovereignty" construction, confers no additional grant
of power. This is so clear that argument to elucidate it is un
necessary. Then, why was it inserted ? some have asked. This,
it is said, is what has given rise to all the agitation. This, it is
said, is what kindled anew the sectional strife, settled and quieted
in 1850. This is what has been called the mischievous work of

SPEECH ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC. 569

designing demagogues to promote their selfish purposes and
objects. This is what a gentleman from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN]
said the other day was the "indignity" offered to the North,
which conservative men of that section, who stood upon the
settlement of 1850, could not brook ; and which gave rise to that
sectional, anti-slavery, and abolition organization, which has
lately been so signally rebuked. Not so, Mr. Speaker. It may
be that it was the occasion, but it was not the cause, of this
agitation. That sprung from the still living anti-slavery opposi
tion to the territorial policy adopted in 1850; for before these
words in relation to the Missouri restriction were in the bill the
agitation was commenced.

These words, it will be remembered, were not in the original
bill as it was reported to the Senate ; they were put in afterward
by way of amendment; and before the amendment was offered,
and while the bill stood almost identically in words, certainly so
in substance, with the New Mexico and Utah bills, so far as
slavery is concerned, abolition denunciations against its provi
sions were commenced. The bloodhounds of fanaticism were
already unleashed, and were heard in full cry on the track of
those whose only and sole object was in good faith to carry out
the territorial policy of 1850. This I say in vindication of the
truth of history, as well as in defence of those whose motives,
conduct, and patriotism have been so bitterly assailed by the
abolition leaders at the North, who were no less hostile to the
New Mexico and Utah bills of 1850, than they were to the
Kansas bill of 1854, and who denounced, abused, vilified, and
aspersed the characters of those who advocated and defended
the measures of 1850, as rancorously as they did those who
voted for and sustained this particular clause of the Kansas bill
in 1854.

Why then, sir, were these words put in the thirty-second sec
tion of the bill ? I will tell you. They were necessary and
essential to carry out the polic3T of 1850. That had to be done
in good faith, in spite of clamor, coming from whatever quarter
it might. In the seventeenth section of the New Mexico bill,
the constitution and laws of the United States, not locally inap
plicable, were extended to that territory. By the thirty-second
section of the Kansas bill, the constitution and laws of the
United States, not locally inapplicable, were, in the same way,
extended to that territory. But in doing this it became abso
lutely necessary to except the eighth section of the act of 1820.
That section was a prohibition of slavery by Congress in the
territory. It was the " Wilmot proviso" in effect. It was locally
applicable to Kansas and Nebraska, -for they were part of the
Louisiana purchase to which that prohibition of slavery north of
36° 30' applied. Hence, if all the laws of the United States,
not locally inapplicable, had been extended to these terri
tories, it would have been a re-enactment or reaffirmance of

570 SPEECH ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC.

congressional restriction, an abandonment of which was the
basis of the territorial legislation of 1850. There was no such
anterior law of the United States applicable to New Mexico and
Utah, requiring an exception in those bills. The exception,
therefore, in the Kansas bill, became absolutely necessary to main
tain the same policy. The words used were the proper ones for
the occasion. They are, "except the eighth section of the act,"
etc., " which being inconsistent with the principle of non-interven
tion by Congress," etc., " as recognized by the legislation of 1850,
commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared
inoperative and void." The words that follow this exception are
but explanatory of the effect of the exception itself, which was to
leave the question of slavery in the territories to the people, to
manage, control, and settle for themselves, subject to no restric
tions but that of the constitution of the United States. It
removed the subject of slavery from the action of this govern
ment, and left it where the bills of 1850 left it. This was the
object, and this is the effect of the words. They give no addi
tional power to the territorial legislature. This bill, therefore,
does nothing but carry out the policy of 1850. And how any
man who is in favor of the acts of 1850 can complain of, or be
opposed to, the act of 1854, I cannot conceive. The democratic
party, as I have said, pledged themselves in 1852 to the mainten
ance of those acts. I have the resolutions of their convention
before me. The whig party, at Baltimore, did the same thing.
They planted themselves upon the territorial policy of 1850, as
" a final settlement, in principle and in substance, of the subjects"
to which the acts related ; holding this policy to be " essential to
tlie nationality of the whig party, and the integrity of the Union,"
and they pledged themselves " to discountenance all attempts to
continue or renew such agitation" — that is, slavery agitation on
the territorial policy adopted in those bills — " whenever, wherever,
or however made."

Now, sir, was a redemption of this pledge, to abide by the set
tlement, "in principle and substance," a renewal of the agita
tion ? Was its redemption its own violation ? "Was the pledge
intended to be redeemed, or was it but a mockery ? And here
permit me to say, I do not treat this subject as a partizan. My
object is not to build up one party, or to put down another,
merely for party's sake. There are objects with me, I trust,
higher, and worthier, and more permanent, than the building up
of any organization in the country barely to hold office, or to
"share the spoils," as they are termed. Parties I have little
regard for, except so far as they, in my judgment, subserve,
secure, and promote the best interests of the country. But what
avail was the settlement of 1850, as a final one, and the princi
ples then established, if they were not to be carried out in future
legislation? Sir, consistency, to say nothing of duty and patriot
ism, required it to be done. This is what was done j and this

SPEECH ON THE PKESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC. 571

is what the late popular verdict requires shall be done in all
future territorial bills. And if the gentleman from Kentucky, in
fancy or otherwise, sees " squatter sovereignty," as he calls it, or
the " power" of the territorial legislature to exclude slavery (as
he defines that term to mean) in the Kansas bill, then he must see
the same power and the same " squatter sovereignty" in the New
Mexico and Utah bills, for which he voted, and which he still
approves. If it is in the one, it is in the others. But he admits
that, by his own construction, the Kansas bill does not contain
it. It is only to be found, according to his opinion, in the con
struction of others. Well, whatever construction can be put upon
the Kansas bill in this particular, may be put upon the- New
Mexico and Utah bills ; and the same men who do put this con
struction upon it put the same upon the others also. The gen
tleman, I imagine, cannot point to a single man in Congress, or
out of Congress, who applies it to the one and not to the
others. The doctrines they now hold in reference to the
Kansas bill they held in 1850, and still hold in reference to
the others. Their construction did not drive or prevent the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. H. MARSHALL] then from voting
for and sustaining those measures ; nor will it drive or prevent
me now from sustaining and defending this one. In addition to
this I may say, that most of those who hold the doctrine that the
territorial legislatures can exclude slavery, do not derive the
power to do so from the territorial bills at all ; but they maintain
it as an inherent, independent, and sovereign right of the people,
not derived in any wa}7 from Congress. This is the essence of
the doctrine of " squatter sovereignty/' about which we have
heard so much lately, and about which gentlemen seem to have
such indistinct ideas.

The true import of this word can be best understod by recur
ring to its origin. It sprang from the idea advocated by some,
that the people of a territory were endowed with sovereign
powers, inherently and independently of any action of Con
gress. This, it was said, would be recognizing sovereignty
in the intruders and squatters upon the public domain. Hence,
the doctrine was dubbed "squatter sovereignty." No such doc
trine is to be found either in the Kansas, Utah, or New Mexico
bills. All the powers they can exercise they derive directly
from this government, in their organic acts. All their machinery
of government proceeds from us. They hold it by grant, and
not by sovereign right. They hold from us, and through us, and
not independently of us. Their temporary governments were
created or erected by us. Their legislative powers are exercised
by permission— " ex gratia," not " ex debito justitise." All the
rights and powers of government possessed by Congress over
the territories are granted to the people there — conferred upon
them in the bills organizing their territorial government, and all
the governmental power over them was thus granted ; but the

572 SPEECH ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC.

power to restrain, restrict, or prohibit slavery, or to prevent the
immigration and diffusion of any class of American population,
is not, in my judgment, amongst those thus granted, for Con
gress does not possess this power to grant it.

This, sir, is a government of limited powers. All the powers
it can can rightfully exercise or confer, are such as are expressly
delegated in the constitution, and such as may be necessary to
carry out those which are expressty named. The power to
govern the territories, or to provide governments for them, is
itself not one of those expressly granted. It is but an incident
merely to some of the expressly granted powers, and cannot go
beyond the necessities attending the execution of the express
powers in carrying out the specified objects for which they were
granted. The exclusion or restraining of slavery in the terri
tories, or the permission of the immigration of one class to the
exclusion of another, whether white or black, bond or free, was
not amongst any of those objects, and is not a necessary incident
.in carrying any of them out. Nor is the exclusion of slavery
included amongst the "rightful subjects" of legislation granted
to the territories, while the right to legislate on the subject may
be ; for the right to exclude is not embraced in the power to
legislate upon the subject. To protect property is the duty of gov
ernment, and the power to do this does not include the power or
right to destroy it ; and to protect it may be a rightful subject
of legislation, consistent with the constitution of the United
States, but not to destroy it. The people in the territories have
this right or power to regulate and protect, but not the other ;
for Congress, under the limitations of the constitution, did not
have that to give them. There is no such thing as sovereignty —
absolute political sovereignty I mean — in the people of the ter
ritories, either by inherent right or by grant from Congress.
There is no such sovereignty over the territories even in Congress,
or all the departments of the general government combined.
This resides in the people of the separate States, as part of that
residuum of powers not delegated by them in the constitution,
and which in that instrument are expressly reserved "to the
States respectively or the people ;" and passes out of them only
in the mode provided for in the constitution, which is on the ad
mission of new States. ' The public domain belongs to the people
of all the States, as common property ; and so long as it is under
territorial government, should be subject only to such " needful
rules and regulations," in its disposition, as maybe necessary for
its free and equal use and enjoyment by all alike, and for its coloni
zation and settlement by all alike, without any unjust discrim
ination against any, either by Congress or any territorial govern
ment they may institute, until the number of inhabitants may
justify their admission into the Union as a State ; and then, by
the express terms of the constitution, they may be admitted, with
as absolute sovereignty within their jurisdiction, as the other

SPEECH OX THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC. 573

members of the Confederacy. Then, and in this way, the other
wise tin delegated sovereignty of the whole people of the States
respectively passes from them into the new State, upon her
recognition and admission as a coequal in the Union.

But I am asked : "Is not the government of the United States
sovereign ?" and " whether it is not the representative of the
sovereignty of the people of the United States over the terri
tories?" In reply, I state, that the government of the United
States, in my judgment, is clothed with certain sovereign
powers ; but these powers are limited to specified objects. In
the legitimate and proper exercise of these powers, to the ex
tent of their grant, it may be considered as sovereign or supreme
as any other government, just as sovereign as the Autocrat of
Russia, in whom is concentrated all power ; but tftese powers with
which it is clothed, extend only to such subjects as are covered
by the grant delegating them. Over all others, it has no power
or authority to act at all. So far from being sovereign as to
these, it is perfectly impotent. It cannot rightfully exercise any
authority whatever upon any matter not committed to its charge
by grant from the people of the States respectively ; and it can
wieM the sovereign powers of the people thus delegated to it
only over such subjects, and to accomplish such objects, as the
people have authorized it to exercise authority upon. To
this extent it is the representative, or rather the active and
living embodiment of the sovereignty of the people. It is,
in other words, the organ, or constitutes the channels through
which their sovereignty acts on the subjects specified in the
grant of its powers. But the appropriation of the public domain
to one class of citizens, to the exclusion of another, is not to be
found in the scope of these powers, or the objects for which they
were conferred.

And as to its being the representative of the sovereignty of the
people, in connection with the subject under consideration, I have
but a word further in reply. Let me illustrate. The corporate
authorities of any town or city are the representatives, to a cer
tain extent, of those who belong to the municipality. They are
the representatives to the extent of the powers conferred on them
by their charter. Now, suppose adjacent lands should become in
any way the property of the corporation— the common property
of all — in which every one in the town or city had an equal inter
est ; and suppose that the charter (whence the authorities derive
all their powers) conferred upon them no power to dispose of this
common property, except to "make needful rules and regulations"
concerning it, for the equal benefit of all : would any man main
tain that the authorities in this case could appropriate the whole
of it to one class of the citizens to the exclusion of another ? or that
they could empower any portion of the tenants in common get
ting upon it to exclude others ? I use this illustration barely to
show the character in which the general government may be con-

574 SPEECH ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC.

sidered a representative of the sovereignty of the people of the
United States over the common territories. And for this pur
pose the analogy is good. The general government holds the
common property in the territories as a trustee. The people of
all the States are the " cestui que trust," and no act of the trustee,
or those acting under the authority of the trustee, can rightfully
exclude any, so long as the paramount authority, or absolute
political sovereignty over the territory, is in abeyance.

But why pursue an argument to prove that the construction
by some upon the Kansas bill, to which the gentleman from Ken
tucky [Mr. H. MARSHALL] alluded, is wrong, and not legitimate?
He admits it himself. But he said that, with the "squatter sov
ereignty" construction, or that which authorizes the territorial
legislature to exclude slavery, the Kansas bill is no better to the
South, practically, than the old Missouri restriction which it took
off'; and with this construction he would not, for all practical
purposes, so far as the rights of the South are concerned, give
" the toss of a copper" between it and the positive congressional
exclusion aimed at by those calling themselves republicans. In
this, sir, I am far from agreeing with him ; for even with this con
struction — erroneous as I have shown it to be — the South has an
equal chance, but before they had none ; and under anti-slavery
rule, such as that party would subject us to, we would have none.

But the practical point, looking to the probable prospect of
any of these territories becoming slave States, dwindles into per
fect insignificance in view of the principle involved. That prin
ciple is one of constitutional right and equality. Its surrender
carries with it submission to unjust and unconstitutional legis
lation, the sole object of which would be to array this govern
ment, which claims our allegiance, in direct hostility, not only
to our interests, but the very frame work of our political organi
zations. Who looked to the practical importance of the " Wil-
mot proviso" to the South in 1850, when it was attempted to be
fixed upon New Mexico and Utah, with half so much interest as
they did to the principle upon which it was founded ? It was
the principle that was so unyieldingly resisted then. It was
this principle, or the threatened action of Congress based upon
it, which the whole South, with a voice almost unanimous, in
cluding the gentleman himself, then said " They would not and
ought not to submit to ! Principles, sir, are not only outposts,
but the bulwarks of all constitutional liberty ; and, if these be
yielded, or taken by superior force, the citadel will soon follow.
A people who would maintain their rights must look to princi
ples much more than to practical results. The independence of
the United States was declared and established in the vindica
tion of an abstract principle. Mr. Webster never uttered a
great truth in simpler language — for which he was so much dis
tinguished — than when he said, " The American Revolution was
fought on a preamble " It was not the amount of the tax on tea,

SPEECH ON THE PKESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC. 575

but the assertion (in the preamble of the bill taking off the tax)
of the right in the British Parliament to tax the colonies, with
out representation, that our fathers resisted ; and it was the
principle of unjust and unconstitutional Congressional action
against the institutions of all the southern States of this Union,
that we, in 1850, resisted by our votes, and would have resisted
by our arms if the wrong had been perpetrated. Those from the
South who supported the New Mexico and Utah bills, did so
because this principle of Congressional restriction was abandoned
in them. It was not from any confidence, in a practical point of
view, that these territories ever would be slave States. The
great constitutional and essential right to be so if they chose
was secured to them. That was the main point. This, at least,
was the case with myself; for, when I looked out upon our vast
territories of the west and northwest, I did not then, nor do I
now, consider that there was or is much prospect of many of
them, particularly the latter, becoming slave States. Besides
the laws of climate, soil, and productions, there is another law
not unobserved by me, which seemed to be quite as efficient in its
prospective operations in giving a different character to their
institutions, and that is the law of population. There were, at
the last census, nearly twenty millions of whites in the United
States, and only a fraction over three millions of blacks, or
slaves. The stock from which the population of the latter class
must spring, is too small to keep pace in diffusion, expansion,
and settlement, with the former. The ratio is not much greater
than one to seven, to say nothing of foreign immigration, and
the known facts in relation to the tardiness with which slave
population is pushed into new countries and frontier settlements.
Hence the greater importance to the South of a rigid adherence
to principles on this subject vital to them. If the slightest
encroachments of power are permitted or submitted to in the
territories, they may reach the States ultimately. And although
I looked, and still look, upon the probabilities of Kansas being a
slave State, as greater than I did New Mexico and Utah, yet I
voted for the bill of 1854, with the view of maintaining the prin
ciple much more than I did to such practical results. As a
southern man, considering the relation w^hich the African bears
to the white race in the southern States, as the very best condi
tion for the greatest good of both ; and as a national man, look
ing to the best interests of the country, the peace and harmony
of the whole by a preservation of the balance of power, -as far as
can be, (for after all, the surest check to encroachments is the
inability to make them,) I should prefer to see Kansas come into
the Union as a slave State ; but it was not with the view or pur
pose of effecting that result that I voted for the Kansas bill, any
more than it was with the view or purpose of accomplishing
similar results as to New Mexico and Utah that I supported the
measures of 1850. It was to secure the right to come in as a

576 SPEECH ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC.

slave State, if the people there so wished, and to maintain a
principle, which I then thought, and still think, essential to the
peace of the country and the ultimate security of the rights of
the South.

But it has been said, if this was the principle aimed at in the
repeal of the Missouri restriction, why was it not extended to
Minnesota and other territories over which that restriction ex
tended ? Why was it taken off Kansas and Nebraska and not
Minnesota ? All I have to say in reply to this is, that the bill
of 1854 did take it off wherever the bill of 1820 put it on. The
thirty-second section of the Kansas bill, which I have read, for
the reasons therein stated, declares the eighth section of the act
of 1820 to be inoperative and void ; and wherever that eighth
section extended, this "inoperative and void" is written upon it.
Wherever it .received acknowledgment before, it received its
death-blow, if you please, by this thirty-second section ; and if it
extended over Minnesota, it was repealed there as fully and com
pletely as it was over Kansas.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I perhaps misunderstood the gentle
man, and I desire to make an inquiry for information. Do I
understand the gentleman from Georgia to take the ground that
the Kansas-Nebraska act removes the restriction against slaveiy
over Minnesota, and the other territories belonging to the gene
ral government ?

Mr. STEPHENS. I said that that restriction was declared null
and void wherever it extended. That is the effect of the lan
guage of. the act.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. Then I would ask him whether he
understands that that repealing clause extends beyond the terri
torial limits of Kansas and Nebraska ?

Mr. STEPHENS. I understand it to be a declaration, that the
restriction of 1820, being inconsistent with the principle estab
lished in 1850, is null and void. It is not confined to one place
more than to another. I understand it rather to be declaratory
than otherwise. I understand it as being put in there to prevent
a contrary construction.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I want to know the gentleman's own
opinion as to its legal effect on other territories.

Mr STEPHENS. My opinion is that it had no legal effect at all.
[Laughter.] I am inclined to think that, on a strict construc
tion of the constitution, the restriction was null and void from
the beginning.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I ask the gentleman whether he has
not recently changed his opinion ?

Mr. STEPHENS. Never on this subject.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I understood the gentleman, in a debate
not very long since, to have avowed a different opinion.

Mr. STEPHENS. If the gentleman will turn to the report of that
debate, he will see what I then said to him on this point.

SPEECH ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC. 577

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I recollect it very well. The first
question which I put, the gentleman declined to answer ;. but as
I understood in that debate to which he has referred — I may be
mistaken, but the record can be easily produced — while he de
clined to give an opinion on the question of power, he took the
ground that the exercise of it would be such an act of usurpa
tion as would justify his section of the country in a dissolution
of the Union.

Mr. STEPHENS. The gentleman might have understood me to
say that, on the principle of a just division, under that clause of
the constitution which empowers Congress to make " needful
rujes and regulations," Congress might, for the sake of peace
and harmony, make a fair division of the common lands as
property ; but when the principle of division was set aside, then
the attempt to make it was null and void ; and that any act of
Congress appropriating the whole of the common property in
the territories to one class, to the exclusion of another, would be
an abuse of a power tantamount to a usurpation, which would
justify resistance.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I should be very happy to have the
gentleman explain that principle of division.

Mr. STEPHENS. I am discussing another principle now. For
my views on that point I refer him to the former debate. I am
not surprised that the gentleman should wish to divert attention,
or should take very little interest in this debate, on the line I
was pursuing, for I think it was he who, at the beginning of the
last session of the last Congress, spoke with such exulting feel
ings of what the Kansas-Nebraska bill had done with its advo
cates at the North, and made such great boasts of the ultimate
triumph of the enemies of the principles of that bill. Now he
comes into the House at this session, after the issue has been
made and decided against him, and commences the debate him
self; but when he sees he can make nothing out of it when con
fined to the merits of the question raised by himself, he is for
going off on something else. Why, sir, he said two years ago
(while admitting that he was no prophet, nor the son of a pro
phet, yet seeming to be moved b_y the inspiration of prophes}T)
that there never would be another Kansas majorit}' on this
floor. He and his friends appealed to the people. Well, the
people have decided against them. And now he comes to this
House and re-opens the question, and I am not surprised, as
the debate progresses, he should desire to get on other points.
I think the position of the gentleman, in re-opening a debate on
the Kansas question this session, upon the whole, is very much
like that of a man I once heard of — a lawyer in court. After the
decision of the judge, he commenced speaking again ; the judge
told him he did not allow any arguing of a question in his court
after a case was decided. The lawyer said, " Sir, I was not
arguing the case ; I was only cursing the decision," [laughter.]
37

578 SPEECH ON THE PKESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC.

I think the object of the gentleman, [Mr. CAMPBELL,] now, in re
opening this debate, was not a wish to re-argue the question so
much as to indulge in a little cursing of the decision which has
been against him.

Mr. CAMPBELL, of Ohio. I suppose that in that case, as in
this, there had been false testimony. One set of witnesses came
and swore on one side of the line that the Kansas-Nebraska bill
meant nothing ; and another swore on another side that it meant
something ; and but for them I should have returned here with
the same exultant feelings with which I came at the opening of
this Congress.

Mr. STEPHENS. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman hUn-
self was one of the witnesses, [laughter,] and it seems that people
of his own section decided against the testimony. [Laughter.]

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I said before, my opinion is, that there
never was an issue so fairly made and so fairly presented to the
American people by both parties, North and South, as was the
issue on this Kansas bill at the late election — an election which
excited the feelings and aroused the popular interests to an unu
sual degree, not only in this country, but in countries on other
continents. I think it probable that there were some on both
sides of the question and on both sides of Mason and Dixon's
line, who attempted to misrepresent the principles of this Kansas-
Nebraska bill. It is possible that there were some of those de
fending it on one side of the line who said that the policy was to
make Kansas a free State, and some of those assailing it on the
other side who said that it was worse for the South than the
" Wilmot proviso itself." This is possible, but those who made
such attempts were well understood. They deceived nobody.
Such men figure in all political contests, but they mislead very
few : the truth makes its way over them.

But I suspect that most of what has been called dodging the
issues in the late canvass, has been only a denying that the issues
were such as they were represented to be by some of the opposite
party. It is very possible that the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr.
CAMPBELL,] or some of those who acted with him at the North,
said in their speeches about the Kansas bill, that its object was
to make Kansas a slave State ; and that one of the issues before
the American people was, whether Kansas should be a free State,
or a slave State. The friends of freedom, or every man who was
not himself in favor of slavery, it may be, was called on to vote
for the " Free-Soil," " Free Kansas," and Fremont ticket. If this
be so, I think it very possible, and even highly probable, that
the friends and defenders of the Kansas bill at the North, said
this was not the issue — that the object of the bill was not to make
Kansas either a free State, or a slave State, but to leave that
matter to the people of Kansas to settle for themselves, at the
proper time, under the constitution of the United States ; and
that she might be admitted as a slave State, or a free State, as

SPEECH ON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ETC. 579

her people may determine for themselves at the proper time.
Some may have said the proper time was in their territorial
legislature ; others, when they come to form a State constitution ,
buUall were agreed that it was to be done by the people of Kansas,
at the proper time ; and if there was any difficulty as to the
proper time, that was a judicial question arising under the con
stitution, which could only be settled by the courts. All were
agreed that it was to be settled by those whom it concerned, and
not by Congress, or the people of the United States outside of
Kansas, who had no business to meddle with it.

This class of men, I think it probable, said that the true issue
on this point was to let the people of Kansas take care of their
own interests and business, and to let other people attend to
theirs ; that whether slavery was right or wrong, Congress had no
rightful authority to interfere against it, either in the States or
territories. This, I think it very probable, was said by many.
This is what has been called dodging the issue. But I should
have said the same thing if I had been there. The object of the
bill was not to make Kansas either a slave State or free State ;
but just, what I have stated. Its passage was not a triumph of
the South over the North, further than a removal of an unjust dis
crimination against her people, and a restoration of her constitu
tional equality, may be considered a triumph. To this extent it
was a triumph ; but no sectional triumph. It was a triumph of
the constitution. It was a triumph that enhanced the value of
the Union in the estimation of the people of the South. The. re
striction of 1820 had been for many years in the body-politic as
" a thorn in the flesh," producing irritation at every touch. On
the principles upon which it was adopted, (reluctantly accepted
as an alternative at the time by them,) the South would have
been, and was, willing to acquiesce in and adhere to it in 1850.
But it was then repudiated, again and again, by the North, as
was shown by me in this House on a former occasion. The idea
of its having been a sacred compact, or being in any way binding,
was scouted at and ridiculed by those who have raised such a
clamor on that score since. This thorn was removed in 1850.
The whole country seemed to be relieved by it. It would have
been completely relieved by it, but for the late attempt to thrust
back this thorn. This attempt has been signally rebuked. And
may we not now look to the future with hopes — well grounded
hopes — of permanent repose ? Repose is what we want. With
the principle now established, that each State and separate polit
ical community in our complicated system is to attend to its own
affairs, without meddling with those of their neighbors, and that
the general government is to give its care and attention only to
such matters as are committed to its charge, relating to the gen
eral welfare, peace, and harmony of the whole, what is there to
darken or obscure the prospect of a great and prosperous career
before us ? Men on all sides speak of the Union and its preserva-

580 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA.

tion as objects of their desire ; and some speak of its dissolution
as impossible — an event that will not be allowed under any cir
cumstances. To such let me say, that this Union can only be
preserved by conforming to the laws of its existence. When
these laws are violated, like all other organisms, either political
or physical, vegetable or animal, dissolution will be inevitable.
The laws of this political organism — the union of these States —
are well defined in the constitution. From this springs our life
as a people. If these be violated, political death must ensue. The
Union can never be preserved by force, or by one section attempt
ing to rule the other.

The principle on this sectional controversy, established in 1850,
carried out in 1854, and affirmed by the people in 1856, 1 consider,
Mr. Speaker, as worth the Union itself, much as I am devoted to
it, so long as it is devoted to the objects for which it was formed.
And in devotion to it, so long as these objects are aimed at, I
yield to no one. To maintain its integrity — to promote its ad
vancement, development, growth, power, and renown, in accom
plishing those objects, is my most earnest wish and desire. To
aid in doing this is my highest ambition. These are the impulses
of that patriotism with which I am imbued ; and with me —

" All thoughts, all passions, all delights,

Whatever stirs this mortal frame,
All are but ministers of love
To feed this sacred flame.

But the constitutional rights and equality of the States must
be preserved.

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA AND
ALIEN SUFFRAGE.

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

MAY 11, 1858.

The House having under consideration the bill for the sadmision of the
State of Minnesota into the Union, Mr. STEPHENS said :

Mr. SPEAKER : My time will not allow me to answer all the
objections that have been made to the admission of Minnesota.
I do not think it necessary, however, to consume time, or to ex
haust my feeble strength in answering all the objections that
have been raised. Many of them are of small import, while some
of them are grave, important, and go to the very foundation prin
ciples of our government. This latter class of objections are not
new ; they are not novel ; they involve principles coeval with our
institutions. In reply to them, I must be brief in the forty min
utes allotted to me. They involve two inquiries. The first ques-

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA. 581

tion in reference to them is, whether they be well taken in fact ;
and the second is, whether, if well founded, they amount, in them
selves, to a good and valid ground for the rejection of a State.

The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. G-ARNETT] objects, because
of the State boundaries violating the stipulation between Virginia
and the United States in the cession of the northwest territory:
In point of fact, I do not consider that objection well taken ; but
if it were good, it ought to have been taken when the enabling
act was passed last Congress, fixing the boundaries of Minnesota.
That portion of the old northwestern territory, now included in
the State of Minnesota, was included then, and the objection
should have been taken then, if at all. There is, however, but a
small portion of the old cession of Virginia included in this State.
Twenty-odd thousand square miles of that cession, it is true, have
been added to the ninety-odd thousand square miles constituting
the main body of Minnesota. This was for convenience. Only
a small portion, therefore, of the original Virginia cession has
been taken off and added to the large extent of country that
makes the State of Minnesota, for the public convenience. There
has been no injury resulting anywhere, and no breach of faith, in
my judgment.

It was stated, also, that the number of delegates who formed
the State constitution was larger than that ordered in the enabling
act. That objection has been well answered by the gentleman's
colleague [Mr. JENKINS]. The act of Congress provided that as
many delegates should be chosen as there were representatives
in the territorial legislature. Well, sir, the people of Minnesota
construed that to embrace their senators or councilmen as well
as representatives in the lower House. The bill admitted of a
doubt. I do not conceive that that objection has much force in it.

But I must pass on to notice the other objections of a graver
character. It was stated by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SHER
MAN], who opened this debate, and has been repeated by several
other gentlemen, that the constitution of Minnesota is violative
of the constitution of the United States — in this, that it permits
aliens to vote, or other than citizens of the United States to vote,
in State elections.

Mr. Speaker, before arguing the point whether this clause of
the constitution of Minnesota does or does not violate the con
stitution of the United States, let me ask, right here, this ques
tion : suppose it be true that that feature of their constitution
does violate the constitution of the United States, or is incon
sistent with it, is that a good ground for her rejection ? I put it
strongly and broadly in the forefront of the argument — suppose
that be conceded, is it a legitimate ground of objection to the
admission of a State that a provision of its constitution is incon
sistent with the constitution of the United States ? I say, sir,
not. I say it as a State-rights man, advocating the principles of
the State-rights school. We can only look into the constitution of

582 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA. ,

a new State applying for admission, to see that it is republican in
form, and that it legally and fairly expresses the will of the
people. If there be conflicts, the constitution of the United
States points out how those conflicts are to be settled. After
coming into the Union, such clause, if it be in, will, of course,
have to yield to the supreme law of the land. Sir, the case of
Minnesota, if this be true of her constitution, will not be a sin
gular one.

The constitution of Illinois declares that no man shall be
eligible to a Federal office who has been elected to and has ac
cepted a judge ship in that State within two years after the expira
tion of the term for which he accepted it. A senator from that
State, now holding a seat in the other wing of the Capitol, [Mr.
TRUMBULL,] was elected to that body during the term of a judge-
ship of a State court, which he had been elected to, and had
accepted. In the Senate of the United States, the question was
raised as to his eligibility, and as to whether the constitution of
Illinois could, under the constitution of the United States, impose
such a qualification ; in other words, whether the qualifications
for senators, set forth in the constitution of the United States,
were not absolute and binding, and did not supersede the pro
vision of the constitution of Illinois. The Senate so determined,
and that senator now holds his seat, in the face, in the teeth, and
against that constitutional provision of his own State.

Whether that decision of the United States Senate was right
or wrong, I will not now stop to inquire, or to express an opinion.

I cannot take up my time in citing other analogous cases.
Many instances might be adduced from decisions of the courts.
It is enough for me to affirm that the constitution of the United
States declares that " this constitution, and the laws of the United
States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in
every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution
or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." I say,
therefore, in answer to all that has been said in reference to the
constitution of Minnesota being in violation of the constitution
of the United States, that, even conceding the point for argu
ment's sake (which I do not concede in fact), this would not be a
just and valid ground on which to reject her admission. It is a
question which can be properly decided when it arises, if ever, by
the proper judicial tribunal before which it may arise. We, on
the question of admission, can only look into a constitution to
see that it is republican in form.

Mr. TRIPPE. I desire to ask my colleague whether he concurs
in the Green amendment to the Kansas bill, which asserts the
right of Congress to inquire into the constitution of any State
applying for admission into the Union, in order to see whether it
is consistent with the constitution of the United States ?

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA. 583

•

Mr. STEPHENS. My time is short, and I want to argue other
questions ; but I will say to my colleague, that there was nothing
in the original Green amendment which did not meet my cordial
and hearty approval. There was nothing in it which inquired
into a constitution. It was altogether negative in its character.

Mr. TRIPPE. If my colleague will allow me, I think that right
was directly asserted in the Green amendment.

The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to suggest that the constitu
tion of Kansas is not before the House.

Mr. TRIPPE. The same principle involved in the amendment
to the Kansas bill, to which I have referred, is contained in this
bill.

Mr. STEPHENS. I cannot discuss that question now. There
were words added to the original Green amendment that I con
sidered liable to objection; but, being negative, were not in
superable with me. Now, Mr. Speaker, I lay down this pro
position, that there is nothing, in my judgment, in the constitu
tion of Minnesota, inconsistent with the constitution of the
United States.

The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. SHERMAN,] who led off in this
debate, argued that there was no clause in the constitution of
Minnesota by which the present elected members of the legisla
ture could be prevented from holding for life. Well, sir, suppose
the gentleman was correct — but I do not concede the fact : the
constitution would not therefore be anti-republican. I would not
vote for such a constitution if I were there. But, sir, what con
stitutes a republican form of government ? It is, as I understand
it, a division of the three great branches of government — the
executive, the judicial, and the law-making powers. That division
is certainly in this constitution. Several of the States have made
the judiciary elective, or holding office for life. Does that make
their constitution anti-republican ? The constitution of the
United States does this. If the judiciary can hold office for
life, why not the executive ? and why may not representatives as
well, if the people see fit to make such a constitution ? It would
not cease to be republican in consequence. It might and would
be, in my judgment, a very bad constitution; but I say that of
that we cannot rightfully judge.

I now come to the main question in this debate — the alien
suffrage clause, as it is called, in this constitution. I have said
that it was no new question. It is a grave and important one,
but it is coeval with the government. Mr. Speaker, if there was
any subject which was seriously watched and guarded, in the for
mation of the constitution of the United States, above all others,
it was that the federal government should not touch the right of
suffrage in the States. The question of who should vote in the
several States was left for each State to settle for itself. And so
far as I am concerned, I say for myself that there is nothing in
the doctrine of State rights that I would defend and stand by

584 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA.

•

longer, and fight for harder, than that which denies the right of
the federal government, by its encroachments, to interfere with
the right of suffrage in my State. The ballot-box — that is what
each State must guard and protect for itself ; that is what the
people of the several States never delegated to this government,
and of course it was expressly, under the constitution, reserved
to the people of the States. Upon the subject of alien suffrage,
about which we have heard so much lately, I wish in this connec
tion to give a brief history. I state to this House that the prin
ciple was recognized by the ordinance of 1181, which was before
the government was formed.

It was recognized by the act of 1th August, 1789, soon after
the government was formed, one of the first acts signed by Wash
ington — an act making provisions for carrying out that ordinance.
It was recognized in the territory South in the cession by North
Carolina, on the 2d April, 1190.

It was again recognized in the bill creating a government for the
territory of Tennessee, on the 26th May, 1190.

It was recognized in the act of settling the limits of the State
of Georgia, and creating the Mississippi territory, on the 1th
April, 1198.

It was recognized in a supplemental act to the last, on the 10th
May, 1800.

It was recognized in the division of Indiana territory, on the
3d February, 1809.

It was recognized in an act for Illinois territory, on the 20th
May, 1812.

It was recognized in the act organizing the Michigan territorial
government : the date of this I do not recollect.

But I cannot take up my time by referring to other instances
in their order. I know that in some cases voting in the territo
ries was restricted to citizens. This was the case in the territo
ries of Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah, and New Mexico ; while
alien suffrage was again recognized, in express terms, in the ter
ritories of Oregon, Minnesota, Washington, Kansas, and Ne
braska.

Of the Presidents of the United States who, in some form or
other, gave the principle their sanction either in the territories or
States, may be mentioned Washington, the elder Adams, Jeffer
son, Madison, Jackson, Polk, Fillmore, and Pierce.

Reference, sir, has been made in this debate to a speech made
by Mr. Calhoun on this subject, in the Senate, in 1836, on the
act providing for the admission of Michigan, upon which com
ments have been made by several gentlemen. The views of that
distinguished statesman have been presented as authority on
their side. I have simply this to say about that speech : I can
not find it in the Globe. I cannot find it in the debates of the
day.

Mr. RICAUD. I think; it is in his published speeches.

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA. 585

Mr. STEPHENS. I have seen it in his published works, but
I cannot find it in the published reports of Congress. It is
stated to have been made in 1836, on the bill authorizing
Michigan to form a constitution. Michigan was admitted with
alien suffrage in her constitution, on the 3d March, 1837; and
Mr. Calhoun does not appear to have made any objection to her
admission on that ground. I find speeches made by him upon
that bill, but none objecting to this clause. I find he oifered a
substitute for the bill admitting Michigan without objection to
the alien suffrage clause in her constitution. Still, it is stated
that this speech of his was made the year before, on the occasion
referred to, and I do not wish to be understood as questioning it.
That was on Congress conferring the right. He did not raise
any objection to the admission of the State as far as I can find,
because of alien suffrage being allowed in her constitution.

Again: on the 26th of July, 1848, the Clayton compromise bill
for the organization of certain territorial governments passed the
Senate. The fifth section of the act provides —

" That every free white male inhabitant, above the age of twenty-one
years, who shall have been a resident of said territory at the time of the
passage of this act, shall be entitled to vote at the first election, and shall
be eligible to any office in said territory ; but the qualification of voters,
and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be such as shall be
prescribed by the Legislative Assembly : Provided, That the right of
suffrage, and of holding office, shall be exercised only by citizens of the
United States, arid those who shall have declared on oath their intention
to become such, and shall have taken an oath to support the constitution
of the United States and the provisions of this act."

On the engrossment of this bill, the vote was —

" YEAS — Messrs. Atchison, Atherton, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Breese,
Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Clayton, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson, Doug
las, Downs, Foote, Hannegan, Houston, Hunter, Johnson of Maryland,
Johnson of Louisiana, Johnson of Georgia, King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason,
Phelps, Rusk, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Westcott, and
Yulee— 33.

"NAYS — Messrs. Allen, Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Bradbury, Clark, Cor-
win, Davis of Massachusetts. Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Fitzgerald,
Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Metcaii'e, Miller, Niles, Underwood, Upham, and
Walker— 22."

Mr. Calhoun was' on the committee which reported this pro
vision, and he does not appear as having objected to it. And
though he may have made that speech in 1836, yet it is equally
certain and true that twelve years afterward he voted for the
very principle he had previously opposed. His vote for the
principle in 1848, in my opinion, is a sufficient answer to his
speech against it in 1836. This is, therefore, Mr. Speaker, no new
question.

The same principle, as I have said, was incorporated in the
same words, I think, in the bill for the organization of Washing
ton territory in 1853, and in the Kansas-Nebraska bill in 1854.

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA.

The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. MAYNARD] put this ques
tion to some gentleman the other day : whether, if this bill should
pass, Minnesota might not confer the right of voting upon an
alien enemy ? By no means, sir ; the person of foreign birth, who
is entitled to vote under this constitution, has first to purge him
self of his allegiance to other'powers. He must have declared his
intention to become a citizen of the United States, and sworn to
support the constitution of the same. This is the condition
precedent. By no possibility, therefore, could an alien enemy
legally vote in Minnesota.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States has been read and commented on by the gentleman
from Maryland, [Mr. DAVIS,] who led off in this discussion, and
whose speech I listened to with a great deal of interest — an argu
ment as well got up and made on that side of the question as I
think it possible for ingenuity, ability, and talent, united with
eloquence, to present. He rested his argument mainly on the
decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, where
Judge Taney says that the words "people of the United States,"
in the constitution, are synonymous with " citizens." After
reading that part of the decision, the gentleman quoted an article
in the constitution which says that " the House of Representa
tives shall be composed of members chosen every second }^ear by
the people of the several States ;" and his argument was, that as
the Supreme Court had defined that the word " people" was
synonymous, in the constitution of the United States, to
"citizens," therefore members of this House could be elected by
none but "citizens of the United States." That was the gentle
man's argument ; but I am far from concurring with him in it.
His argument rests upon the assumption that the constitution of
the United States, in the clause quoted, intended to define the
class of voters in the several States, and to limit suffrage. I
think that it will take me but a moment, by recurring to that
clause of the constitution and comparing it with others, to show
that the object of that clause was simply to point out the mode
of the election of the members of this House in contradistinction
from the mode of electing senators, and not the class of voters.
The House was to be elected by the people by a popular vote, by
the masses ; while the Senate was to be elected by the State
legislature. That is all that is meant in that clause. The
constitution is in these words :

" The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen
every second year by the people of the several States," —

There the gentleman stopped. What follows ?

— " and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite
for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature."

There, coupled with what the gentleman read, is the right
which I say that the people insisted upon beyond all others —

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA. 587

the reserved right that the general government should never
interfere with suffrage in the States ; not even for members of
this House. Immediately after the words he read, sir, without a
semicolon separating them, is the express declaration that the
States shall fix the qualification of electors or voters. Who shall
say to each State in this particular,"thus far mayest thou go, and
no further ? Who shall say to the sovereignties where they shall
stop ? The States, over this subject, have never parted with any
of their sovereignty. It is their right, therefore, to fix the qualifica
tions of voters unrestrictedly and absolutely. If they say an alien
may vote, it is their right to do so.

The other clause of the constitution to which I referred, show
ing what was meant in the first part of the one read By the
gentleman, is in these words :

" The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators
from each State, chosen by the legislature thereof."

The first clause the gentleman read the other day refers simply,
as it clearly appears, to the manner of the election, the mode of
the election, the constituency of those elected — to distinguish
them from the constituency of the senators. The one was to be
the people, contra-distinguished from the legislatures of the
States ; this was one of the points of difficulty in forming the
Federal constitution. It was finally determined that the House
should represent the people and the Senate should represent the
States.

I will refer briefly to the same authority on that point. I read
from Yates's minutes of the debates in the Federal convention,
the fourth resolve :

"That the members of the first branch of the national legislature ought
to be elected by the people of the several States was opposed ; and, strange
to tell, by Massachusetts and Connecticut, who supposed they ought to
be chosen by the legislatures ; and Virginia supported the resolve, alleg
ing that this ought to.be the democratic branch of the government, and,
as such, immediately vested in the people."

Again, Mr. Pinckney moved :

'That the members of the first branch (that is, this House) be ap
pointed in such manner as the several State legislatures shall direct."

Mr. Madison said :
" I oppose the motion."
Mr. Mason said :

" I am for preserving inviolably the democratic branch of the govern
ment. True, we have found inconveniences from pure democracies ; but
if we mean to preserve peace and real freedom, they must necessarily
become a component part of a national government. Change this neces
sary principle, and if the government proceeds to taxation, the States will
orpose your power."

The idea that prevailed at the formation of our constitution

588 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA.

was, that representation and taxation should go together. It was
mainly upon that ground that. the men of that day went to the
war with the mother country ; it was because the colonies were
taxed and not allowed representation ; and if you trace the his
tory of this government down, you will find this great American
idea running throughout — that taxation and representation should
go together. Whoever pays taxes should vote — that is the idea.

Great confusion seems to exist in the minds of gentlemen from
the association of the words citizen and suffrage. Some seem to
think that rights of citizenship and rights of suffrage necessarily
go together ; that one is dependent upon the other. There never
was a greater mistake. Suffrage, or the right to vote, is the crea
ture of law. There are citizens in every State of this Union, I
doubt not, who are not entitled to vote. So, in several of the
States there are persons who by law are entitled to vote, though
they be not citizens. If there be citizens who cannot vote, why
may there not be individuals, who are not citizens, who may
nevertheless be allowed to vote, if the sovereign will of the State
shall so determine ? In all the States nearly there are other
qualifications for voting, even with the native born, besides citi
zenship. Residence for a certain length of time. Virginia, for
instance, requires of all citizens of other States, native born citi
zens of Maryland or North Carolina, a certain term of residence.
They shall not vote in Virginia unless they have been there twelve
months. In Alabama, I think, the provision is the same.

Why, sir, in my own State, where we have universal suffrage,
as it is called, no man can vote unless he has paid his taxes, and
resided in the county six months. There are thousands of citi
zens in Georgia, and I suppose in every other State, who are not
entitled to the right of suffrage under our constitution and laws.
Citizenship and suffrage by no means go together in all cases.
My time will not allow me to enlarge on that idea. I will only
refer briefly again to what was said in the Federal convention on
the subject of the States retaining the control over the subject of
suffrage, showing how vigilantly this was watched and guarded
by the State-rights men. Gouverneur Morris had proposed to
restrain the right of suffrage to freeholders. This gave rise to a
long debate. Mr. Ellsworth said :

"The qualification of electors stood on the most proper footing. The
right of suffrage was a tender point, and strongly guarded by most of the
State constitutions. The people will not readily subscribe to the national
constitution if it should subject them to be disfranchised. The States are
the best judges of the circumstances and temper of their own people."

Again he says, (I read from the Madison Papers :)

" Ought not every man who pays a tax to vote for the representative

who is to levy and dispose of his money ? Taxation and representation

ought to go together."

I barely refer to this to show that I am sustained in my view

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA. 589

by the highest authority. This subject of the qualification of
electors, and who should determine it, was mooted at the settle
ment of the government ; and it was left to the State legislatures,
under State constitutions.

Now, sir, a few moments on the decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States. Judge Taney, in my judgment, fully con
firms every thing I have said. He says :

"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens,' are synony
mous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political
body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty,
and who hold the power and conduct the government through their repre
sentatives. They are what are familiarly called the sovereign people ; arid
every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this
sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons
described in the plea in abatement [Dred Scott was a negro] composed a
portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty.
We think they are not ; and were not intended to be included under the
word ' citizens' in the constitution, and can therefore claim none of the
rights and privileges which that instrument provides for, and secures to
citizens of the United States."

It was the first words of this clause of the decision the gentle
man from Maryland relied on, but he did not pursue the argu
ment far enough.

The object of the chief justice was to show that persons of the
African race, descended from those who were bought and sold as
slaves, were not in the original body-politic, and could not, by
State laws, be incorporated into that body-politic. But now mark
what immediately follows that part of his decision :

" In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citi
zenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights
of citizenship as a member of the Union."

Here is the distinction. By naturalization, Congress can con
fer citizenship throughout the Union. What are the rights
created by that ? Three in all. The right to hold land is one ;
the right to sue in the Federal courts is another ; and the right
to claim the protection of this government, or the right of pass
port abroad, is the other. No State can confer these rights
throughout the Union ; but each State may confer them within
her limits. Each State may confer upon an alien the right to
hold lands. No man can question that; but if Indiana or
Georgia confers this right upon an alien, he cannot go into South
Carolina and hold land there by virtue of that. If he were
naturalized he could. So each State may give the right to an
alien to sue in its own courts ; but, therefore, he does not
acquire a right to sue in any other State court or the Federal
courts. Each State may guarantee her protection within her
limits, but not throughout the Union. She cannot pledge the
protection of the common government.

But the court gees right on with this language :

590 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA.

"It does not by any means follow, because he has the rights and privi
leges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States.
He may have all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, and yet
not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State ;
for, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States,
every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased
the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights ; but this
character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave
him no rights or privileges in other States, beyond those secured to him
by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several
States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by
adopting the constitution of the United States. Each State may still con
fer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, orupon any class or
description of persons ; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which
that word is used in the constitution of the United States, nor entitled to
sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a
citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be
restricted to the State which gave them."

I ask, then, if the constitution of Minnesota, according to this
Dred Scott decision, has an iota, or a single clause in it, so far as
alien suffrage is concerned, which Chief Justice Taney has not
said she has a right under, the constitution of the United States,
to put in it ? This is a right, none of the States have ever surren
dered. Every State in this Union has the right of fixing the
status of all its constituent elements absolutely, as each State may
determine for itself, and also the right of determining who may,
and who may not vote at elections for public officers under her
authority. What part of the constitution* of Minnesota, then,
is in violation of the constitution of the United States ? Why,
then, should she not be admitted ?

Let me s&y, in conclusion, that the constitution of Illinois has
such a clause. Is not she an equal in this Union ? Why not
rule her out ? Indiana has such a clause. Why not rule her
out ? Michigan has such a clause. Why not rule her out ?
Wisconsin has such a clause. I have the journal here. When
Wisconsin was admitted, in 1848, Mr. Calhoun was in his seat
and he did not even call the yeas and nays on it. And yet we are
told that this is a great and a dangerous example we are setting, if
we admit Minnesota on an equal footing with Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Wisconsin, and all of the States. Deprive her of this
great right, would she be their equal ? Are Illinois and South
Carolina now equal? Are Indiana and Massachusetts now equal?
Why, then, if you deny Minnesota the power that Illinois and
Indiana have, will she be equal to them ? Things equal to one
another are equal to each other. If those in the Union now are
equal, will not Minnesota be unequal if you deprive her of this
right ? If you put upon her a condition you have never put upon
these others, will not you make her unequal ? and if you bring
her in, would she be upon an equal footing with her sister States?
If she confers suffrage upon those born abroad, who purge them
selves of their foreign allegiance and swear to support the consti-

IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WATKOUS. 591

tution of the United States, she has the right to do so. Any
State in the Union now has the same right, if any see fit to exer
cise it. The several States cannot confer citizenship of the
United States upon any body or class of persons ; but every
State, in her sovereign capacity, has a right to say who shall vote
at elections in that State. Let us, then, drop this objection ; let
us admit Minnesota, and let her come in clothed with all the sov
ereignty that the other States possess. My time is out.

One word about the amendment I have offered. I thought that
by this time Minnesota would be entitled to three members. The
enabling act entitled her to one, with additional representatives,
according to her population under the last apportionment. The
information I have received since I offered my amendment, has
led me to believe that her population at this time would not en
title her to three members, but will to two ; and therefore I with
draw my amendment, and hope the House will pass the bill as it
came from the Senate. I call for the previous question.

SPEECH ON THE IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WATROUS.

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

DECEMBER 15, 1858.

Mr. SPEAKER : In compliant with the promise I made yester
day, I propose to address myself to the House this morning for
a very brief space of time. An analysis of all the facts set forth
in the voluminous mass of evidence before us would require too
much time. That is not my object. It would be useless to do
so. But there are some matters connected with the subject I
wish to be heard upon. This is the first case of impeachment
which has ever come directly before me, since I have been a mem
ber of this House, for consideration and action. I shall, in what
I say, attempt to lay down some general principles by which my
own conduct shall be governed in this and all like cases. I feel
it due to myself, due to the party, due to the country, and also
due to the House. •

It has been said in this debate that this is the first instance of
impeachment, in this country, of a judicial officer, where there
has been an imputation upon his integrity and honesty — where
corruption has been charged. I believe that is true. It is a
matter of congratulation to us, looking at our past history ; and
I think the same cannot be said of any other country upon earth
with a history as long as. ours. This of itself gives an interest
to the question before us, which, in its very nature, is one of the
gravest character. The power we are called upon to exercise is a

592 IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WATROUS.

great one. It is a wise power ; it is a right power ; it is a just
power ; and it ought to be justly exercised. We are acting, how
ever, under limited powers ; and I do not know that I should
have addressed the House at all, had it not been for principles
and doctrines advanced by some gentlemen, b}T which we should
be governed, to which I do not assent.

What offences are impeachable ? Some gentlemen have argued
that " misdemeanor" is a term in the constitution used in contra
distinction to that conduct known as "good behavior," during
which a judge can hold his office. To demean is to behave, and
to misdemean is to misbehave ; and any misbehavior is a misde
meanor — that is their argument. I do not, sir, agree to that con
struction of the word " misdemeanor" in that clause of the consti
tution under which we are acting. The constitution authorizes
us to impeach for " treason, bribery, and other high crimes or mis
demeanors." What is to be understood by this term "misde
meanor ?" Is it whatever a majority of this House, or a majority
of the Senate, at any one time may think is misbehavior? I
think not. From the days of magna charta in England, and
much more so in the United States under our constitution, no
man can be deprived of life, liberty, or property, <l aut aliquo
modo distruatur;" or in any other manner be injured in his estate
or reputation, but by the judgment of his peers, and the laivs of
the land. The offence must not merely exist in the breasts of a
majority — questions of propriety, questions of what may be
deemed good behavior or not ; but it must be some offence known
to the law or constitution ; and I will lay down the broad princi
ple that the offence, to be impeachable, must be within one or the
other of the classes of acts, known to the law either as mala pro-
hibita, or mala in se.

Now, sir, some have asked if no act is impeachable by this
House except such as violate some statute of the United States ?
I am free to say that my individual opinion is that none others
are ; and before you try a man for violating a law, you must make
the law, or declare it ; and where there is no law, there is no sin.
Either in the divine or human codes, where there is no law there
can be no transgression. No man ought to be arraigned and
tried for any thing, unless in the act complained of he has violated
some law. But it is not necessary for me to urge these individual
opinions upon this occasion. I do not intehd to do it, because,
in the precedents of our past government, it has not been prac-
ticalty recognized, and for all essential purposes, so far as this
case is concerned, it is not necessary to do so. This, however,
is the commencement of a criminal prosecution, and it must be
prosecuted according to the known rule of law as recognized by
the precedents, at least ; and according to them it must be for a
violation of some one or more of the great principles of the com
mon law.

This, I state, is the practice of the government, and I do not

IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WATROUS. . 593

care to deviate from it in this case. It is settled by the highest
authority ; and I refer the House to what Judge Story has said
upon the subject, in his treatise upon the constitution of the
United States. I believe it will be admitted that this eminent
jurist, of whom our country may well be proud, of whose fame
this generation may be proud, whose name extends wherever
civilization extends and civil jurisprudence has a foothold, was
highly federal enough. That he was in favor of giving the gov
ernment quite as much power as it ought to possess, I think will
be conceded. Now, in considering the power of impeachment,
and the offences which are impeachable, he says :

"The next inquiry is, what are impeachable offences? They are
'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.' For the
definition of treason, resort may be had to the constitution itself; but for
the definition of bribery, resort is naturally and necessarily had to the
common law ; for that, as the common basis of our jurisprudence, can
alone furnish the proper exposition of the nature and limits of this
offence.

" The only practical question is, what are to be deemed high crimes and
misdemeanors ? Now, neither the constitution nor any statute of the
United States has in any manner defined any crimes* except treason and
bribery, to be high crimes and misdemeanors, and as such impeachable.
In what manner, then, are they to be ascertained ?"

He goes on to say that they are to be ascertained by the com
mon law ; and I beg leave to read particular parts of what he
does say :

" It is the boast of English jurisprudence — and without the power of
impeachment would be an intolerable grievance — that in trials of impeach
ment the law differs not in essentials from criminal prosecutions before
inferior courts."

Some gentlemen have argued this case as if it was not in the
nature of a criminal prosecution. In my judgment it is a criminal
prosecution of the very highest order ; in England it is undoubt
edly so, because the loss of the life of the party was often the
result of the judgment. It is true that in our constitution we
have limited it ; with us, the result of a conviction is disqualifi
cation from holding office. It is, nevertheless, here as there, as
Judge Story says, in the nature of a criminal prosecution. Now,
mark you :

" The same rules of evidence, the same legal notions of crime and pun
ishment prevail."

" The same legal notions of crime." Gentlemen said yesterday
that any conduct which would disqualify a party from occupying
a seat on the bench, is misbehavior. What, sir, is misbehavior ?
What different notions people have on the subject — it is often a
matter of taste. uDe gustibus non est disputandum," is an old
maxim. There is nothing that there is more difference of opin
ion about, than what constitutes misbehavior, or good behavior,
But to go on:
38

594 IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WATROUS.

" Impeachments are not framed to alter the law, but to carry it into
more effectual execution where it might be obstructed by the influence of
too powerful delinquents, or not easily discerned in the ordinary course
of jurisdiction, by reason of the peculiar quality of the alleged crimes."

Again :

" It seems, then, to be the settled doctrine of a high court of impeach
ment, that though the common law cannot be a foundation of a jurisdic
tion not given by the constitution or laws, that jurisdiction, when given,
attaches, and is to be exercised according to the rules of the common
law ; and that what are and what are not high crimes and misdemeanors,
is to be ascertained by a recurrence to that great basis of American juris
prudence."

Judge Story did not go to the extent of the Federal doctrine,
that there is an American common law under which indictments
may be found ; but he says that the common law is our guide,
and that when the statute is silent on an offence in the high court
of impeachment, rules to ascertain the nature and extent of crimes
have to be determined by that great basis of American jurispru
dence.

Now, sir, one n*ore extract, and I will drop this authority, for
it is uniform :

"It is not every offence which, by the constitution, is so impeachable;
it is not every offence even against the common law that is impeachable ;
it must not only be an offence, but a high crime and misdemeanor."

That is what Judge Story says. We are first to determine the
offence according to the principles of common law, and then it
must be a high crime and misdemeanor under that. To this ex
tent he lays down the rule, and on this principle I shall consider
this case. These are the general principles I intend to apply to
the facts of this case.

All that he has said in this debate about the purity of the bench,
and the importance of preserving the judicial robes unsullied and
untarnished, I fully concur in. Every word that has been uttered
on that point I indorse. I would have the ermine of your judges
as unstained as my honorable friend near me, [Mr. VALLANDIG-
HAM,] who declaimed so eloquently on that theme the other day ;
and if there was a single fact in the case which led me to believe
that the purity of the bench had been tainted in the person of
Judge Watrous, I would not withhold my vote to send this case
as charged — that he is guilty of having used a forged instrument
knowing it to be forged — to the Senate.

What, then, are the accusations, and what are the facts ? I
propose, Mr. Speaker, to present to this House succinctly the
gist of this accusation. I will not undertake to detail all the
minutiae of the case, but merely the strong points — those on which
the impeachment must or ought to stand or fall. I am not giving
my views to the House for the purpose of influencing any gentle
man's mind ; I am only giving the views which govern my own

IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WATROUS. 595

fiction. I have drawn from the memorial of the parties the gist
of what I consider to be the accusations in this case.

First, there is the memorial of Spencer, stating that, in 1850,
Watrons, while judge of the United States court for the district
of Texas, purchased or acquired an interest, secretly and under
cover of another man's name, in a certain eleven-league grant of
land in Texas, with the understanding and intention of litigating
and determining the validity of said eleven-league grant in tho
Federal court of Texas, of which he was the sole presiding judge.

That is the gist of the first charge. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that
were true, I do not hesitate to say that, according to the princi
ples laid down, we ought to vote to have this case sent instantly
to the Senate, and the Senate ought instantly to convict him, or
as soon as the charge could be proved. I do not hesitate to say
that notwithstanding this is not an indictable offence by the
statutes of the United States, it would be by the common law a
high crime and misdemeanor ; and if he were guilty of it he ought
to be impeached on those principles. But how stands the fact ?
The allegation is that Judge Watrous became interested, secretly
and covertly, in a certain title, with the purpose of litigating it
in his own court. If there was one particle of evidence, from the
beginning to the end of this case, establishing that charge, I have
not read it. He with others bought a tract of land ; that is true.
But I have not seen any evidence that he intended to litigate the
title in his own court. In the whole volume of evidence — that
seems to have been a drag-net, bringing up every thing — there is
not a particle of evidence which I have yet seen that he either
acquired his interest secretly, or intended to litigate the case in
his own court. So far, as the charge of secrecy is concerned, the
testimony shows that quite a number of persons knew of the
purchase at the time it was made ; Judge Hughes, of Texas,
knew it, and Mr. Love, the clerk, testifies that he knew it from
common hearsay.

And then as to the intention of adjudicating the validity of
his own title in his own court, the testimony shows that even
before the writs were filed, when he first saw them in the clerk's
office, he spoke of his interest. Here is the testimony :

" Mr. Love, sworn, says : He [Judge Watrous] came into my office at
the time the writs were being issued, I think, and said in substance, 'this
is one of my cases : I am interested in this case. You will lose your fees,
because they will have to go elsewhere to be tried.' "

The same fact he disclosed and spoke of openly in court at the
April term, to which they were returned in 1851. There is not a
particle of evidence going; to show that he ever concealed the
fact from mortal man. The allegation is attempted to be sus
tained only by persons who never heard of it ; and who cares for
the testimony of a hundred thousand witnesses of that character?
Not only the clerk, but the record shows that this his interest

596 IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WATROUS.

was announced in court, and he refused to act or pass orders in
those cases involving the validity of his title. There is not, then,
one particle of evidence to show that there ever was an intention
that his interest should be concealed.

But, Mr. Speaker, it was argued yesterday that the conduct of
Judge Watrous was fraudulent and corrupt because he made the
purchase with a view corruptly to transfer the case from Texas
to New Orleans. The evidence conclusively and completely re
futes the first charge of intending to try it himself, and the argu
ment now is, that he corruptly bought the land in order that the
case might be transferred to another State. The original accu
sation againt him failed, and now he is pursued with a distinct
disavowal of the original ground of accusation with another
wholly inconsistent with the first.

Well, sir, League, according to his evidence, was a non-resident
of Texas, and the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. BINGHAM,] said
yesterday that he was a partner with Watrous, and that the title
was given to Lapsle}r, in order to get the case into the Federal
court. Now, Mr. League, himself, was a non-resident, and had a
right to bring the case in the Federal court. Is not that strain
ing the evidence a long way, in order to cast an imputation upon
Judge Watrous, where there is not a particle of evidence ?

Mr. BILLINGHTJRST. Allow me to say that the Supreme Court
of the United States has decided that he was not bona fide a non
resident and dismissed the case which he brought upon that
ground after Judge Watrous had decided in such a way that he
was held to be a non-resident of Texas.

Mr. STEPHENS. When was that ? At what date ?

Mr. BILLINGHURST. It was in the case pf League vs. Jones et
aL, which is reported in 18 Howard.

Mr. STEPHENS. They decided that League was not a non
resident ?

Mr. BILLINGHURST. Yes, sir; the court decided that he had
removed to Maryland for the purposes of litigation, and hence
turned him out of court.

Mr. STEPHENS. When was that decision made ?

Mr. BILLINGHURST. In the December term, 1855.

Mr. STEPHENS. That does not at all interfere with my argument.
The Supreme Court may have decided that he was not a bona fide
non-resident ; but if he sued as such in the Federal court, that
showed that he thought he was, and would not have got Lapsley
joined in the purchase for the purpose of suing in that court.
The decision that he was not, made long after this transaction,
could not have influenced his motive at the time of the trade.

I come now, sir, to the second allegation. The first charge has
been substantially abandoned, and the second is, that several suits
were brought in the Federal court of Texas, of which said Wat
rous was sole judge, in the year 1851, to test the validity of said
grant : that they continued pending there until 1854. In the mean

IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WATBOUS. 597

time various orders were entered in said causes, said Watrous
acting as though no such interest on his part existed ; that during
this period of nearly four years, he fraudulently and corruptly
concealed his interest in the subject-matter of litigation before
him ; that his interest was finally detected and became publicly
known ; then the cases were transferred to the Louisiana circuit.

Well, sir, if this charge be true ; if, as stated, he did act in his
own case ; I say according to the principles laid down, put the
brand of infamy eternally upon him. But, sir, when I take up
this book of testimony, I see that when the writs were filed,
Judge Watrous announced his interest, and published it to the
bar, and that from the beginning to the end, he never passed a
single order on the merits of the case. Here is the testimony :

Mr. Love, the clerk, swears :

" Question. Do you recollect the occasion when you first heard the sub
ject mentioned in court?

• " Answer. When the cases were called in court, Judge Watrous said
distinctly, (I have the minutes and memoranda of the court, and I know
it was then',) ' I am. interested in these suits.' Somebody wanted an order
in these cases ; says he, ' I will give you no order in these cases, for I
would not touch them with a forty-foot pole.' "

Again, the minutes show this order :

"John W. Lapsley vs. Charles Duncan.

"This day came the parties by their attorney, and thereupon the judge
presiding having stated that he could not sit in this cause by reason of a
personal interest, and of an interest of persons with whom he is connected
by blood, in a part of the subject-matter in contest, the said parties by
their attorneys agree that this cause be removed and transferred for tria'l
to the district of Austin."

Now, sir, in the face of this record, it is asserted that he acted
in his own case, and kept his interest secret for four years, until
he was detected — that is, from 1850 to 1854. Why, the accusa
tion is utterly disproved ; the testimony is directly to the
contrary.

Mr. BILLINGHURST. Did I understand the gentleman from
Georgia to sa}*- that Judge Watrous's interest was discovered at
the first term after these causes were instituted ? The causes were
instituted in January, 1851, and this entry on the record was not
made until January, 1852. Two terms intervened before it was
made.

Mr. STEPHENS. This is the way I read it :

" At the United States district court for the State of Texas, held in the
city of Galveston, on the 21st May, 1851," etc.

Mr. BILLINGHURST. The gentleman will find that the entry he
has just read relates to "continuances." If he will read from the
record before him a few lines further on, he will find that the
judge did not make the disclosure of his interest until January
4, 1852.

Mr. STEPHENS. That does not affect the merits of the case at

598 IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WATROUS.

all. When his interest was disclosed or announced, the case was,
and it ought to have been, continued. The great fact is, that his
interest was not concealed, and that he made no order touching
its merits. This the record shows, while there is not a single
witness who testifies that Judge Watrous ever designed at any
term, or ever did, in fact, conceal his interest for a single mo
ment. The testimony is positive that the announcement was
made when the writ was issued, before it was filed even, and that
he never made a single order in the case, except to continue by
agreement of attorneys until the transfer was made.

Mr. REAGAN. I desire to ask the gentleman from Georgia if he
is apprised of the fact that Spencer states that he never knew of
Judge Watrous's interest, until the order for the transfer was
made.

Mr. STEPHENS. I know nothing of Spencer's statement, further
than appears upon the record ; nor would his statement, under the
circumstances, have much influence with me. For any man who
comes before the House of Representatives of the United States,
and charges a high judicial officer with having concealed his
interest in a case for four years, during which time he took orders
in his own case, and was then detected, when there is not one
solitary fact to prove the allegation, but the contrary appearing,
as in this case, I say that a man who thus deliberately makes such
a groundless charge, for the purpose of blackening the character
of another man, high or low, I would not believe under oath in
any thing. But whether his statement be true or not, whether he
knew of the interest of the judge or not, is not the question.

Mr. CRAIGE, of North Carolina. Pascal swears that he knew
of the interest long before the time when Spencer says it was de
tected in 1854.

Mr. REAGAN. He knew it ; but he said he received his informa
tion in a way in which he did not feel authorized to make it known
to any one.

Mr. CRAIGE, of North Carolina. Pascal was an ejiemy of
Judge Watrous, and had no object in concealing it.

Mr. STEPHENS. That is immaterial. Why, sir, Alexander came
here in 1852, and tried to get Judge Watrous impeached, not for
the matters now alleged ; and this same interest of Judge Watrous
was then disclosed or spoken of before a committee of this
House.

Mr. REAGAN. I ask the gentleman from Georgia to point to a
word or syllable in this record which discloses the interest of
Judge Watrous ?

Mr. STEPHENS. The order which I have just read, shows it.

Mr. REAGAN. That order was made two years after the case
was filed. It was made in 1852.

Mr. STEPHENS. The order was made in January, 1852, the
suits were brought in January, 1851, returnable to April term,
1851 His interest was then disclosed as proved, and the cases

IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WATKOUS. 599

continued by consent of parties. If Judge Watrous ever passed
any order in any one of these cases touching the merits of the
cause, I defy any gentleman to point it out. I have looked for
it in the testimony in vain. Yet Spencer says he took orders in
his own case for four years, until his interest was detected.

I now, sir, pass to the third charge. It is, that after the
transfer of said cases to the Louisiana circuit, and on the trial
of the issue involving the validity of the title in which said
Watrous was so corruptly interested, under said grant, the plain
tiffs, Watrous's associates and confederates, amongst other docu
ments, introduced what purported to be a certain powrer of
attorney from one La Yega and others, to one Williams, dated
the 5th May, 1832, which said instrument, or pretended power
of attorney, was a forgery, and known as such to the parties
offering the same, and all of which was done with the previous
knowledge, advice, and assent of said Watrous, judge, as afore
said.

This allegation is, that when his interest was detected; when,
as judge, he could not try and pass upon his own case, it was
transferred to New Orleans. He followed there ; and as one of
the links in the chain of his title, he caused his confederates to
offer an instrument which was forged, and which he knew to be
forged.

I say again, if that be true, condemn him, according to the
rule laid down. If that be true, if it is supported by a single
particle of evidence even of probable cause, I will say, let his
impeachment be voted. But so far from it, there is not a parti
cle of evidence even that he ever saw this La Yega power of
attorney in his life. It was never read to him, and he never saw
it. It was one of the links in the chain of title ; but whether it
was forged or not, there is no evidence to show that Judge
Watrous knew it. I call upon the gentleman to show the evi
dence that Judge Watrous knew it to be a forgery.

Mr. REAGAN. I call the attention of the gentleman to the
record made by Judge Watrous himself upon the trial, of Ufford
vs. Dykes, upon a judgment by default, and upon writ of equity
awarded, where there was no resistance by the defendant. Judge
Watrous charged the jury, on that trial, that the title was good
and conveyed the land. And these were the identical title
papers under which Watrous claimed his interest in the La
Yega grant, the same concession, same power to locate, and the
same power of sale.

Mr. STEPHENS. Did he say he knew it was forged ? If he said
the title was good, does that show that he knew it was forged ?

Mr. REAGAN. That is not the point.

Mr. STEPHENS. It is precisely the point. How can you sustain
a charge against Judge Watrous on the ground of this forged
instrument unless he knew it was forged ?

600 IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WATROUS.

Mr. MILLSON. The gentleman has made a concession which I
do not think he intended to have made.

Mr. STEPHENS. Perhaps the gentleman will not think so when
he hears me through.

Mr. REAGAN. I have seen the gentleman's adroitness before in
avoiding the point at issue ; and now he essays to display it at
my expense ; and I wish to show how he does it. He asserted
that the judge never saw the power of attorney ; but he has
passed over the allegation that the judge never saw the power of
attorney, and contented himself with saying that he did not
know it was a forgery. M.y point is, that Judge Watrous could
not have adjudicated the default case before him without looking,
at the time of the suit, at the power of sale, and he was bound to
look at it.

Mr. STEPHENS. What I said to the gentleman was, that there
was no evidence, no witnesses, to show that Judge Watrous ever
saw it even, much less that he knew it was forged.

Mr. REAGAN. There is the record.

Mr. STEPHENS. The record does not show that he ever saw the
power of attorney. The gentleman draws an inference. In the
case of Ufford vs. Dykes, this question was in issue ; but the
attorney says the power of attorney was not read ; that the plain
tiffs would not go to trial because he did not have it ; that he
permitted them to use his copy, but that no question was raised
upon it, and that it was not read in court ; and that when the
defendants acknowledged its validity, then only the judge said
that the title as admitted was good. But there is no evidence in
the world that the judge ever saw it, or examined it, or knew
any thing about its genuineness. The gentleman argues inferen-
tially that he did see it, but the testimony is that he did not see
it ; but if he had seen it, that would not prove that he knew it
was forged ?

Mr. REAGAN. The gentleman has shifted his ground again.
I said he must have seen the title papers, when he charged the
jury that the title was good, and conveyed the land at the time
the default judgment was taken ; but he has gone off, and answers
me by stating what occurred on a subsequent trial of the same
case, this default judgment having previously been set aside, and
a new trial granted. And if, in the charge I speak of, there was
no power of sale, then the judge gave a false charge, and ought
to be impeached for that.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then let him be impeached for that ; but I am
dealing with the charges as they are preferred.

In reference to the case of Ufford vs. Dykes, I will say that
the plaintiff claimed lands, and that this De la Vega power of
attorney was a link in the chain of evidence ; and it is said that
Judge Watrous corruptly acted as judge in that case, because, in
its trial, that link in the chain of title of the plaintiff was per
mitted to go before him, and he passed corruptly upon it. Now,

IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WATROUS. 601

suppose a judge, residing in this district, should buy a piece of
land under the grant of Mr. Carroll, who held this whole tract of
country, and a suit should be brought in reference thereto : the title
to that piece of land would have to be traced in the court from the
king's grant down through Carroll. I suppose it would be held
by the gentleman from Texas and others that a judge of this
district, who might hold his own title from the same source,
could not sit on the trial of the case. It is monstrous.

Mr. MILLSON. I desire to suggest to the gentleman from
Georgia, that the power of attorney from La Vega was not a
link in the chain of evidence in the case of Ufford us. Dykes.

Mr. REAGAN. It wras an essential link.

Mr. MILLSON. There were three eleven-league grants of land
to the two Aguirres and La Vega, severally ; and, although the
two Aguirres and La Yega united in a power of attorney which
was written upon the same paper, yet they were, in legal contem
plation, separate and distinct powers. In the Ufford vs. Dykes
case, the plaintiff claimed under Agtiirre ; and even though the
judge might have known that the signature of La Vega was
forged, it did not affect the power from Aguirre.

Mr. STEPHENS. If that were so — if the La Yega power of at
torney was a link in the chain of Ufford's title — it is not corrupt
necessarily, because the judgment in the case could not possibly
over have affected the judge's interest. I see no corruption in
that; none in the world. But the truth is, that the judge did
not see the power of attorney ; it was not read ; and there is not
the slightest shadow of proof that he ever knew that it was the
same paper. Not a single witness swears that Judge Watrous
ever saw it, or knew that it was a forgery. The gist of the charge
is, that a forged instrument was used in court ; that the judge
knew it, and sent it there. If so, according to the principles laid
down he ought to be impeached; but there is not a particle of
proof, not a shade of a shadow, or a semblance of proof, to sus
tain any such charge, if it is true.

But, as I understand the fact, there was an issue of non est
faclum made upon that power of attorne}' in the Louisiana court ;
and, upon the trial, the jury found it was not a forgeiy.

Mr. REAGAN. They did upon the testimony of Hewitson, who
swore that Gouzales was dead ; and Gonzales came forward and
testified as a witness in the case two years afterward.

Mr. STEPHENS. I am not going to bring up all the records to
show how it was done ; but there was a judge of the Supreme
Court of the United States presiding, all the witnesses were there
upon both sides, and the result of the verdict of twelve men was,
that the paper was not a forgery. Now, I take it for granted,
that they were as competent to judge of that fact as this House
is. Are you to say that that instrument is a forgery ? Why,
before you could impeach Judge Watrous upon this indictment,
you are bound upon your oath to say it was a forgeiy — which

602 IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WATROUS.

that jury could not do with all the evidence before them. You
have got to say not only that it was a forgery, but that Judge
Watrous knew it.

But, in addition to that, is the statement of the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. BRYAN] the other day, from the private papers of
Stephen F. Austin, executed in 1833, I believe, in which he
alludes to this identical paper, and says it conveyed the power
of sale. To my mind that is conclusive, if there was any
other evidence wanting, that that power of attorney is good and
valid.

Mr. REAGAN. My colleague never said what the gentleman
supposes he did ; and there are no such papers in the case.

Mr. BRYAN. My colleague says there were no papers in the
case. My declaration upon this floor, the extracts I read, and
the assertion that I would present to him and to any other per
sons the originals, should be sufficient to him and any other
persons.

Mr. REAGAN. I spoke of the title papers, and in no one of
them is that fact given.

Mr. BRYAN. The fact is given, and that is sufficient, without
any title papers. I agree most thoroughly with the gentleman
from Georgia.

Mr. STEPHENS. I must go on. I have stated the most prom
inent parts of this case. There is one rule which governs me,
and I think it is a wise and good one. When any person makes
an accusation against another's fair fame and reputation, and
deliberately publishes what turns out to be a most gross and out
rageous, if not malicious, charge against him, and I find that he
has committed a great wrong against his fellow-man by accusing
him falsely, I watch very closely the smaller matters of his accu
sation ; and when those great matters are proven to be untrue, I
apply another maxim of law to the smaller ones — de minimis non
curat lex.

As to the rulings or errors in the Mussina case, in which it is
not pretended that Judge Watrous had the remotest personal
interest, I have read them all carefully ; and this is what I have
got to saj- to that ; that if these were errors, Mr. Mussina could
have appealed. In my judgment, he comes now falseVy, and says
he did not appeal because Judge Watrous would not let him.

Mr. REAGAN. If the gentleman will allow me, I will show him
that it was impossible for him to appeal ?

Mr. STEPHENS. I will.

Mr. REAGAN. Well ; let me tell the gentleman that by the
action of this judge, a married woman and a minor child, resident
in Mexico, were made parties defendant — the one without a
husband, and the other without a guardian in the jurisdiction or
under the power of the court ; and Mussina never could have had
the necessary papers served on them to bring up the appeal as to
them, and without them no appeal would lie. The matter was so

IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WATROUS. 603

ingeniously arranged by the judge, that there was no possibility
of appeal.

Mr. STEPHENS. Did Mussina make that point before the
judge ?

Mr. REAGAN. He could not. When could the point have
been made ?

Mr. STEPHENS. When the error was committed, why did he
not except then, and take it up to the Supreme Court ? Why
could he not ? and why did he not ? He did not ; and it is a
pretext for him to do so now. I do not think there was any
error in these rulings. In my judgment, every ruling of the
judge that is complained of was right. That is my opinion as a
lawyer. But if there was any error in them, our judicial system
provides for the means of correcting errors of judgment ; but not
by impeachment, f

Mr. REAGAN. I wish now to have the gentleman from Georgia
answer this question : Was it right in the judge to admit a party
to the suit to swear as a general witness, in his own case, against
the objection of the adverse party ?

Mr. STEPHENS. As to all such questions as serving notices and
interrogatories, it is uniformly allowed by the courts.

Mr. REAGAN. But I ask whether a party should be admitted
as a general witness ? Let the gentleman go the whole length of
the record.

Mr. STEPHENS. State the point in the record.

Mr. REAGAN. I ask you if it was right in the judge

Mr. STEPHENS. Just wait. If there was error in that, why not
have ex-eepted to it, and have it taken to the Supreme Court ?

Mr. REAGAN. I have answered, that Mussina could not do it.

Mr. STEPHENS. Why?

Mr. REAGAN. For the reasoa that the necessary process could
not be served on the married woman and minor child, who
resided in Mexico, and whom Judge Watrous improperly and
unlawfully took jurisdiction of.

Mr. STEPHENS. Why did he not except to that.

Mr. REAGAN. He did except.

Mr. STEPHENS. Why not bring it to the Supreme Court ?

Mr. REAGAN. I stated in m}*- argument the other day, an addi
tional reason that Mussina believed that the appeal taken by
Shannon would have settled his own case.

Mr. STEPHENS. Does Mussina show that he ever thought that
Shannon's case carried up his ?

Mr. REAGAN. He employed Mr. Benjamin as his counsel in that
appeal, and did not know that Shannon's case did not carry his
until Mr. Benjamin told him that it did not.

Mr. STEPHENS. He went to see Mr. Benjamin, to get him to
defend his case, after nearly five years had elapsed, and Mr.
Benjamin swears that he did not understand what case Mussina
was talking about ; so little did he know about it, that he could

604 IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE WATROUS.

not describe it correctly. But he had ample time to appeal after
Mr. Benjamin told him of the defect ; and Judge Watrous noti
fied his lawyer after Mr. Benjamin's opinion was given, that he
was ready to certify the appeal when he complied with the terms
of the law. But he did not do it.

Mr. REAGAN. In justice to Mr. Mussina let me say that Mr.
Benjamin djd not state that that was the fault of Mussina, but a
mistaken inference on his part. He supposed that Mussina
referred to another case in which his name was mentioned.

Mr. STEPHENS. Well, let those things go for what they are
worth.

Now, Mr. Speaker, to return. As to all these rulings, as my
attention has been directed to them out of the line of my argument,
and by which so much time, unexpected, has been consumed, I
repeat, in nry judgment, they were correct ; wj^nesses were allowed
where their interest was mutually balanced ; and in one instance
complained of, the preponderance of interest was against the
party calling the witness. In my judgment every one of them was
correct. But a sufficient answer for me is that if there was an
error of judgment, an appeal might have been taken, and if the
party lost his appeal by laches, he cannot now get redress by
impeachment.

Mr. REAGAN. If the gentleman will allow me time, I will show
how often he tried to get an appeal.

Mr. STEPHENS. Not now. I have talked with some gentlemen
on this^matter, who told me that they think it was wrong in
Judge Watrous to have gone to Alabama and join with citizens
of that State to buy these lands. All that I have got to say on
that is, that it was no offence; and I sa}^ further, that if Judge
Watrous was the man that they pretend to think he is, and
charge him to be, Spencer, instead of complaining of what he did,
ought to thank him for it, for if he had not been interested Laps-
ley could have sued in his cour1: and got a trial before him — this
most corrupt judge as they charge him to be. But as he became
interested, the case complained of was transferred and tried
before Judge Campbell ; against him there is no charge or impu
tation. By the arrangement he got an able, competent, and
acknowledged honest man to try his cause. If he lost it as he
did, he has no reason to complain of Judge Watrous. No one
pretends that justice has been defeated or any body been wronged.
If Spencer has lost his case, it was because the law was against
him. The burden of his complaint now is, that, by the conduct
of Judge Watrous, his cause was tried before an honest judge and
impartial jury.

One word about the action of the legislature of Texas. This
was in 1848, not about any of these transactions ; the reason why
the legislature requested him to resign, as I understand it, was
because he held that certain statutes of limitation did not run
until the parties got within the jurisdiction of the State of Texas.

RAILROAD LETTER NUMBER ONE. 605

Mr. REAGAN. That was not the cause of the action of the
legislature. The reason they requested Judge Watrous to resign
was because he was believed to be engaged in dealing in fraudu
lent land certificates and fraudulent eleven league grants.

Mr. STEPHENS. Well, at all events, Mr. Speaker, they could
not have alluded to this transaction, because the resolution was
adopted in 1848, and this purchase was not made till 1850. I do
not think that spiritual rappings had been known so early as 1848,
or that there was any media at that day, which could tell in
1848 what could be done in 1850, and from that on to 1854.

Mr. REAGAN. But fraudulent certificates and fraudulent eleven
league grants were known then, if spiritualism was not.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then all I have got to say is, that the legisla
ture was worse than Mussina, for they allowed ten years to pass
and have not yet brought witnesses to prove this fact.

Mr. REAGAN. Will the gentleman stop there ?

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, right there. [Laughter.]

Mr. REAGAN. I offered to prove that before the judiciary
committee during the last session. I went before them with a
record of the circuit court of Louisiana for that purpose, and
asked to have witnesses examined, as I have said before ; but I
was denied the privilege by the action of this House and the
committee.

1 also offered to prove that he had sold three fraudulent league
certificates to Mr. Low, of Illinois, and swindled him out of about
six thousand dollars, when he knew them to be fraudul^t, void,
and worthless ; for which, by the laws of Texas, he subjected him
self to a most ignominious punishment ; but was denied the op
portunity of doing this, too.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then it would have been much better to have
proved it in Texas, and have had him whipped.

[Here the hammer fell.]

RAILROAD LETTER, NUMBER ONE.

CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., MARCH 13, 185?.

DEAR SIR: — Your esteemed favor pf the 7th instant was not
received until last night. I had been absent from home for sev
eral days. This will account to you for the delay of my answer.
I now cheerfully comply with your request, to give you such in
formation as I can touching the origin and construction of our
great State railroad and the prominent actors connected with it.
I entered the legislature for the first time in 1836 as a member
of the House from this county. That was the session the first
movement was made for the construction of the State railroad.

6(36 RAILROAD LETTER NUMBER ONE.

I was amongst its most zealous advocates. It is difficult at this
time to conceive the objections then raised against it. Almost as
difficult as for the enlightened men of this day and generation to
conceive of the nature and extent of the obstacles and impedi
ments that la^y in the way of, and environed the path of all the
great improvements which have marked the progress of civiliza
tion for the last three hundred years. It was a new enterprise.
It required a great outlay of money. It looked to the creation
of a State debt of frightful magnitude in the eyes of many of our
oldest and most faithful public men reared in the school of rigid
economy. It was not a party question, nor did men divide on it
with any reference to the then existing parties. Some of the
ablest champions of this work were democrats. Amongst them
in the House (and what I shall say will be confined mostly to that
body) was William W. Gordon, of Chatham. He was emphati
cally the leader of the measure. He had been in the legislature
for several years, and had acquired considerable reputation as a
man of ability and influence. My views and position on this
question brought me very soon in free, full, and frequent communi
cation with him. He was a man of high order of mind naturally ;
thoroughly educated at West Point, I think, though he did not
go into the army. He was a lawtyer in Savannah. Few men in
Georgia at that time were his superiors in intelligence or intel
lectual attainments. Besides this, he was a man of untiring in
dustry and energ3^. His whole soul was in this work. It was
from mp recollection of the scenes of that session and the part
he acted in them, as well as the scenes of subsequent sessions,
when the road, after being commenced, was threatened with
abandonment, that I urged upon some friends, a few years ago,
the propriety of naming a county after him, and erecting a monu
ment to his memory. The suggestion was carried out. This
much I have thought due to him that I should say to you. He
at the time stood high in the estimation of his party, then in
the majority, but none of his associates of prominence in the
House backed him, unless I except Crane, of Lurnpkin. I am not
certain whether Henr}^ G. Lamar was in this session or not. It is
strange that I do not, and I have not the journals to refer to, but if he
was, I know he was an active and able supporter of the measure.
He was amongst the ablest supporters whenever he was there ;
this I know. Crane's given name I do not recollect. He had a
respectable position as a debating member, and was a warm ad
vocate of the road. The most of the speaking talent of the House
that session was on the side of the opposition, known at that day
as " State rights men." Amongst them, first and foremost, may
be mentioned Charles J. Jenkins. After him may be named
Andrew J. Miller, Samuel W. Flournoy (now of the Columbus
Enquirer), James A. Merriwether, Edward Y. Hill, Iverson L.
Harris, William B. Pryor, Isaac N. Davis, then of Elbert county
(now of Miss.), and some others. These divided on the ques-

RAILROAD LETTER NUMBER ONE. 607

tion. Jenkins, Miller, Hill, and Harris advocated the road ;
Davis, Merriwether, Pryor, and Flournoy opposed it ; the latter
in one of the most humorous as well as, taken all in all, one of
the most extraordinary speeches ever delivered in the House of
Representatives, I have no doubt. The speech occupied all of
one afternoon and part of the next morning's session. Never can
anybody forget that speech who heard it. It abounded in wit,
sarcasm, and ridicule, with some touches of real eloquence rarely
surpassed. The House was kept in a roar of laughter for hours.
It was in this speech that he gave the soubriquet of Snout to the
road. He seemed to be thinking of the word "main trunk," fre
quently alluded to by the friends of the measure, when, apparently
at a loss for the word, he said : " This main — what do you call it,
Mr. Speaker? This great snout, I believe." His whole object
seemed to be to show that the entire scheme was wild and vision
ary — would be an endless waste of money with no return. Pryor
took the same course. He had a fine voice, fine delivery, and at
that time promised to become a man of high position in the State.
He hailed from Harris county.* He spoke of the road as "begin
ning nowhere and ending nowhere," and the utter impracticability
of building a railroad " over mountains too steep for a spider to
crawl up." This speech was rich of its kind in thought and illus
tration. Davis opposed it because of the immense expense, and
acKocated the application of the funds at the command of the
State, to the establishment of common schools. Merriwether
took the same course, and really was the leader of that view. He
was not so much opposed to the road as he was in favor of doing
something else with the public monies. Harris and Hill, on the
contrary, were for the road. The}'" were both new members, I
think, and spoke with ability. A little incident attending Hill's
speech, I shall never forget. It was an anachronism in a figure,
pardonable in an extemporary speech by a young orator, but
which caused some merriment at his expense. He was winding
up with some flourish which I do not recollect, but the conclud
ing words- were something about " the last of Romans being buried
in the tomb of the Capulets." This caused a laugh in the circle
near him, but an old gentleman, a plain, farmer-looking member — .
who sat some distance off, noticing the laugh, and not knowing or
understanding the cause of it, inquired what it was he said : who
did he say was dead ? Whereupon, Flournoy then answered him
with a countenance expressing perfect naivete and seriousness, "He
said that old Mr. Roman was dead, and buried with his cap on."
This greatly increased the laugh. Flournoj', in his speech I have
alluded to, also gave Harris, who represented Baldwin, a rap or
two which brought down the House. Harris had spoken before
Flournoy. He is, you know, not only a very able man and a very
high-toned gentleman, but has a very peculiar style and manner
of expression when he is in earnest — thinks but little of money
when great ends are to be obtained by its proper use. He had on
t . — .

* He died several years ago.

608 KAILROAD LETTER NUMBER ONE.

several occasions spoken of the insignificant sum of so and so-
many hundred or thousand dollars set forth in some appropria
tion bills he had advocated — compared with the great utility of
the measures. Such, for instance, as the sums required for the
erection of an executive mansion and a lunatic asj'lum, of which
measures he was the champion. He had in his speech on the
railroad spoken of the money expended, or to be expended, as a
small matter compared with the greatness of the work. He had
also a measure pending for the incorporation of the town of Mil-
ledgeville, then not as large and flourishing as it is now, as the
" City of Milledgeville." In Flournoy's notice of his speech on
the railroad, he took occasion to dwell upon his general views
about appropriations. The small and insignificant sum in such
and such a bill — the small and insignificant sum in another — and
so on, alluding with particularity to each. Then he touched him
off about his bill to make the town of Milledgeville a city. " The
city of Milledgeville !" said he, with great emphasis, casting his
eye out of the window and surveying the prospect in an inimita
ble manner. " Why, Mr. Speaker, you might just as well call a
thrip a dollar ! and you might as well," continued he, " undertake
to make a city out of this little town, with its gullies all over it,
like the wrinkles of premature old age on the face of a broken-
down rue, as to make a railroad across the mountain passes of
Cherokee ! The very insignificant sum of four million dollars,
sir, could do neither ! !"

This will give you only a very faint idea of some of his thrusts,
and some of the general grounds of opposition to the measure.
Jenkins, however, was Gordon's right hand man in the struggle.
I do not recollect that Miller spoke on the subject, but he was
active in conversation. He entered the legislature for the first
time that session ; and I believe continued in it, either in the
House or the Senate, until his death last year. Twenty years
was he there. The first session he spoke but seldom, but his
worth and good sense were well known very early after his en
trance on that theatre, where he subsequently acquired such a
lasting reputation and renown.

But Jenkins had been there before. He understood the rules
well. He was at ease and perfectly at home. No man could
equal him in debate. He was fluent, graceful, and elegant. His
manners were polished, his language choice and select. What
ever wit he exhibited was of the Attic order. His temper was
completely subject to his control. He was never thrown off his
guard — always cool, collected, and self-poised — and I have often
thought, I never saw a better balanced man in every respect than
he is. At that time he was comparatively young, and yet I have
noticed but little change in him since. He took a large and com
prehensive view of the subject, and without his aid I do not now
see how Gordon would have got along with his measure. I say
his measure because he was at the head of the committee who re-

RAILROAD LETTER NUMBER ONE. b'09

ported it and had it specially in charge. Besides, as the demo
cratic party was in the majority, it was according to parliamen
tary usage and custom, that the heads or chairman of all important
committees should be of their party. The measure, therefore, in
this sense was his. He reported it, and was responsible for its
conduct through the House. But as I have said before, he was
not only godfather of it in this sense, but one of the master
spirits of the day who originated it. Jenkins was equally enthusi
astic with him. These two, perhaps, were the most prominent
men in the House who threw all their energy into it. And it
would, perhaps, be unjust to one to say that the other was more
efficient in effecting its passage. They occupied opposite sides of
the House — Gordon was the leader of the democrats, Jenkins of
the State rights men. Both had had some parliamentary experience
— as members of the same body. Gordon was several years the
elder, I should suppose. But the most striking difference between
them, was in their speaking or oratory. Jenkins was classic, ornate
and diifuse, Ciceronean. Gordon was terse, pointed, clear, short,
and emphatic. His manner was very much like Mr. Calhoun's.
I have heard them both often. Their gesticulations were very
much alike — and their powers of concentration were very much
alike, also. Mr. Calhoun could say more in a given time, than
any man I ever heard, except it was Mr. Gordon. He made no
regular set speech on this bill, but he was engaged frequently in
skirmishes — answering objections in the midst of the speeches of
others, or answering questions put to him by objectors. On these
answers he was always signally triumphant. Mr. Jenkins, how
ever, made an elaborate speech on this subject. I can give you
no idea of it at this late day. It was argumentative in a great
degree, but in some parts he indulged in passionate declamation,
exhibiting the highest order of eloquence. The debate lasted
for several days — exactly how long, I do not now recollect. But it
was the longest debate — the most protracted, exciting, and inter
esting that ever occurred in the course of my service in the Georgia
legislature, which embraced six years in all, five in the House and
one in the Senate. As to the part I took in it, about which you
make inquiry, I can say but little. I was a warm advocate of the
measure. I did not intend to speak until after Flournoy's volley.
He come after Harris, Hill, and Jenkins, our big guns, and after
I thought the argument was exhausted. Fearing that he had
done some damage to the cause, I ventured to attempt, at least,
to remove some of the rubbish he had thrown in the way. It
was my first effort. This Avas my debut on the boards of legisla
tive debate. I had prepared myself with all statistical informa
tion I could get bearing on the subject. My object was to show
the great utility of the road as a means of developing our up-
country resources, and as an ultimate outlet to the trade and
travel of the great Northwest. I have the notes of the speech
yet I showed, as I thought, from undisputable data, that the
39

610 RAILROAD LETTER NUMBER ONE.

road must be a source of profit to the State at a cost of four
million — the estimate then assumed — besides the immense en
hancement in value, of the lands and other property of the citi
zens along the line, it would bring, thus greatly augmenting the
aggregate wealth of the State. This might be put down at at least
fifteen million dollars — by my figures then made — besides bring
ing into the State treasury an annual net income of at least three
hundred thousand dollars, much more than would meet the interest
on the cost. How far I was short of the mark, under it or over
it, others may now estimate for themselves.

The speech being my first, when little or nothing was expected,
did me great credit, and aided very materially, many thought, in
securing the passage of the bill. This I think I may say. The
vote on the test question was a close one. I forget now, but I
do not think we carried it by more than four majority. After the
test was taken and decided in favor of the survey of the route
(that was the test question), we gained strength. The great
battle had been fought and the victory won. And as we look
back now who can say that the day on which that test vote was
taken and decided (by as small a majority as it was) was not the
most important day in Georgia's history since the beginning of
the present century. What great consequences have resulted
from that vote ? It was the date of a new era in our annals. It
was an epoch — a turning point in our career. The theme you
have selected for your lecture is not only a good and appropriate
one, but a grand and noble one, well calculated to inspire the souls
of young Georgians with thoughts and ambition of a high order.
That ambition which looks only to the advancement of the hap
piness, prosperity, power, glory, and renown of the State. But
I cannot prolong this scrawl ; I fear you cannot read what I have
written, or rather scribbled, already. Indeed, I do not know
that I have given you what you desired. But as the day is
gloomy, wet, rainy, cold, and sleety out doors, I have kept
writing such as you find this until, I doubt not, you will be as
weary in endeavoring to decipher the characters used as my
fingers have become in penning them.

Yours respectfully,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

PROF. WM. RUTHERFORD, JR.,

Athens, Ga.

p. S. — While it still sleets, freezes, and snows, so that I cannot
send my letter to the office, I must add a few words by way of
postscript.

The road was popular in 183T. This year we had Toombs and
George W. Crawford, new members in the House, strong friends
of it. Merriwether also became a warm advocate of its prose
cution. So did Flournoy afterward, and others. It continued

RAILROAD LETTER NUMBER TWO. 611

popular in 1838. But when hard times came in 1840, 1841, 1842,
and 1843, great and strong opposition grew up. The road was
incomplete, unfinished — an attempt was made to sell it. This
was in 1843. The proposition to sell was made by Judge Iverson,
then senator from Muscagee. The contest was close and doubtful,
and that was the most important period in the road's history,
except the one of its first undertaking.

The proposition to sell was lost in the House by but one vote.
Crawford had been just elected governor. He had exerted all
his power against the proposition to sell. Jenkins and Toombs
in the house defeated it there. Miller was in the Senate. Bishop,
Tamlin, and Smith, of the Cherokee country, from the beginning
were untiring and efficient friends of the road. I allude to Wm.
N. Bishop, Lewis Tuinlin, and Wm. Smith, of Rome. So was
Mr. McFarland, of Walker, while he was a member.

In speaking of Gordon, I have said, that he was usually tri
umphant in his quick replies in a running debate. On one occa
sion, however, it was thought by many in the House, that Miller
got rather the better of him in this respect. Gordon said in one
of his animated appeals, that he " believed Miller would follow

his party to the d 1." Miller replied that he " would rather

follow any party to the d 1 than to lead one there." This

was not, by the by, in the railroad discussion. I give it only as
one of the reminiscences of the session and the^ parties. But
enough.

A. H. S.

RAILROAD LETTER. NUMBER TWO.

CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., MARCH 17, 1857.

DEAR SIR : — In my letter of the 14th instant, upon the subject
of the State railroad, I referred to matters essentially in pais,
sketching incidents attending the passage of the bill authorizing
its construction, which exist only in memory, and of which there
is no record. Upon a re-perusal of your letter of inquiry, it has
occurred to me that perhaps you wished facts of a different
character, and such as more properly constitute a history of the
work. With a view of directing your mind where you 'can find
such, rather than make an attempt to furnish them myself,
allow me, in addition to what I before said, now further to state
some incidents connected with its origin of a more general and
public character, which may aid you in your investigation.

The subject of the connection of the valley of the West with
the southern Atlantic ports by railroad, had engaged the thoughts
and attracted the attention of men of enterprise for a year or
two before 1836— perhaps as early as 1832. The subject was

612 RAILROAD LETTER NUMBER TWO.

alluded to in the newspapers of the da}^ ; but the prevailing idea
then was to connect Charleston with Cincinnati. For this pur
pose a railroad convention was called at Ashville, North Carolina,
The time that convention was called, or rather when it met, I do
not recollect. But one with the same object was called at Knox-
ville, Tennessee, which held its session on the 4th day of July,
1836. To this convention a delegation was sent from Georgia —
whether altogether by voluntary associations of the people in differ
ent places, or by the railroad companies then chartered b}^ the
State, I cannot now state. The report of the proceedings of the
Knoxville convention produced a very favorable impression upon
the minds of our people. Still Cincinnati was the point looked
to as the trans-mountain terminus. Governor Schley, in his mes
sage of 1836, brought the subject prominently to the notice of
the legislature, and urged the matter as one wortiry of their con
sideration. He was a warm advocate of the measure. The
legislature in the year before had authorized him, I think, to em
ploy an engineer to report upon the practicability of a route over
or through the Rabim Gap. He had appointed General Brisbane,
of South Carolina, to that office, who had, up to the time of the
meeting of the legislature, in November, 1836, made only partial
reconnoissances for the localities. The appointment was made
too late for accurate surveys, with costs and estimates, to be
submitted, by the meeting of the legislature. Meantime, too, a
railroad convention was called in this State, in Macon, which as
sembled in that city the same day that the legislature met in
Milledgeville. The object of that convention was to collect in
formation, and concentrate public opinion upon the most feasible
route for a connection of the southern Atlantic coast with the
West. That convention was a large one. It had delegates from
d-11 sections of the State, and had amongst its members several
of the ablest men in Georgia. It was exclusively a Georgia con
cern, I think. Its labors closed with nothing more pointed or
practical than making a strong, urgent, and able appeal or ad
dress to the legislature then in session to undertake the work.
This memorial was presented to the House by Mr. Gordon ; and
in nothing, purporting to give a history of the State road, ought
the important bearing of the action of that convention to be over
looked or omitted. I have not a copy of the memorial, but it
was ordered to be printed, and you may, perhaps, be able to get
a copy. It was written with great ability, and was not without
its influence on the minds of members of the legislature. It was
written, I think, by the Hon. Absolom H. Chappel or Judge Ber-
rien. At that time we were in the midst of a prosperity never
perhaps before known or realized. Cotton was bringing a high
price, and property of every description was comparatively high.
Speculations of all kinds were rife. The act providing for the
distribution of the surplus revenue of the United States amongst
the States had just passed Congress. The estimated amount

KAILBOAD LETTEE NUMBER TWO. 613

that Georgia was to get under the act was about a million and
a quarter of dollars, I believe — though I may be mistaken in this.
I speak onty from memory. It was, however, large. And what
was to be done with the money ? was the question. The friends
of internal improvements looked upon this as a golden op
portunity to embark the State in some public work permanently
useful. It must however be borne in mind that there was con
siderable diversity in opinion amongst them as to the character
and nature of the enterprise to be undertaken, as well as its
location and direction. Many were wedded to the idea of tap
ping the great Northwest through the proposed Cincinnati and
Charleston railroad, by a branch road from some point in our
State crossing the Blue Ridge at the Rabun Gap. This was cer
tainly Governor Schley's idea if I recollect rightly. Mr. Gordon,
on the other side, looked toward Ross's landing, now Chatta
nooga, as the northwest terminus of our road. With him Jen
kins, Miller, and most of us, or a majority of those in favor of
the undertaking, concurred. There were a few who looked still
further south for the proper line of location. They looked to
Memphis as the ultimate western terminus, and thought the State
road ought to pass through Rome, in Floyd county. The mid
dle route was the one adopted in the bill passed in 1836, and the
one which has ever since been adhered to — the one on which the
road has been actually built. But the subject was not suffered
to rest with the action of 1836. Subsequently, for several years,
efforts were repeatedly made to change the upper line of the road,
giving it direction through Rome. Little, if any thing, was ever
said about the Rabun Gap route after 1836 — I mean as the line
of the road undertaken by the State in that year. I told you in
my other letter that the test vote in the House was a close one —
that we had on it not over four majority — that was my recollec
tion at the time, but upon reference to the journals I find it
was only three. The vote was seventy-four to seventy-seven. It
was on a motion to strike out certain words in the first section of
the bill. The bill, as originally reported, set apart a sufficient
portion of the fund to be derived from the general government
under the distribution act, and appropriated the same for the
construction of the road. A motion was made to strike out these
words, " sufficient portion," and insert* " one half." This motion,
like the shaft that was sent into Achilles' heel, was aimed at the
weakest point of the bill, though, unlike that, it did not effect its
intended object. Three majority saved it. I thought, the other
da}7, that the test vote was on ordering the survey and location
of the road, but I find it was on the weakest part of the first
section, the one which committed the State to its construction.
This was the weakest point, because there were a few in the
House willing to vote half the surplus revenue to be received to
internal improvements, and the other half to common or public
schools. But the lines in the House between the friends and the

614 RAILROAD LETTER NUMBER TWO.

opponents of the road were very closely drawn and clearly
marked by the vote, and the majority was so small in favor of
the road that its friends became satisfied that they would have
to yield something to secure its passage. This was finally ac
complished by our all voting for an amendment setting aside and
appropriating " two thirds" of the fund for the road. In this
shape it passed the House. In the Senate, however, this was
further modified by saying nothing about the surplus revenue,
but limiting the annual appropriation to the amount set forth in
the law, as you will find it, $350,000, and under the conditions
therein expressed. The bill finally passed the House by a vote
of one hundred to fifty-four. But this was no test of its strength
at that time. It is true it had gained some strength after the
main victory on the first struggle at the outposts, as I have
stated ; but its real strength was tested on the motion to send it
forthwith to the Senate. Many had voted for it intending to
vote for a reconsideration. The policy of these was to lull its
friends into feelings of security, and to take them by surprise on
Monday morning. The bill passed Saturday evening. But as
soon as it passed, Mr. Harris, of Baldwin (Hon. Iverson L. Har
ris), moved that it be sent forthwith to the Senate. This took the
enemy as much by surprise as they expected its friends to be
taken by their stratagem on Monday. The object of the motion
was to cut off the possibility for a reconsideration on Monday ;
for, by parliamentary law, a subject cannot be reconsidered that
is out of the possession of the House. No sooner, therefore,
was this motion made, than a call was had for the ayes and noes.
One not acquainted with legislative tactics would naturally sup
pose that every one who had voted for the bill would vote to send
it to the Senate. But not so. On this motion the vote stood
seventy-two to sixty-eight — only four majority ; and but for the
motion then made and carried, it is not at all improbable that a
reconsideration would have been effected by activity on the part
of the opponents of the measure between that time and Monday.
For, in legislative conflicts, as in all others, my experience has
taught me that every victory gained gives new courage to the
doubtful and wavering.

On Monday morning, Mr. Strickland, of Madison county,
moved a reconsideration, notwithstanding the vote of the House
on Saturday sending the bill to the Senate. The Speaker (Mr.
Joseph Day, of Jones county, who made an excellent presiding
officer, who was familiar with the rules, and who had great dig
nity of person, accompanied with an urbanity of manner unsur
passed by any I ever saw in that chair, unless I except Mr. Jen
kins) " decided the motion to be out of order, the House having
by their order of Saturday placed the same out of the reach or
possession of the House." Mr. Harris, of Newton (John Har
ris, now of Covington), though a friend of the bill, appealed from
the decision of the chair. The Speaker's decision was overruled — •

RAILROAD LETTER NUMBER TWO. 615

the vote being sixtj^-six in favor of the decision, which was clearly
right, and seventy-five against it. The opponents of the road
saw some grounds to hope from this vote. Its friends grew a
little alarmed. The question immediately recurred upon a recon
sideration. Much anxiety was manifested. Dougherty of Troup,
(Robert Dougherty, generally known as Bob), a man of charac
ter and influence, had come in since Saturday, and he was known
to be opposed to the road. He was absent when the vote was
taken on Saturday. He was a great accession to the ranks of
the opposition ; and as our column had been broken on the vote
growing out of the decision of the chair on the point of order,
we felt that all might still be lost. Some kept tally as the names
were called ; both sides were excited to the highest pitch. The
announcement of the result was sixty-five in favor of reconsider
ing, and seventy-six against it — eleven majority for the road.
This settled the matter so far as the House was concerned. Deep
chagrin, disappointment, and mortification, were evinced on one
side, while joy and exultation were indulged in on the other. This
feeling on both sides was greatly increased by the loud applause
with which the galleries responded. It is a theme of pleasant
reflection at this day to call up the recollection of remarks and
comments then freely indulged in by persons according to their
agreement or disagreement with the action of the House. On
the one side, it was said by some of the most heated of the mi
nority party that it was the most injurious bill ever passed by
the House, not excepting the Yazzo fraud ; that if the Senate
passed it, and it became a law, the people would rise up and burn
it with fire drawn down from heaven. On the other side, it was
boasted of as the greatest enterprise of the age ; that the memo
ries of those who projected it and carried it through would be
as honored in the historj^ of the State as the memory of DeWitt
Clinton in New York ; that the work would do for Georgia at
the south what the Erie canal had done for New York at the
north.

In my letter of the 14th, I mentioned several who had acted
conspicuous parts in the debate both for and against the road. I
stated I had forgotten whether Henry G. Lamar was in the House
that year or not. I am now satisfied that he was not. John B.
Lamar was in, from Bibb, and he was a decided friend of the
measure. I should also mention Kelly, of Houston, as a true
friend of it. He is now dead. He afterward was the first re
porter to the Supreme Court. And among the ablest of the friends
of the road who afterward came into the House, none were more
conspicuous than Absalom H. Chappel. Among the most noted
in the House opposed to it, whose names I have not mentioned i
were Burns of Jackson, Easley of Walton, Strickland of Madi
son, and Cone of Camden. These men were all characters in
themselves, marked men in their day. They were each members
of the House for several years. They were all without education

616 RAILROAD LETTER NUMBER TWO.

except the commonest rudiments, and yet all of them took an
active part in what was done. They all spoke when the spirit
was upon them ; and though their grammar was not good, yet
their logic was not alwa}Ts without point. Their greatest error
lay in their assumed premises. No one could question their
patriotism. The homely, sturdy virtues of plain farmers, I be
lieve, were awarded to each.

They needed cultivation, and that enlarged and comprehensive
view of things so essential to statesmanship in the true sense of
that word, and yet they did much good in their opposition to
many schemes which those better educated advocated, and which
were perfectly wild and chimerical. It is true they opposed and
perhaps aided in defeating many things that would have advanced
the prosperity of the State, and yet no one can say that they did
not do the State some service. Burns was a militia general.
Cone, of Camden, was, I think, according to his own account of
himself, a cow driver. He made his first appearance in the legis
lature in 1825, at the extra session called that year by Governor
Troup, and though he had no " school learning," yet he paid
court to the Muses. When some dull fellow was boring the
House with a speech, Cone generally occupied himself with either
taking him or somebody else off in lines of ludicrous rhyme, which
were sent round for the amusement and merriment of the House.
Many of these were very good hits. I have several of them }ret.
Strickland spoke often — so did Easley. But their eloquence
and rhetoric were of a day that is now passed. They were both
farmers, I think. One of the most pointed things I ever heard
from Strickland, was a retort he made upon Robert Dougherty,
in the debate on the bill to establish the Supreme Court. Strick
land was utterly opposed to it, and had made one of his charac
teristic speeches against it. Dougherty replied to him, and did
it very roughly. In winding up, he said, in reply to the remarks
that had been made by Strickland, insinuating that the court
was intended to favor the lawyers as a class — that he was no
lawyer ; he was not looking to the interest of lawyers. " I am,"
said he, " Mr. Speaker, no lawyer ; though I did try to be, but
couldn't. I am nothing but a farmer myself."

Strickland arose, and very coolly said :

"Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Troup need not have in
formed the House that he was no lawyer, though he says he
tried to be. We all can see that he only tried to be what ho
couldn't." B}r the by, I ought to say what all who know Dough
erty are well apprised of, that he is a man of far above average
ability. He was the youngest brother of three, Charles, W illiam,
and Robert, all famous in Georgia. He had a high position in
the House as a gentleman of intelligence, information, ability
and usefulness. He had a great influence in the House, and
spoke well. What he said about being or not being a lawyer was
strictly true, only in this : He was not then practising. He had

RAILROAD LETTER NUMBER TWO. 617

been at the bar, and had acquired distinction at it. Some years
«go he moved to Alabama, where he was put upon the bench, and
-:ive general satisfaction as a judge. He was a man of great
humor — used to tell more amusing anecdotes, and keep crowds
roaring in laughter at them, longer and louder than any one in
the whole circle of my acquaintance. His fund seemed to be in
exhaustible. Indeed, he seemed to have the facility of extracting
humor, mirth, and fun, out of any thing he saw or heard. The
dryest subjects to others furnished him with materials, not only
to laugh himself most heartily, but to make others laugh also ;
and he always laughed as loudly at his jokes as others did. One
of his jokes was well turned on him by Jenkins, in 1839. It was
what was well known at the time as the " Racket" story. It was
a long one, as he told it, and intended to take off a man in the
village of his former residence, Watkinsville. The man in ques
tion, whose name I forget, had a dog he called Racket. Racket
was famous in the town for his size and mastiff-like proportions.
In the days when circuses and caravans of animals were not so
frequent in the backwood villages of Georgia as they are more
recently, one of these travelling menageries made its way to Wat
kinsville. A great crowd was out to see the show. The town
was jammed by the people, men, women, and children, pouring in
from the country. A large canvas was spread to keep those
from seeing who would not pay. The elephant was there — the
lion — the tiger — the hyena — and all sorts of monkies, from the
baboon down to little " Dandy Jack." Some of the country peo
ple, observing the force with which one of the larger apes shook
a cage over which he was chained, started a question as to the
relative strength of these animals compared with other animals,
such as bears, dogs, etc. This man of the town, on whom
Dougherty's anecdote was told, listened to the conversation
awhile, and then offered his opinion, which was, that his dog,
Racket, could whip any monkey in the show. The "master of
the ring," hearing this, stepped up and said that, "that there
little monkey," pointing to "Dandy Jack," dressed out in his
" riding riggings," " could whip any dog in that town." Where
upon Racket's master proposed to bet something on that. The
showman took the bet. Ten dollars were staked. The crowd all
soon felt more interest in the fight to come off between the dog
and the monkey than in any thing else. They all marched out to
see it. The master of Racket grew uneasy lest it was a scheme
to entrap him in damages. "But, suppose," said he, "the dog
kills the monkey ; I am not to be held responsible, stranger, for
the 'varmint,' am I?" " Oh, no," said the showman. So, being
satisfied on that point, he called up Racket. The people, coming-
out from under the canvas, formed a large and compact circle
in the square where the fight was to come off. Racket stood in the
middle of the dense crowd, pressing all round the open area, in
seeming surprise at his situation, and wonder at what was going

618 RAILROAD LETTER NUMBER TWO.

to take place. In this position of affairs, the showman led " Dandy
Jack'' in, a way being opened for him. He held him by a chain,
and led him up in the rear of Racket, who, gazing so intently on
those in front of him, was paying but little attention to what was
going on behind. As he was thus standing, and without further
notice, " Dandy Jack" seized Racket's tail in his mouth and gave
it a knaw-knaw or two, with his monkey jargon. Racket turned —
saw what it was. But instead of making fight, with one yell and
a bound, he cleared a way through or over the whole crowd in
front of him, barking and yelling as he went — looking back —
barking and yelling as far as he could be seen going up the road
toward Athens. The crowd shouted, the welkin rung. The
showman laughed. But no word for some time escaped from the
loser of the ten dollars. He seemed deeply absorbed in thought.
He had seriously feared that Racket would kill the monkey. As
for the ten dollars, he had considered that made, certain. The re
sult, so quickly over, and so contrary to his expectations, had com
pletely astonished and bewildered him. He stood arms " a-kimbo,"
resting on his hips, looking at his dog as he ran. At length he
said, partly to himself and partly to those who were laughing at
him, " Who would have thought it ?" But his troubles did not
end there. The laugh at his expense and the loss of the ten
dollars were not all. Racket was a favorite dog. He was a pet
in the family. The evening came, but Racket did not return.
Night came, and still he did not make his appearance. What had
become of his dog he could not imagine. Had he lost his senses
in fright, and run away altogether ? He went out and whistled
for him, and called him, saying, " Here, Racket ; here, Racket.
Come back, Racket; that varmint is gone."

This story Dougherty used to tell with inimitable manner and
almost incredible effect. Some who heard him tell it on first
acquaintance would designate him, on speaking of him afterward,
as the " Racket story man." Some called him "Racket."

Now the turn that Jenkins gave the story was this : In 1839,
there was a temperance movement in the State known as the
Flournoy Petition — not from Samuel W. Flournoy, of whom I
wrote the other day, but Josiah Flournoy, of Putnam county, a man
of great celebrity in his da}T. He was a man of good sense, good
character, considerable wealth, and great energy. He became a
sort of Peter the Hermit, in a crusade against tippling shops, and
the retail system generally. He travelled in all sections of the
State, addressed the people everywhere he went. Great multi
tudes came out to hear him. At one time, he seemed to be cany-
ing every thing before him. He had a petition, which he got all to
sign he could, to present to the next legislature, asking for a
law to abolish the retail of ardent spirits in the State.

He made a great stir amongst the people. He got thousands
upon thousands (exactly how many I do not now recollect) to sign
his petition. Amongst others, Dougherty either signed it, or was

RAILROAD LETTER NUMBER TWO. 619

supposed to have signed it. He was a candidate for the legisla
ture that year, as he had been for several 3rears before, and had,
I believe, never been beaten. But it was a wise piece of advice,
that a minister of one of the monarchs of Sweden, is said to have
given his sovereign some centuries ago — that was, " never to
touch his people's religion or their drink, if he would have an
easy time on his throne." Perhaps, if Dougherty had received
this advice, or had known as much before he favored this peti
tion as he did afterward, he never would have done it. How that
ma}r be I do not know. But so it was before the day of the elec
tion, the reaction in the popular mind against the petition was
tremendous. In many counties it was a test question. It was
so in Troup. The rights to drink as they pleased, and how they
pleased, and when they pleased, as well as what they pleased, was
one dearly cherished by his constituents. Much to his surprise
and the regrets of his friends he was beaten on that question.
He did not go down to Milledgeville that session as he had usu
ally done for years. No one could have been more missed than
he. For years he had been the soul of wit, fun, and humor. It
seemed to his old associates that there could hardly be a session
of the legislature without his presence. He was missed in the
hall, missed at the hotel, but especially missed in social private
circle that he used to light up and gladden with so much glee and
mirth.

Amongst those old friends who had such a relish for his com
pany and jokes, no one missed him more than Jenkins. He has
some skill, too, in making as well as turning jokes himself. For
it was in this way and under these circumstances that the thoughts
occurred to him to " Bucket Bob," as he said. That is, he ad
dressed him an anonymous letter, beginning thus : " Dear Racket
— come back Racket, that varmint Flournoy, is gone."

Dougherty got the letter, and understood its contents well,
but missed his man. He supposed Crawford wrote it, and retali
ated on him some months after in one of his happiest hits, if he
had but hit his man. But this I cannot now give. Indeed, you
are in a mood already to exclaim, I have no doubt, " what has all
this to do with the Railroad?" why, nothing at all, I say, except
to show something of the character of those who made it as well
as those who tried to keep it from being made, that is all. Dull,
dry history, of all things, is the dullest to me. Substantial facts
in history are like the solid food for dinner. They are the essen
tials, without which the meal might as well be dispensed with,
and yet a little seasoning, sauces, and " what nots," a custard or
even an ice cream occasionally, may come in the way very well
in setting off an agreeable entertainment.

Now, therefore, after this digession, to return to the important
facts in relation to the progress of the road, and how it made its
way along after it was started. As I have stated, it ma}' be proper
to state that at first, that is, in 1836, its management was hi-

620 EAILKOAD LETTER NUMBER TWO.

trusted to one superintendent and engineer. Who the superin
tendent was I forget. But in 1831 this feature was changed — a
board of commissioners was created. It consisted of three,
chosen by the legislature. The first board consisted, I think,
of Col. Samuel Fams, of Walker, Major Joel Crawford, and Col.
Little, of Jackson. Col. Farris was senator from Walker, I believe,
in 1836, and was a warm supporter of the road. Major Crawford
ivent to Europe to procure a loan by a sale of State bonds, but
met with poor success. In 1841 the board was abolished, and all
the duties devolved upon a disbursing agent. In 1843 the entire
management of the road was given to the governor, and one chief
engineer, appointed by him. But all this, I suppose, you are
more conversant with than I am. My last term in the legisla
ture was in the Senate, in 1842. In 1843 I went to Congress,
where I have been ever since. I was at Milledgeville that session,
during the month of November, and watched with deep interest
the progress of the idea started to abandon the road, and sell it.
That was, as I have before stated, the most critical and impor
tant period in the road's history, except the time of its com
mencement. And, as I have mentioned so many persons who
contributed their influence and aid in the legislature to its pas
sage (I mean the House, for I have said nothing of the Senate),
it occurs to roe that I should not omit to mention one whom I
have not yet named — that is John S. Lewis, now of Washington
city — a clerk in the first auditor's office. He was then a member
from Troup. He differed from his colleague, Dougherty. He
was young and modest. He had graduated at our university
some years before, with the first honor in his class. The onl}'
speech I remember his making, in 1836, was in favor of the char
ter of the Georgia Female College, of Macon — the first institution
of the kind — a chartered college to confer degrees or diplomas
on women, I believe, in the United States, or perhaps in the
world. He distinguished himself on that occasion. He was
then a lawyer, but subsequently abandoned the profession, and
has been a clerk in Washington for more than ten years. I
knew he was a zealous friend of the road, and I have heard him
say that he drew the original bill. Mr. Gordon, I know, reported
it. Lewis was not on the committee of internal improvement,
but he has told me that the draft of the bill was committed to
him, and he drew it. I mention this that honor may be given to
wThom honor is due. And now you must excuse me for one other
personal incident. I intended to mention it at the proper place
but forgot it ; that is when I was referring to the character of Mr.
Speaker Day. He was a man of unusual equanimity of temper,
and acted with great impartiality during the debate on the road.
His fairness and forbearance were proverbial, and though his de
cision was overruled by the House, no one doubted his strict up
rightness of intention. Never was speaker more patient. On this
quality o; trait of his turns what I have to say. In Samuel W.

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF OREGON. 621

Flournoy's two days harangue, of which I spoke in my other
letter, the House was frequently uproarious. It was with extreme
difficulty that order could be preserved. But the speaker kept
his temper throughout the whole. In the winding up of the ses
sion, as usual, there was also great confusion. But the speaker
always kept his temper.

On the last night, Flournoy, in one of his sallies, b}T wa^y of
compliment to him, startled the House by the announcement of
a proposition which he said he intended to move — that was to
"amend the Bible." He said, he intended at the proper time to
move to strike out the word "Job" wherever it occurred in the
good Book, and insert in its stead "Joseph Day."

I will bore you no longer. My sincere wish is that you may
be more successful in getting the information you desire from
other sources than }^ou have from me.

Yours, most respectfully,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.
PROF. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD, JR., Athens, Ga.

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF OREGON.

DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

FEBRUARY 12, 1859.

Mr. SPEAKER : I do not know that I can say any thing that will
add force to the argument already made in behalf of the admission
of Oregon. It is my purpose, however, to contribute what I can
to that end ; and if I fail in my wish, it will be because my ability
is not equal to my zeal. Apart from considerations of public duty
and. justice to the people claiming this admission, there is another
consideration which enlists my entire energies for the bill ; that,
sir, is the opportunity it aifords me, as a Southern man, and one
acting with the democratic party, to show the groundlessness of
the charge made last year, that we were in favor of putting one
rule to a State applying with a slave-state constitution, and an
other and a more rigorous rule to a free-state application ; that
we required a larger population for the admission of a State not
tolerating African slavery, than one permitting and allowing it.
The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. ST ANTON], who has just taken his
seat, has reasserted that charge, in substance. Sir, I repudiated
it when it was first made, and I repudiate it now. The position
of Kansas and that of Oregon are totally dissimilar ; and whatever
consideration of duty, looking to the peace and quiet of that coun
try, as well as the general welfare, may have induced me and others
to put the population restriction upon any future application from
Kansas, like considerations of duty, of a higher character, acting

622 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION" OF OREGON.

as we now are under existing obligations which we cannot ignore,
forbid that the same representative ratio rule should be extended
to Oregon. As I stated in my opening remarks, under existing
compacts, under existing laws affirming and extending what all
regarded as a most solemn compact, the ordinance of 1781, it is,
in my judgment, a high obligation to admit Oregon so soon as she
has sixty thousand inhabitants.

Now, sir, before going into that, I wish to reply to the gentle
man from Ohio [Mr. STANTON], who has just taken his seat. If I
understand him, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
GOOCH], who asked that significant question of the delegate from
Oregon and senator elect : how he would vote in the Senate on
the repeal of the population clause in the Kansas bill of last ses
sion ? both of them would be willing to vote for the admission of
Oregon, provided that representative ratio required of Kansas
should be repealed. They occupy this strange position : because
the democratic party did Kansas at the last session, as they
assume, a wrong, they will do Oregon a like wrong at this session,
by way of retaliation.

Mr. STANTON. The gentleman misunderstands me.

Mr. STEPHENS. I cannot be interrupted. I have heard the gen
tleman's argument ; so has the House ; and the gentleman and the
House will hear mine. Let them stand together. I understand
the minority of the committee on territories, with the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. GROW] at their head, signify a like wil
lingness.

Mr. GROW. No, sir ; I stated distinctly that I would never go
for the clause of the constitution I have indicated.

Mr. STEPHENS. Do not interrupt me. I state the gentleman's
position as it appears in his minority report. The only thing he
complains of in it is the discrimination, as he calls it, in the Kan
sas conference bill. The only amendment he proposes to this bill
is a repeal of that. Not a word in his report against the obnoxious
clause in the Oregon constitution against negro equality. That
he passes over, and evidently seems to rest his entire opposition
to this bill to the existing law in reference to Kansas. What has
brought " this change over the spirit of his dream" I do not know.
I am glad, however, to see that there is a number of the other side
actuated by a more liberal, a juster, and a more magnanimous
sentiment. They cannot see the logic, or the moral of the position
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania ; that because, in his assump
tion, this side of the House did wrong last session, therefore he
will do wrong this. To the majority on that side, acting with the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, I would put the question, how can
two wrongs make a right ? If it were granted that injustice was
done Kansas, how can that be righted by repeating it toward
Oregon? That side of the House will permit me to tell them that
by their votes to-day they will spike every gun they have fired
against the democratic party for their alleged injustice done to

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION" OF OREGON. 623

Kansas. If the democratic party did wrong to Kansas (but I
shall show that the cases are totally dissimilar), the republican
party seems disposed to-day to follow suit, and do the same wrong
they complain of to Oregon. If they are sincere in their belief,
and not governed solely by opposition and antagonism, would it
not be the wiser, the better, the .nobler, and more statesmanlike
course for them to come forward and set us an example of doing
right, as the two gentlemen from Massachusetts [Mr. THAYER and
Mr. COMINS] urged them yesterday ?

But, sir, the cases are totally dissimilar ; the clause in the Kan
sas compromise bill, refusing to hear smy further application for
admission from her in case of her declining to come into the Union
under her then application, with the modification of her land pro
position, which we submitted, until she had a population equal to
the representative ratio, may, or may not have been right, accord
ing to the opinions of gentlemen. The policy of adopting such a
general principle in. all cases where it can be done, may, or may
not be right, as gentlemen may vary in their opinions ; but that
question cannot arise in the case of Oregon. We are foreclosed
on that point in the territorial organic act ; and I appeal, not only
to this side of the House, but to every side, and ask how they can
get round that obligation in the territorial bill of Oregon, of 1848,
which declares solemnly that all the guarantees, privileges, and
rights secured to the people of the northwest territory, should be
extended to the people of Oregon ? The words of the act are :

"SRC. 14. And be it further enacted, That the inhabitants of said terri
tory shall be entitled to enjoy all and singular the rights, privileges, and
advantages, granted and secured to the people of the territory of the
United States northwest of the river Ohio by the articles of compact con
tained in the ordinance for the government of said territory, on the 13th
day of July, 1787, and shall be subject to all the conditions, restrictions,
and prohibitions, in said articles of compact imposed upon the people of
said territory.'' — Statutes at Large, volume 9, page 329.

And what were those rights and privileges guaranteed to the
people in the northwest territory hereby secured and guaranteed
to the people of Oregon ? Here they are :

"And whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand free
inhabitants therein, such State shall be admitted by its delegates into the
Congress of the United States on an equal footing with the original States,
in all respects whatsoever ; and shall be at liberty to form a permanent
constitution and State government : Provided, The constitution and gov
ernment so to be formed shall be republican, and in conformity to the
principles contained in these articles ; and so far as it can be consistent
with the general interests of the confederacy, such admission shall be al
lowed at an earlier period, and when there may be a less number of free
inhabitants in the State than sixty thousand." — Fifth Article Ordinance,
1787, Statutes at Large, volume 1, page 53.

No such guarantee as this was ever given to the people of the
territory of Kansas ; if there had been, that representative-ratio
feature could not have been put in the conference bill without a

624 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF OREGON.

violation of plighted faith. And is there any inconsistency on this
side of the House in adopting the representative-ratio principle,
wherever it can be done, and still maintaining good faith where
previous obligations prevent ? Oregon is the only territory to
which this previous obligation to admit with sixty thousand in
habitants applies. Hers must be an exceptional case in any gen
eral rule that it may be deemed advisable to adopt for all the
other territories for the future. Kansas stands in a position to
take her place with all the others, except Oregon, without any just
cause of complaint. Whether such general rule be wise and proper,
is not now the question ; nor whether its application to Kansas at
the last session was right or wrong ; the question before us at
this time, is simply whether we will discharge an existing obliga
tion?

The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. ZOLLICOFFER], who made
one of the minority reports, argues that the compact of 1787, ex
tended to Oregon by act of 1848, was not in the nature of an en
gagement with the people of a territory, but with a State. The
language, he says, is, "whenever any of said States," etc. Mr.
Speaker, what makes a State ? Is it boundary ? is it limits ? is it
rivers? is it parallels of latitude? Sir, people make States. His
argument, to my mind, has no force. The territory was defined,
and the compact entered into with the people, with the inhabitants ;
and that compact was, that as soon as they had sixty thousand
free inhabitants, they were to be entitled to admission as a State ;
and further, so far as it can be consistent with the general interest,
such admission shall be allowed with a less number than sixty
thousand inhabitants. There is no escape from this ; nor are we
without some lights as to a proper construction of these words.
It is the same-identical guarantee that was extended to Tennessee
in It90; and how was this language interpreted by those who
made the compact ? How was it construed by the great lights of
the old republican party ? This identical question came up on the
admission of Tennessee, the gentleman's own State.

The debate on that question was referred to yesterday. There
is no dodging the question — no evading it. The question here, so
far as population is concerned, is the same as that on the admis
sion of Tennessee. The only fact in issue now before us, is the
fact that was in issue then. It is not whether the proposed State
has ninety thousand or one hundred thousand, but simply whether
it has sixty thousand inhabitants. I will not go over the argu
ment to show that it has. I am satisfied that there are over sixty
thousand inhabitants in Oregon. I am well satisfied, from the
evidence I cited the other day, that there are over one hundred
thousand. There were forty-three thousand and upward in 1855,
as shown by an imperfect census. Five years before there were
only ten thousand. In five years they had increased four-fold.
With a proportionate increase there would be now one hundred
and thirty thousand and upward. But even suppose the increase

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF OREGON. 625

had been partially retarded ; tlie other evidence shows there mu^t
be over one hundred thousand. The official report shows personal
property to the amount of $22,000,000. Suppose the people of
Oregon to be worth $200 per capita of personal property — which
is more than any State in the Union — there would be one hundred
and ten thousand inhabitants. I think the per capita estimate of
personal property at $200 is too high for Oregon. In Georgia,
where the wealth per capita is greater, as I showed the other day,
than in any other State in the Union, it is, including real and
personal estate together, $534 for the entire population. The
average in the United States is something over $350. Place it at
$150 in Oregon for personal property alone (for they own no real
estate there — no land patents have yet issued), and the population
will be over one hundred and thirty thousand. These facts satisfy
me that there are more than one hundred thousand people there.
No man can doubt, it seems to me, that there are over sixty thou
sand ; and that is the question.

Then, sir, in the debate referred to on the admission of Ten
nessee, what said Mr. Matlison on that point?

" The fact of population was the only necessary one ; and would gentle
men be satisfied with no other method of ascertaining it but such as they
themselves should direct?"

He went on: •

" If there were the stipulated number of inhabitants, that territory
could not be denied its claim of becoming a State of the Union without a
violation of rights."

Again, he says that —

" He himself has no doubt on the subject; the evidence, was sufficient
and satisfactory."

And again he said :

" But he thought, where there was a doubt, Congress ought to lean
toward a decision which would give equal rights to every part of the
American people."

He said there was no doubt on his mind that there were sixty
thousand people there ; and that, under the compact, they were
bound, from all the facts he could gather, to admit the State.

How can gentlemen escape that ? Mr. Macon, a gentleman
who occupied a high position in the republican party of that
day — not the party of modern republicans, but of good old
republicans of the Jeffersonian school — one of the shining lights
of the House, whose name will go down to history and live as
long as the names of the founders of the republic, said :

"The question before the committee was on admitting the territory to
be a State in the Union. There appeared to him only two things as
necessary to be inquired into. First, was the new government repub
lican? It appeared to him to be so. Second, were there sixty-thousand
inhabitants in the territory ? It appeared to him there were ; and if so,
40

626 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF OREGON.

their admission as a State should not be considered as a gift, but as a
right."

Again, Mr. Gallatin said he —

Was of opinion that the people of the southwestern territory became
ipso facto a State the moment they amounted to sixty -thousand free inhab
itants ; and that it became the duty of Congress, as part of the original
compact to recognize them as such, and to admit them into the Union,
whenever they had satisfactory proof of the fact."

I cannot dwell on this branch of the subject. It is no question
of ninty-three thousand here. It is no question of what is the
ratio in other territories. It is no question of Kansas discrimi
nation. It is the simple, naked question of fulfilling obligations.
That is the whole of it. I have no doubt that she has sixty-
thousand ; and every man upon this floor so believing, according
to this authority, is bound to vote for her admission. Will you
doit?

But the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. STANTON] complains of the
constitution of Oregon. He complains of that article which de
nies political equality to the African Ace ; to that part which
excludes negroes from voting ; which prevents them from exer
cising the rights of citizenship ; especially that which denies them
the right to maintain an action in their courts. The Topeka con
stitution of Kansas, which that gentleman favored in 1856, ex
cluded free negroes entirely from the territory of Kansas.

Mr. GROW. I will correct the gentleman. The Topeka consti
tution did not exclude free negroes from Kansas ; but the ques
tion was submitted to the people, as instructions to the legisla
ture, to pass an act of that character.

Mr. STEPHENS. And a large majority of the gentleman's friends
who adopted the constitution, voted to give the instructions.

Mr. GROW. I make no point upon that.

Mr. STEPHENS. And those who profess to be the exclusive
friends of negroes, as they now do, so far as that constitution
was concerned, voted to banish them forever from the State, just
as Oregon has done. Whether this banishment be right or wrong,
it is no worse in Oregon than it was in Kansas. But, on the
score of humanity, we of the South do not believe that those who,
in Kansas or Oregon, banish this race from their limits, are better
friends of the negro than we are, who assign them that place
among us to which by nature they are fitted, and in which they
add so much more to their own happiness and comfort, besides to
the common well-being of all. We give them a reception. We
give them shelter. We clothe them. We feed them. We pro
vide for their every want, in health and in sickness, in infancy
and old age. We teach them to work. We educate them in the
arts of civilization and the virtues of Christianity, much more
effectually and successfully than you can ever do on the coasts
of Africa*. And, without any cost to the public, we render them
useful to themselves and to the world. The first lesson in civili-

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF OREGON". 627

zation and Christianity to be taught to the barbarous tribes,
wherever to be found, is the first great curse against the human
family — that in the sweat of their face they shall eat their bread.
Under our system, our tuition, our guardianship and fostering
care, these people, exciting so much misplaced philanthrop}7,
have attained a higher degree of civilization than their race has
attained anywhere else upon the face of the earth. The Topeka
people excluded them ; they, the like neighbors we read of, went
round them ; we, the like good Samaritans, shun not their
destitution or degradation — we alleviate both. But let that go.

Oregon has, in this matter, done no worse than the gentle
man's friends did in Kansas. I think she acted unwisely in it —
that is her business, not mine. But the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. STANTON] questions me, how could a negro in Oregon ever
get his freedom under the constitution they have adopted ? I
tell him, under their constitution a slave cannot exist there. The
fundamental law is against it. But, he asks, how could his free
dom ever be established, as no free persons of color can sue in
her courts ? Nether can they in Georgia ; still our courts are
open to this class of people, who appear by prochein ami or
guardian. jSTor is there any great hardship in this ; for married
women cannot sue in their own names anywhere where the
common law prevails. Minors also have to sue by guardian or
next friend. We have suits continually in our tribunals by per
sons claiming to be free persons of color. They cannot sue in
their own names, but by next friend. They are not citizens ; we
do not recognize them as such ; but still the courts are open ; and
just so will they be in Oregon, if the question is ever raised.

Mr REAGAN. By the laws of Texas, free negroes are prohibited
from residing in that State, and hence have no right to sue in her
courts ; and yet the courts there have entertained jurisdiction of
suits for the liberation of free negroes, and I have assisted in the
prosecution of such suits, in which they were declared free under
writs of habeas corpus.

Mr. STEPHENS. I understand the gentleman to say that the
constitution of Texas is similar to this, and yet that her courts
are opened just as I stated in reference to Georgia; and that he
himself has assisted free negroes in the courts of Texas to obtain
their rights. There can be no difficulty upon that score. Let
me say to gentlemen on the other side of the House, not to
lay the flattering unction to their souls that they can escape by
such a pretext as that.

But it was intimated by the gentleman from Ohio, that last
year we voted to admit Kansas as a slave State with a view of
getting two democratic senators, and that our object is the
same now in regard to Oregon. Sir, in this he is mistaken. We
stood then, as now, upon principle. Had Kansas been admitted
under the Lecompton constitution, all of us knew that the proba
bilities were, that two republican senators would have been

628 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF OREGON.

elected. Nor was the large democratic vote in the Senate, soon
after, upon this bill for the admission of Oregon, based upon any
such idea as he intimated. It could not have been. When this
bill passed the Senate, it was not known what sort of senators
would be elected there, any more than it was as to Kansas. The
election in Oregon had not been heard from. It was a hot con
test. And at the election which afterward came off, the member
who was returned to this House, was elected by only sixteen
hundred majority.

Under these circumstances, how can the gentleman attribute
such motives to the action of democratic senators ? Where is
the slightest evidence for such an imputation ? Maybe the gen
tleman attributes to others the motives by which he himself is
governed — that is, a wish to bring in the State under political
auspices favorable to his own view of public policy. Maybe he
thinks, by rejecting this constitution, the State may come in
under a republican instead of a democratic banner ; for he said
her admission was only a question of time. I will not say that
this is his object in opposing this bill ; but I do say, for myself,
that I am governed by no such motives as he has intimated. I
will vote, whenever a State comes here with a constitution repub
lican in form, and with an obligation resting upon me to vote for
her admission, as this does, for her admission, irrespective of what
may be the political cast of her senators and members elect. I
will never do wrong that right may afterward come from it.
Wrong does not produce such fruits. What you plant and sow,
that you reap. I will never commit an acknowledged error,
hoping that good will come of it. Good ends never justify wrong
means, according to my code of morals. Honest}^ is the best
policy in all things. Perhaps most of those on the other side of
the House who go against this bill, do so barely to be in opposi
tion. To such I would say, what I once said to a gentleman in
my district. When I was going to address the people at -a par
ticular place, meeting him on the way, I asked him if he was
going up to the court house ? He said no ; that I was going to
speak, and that he only wanted to know what side I was upon to
be against it. I said " that is the reason you are always in the
minority ; you give me choice of sides upon all questions, and of
course 1 take the best." [Laughter.] Would it not be well for
gentlemen on that side to consider the point, barely as a matter
of political or party tactics ? That gentleman was so well pleased
with the remark that he went and heard me on the occasion
alluded to, and from that day to this has never failed to vote for
me. If the opposite side will allow me, I will say to them it is
bad policy in any party to oppose every thing barely for opposi
tion sake. Let me entreat them not to oppose this bill — as some
of them do, I fear — barely because democrats vote for it. By
this course, you give us choice of sides in a great issue of right.

One word further upon another subject, and I call the special

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF OREGON. 629

attention of the House to it. It is the objection raised to the con
stitution of Oregon on account of the alien suffrage feature in it.
The gentleman from Tennessee, [Mr. ZOLLICOFFER,] in his report,
quotes a part of the decision of the Supreme Court, bearing upon
the constitutional power of a State so to regulate suffrage within
her own limits, but stops right in the middle of a sentence. I
will read first the extract quoted by the gentleman — italics his —
and then read the whole sentence, as it stands in Chief Justice.
Taney's decision in the Dred Scott case :

" The constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish a
uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and
has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State,
since the adoption of the constitution, can, by naturalizing an alien, invest
him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under
the Federal government," etc.

There the gentleman stops, with the sentence unfinished, at a
comma. The Chief Justice goes right on with these words —

'• although so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly
be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and
immunities which the constitution and laws of the State attached to that
character."

In this the Supreme Court says, and says truty, that no State
can make an alien by birth a citizen of the United States — that is
the exclusive right of Congress; but that each State may clothe
an alien with all the privileges and rights they see fit, within
their own jurisdiction and limits. The right of suffrage, the
right to declare who shall vote at elections, is expressly reserved
in the constitution of the United States to each State. This
government cannot interfere with that power. It is the last
right I would have the States to surrender ; for upon it rest all
the great bulwarks of State rights ; and, should it ever be sur
rendered, no vestige of State rights would remain. ,

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. The comments of the gentleman from
Georgia upon that portion of my report would produce the
impression that I have acted unfairly.

Mr. STEPHENS. I do not say that. I cannot, however, be
interrupted. I have barely time sufficient —

Mr. ZOLLIPOFFER. But let me make this statement. I will not
be two minutes.

Mr. STEPHENS. Be brief. I will give you two minutes, but no
more.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I was enforcing the position, as asserted by
the court, that a State could not confer upon unnaturalized for
eigners the rights of citizenship, so far as the Federal govern
ment was concerned ; and, therefore, I quoted only that portion
of the sentence found in the decision, which showed that to be
the position of the court. That portion of the sentence is this —

Mr. STEPHENS I cannot yield any further. I have already
read it.

630 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF OKEGON.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Let me add the single remark that, in my
report, I distinctly concurred with the court in the remaining por
tion of that sentence ; that so far as " the State alone was con
cerned," the State had the right to confer rights of citizenship
upon unnaturalized foreigners.

Mr. STEPHENS. It would have been much better understood, if
the gentleman had quoted the whole of it, and given his concur
rence in the whole as it stands. And I must be permitted to
say, that in concurring in the whole of that decision as it stands,
he yields the whole question. If a State has the right to confer
upon aliens all the rights of its own citizens, so far as she is con
cerned, certainly the right of suffrage is included.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER,. That is, so far as the State alone is con
cerned.

Mr. STEPHENS. Exactly. The State has the exclusive control
of the right of suffrage within her limits and under her laws, ac
cording to the decision of the Supreme Court. She can say who
may vote for all her officers ; who for governor and who for her
State Senate and who for her House of Representative ; and then
the constitution of the United States expressly provides that the
members of this House shall be chosen or voted for by those in
each State who, by the constitution and laws of each State, are
entitled to vote for the most numerous branch of the State legis
lature. In admitting that each State may allow an alien to vote
for members of the most numerous branch of their own legisla
ture, the gentleman yields this entire question. The language in
Chief Justice Taney's decision immediately preceding that quoted
by the gentleman in his report, is in these words :

"Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring
these rights and privileges, by adopting the constitution of the United
States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it
thinks proper, pr upon any class or description of persons ; yet he would
not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the constitu
tion of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such, in one of its courts,
nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States.
The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which
gave them."

Then comes the gentleman's quotation. And from the whole,
the principle is clear, that each State may, if she chooses, confer
the right of citizenship within her own limits and jurisdiction
upon an alien. But, without naturalization under the laws of the
United States, this will not give him the right of citizenship in
any respect outside of that State. In it, his rights of citizen
ship may be as full and complete as those of the native born.

But I did not intend to argue this point. I did that at the
last session, on the Minnesota bill. In that argument, I gave
the history of this question of alien suffrage in the territories. 1
have nothing to add to what I then said. I barely refer to it
now, that it may be considered as part and parcel of what I

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF OREGON. 631

would say on the same points, if my time allowed, to-day. Of
the Presidents who, in some form or shape, had given the princi
ple their sanction, either in the territories or States, on their ad
mission, I named Washington, the elder Adams, Jefferson,
Madison, Jackson, Polk, Fillrnore, and Pierce; and to this list may
now' be added that of Buchanan, who signed, the Minnesota bill.

My colleague [Mr. HILL] yesterday alluded to what Mr. Cal-
houn said on the subject in 1836. I commented upon that, last
year. I could not find that speech of Mr. Calhoun in the Globe,
or any parliamentary record in the country. I do not mean to
say that he did not make it. It was not made upon the admis
sion of Michigan. It was made, if at all, when a measure was up
involving the question of suffrage in the territory, while Michigan
was still in a territorial condition. The speech is said to have
been made in 1836. Michigan was not admitted until 1837. Her
constitution was similar in this respect to that of Oregon. Mr.
Calhoun was then in the Senate ; he did not raise his voice against
that feature in it, as far as I have been able to find. Not a word
fell from him, at that time, on the subject of alien suffrage, that I
am aware of.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Allow me one sentence.

Mr. STEPHENS. I cannot yield.

Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. Allow me but a single sentence : that sen
tence is, that I should labor under great disadvantage, if the
gentleman were even disposed to extend to me the courtesy of
allowing me to leply to his points while he holds the floor.
Therefore, I will not at present ask to do so.

Mr. STEPHENS. That I understand very jvell. The gentleman
can reply hereafter. My time will not allow me to indulge him
now. I made the speech I have referred to last year, expecting
that it would be replied to ; but it remains yet without reply.
And I cannot permit my time to-day to be taken up with matters
there disposed of.

Mr. HILL. Let me ask my colleague a question. Is he not
aware of the votes given by Mr. Calhoun, on the Michigan bill,
against permitting alien suffrage in that State. It was on the
motion of Mr. Clay.

Mr. STEPHENS. What year ?

Mr. HILL. In 1836.

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes ; I know of his votes alluded to in 1836.
Michigan was then a territory. I repeat again, that on the ad
mission of Michigan as a State next year, Mr. Calhoun said noth
ing against the alien suffrage feature in her State constitution,
that I know of. He may still have been'against it.

But one word further in reply to my colleague, as to Mr. Cal-
houn's position on this subject. Whatever he may have said on
it, or however he may have voted on it in 1836, yet in 1848,
he was on the committee that reported the celebrated Clay
ton compromise, which provided a government for this very

632 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF OKEGON.

territory of Oregon, and that bill contained this very alien
suffrage clause in it. Mr. Calhoun voted for the bill with
this clause in it in the Senate. I have the record by me. It
is not of so much importance what he said or how he voted in
1836, when the question was first started, as how he voted twelve
years afterward, and after mature investigation. Here is his vote
in 1848. I put that against his speech and his vote in 1836, and
let all go to the country with n^ colleague's comments. I shall
be content.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on another and entirely different aspect of
this question, I have something special to say to another side of
the House — a distinct class in it. I mean the members coming
from slaveholding States. There is evidently a feeling of opposi
tion in that quarter to the admission of Oregon, from a reluctance
and manifest indisposition to increase the number of what are
called free States. This arises from an apprehension that, with
the loss of the balance of power, the rights of our section upon
constitutional questions will be less secure. This may be so. It
does not, however, necessarily follow. But that balance is already
gone — lost by causes beyond your or my control. There is no
prospect of its ever being regained ; and, in taking that ground,
you do but reverse the position of our sectional opponents on the
other side of the House. I know it is the tendency of power to
encroach ; but let us look to the security which rests upon princi
ple, rather than upon numbers. The citadel of our defence is
principle sustained by reason, truth, honor, and justice. Let us
therefore do justice, though the heavens fall.

Let us not do an "indirect wrong, for fear that the recipient
from our hands of what is properly due will turn upon us and
injure us. Statesmen in the line of duty should never consult
their fears. Where duty leads, there we may never fear to tread.
In the political world, great events and changes are rapidly
crowding upon us. To these we should not be insensible. As
wise men, we should not attempt to ignore them. We need not
close our eyes, and suppose the sun will cease to shine, because
we see not the light. Let us rather, with eyes and minds wide
awake, look around us and see where we are, whence we have
come, and where we shall soon be, borne along by the rapid, swift,
and irresistible car of time. This immense territory to the west
has to be peopled. It is now peopling. New States are fast
growing up ; and others, not yet in embryo, will soon spring into
existence. Progress and development mark every thing in
nature — human societies, as well as every thing else. Nothing
in the physical world is*still ; life and motion are in every thing :
so in the mental, moral, and political. The earth is never still.
The great central orb is ever moving. Progress is the universal
law governing all things — animate as well as inanimate. Death
itself is but the beginning of a new life in a new form. Our gov
ernment and institutions are subject to this all pervading power.

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF OREGON. 633

The past wonderfully exemplifies its influence, and gives us some
shadows of the future.

This is the sixteenth session that I have been here, and within
that brief space of fifteen years, we have added six States to the
Union — lacking but one of being more than half of the original
thirteen. Upward of twelve hundred thousand square miles of
territory — a much larger area than was possessed by the whole
United States at the time of the treaty of peace in 1183 — have
been added to our domain. At this time the area of our republic
is greater than that of any five of the greatest powers in Europe
all combined ; greater than that of the Roman empire in the
brightest days of her glory ; more extensive than were Alexander's
dominions when he stood on the Indus, and wept that he had no
more worlds to conquer. Such is our present position ; nor are
we yet at the end of our acquisitions.

Our internal movements, within the same time, have not been
less active in progress and development than those external. A
bare glance at these will suffice. Our tonnage, when I first came
to Congress, was but a little over two million ; now it is upward
of five million, more than double. Our exports of domestic
manufactures were only eleven million dollars in round number ;
now they are upward of thirty million. Our exports of domes
tic produce, staples, etc., were then under one hundred million
dollars ; now they are upward of three hundred million ! The
amount of coin in the United States, was at that time about one
hundred million ; now it exceeds three hundred million. The
cotton crop then was but fifty-four million ; now it is upward of
one hundred and sixty million dollars. We had then not more
than five thousand miles of railroad in operation ; we have now
not less than twenty-six thousand miles — more than enough to
encircle the globe — and at a cost of more than one thousand
million dollars. At that time, Professor Morse was engaged in
one of the rooms of this Capitol in experimenting on his unper-
fected idea of an electric telegraph — and there was as much
doubt about his success, as there is at present about the Atlantic
cable — but now there are more than thirty-five thousand miles in
extent of these iron nerves sent forth in every direction through
the land, connecting the most distant points, and uniting all
together as if under the influence of a common living sensorium.
This is but a glance at the surface ; to enter within and take the
range of other matters — schools, colleges, the arts, and various
mechanical and industrial pursuits, which add to the intelligence,
wealth, and prosperity of a people, and mark their course in the
history of nations, would require time ; but in all would be found
alike astonishing results.

This progress, sir, is not to be arrested. It will go on. The
end is not yet. There are persons now living who will see over
a hundred million human beings within the present boundaries of
the United States, to say nothing of future extension, and per-

634 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF OREGON.

haps double the number of States we now have, should the Union
last. For myself, I say to you, my southern colleagues on this
floor, that I do not apprehend danger to our constitutional rights
from the bare fact of increasing the number of States with insti
tutions dissimilar to ours. The whole governmental fabric of the
United States is based and founded upon the idea of dissimilarity
in the institutions of the respective members. Principles, not num
bers, are our protection. When these fail, we have, like all other
people, who, knowing their rights, dare maintain them, nothing
to rely upon but the justice of our cause, our own right arms
and stout hearts. With these feelings and this basis of action,
whenever any State comes and asks admission, as Oregon does, I
am prepared to extend her the hand of welcome, without looking
into her constitution father than to see that it is republican in
form upon our well-known American models.

When aggression comes, if come it ever shall, then the end
draweth nigh. Then, if in my day, I shall be for resistance, open,
bold, and defiant. I know of no allegiance superior to that due
the hearthstones of the homestead. This I say to all. I lay no
claim to any sentiment of nationality not founded upon the
patriotism of a true heart, and I know of no such patriotism that
does not centre at home. Like the enlarging circle upon the sur
face of smooth waters, however, this can and will, if unobstructed,
extend to the utmost limits of a common country. Such is my
nationality — such my sectionalism — such my patriotism. Our
fathers of the South joined your fathers of the North in resistance
to a common aggression from their fatherland ; and if they were
justified in rising to right a wrong inflicted by a parent country,
how much more ought we, should the necessity ever come, to
stand justified before an enlightened world, in righting a wrong
from even those we call brothers. That necessit}^ I trust, will
never come.

What is to be our future, I do not know. I have no taste for
indulging in speculations about it. I would not, if I could, raise
the vail that wisely conceals it from us. " Sufficient unto the
day is the evil thereof," is a good precept in every thing pertain
ing to human action. The evil I would not anticipate ; I would
rather strive to prevent its coming ; and one way, in my judg
ment, to prevent it, is, while here, in all things to do what is right
and proper to be done under the constitution of the United
States ; nothing more, and nothing less. Our safety, as well as
the prosperity of all parts of the country, so long as this govern
ment lasts, lies mainly in a strict conformity to the laws of its
existence. Growth is one of these. The admission of new
States is one of the objects expressty provided for. How are
they to come in ? With just such constitutions as the people in
each may please to make for themselves, so it is republican in
form. This is the ground the South has ever stood upon. Let
us not abandon it now. It is founded upon a principle planted

SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF OREGON. 635

in the compact of Union itself; and more essential to us than all
others besides ; that is, the equality of the States, and the reserved
right of the people of the respective States. By our system,
each State, however great the number, has the absolute right to
regulate all its internal affairs as she pleases, subject only to her
obligations under the constitution of the United States. With
this limitation, the people of Massachusetts have the perfect
right to do as they please upon all matters relating to their in
ternal policy ; the people of Ohio have the right to do the same ;
the people of Georgia the same ; of California the same ; and so
with all the rest.

Such is the machinery of our theory of self-government by the
people. This is the great novelty of our peculiar system, involv
ing a principle unknown to the ancients, an idea never dreamed
of by Aristotle or Plato. The union of several distinct, inde
pendent communities upon this basis, is a new principle in human
governments. It is now a problem in experiment for the people
of the nineteenth century upon this continent to solve. As I be
hold its workings in the past and at the present, while I am not
sanguine, yet I am hopeful of its successful solution. The most
joyous feeling of my heart is the earnest hope that it will, for the
future, move on as peacefully, prosperously, and brilliantly, as it
has in the past. If so, then we shall exhibit a moral and politi
cal spectacle to the world something like the prophetic vision of
Ezekiel, when he saw a number of distinct beings or living crea
tures, each with a separate and distinct organism, having the
functions of life within itself, all of one external likeness, and all,
at the same time, mysteriously connected with one common ani
mating spirit pervading the whole, so that when the common
spirit moved the}' all moved ; their appearance and their work
being, as it were, a wheel in the middle of a wheel ; and whither
soever the common spirit went, thither the others went, all going
together ; and when they went, he heard the noise of their mo
tion like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty.
Should our experiment succeed, such will be our exhibition — a
machinery of government so intricate, so complicated, with so
many separate and distinct parts, so many independent States,
each perfect in the attributes and functions of sovereignty, within
its own jurisdiction, all, nevertheless, united under the control of
a common directing power for external objects and purposes,
may natural enough seem novel, strange, and inexplicable to the
philosophers and crowned heads of the world.

It is for us, and those who shall come after us, to determine
whether this grand experimental problem shall be worked out ;
not by quarrelling amongst ourselves; not by doing injustice to
any ; not by keeping out any particular class of States ; but by
each State remaining a separate and distinct political organism
within itself — all bound together for general objects, under a com
mon Federal head ; as it were, a wheel within a wheel. Then the

636 SPEECH ON THE ADMISSION OF OEEGON.

number may be multiplied without limit ; and then, indeed, ma^y the
nations of the earth look on in wonder at our career ; and when
they hear the noise of th A wheels of our progress in achievement,
in development, in expansion, in glory, and renown, it may well
appear to them not unlike the noise of great waters ; the very
voice of the Almighty — Vox populi! Vox Dei! [Great applause
in the galleries, and on the floor.]

The SPEAKER. If the applause in the galleries is repeated,
the Chair will order the galleries to be cleared.

Many MEMBERS. It was upon the floor.

MR. STEPHENS. One or two other matters only I wish to
allude to. These relate mainly to amendments. I trust that every
friend of ttiis bill will unite and vote down ever}?- amendment.
It needs no amendment. Oregon has nothing to do with Kansas,
and should in no way be connected with her. To remand her
back, as the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.' MARSHALL] proposes,
to compel her to regulate suffrage as we may be disposed to dic
tate, would be but going back to the old attempt to impose con
ditions upon Missouri. There is no necessity for any census, if
we are satisfied, from all the evidence before us, that there are
sixty thousand inhabitants there. Florida was admitted without
a census. Texas was admitted, with two members on this floor,
without a census. So was California.

To our friends upon this side of the House, let me say, if you
cannot vote for the bill, assist us in having it voted upon as it is.
Put on no riders. Give us no side blows. Aid in keeping them
off. Let the measure stand or fall upon its merits. If you can
not vote for the bill, vote against it just as it stands.

I see my time is nearly out, and I cannot go into the discus
sion of other branches of the question, but may I not make an
appeal to all sides of the House to come up to do their duty to
day ? I have spoken of the rapid development of our country
and its progress in all its material resources. Is it true that the
intellectual and moral development of our country has not kept
pace with its physical ? Has our political body outgrown the
heads and hearts of those who are to govern it ? Is it so, that
^his Thirty-fifth Congress is unequal to the great mission before
it ? Are we progressing in every thing but mind and patriotism ?
Has destiny cast upon us a heavier load of duty than we are able
to perform ? Are we unequal to the task assigned us ? I trust
not. I know it is sometimes said in the country that Congress
has degenerated. It is for us this day to show wiiether it is true
or not. For myself, I do not believe it. It may be that the
esprit du corps may have some influence on my judgment. Some
thing may be pardoned to that. But still I feel that I address
men of as much intelligence, reflection, talent, integrity, virtue,
and worth, as I have ever met in this hall ; men not unfit to be
the representatives of this great, growing, and prosperous con
federacy. The only real fitness for any public station is to be

FAREWELL SPEECH. 637

up to the requirements of the occasion, whatever that be Let
us, then, vindicate our characters as fit legislators to-day ; and,
with that dignity and decorum which have so signally marked
our proceedings upon other great, exciting questions before, and
which, whatever may be said of our debates, may be claimed as a
distinguished honor for the present House of Representatives,
let us do the work assigned us with that integrity of purpose
which discharges duty regardless of consequences, and with a
patriotism commensurate with the magnitude of the subject
under all its responsibilities.

FAREWELL SPEECH OP HOK A. H. STEPHENS.

DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, ON SATURDAY, JULY 2, 1859.

Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Committee, and Respected Audi
tory :

For this demonstration, on my retiring from public life, I return
you my unaffected and unfeigned thanks. The circumstances
attending it — this imposing assembly — consisting, not only of so
large a number of voters of the district, but of so many of the
fair of the land — the mothers and daughters, who give honor by
their presence — are well calculated greatty to enhance its appre
ciation. It is not every one who has been in public life so long
as I have, that has been so fortunate as to receive such a compli
ment at its close. It was not an uncommon event amongst the
ancients for public men to be ostracised and exiled, even by those
who had elevated them to places of trust and distinction. But
the testimonial now tendered comes not exclusively from that
class of my constituents. This ma}7, perhaps, be owing more to
personal than to public considerations. Be that as it may, how
ever, let this manifestation of regard shown to me here, without
distinction of party, by the generous and liberal-minded citizens
of this enterprising and flourishing city — distinguished alike for
intelligence, urbanity, and public spirit, spring from whatever
motive it may, of this you may be assured, one and all, I feel it
most profoundly, and make my acknowledgments most sincerely
and gratefully. Whether merited or not, it is more than I ex
pected. It is much more than I desired.

Having entered public life reluctantly, without any selfish
motives, and without any object of personal ambition or aggran
dizement, I should • have preferred, when the state of affairs
favored my leaving it, to go quietly into that retirement so much
more congenial to my nature, without any other record of
approval of my conduct to bear with me than that of my owu

638 FAREWELL SPEECH.

judgment, and the consciousness of having, on all occasions and
on all questions, endeavored to discharge my duty faithfully and
with an eye single to the maintenance of your rights and the
advancement of the general public weal.

As you chose that it should be otherwise, I could not, in con
sideration of the relations we have borne toward each other, as
representative and constituents, decline a compliance with your
request. And it is due to you, in candor, to say that, so far as
personal gratification is concerned, this display does, in some
measure, compensate for the labor, toil, sacrifice, and wear and
tear of body and mind, ever attendant on him who undertakes
to watch over, guard, and protect the public interests.

The occasion itself naturally suggests feelings of regret, as
all partings do — the severance of ties so long binding us together
in relations of such confidence and responsibility, is not unlike
the severance of other ties that link the teriderest attachments of
nature. I find, however, other matters of thought and reflection
which prompt emotions of a different character from those which
usually attend ordinary separations and final adieus. Some of
these it may not be inappropriate to mention. Not exactly, then,
do I feel like one who is about to take his departure from home,
from friends, from all he holds dear, with doubt and uncertainty
whether he shall ever meet them again ; but rather as the weather-
beaten mariner, who has successfully passed the perils of his
last of many dangerous voyages, over and across the mighty
deep, hails, with elated heart and inward rejoicing of spirit, his
home-haven finally reached in safety, never to encounter ocean-
storms and tempests or troubled waters more. Thus I feel

Politics is indeed a rough and uncertain sea, abounding in un
certain and dangerous elements — elements which, however still
and quiet they may now be, are always fierce and portentous
when fully aroused ; and perhaps they were never, in our history,
lashed into greater fury than they have been repeatedly during
the period of my service. The shattered fragments, " disjecta
membra," of many a gallant bark, oft have been seen adrift on
either side, borne along by the currents in their resistless way;
and many noble true-hearted comrades have been seen " rari
nantes in gurgite vasto." Is it not natural, then, that I should
now, in contemplating the past, feel a deep personal gratification
that I was so fortunate as to surmount these perils, pass securely
these risks and hazards, not only without a wreck, a founder, or
a stranding, but without the loss of a mast or single spar ?
For this I am indebted to your generous confidence.

But there is another reflection far more important, and, doubt
less, much more interesting to you, as well as more gratifying to
myself — that is, that I leave the country not 'only in as good, but
in a better condition than I found it. Whatever dangers may
have threatened us, the republic has sustained no serious detri
ment, either in her material resources, intellectual advancement,

FAREWELL SPEECH. 639

social condition, or political status. On the contrary, with what
ever short-comings there may have been, in that fuller develop
ment, that might have been attained in some of these particulars,
yet, on the whole, her progress in each for the better, has been
most marked and unprecedented. This is true of the whole
country, as well as of each of the parts separately, and especially
of our own State.

Contrast, for a moment, in yom minds, the condition of Geor
gia, physically and intellectually, in 1836, when I first entered
the legislature, with her condition now. The change seems
almost equal to the works of magic. Passing by those material
developments which have ghfen us the honor of being styled the
Empire State amongst our sisters of the South, take but a glance
in another department — that which embraces higher and nobler
improvements. Then, there was but one college in the State, and
that, for the education of men. Now, we have five times that
number, of the same character. Then, there was not in the State,
or in the world, I believe, a single chartered university for the
education and regular graduation of women ; I mean such as con
ferred the usual college degrees. The Georgia Female College,
at Macon, incorporated in 1836, with such objects, purposes, and
powers, I believe, was the first of its kind anywhere. The move
ment at the time was the occasion of amusement to some. I may
be pardoned in this presence, in saying that it met my warm sup
port. The experiment proving successful beyond the expecta
tion of its most sanguine friends, the example became contagious
— not only in our own State, but in adjoining States — and we
now have a perfect galaxy of these brilliant luminaries, sending
forth their cheering beams in every direction, like new stars in
the firmament above, just brought into existence in the progress
of creation. Whatever honor, therefore, Georgia is entitled to
for her other great works of improvement and achievement ; and
however broad, massive, and substantial the materials may be
that enter into the monument reared to her fame ; and however
high they may be piled up, let this still be at the top, the filling
and crowning point of her glory, that she took and holds the
lead of all the world in female education.

In a national point of view, our progress has also been great.
Yast territories have been added to our limits. Our trade, our
commerce, our manufactures, our exports and imports, have been
more than trebled. History furnishes no equal to it in the annals
of nations. All those great sectional questions which so furiously
in their turn agitated the public mind, foreboding disaster, and
which, from my connection with them, caused me to remain so
long at the post you assigned me, have been amicably and satis
factorily adjusted, without the sacrifice of any principle, or the
loss of any essential right. At this time, there is not a ripple
upon the surface. The country was never in a profounder quiet,
or the people, from one extent of it to the other, in a more per-

640 FAREWELL SPEECH,

feet enjoyment of the blessings of peace and prosperity secured
by those institutions, for which we should feel no less grateful
than proud. It is at such a time, and with these views of its
condition, that I cease all active connection with its affairs.

In reference to those agitations, and the questions giving rise
to them, and my conduct on them, which you have been pleased
to speak of in terms of such high commendation, I ask your in
dulgence only to say a few things, and these few only as of mat
ters that are past. They were questions of no ordinary magni
tude ; they were vital in their character ; they oppressed me with
the most anxious care — with the heavy weight of the most intense
sense of responsibility — and the more so as they subjected me,
on several occasions, to the most trying of all political ordeals
— the separation in action from old allies and old friends.

The first of these was the annexation of Texas. This arose on
my entrance into Congress. It was to me a new field and a new
theatre. It requires an effort, at this time, to recall the scenes
of that day — the arguments for and against — the passions and
prejudices that were aroused on both sides. The public mind
was perhaps never before more thoroughly excited. It was my
fortune, with a few others, to differ, not only from our own party
friends, but from a majority of those on the other side. We were
for the measure. We believed it to be constitutional and advan
tageous, notwithstanding the contrary judgment and the fearful
consequences predicted by many sages in council, in whose wis
dom and patriotism we had ever confided. We were for it, how
ever, only on condition that the rights of the South snould be
settled and guaranteed in the bonds of union. In this position,
we held the balance of power in the House ; and it was not until
various other propositions, which left these points open, were
voted down — we voting with the general opponents of the meas
ure on them, that ours, which secured the existing guarantee for
four slave States, to be carved out of the territory and admitted
into the Union, if the people should present such constitutions,
on their application for admission, was taken up and passed by
the general friends of the measure. The true history of these
resolutions has never been given. Colonel Benton, in his "Thirty
Years' View," quotes them at length, and says that they were
introduced at an early day of the session. He says they " were
sent down from the State department." In this he makes one
of his flings at Mr. Calhoun, who was then at the head of that
department. This is, in every essential particular, a mistake.
These resolutions were not introduced at an early day' of the
session. Congress met on the 2d day of December, 1844; on the
12th of that month, Mr. Charles J. Ingersoll, chairman of the
committee of foreign affairs, introduced the administration meas
ure. After that, there were six other plans of annexation intro
duced before the resolutions, which finally passed, were offered.
They were presented by Mr. Wilton Brown, of Tennessee, on the

FAREWELL SPEECH. 641

13th of January, 1845. He and I consulted frequently together.
We agreed in our views. We could not support any one of the
plans submitted, but were anxious for the measure to succeed on
the terms I have stated. He drew up the resolutions, embodying
our views, securing the settlement of the vexed question, and the
guarantee as to the four future slave States, south of the Missouri
line, just as they passed. Neither Mr. Calhoun nor Mr. Tyler
ever saw the resolutions until they were offered to the House ;
and I doubt if any other person did except Mr. Brown, myself,
and Hon. Ephraim H. Foster, one of the senators of Tennessee.
Mr. Brown informed me that Mr. Foster concurred fully in our
views, and would present the same resolutions in the Senate on
the same day, which he did, remarking at the time that he had
neither consulted nor converse^ with any other senator in rela
tion to them. As for the phraseology of the resolutions, that is
due entirely to Mr. Brown ; but for the substance, I feel fully
justified in saying that we are both jointly and equally respon
sible. My course in the matter was taken, not without some
doubt and distrust that it might be wrong, as so much talent,
age, experience, and worth were arrayed against it ; hence, you
may imagine the gratification I felt, six years after, when Mr.
Webster, in his celebrated 7th of March speech, fully admitted
the constitutionality of the annexation, and the binding obliga
tions of the guarantees therein secured. The recognized consti
tutional expounder, and one of the leaders of the opponents of
the measure, though not in official position at the time it passed,
lived to give the constitutional question involved the sanction
of his high authority ; and now few men of any party or any
creed raise a point upon the subject.

The next question of agitation arose out of our acquisitions
from Mexico, embracing also the territory of Oregon — the title
to which had just been definitely settled about that time. This
was the greatest of all, before or since. It involved the powers
of Congress over the territories, and the right of the general
government to exclude slavery, as it exists with us, from them.
The principle was one of vast importance, whether considered
in an abstract or practical view. Its assertion abstractly carried
with it southern inequality, inferiority, and degradation. Its
enforcement practically would have hemmed us up, hedged us in,
walled us around, and prevented all future growth and expansion.
The point the South made was the right to go into the territories
with their slave property, on the same footing, and with the same
security, as other property under the constitution. This was her de
mand ; and it was on this basis the settlement was made. The terri
tories are to be kept open for settlement and colonization, by all,
alike, without any discriminating legislation on the part of Con
gress for or against any species of property, until the people come
to form their State constitutions for admission into the Union- —
when they are tc be admitted either with or without slavery, as
41

642 FAREWELL SPEECH.

they may then determine for themselves. This is non-interven
tion. And, as you all may know, it came short of what I wished.
It was, in my -view, not the full measure of our rights — that re
quired, in my judgment, the enactment, by Congress, of all
needful laws for the protection of slave property in the terri
tories, so long as the territorial condition lasted.

But an overwhelming majority of the South was against that
position. It was said that we who maintained it, yielded the
whole question by yielding the jurisdiction — and that, if we
conceded the power to protect, we necessarily conceded with it
the power to prohibit. This, by no means, followed, in my judg
ment. But such was the prevailing opinion. And it was not
until it was well ascertained that a large majority of the South
would not ask for, or even vote fo^ congressional protection, that
those of us who were for it yielded to non-intervention, because,
though it came* short of our wishes, yet, it contained no sacrifice
of principle — had nothing aggressive in it, and secured for all
practical purposes, what was wanted. That is, the unrestricted
right of expansion over the common public domain, as inclina
tion, convenience, or necessity may require on the part of our
people. For, while Congress abstained from all direct legisla
tion on the subject, yet the bills organizing territorial govern
ments granted to the local legislatures the power to pass laws
" upon all rightful subjects of legislation, not inconsistent with
the constitution of the United States." This gave them the
power to pass all needful laws for the protection of slave property,
if the people wanted them — that being a rightful subject of legisla
tion — but none to prohibit or exclude — that being inconsistent
with the constitution of the United States, and the exercise of a
power that Congress did not possess, and could not grant.

This was the view we took of the case ; and this has since been
sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the
Dred Scott decision. Thus the settlement was made — thus the
record stands — and by it I am still willing to stand, as it was
fully up to the demands of the South, through her representa
tives at the time, though not up to my own; and, as by it the
right of expansion to the extent of population and capacity is
amply secured, which was the great practical object had in view.
The subsequent excitement on the Kansas bill, in 1854, was but
a sequel to that of 1850.

In carrying out the principles established in 1850 — of opening
the territories, and leaving them free for settlement by all, alike,
without congressional interference, it became necessary to take
off the old restriction of 1820, which had been put upon that
territory.

The agitation this gave rise to, was caused by nothing but the
dying efforts of the old restrictionists to hold their old ground,
and to fight the battle of 1850 over again. This was a struggle
ma ily for principle — abstract principle on both sides. In the

FAREWELL SPEECH. 643

result, we were triumphant. But it was not a triumph of the
South over the North, so much as it was a triumph of the friends
of constitutional equality and right, over their enemies ever}^-
where ; and let no man consider this agitation, so far as the South
is responsible for it, as useless or unnecessary, inasmuch as it was
a struggle mainly- for an abstract principle having practically
nothing in it. Let no one indulge the belief that it would have
been better for the South to have quietly let the old restriction
against us remain upon the statute book, as there was little pros
pect that slavery ever would go to those territories, and as the
Supreme Court has since decided, in the Dred Scott case, that
the old restriction was unconstitutional and void anyhow. Let
no one think that the amount of practical interest in the result
did not justify the popular commotion that the controversy
evoked. Let no one take any such view of the subject as this ;
practical results should weigh but little when great fundamental,
constitutional, and abstract principles of government are to be
settled. These underlie all popular rights, and constitute the
essence of sovereignty and independence ; and the fates of nations
depend upon a rigid maintenance of them. An insult to a flag
has but little practical injury in it; and yet, if unatoned for, will
and ought to justify war "at every hazard and to the last
extremity." The war of the American revolution, which gave us
our national independence, was fought more in vindication of
abstract principles than for the redress of any practical griev
ances. The grievances of the colonies were mainly the assertion
of rights and powers over them by the British parliament, which
they denied. Hence, Mr. Webster said, truly, that it was fought
" on a preamble." It was not the amount of the tax complained
of, so much as the right of imposing it without representation.
The very bill that led to resistance reduced the tax, but asserted
in its preamble the unlimited and unconditional power to tax.
It was on this measure, that the great Edmund Burke — a son,
Mr. President, (Mr. John Bones,) of your own native isle, who
ranks high above all the others of her most illustrious names — high
above Grattan, Curran, and Emmet, and who stood foremost and
first among orators and statesmen not only in the British parlia
ment but in the world, in his day — if he has ever been surpassed
in any age or country — it was on this bill, thus granting relief to
the colonies, accompanied by the bare assertion of illegal right,
that Burke, in his place, told the House of Commons that they
were sending an angel of peace, " but with it they were sending
out a destroying angel, too ;" and what would be the effect of the
conflict of these two adverse spirits, or which would predominate
in the end, was what he dared not say. His warning was not
heeded. The destroying angel came ; but with no effect upon our
ancestors, except to arouse them in defence of even their abstract
rights. It was England, who, under the influence of his unseen
power, was left to mourn the loss of her first-born colonies.

644 FAKEWELL SPEECH.

In politics, as in law, the greatest results often follow the
establishment of abstract principles, when the amount of practi
cal interest involved is too small to be taken in the estimation.
Principles deciding the titles to millions of property may be set
tled, and often are, upon a pepper-corn issue. In the case of
Pierce and Twine, two hundred pounds sterling only were in
volved. But who could estimate the hundreds of thousands that
have been controlled by the principles established by it ? Or
who would undertake to number the millions upon millions,
which have and do depend upon the principles of Shelly's case,
or Perrin against Blake ? In this last, thousands of dollars have
been spent in publishing books that have been written upon it —
to say nothing about the amount or value of property it has con
trolled. And yet, only two thousand pounds sterling were all
that was practically in issue in it. And what was the amount
practically in issue in the Dred Scott case, itself? Nothing but
the value of one slave, perhaps, less than a thousand dollars ;
yet, on the principle depended not only many other thousands,
but in all probability the destiny of this country. And who is
vain enough to suppose that the Dred Scott decision would have
been made, but for the agitation and the discussion which pre
ceded it, and the sound, clear principles which that discussion
brought to light ? Weigh not, therefore, too lightly the most
violent discussions by your public men, even upon the most
abstract principles. Nay, more, be prepared to assert them your
selves as your fathers did, at any hazard, though there be nothing
at stake but your honor.

Nor am I of the number of those who believe that we have sus
tained any injury by these agitations. It is true, we were not
responsible for them. We were not the aggressors. We acted
on the defensive. We repelled assault, calumny, and aspersion,
by argument, by reason, and truth. But so far from the institu
tion of African slavery in our section being weakened or rendered
less secure by the discussion, my deliberate judgment is that it has
been greatly strengthened and fortified — strengthened and forti
fied not only in the opinions, convictions, and consciences of men,
but by the action of the government. Questions that were doubt
ful and mooted before these agitations, have since been settled —
settled as I have stated, settled by all the departments of the
government, the legislative, executive, and judicial. The old
Missouri restriction of 1820, has been taken from the statute
book. There is not now a spot of the public territory of the
United States, over which the national flag floats, where slavery
is excluded by law of Congress ; and the highest tribunal of
the land has decided that Congress has no power to pass such a
law, nor to grant such power to a territorial legislature. All this
has been the result of these agitations.

But, perhaps, I am detaining you too long on these topics. It
may be that so -ne are more anxious to hear what I have to say

FAREWELL SPEECH. 645

for the future. Will the present quiet last ? or will the anti-
slavery spirit renew the strife ? And what is to be the end of
it ? On this point, I can only say, that the future is wisely shut
out from our view by a curtain that I could not lift if I would, and
I would not if I could. It is enough for us to take care of the
ever present, with which we are moving along. All things human
are passing away. Nay, more, in the conditions and relations to
each other of all things throughout the material universe, there
is nothing eternal, but change. This is the universal law. Our
bocjjes yield to it — death is the common lot of all — governments
are subject to the same law. The most powerful of the present
day, will, in course of time, pass away, as those great empires
did, which we read of, centuries ago — our own cannot escape the
same inevitable doom. But when this win be — whether at an
early or remote period — I have no disposition either to inquire
or to speculate. I have no hesitancy, however, in giving you the
strong conviction of my judgment that it is best for all that the
States shall remain united under their present constitution just
so long — if that be forever — as this end can be attained without
the sacrifice of any constitutional principle, or the loss of any
constitutional right essential to the safety and security of any
one of them, or any number of them — and that the Union on this
basis, can be and will be preserved just so long as intelligence,
virtue, integrity, and patriotism rule your national councils.
How long this will be, will depend upon the people themselves.

Legislators in this country, in the main, are but the embodied
reflection of the characters and principles of those who elect
them. As matters now stand, so far as the sectional questions
are concerned, I see no cause of danger, either to the Union, or
southern security in it. The former has always been with me,
and ought to be with you, subordinate to the latter. But on the
present basis of governmental action, recognized in all its depart
ments, on those q'uestions vital to the South, I see nothing likely
to arise from it calculated to endanger either her safety or secu
rity : hence, nothing to prevent the hope and earnest desire
that a still greater, wider, and higher career is before us, for
many long years to come, than that yet attained. There is
nothing in the diversity and dissimilarity of the institutions of
the different States inconsistent with this — nothing in any in
crease or addition of States ; nothing in the future enlargement
of the limits of the republic, by further acquisition of territories,
as, in the event of continued union, there, doubtless, will be.
Already, we are looking out toward Chihuahua, Sonora, and
other parts of Mexico — to Cuba, and even to Central America,
Where are to be our ultimate limits, time alone can determine.
Rut of all these acquisitions, the most important to the whole
country is that of Cuba. She lies geographically in the natural
line of extension and acquisition. The natural course for all
national extension is on lines of longitude, rather than lines of

646 FAREWELL SPEECH.

latitude — from North to South, or from South to North, rather
than from East to West — so as to bring within a common juris
diction the products of different climes. As yet, we embrace no
portion of the tropics. Cuba, besides, her commanding position
in the Gulf, and all other advantages, would fill up this defi
ciency.

On this subject, however, I will say that I am not much in
favor of paying any great sum of money to Spain for that island.
If the people ot Cuba want to come under our jurisdiction, it is
their right to come, and ours to receive them, without let or hin
drance from Spain. She holds the island by no tenure but 1;hat
of conquest and force. The more appropriate policy would be to
repeal all our own laws which make it penal and criminal for
our own citizens to afb and help them achieve their independence.
Instead of offering Spain thirty or more millions of dollars for it, I
would simply quit spending other millions in keeping watch and
guard, for her to oppress and rob ; I would simply quit holding
while Spain skins. A million or two might be well spent to
obtain so great a result without difficulty, if Spain saw fit to
receive it— not much more.

But whatever may be our acquisitions of territory, I see noth
ing to endanger our rights in the Union, if the principles now
established be adhered to and maintained in good faith ; on this,
the future peace and harmony of this country in my judgment de
pends. Over all present possessions or future acquisitions, we have
and will have, by those principles, the unrestricted right to expand,
to settle and colonize with our institutions to the extent of popu
lation and capacity. Wherever climate and soil suit, there
slavery can and will go to the extent of population.

On this point of extension, however, fellow-citizens, I deem it
my duty to repeat what I said in 1850, when we had just come
out of the great struggle over the territorial policy of the gov
ernment — whatever abstract rights of extension and expansion
we may have secured in the settlement of that polic}^ you may
not expect to see many of the territories come into the Union
as slave States, unless we have an increase of African stock.
The law of population will prevent. We have not the people.
Boundaries by rivers or mountains, do not make States. It takes
people to make States ; and it requires people of the African race
to make slave States. This requires no argument ; and I very
much question whether, with our present stock of that population,
we can furnish the requisite number to secure more than the four
States to come out of Texas in the present territories of the
Union. To look for, or expect many more, is to look in vain,
without a foreign supply. This question, the people of the South
should examine in its length and breadth. It is one deserving
consideration of the gravest character. It deeply concerns our
internal interests and domestic policy, as well as the growth and
extension of our institutions. It should not be acted on or

FAREWELL SPEECH. 647

decided hastily or rashly, but calmly and deliberately. I only
present it to you for such consideration ; and especially with the
view of impressing you with this great truth beforehand, that
if there are but few more slave States admitted into the Union,
it will not necessarily be in consequence of abolitionism or Wil-
mot provisoism, but for the want of the right sort of population
to settle and colonize them with. It is useless to wage war on
those who may withhold congressional legislation to protect slave
property in the territories, or to quarrel amongst ourselves, and
accuse each other of unsoundness on that question, unless we get
more Africans to send there to be protected. My object is simply
to bring clearly to your mind the great truth — that without an
increase of African slaves from abroad, you may not expect or
look for many more slave States. If the policy of this country,
settled in its early history, of prohibiting further importations or
immigrations of this class of population, is to be adhered to, the
race of competition between us and our brethren of the North,
in the colonization of new States, which heretofore has been so
well maintained by us, will soon have to be abandoned. It is in
full view of all this, that I have stated, that if the present basis
of settlement between the sections of the Union, which has been
sanctioned by all the departments of the government, be adhered
to, you have nothing to fear for your safety or security. For on
these principles one slave State alone, by herself, would be per
fectly secure against encroachments or aggressions on her domes
tic internal policy, though all the rest were free. But this safety
and security, as well as the future prospects, depend altogether upon
a rigid adherence to these principles and the adjustment of them
as stated. They are the ship on which, as Paul said, you must
abide if you would survive and be safe. Whether these princi
ples shall be adhered to, or not, depends mainly upon the South ;
with her people united on them, there is no danger. Indeed, with
her people united, under the lead of wise councils, no one need
have any apprehension for the stability and permanence of her
institutions, either in the Union or out of it, just as her enemies
may choose to decide that question for her should this adjustment
be disturbed by them. We control the great staple which forms the
basis of the commerce of the world ; and if united on a correct
policy, can and will be able, in any and every event, to take care
of ourselves.

African slavery with us rests upon principles that can never be
successfully assailed by reason or argument. It has grown
stronger by discussion ; and will still grow stronger as discus
sion proceeds, and as time rolls on. Thirty years ago Virginia
was on the verge of abolition. Now, no such sentiment is to be
found there. Twenty years ago, Wilberforce's theor}^ was car
ried out by emancipation in the British West Indies. That
experiment has most signally failed ; that error in policy is
BOW attempted to be remedied by coolies, instead of Africans,

648 FAREWELL SPEECH.

under the title of apprentices, instead of slaves. This is but
verifying the proverb that one false step leads to another. Car-
lyle, the greatest thinker of England, has repudiated the folly of
abolitionism and the London Times followed not far behind
him. The world is growing wiser, and upon 110 subject more
rapidly than that of the proper status of the negro. In my
judgment, there are more thinking men at the North, now, who
look upon our system of slavery as right, socially, morally, and
politically, than there were even at the South, thirty years ago.
The leading public men of the South, in our early history, were
almost all against it. Jefferson was against it; Madison was
against it ; nearly all of them were against it. This I freely
admit, when the authority of their names is cited. It was a
question which they did not, and perhaps could not, thoroughly
understand at that time. It was then a new question in the con
struction of constitutional government. It is still a problem, in
process of solution. They met the paramount questions of their
day as statesmen ; so should the men of this day meet those
before them.

. New truths are always slow in development. This is the case
in all the physical sciences. It was so with the Copernican
system in astronomy ; so with the application of steam in me
chanics ; so with the knowledge of the laws of electricity, and the
means of controlling it for great uses and purposes ; this is also
the case with new truths in government — and even more so ; for
legislators and rulers are not generally the thinkers of any coun
try. Hence, important facts within their appropriate sphere often
lie much longer unobserved without the legitimate inductions
and conclusions to be drawn from them. The world had moved
on for centuries ; States, Kingdoms, and Empires had risen,
fallen, and passed away, before legislators were even conscious
of the great facts and truths brought to light by Adam Smith,
touching the laws of trade and the real source of the wealth of
nations. Even when first announced, they were slow in impres
sing the minds of those who controlled the action of governments.
Now, they are recognized and adopted as maxims, by the wise
and intelligent in all civilized countries. So it has been and is
with the great fact, that in the framework of human society the
materials for its structure should be selected and arranged in the
order of nature.

Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, the greatest philosophers of
antiquity, directed their minds to the systems of government and
the proper constitution of a State. The republican form was the
ideal model of each. They all saw the necessity of some sort of
gradation in the elements of its composition ; but their systems
failed, because they violated nature in making the subordinate
class of the same race. Subordination is the normal condition
of the negro. This great truth, that such was the normal condition

FAREWELL SPEECH. 649

of any race was not recognized in their theories ; and hence their
machinery, in practice, could not work.

In this connection, allow ine to say that I do not agree with
some as to the manner of meeting our assailants on this subject.
Many seem to be not only astonished, but offended, at the "higher
law" doctrine of the senator from New York (Mr. Seward). I,
too, believe in the higher law — the law of the Creator, as mani
fested in his works and his revelation. Upon this, our cause
eminently rests. I claim nothing barely upon the ground that
"thus it is nominated in the bond." I recognize to the fullest
extent, the doctrine that all human laws and constitutions must
be founded upon the Divine law. And if there is any right
secured, or any obligation imposed in our constitution, inconsis
tent with this lav/, underlieing and overruling all others, such
right and such obligation must be yielded. I would not swear to
support any constitution inconsistent with this higher law. Let
us not deceive ourselves — this question has to be grasped and com
prehended in all its vast dimensions — on it, we need not be orators
so much as thinkers, nor declaimers so much as reasoners. We
must stand on the higher law, as well as upon the constitution.
The latter must be subordinate to the former. But as I read the
inscriptions upon the canvass of the universe about us and around
us, and over us, as well as the teachings of inspiration " Order is
nature's first law ;" with it, come gradation and subordination ;
this principle extends from the throne of the Creator to the
utmost limits of his works. We see it in the heavens above — in
the greater and lesser -lights — in the stars that differ from each
other in magnitude and lustre ; we see it in the earth below — in
the vegetable and animal kingdoms — ranging from, the stateliest
trees of the forest to the rudest mosses and ferns. From the
magnolia grandaflora gloriosa, the rose, and the japonica, down
to the most uncouth flower we tread under foot — from the hugest
monsters of life in the air, on the land, or in the ocean, to the
smallest animalcule to be found in them all. We see similar dis
tinctions and gradations in the races of men — from the highest to
the lowest type. These are mysteries in creation which are not
for us to explain. It is enough to know that they work out a
grand harmony through the whole ; and that in our system of
government, which, in my judgment, is the best in the world, we
do but conform to these immutable principles of nature. Who,
then, is warring against the higher law ? We who conform to it,
or those who are striving to reverse the decrees of the Almighty ?

In politics and morals, as in mechanics, it is impossible to war
successfully against principle. The principle will ultimately pre
vail. The wickedest of all follies, and the absurdest of all cru
sades, are those which attempt to make things equal which God
in his wisdom has made unequal. It is a struggle against a prin
ciple which can never succeed, where reason has sway, until " the
leopard can change his spots and the Ethiopean his skin "

650 FAREWELL SPEECH.

The world, by wise men, is to be taken as they find it ; and it
is the businesss of statesmen so to construct the materials of
society as best to promote the good of all. This can never be
done by violating any principle of nature. If our system is not
the best, or cannot be made the best for both races, it is wrong.
I utterly repudiate the doctrine of the greatest good for the
greatest number. One hundred men have no right to have hap
piness at the expense of ninety-nine, or a less number. If slavery,
as it exists with us, is not the best for the African, constituted and
made as he is — if it does not best promote his welfare and happi
ness, socially, morally, and politically, as well as that of his mas
ter, it ought to be abolished. But if it does this, then we stand
upon a rock as firm and impregnable as truth. And with union
and patriotism amongst our own people, we have nothing to fear
from any quarter — either in the Union or out of it. We hold our
destiny in our own hands ; and in pursuing it to the end, we shall
be but fulfilling a great mission in advancing a new order and a
higher type of Christian civilization.

I must now take my farewell leave. My race has been run —
my career is ended ; whether it has been for good or for evil, the
record is made up. By it, I must be judged in the future, as all
others whose acts form a part, however small, in the public his
tory. I am willing that my conduct, as it there stands, shall be
squared by the Grecian's rule, that "the course of every public
man, upon all great questions, should not only be the best that
was thought of by any at the time, but the very best that all sub
sequent disclosures shall show, could have been thought of and
adopted under all the circumstances." The rule is a rigid one ;
but I ask no exemption from it now, nor hereafter. Upon a
review of the past up to this time, I see no cause to regret any
of my acts upon any of those questions to which I have alluded ;
nor is there a single one of them that I would change.

I retire from no feelings of discontent — far from it ; no one ever
had less cause to complain. If you are satisfied with the past
I am. If any explanations are necessary to satisfy the inquiries
of those who seem to think it so strange that one should volunta
rily retire from a place of position and honor, I state explicitly
that it is because those questions having been settled with which
I had become connected, there are other pursuits more agreeable
to my nature, and I do not know that I could render the public
any more essential service at this time than by showing, to the
extent of my example, at least, that office is not the chief end of
man. I do not say that I will, under no circumstances, ever hold
office again, or serve the country in any emergency that may
arise. That would be tantamount to a declaration of incivism, in
excusable under all circumstances. An occasion may arise when
I should feel it a duty even to shoulder a musket — though I could
not render much service in that way. But I do say, that there is
no office under Heaven that I desire, or wish ever to hold — there

COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS. 651

is none that I should prefer to that of representative in Congress
— especially from the eighth district of Georgia. In quitting
that, therefore, I quit for good and in earnest — hoping and believ
ing that no such crisis ever will come when I should be required
to take active part again in public affairs. As a private citizen, I
shall continue to feel the same interest in passing events, and take
such part in them as all other good citizens should — nothing more.

I cannot permit this occasion to go by without adding, that if,
in the heat of any of those high party excitements, through which
it has been my lot to pass. I have ever, at any time, said or done
aught to give offence, or to wound the feelings of any one wan
tonly, or without cause, I do deeply regret it. It was never my
intention to offend, or to give cause of offence to any, unless first
offended against ; and whatever instances of this kind may have
occurred, I deeply regret the necessity that occasioned them ; and
trust that the whole, alike, may be buried in oblivion forever.

With you, my fellow-citizens, here present, and those of my con
stituents absent, I leave my best wishes for long life and happi
ness. With our common country, I leave like good wishes, and
the earnest hope for undisturbed peace and prosperity, and that
our institutions, unimpaired, national and State, may long con
tinue to bless millions, yet unborn, as they have blessed us.

THE ADDRESS OF HON. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS
BEFORE THE PRIZE DECLAIMERS OF THE SOPHO
MORE CLASS AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
STATE UNIVERSITY, IN AUGUST, 1859, AT ATHENS,
GEORGIA.

YOUNG GENTLEMEN : In the order of these exercises, it is now my
part to present to two of your number the prize medals for which
all of you yesterday entered into such spirited, honorable, and
praiseworthy competition. Those whose province it was to decide
upon the merits of that contest have rendered their award, and it
is for me now to make that award known, and to deliver the
medals according to their judgment.

Custom on such occasions warrants the expectation that the
performance of this duty will be accompanied by some prefatory
remarks. In yielding to this, however, the lateness of the hour,
the protracted detention of this large and alread3T wearied audi
ence, and especially your own impatience to hear the result, on
which your minds must be now hanging in anxious suspense, all
alike admonish and prompt me to be brief.

To 37ou all it is an interesting occasion. The most so, per
haps, you have ever experienced. It is one of those events which

652 COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS.

makes its mark, and which will form an epoch in the life of each
of you, to which the rnind hereafter will often revert and look
back with pleasure, I trust, as years roll on, and as new scenes
and other conflicts open up before you. You have each just
made your debut upon the public stage — your first essay for
distinction before the world — your first effort in life's great
struggle. To know the result of this effort ? What success it has
met with ? How it has been appreciated in comparison with that
of your rivals? These are thoughts and questions which now
agitate your breasts, and must cause the most intense anxiety to
each of you. This is natural. This anxiety is not confined to
yourselves. The same feeling to some extent fills the breasts of
many of those now here, who witnessed that effort so strenuously
exerted by all. There are, perhaps, many now here who feel
almost as much interest in hearing the decision of the judges
upon it as you do yourselves. Parents, brothers, sisters, precep
tors, or other dear friends, whose whole souls are ever alive and
quick to every thing that relates to your welfare, and success in
life. Think not that because you are yet young, that you are not
the object of most anxious care and thought by many who keep
constant watch on your progress. Even strangers, who never
saw you before, could not remain indifferent and disinterested
spectators of such an exhibition as you displa^yed of youthful
emulation in skill, tact, art, and energy; each striving for the lead
while all were so close, so nearly equal, as to leave the mind in
hesitation, if not doubt, to whom the honors should be given.
Many of these are also here now partaking of the same anxious
expectation.

To both parties of you, the successful and the unsuccessful
respectively, I would say a word in advance before making the
final announcement. To the two to whom the prizes have been
awarded, that word is, be not too much elated by your triumph
when you hear it ; be not puffed up or vain-glorious at it. Recollect
that this is but the first rencontre — the first pass or tilt in the
grand tournament of life. Intellectual struggles of this character,
in some respects, are like those physical and athletic exercises
and sports so celebrated amongst the ancients. The objects in
both are similar. In those the development of the physical facul
ties was looked to ; in these the development of the mental. And
in the former your classical reading has taught you that the first
advantage gained, was not always followed by ultimate victory.
That is the great prize to which all of you should mainly look.
Gyas, you recollect, in the boat contest so graphically depicted by
Virgil, took the lead far ahead at the outset, but Cloanthus was
foremost at the close of the race. Entullus blundered and fell,
when he first sought close quarters with his antagonist. The
shouts of the multitude proclaimed the victory to Dares. But
Kutnllus, rising from his fall with renewed spirits and strength,
not only recovered himself for renewed action, but finally bors

COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS. 653

off the palm. So Euryalus the third at first out of six in the foot
race came off winner in the end. The end with you is not yet.
This is but the beginning of that race upon which you have
entered. Wear your honors, therefore, with that modesty and
dignity which always comport so well with real and true merit ;
and with this abiding reflection deeply impressed upon your
minds, that more will be expected of you hereafter, and that if
by chance you should fall behind on the next trial, your chagrin
will be greatly enhanced ~by the remembrance of any undue exul
tation on this occasion.

To those of you who have been unsuccessful, who by necessity
constitute much the larger number, for the prizes here, as the
honors of the world are few compared with the number of compet
itors for them, hence their great value and the high estimation
placed upon them. To you who have in the opinion of the judges
come short of your rivals in this your first effort, the word I
would say, is, be not discouraged at this result. To you I would
also repeat, this is not the ultimate goal of that ambition, which
in your young breasts is just beginning to quicken into life. This
is not the end of that race upon which you and your rivals have
entered. It is but the first step in that long and arduous road,
that leads to Fame's proud Temple that shines afar. The young
eaglets that upon the first trial of wing from their eyries may not be
able to bear themselves up so well as their better fledged fellows
may, nevertheless, an on rise equally high as they, and move as grace
fully and majestically in those upper regions into which none but
eagles soar. And many a man has been actually scraped and
coughed down in legislative assemblies, who afterward has made
thrones and kingdoms tremble under the powers of his eloquence.
The most renowned of all orators not only gained no distinction,
took no prize, but was hissed on his first effort before the public.
And the acknowledged chief of all declaimers England has ever
produced, was ridiculed and lampooned most severely upon his
first appearance on a London stage. Let your ardor therefore
be not in the least degree checked or abated. Let it rather be
rekindled with renewed energies. Let your spirits react as the
palm tree, from which the emblem of victory was chosen of old,
" adversus pondus resurget et sursum nititur." Let your energies
rise against any and all opposing weights. If you feel the internal
fires glow aright— if you have the firm and deep resolve within,
based upon the essential requisites of truth, honor, and integrity,
be assured that nothing is wanting for ultimate success, but
length of days, sound bodies and minds, and continued effort
Effort is necessary fo^success in all things. In oratory, as well
as in every thing else, it can be attained only by application, in
dustry, toil, and perseverance, " Labor omnia vincit," " Fortuna
favet fortibus et patientibus." Fortune favors those who are not
only brave, but who can stand the exertion and fatigues of the
campaign. Patience is a master virtue. Not that calm, inert.

654 COMMENCEMENT ADDKESS.

resignation of mind sometimes meant by the word, but that
strong quality of perseverance and constancy in labor and exer
tion, which it legitimately imports. " Patior" is its origin, and
it implies all that this word in the original expresses. He that
would succeed in any thing must cultivate this quality. It signi
fies not only the faculty which enables to bear crosses and disap
pointments, such as this may be to you, but that which sustains
physical endurance, bodily privation, self denial, and which
underlies all the nobler traits of character.

" What makes the hero, an heroic mind !
Expressed in action and in endurance proved."

It implies a rigid self-knowledge and self-control. The first great
essential for you is to know yourselves thoroughly — your capaci
ties and incapacities — your capabilities and incapabilities — as
well as your aims, objects, and wishes. Goethe, the German
poet and philosopher, has said that he is fortunate who early in
life learns the immeasurable distance between the objects of his
desires and his capabilities to attain them. This knowledge,
this survey of the ground, like the general's reconnoissance of the
Held on which the battle is to be fought, acquaints one who would
win, with all the difficulties, obstacles, and impediments that lie
in the way, and enables him to avoid or surmount them as con
venience or necessity may require. With this knowledge — with
self-control and self-discipline firmly planted upon correct princi
ples — set your mark where you please, high or low, with con
tinued, enduring effort fear not ultimate success. Let your motto
be " Nil desperanclum est."

And now, young gentlemen, a word to all of you. I feel that
I but speak the common sentiment of that portion of this audi
ence who witnessed your exhibition, when I assure you that all
of you acquitted yourselves well, and gave an earnest and promise
for the future that ought to be most gratifying not only to you
and your immediate friends, but to those under whose charge
you have been trained in these your first lessons in elocution.
Declamation is, as far as you have as yet ventured in exercising
it, that wonderful gift which has and ever will rank so high in
the estimation of mankind. This part you have done well. But
oratory in its wider and more comprehensive sense embraces
excellence in this as well as in many other things. In its analy
sis it has been divided into four parts ; invention, disposition,
elocution, and delivery. Another, and as it seems to me, a bet
ter, classification of its parts might be into thought, method, and
utterance — or ideas, their arrangement an^. the manner of their
presentation. Declamation, with all its accompaniments of voice,
attitude, and action, is but the utterance or presentation of
thoughts previously methodized or arranged. This requires the
power so to catch the spirit, so to moderate the voice, so to suit
the action to the word as to impart not only the meaning of the

COMMENCEMENT ADDRESS. 655

author but his passions and emotions. This is elocution in its
proper sense, and is itself a rare and high attainment. This is
the field in which the actor figures. Herein lies his whole art.
It was in this Garrick won all his laurels. It was in this that
Mrs. Siddons so excelled all women who lived before or since.
It is in this that Forest and Macready and others upon the stage,
in our day, have gained such world-wide reputation. It is an
art, however, of the same grade relatively as that of the perform
ance barely in music, either vocal or instrumental. Giardini,
Garcia, Paginini, Jenny Lind, and other masters and queens of
the opera, the orchestra, and concerts have left names that will
long survive them. They possessed talent and genius of no
ordinary character — yet their genius falls far below that of Cor-
relli, Beethoven, Haydn, and Mozart. These originated and
created as well as executed. So it is with real orators. Those
who not only move masses but impress their ideas upon the
world, as Massillon, Bossuet, Whitfield, and Wesley. Those
who control the destinies of nations, as Demosthenes, Cicero,
Pericles, Mirabeau, Chatham, Burke, our own Patrick Henry,
Webster, Clay, Calhoun, and he, though last not least, whose
recent loss the whole country now mourns, the most accom
plished and gifted Choate, rise to a much higher order of genius
than those whose fame rests solely upon elocution. They were
not actors merely — not performers only — they were originators.
This species of oratory — this transcendent power requires not
only utterance, or the elocution of words properly arranged, but
something higher — the faculty of commanding thought — the
power of generating and producing ideas with all the necessary
imagery and illustration to give them force and effect. Commu
nities, societies, and States are governed by ideas. He who
gives the idea on any occasion in science, in art, in philosophy,
in government or in religion, is the man of the occasion. And
he who combines originality and fitness of idea, with the powers
of language and manner, to impress its truth and force, is the
orator of the occasion. What the poet has so well said of all of
us, is particularly true of him who excels in this sphere —

" We live in deeds not years —

In thoughts not breaths :
##**#«

He most lives who thinks most —
Feels noblest — acts the best."

To attain this highest position amongst men or even to approxi
mate it, requires the greatest and most extensive acquirements
of the mind. It requires qualifications of the heart as well as
the head. The moral attributes must be sound as well as the
intellectual. There must above all be integrity of purpose.
There must be that earnestness of soul which springs alone from
the utmost sincerity of motive These can never be affected.

656 LETTER TO HON. J. J. CRITTEXDEN.

They cannot be feigned. They must be real and genuine. Who
ever would make others feel must himself feel. This is within
the reach of the actor. But whoever would convince others of
some new truth must himself first be imbued with that truth. It
was Paul's profound conviction of the truths he uttered, and the
earnestness with which he proclaimed them, which gave that
power to his speech that made Felix tremble upon his throne.
This is above and beyond the power of the mere artist. Barron,
the celebrated actor in France, after hearing Massilloii upon one
occasion, feeling his inferiority in this particular, remarked to
his associates : " We are but players, he is an orator."

Whoever, therefore, in the pulpit, in the forum, at the bar, in
the public councils, or on the hustings, would lead others to the
adoption of truth upon any matter or question, must himself first
see it and feel its power.

With these suggestions let me in conclusion, young gentlemen,
barely add, if you have high aspirations for ultimate success in
that career upon wrhich you are now only on the threshold, spare
no labor, no toil. Study yourselves — know your defects and im
perfections as well as your excellencies. Cultivate the moral as
well as the mental attributes, and you may all yet upon another
arena, after you shall have left these halls, secure to yourselves
other memorials of distinction far more to be prized than these
medals.

LETTER TO HON. J. J. CRITTENDEN, OF KENTUCKY.

CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., JANUARY 21, 1860.

MY DEAR SIR: — Your highly esteemed favor of the 13th inst.
was duly received several da}rs ago — the delay of my answer
has been occasioned by a desire to see the pamphlet of Mr.
Nicholas, to which you refer, before replying — that did not reach
me until last night. I have given his proposed plan of change
of the constitution of the United States, in the clause setting
forth the mode and manner of electing the President and Yice-
President, a very careful perusal, but have not had time to give
the subject that calm reflection and thought which would be
necessary before expressing any deliberate or mature judgment
upon its merits, or its efficiency in correcting existing evils,
which experience has shown to be incident to our present system.
There can be no doubt that our practice has deviated immensely
from the theory of our government in the election of these highest
officers. The colleges of electors with us now are but nominal
bodies. They exercise no discretion or judgment of their own
whatever ; their duties rise no higher than those of mere clerks

LETTER TO HON. J. J. CRITTENDEN. 657

in the registry of edicts given in command to them, or whatever
may be said of their duties under the constitution, such has become
the character of their office. This was not the original design, how
ever, or intention. That this deviation from the original design
is attended with bad consequences, I am fully convinced. But
how the evil is to be properly corrected, or whether it can be
done by the plan proposed by Mr. Nicholas, or by any other that
could be suggested, I am not prepared to say. It is true one
class of evils might be avoided, if it were practicable to get any
change'on the subject made ; but whether new ones, quite as mis
chievous might not arise under any change that might be made,
is the question ? Human foresight seems to be too short to pro
vide against all dangerous tendencies, in the workings of any
governmental machinery that human wisdom, backed by the
purest patriotism, may undertake to put in operation. The works
of man, in forming political organizations, seem in many partic
ulars to be not unlike his own framework — his own physical
organization — having in itself the seeds of its own dissolution.
The very laws of life which for awhile evolve and develop such
power, health, vigor, and strength, tend necessarily to such aber-
ations as in the end to effect their own suspension. Perpetual
motions in governments need never be looked for anjr more than
in mechanics. Indeed, I very much doubt if those laws in nature
which we are accustomed to speak of as permanent, fixed, and
immutatable, are really so ; their operations are only perhaps on
too large a scale for our limited observation to note the changes
incident to their action. But we see enough to know that all
things about us in the material universe are not now as they
once were ; and that other agencies in nature than those now
active must once have been potent.

But enough of this speculative digression. I mean by it simply
to express the opinion that perfection nor permanence need ever be
expected in any system of government, and that no system could
be devised that would not in the end show irreparable defects ; that
such will be the ultimate fate of ours I have no doubt, no more
than that death inevitably awaits every living organism on earth,
whether vegetable or animal. But, as yet, I do not think any
such irreparable defect has exhibited itself in our system. The
end witli us, I trust, is not yet — and such imperfections as expe
rience has shown do exist, it is the part of patriotism to remedy
and rectify as far as possible. Every disease or ailment that
flesh is heir to is not necessarily fatal. So it is, I trust, with the
ailments our body politic is now affected with — the statesman as
the physician should resort to all the remedies within his power
and skill. Whether the one proposed by Mr. Nicholas for the
particular malady he alludes to would be proper, as I have stated,
I am not prepared to venture an opinion. But I will say this,
that I very much doubt if we have not passed the period in our
Kc^ublic's life when any amendment of the constitution is practi-
42

658 LETTER TO HON. J. J. CRITTENDEN.

cable. When an}7, however apparently proper, could be made.
Whether, in a word, for the balance of our existence, long or
short, we must not make up our minds to get along as well as we
can, and do the best we can with the constitution as it is ?

This is the opinion to which I am strongly inclined. One of
the evils Mr. Nicholas intends to guard against, I fear, can never
be avoided — that is party spirit and party organization. This
seems to be a necessary incident to political organization itself —
the idea of having the one without the other approaches a Uto
pian dream. Party has its originating principle in the* philo
sophy of mental organization. Mind as well as matter is gov
erned by a principle of polarity. When the metallic bar receives
the magnetic power or influence, instantly all adjacent ferrugin-
eous particles array themselves toward one or the other of the
antagonistic poles. So with the minds of men, however quiet,
calm, and perfectly at rest they may be, that instant a new idea,
a new thought is presented, or a new question is started, these
minds, by a law beyond their control, assume their normal posi
tion toward the new idea, thought, or question — they array them
selves instantly toward it upon the principle of polarity — some
on the one side and some on the other. This is so in small cir
cles of people, and in large ones — in all bodies or collections of
men. In small affairs as well as great. In matters of government
or measures relative to public interest — we see it in counties,
towns, cities, states, and empires. It is an all-pervading princi
ple — the larger the mass, the greater the number, the more
intense is the action of this principle, especially upon great ques
tions affecting the interests of all, as every leading question of
governmental policy must of necessity be. All free governments,
if you will allow the illustration, are not unlike a huge magnetic-
galvanic battery. Each mind, under the influence of this univer
sal principle of polarity, contributes its mite toward producing
the whitest and intensest heat of all other agencies. This under
our government cannot be avoided. A wise man should not
attempt to avoid it, if for no other reason because it is impossi
ble ; but he should endeavor to control it for wise and good pur
poses — useful ends — just as the man of .science controls the
agencies in his battery in sending news as quick as lightning, or
in discovering new truths in the mysteries of nature for the
benefit of mankind. Opposition of thought, antagonism of idea,
opinion, and judgment, upon which all party organization is
founded, can no more be avoided in any system of human society
than magnetism and polarity can be eradicated or removed from
the material world. It is an inherent quality in the object itself.

But, again, I find myself going, perhaps, too deeply into the
philosophy of things. I fear I shall weary you, if I do not quite
bore you, with such abstract disquisitions, and, therefore, will
say no more in that view.

In reply to another portion of your letter referring to the

LETTER TO HON. J. J. CRITTENDEN. 659

prospect of remedying some of the existing evils growing out of
existing party organizations, by the formation of a new party
upon the basis you mention, with the hope of rallying all con
servative men to the support of " the constitution, the Union and
the execution of the laws," etc., I can only say that I do not
think it practicable. There must be a vital and germinating prin
ciple in every embryo organism, as well as in all embryo parties,
to secure growth and development. There must be a nucleus
around which a crystallization of even unorganized matter is
formed. The bare announcement " of the constitution, the Union
and the execution of the laws," is not enough. With us ques
tions of policy, measures, laws to be passed, will of necessity,
and ought to be, the controlling, germinating principle in the
organization of party. This is the case in all governments where
the people take part in them. The present party organizations
in this country are not the result of accident or chance or design ;
they are the legitimate result of the operation of causes beyond
the control of those who might wish it were otherwise. They are
founded upon the law I have mentioned. They spring from
questions of public policy. They arise out of the action of the
government, or the proposed action of the government, upon
great questions affecting great interests, and they will necessa
rily exist until those questions are settled. If the " conflict" be
"irrepressible," then they will last to the end. This I regard as
a philosophical truth, that statesmen and patriots ought no more
to ignore or forget than that water runs down hill, and that tides
ebb and flow.

If such a party as you speak ' of should be organized, and
should carry the country in an election, its own elements would
go to pieces on the first meeting of Congress upon the questions
of practical legislation. These are the living questions which
must give life to party organizations. Parties must and will
form on questions of legislation as they arise. As all men stand
on these questions for or against the proposed action, they will,
of necessity, fall into one or the other ranks of party classifica
tion. The real conflict in this country now, as I understand it,
is, whether the powers of the common government shall be
directed against the institutions and internal polity of a number
of the States of the Union — whether the common government
shall so direct its policy, foreign and domestic, as to change and
ultimately eradicate those institutions ? That is the whole ques
tion in a nutshell ; and I see no way to get rid of party organi
zation on this idea until the good men and true, throughout the
Union, shall combine, and by their united energy and patriotism
put that question at rest definitely and forever. That being a
vital question to so large a portion of the country, it must neces
sarily swallow up all other ^questions until it is out of the way.
For myself, I have never looked at this "conflict" as "irrepressi
ble" at all, if the general government in its action shall be con-

660 LETTER TO HON. J. J. CR1TTENDEN".

fined to its appropriate sphere. I see nothing in the diversity
of interests and pursuits, and institutions of this great and ex
tensive county at all inconsistent with its united prosperity,
peace, happiness, and increasing growth and power under the
constitution as it is. I do not look upon this diversity as one
of the fatal inherent defects of our system. The difficulties
that now beset and environ us do not arise from any weakness of
the craft on which we are borne — the ship is strong enough — the
danger is not there. The trouble is with the crew — with the men
to whom her safe guidance is confided — with our public men
everywhere, in .Congress as well as in our State legislatures and
party conventions. We have too many demagogues and too
few statesmen. There is not that loyalty to principle which
characterized the men of the past generation. Men seek office
now, even the highest, for the honor they may derive from it,
and not with any view to the honor they ought by holding it, to
confer upon it in the able and faithful discharge of its duties.
These are our real troubles. They augur a fearful degeneracy of
the times and of the people. They spring from those who con
trol and seek to control the government — not the form or frame
work of the government itself, but its moving power — and they
cannot be got rid of but by elevating the people — by bringing
about a change of their sentiments. It cannot be done by put-
ing them into different party classifications. An appeal to their
virtue, their intelligence, and their patriotism is the only hope.
If this fails, no hope is left — destruction will soon be upon us —
and that " end" which I so sincerely trust may not come, at least
in my day, will speedity and inevitably follow. This is my delib
erate judgment. I am now out of public life, and intend to
remain out the balance of my days, but I cannot cease to look on
passing events but with the deepest interest. I must ask to be
excused for writing to you at such length — the truth is I did not
intend to do so when I commenced. But when I begin to scrib
ble it is about as difficult for me to stop as it is to start. Permit
me to say, I find it much more agreeable to look on in retirement
at what is going on in Washington, than to be a participant in
the excitements there. I often think of you, and the many
pleasant hours and days we have spent together. My kindest
regards attend you forever. I should be pleased to hear from
you often.

Yours most sincerely and truly,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.
HON. JOHN J. CRITTENDEN, WASHINGTON, D. C.

LETTER ON THE CHARLESTON RUPTURE. 661

LETTER OF THIRTEEN GENTLEMEN OF MACON,
AND MR. STEPHENS' REPLY UPON THE CHARLES
TON RUPTURE, MAY 9, 1860.

MACON, GA., MAY 5th, 1860.

SIR : We are alarmed by the state of things developed in the
democratic convention at Charleston. The discord and disorgan
izing spirit which prevailed there threaten the integrity and over
throw of the democratic party. We are filled with painful
forebodings at the prospect of the democratic party being
slaughtered in the house of its friends — a catastrophe which will
put in equal peril the Union of the States and the safety of the
South. Clinging to the fate and fortunes of both, we invoke
your counsels in this crisis. We believe the democracy of
Georgia should be represented in the adjourned national conven
tion at Baltimore. Will you please give us your views candidly
and promptly for publication ?

Your friends and fellow-citizens,

ROBERT COLLINS, JOHN J. GRESHAM, JAS. W. ARMSTRONG,
JAMES DEAN, JOHN B. Ross, PULASKI S. HOLT,
A. E. COCHRAN, W. K. DEGRAFFENREID, SAMUEL B.
HUNTER, JOSEPH CLISBY, THOMAS L. Ross, JAMES A.

NlSBET, WM. LUNDY.

CRAWFORDVILLE, GA., MAY 9, 1860.

GENTLEMEN : Your letter of the 5th inst. was received last
night, and I promptly respond to your call as clearly and fully
as a heavy press of business engagements will permit. I shall
endeavor to be no less pointed and explicit than candid. You
clo not, in my judgment, overestimate the importance of the ques
tions now pressing upon the public mind, growing out of the
disruption of the Charleston convention. While I was not
greatly surprised at that result, considering the elements of its
composition, and the general distemper of the times, still I
deeply regret it, and, with you, look with intense interest to the
consequences. What is done cannot be undone or amended ;
that must remain irrevocable. It would, therefore, be as useless,
as ungracious, to indulge in any reflections, as to whose fault the
rupture was owing to. Perhaps, and most probably, undue
excitement and heat of passion, in pursuit of particular ends
connected with the elevation or overthrow of particular rivals for
preferment, more than any strong desire, guided by cool judg
ment, so necessary on such occasions to advance the public good,
was the real cause of the rupture. Be that as it may, however,
what is now to be done, and what is the proper course to be taken?
To my mind the course seems to be clear.

A State convention should be called at an early day — and that
convention should consider the whole subject calmly, and dispas-

662 LETTER ON THE CHARLESTON RUPTURE.

sionately, with "the sober second thought," and determine
whether to send a representation to Richmond or to Baltimore.
The correct determination of this question, as I view it, will
depend upon another ; and that is, whether the doctrine of non
intervention by Congress, with slavery in the territories, ought to
be adhered to, or abandoned by the South. This is a very grave
and serious question, and ought not to be decided rashly or
intemperately. No such small matters, as the promotion of this
or that individual, however worthy or unworthy, ought to enter
into its consideration. It is a great subject of public policy,
affecting the vast interests of the present and the future. It may
be unnecessary, and entirely useless, for me to obtrude my views
upon this question, in advance of the meeting of such convention,
upon whom its decision may primarily devolve. I cannot, how
ever, comply with your request, without doing so to a limited
extent, at least. This, I shall do. In the first place, then, I
assume, as an unquestioned and unquestionable fact, that non
intervention, as stated, has been for many years received, recog
nized, and acted upon, as the settled doctrine of the South. By
non-intervention, I mean the principle, that Congress shall pass
no law upon the subject of slavery in the territories, either for or
against it, in any way — that they shall not interfere or act upon
it at all — or, in the express words of Mr. Calhoun, the great
southern leader, that Congress shall "leave the whole subject
where the constitution and the great principles of self-govern
ment place it." This has been eminently a southern doctrine.
It was announced by Mr. Calhoun, in his speech, in the Senate,
on the 27th of June, 1848 ; and, after two years of discussion,
was adopted as the basis of the adjustment finally made in 1850.
It was the demand of the South, put forth by the South, and
since its establishment has been again and again affirmed and re
affirmed as the settled policy of the South, by party conventions
and State legislatures, in every form that a people can give
authoritative expression to their will and wishes. This cannot
now be matter of dispute. It is history, as indelibly fixed upon
the record as the fact that the colony of Georgia was settled
under the auspices of Oglethorpe, or that the war of the American
revolution was fought in resistance to the unjust claim of power
on the part of the British Parliament.

I refer to this matter of history connected with the subject
under consideration, barely as a starting point — to show how we
stand in relation to it. It is not a new question. It has been up
before, and whether rightly or wrongly, it has been decided —
decided and settled just as the South asked that it should be —
not, however, without great effort and a prolonged struggle. The
question now is, shall the South abandon her own position in that
decision and settlement ? This is the question virtually presented
by the action of the secede rs from the Charleston convention, and
the ground* upon which they based their action ; or stated in other

LETTER ON THE CHARLESTON" RUPTURE. 663

words, it amounts to this : whether the southern States, after all
that has taken place on the subject, should now reverse their pre
vious course, and demand Congressional intervention for the
protection of slavery in the territories, as a condition of their
remaining longer in the Union ? For I take it for granted that it
would be considered Toy all as the most mischievous folly to make
the demand, unless -we intend to push the issue to its ultimate
and legitimate results. Shall the South, then, make this demand
of Congress, and when made, in case of failure to obtain it, shall
she secede from the Union as a portion of her delegates (some
under instructions, and some from their own free will,) seceded
from the convention, on their failure to get it granted there ?

Thus stands the naked question, as I understand it, presented
by the action of the seceders, in its full dimensions — its length,
breadth, and depth, in all its magnitude.

It is presented not to the democratic party alone ; it is true a
convention of that party may first act on it, but it is presented to
the country, to the whole people of the South, of all parties. And
men of all parties should duly and timely consider it, for they may
all have to take sides on it, sooner or later.

It rises in importance high above any party organization of the
present da}', and it may, and ought to, if need be, sweep them all
from the board. My judgment is against the demand. If it
were a new question, presented in its present light, for the first
time, my views upon it might be different from what they are.
It is known to }^ou and the country that the policy of non-interven
tion, as established at the instance of the South was no favorite
one of mine. As to my position upon it, and the doctrine now
revived, when they were original and open questions, as well as
my present views, I will cite you to an extract of a speech made
by me in Augusta, in July last, on taking final leave of my con
stituents. I could not restate them more clearly or more briefly.
In speaking of, and reviewing this matter, I then said :

" And, as you all may know it, (non-intervention,) came short
of what I wished. It was, in my view, not the full measure of
our rights — that required, in my judgment, the enactment by
Congress, of all needful laws for the protection of slave property
in the territories, so long; as the territorial condition lasted.

" But an overwhelming majority of the South was against that
position. It was said that we who maintained it, yielded the
whole question by yielding the jurisdiction — and that, if we con
ceded the power to protect, we necessarily conceded with it the
power to prohibit. This, by no means, followed, in my judgment.
But such was the prevailing opinion. And it was not until it
was well ascertained that a large majority of the South would
not ask for, or even vote for, Congressional protection, that
those of us who were for it yielded to non-intervention, because,
though it came short of our wishes, yet it contained no sacrifice
of principle — had nothing aggressive in it, and secured, for all

664 LETTER ON THE CHARLESTON RUPTURE.

practical purposes, what was wanted ; that is, the unrestricted
right of expansion over the common public domain, as inclination,
convenience, or necessity may require on the part of our
people.

" Thus the settlement was made — thus the record stands, and
by it I am willing still to stand, as it was fully up to the demands
of the South, through her representatives at the time, though not
sup to my own ; and as by it the right of expansion to the extent
of population and capacity is amply secured."

In this you clearly perceive what I think of the proper course
now to be taken on the same subject. While in the beginning of
this controversy I was not favorable to the policy adopted, yet I
finally yielded my assent. It was yielded to the South — to the
prevailing sentiment of my own section. But it never would
have been yielded if I had seen that any of our important rights,
or any principle essential to our safety or security, could, by pos
sibility, result from its operation. Nor would I now be willing
to abide by it, if I saw in its practical workings any serious injury
to the South likely to arise from it. All parties in the South,
after the settlement was made, gave it the sanction of their acqui
escence, if not cordial approval. What, then, has occurred since
to cause us to change our position in rel tion to it ? Is it that
those of the North who stood by us in trie struggle from 1848 to
1850, did afterward stand nobly by us in 1854, in taking off the
old Congressional restriction, of 1820, so as to have complete
non-intervention throughout the length and breadth of the common
public domain ? Was this heroism on their part, in adhering to
principle, at the hazard and peril of their political lives and for
tunes, the cause of present complaint ? This cannot be ; for
never was an act of Congress so generally and so unanimously
hailed with delight at the South, as this one was= — I mean the
Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 ? It was not only indorsed by all
parties in Georgia, but every one who did not agree to its just
provisions, upon the subject of slavery, was declared to be unfit
to hold party associations with any party not hostile to the inter
ests of the South. What, then, is the cause of complaint now ?
Wherein has this policy worked any injury to the South, or
wherein is it likely to work any ? ,

The only cause of complaint I have heard is, that non-interven
tion, as established in 1850, and carried out in 1854, is not un
derstood at the North as it is at the South ; that, while we hold
that, in leaving " the whole subject where the constitution and
the great principles of self-government place it," the common ter
ritories are to remain open for settlement by southern people,
with their slaves, until otherwise provided by a State constitu
tion, the friends and supporters of the same doctrine at the
Xorth maintain that, under it, the people of an organized terri
tory can protect or exclude slave property before the formation
of a State constitution. This opinion, or construction of theirs,

LETTER ON THE CHARLESTON RUPTURE. 665

is what is commonly dubbed "squatter sovereignty." Upon this
point of difference in construction of what are "the great princi
ples of self-government," under the constitution of the United
States, a great deal has been said and written.

We have heard it in the social circle — in the forum — on the
hustings — and in the halls of legislation. The newspapers have
literally groaned with dissertations on it. Pamphlets have been
published for and against the respective sides. Congress has
spent months in its discussion, and may spend as many years as
they have months, without arriving at any more definite or satis
factory conclusion in relation to it than Milton's perplexed spirits
did upon the abstruse questions on which they held such high
and prolonged debate when they reasoned —

"Of Providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate ;
Fixed fate, free will, fore-knowledge, absolute,
And found no end in wandering mazes lost."

It is not my purpose now to enter the list of these disputants.
My own opinions upon the subject are known ; and it is equally
known that this difference of opinion, or construction, is no new
thing in the history of this subject. Those who hold the doctrine
that the people of the territories, according to the great princi
ples of self-government, under the constitution of the United
States, can exclude slavery by territorial law, and regulate slave
property as all other property, held the same views they now do,
when we agreed with them to stand on those terms. This fact is
also historical. The South held, that under the constitution, the
territorial legislatures could not exclude slavery — that it required
an act of sovereignty to do this. Some gentlemen of the North
held, as they now do, that the territorial legislatures could con
trol slave property as absolutely as they could any other kind of
property, and by a system of laws could virtually exclude slavery
from amongst them, or prevent its introduction if they chose.

That point of difference it was agreed, by both sides, to leave
to the courts to settle. There was no cheat, or swindle, or fraud,
or double dealing in it. T-t was a fair, honorable, and constitu
tional adjustment of the difference. No assertion or declaration
by Congress, one way or the other, could have affected the ques
tion in the least degree ; for if the people, according to " the
great principles of self-government" under the constitution, have
the right contended for by those who espouse that side of the
argument, then Congress could not and cannot deprive them of
it. And if Congress did not have, or does not have, the power
to exclude slavery from a territory, as those on our side con
tended, and still contend they have not, then they could not and
did not confer it upon the territorial legislatures. We of the
South held that Congress had not the power to exclude, and
could not delegate a power they did not possess — also, that the
people had not the power to exclude under the constitution, and

LETTER ON THE CHARLESTON RUPTURE.

therefore the mutual agreement was to take the subject out of
Congress, and leave the question of the power of the people,
where the constitution had placed it — with the courts. This is
the whole of it. The question in dispute is a judicial one, and
no act of Congress, nor an}T resolution of any party convention
can in any way affect it, unless we abandon the first position of
non-intervention by Congress.

But it seems exceedingly strange to me, that the people of the
South should, at this late day, begin to find fault with this north
ern construction, as it is termed — especially since the decision of
the Supreme Court, in the case of Dred Scott. In this connec
tion, I may be permitted to say, that I have read with deep in
terest the debates of the Charleston convention, and particularly
the able, logical, and eloquent speech of the Hon. Wm. L. Yaiicey,
of Alabama. It was, decidedly, the strongest argument I have
seen on his side of the question. But its greatest power was
shown in its complete answer to itself. Never did a man, with
greater clearness, demonstrate that "squatter sovereignty," the
bug-bear of the day, is not in the Kansas bill, all that has been
said to the contrary, notwithstanding. This, he put beyond the
power of refutation. But he stopped not there — he went on, and
by reference to the decision of the Supreme Court alluded to, he
showed, conclusively, in a most pointed and thrilling climax, that
this most frightful doctrine could not, by possibility, be in it, or
in any other territorial bill — that it is a constitutional impossi
bility. With the same master hand he showed that the doctrine
of " squatter sovereignty" is not in the Cincinnati platform ; then,
why should we of the South now complain of non-intervention,
or ask a change of platform ?

What else have we to do but to insist upon our allies standing
to their agreement ? Would it not have been much more natural
to look for flinching on their side than on ours ? Why should
we desire or want any other platform of principles than that
adopted at Cincinnati ? If those who stood with us on it, in the
contest of 1856, are willing still to stand on it, why should we
not be equally willing ? For my life I cannot see, unless we are
determined to have a quarrel with the North anyhow on general
account. If so, in behalf of common sense, let us put it upon
more tenable ground ! These are abundant. For our own char
acter's sake, let us make it upon the aggressive acts of our
enemies, rather than any supposed short-comings of our friends,
who have stood by us so steadfastly in so many constitutional
struggles. In the name of patriotism and honor, let us not make
it upon a point which may so directly subject us to the charge of
breach of plighted faith. Whatever may befal us, let us ever be
found, by friend or foe, as good as our word. These are my
views, frankly and earnestly given.

The great question then, is, shall we stand by our principles, or
shall we, cutting loose from our moorings, where we have been

LETTEK ON" THE CHARLESTON RUPTURE. 667

safely anchored so many years, launch out again into unknown
soas, upon new and perilous adventures, under the guide and pilot
age of those who prove themselves to have no more fixedness of
purpose or stability as to objects or policy than the shifting
winds by which we shall be driven ? Let this question be decided
by the convention, and decided with that wisdom, coolness, and
forecast which become statesmen and patriots. As for myself, I
can say, whatever may be the course of future events, niy judg
ment in this crisis is, that we should stand by our principles
" through woe " as well as " through weal, "and maintain them in
good faith, now and alwaj^s, if need be, until they, we, and the
republic, perish together in a common ruin. I see no injury
that can possibly arise to us from them — not even if the constitu
tional impossibility of their containing "squatter sovereignty" did
not exist, as has been conclusively demonstrated. For, if it did
exist in them, and were all that its most ardent advocates claim
for it, no serious practical danger to us could result from it.

Even according to that doctrine, we have the unrestricted right
of expansion to the extent of population. It is admitted that
slavery can, and will, go, under its operation, wherever the peo
ple want it. Squatters carried it to Tennessee, Kentucky, Mis
souri, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, without any law to pro
tect it, and to Texas against a law prohibiting it, and they will carry
it under this doctrine to all countries where climate, soil, produc
tion, and population will allow. These are the natural laws that
will regulate it under non-intervention, according to that construc
tion ; and no act of Congress can carry it into any territory against
these laws, any more than it could make the rivers run to the moun
tains, instead of the sea. If we have not enough of the right
sort of population to compete longer with the North in the colo
nization of new territories and States, this deficiency can never
be supplied by any such act of Congress as that now' asked for.
The attempt would be as vain as that of Xerxes to control the
waters of the Hellespont by whipping them in his rage.

The times, as you intimate, do, indeed, portend evil. But I have
no fears for the institution of slavery, either in the Union or out
of it; if our people are but true to themselves — true, stable and
loyal to fixed principles and settled policy ; and if they are not
thus true, I have little hope of any thing good, whether the pre
sent Union last or a new one be formed. There is, in my judg
ment, nothing to fear from the "irrepressible conflict," of
which we hear so much. Slavery rests upon great truths, which can
never be successfully assailed by reason or argument. It has
grown stronger in the minds of men the more it has been dis
cussed, and it will still grow stronger as the discussion proceeds
and time rolls on. Truth is omnipotent, and must prevail. We
have only to maintain the truth with firmness, and wield it aright.
Our system rests upon an impregnable basis, that can and will
defy all assaults from without. My greatest apprehension is from

668 LETTER TO DR. Z. P. LANDRUM.

causes within — there lies the greatest danger. We have grown
luxuriant in the exuberance of our well being and unparalleled
prosperitjr. There is a tendency everywhere, not only at the North,
but at the South, to strife, dissension, disorder, and anarchy. It is
against this tendency that the sober-minded and reflecting men
eveiy where should now be called upon to guard.

My opinion, then, is, that delegates ought to be sent to the
adjourned convention at Baltimore. The demand made at Charles
ton by the seceders ought not to be insisted upon. Harmony
being restored on this point, a nomination can doubtless be made
of some man whom the party, everywhere, can support, with the
same zeal, and the same ardor with which they entered and waged
the contest in 1856, when the same principles were involved.

If. in this, there be a failure, let the responsibility not rest upon
us. Let our hands be clear of all blame. Let there be no cause
for casting censure at our door. If, in the end, the great na
tional democratic party — the strong ligament, which has so long
bound and held the Union together — shaped its policy and con
trolled its destinies — and to which we have so often looked with
a hope that seldom failed, as the only party North on which to
rel}r, in the most trying hours when constitutional rights were
in peril, let it not be said to us, in the midst of the disasters that
may ensue, "you did it!" In any and every event, let not the
reproach of Punic faith rest upon our name. If everything else has
to go down, let our untarnished honor, at least, survive the wreck.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

LETTER TO DR. Z. P. LANDRUM, OF LEXINGTON,
GEORGIA, JULY 1st 1860.

CRAW FORD VILLE, GEO., JULY 1, 1860. .

MY DEAR SIR: Yours of the 26th ultimo was duly received, and
I now return you an answer by the earliest mail that will bear it.
But I confess my utter inability to give you any definite or satis
factory response to your several inquiries. The condition of
public affairs in my judgment is truly deplorable, and I see but
little prospect of it being bettered by any effort of patriotism on
my part. Your professional practice has doubtless presented you
with many cases where the symptoms indicated a malignit}^ of
disease beyond the power of medical skill. Such you will excuse
me in sajdng are the symptoms of our public disorders, in my
judgment, at this time. I see no remedy, can make no prescrip
tion — and can suggest nothing. The " vis medicatrix naturse,"

LETTER TO DR. Z. P. LANDRUM. 669

is the only hope, and when this is the 'only hope, the best course
is to leave the patient quietly to himself.

It is useless to discuss questions relating to the origin of this
state of things, or how the evils that are upon us, or the worse
ones ahead now threatening, could have been avoided. The
times seem to be sadly out of joint.

In reply to what you say of ray power, and that patriotism
and statesmanship must " save us, else we perish," I can only
say, with an oppressed heart, that there are periods in every
nation's history, when passions get the better of reason, when no
human power can avail any thing, when patriotism and states
manship are alike submerged under the irresistible wave. At such
times no power short of that which said to the troubled waters
of Galilee's sea, " peace be still," can allay the storm. This is that
unseen, but all prevailing, and all controlling power of Providence,
which shapes the fortunes of men, and guides the destiny of States.
What is to be the future of this country, I cannot say. I cannot
even venture a conjecture. All I can do is to indulge a hope,
strong or weak, as it may be, that all may yet be well. How this
is to be, I do not see ; it was in prospects of the events we now
have upon us, " the shadows" of which I saw in advance of
their approach, with the full conviction and consciousness that
/ could do nothing to avert them, that caused me to retire from
that position of responsibility I had so long held, and in which I
felt satisfied I could no longer be useful.

The real evils of the times the people do not understand. It
springs from no defect in their government, from no "irrepressible
conflict" of interest between the two great sections of the Union,
from no danger to the rights, interest, honor, or safety of
either, but from the want of true patriotism, on the part of our
public men in all sections ; from the want of devotion to the
country, for the country's sake ; from a want of loyalty to princi
ple ; nay, more, directly from the ambition of aspirants for place
and power. This begets personal strife, prompted by jealousy
and envy and hate. These are amongst the strongest, as well as
the worst passions of human nature. They are not confined to
humanity ; even in heaven (it is said) they once exhibited their
power and fury. If there they made devils of angels, what may
we not expect them to make of men on earth ? The good, the
virtuous, and the wise, may look on and lament. Sometimes
wise counsels may arrest and prevent most mischievous conse
quences, at others they are as impotent as chaff to stay the force
of a storm. What influence had La Fayette's sage admoni
tions on the passions of the frenzied populace of France, aroused
and led on by demagogues ? I need not indulge, however,
any longer in this strain.

To come to particulars. I assure you I am pained and grieved
at what was done at Baltimore. The Charleston rupture was
bad enough, but that at Baltimore was much worse. What the

670 LETTER TO DR. Z. P. LANDRUM.

friends of Mr. Douglas meant by pressing his nomination in the
face of the secession of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia, to say
nothing of other States, I cannot imagine. As I view the field,
he has no probable chance of election. Why they should put him
up to be beaten is strange to me. I cannot understand it. They
certainly have not as much regard for his noble spirit, great talents,
and merits as I have. Madness and folly seem to have ruled
the hour. The only use or public benefit his running can be, it
seems to me, is for him to carry enough northern electoral votes to
defeat Mr. Lincoln before the people, and to throw the election
into the House, where his party rival, Mr. Breckinridge, may make
him a stepping-stone in his elevation to power and place. In this
way he may possibly, by his back and 'shoulders, enable Mr.
Breckinridge to succeed in his election, and benefit the country
by the defeat of Mr. Lincoln. But what honor this will be to
Mr. Douglas I think it would be difficult for his friends to
show. If this position had been necessary for any one, I would
have assigned it to some other — some one who could, and would
have rendered the country great public service, and at the same
time might have been gaining and not losing public reputation
himself. Again, his friends, it seems to me, must have known
that his nomination, made under the circumstances that it was,
could not have the power of keeping the national organization
together. It was virtually a rupture of it. The usages of the
party and its constitution, it will be said, (however, the facts
may be,) were violated in putting him forth as its nominee, with
out the concurrence of two thirds of the electoral votes. This
will effectually produce general demoralization.

The consequence is, we are and shall be, during the whole can
vass, entirely at sea. No one will be looked to as the regular
appointed standard-bearer of the flag of the national organiza
tion. The rupture is complete, and may be final. How that will
be the future must determine. This election, at best, can but be a
scrub race between the democratic candidates. The national demo
cratic party is in the position of the old republican party in 1824.
The same fate may be in reserve for it. That never was again re
organized, though another national organization did spring up
out of the fragments and dissolving elements of old organizations,
which was sufficient under Providence to save our institutions ;
and so it may be again,

It is consoling to the patriot at least to indulge in the hope
that such may be the case. But that the South will ever get an
act of Congress protecting slave property in the territories, I
have no idea. That those who now insist upon such an article
in a national party creed ever expect to see such an act passed, I
have no idea. For many of them say that they would not vote
for such a law. And that such a law would never be of the least
advantage to the South, I am well satisfied. Hence, I was, and
am clear in my conviction that it was not only not patriotic, but

LETTEK TO DR. Z. P. LAN DRUM. 671

exceedingly unwise and mischievous to insist upon such an inter
polation on the old national party platform, and particularly at this
juncture. But I will not confine my remarks to this juncture ; for
I verily believe that non-intervention by Congress with slavery in
the territories, is the proper and safe doctrine at all times. Had
the party at this time continued to stand on it with Mr. Douglas,
they would have carried the country by an overwhelming majority,
and would have annihilated the " Black republican organization,"
as it is called, for all time to come. This is my opinion. As
matters now stand, this great result is put almost upon the
chances of the turning of a die. If Douglas can carry enough
northern States to defeat Lincoln's election in the electoral
colleges, the contest will then come up in the House ; when
if the South unite with California and Oregon, Lincoln may be
defeated.

But the seat of the democratic member from Oregon [Mr. STOUT]
is now contested, and I have no doubt a majority in the present
House will vote him out, in case the election for President shall go
before that body. Then there is great danger that a strife will
arise between the friends of Bell and Breckinridge, in case they
both be on the list of the three highest voted for by the colleges.
In that event, there will be no hope but in staving off the election
until the 4th of March, when the Senate will have to make the
choice under the constitution. But in all these chances, in view
of the passions and prejudices of bad men, aiming at rule and
power, who does not see in advance the imminent danger at
every turn, of some outbreak that may lead to revolution ? Have
we not fallen upon evil times, when so much has been hazarded
to accomplish no object higher or worthier than the gratification
of personal envy, hate, revenge, and ambition ? The prospect is
gloomy enough, but, my dear sir, I do not despair of the Republic ;
though I do not at this time see in what way any thing I can do
or say would be of the least benefit, yet I am not without hope
that deliverance in some way is in store for us. As to whether
a Douglas ticket should be run in Georgia, I can give no advice
either for or against it. What those southern States — Alabama
and Louisiana — which voted for Mr. Douglas at Baltimore, as they
did, meant by their course, or what they expected to accomplish
by it, I do not know. I have received no explanations. What
Governor Johnson expects to accomplish, I do not know. I
have heard nothing from any of them. I see the editor of the
Constitutionalist speaks as ii' he thinks the South will go for
Douglas. To me, this seems little short of utter dementation.
Still I may be mistaken. I only speak to you my individual
opinions, formed from observations such as I can make in my
quiet retreat, without mingling at all with the outside world,
except through the medium of the public press. Had Douglas
been nominated at Charleston (even after the secession took place),
lie would have carried the South against a Richmond nomination.

672 LETTER TO DR. Z. P. LANDRUM.

But at present it is impossible. The Baltimore Convention, instead
of stopping the break in the levee, only made it deeper and wider. It
is now, in my judgment, entirely beyond control. Nothing but a sub
sidence of the waters will ever arrest it. I think, moreover, that the
declination of Fitzpatrick, and the general enthusiasm for Breck-
inridge and Lane in the South, will greatly damage Douglas in
the North, if it does not entirely break him down there. As the
prospect of his election diminishes, as it will very soon, even
with those who were foolish enough to put him up as they did —
thousands will abandon him to get on the winning side. Some
from spite, and some from personal motives, so that in the end I
should not be greatty surprised to see Lincoln elected by the
people. In this state of things, so far as I am concerned, I am
satisfied that the best course I can take is, to leave the whole
matter with those who have undertaken the management of the
crisis. Should it turn out well, no one will be more rejoiced than
myself. Should it turn out badly, while I shall feel relieved of
all personal responsibility — should I be in life — I shall endeavor
to do whatever the dictates of patriotism ma}r point out, whenever
an occasion shall arise, when I see any prospect for doing good.
At this time, I repeat, I see none. I expect, therefore, in this
contest, to be perfectly silent. I see no good to be accomplished
by any word that I can say. The popular fever must run its
course. I do not wish any one to be influenced by my views,
one way or the other. Every one should act from the dictates
of his own judgment. If the "worst comes," and we shall be
precipitated into disunion, even by what I deem unwise counsels,
which is not at all improbable, I shall yield to that misfortune as
to all others. My destiny is with the South ; whatever awaits
her people, awaits me, so long as I live. Whatever errors her
people or her rulers commit . in controlling the common des
tiny of all of us, I shall endeavor to bear my share of the con
sequences of them with that patriotism which prompts a loyal
heart to go for his country, right or wrong. At present, my
patriotism embraces the whole country, North and South, and I
have spent the best of my days in promoting the union, harmony,
peace, rights, interests, and happiness of the whole. But if for
any cause a division takes place, then Georgia will be my coun
try, her people will be my people, and their cause will be my
cause. I do trust that this division will not take place. I see
no necessity for it. Still it may come. And if it does, my judg
ment as to the necessity of the thing, or the propriety of the
course of our public men, that may induce it and hasten it, will
not influence my action when the great fact is upon us.

Excuse this long letter. It is written, as you see from its date,
on Sunday. I give it to you as a sort of pious offering, not al
together unsuited to the sacredness of the day. There are occa
sions when attention to bodity suffering of ourselves or our
friends, as well as personal cares, are not thought to be out of

LETTER TO DR. Z. P. LAXDRUM. 673

place on this day. Even Christ, after ministering in this way on
that day, asked those about him, "which of you shall have an
ass, or an ox fall into a pit, and will not straightway pull him
out on the Sabbath day." The illustration is good to the extent
that good may be performed on Sunda}^. And with a conscious
ness that what I have said or written has been prompted by no
motive, but the public good, which concerns us all so deeply, I
have no further apology to offer you for this deed on the Sabbath,
though I make no attempt to get the country out of its difficul
ties, for I see no way to do it.

In reply to your inquiries after my health, I have to say that
it is very feeble indeed. I am bearly able to be up. I have quit
all professional labors. I suffer from extreme debility, accompa
nied with vertigo. The cause or nature of the malady I do not
understand. When I was at Athens, attending the Supreme
Court, I consulted Dr*. Moore, who thought it was brought on bv
exposure to the sun. I had been very much thus exposed on my
farm, during the hot days in May, just before the first attack. I
am on no treatment or regime, except rest and quiet.

To your other inquiiy about our national flag, all I can say is,
that the designer of the present flag was Captain Reid, of the
privateer brig, General Armstrong, in the war with England, in
1812. The dates and particulars I cannot give, or wherein the
device of the present flag differs from the old one. The full history
of the stars and stripes I expect would be entertaining if not use
ful. The stars, as a matter of course, represent States. The origin
of the stripes, I think, if searched out would be found to be a
little curious. All I know upon that point is, that on the 4th day
of July, 1Y76, after the Declaration of Independence was carried,
a committee was appointed by Congress, consisting of Mr. Jef
ferson, Dr. Franklin, and John Adams to prepare a device for a
seal of the United States. Each member of the committee pre
pared a device, and then they combined something of the ideas
of each in one they reported. Mr. Jefferson was to combine
their ideas. The seal he thus reported had on one side of it the
Goddess of Liberty and the Goddess of Justice, supporting a
shield with six quarterings, denoting the six countries from
which the colonies had mainly been peopled, to wit : England,
Scotland, Ireland, France, Germany, and Holland. The motto
on this seal was " E pluribus unum." This seal, as reported, or
the device in full as reported, was never adopted. .But in it we
see the emblems in part, which are still preserved in the flag.

The stripes or lines, which on Mr. Jefferson's original plan
were to designate the six quarterings of the shield, as signs of the
six countries from which our ancestors came, are now, I believe,
considered as representations of the old thirteen States, and with
most persons the idea of a shield is lost sight of. You perceive
that by drawing six lines or stripes on a shield figure it will
leave seven spaces of the original color, and of course give
43

674 SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA.

thirteen apparent stripes ; hence the idea of their being all
intended to represent the old thirteen States. My opinion is, that
this was the origin of the stripes. Mr. Jefferson's quartered
shield for a seal device was seized upon as a national emblem that
was put upon the flag. We now have the stars as well as the stripes.
When each of these were adopted I cannot say ; but the flag, as
ii now is, was designed by Captain Reid, as I tell you, and
adopted by Congress. The first one with his device, which Con
gress adopted, was put over the Capitol. It was made by the
wife and daughters of Captain Reid.

Please remember me to Miss Grattan and to Mrs. Gilmer — to
both give my kind regards. And though this letter is written
entirely and exclusively for yourself, and not for the public, in
any sense of the word, }ret I have no objection to your reading it
to Mrs. Gilmer if you think proper. In it she will but hear
repeated several thoughts and opinions* she heard from me
last fall on a memorable occasion. It was the last night Mr. Gilmer
ever sat up and talked with his friends, a conversation I shall
never forget, for the strong faith and confidence he then ex
pressed, in the ultimate virtue and intelligence of the people to
arrest the evil tendencies of the times, greatly strengthened my
own hopes, weaker then than now. What has occurred since has
not disappointed me at all. It has not even surprised me. I
was expecting it, and am now expecting a much worse . state of
things before any wholesome reaction takes place, if it ever does.

I must repeat to you that what I have said is not for public
use in any sense. I do not wish your own action to be governed
in the least by that line which I think proper to take myself. Do
as you think best. Present my kind regards to Mrs. Landrum,
and accept for both of you my best wishes for all the happiness
this world can bestow, as well as that in a life to come, which is
in reserve for the virtuous and the good.

Yours truly,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.
DR. Z. P. LANDRUM, LEXINGTON, GA.

SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE CITY HALL PARK,
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA.

SATURDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 1, 1860.

FELLOW-CITIZENS : — I appear before you in obedience to a call
made on me by those whose call could not be refused. The
sacrifice of personal feelings or wishes, on such occasions, is not
to be taken into the account. If it were, I assure you I should
not be here I had hoped never again to be drawn into the active
struggles, the strifes, and excitements of politics. The address
I made on the 2d of July, of last year, near this spot, on taking

SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA. 675

leave of you, and this district, as representative in Congress, I
intended to be the last speech of the kind I should ever make.
I trusted that in no event, or under any circumstances, should I
ever be called on again to mingle in public affairs. All the ques
tions with which I had been connected in the public councils
having been settled upon terms satisfactory to us — upon terms
thought to be just and honorable to all sections of the Union — it
was but natural to look upon that settlement as permanent, and
to indulge the hope of a happy and prosperous future for the
country. But how illusory are all our hopes ! How changed the
prospect before us now from what it was twelve months ago !
Then every thing was encouraging to the heart of the patriot —
would that I could say the same now. Those agitating questions,
then thought to be settled, have been opened up afresh, and all
that was done in their settlement is attempted to be undone. You
ask me what I think oi the present state of the country ? I told
you, in the speech alluded to, that the peace and safety of the coun
try, in my judgment, depended upon an adherence to the principles
of the settlement of those questions then made. I tell you the same
now. I tell you candidly and frankly that the signs of the times, as
I read them, portend evils of the gravest magnitude. There is an
attempt made to depart from the principles of that settlement.

At this time, and for some months past, the tendencies have
been decidedly toward national disruption, and general anarchy.
This conviction is beginning to force itself upon the minds of
all. Can these tendencies be checked ? Can the threatened dis-
aftters be avoided or prevented ? If so, how, and in what way ?
What course should the patriot, looking only to the public good,
public peace, welfare, and safety, take in the complicated contest
before us ? These are questions which now crowd upon our consid
eration. On them I propose to address JTOU to-night. They
present a wide field for thought and reflection — abounding in sub
jects of deepest interest and gravest import. I can only touch
upon a few of them. My physical strength will not allow me to
attempt more, if, indeed, it will sustain me in the limited view I
have marked out for myself. I assume, in the outset, that the
government, as it exists, is worth preserving ; nay, more, with
all its errors and defects, with all its corruptions in administra
tion, and short-comings of its officers, it is the best government
on earth, and ought to be sustained, if it can be, on the principles
upon which it was founded.

First, then, as to the duty of democrats in the approaching
Presidential election ; for to that party I specially address myself.
The choice of Chief Magistrate is the now pressing and absorb
ing issue. Greater and more momentous issues may be behind ;
but I wish not to lift the curtain of the future, it is with the pres
ent we now deal. For whom should democrats vote. There
are two tickets in the field claiming to be democratic ; which one
is entitled to and should receive the votes of the democrats ? To
this I answer, that, in my judgment, the national ticket, bearing

676 SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA.

the names of Douglas and Johnson, is the one entitled to demo
cratic support.

The nominees on this ticket are the representatives of the party,
put forth according to the usages of the party, and are the repre
sentatives of the long-established principles of the party. Nay,
more, they are the representatives of the only principles upon
which, in my judgment, the Union of the States, and the rights
of all sections, can be maintained. For this reason I would urge
this ticket, not only upon all democrats, but upon all well-wishers
of their country, whether called democrats, whigs, or Americans.
Allow me briefly to notice some of the prominent objections
urged against this ticket by the partisans and friends of
the other ticket claiming to be the true democratic party.

These relate to the manner of the nomination, the principles of
the platform, and especially to certain opinions of Mr. Douglas,
whose name heads the ticket.

First, as to the manner of the nomination. It is said he failed to
get two thirds of the votes in the convention — that by democratic
usage from 1832 down, no candidate could be nominated without
a two-third vote.

I would not notice this point, if so much stress had not been put
upon it by those who advocate the other ticket. Not only in the
press, but in the speeches of leading men, and in the address to the
public, put forth by the seceders convention's Executive Commit
tee, this point is made prominent, and urged as one of the main rea
sons why democrats should feel under no party obligation to
support the ticket of the regularly constituted democratic conven
tion. In my judgment, Mr. Douglas did receive two thirds of the
votes of the convention, according to the usages of the party, and
according to the proper construction of what is known as the two
third rule.

It is immaterial to me whethei he received the nomination ac
cording to the interpretation or construction of that rule at
Charleston or not. I mean the construction that the nominees
should receive two thirds of all the electoral votes. That con
struction was wrong. It was an interpolation. It was inconsist
ent with the clear meaning — the letter, as well as the spirit — of
the rule. The letter of the rule in most, if not all the conventions
from 1832, running through 1836, 1840, 1844, 1848, 1852, and 1856,
was that the nominees should receive two thirds of all the votes
cast or given in the convention. It is immaterial whether, in point
of fact, in all other conventions, the nominees did actually receive
two thirds of the entire electoral vote or not — there never was
before such a secession as was at Charleston and Baltimore ; the
question is what is the right construction of the rule requiring
two thirds of the votes of the convention to make a nomination,
and when will its requisition be complied with ? This principle of
a two-third vote is well understood in the parliamentary law of
the country It is fixed in the constitution of the United States,

SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA. 677

and in the constitution of our own State, perhaps of most of the
States of the Union. It is a principle often carried into practi
cal operation in Congress, and in our State Legislatures. For
instance, in the constitution of the United States, article first,
section seven, and clause two, we have this provision:

"Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and
the Senate shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President
of the United States. If he affirm it, he shall sign it ; but if not, he shall
return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have origina
ted, who shall enter the objections at large upon their journal, and pro
ceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two thirds of that
House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objec
tions, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered and
if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law."

Now, what has been the universal construction given to the
words " two thirds of that House " in practical legislation ? Has it
been that it required two thirds of all the members constituting
the House and Senate to pass a bill over the veto of the Presi
dent ? Never. The construction given, from the beginning down
to the present time, without an exception, was, and is, that two
thirds of those voting, in each House, may pass a bill over the
executive veto, though there be barely a quorum present and vo
ting. Such has been the uniform construction, not of this, but
another clause., which authorized the expulsion of a member of
either House, by a two-third vote — two thirds of those voting, if
there be a quorum, is all that is necessary for a compliance with
that clause of the constitution. So in our own State constitution
it is provided :

"That the governor shall have the revision of all bills passed by both
Houses, before they become laws, but two thirds of both Houses may
pass a law notwithstanding his dissent."

Under this clause of our State constitution, the construction
has been uniformly .given. Two thirds of those voting in each
House, if a quorum be present, is all that is required. Again, in
another article of our constitution^ we have a provision for its
amendment, in these words :

'• No part of this constitution shall be altered, unless a bill for that
purpose, specifying the alteration intended to be made, shall have been read
three times in the House of Representatives and three times in the Senate,
on three several days in each House, and agreed to by two thirds of each
House, respectively ; and when any such bill shall be passed, in manner afore
said, the same shall be published at least six months previous to the next
ensuing election for members of the general assembly, and if such altera
tions, or any of them so proposed, should be agreed to, in the first session
thereafter, by two thirds of each branch of the general assembly, after the
same shall have been read three times, on three separate days, in each re
spective House, then, and not otherwise, the same shall become a part of
this constitution.''

Under this clause, two thirds of each branch of the general
assembly has always been held to mean two thirds of those

678 SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGLTSTA.

voting on any proposed amendment — provided a quorum were
present. Some of the most important amendments that have
been made to the constitution, since its first adoption, was made
by a much smaller number than two thirds of the entire House,
in either branch. The one establishing the Supreme Court was
made by a vote not much over a majority in each House. If a
constitution can be thus amended — if this construction holds and
obtains in all such cases, both Federal and State, why should it
not be held in a similar rule, founded on similar principles in a
party convention, especially as that convention had adopted the
rules of the House of Representatives of the United States,
where always a two-third vote is held to be two thirds of those
voting on any question ?

It is immaterial with me, then, whether Mr. Douglas got two
hundred and twelve, or one hundred and ninety-six, or one hun
dred and eighty-one and a half, or one hundred and fifty-four, as
has been variously contended ; in either case he got two thirds of
those voting in the convention, as it then stood — as it was then
constituted. If there were but one hundred and ninety-six mem
bers present when he got one hundred and eighty-one and a half,
he got two thirds of the body, according to all our parliamentary
rules of construction. And if the Alabama and Louisiana dele
gates, who voted for him, be counted out, and after reducing his
vote to one hundred and fifty-four, as is contended by some, the
convention having but one hundred and ninety-six in it, still he
had two thirds, according.to the same rule or principle of construc
tion which would authorize a bill to be passed over an executive
veto, or cause any change to be made in the fundamental law of
our own State. I therefore consider him the regularty nominated
candidate of the democratic party, and as such entitled to the
support of his party.

No other rule of construction can be practically worked. How
would it be with Breckinridge and Lane, who are claimed to be
the representatives of the national democratic party ? In the
convention that nominated them, the same two-third rule, if I
am not mistaken, was adopted — the old rule of the party, I mean,
and not the construction put upon it at Charleston, for with that
construction they never, could have made a nomination. Their
convention consisted of but one hundred and live electoral votes
— very little over one third, all told, of the electoral vote of the
Union — so that if the same construction had been put upon it in
that convention, which is insisted should be in the other, they
never could have nominated anybody — if they had balloted until
doomsday. Then let no man abandon his party on the ground
that the candidate was not regularly nominated. So much for this
point. I pass to another objection.

This, in the order, relates to the platform. The platform, it is
said, is not sound — it is not national — it does not sustain the
rights of the South And what is the platform adopted ? I need

SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA. 679

not read it — it is known to you all. It is the well-known plat
form of the party based upon the doctrine of non-intervention by
Congress with slavery in the States or Territories, as set forth at
Cincinnati in 1856, with an additional resolution, affirming the
decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Was not
this all that our State convention had asked ? Was not this plat
form, even without the additional resolution, sound enough in
1856 ? Was it not broad enough, and strong enough, for the
democracy of the whole Union then? And if so then, why not
now ? Do principles change so soon ? Has any thing occurred
since, requiring any new tests ? If so, when, and where, and
what ? Did our northern friends fail to adhere^ to it ? Did they
not rather renew their pledge to it, with the additional demand,
as to the Dred Scott decision, made by our State convention last
December ?

If, then, this platform of principles was sufficient to guard and
protect our rights, and interest, and honor, in 1856, why is it not
in 1860, especially with the additional guarantee given ? This
question I propound to all candid and reflecting minds. It is
one that. the country expects an answer to, by those who left the
convention because of the principles adopted, and whose seces
sion has produced the strifes and divisions that now pervade the
land. The only answer to it I have yet seen has been given by
a committee of the seceding delegation from this State. It is
in their address, assigning the reasons for their course. It will
be recollected that though they quit the convention at Charles
ton, yet by great efforts made, were by urgent solicitation reap-
pointed to Baltimore, via Richmond. But they did not enter the
convention at Baltimore, after they got there, and for not doing
so gave these reasons :

" That we are blameless in this matter, seems too plain to admit of a
doubt. We could not enter a convention, as a favor, at the sacrifice of
principle, and of the honor and sovereignty of our State. Nor have our
demands been exorbitant or exacting. We have simply asked for protection
for our property from th« government which demands our allegiance.
These seem to us to be co-relative duties — allegiance to government in re
turn for protection to life, liberty, and property. It appears to us unneces
sary to argue the question, for the absolute right of protection to property by
the government, in all its branches, is undenied by any man of any party.
But the application of this to our slaves, in the territories, is denied, and
refused upon the untenable and fanatical ground that property is not re
cognized in slaves."

This is signed by three gentlemen who stand high in the estima
tion of the public. The statement seems to imply, if it means
any thing, that the convention to which they had been sent had
refused to recognize a universally admitted principle of right,
" upon the untenable and fanatical ground that property is not
recognized in slaves." I have nothing to say against the character
of these gentlemen. One of them is the Speaker of the House of

680 SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA.

Representatives of your State legislature — another a gentleman of
position in Savannah, and another an editor with high personal
standing in Albany. But I do say that I think it would be a
difficult task for them to sustain this statement by proof. What
action of the convention justifies it ? What part of the platform
adopted denied that " property is denied in slaves ?" Nay, more,
what member of the convention, who refused their demand, holds
an}r such " untenable and fanatical" opinions ? Not one, I ven
ture to affirm. Then why was this statement made ? They must
answer who gave it as the best reason they had why they should
be held blameless for the manner in which they performed the great
public trust committed to their charge. Seeing no evidence of
any such fanatical sentiment in the action of the convention, or
on the part of any member of it ; having been satisfied with the
platform in 1856, and seeing no good reason to change my opinion
in relation to it, I am therefore satisfied with it still. It was, in
my judgment, good then, and good now, and will be good for all
time to come. In its own language, it contains the only wise and
safe solution of those sectional questions which have so often
tearfully threatened the peace of the Union, and which, may yet
be its destruction, if the principles therein set forth be departed
from. So much, therefore, for the objection to the platform.

I come now to the man. Here, I doubt not, lies the chief one
of all the objections. We should have had no secession, no com
plaint about the want of a two-third vote, no objection to the
platform, had any other man been the decided choice of the
convention, but Mr. Douglas. The secession was not from princi
ple ; not from the manner of voting ; but from the man whose
strength, in the convention, was far ahead of any of his competi
tors for the nomination.

Let us, then, examine the objections to him. That he is a man
of great ability, all admit. His integrity and purity of character
none assail. That he was the favorite of the convention, no one
can deny. Whether he really had a majority, or not, as a first
choice, no one will pretend but what he Jiad at least three times
as many, as a first choice, as any other man before the conven
tion. Then, what are the objections to him, which are sought to
justify the rupture of the party because of his nomination ?

The sum and substance of their objections, as I understand
them, amounts to this, and this only, that he refuses to declare it
to be the duty of Congress to do what his assailants say they
will not do themselves. They say it is the duty of Congress to
protect slavery in the territories, and yet say that they will never
discharge this duty by voting for an}r such law. He refuses to
make any such declaration of duty never to be performed. This
is about the whole difference between him and his assailants, for
all practical purposes, so far as the question of protection is con-
cerned, about which we hear so much. He says, he does not
believe it to be his duty to do a certain thing, and therefore will

SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA. 681

not do it. They say they believe it to be their duty to do the
same thing, but without a therefore or a wherefore say they will
not do it.

This seems to me, I repeat, to be the sum and substance of the
objections to Mr. Douglas' peculiar views upon the territorial
policy of the country ; for it is a matter of very little importance,
none, practically, whatever, whether the people of a territoiy have
a right to protect or exclude slave property, or whether it is the
duty of Congress to pass laws to protect it in the territories, if
their legislatures refuse to protect or adopt unfriendly legislation,
if this duty on the part of Congress is never to be performed —
and that is my understanding of the position of the protectionist.

But it is said that Mr. Douglas entertains views and doctrines
inconsistent with the equal rights of the South — that according
to his doctrine, slave property in the territories does not stand
upon the same footing with other propert}'. This is the substance
of the objection, as I have met with it ; and, if it be well-founded,
it is a good one. I should never advocate the election of any man
to the Presidency, who denied the equality of the States, and the
equality of rights of the citizens of all the £>tates, both as to
person and property in the public territories.

My position on this subject is so well and fully set forth, in
what is known as the minority report, at the last June conven
tion of the democratic part}7 at Milledgeville, I will read two of
those resolutions :

That we reaffirm the Cincinnati platform, with the follow
ing1 additional propositions :

" 1st. That the citizens of the United States have an equal right to set
tle with their property, of any kind, in the organized territories of the
United States, and that under the decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, in the case of Dred Scott, which we recognize as the cor
rect exposition of the constitution in this particular, slave property stands
upon the same footing as all other descriptions of property, and that
neither the general government, nor any territorial government can
destroy or impair the right to slaver property in the common territories,
any more than the right to any other description of property ; that
property of all kinds, slaves as well as any other species of property, in the
territories, stands upon the same equal and broad constitutional basis,
and subject to like principles of recognition and protection in the legisla
tive. judicial, and executive departments of the government.

"2d. That we will support the man who may be nominated by the
Baltimore convention for the ^residency who holds the principles set
forth in the foregoing proposition, and who will give them his indorse
ment ; and that we will not hold ourselves bound to support any man who
may be the nominee who entertains principles inconsistent with those set
forth in the above propositions or who denies that slave property in the
territories does stand on an equal footing and on the same constitutional
basis of other descriptions of property."

These resolutions were offered in that convention by Hon. IT.
V. Johnson, our candidate for the Vice-Presidency. They, in my

SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA.

judgment, set forth true, correct, and sound doctrines, and upon
them I stand to-night.

To my amazement, I see the executive committee of the seceding
convention at Baltimore have published these resolutions, with a
view to show that Gov. Johnson, standing on them, could not
support Mr. Douglas. They virtually admit that the principles
set forth in them are right, and say, that according to the second
resolution offered by Mr. Johnson, before the Georgia convention,
we stand pledged not to support, or vote for Mr. Douglas.

Let us see whether they or I am mistaken. Let us see what
Mr. Douglas' views upon this subject are ? Let him speak for
himself. He has spoken often, repeatedly. He is upon the
record ; and I shall now read his position from the record. Here
is what he said in the Senate, on the 23d February, 1859, in a
discussion with Mr. Brown, of Mississippi, on this very subject.
I read from the Congressional Globe. Hear what Mr. Douglas
himself says, as to his position :

" We," that is, he and Senator Brown, who goes for Congressional pro
tection, "agree that, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, slaves are property, standing on an equal footing with all
other property ; and that, consequently, the owner of a slave has the
same right to emigrate to a territory and carry his slave property with
him, as the owner of any other species of property has to move there and
carry his property with him.

" Mr. DOOLITTLE. Will the honorable senator allow me

"Mr. DOUGLAS. I am replying to the senator from Mississippi now, and
would prefer, therefore, to go on.

" Mr. DOOLITTLE. I wish to put a question to the honorable senator
from Illinois on that point.

"Mr. DOUGLAS. I desire to deal with this point now. At another time
the senator can present his point. The right .of transit to and from the
territories is the same for one species of property as it is for all others.
Thus far, the senator from Mississippi and myself agree that slave pro
perty in the territories stands on an equal footing with every other species
of property. Now, the question arises, to what extent is property, slaves
included, subject to the local law of the territory ? Whatever power the
territorial legislature has over other species of property, extends, in my
judgment, to the same extent, and in like manner, to the slave property.
The territorial legislature has the same power to legislate in respect
to slaves that it has in regard to any other property, to the same extent,
and no further. If the senator wishes to know what power it has over
slaves in the territories, I answer, let him tell me what power it has to
legislate over every other species of property, either by encouragement or
by taxation, or in any other mode, and he has my answer in .regard to
slave property.

" But the senator says that there is something peculiar in slave pro
perty, requiring further protection than other species of property. If so,
it is the misfortune of those who own that species of property. He tells
us that if the territorial legislature fails to pass a slave-code for the terri
tories, fails to pass police regulations to protect slave property, the absence
of such legislation practically excludes slave property, as effectually as a
constitutional prohibition would exclude it. I agree to that proposition.
He says, furthermore, that it is competent for the territorial legislature,

SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA. 683

by the exercise of the taxing power, and other functions within the
limits of the constitution, to adopt unfriendly legislation, which practi
cally drives slavery out of the territories. I agree to that proposition.
That is just what I said, and all I said, and just what I meant, by my
Freeport speech, in Illinois, upon which there has been so much com
ment throughout the country.

''But, the senator says that while non-action by the territorial legisla
ture excludes slavery; and while the territorial legislature may, within the
limits of the federal' constitution, adopt such a system of unfriendly legis
lation, as, in effect to exclude slavery from its limits, yet it is wrong for
the legislature to pursue that policy ; and, because the territorial legis
lature ought not to adopt that line of policy, he will not be content with
such legislation, but will appeal to Congress and demand a congressional
code of laws protecting slavery in the territories, in opposition to the
wishes of the people. Well, sir, his conclusion is a logical one, unless my
position is right. All men must agree that non-action by the territorial
legislature is practical exclusion. If the people of a territory want
slavery, they will protect it by a slave-code. If they do not want slavery
^— if they believe it is not necessary — if they are of opinion that their
interests do not require it, or will be prejudiced by it, they will not furnish
the necessary remedies and police regulations, usually called a slave-code
for its protection." — (Cong. Globe, page 1,244, part second, Feb. 23, 1859.)

From this, it clearly appears that Mr. Douglas does recognize
property in slaves, and that, in his opinion, this species of
property in the territories stands upon the same broad constitu
tional basis of right and equality as all other kinds of property —
and, because it is property, he contends that it is, like all other
kinds of property, a rightful subject of legislation by the law-
making power in the territory — no more and no less.

But hear him further, in the same speech:

" Mr. GREEN. Will the senator permit me to ask him a single question ?

"Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly.

" Mr. GREEN. If a law, merely providing protection, is to be called a
slave-code, then I ask, if larceny, in general terms, were punished by the
territorial law, and the legislature should except the larceny of slaves,
would he say he would submit to that, at the option of the legislature.

" Mr. DOUGLAS. It is immaterial to me, whether you call this legisla
tion a slave-code or by any other name. I will call it by any name the
Senate chooses. I wish it to be understood, however, and to use such lan
guage as conveys the idea. I take the language of the senator from
Mississippi, if that is satisfactory. All I have to say, on the point pre
sented by the senator from Missouri, is this : While our constitution does
not provide remedies for stealing negroes, it does not provide remedies for
stealing dry goods, or horses, or any other species of property. You can
not protect any property in the territories, without laws furnishing
remedies for its violation, and penalties for its abuse. Nobody pretends
that you are going to pass laws of Congress making a criminal code for
the territories, with reference to, other species of property.

•'The Congress of the United States never yet passed an* act creating a
criminal code for any organized territory. It simply organizes the terri
tory, and leaves its legislature to make its own criminal code. Congress
never passed a law to protect any species of property in the organized
territories ; it leaves its protection in the territorial legislatures. The
question is whether we shall make an exception as to slavery. The

684 SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA.

Supreme Court makes no such distinction. It recognizes slaves as pro
perty. When they are taken to a territory, they are on an equal footing
with other property, and dependent upon the same system of legislation
for protection as other property. While all other. property is dependent
on the territorial legislation for protection, I hold that slave property
must look to the same authority for its protection."

And further on, in the same speech, he uses this language — in
reply to another inquiry from Senator Brown :

" Mr. DOUGLAS. I am ready to answer any inquiry of the senator from
Mississippi, whether, if I believe the Maine liquor law to be unconstitu
tional and wrong, and if a territorial legislature should pass it, I would
vote here to annul ? I tell him no.

" If the people of Kansas want a Maine liquor law, let them have it.
If they do not want it, and any citizen thinks that law violates the consti
tution, 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, may choose to repeal it. So I say with reference to slavery. Let the
tearitorial legislature pass just such laws in regard to slavery as they
think they have a right to enact under the constitution of the United
States. If I do not like those laws, I will not vote to repeal them ; but
anybody aggrieved may appeal to the Supreme Court, and if they are
constitutional, they must stand; and if they are unconstitutional, they
are void. That was the doctrine of non-intervention, as it was understood
at the time the Kansas-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 insti
tution in the territories, 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 his authority in execu
ting the judicial process, let him use, if necessary, the whole military
force of the country, as provided by existing laws."

In these extracts is a full and clear exposition of those views of
Mr. Douglas, which have been so fiercely denounced. I have read
them to you at large, that you may judge for yourselves whether
they put that kind of property upon any other basis in the terri
tories than all other kinds of property ; whether all, in his view,
does not stand on the same equal constitutional footing. In these
views you also have a clear exposition of non-intervention or non-
action, as Mr. Calhonn called it, on the part of Congress. The whole
subject of slavery in* the territories was to be left to the people,
subject to no limitation or restriction but the constitution of the
United States. If the territorial legislature passed any law in
fringing upon the rights of the slaveholder, or the rights of any
person holding other kinds of property, either by taxation or any
other kind of law, the subject was to be left to the courts, with an
appeal to the Supreme Court, but not to Congress. Property of
all kinds was put upon the same footing. And so far from Mr.
Douglas warring against the decision of the Supreme Court, as is
alleged in the last extract read, it appears that he stands pledged

SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA. 685

to the execution of the judicial process, whatever it may be, in
any case, with the whole military force of the country.

The question I am now presenting is not what his opinions
are as to the extent of the power of the territorial legislatures
over slaves or other property, but that he puts all upon the same
footing, and that they have no more power over rights to slaves
than over other kinds of rights of person and property. Their
powers over all rightful subjects of legislation, under the consti
tution, are the same, and to be left to the courts and not to Con
gress. If he ever uttered a sentiment different from those now
presented on this subject, in the many speeches he has made
upon it in the Senate, or on the stump, I have never met with it.
The other day at Saratoga, in New York, he used this lan
guage :—

'• I believe in the equality of the States, and in the equal rights of the
citizens of all the States in the territories of the United States. What
ever the rights of the citizens of any State may enjoy in the territories per
tain alike to the citizens of all the States, and on whatever terras the citizen
of any State may move into the territories with his property, the citizen
of every other State may go and carry his property, and enjoy the same
under the protection of the law."

If the territorial legislatures pass unconstitutional laws in
relation to slave property, or any other kind of property, all alike
are to be left to the courts, and not to Congress. In the judi
cial, executive, and legislative departments of a territorial gov
ernment, slaves stand upon the same principles of recognition as
other property under the constitution of the United States, and
entitled to protection on the same principles as other property.

All rights' of persons and property of every kind stand upon
the same footing. When we advance a step further, and inquire
how far a territorial legislature may constitutionally impair the
right or usefulness of any kind of property, by any system of
laws they may enact, a new question arises. On this I differ
with Mr. Douglas. It is not, however, a point involving, in my
judgment, either our equality in the Union, our honor as a
people, or any principle essential to our security or future safety.
It is a matter affecting alone the private rights of those who go
into the territories. This difference of opinion between him and
those who take the same view of it as I do, it is agreed on both
sides, are to be determined by the highest judicial tribunal in
the land.

By some, it is contended that this point has already been
decided by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. If so,
then there is an end of the question. For he has again and
again indorsed every principle decided in that case ; and all
that is necssary is for the executive to see that the decision is
carried, into effect by the whole military force of the country,
if need be.

But, fellow-citizens, there is nothing that men, and even law-

686 SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA.

yers, and learned lawyers, differ more widely about than upon
the principles embraced in a judicial question. So it is in this
case. I am not going into an argument upon its merits ; suffice
it to say that, in my judgment, principles were decided in that
case that would control those involved in a case arising under
such a territorial law. But until such a case does arise, it can
not be definitely and judicially settled. He and others who
indorse every word of the Dred Scott decision believe, and, I have
no doubt, honestly believe, that the principles decided in that case
would not control a case arising under a law that might be
passed by a territorial legislature.

I have bejen asked informally two questions, which I will here
answer.

The first is : How, differing from Mr. Douglas on this point, as
I do, I, can give him my support ?

I answer, because I look upon the matter as involving no prin
ciple of any vital importance.

Practically, it amounts to nothing. With Mr. Douglas' view,
slavery will go wherever the people want it, and no law of Con
gress or a territorial legislature will ever carry it where they do
not want it. Under the operation of his principles, whether
right or wrong, our right of expansion to the utmost limit of
capacity and population is complete ; on the question, therefore,
of the right or power of the people of an organized territory
through their territorial legislature, either directly or indirectly,
to exclude slavery while in a territorial condition-, and before
they come to form a State constitution, I stand where Burke,
one of the greatest statesman that England or any other country
ever produced, stood upon the same question of the right or
power of the British Parliament to tax the colonies. That was
a question upon which great and learned men differed, and so
is this ; and on this, I say to you to-night, what he said on the
other in the House of Commons :

" Sir, I think y«u must perceive that I am resolved this day to have
nothing to do with the question of the right of taxation. Some gentle
men startle, but it is true. I put it totally out of the question. It is
less than nothing in my consideration. I do not wonder, nor will you,
sir, in that gentlemen of profound learning are fond of displaying it on
this profound subject. But my consideration is narrow, confined, and
wholly limited to the policy of the question. I do not examine whether
the giving away a man's money be a power accepted and reserved out of
the general trust of government, and how far all mankind, in all forms of
polity, are entitled to an exercise of that right by the charter of nature ;
or whether, on the contrary, a right of taxation is necessarily involved in
the great principle of legislation, and inseparable from the ordinary
supreme power. These are deep questions, where great names militate
against each other, where reason is perplexed, and an appeal to authori
ties only quicken confusion. For high and revered authorities lift up their
heads on both sides, and there is no sure footing in the middle. This
point is the great ' Serbonian boy betwix Damiata and Mount Casing old,
where armies whole have sunk.' "

SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA. 687

Whether the people of a territory have this right or not, under
the constitution, and whatever may be the decision of the
Supreme Court on it, I am perfectly willing for them to exercise
it. If they have not got it "ex debito justitia," I would, if I
could, give it to them "ex gratia." If they have not got it as
matter of right, being one of the essential principles of self-
government under our system, as many high authorities believe
they have, I would, if I could, grant it to them as matter of
favor. This is no new position with me ; it is but a repetition
of what I said in the House of Representatives on this subject
on the 17th of January, 1856 ; that was before the decision of
the Supreme Court. But my opinion as to the policy of the
question is unchanged. Here is what I then said, and I feel no
disposition to modify the sentiments now : —

" Now, sir, as I have stated, I voted for this bill leaving the whole
matter to the people to settle for themselves, subject to no restriction or
limitation but the constitution. "With this distinct understanding of its
import and meaning, and with a determination that the existence of this
power being disputed and doubted, it would be better and much more
consistent with our old time republican principles to let the people settle
it than for Congress to do it. And, although my own opinion is that the
people, under the limitations of the constitution, have not the rightful
power to exclude slavery so long as they remain in a territorial condition,
yet I am willing that they may determine it for themselves, and when
they please. I shall never negative any law they may pass, if it is the
result of a fair legislative expression of the popular will. Never ! I am
willing that the territorial legislature may act upon the subject when and
how they may think proper. We got the congressional restriction
taken off."

" The territories were made open and free for immigration and settlement
by the people of all the States alike, with their property alike. No odious
and unjust discrimination or exclusion against any class or portion; and I
am content that those who thus go there from all sections, shall do in this
matter as they please under their organic law. I wanted the question
taken out of the halls of the national legislation. It has done nothing
but disturb the public peace for thirty-five years or more. So long as
Congress undertakes to manage it, it will continue to do nothing but stir
up agitation and sectional strife. The people can dispose of it better than
we can. Why not then, by common consent, drop it at once and forever ?
Why not you, gentlemen, around me, give up your so-called and so mis
called republican ideas of restoring the Missouri restriction, and let the
people in the far off territories of Kansas and Nebraska look after their
own condition, present and future, in their own way.

" Is it not much more consistent with Mr. Adams' ideas of republi
canism for them to attend to their own domestic matters than for you or
us to undertake to do it for them? Let us attend to our own business, and
let them attend to theirs. What else keeps this House disorganized and sus
pends all legislative business ? I wish, sir, in voting for the Kansas bill,
and in carrying out in good faith the great priciples established in 1850 —
that memorable epoch, the middle of the nineteenth century — and fixing
them as the basis and rule of action on the part of the general govern
ment in her territorial policy, to get rid of this disturbing question here
by referring it unrestrictedly, as far as I could, under the constitution, to

SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA.

the people. If they have not the power to settle it while a territory, as a
matter of absolute right— esc debita justitia, I was willing, so far as I was
concerned and had the power to do it, to give it to them as a matter of
favor — ex gratia."

So much, then, for the first question asked me, I see nothing
dangerous in these doctrines of Mr. Douglas to our institutions
nothing at war in the least with the great fundamental princi
ples of popular rights upon which the whole fabric of self-govern
ment rests. I am perfectly willing for the pioneers of civilization
who quit the old States for new homes in the west, to form and
regulate their own domestic institutions in their own way, and
make all other laws according to their liking. It was in this way
our fathers settled this goodly land, and made the wilderness to
blossom as the rose. They were all " squatters," in the popular
slang of the day. When they wanted slaves of the African race,
they had them, and I am perfectly willing that their descendants,
with emigrants from all the other States who colonize and settle
our broad territories, shall exercise the same rights of self-gov
ernment that they did. If these opinions make a man a " squatter
sovereign," then I am one. Nicknames will never drive me from
the maintainance of sound principles.

The other question that has been put to me is : How I can
support Mr. Douglas, differing as he and I did upon the Lecomp-
ton constitution ?

To this I answer. As widely as I differed with him on that
measure, I did not differ more widely with him upon it than I
did with Mr. Buchanan on the principles announced in his annual
message on the same subject. As I did not arraign the patriot
ism of Mr. Buchanan for my difference with him, so I did not
that of Mr. Douglas for my difference with him. My difference
with Mr. Buchanan was much more radical on principle than it
was with Mr. Douglas. Mr. Buchanan maintained that the con
stitution of the State was to be submitted to a popular vote for
ratification, and if it were not so ratified the State ought not to
be admitted under it. This was the tenor of the instructions to
Governor Walker, who told the people before the election of
delegates to the convention that formed the Lecompton constitu
tion, that if the constitution to be formed by them should not be
submitted to them for ratification, the State would not, and
ought not, to be admitted under it. This was a great and
radical error. It was claiming for Congres jurisdiction over
the mode and manner in which a State constitution is to
be made, which, in my judgment, was, and is, just as dangerous
a doctrine as that which claims for Congress jurisdiction over
its subject matter. It was, in short, nothing but the old Missouri
question in principle, revived again in a new form. It was at
war with all proper ideas of State rights and State sovereignty.
But when the Lecompton constitution was presented to Congress,
it had not been submitted to the people for ratification as a

SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA. 689

whole — only the slavery clause had been submitted. As I did
not agree with Mr. Buchanan on the principle that the constitu
tion should be ratified by the people before it should be held
good; as I did not consider such a ratification essential to its
validity — as I believed that the convention had the right to
submit it or not, as the}'' pleased, and to submit the whole or a
part, as they pleased, I took the constitution as I found it. 1
stood upon the strict legality of the record before me.

If Mr. Buchanan, or Governor Walker under him, had given
such pledge, I was no party to it. The constitution, as pre
sented to Congress, came stamped with all the forms of regu
larity: I did not go behind these. Mr. Douglas held that as
the people had been led to believe that the constitution would
be submitted to them for approval or rejection, as a whole,
which had not been done, it would be wrong to receive it,
and admit the State under it. He did not put his opposition
to it on the grounds of the slavery clause in it, but because
the whole constitution had not been fairly submitted for ap
proval or rejection by the people as had been promised. This
was the ground of his opposition. I did not permit myself to
questioiCas I do not now, his patriotism in that opposition. It
was on like grounds Mr. Crittenden put his opposition. I never
questioned his patriotism. It was not because of the slavery
clause, as some have charged, that Mr. Crittenden opposed it. I
will take this occasion to vindicate him in that particular.
I know that truly great man well ; and as widely as I have dif
fered from him, not only on the Lecompton question, but upon
other questions, I will take this occasion to say that a nobler,
truer, and more patriotic spirit breathes not in this broad land,
than that of John J. Crittenden.

Mr. Douglas stood side by side with him on it, and I consider
him, notwithstanding his position on that question, equally noble,
true, and patriotic with his illustrious compeer — so much for the
second question.

Having noticed the most prominent objections urged against
supporting the national ticket, as I have seen them in the press,
I come now, fellow-citizens, to some of the reasons why I give
that ticket a warm and cordial support. The points wherein I
differ from Mr. Douglas are small, compared with those wherein
we agree. Upon all questions of constitutional law he is a strict
constructionist — of the straightest sect of the State-rights school.
Upon our peculiar institution, so far from being unsound, unsafe,
or dangerous on all the essential principles upon which it rests,
and its permanency depends, he is on the side of reason and
truth. He holds that the negro is of an inferior race — that he is
not and cannot be a citizen of the United States — that he was
not intended to be embraced in the Declaration of Independence
— that subordination to the white race is his natural and normal
44

690 SPEECH DELIVEKED IN AUGUSTA.

condition — that his status in societ}' is a question, not of moral
right, but one of political and social economy ; and that every
State and organized community have the right to fix and settle
this status for themselves.

These are the great principles and truths upon which our
system rests, and upon which it must depend on the fields of our
battles with the public opinion of the world. On this arena we
have got to meet our opponents sooner or later. We live in an
age of discussion — all questions of science and arts, morals
and governments, must pass this ordeal. The institution of Afri
can slavery amongst us cannot escape it. If it does not stand
upon the immutable principles of nature, as I believe it does, it
must go down. And in the vindication of these great funda
mental truths, relating to negro inequality and his natural
subordinate position, which lie at the foundation of our social
fabric, no man, North or South, or in the world, has displayed
more boldness and power than this same much abused and
grossly misrepresented Stephen A. Douglas.

No man has ever uttered these, 'or any other truths, in this
country with more peril or hazard to himself. Whether in the
Senate or on the hustings, whether at the South or the North —
whether before party friends or abolition mobs, he has never
shrunk from their utterance from fear, favor, or affection. When
duty required him to speak, he has never been silent. See him
breasting the anathemas of the three thousand New England
clergymen, hurled against him for the defence of your rights,
under the constitution. See him at Chicago, imperilling even life
itself in vindication of the same cause — your rights under the
constitution — and say if it comes with a good grace, from a
southern man, to denounce him as an enemy to us or ours.

Was there ever blacker ingratitude, since Adam's first great
fall, than such demonstrations against such a man ? Were I to
remain silent while I hear them, and see him so unjustly slain, by
those who know not what they do, I should feel myself to be
as guilty of innocent blood as those who stood by and held
Stephen's clothes while he was stoned to death. Whatever may
be his opinions of popular sovereignty, or squatter sovereignty,
or the right of self-government, on the part of all organized com
munities — call it what you will — they are the same now that they
have always been — the same that they were in 1856, when he was
the favorite of the Georgia democracy for the Presidency. I
thought of his doctrine then just as I do now. If others have
changed their opinions since, he has not. It is one of the quali
ties about him that increases my admiration, that he is no time-
server — he does not change with the popular current — he bends
to no storm — he maintains his fidelity and integrity to principle
through woe as well as through weal.

One of the most manly exhibitions of moral courage and nerve
this country ever witnessed, was seen in his contest in Illinois in

SPEECH DELIVEKED IN AUGUSTA. 691

1858. With the abolition hosts in front, and all the forces of the
administration, so unnaturally and unjustly brought in the rear,
he fought the battle single-handed and alone, achieving a victory
unparalleled in the history of politics in this country. Why should
not such a man receive our support ? Not only democratic, but
whig and American — a united southern, as well as a national sup
port ? Are his principles not national, equal and just to all ?
Of his associate on the ticket, I need not speak here. Herschel
Y. Johnson needs no indorsement from any man in Georgia.
No son of hers was ever more sensitively alive to all your great
and most vital interests. He has been tried in the Senate, and
the executive chair, in the highest and most responsible offices,
proving himself to be equal to any and every occasion.

Fellow-citizens, there is much more I wish to say — much upon
the protection platform of those who call themselves the true
democracy ; but my strength has failed — I am completely ex
hausted. I can only add : Look at the questions in all their
bearings, to your past records, to your present and future
security, and as patriots, do your duty, trust the rest with God.

[Here Mr. S., being unable longer to stand, took his seat. The
audience remaining quiet, calls were made for Gumming, Wright,
and others ; but no one of the gentlemen called for appearing,
Mr. Geo. W. Lamar arose on the steps, and announced that Mr.
S. would be able to proceed in a few minutes. After some
enlivening airs from the brass band, Mr. S. arose, with great
physical weakness, and proceeded.]

I do not feel, fellow-citizens, as if, in justice to myself, I ought
to attempt to say more to-night ; but there is no cause in which I
would more willingly die than in the cause of my country ; and I
would just as soon fall here, at this time, in the advocacy of those
principles upon which its past glory has been achieved, its present
prosperity, and its future hopes depend, as anywhere else, or on
any other occasion. I told you, at the outset, that the signs of
the times portend evil. I gave you this as my deliberate judg
ment ; the future must make its own disclosures. But you need
not be surprised to see these States, now so peaceful, contented,
prosperous, and happy, embroiled in civil war in less than twelve
months. There are occasions too grave for excitement, or any
appeal to the passions. Believe me, I mean all 1 say ; the most
terrific tornadoes, those which demolish cities, destroy whole fleets,
and sweep every thing before them, come most unexpectedly. So
do the most violent revolutions amongst men. The human pas
sions are the same everywhere. They are dangerous elements
for public men, politicans, and party leaders to deal with.

The condition of the country threatens the most violent conflict
of sectional feeling, antipathy, and animositj7', at no distant day.
Should an outbreak occur, where is the power that can control it ?
A ball may be put in motion by one who cannot stop it ; a fire
may be kindled by hands that cannot quench it. Those who

692 SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA.

begin revolutions seldom end them. I do not mean to say that
the secession movement at Charleston and Baltimore was a dis-
unionist movement, or intended as such by all those who joined
in it. I do not mean to say that Messrs. Breckinridge and Lane,
who gave that movement their countenance, by accepting nomina
tions under it, are disunionists. I know both these gentlemen
well, and doubt not their patriotism. Had either of them, or
both, received the nominations from the regular democratic con
vention, I should have given them as warm a support as I do
Messrs. Douglas and Johnson. Neither do I mean to say that
the great mass of those who support the seceders' ticket are dis
unionists — no, far from it. But I do mean to sa}rthat the move
ment, whatever may have been the motives in which it originated,
and by which it is countenanced and supported, whether by good
men or bad, tends to disunion — to civil strife — may lead to it— and
most probably will, unless arrested by the virtue, intelligence,
and patriotism of the people. Is the cause assigned sufficient to
put in hazard such even probable results ? If it is, let the hazard
be made; but if not, let us pause and consider. Much as I am
attached to the Union, and as clearly convinced as I am that it
is best for the interests and welfare of all sections, that it shall be
preserved and maintained, if it can be, consistently with the rights,
honor and security of all parts, yet I hold it subordinate to these
great objects of its formation : life itself, dear as it must be held
by all subordinate to essential rights and honor. This is true of
individuals, and it is true of States and nations. It was with
these views and feelings, the ultimatum of our State was set forth
in what is known as the Georgia platform, in 1850. As I did
then, so do I now, hold the Union subordinate to the objects
therein set forth. On that platform Georgia planted herself then,
and on it I trust she will continue to stand. On the principles
of that platform I believe the Union ought to be maintained, and
can be, if our southern people are but true to themselves.

Now, this secession movement, if pushed to its legitimate conse
quences, is a departure from those principles. In politics, as in
morals, the first false step is th'e dangerous step. It matters but
little what men intend when they set out in error. One step
leads the way to another. " Facilis descensus averno." Feelings,
views, and objects change as they progress. Ideas that the mind
would have revolted at at first, are soon cordially embraced. The
Scriptural character of Hazaelisa striking illustration of human
weakness in this particular. This Charleston secession movement,
I say, is founded upon a departure from principle. Not only a
departure from the Georgia platform, and from the long-esta
blished principles of the national democratic party, but upon an
entire change of position of the entire South, of all parties, not
of all individuals, in relation to the power and jurisdiction of the
Federal government over the subject of African slavery.

I need not be reminded that this was not my position, and

SPEECH DELIVERED IN AUGUSTA. 693

tliat of a few others. This I know, and if I had that personal van
ity that could indulge individual gratification at the remotest
hazard of the public welfare, I might now be claiming great credit
for myself. All this I am aware of; but I have no such vanity.
My position, however, was not that of the South on this question.
I was overruled ; I yielded to the demands of the South. A set
tlement of this question was made according to their demands ;
and with me, when a matter is settled, it is settled forever.

What I affirm is, that the position of the South, for twenty
years and more — since the celebrated Atherton resolutions — has
been a denial of the jurisdiction of Congress over the subject of
slavery in the States and territories. It was upon this denial of
jurisdiction that the South resisted the reception of abolition
petitions. This position is directly reversed at Charleston and
Baltimore.

If we go to Congress with a request, a petition, or demand, to
pass a law to protect slavery in the territories, why may not, on
the same principle, so far as jurisdiction of the question is con
cerned, the anti-slavery men of the North go before the same
body with their request, petition, or demand, and ask that such
law shall not be passed, or that one of the contrary character
shall be passed ? The door of jurisdiction, which has been closed
so long, will be clearly and fully opened by this secession move
ment, if it is sustained by the people. And I fear it will be like
the opening of that great door on the confines of hell, " grating
harsh thunder" on its turning hinges, which permitted the
escape from the bottomless pit of all the foul fiends with which
this once heavenlike earth of ours has been cursed ?

I say I fear the most mischievous consequences from this
change of position. What is to be gained by it ? What is pro
posed to be gained by it ? Do those who favor it ever expect to
get a law passed by Congress carrying out the principles of their
platform ? So far from it, the most prominent of their leaders
openly assert that they will never vote for such a law themselves.
Mr. Breckinridge, their candidate, has declared in his letter of ac
ceptance just as fully against such a law, as Mr. Douglas ever did.
Then what possible good can ever come of the movement, even
if an election could be carried by it ? But that, all must see, is
utterly impossible. Then what is to come of it? What is to be
the result ? If no good can follow, may not great mischief?
This, to me, appears a most palpable and inevitable result.

It may secure the election of the republican candidate. Whether
it will succeed in this or not, time alone can disclose. But if it
does, what then ? Yes, what then ? Let those answer who
started the movement. To me, it seems clear, that the running
of a Breckinridge and Lane ticket, at the South, can have no
possible effect but to increase the chances of Mr. Lincoln, which
were fearfully close before. With a united democracy, North
and South, on the old platform of principles, I should not have

694 SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION.

permitted myself to doubt as to the result, under the lead of Mr.
Douglas, or Mr. Breckinridge, Mr. Cobb, Mr. Hunter, or any
other of the distinguished competitors for the nomination.

But now the only hope is that Mr. Douglas may be able to
carry enough northern electoral votes, over Mr. Breckinridge and
Lincoln both, to save the country from the excitements and dan
gers of a republican triumph. This may be done. The news
from New York, Illinois, Indiana, and several other northern
States is such as to furnish grounds of hope, if not to inspire
confidence. But it cannot be done by giving aid and comfort to
this seceding movement. On the contrary, it will be done by an
effort of patriotism rising superior to, and stronger than, the
power of that movement. This is my judgment; I give it to
you for what it is worth, consider of it as you think best. I do
not give it to you as a partisan ; I have no personal or partisan
feelings on the subject. In all that I have said, I have been gov
erned solely by considerations of the public good.

[Here Mr. Stephens, after returning thanks to the ladies who
had honored the occasion with their presence, and addressing
some remarks to them pertinent to the subject, and the influence
of women in public affairs, though they took no active part in
politics, and appealing to all classes, young and old, fathers,
mothers, brothers, sisters, boys, and all, to exert whatever influ
ence they possessed in the cause of their country in this hour of
her great need ; and expressing hope that, under Providence, the
late bright prospect of a great future and high career for our
young republic, not yet having reached manhood, might not be
cut off and blasted, but that it should continue, for ages to come,
to bless untold millions, again took his seat amidst loud and pro
longed applause.]

SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION.

DELIVERED BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE OF GEORGIA,

NOVEMBER 14th, 1860.

Mr. Stephens entered the Hall at the hour of 7 P. M., and was
greeted with long and rapturous applause. He rose and said :

FELLOW-CITIZENS : — I appear before you to-night at the request
of members of the legislature and others, to speak of matters of
the deepest interest that can possibly concern us all of an earthly
character. There is nothing, no question or subject connected
with this life, that concerns a free people so intimately as that of
the government undei which they live. We are now, indeed,
surrounded by evils. Never since I entered upon the public

SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION. 695

stage has the country been so environed with difficulties and
dangers that threatened the public peace and the very existence
of society7 as now. I do not now appear before you at my own
instance. It is not to gratify any desire of my own that I am
here. Had I consulted my own ease and pleasure, I should not
be before you ; but believing that it is the duty of every good
citizen, when called on, to give his counsels and views whenever
the country is in danger, as to the best policy to be pursued, I
am here. For these reasons, and these only, do I bespeak a
calm, patient, and attentive hearing.

My object is not to stir up strife, but to allay it ; not to appeal
to 3rour passions, but to your reason. Good governments can
never be built up or sustained by the impulse of passion. I wish
to address myself to your good sense, to your good judgment,
and if, after hearing, you disagree, let us agree to disagree, and
part as we met, friends. We all have the same object, the same
interest. That people should disagree in republican govern
ments upon questions of public policy is natural. That men
should disagree upon all matters connected with human investi
gation, whether relating to science or human conduct, is natural.
Hence, in free governments parties will arise. But a free people
should express their different opinions with liberality and charity,
with no acrimony toward those of their fellows, when honestly
and sincerely given. These are my feelings td-night.

Let us, therefore, reason together. It is not my purpose to
say aught to wound the feelings of any individual who may be
present; and if in the ardency with which I shall express my
opinions, I shall say any thing which ma}^ be deemed too strong,
let it be set down to the zeal with which I advocate my own con
victions. There is with me no intention to irritate or offend.

Fellow-citizens, we are all launched in the same bark ; we are
all in the same craft in the wide political ocean — the same des
tiny awaits us all for weal or for woe. We have been launched in
the good old ship that has been upon the waves for three quar
ters of a century, which has been in many tempests and storms,
has many times been in peril, and patriots have often feared that
they should have to give it up, yea, have at times almost given it
up ; but still the gallant ship is afloat. Though new storms now
howl around us, and the tempest beats heavily against us, I s&y
to you, don't give up the ship ; don't abandon her yet. If she
can possibly be preserved, and our rights, interests, and security
be maintained, the object is worth the effort. Let us not, on
account of disappointment and chagrin at the reverse of an elec
tion, give up all as lost ; but let us see what can be done to pre
vent a wreck. [Some one said, The ship has holes in her.]
And there may be leaks in her, but let us stop them if we can ;
many a stout old ship has been saved with richest cargo, after
many leaks, and it may be so now. [Cheers.]

I do not, on this occasion, intend to enter into the history of

696 SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION.

the reasons or causes of the embarrassments which press so
heavily upon us all at this time. In justice to myself, however,
I must barely state upon this point that I do think much of it
depended upon ourselves. The consternation that has come upon
the people is the result of a sectional election of a President of
the United States, one whose opinions and avowed principles are
in antagonism to our interests and rights, and we believe, if car
ried out, would subvert the constitution under which we now live.
But are we entirely blameless in this matter, my countrymen ?
I give it to you as my opinion, that but for the polkyy the south
ern people pursued, this fearful result would not have occurred.
Mr. Lincoln has been elected, I doubt not, by a minority of the
people of the United States. What will be the extent of that
minority we do not yet know, but the disclosure, when made, will
how, I think, that a majority of the constitutional, conservative
voters of the country were against him ; and had the South stood
firmly in the convention at Charleston, on her old platform of
principles of non-intervention, there is in my mind but little
doubt that whoever might have been the candidate of the national
democratic party would have been elected by as large a majority
as that which elected Mr. Buchanan or Mr. Pierce. Therefore,
let us not be hasty and rash in our action, especially if the result
be attributable at all to ourselves. Before looking to extreme
measures, let us first see, as Georgians, that every thing which
can be done to preserve our rights, our interests, and our honor,
as well as the peace of the country in the Union, be first done.
[Applause.]

The first question that presents itself is, shall the people of the
South secede from the Union in consequence of the election of
Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency of the United States ? My coun
trymen, I tell you frankty, candidly, and earnestly, that I do not
think that they ought. In my judgment, the election of no man,
constitutionally chosen to that high office, is sufficient cause for
any State to separate from the Union. It ought to stand by and
aid still in maintaining the constitution of the country. To make a
point of resistance to the government, to withdraw from it because
a man has been constitutionally elected, puts us in the wrong.
We are pledged to maintain the constitution. Many of us have
sworn to support it. Can we, therefore, for the mere election of a
man to the presidency, and that, too, in accordance with the pre
scribed forms of the constitution, make a point of resistance to the
government, without becoming the breakers of that sacred instru
ment ourselves, b}r withdrawing ourselves from it ? Would we
not be in the wrong? Whatever fate is to befall this country,
let it never be laid to the charge of the people of the South, and
especially to the people of Georgia, that we were untrue to our
national engagements. Let the fault and the wrong rest upon
others. If all our hopes are to be blasted, if the republic is to
go down, let us be found to the last moment standing on the deck

SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION. 697

with the constitution of the United States waving over our heads.
[Applause.] Let the fanatics of the North break the constitu
tion, if such is their fell purpose. Let the responsibility be upon
them. I shall speak presently more of their acts ; but let not the
South, let us not be the ones to commit the aggression. We
went into the election with this people. The result was different
from what we wished ; but the election has been constitutionally
held. Were we to make a point of resistance to the government
and go out of the Union on that account, the record would be
made up hereafter against us.

But it is said Mr. Lincoln's policy and principles are against the
constitution, and that, if he carries them out, it will be destruc
tive of our rights. Let us not anticipate a threatened evil. If
he violates the constitution, then will come our time to act. Do
not let us break it because, forsooth, he may. If he does, that is
the time for us to strike. [Applause.] I think it would be inju
dicious and unwise to do this sooner. I do not anticipate that
Mr. Lincoln will do any thing to jeopard our safety or security,
whatever may be his spirit to do it ; for he is bound by the con
stitutional checks which are thrown around him, which at this
time render him powerless to do any great mischief. This shows
the wisdom of our system. The President of the United States
is no emperor, no dictator — he is clothed with no absolute power.
He can do nothing unless he is backed by power in Congress.
The House of Representatives is largely in a majority against
him. In the very face and teeth of the heavy majority which he
has obtained in the northern States, there have been large gains
in the House of Representatives to the conservative constitu
tional party of the country, which here I will call the national
democratic party, because that is the cognomen it has at the
North. There are twelve of this party elected from New York
to the next Congress, I believe. In the present House there are
but four, I think. In Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, and
Indiana, there have been gains. In the present Congress, there
were one hundred and. thirteen republicans, when it takes one
hundred and seventeen to make a majority. The gains in the
democratic party in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, New York,
Indiana, and other States, notwithstanding its distractions, have
been enough to make a majority of near thirty in the next House
against Mr. Lincoln. Even in Boston, Mr. Burlingame, one of
the noted leaders of the fanatics of that section, has been defeated,
and a conservative man returned in his stead. Is this the time,
then, to apprehend that Mr. Lincoln, with this large majority in
the House of Representatives against him, can carry out any of
his unconstitutional principles in that body ?

In the Senate he will also be powerless. There will be a ma
jority of four against him. .This, after the loss of Bigler, Fitch,
and others, by the unfortunate dissensions of the national demo
cratic party in their States. Mr. Lincoln cannot appoint an offi-

698 SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION.

cer without the consent of the Senate — he cannot form a cabinet
without the same consent. He will be in the condition of George
the Third (the embodiment of toryism), who had to ask the whigs
to appoint- his ministers, and was compelled to receive a cabinet
utterly opposed to his views ; and so Mr. Lincoln will be com
pelled to ask of the Senate to choose for him a cabinet, if the
democracy of that party chose to put him on such terms. He will
be compelled to do this, or let the government stop, if the na
tional democratic men (for that is their name at the North), the
conservative men in the Senate, should so determine. Then how
can Mr. Lincoln obtain a cabinet which would aid him, or allow
him to violate the constitution? Why then, I say, should we
disrupt the ties of this Union when his hands are tied — when he
can do nothing against us ?

I have heard it mooted that no man in the State of Georgia,
who is true to her interests, could hold office under Mr. Lincoln.
But I ask who appoints to office ? Not the President alone ; the
Senate has to concur. No man can be appointed without the
consent of the Senate. Should any man, then, refuse to hold
office that was given him by a democratic Senate ?

Mr. TOOMBS interrupted, and said, if the Senate was democratic,
it was for Breckin ridge.

Well, then, continued Mr. STEPHENS, I apprehend that no man
could be justly considered untrue to the interests of Georgia, or
incur any disgrace, if the interests of Georgia required it, to hold
an office which a Breckinridge Senate had given him, even though
Mr. Lincoln should be President. [Prolonged applause, mingled
with interruptions.]

I trust, my countrymen, you will be still and silent. I am ad
dressing your good sense. I am giving you my views in a calm
and dispassionate manner, and if any of you differ with me, you
can on some other occasion give your views, as I am doing now,
and let reason and true patriotism decide between us. In my
judgment, I s&y, under such circumstances, there would be no
possible disgrace for a southern man to hold office. No man will
be suffered to be appointed, I have no doubt, who is not true to
the constitution, if southern senators are true to their trusts, as
I cannot permit myself to doubt that they will be.

My honorable friend who addressed you last night (Mr.
TOOMBS), and to whom I listened with the profoundest attention,
asks if we would submit to black republican rule ? I say to you
and to him, as a Georgian, I never would submit to any black
republican aggression upon our constitutional rights.

I will never consent myself, as much as I admire this Union,
for the glories of the past or the blessings of the present, as much
as it has done for civilization ; as much as the hopes of the world
hang upon it ; I would never submit to aggression upon my
rights to maintain it longer; and if they cannot be maintained
in the Union standing on the Georgia platform, where I huve

SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION. 699

stood from the time of its adoption, I would he in favor of dis
rupting every tie which binds the States together. I will have
equality for Georgia, and for the citizens of, Georgia, in this Union,
or I will look for new safeguards elsewhere. This is my position.
The only question now is, can this be secured in the Union ?
That is what I am counselling with 3*011 to-night about. Can it
be secured ? In my judgment, it may be, but it may not be ; but
let us do all we can, so that in the future, if the worst comes, it
may never be said we were negligent in doing our duty to the
last.

My countiTinen, I am not of those who believe this Union has
been a curse up to this time. True men, men of integrity, enter
tain different views from me on this subject. I do not question
their right to do so ; I would not impugn their motives in so
doing. Nor will I undertake to say that this government of our
fathers is perfect. There is nothing perfect in this world of
human origin ; nothing connected with human nature, from man
himself to any of his works. You may select the wisest and best
men for your judges, and yet how many defects are there in the
administration of justice ? You may select the wisest and best
men for your legislators, and yet how many defects are apparent
in your laws ? And it is so in our government. But that this
government of our fathers, with all its defects, comes nearer the
objects of all good governments than any other on the face of the
earth, is my settled conviction. Contrast it now with any on
the face of the earth.

England, said Mr. TOOMBS.

Mr. STEPHENS. England, my friend says. Well, that is the
next best, I grant ; but I think we have improved upon England.
Statesmen tried their apprentice hand on the government of Eng
land, and then ours was made. Ours sprung from that, avoiding
many of its defects, taking most of the good, and leaving out
many of its errors, and from the whole our fathers constructed
and built up this model republic — the best which the history of the
world gives any account of. Compare, my friends, this government
with that of France, Spain, Mexico, the South American repub
lics, Germany, Ireland — (are there any sons of that down-trodden
nation here to-night ?) — Prussia ; or if you travel further east, to
Turkey or China. Where will you go, following the sun in its
circuit round our globe, to find a government that better protects
the liberties of its people, and secures to them the blessings we
enjoy. [Applause.] I think that one of the evils that beset us
is a surfeit of liberty, an exuberance of the priceless blessings for
which we are ungrateful. We -listened to my honorable friend
who addressed you last night [Mr. TOOMBS] as he recounted the
evils of this government. The first was the fishing bounties paid
mostly to the sailors of New England. Our friend stated that
forty-eight years of our government was under the administration
of southern Presidents. Well, these fishing bounties began under

700 SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION.

the rule of a southern President, I believe. No one of them during
the whole forty-eight years ever set his administration against
the principle or policy of them. It is not for me to say whether
it was a wise policy in the beginning ; it probably was not, and I
have nothing to say in its defence. But the reason given for it
was to encourage our young men to go to sea, and learn to man
age ships. We had at the time but a small navy. It was thought
best to encourage a class of our people to become acquainted
with seafaring life ; to become sailors, to man our naval ships.
It requires practice to walk the deck of a ship, to pull the ropes,
to furl the sails, to go aloft, to climb the mast; and it was thought
by offering this bounty, a nursery might be formed in which young
men would become perfected in these arts, and it applied to one sec
tion of the country as well as to any other. The result of this was,
that in the war of 1812, our sailors, many of whom came from this
nursery, were equal to any that England brought against us. At any
rate, no small part of the glories of that war were gained by the vete
ran tars of America, and the object of these bounties was to fos
ter that branch of the national defence. My opinion is, that what
ever may have been the reason at first, this bounty ought to be
discontinued — the reason for it at first no longer exists. A bill
for this object did pass the Senate the last Congress I was in, to
which my honorable friend contributed greatly, but it was not
reached in the House of Representatives. I trust that he will
yet see that he may with honor continue his connection with the
government, and that his eloquence, unrivalled in the Senate, may
hereafter, as heretofore, be displayed in having this bounty, so
obnoxious to him, repealed and wiped off from the statute book.

The next evil that my friend complained of was the tariff.
Well, let us look at that for a moment. About the time I com
menced noticing public matters, this question was agitating the
country almost as fearfully as the slave question now is. In 1832,
when I was in college, South Carolina was ready to nullify or
secede from the Union on this account. And what have we seen ?
The tariff no longer distracts the public councils. Reason has
triumphed ! The present tariff was voted for by Massachusetts
and South Carolina. The lion and the lamb lay down together —
every man in the Senate and House from Massachusetts and
South Carolina, I think, voted for it as did my honorable friend
himself. And if it be true, to use the figure of speech of my
honorable friend, that every man in the North, that works in iron
and brass and wood, has his muscle strengthened by the protec
tion of the government, that stimulant was given by his vote, and
I believe every other southern man. So we ought not to complain
of that.

Mr. TOOMBS. That tariff lessened the duties.

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, and Massachusetts, with unanimity, voted
with the South to lessen them, and they were made just as low as
southern men asked them to be, and those are the rates they are

SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION. 701

now at. If reason and argument with experience produced such
changes in the sentiments of Massachusetts from 1832 to 1857,
on the subject of the tariff, may not like changes be effected there
by the same means, reason and argument, and appeals to patriot
ism on the present vexed question ! and who can say that by
1875 or 1890, Massachusetts may not vote with South Carolina
and Georgia upon all those questions that now distract the country
and threaten its peace and existence ? I believe in the power and
efficiency of truth, in the omnipotence of truth, and its ultimate
triumph when properly wielded. [Applause.]

Another matter of grievance alluded to by my honorable friend,
was the navigation laws. This policy was also commenced under
the administration of one of these southern Presidents, who ruled
so well, and has been continued through all of them since. The
gentleman's views of the policy of these laws and my own do not
disagree. We occupied the same ground in relation to them in
Congress. It is not my purpose to defend them now. But it is
proper to state some matters connected with their origin.

One of the objects was to build up a commercial American
marine by giving American bottoms the exclusive carrying trade
between our own ports. This is a great arm of national power.
This object was accomplished. We have now an amount of ship
ping not only coast-wise but to foreign countries which puts us in
the front ranks of the nations of the world. England can no
longer be styled the mistress of the seas. What American is not
proud of the result ? Whether those laws should be continued is
another question. But one thing is certain, no President, northern
or southern, has ever yet recommended their repeal. And my
friend's effort to get them repealed has met with but little favor
North or South.

These then were the three grievances or grounds of complaint
against the general system of our government and its workings ;
I mean the administration of the Federal government. As to the
acts of several of the States, I shall speak presently, but these
three we.re the main ones urged against the common head. Now
suppose it be admitted that all of these are evils in the system ;
do they over balance and outweigh the advantages and great good
which this same government affords in a thousand innumerable
ways that cannot be estimated ? Have we not at the South as
well as the North, grown great, prosperous and happy under its
operation ? Has any part of the world ever shown such rapid
progress in the development of wealth, and all the material
resources of national power and greatness, as the southern States
have under the general government, notwithstanding all its
defects ?

Mr. TOOMBS. In spite of it.

Mr. STEPHENS. My honorable friend says we have, in spite of
the general government ; that without it I suppose he thinks we
might have done as well or perhaps better than we have done.

702 SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION".

This grand result is in spite of the government? That may be,
and it may not be, but the great fact that we have grown great
and powerful under the government as it exists is admitted.
Thereis no conjecture or speculation about that; it stands out
bold, high and prominent like your Stone Mountain, to which the
gentleman alluded in illustrating home facts in his record — this
great fact of our unrivalled prosperity in the Union as it is ad
mitted — whether all this is in spite of the government — whether
we of the South would have been better off without the govern
ment is, to say the least, problematical. On the one side we can
only put the fact against speculation and conjecture on the other.
But even as a question of speculation I differ from my distin
guished friend. What we would have lost in border wars with
out the Union, or what we have gained simply by the peace it
has secured, is not within our power to estimate. Our foreign
trade, which is the foundation of all our prosperity, has the pro
tection of the navy, which drove the pirates from the waters near
our coast where they had been buccaneering for centuries before,
and might have been still had it not been for the American navy
under the command of such a spirit as Commodore Porter. ]STow
that the coast is clear, that our commerce flows freely, outwardly,
and inwardly, we cannot well estimate how it would have been
under other circumstances. The influence of the government on
us is like that of the atmosphere around us. Its benefits are so
silent and unseen that they are seldom thought of or appreciated.

We seldom think of the single element of oxygen in the air
we breathe, and yet let this simple unseen and unfelt agent be
withdrawn, this life-giving element be taken away from this all-
pervading fluid around us, and what instant and appalling
changes would take place in all organic creation !

It may be that we are all that we are in " spite of the general
government," but it may be that without it we should have been
far different from what we are now. It is true there is no equal
part of the earth with natural resources superior, perhaps, to
ours. That portion of this country known as the southern States,
stretching from the Chesapeake to the Kio Grande, is fully equal
to the picture drawn by the honorable and eloquent senator last
night, in all natural capacities. But how many ages, centuries,
passed before these capacities were developed, to reach this ad
vanced stage of civilization ? There, these same hills, rich in
ore, same rivers, same valleys and plains, are as they have been
since they came from the hand of the Creator. Uneducated and
uncivilized man roamed over them, for how long, no history in
forms us.

It was only under our institutions that they could be de
veloped. Their development is the result of the enterprise of
our people under operations of the government and institutions
under which we have lived. Even our people, without these,
never would have done it. The organization of society has much

SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION". 703

to do with the development of the natural resources of any
country or any land. The institutions of a people, political and
moral, are the matrix in which the germ of their organic struc
ture quickens into life, takes root, and develops in form, na
ture, and character. Our institutions constitute the basis, the
matrix, from which spring all our characteristics of development
and greatness. Look at Greece ! There is the same fertile soil,
the same blue sky, the same inlets and harbors, the same JGgean,
the same Olympus — there is the same land where Homer sung,
where Pericles spoke — it is in nature the same old Greece ; but
it is living Greece no more. [Applause.]

Descendants of the same people inhabit the country ; yet what
is the reason of this mighty difference ? In the midst of present
degradation, we see the glorious fragments of ancient works of
art — temples with ornaments arid inscriptions that excite wronder
and admiration, the remains of a once high order of civilization,
which have outlived the language they spoke. Upon them all,
Ichabod is written — their glory has departed. Why is this so?
I answer, their institutions have been destroyed. These were
but the fruits of their forms of government, the matrix from
which their grand development sprung ; and when once the in
stitutions of our people shall have been destroyed, there is no
earthly power that can bring back the Promethean spark to kindle
them here again, any more than in that ancient land of eloquence,
poetry, and song. [Applause.] The same may be said of Italy.
Where is Rome, once the mistress of the wrorld ? There are the
same seven hills now, the same soil, the same natural resources ;
nature is the same ; but what a ruin of human greatness meets
the eye of the traveller throughout the length and breadth of
that most down-trodden land ! Why have not the people of that
heaven-favored clime the spirit that animated their fathers ?
Why this sad difference ? It is the destruction of her institu
tions that has caused it. And, my countrymen, if we shall in
an evil hour rashly pull down and destroy those institutions,
which the patriotic hand of our fathers labored so long and so
hard to build up, and which have done so much for us and for
the world, who can venture the prediction that similar results
will not ensue ? Let us avoid them if we can. I trust the spirit
is amongst us that will enable us to do it. Let us not rashly try
the experiment of change, of pulling down and destroying, for,
as in Greece and Italy, and the South American republics, and
in every other place, whenever our liberty is once lost, it may
never be restored to us again. [Applause.]

There are defects in our government, errors in our administra
tion, and short-comings of many kinds, but in spite of these
defects and errors, Georgia has grown to be a great State. Let
us pause here a moment. In 1850 there was a great crisis, but
not so fearful as this, for of all I have ever passed through, this

704: SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION.

is the most perilous, and requires to be met with the greatest
calmness and deliberation.

There were many amongst us in 1850 zealous to go at once out
of the Union — to disrupt every tie that binds us together. Now
do you believe, had that policy been carried out at that time, we
would have been the same great people that we are to-day ? It
may be that we would, but have you any assurance of that fact ?
Would we have made the same advancement, improvement, and
progress, in all that constitutes material wealth and prosperity
that we have ?

I notice in the comptroller-general's report that the taxable
property of Georgia is six hundred and seventy million dollars,
and upwards — an amount not far from double what it was in
1850. I think I may venture to say that for the last ten years
the material wealth of the people of Georgia has been nearly if
not quite doubled. The same may be said of our advance in
education, and every thing that marks our civilization. Have
we any assurance that had we regarded the earnest but misguided
patriotic advice, as I think, of some of that day, and disrupted
the ties which bind us to the Union, we would have advanced as
we have ? I think not. Well, then, let us be careful now before
we attempt any rash experiment of this sort. I know that there
are friends whose patriotism I do not intend to question, who
think this Union a curse, and that we would be better off without
it. I do not so think ; if we can bring about a correction of
these evils which threaten — and I am not without hope that this
may yet be done — this appeal to go out with all the promises
for good that accompany it, I look upon as a great, and I fear, a
fatal temptation.

When I look around and see our prosperity in every thing —
agriculture, commerce, art, science, and every department of
progress, physical, mental, and moral — certainly, in the face of
such an exhibition, if we can, without the loss of power, or any
essential right or interest, remain in the Union, it is our duty to
ourselves and to posterity to do so. Let us not unwisely yield
to this temptation. Our first parents, the great progenitors of
the human race, wrere not without a like temptation when in the
garden of Eden. They were led to believe that their condition
would be bettered — that their eyes would be opened — and that
they would become as gods. They in an evil hour yielded — in
stead of becoming gods, the}'' only saw their own nakedness.

I look upon this country with our institutions as the Eden of
the world, the faradise of the universe. It may be that out of
it, we may become greater and more prosperous, but I am candid
and sincere in telling you that I fear if we yield to passion, and
without sufficient cause, shall take that step, that instead of be
coming greater or more peaceful, prosperous, and happy — instead
of becoming gods, we will become demons, and at no distant day
commence cutting one another's throats. This is niy apprehen-

SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION. 705

sion. Let us, therefore, whatever we do, meet these difficulties,
great as they are, like wise and sensible men, and consider them
in the light of all the consequences which may attend our action.
Let us see first, clearly, where the path of duty leads, and then
we may not fear to tread therein.

I come now to the main question put to me, and on which my
counsel has been asked. That is, what the present legislature
should do in view of the dangers that threaten us, and the wrongs
that have been done us by several of our confederate States in
the Union, by the acts of their legislatures nullifying the fugitive
slave law, and in direct disregard of their constitutional obliga
tions ? What I shall say will not be in the spirit of dictation. It will
be simply my own judgment for what it is worth. It proceeds from
a strong conviction that according to it, our rights, interest, and
honor — our present safety and future security can be maintained
without yet looking to the last resort, the "ultima ratio regum."
That should not be looked to until all else fails. That may come.
On this point I am hopeful, but not sanguine. But let us use
every patriotic effort to prevent it while there is ground for hope.

If any view that I may present, in your judgment, be incon
sistent with the best interest of Georgia, I ask you as patriots
not to regard it. After hearing me and others whom you have
advised with, act in the premises according to your own convic
tion of duty as patriots. I speak now particularly to the members
of the legislature present. There are, as I have said, great dan
gers ahead. Great dangers may come from the election 1 have
spoken of If the policy of Mr. Lincoln and his republican asso
ciates shall be carried out, or attempted to be carried out, no
man in Georgia will be more willing or ready than myself to de
fend our rights, interest, and honor, at every hazard and to the
last extremity. [Applause.] What is this policy ? It is, in the
first place, to exclude us, by an act of Congress, from the terri
tories with our slave property. He is for using the power of the
general government against the extension of our institutions.
Our position on this point is, and ought to be, at all hazards, for
perfect equality between all the States and the citizens of all the
States in the territories, under the constitution of the United
States. If Congress should exercise its power against this, then
I am for standing where Georgia planted herself in 1850. These
were plain propositions which were then laid down in her cele
brated platform, as sufficient for the disruption of the Union if
the occasion should ever come ; on these Georgia nas declared
that she will go out of the Union ; and for these she would be
justified by the nations of the earth in so doing. I say the same ;
I said it then; I say it now, if Mr. Lincoln's policy should be
carried out. I have told you that I do not think his bare election
sufficient cause ; but if his policy should be carried out, in viola
tion of any of the principles set forth in the Georgia platform,
that would be such an act of aggression, which ought to be met
45

706 SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION.

as therein provided for. If his policy shall be carried out in re
pealing or modifying the fugitive slave law so as to weaken its
efficacy, Georgia has declared that she will, in the last resort,
disrupt the ties of the Union — and I say so too. I stand upon
the Georgia platform, and upon every plank in it ; and if these
aggressions therein provided for take place, I say to you and
to the people of Georgia, be ready for the assault when it comes ;
keep your powder dry, and let your assailants then have lead, if
need be. [Applause.] I would wait for an act of aggression.
This is my position.

Now, upon another point, and that the most difficult, and de
serving your most serious consideration, I will speak. That is
the course which this State should pursue toward these northern
States which, by their legislative acts, have attempted to nullify
the fugitive slave law. I know that in some of these States their
acts, pretended to be based upon the principles set forth in the
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of
Prigg against Pennsylvania ; that decision did proclaim the doc
trine that the State officers are not bound to carry out the pro
visions of a law of Congress, that the federal government cannot
impose duties upon State officials — that they must execute their
own laws by their own officers. And this may be true. But still
it is the duty of the States to deliver fugitive slaves, as well as
the duty of the general government to see that it is done.

Northern States, on entering into the federal compact, pledged
themselves to surrender such fugitives ; and it is in disregard of
their constitutional obligations that they have passed laws which
even tend to hinder or inhibit the fulfilment of that obligation.
They have violated their plighted faith. What ought we to do
in view of this? That is the question. What is to be done ? By
the law of nations you would have a right to demand the carrying
out of this article of agreement, and I do not see that it should
be otherwise with respect to the States of this Union ; and in
case it be not done, we would, by these principles, have the right
to commit acts of reprisal on these faithless governments, and
seize upon their property, or that of their citizens, wherever
found. The States of this Union stand upon the same footing
with foreign nations in this respect. But by the law of nations
we are equally bound, before proceeding to violent measures, to
set forth our grievances before the offending government, to give
them an opportunity to redress the wrong. Has our State yet
done this ? T think not.

Suppose it were Great Britain that had violated some compact
of agreement with the general government — what would be first
done? In that case our minister would be directed in the first
instance to bring the matter to the attention of that government,
or a commissioner be sent to that country to open negotiations
with her, ask for redress, and it would only be after argument
and reason had been exhausted in vain that we would take the

SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION". 7()f

last resort of nations. That would be the course toward a foreign
government, and toward a member of this confederacy I would
recommend the same course. Let us not, therefore, act hastily
or ill-temperedly in this matter. Let your committee on the state
of the republic make out a bill of grievances ; let it be sent by
the governor to those faithless States ; and if reason and argu
ment shall be tried in vain — if all shall fail to induce them to re
turn to their constitutional obligations, I would be for retaliatory
measures, such as the governor has suggested to you. This -mode
of resistance in the Union is in our power. It might be effectual,
and if in the last resort we would be justified in the eyes of na
tions, not only in separating from them, but by using force.
[Some one said the argument was already exhausted.]

Mr. STEPHENS continued :

Some friend says that the argument is already exhausted. No,
my friend, it is not. You have never called the attention of the
legislatures of those States to this subject that I am aware of.
Nothing on this line has ever been done before this year. The
attention of our own people has been called to the subject lately.

Now, then, my recommendation to you would be this. In view
of all these questions of difficulty, let a convention of the people
of Georgia be called, to which they may be all referred. Let the
sovereignty of the people speak. Some think that the election
of Mr. Lincoln is cause sufficient to dissolve the Union. Some
think those other grievances are sufficient to dissolve the same,
and that the legislature has the power thus to act, and ought
thus to act. I have no hesitancy in saying that the legislature
is not the proper body to sever our federal relations, if that
necessit}7" should arise. An honorable and distinguished gen
tleman, the other night (Mr. T. R. R. COBB), advised you to
take this course — not to wait to hear from the cross-roads and
groceries.

I say to you, you have no power so to act. You must refer this
question to the people, and you must wait to hear from the men
at the cross-roads and even the groceries ; for the people of this
country, whether at the cross-roads or groceries, whether in cot
tages or palaces, are all equal, and they are the sovereigns in this
country. Sovereignty is not in the legislature. We, the people,
are sovereigns. I am one of them, and have a right to be heard ;
and so has every other citizen of the State. You legislators — I
speak it respectfully — are but our servants. You are the servants
of the people, and not their masters. Power resides with the
people in this country. The great difference between our country
and all others, such as France, and England and Ireland, is, that
here there is popular sovereignty, while their sovereignty is ex
ercised by kings and favored classes. This principle of popular
sovereignty, however much derided lately, is the foundation of
our institutions. Constitutions are but the channels through
which the popular will may be expressed. Our constitution came

708 SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION.

from the people. They made it, and they alone can rightfully
unmake it.

Mr. TOOMBS. I am afraid of conventions.

Mr. STEPHENS. I am not afraid of any convention legally chosen
by the people. I know no way to decide great questions affecting
fundamental laws except by representatives of the people. The
constitution of the United States was made by the representatives
of the people in convention. The constitution of the State of
Georgia was made ~by representatives of the people in convention,
chosen at the ballot-box. Let us, therefore, now have a conven
tion chosen by the people. But do not let the question which
comes before the people be put to them in the language of my
honorable friend who addressed you last night : " Will you sub
mit to abolition rule, or resist?"

Mr. TOOMBS. I do not wish the people to be cheated.

Mr. STEPHENS. Now, my friends, how are we going to cheat
the people by calling on them to elect delegates to a convention
to decide all these questions, without any dictation or direction ?
Who proposes to cheat the people by letting them speak their
own untrammelled views in the choice of their ablest and best men,
to determine upon all these matters involving their peace ?

I think the proposition of my honorable friend had a consider
able smack of unfairness, not to say cheat. He wishes to have
no convention, but for the legislature to submit this question to
the people, "submission to abolition rule or resistance." Now,
who in Georgia would vote, "submission to abolition rule?"
[Laughter.]

Is putting such a question to the people to vote on, a fair way
of getting an expression of the popular will on all these ques
tions ? I think not. Now, who in Georgia is going to submit to
abolition rule ?

Mr. TOOMBS. The convention will.

Mr. STEPHENS. No, my friend, Georgia will not do it. The
convention will not recede from the Georgia platform. Under
that there can be no abolition rule in the general government. I
am not afraid to trust the people in convention upon this and all
other questions. Besides, the legislature was not elected for such
a purpose. They came here to do their duty as legislators. They
have sworn to support the constitution of the United States.
They did not come here to disrupt this government. I am,
therefore, for submitting all these questions to a convention of
the people. To submit these questions to the people, whether
they would submit to abolition rule or resist, and then for the
legislature to act on that vote, would be an insult to the people.

But how will it be under this arrangement if they should vote
to resist, and the legislature should re-assemble with this vote as
their instructions? Can any man tell what sort of resistance
will be meant ? One man would say secede ; another pass retalia
tory measures — these are measures of resistance against wrong

SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION. 709

legitimate and right — and there would be as many different

ideas as there are members on this floor. Resistance don't
mean secession — that is no proper sense of the term resistance.
Believing that the times require action, 1 am for presenting the
question fairly to the people, for calling together an untrammelled
convention, and presenting all the questions to them whether
they will go out of the Union, or what course of resistance in the
Union they may think best, and then let the legislature act, when
the people in their majesty are heard, and I tell you now, what
ever that convention does, I hope and trust our people will abide
by. I advise the calling of a convention, with the earnest desire
to preserve the peace and harmony of the State. I should dislike,
above all things, to see violent measures adopted, or a disposition
to take the sword in hand, by individuals, without the authority
of law.

My honorable friend said last night, " I ask you to give me the
sword, for if you do not give it to me, as God lives, I will take it
myself."

Mr. TOOMBS. I will. [Great applause on the other side.]

Mr. STEPHENS. I have no doubt that my honorable friend
feels as he says. It is only his excessive ardor that makes him
use such an expression ; but this will pass off with the excitement
of the hour. When the people in their majesty shall speak, I
have no doubt he will bow to their will, whatever it may be, upon
the " sober second thought." [Applause.]

Should Georgia determine to go out of the Union, I speak for
one, though my views might not agree with them, whatever the
result may be, I shall bow to the will of her people. Their cause
is my cause, and their destiny is my destiny ; and I trust this
will be the ultimate course of all. The greatest curse that can
befall a free people, is civil war.

But, as I said, let us call a convention of the people. Let all
these matters be submitted to it, and when the will of a majority
of the people has thus been expressed, the whole State will pre
sent one unanimous voice in favor of whatever may be demanded ;
for I believe in the power of the people to govern themselves,
when wisdom prevails and passion does not control their actions.
Look at what has alread}^ been done Toy them, in their advance
ment in all that ennobles man ! There is nothing like it in the
history of the world. Look abroad from one extent of the coun
try to the other ; contemplate our greatness. We are now among
the first nations of the earth. ' Shall it be said, then, that our
institutions, founded upon the principles of self-government, are
a failure ?

Thus far, it is a noble example, worthy of imitation. The
gentleman, (MR. COBB,) the other night, said it had proven a
failure. A failure in what ? In growth ? Look at our expanse in
national power. Look at our population and increase in all that
makes a people great. A failure! why we are the admira-

710 SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION.

tion of the civilized world, and present the brightest hopes of
mankind.

Some of our public men have failed in their aspirations ; that
is true, and from that comes a great part of our troubles.
[Prolonged applause.]

No, there is no failure of this government yet. We have made
great advancement under the constitution, and I cannot but hope
that we shall advance higher still. Let us be true to our trust.

Now, when this convention assembles, if it shall be called, as I
hope it may, I would say, in my judgment, without dictation, for
I am conferring with you freely and frankly, and it is thus that
I give my views, it should take into consideration all those ques
tions which distract the public mind ; should view all the grounds
of secession so far as the election of Mr. Lincoln is concerned ;
and I can but hope, if reason is unbiassed by passion, that they
would say that the constitutional election of no man is a suffi
cient cause to break up the Union, but that the State should wait
until he, at least, does some unconstitutional act.

Mr. TOOMBS. Commit some overt act ?

Mr. STEPHENS. No, I did not say that. The word overt is a
sort of technical term connected with treason, which has come to
us from the mother country, and it means an open act of rebel
lion. I do not see how Mr. Lincoln can do this unless he should
levy war upon us. I do not, therefore, use the word overt. I
do not intend to wait for that. But I use the word unconstitu
tional act, which our people understand much better, and which
expresses just what I mean. But as long as he conforms to the
constitution, he should be left to exercise the duties of his office.

In giving this advice, I am but sustaining the constitution of
my country, and I do not thereby become a "Lincoln aid man"
either, [applause,] but a constitutional aid man. But this matter
the convention can determine.

As to the other matter, I think we have a right to pass retalia
tory measures, provided they be in accordance with the constitu
tion of the United States ; and I think they can be made so. But
whether it would be wise for this legislature to do this now, is the
question. To the convention, in my judgment, this matter ought
to be referred. Before making reprisals, we should exhaust every
means of bringing about a peaceful settlement of the controversy.
Thus did General Jackson in the case of the French. He did not
recommend reprisals until he had treated with France and got
her to promise to make indemnification, and it was only on her
refusal to pay the money which she had promised that he recom
mended reprisals. It was after negotiation had failed. I do
think, therefore, that it would be best before going to extreme
measures, with our confederate States, to make the presentation
of our demands, to appeal to their reason and judgment, to give
us our rights. Then if reason should not triumph, it will be time
eno" igh to commit reprisals, and we should be justified in the eyes

SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION. 711

of a civilized world. At least, let these offending and derelict
States know what your grievances are, and if they refuse, as I
said, to give us our rights under the constitution, I should be
willing, as a last resort, to sever the ties of our Union with them.
[Applause.]

My own opinion is, that if this course be pursued, and they are
informed of the consequences of refusal, these States will recede,
will repeal their nullifying acts ; but if they should not, then
let the consequences be with them, and the responsibility of the
consequences rest upon them. Another thing I would have that
convention to do. Re-affirm the Georgia platform with an addi
tional plank in it. Let that plank be the fulfilment of these con
stitutional obligations on the part of those States — their repeal
of these obnoxious laws as the condition of our remaining in the
Union. Give them time to consider it, and I would ask all States
south to do the same thing.

I am for exhausting all that patriotism demands before taking
the last step. I would invite, therefore, South Carolina to a con
ference. I would ask the same of all the other southern States,
so that if the evil has got beyond our control, which God in his
mercy grant may not be the case, we may not be divided among
ourselves ; [cheers,] but if possible, secure the united co-opera
tion of all the southern States, and then, in the face of the civi
lized world, we may justify our action, and with the wrong all on
the other side, we can appeal to the God of battles, if it
comes to that, to aid us in our cause. fLoud applause.] But
do nothing in which any portion of our people may charge you
with rash or hasty action. It is certainly a matter of great
importance to tear this government asunder. You were not sent
here for that purpose. I would wish the whole South to be
united, if this is to be done ; and I believe if we pursue the
policy which I have vindicated, this can be effected.

In this way our sister southern States can be induced to act
with us; and I. have but little doubt that the States of New
York, and Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and the other western States,
will compel their legislatures to recede from their hostile atti
tude, if the others do not. Then with these we would go on
without New England, if she chose to stay out.

A voice in the assembly — " We will kick them out."

Mr. STEPHENS. No : I would not kick them out. But if they
chose to stay out, they might. I think, moreover, that these
northern States, being principally engaged in manufactures,
would find that they had as much interest in the Union under
the constitution as we, and that they would return to their con
stitutional duty — this would be my hope. If they should not,
and if the middle States, and western States do not join us, we
should at least have an undivided South. I am, as you clearly
perceive, for maintaining the Union as it is, if possible. I will
exhaust every Tieans thus to maintain it with an equality in it.

712 SPEECH AGAINST SECESSION.

My position, then, in conclusion, is for the maintenance of the
honor, the rights, the equality, the security, and the glory of my
native State in the Union if possible ; but if these cannot be
maintained in the Union, then I am for their maintenance, at all
hazards, out of it. Next to the honor and glory of Georgia, the
land of my birth, I hold the honor and glory of our common
country. In Savannah I was made to say by the reporters, who
very often make me say things which I never did, that I was first
for the glory of the whole country, and next for that of Georgia.
I said the exact reverse of this. I am proud of her history, of
her present standing. I am proud even of her motto, which I
would have duly respected at the present time by all her sons —
" Wisdom, Justice, and Moderation." I would have her rights
and that of the southern States maintained now upon these
principles. Her position now is just what it was in 1850, with
respect to the southern States. Her platform then established
was subsequently adopted by most, if not all the other southern
States. Now, I would add but one additional plank to that plat
form, which I have stated, and one which time has shown to be
necessary, and if that shall likewise be adopted in substance by
all the southern States, all may yet be well. But if all this fails,
we shall at least have the satisfaction of knowing that we have
done our duty and all that patriotism could require.

Mr. Stephens then took his seat amidst great applause.

[On loud calls for Hon. Henry R. Jackson, that gentleman arose
and addressed the assembly for about half an hour, mainly in
opposition to some of the positions of Mr. Stephens. He was
loudly applauded by his side. When he got through, Mr. Stephens
again rose and rejoined in substance as follows :]

He had hoped that what he had said might have been permitted
to be considered and reflected upon by those to whom it had
been addressed, in that spirit of coolness with which it had been
delivered. He had come to do what he could to allay excite
ment, and to let- the dispassionate judgment of the members of
the legislature have its own course. One or two points only
would he reply to the gentleman on.

He (Mr. Jackson) said that the people of ancient Greece and
Rome had lost their liberties when they refused to fight for them.
No, my countrymen, said Mr. Stephens, they lost their liberties
when they fell a prey to internal dissensions amongst themselves.
As long as they were united, as long as Athens, Corinth and Sparta,
and others of the Amphyctionic leagues acted harmoniously,
they were more than a match for any enemy that ever came
against them. This, Philip of Macedon was aware of, and his
policy toward them was, to sow strife amongst them. His motto
was to divide and conquer. Civil strife was the cause of Greece's
overthrow; so it was with Rome. It was the strife between
Marius and Sylia, Pompey and Caesar, and the civil wars that
ensued, that caused the overthrow of that great republic. It was

KULES FOE GOVERNMENT OF CONFEDERATE CONGRESS. 713

when there were parties of Marius and Sylla, and for Cossar and
Pompey, and none for Rome, and those parties got to fighting
amongst themselves, that the liberties of the people were lost —
that their constitution was destroyed. It had been so in France
and all other republics. Mexico is in this sad condition now.
The blackest page in the history of the world, was that on which
were recorded the butcheries in the French revolution, committed
by each faction on the other as they successively triumphed in
turn. Desmoulins, Danton, Robespiere, all went to the guillotine.
So it may be in this country. Our people are by nature no better
than others. When the human passions are once unbridled, men
become little better than fiends. Liberty was never the fruit of
such strife. He made an earnest appeal to all well-wishers of the
peace of society — to all law and order men to keep cool, and not
let excitement influence their sound judgment.

Some allusion was made to Mr. Breckinridge. Mr. Stephens
said that he had seen it stated that he was coming South to
address the people in behalf of preserving the Union, if it could
be done. He did not know whether it was true or not.

Mr. TOOMBS said it was not true.

Mr. STEPHENS said he did not know whether it was or not.
Such a telegraphic dispatch had been published.

Some question was asked about Mr. Douglas' answer to the
Norfolk questions.

Mr. STEPHENS said that Mr. Douglas had said in substance,
that the bare election of any man to the Presidency, was not a
cause for a State to secede ; and if Mr. Lincoln should be elected,
he ought to be inaugurated and sustained in all his constitutional
acts. But if he violated the constitution, then he would aid in
hanging him higher than the Virginians hung John Brown. Mr.
Breckinridge had not answered those questions, but Mr. Stephens
took it for granted that he agreed with Mr. Douglas ; for he con
sidered in his Lexington speech, a suspicion of his entertaining
disunion sentiments, an imputation on his character. He treated
with indignity such a charge ; and his supporters in Georgia had
certainly run him upon the avowal everywhere, that he was a
Union man. Mr. STEPHENS again resumed his seat, in the midst
of great applause.

RULES FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CONFEDER
ATE CONGRESS. MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA, 1861.

MR. STEPHENS, from the Committee on Rules, made the follow
ing report :

I. The vote upon all questions in this Congress except as here
after* otherwise provided shall be taken by States ; each State
shall be entitled to one vote. A majority of all the States rep re*

714 RULES FOB GOVERNMENT OF CONFEDERATE CONGRESS.

sented shall be necessary to carry any question. The delegates
from each State may designate the member to cast the vote for their
State, and upon the motion of airy member seconded by one fifth
of the members present, or at the instance of any one State, the
yeas and nays of the entire body shall be spread upon the
journals upon any question.

II. Any number of members from a majority of the States
now represented or hereafter to be represented by duly accredited
delegates from States seceding from the United States of Ame
rica, shall constitute a quorum to transact business.

III. The President having taken the chair, and a quorum being
present, the journal of the preceding day shall be read, and any
mistakes in the entries shall upon motion then be corrected.

IY. No member shall speak to another, or otherwise interrupt
the business of the Congress while the journals or public papers
are being read, or when any member is speaking in debate.

Y. Every member when he speaks shall address the Chair stand
ing in his place, and when he has finished shall sit down.

VI. No member shall speak more than twice in any one debate
on the same question and on the same day, without leave of a
majority of the members present.

VII. When two or more members rise at the same time, the
President shall name the person to speak, but in all cases the
member who shall first rise and address the chair shall speak
first.

VIII. The President shall preserve order and decorum ; may
speak to points of order in preference to other members, rising
from his seat for that purpose ; and shall decide questions of
order subject to an appeal by any one State ; and may call any
member to the Chair to preside temporarily not to extend beyond
that day's session. He may participate in the debates.

IX. When any member is called to order by the President or
any member, he shall sit down, and every question of order shall
be decided by the President without debate, subject to an appeal
to the body.

X. If any member be called to order by another member for
words spoken, the exceptionable words spoken shall immediately
be taken down in writing, that the President may be better able to
judge the matter.

XI. No member shall in debate use any language reflecting in
juriously upon the character, motives, honor or integrity of any
other member.

XII. No motion shall be debated until the same shall receive a
second ; and when a motion shall be made and seconded, it shall
be 'reduced to writing, if desired by the President or any member,
delivered in at the table and read, before the same shall be
debated.

XIII. Any motion or proposition may be withdrawn by the
mover at any time before a decision, amendment, or other action

RULES FOR GOVERNMENT OF CONFEDERATE CONGRESS. 715

of the body upon it, except a motion to reconsider, which shall
not be withdrawn without leave of the body.

XIY. When a question has been once made and carried in the
affirmative or negative, a motion to reconsider shall be entertained
at the instance of any State, if made on the same day on which
the vote was taken, or within the two next days of actual session.
When a motion to reconsider shall be made, its consideration
shall take precedence of the regular order of business, unless a
majority of the members present shall fix some other time.

XV. When a question is under debate, no motion (except one
to reconsider some other question passed upon) shall be received
but to adjourn, to lie on the table, to postpone indefinitely, to
postpone to a da}r certain, to commit or amend, which several
motions shall have precedence in the order they stand arranged,
and the motion to adjourn shall always be in order, and decided
without debate.

XVI. If the question for decision contain several parts, any
member may have the same divided, but on a motion to strike
out and insert, it shall not be in order to move for a division of
the question ; but the rejection of a motion to strike out and
insert one proposition shall not prevent a motion to strike out
and insert a different proposition, nor prevent a subsequent pro
position simply to strike out, nor shall the rejection of a motion
simply to strike out, prevent a subsequent motion to strike out
and insert.

XVII. In filling up blanks the largest sum aud longest time
shall be first put.

XVIII. The unfinished business in which the Congress may be
engaged on adjournment shall be the first business in order on
the next day's sitting.

XIX. After the journal is read, and the unfinished business, if
any, of the previous day's sitting is disposed of, the regular order
of business shall be as follows :

1. The call of the States, alphabetically, for memorials, or any
matter, measure, resolution, or proposition which any member
may desire to bring before the Congress.

2. The call of committees for reports — the call of the com
mittees to be made in the order of their appointment — such
reports of committees as may not be otherwise disposed of when
made, shall be numbered in the order in which they are presented
and be placed in that order on the calendar of the regular orders
of the day.

3. The calendar, or the regular orders of the day shall then
be taken up, and every resolution, proposition, or measure, shall
be disposed of in the order in which it there stands. No special
order shall be made against this rule, except by a vote of a
majority of the States, and such majority may, at any time,
change the order of business.

XX. Every resolution or measure submitted for the action of

716 KCJLES FOE GOVERNMENT OF CONFEDERATE CONGRESS.

the Congress shall receive three readings previous to its being
passed; the President shall give notice at each reading whether
it be the first, second, or third reading. No resolution or
measure shall be committed or amended until it shall have been
twice read, after which it may be subject to motion to amend or
to refer to a committee. And all such matters on second read
ing shall first be considered by the Congress in the same manner
as if the Congress were in Committee of the Whole ; the final
question on the second reading of any matter not referred to a
committee, shall be " whether it shall be engrossed and read a
third time," and no amendment shall be received after the en
grossment for a third reading has been ordered. But it shall at
all times be in order before the final passage or action on any
matter, to move its commitment, and should such commitment
take place, and any amendment be reported by the committee,
the whole shall be again read a second time and considered as in
committee of the whole, and then the aforesaid question shall be
again put.

XXI. After any matter is ordered to be engrossed and it has
been read a third time the question shall be, shall the resolution
(or the matter whatever it may be) now pass ?

XXII. All resolutions or other matter on the second and third
reading may be read by the title, unless the reading of the whole
shall be desired by a majority of those present.

XXIII. The titles of resolutions and other matters submitted,
and such parts thereof only as shall be affected by proposed
amendments, shall be inserted on the journals.

XXIV. No motion for the previous question shall be enter
tained: but upon the call of any member for "The Question, "if
seconded by a majority of the States present, the vote shall be
immediately taken on the pending question, whatever it may be,
without further debate.

XXY. A motion to lay any amendment on the table prevailing,
shall carry with it only the amendment, and not the original
proposition or matter.

XXVI. Stenographers and reporters for the press, wishing to
take down the proceedings of the Congress, may be admitted by
the president, who shall assign such places to them on the floor,
to effect their object as shall not interfere with the convenience
of the members when in open session.

XXVII. On motion, made and seconded by another member,
to close the doors on the discussion of any business, which may
in the opinion of a member require secrecy, the president shall
direct the doors to be closed and the gallery to be cleared, and
during the discussion of such question, no one shall be permitted
to remain upon the floor but the members of the body and its
officers.

XXVIII. Any officer or member of the Congress, convicted
of disclosing any matter directed by the body to be held in con-

SKETCH OF THE CORNEK-STONE SPEECH. 717

fidence, shall be liable, if an officer, to dismissal from service, and
in case of a member, to suffer expulsion from the body.

XXIX. All motions to print extra copies of any bill, report, or
other document, shall be referred to the committee on printing.

XXX. All propositions affecting our foreign relations, or look
ing to the public defence, shall be submitted to the Congress
while in secret session.

XXXI. All cases that may arise in the proceedings of this
Congress, not provided for in the foregoing rules, shall be gov
erned by the general principles of parliamentary law as laid
down in Jefferson's Manual.

SPEECH DELIVERED ON THE 21sT MARCH, 1861, IN
SAVANNAH, KNOWN AS "THE CORNER STONE
SPEECH," REPORTED IN THE SAVANNAH REPUB
LICAN.

At half past seven o'clock on Thursday evening, the largest
audience ever assembled at the Athenaeum was in the house,
waiting most impatiently for the appearance of the orator of the
evening, Hon. A. H. Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederate
States of America. The committee, with invited guests, were
seated on the stage, when, at the appointed hour, the Hon. C. C.
Jones, Mayor, and the speaker, entered, and were greeted by the
immense assemblage with deafening rounds of applause.

The Mayor then, in a few pertinent remarks, introduced Mr.
Stephens, stating that at the request of a number/)f the members
of the convention, and citizens of Savannah and the State, now
here, he had consented to address them upon the present state
of public affairs.

Mr. STEPHENS rose and spoke as follows :

Mr. Mayor, and Gentlemen of the Committee, and Fellow-
Citizens : — For this reception you will please accept my most
profound and sincere thanks. The compliment is doubtless in
tended as much, or more, perhaps, in honor of the occasion, and
my public position, in connection with the great events now
crowding upon us, than to me personally and individually. It
is however none the less appreciated by me on that account. We
are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history.
The last ninety days will mark one of the most memorable eras
in the history of modern civilization.

[There was a general call from the outside of the building for
the speaker to go out, that there were more outside than in.]

The Mayor rose and requested silence at the doors, that Mr.
Stephens' health would not permit him to speak in the open air.

Mr. STEPHENS said he would leave it to the audience whether he

718 SKETCH OF THE CORNER-STONE SPEECH.

should proceed indoors or out. There was a general cry indoors,
as the ladies, a large number of whom were present, could not
liear outside.

Mr. STEPHENS said that the accommodation of the ladies would
determine the question, and he would proceed where he was.

[At this point the uproar and clamor outside was greater still
for the speaker to go out on the steps. This was quieted }}y
Col. Lawton, Col. Freeman, Judge Jackson, and Mr. J. W. Ow
ens going out and stating the facts of the case to the dense mass
of men, women, and children who were outside, and entertaining
them in brief speeches — Mr. Stephens all this while quietly sit
ting down until the furor subsided.]

Mr. STEPHENS rose and said : When perfect quiet is restored,
I shall proceed. I cannot speak so long as there is any noise or
confusion. I shall take my time — I feel quite prepared to spend
the night with you if necessary. [Loud applause.] I very much
regret that every one who desires cannot hear what I have to
say. Not that I have any display to make, or any thing very
entertaining to present, but such views as I have to give, I wish
all, not only in this city, but in this State, and throughout our
Confederate Republic, could hear, who have a desire to hear
them.

I was remarking, that we are passing through one of the great
est revolutions in the annals of the world. Seven States have
within the last three months thrown off an old government and
formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to
this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without
the loss of a single drop of blood. [Applause.]

This new constitution, or form of government, constitutes
the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In
reference to it, I make this first general remark. It amply se
cures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the
great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No citizen
is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of
his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of
religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old con
stitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of
the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the
American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. [Ap
plause.] Some changes have been made. Of these I shall speak
presently. Some of these I should have preferred not to have
seen made ; but these, perhaps, meet the cordial approbation of
a majority of this audience, if not an overwhelming majority of
the people of the Confederacy. Of them, therefore, I will not
speak. But other important changes do meet my cordial appro
bation. They form great improvements upon the old constitu
tion. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesi
tancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than
the old. [Applause.]

SKETCH OF THE CORNER-STONE SPEECH. 719

Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The
question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch
of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the
revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old con
stitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the
imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one
class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another.
All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of
perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and
unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This
subject came well nigh causing a rupture of the old Union, under
the lead of the gallant Palmetto State, which lies on our border,
in 1833. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so
much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from
the new. [Applause.] f

Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power
of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system.
The power claimed by construction under the old constitution, was
at least a doubtful one — it rested solely upon construction. We of
the South, generally apart from considerations of constitutional
principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency
and injustice. Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money,
from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes.
Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or all ne
cessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question,
upon whom the burden should fall. In Georgia, for instance, we
have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any
other portion of the country according to population and means.
We have stretched out lines of railroads from the seaboard to the
mountains ; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys at a cost
of not less than twenty-five millions of dollars. All this was done
to open an outlet for our products of the interior, and those to the
west of us, to reach the marts of the world. No State was in
greater need of such facilities than Georgia, but we did not ask
that these works should be made by appropriations out of the
common treasu'ry. The cost of the grading, the superstructure,
and equipments of our roads, was borne by those who entered on
the enterprise. Nay, more — not only the cost of the iron, no
small item in the aggregate cost, was borne in the same way — but
we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several mil
lions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the
price was paid for it abroad. What justice was there in taking
this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on
the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement
of rivers and harbors elsewhere ?

The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality,
to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. If Charles
ton harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of Charleston
bear the burden. If the mouth of the Savannah river has

720 SKETCH OF THE CORNER-STONE SPEECH.

to be cleared out, let the sea-going navigation which is benefitted
by it, bear the burden. So with the mouths of the Alabama and
Mississippi river. Just as the products of the interior, our cotton,
wheat, corn, and other articles, have to bear the necessary rates
of freight over our railroads to reach the seas. This is again the
broad principle of perfect equality and justice. [Applause.]
And it is especially set forth and established in our new consti
tution.

Another feature to which I will allude, is that the new consti
tution provides that cabinet ministers and heads of departments
may have the privilege of seats upon the floor of the Senate and
House of Representatives — may have the right to participate in
the debates and discussions upon the various subjects of adminis
tration. I should have preferred that this provision should have
gone further, and required the President to select his constitu
tional advisers from the Senate and House of Representatives.
That would have conformed entirely to the practice in the British
Parliament, which, in my judgment, is one of the wisest provisions
in the British constitution. It is the only feature that saves that
government. It is that wrhich gives it stability in its facility to
change its administration. Ours, -as it is, is a great approxima
tion to the right principle.

Under the old constitution, a secretary of the treasury for in
stance, had no opportunity, save by his annual reports, of presenting
any scheme or plan of finance or other matter. He had no oppor
tunity of explaining, expounding, inforcing, or defending his views
of policy ; his only resort was through the medium of an organ.
In the British parliament, the premier brings in his budget and
stands before the nation responsible for its every item. If it is
indefensible, he falls before the attacks upon it, as he ought to.
This will now be the case to a limited extent under our system.
In the new constitution, provision has been made by which
our heads of departments can speak for themselves and the
administration, in behalf of its entire policy, without resorting to
the indirect and highly objectionable medium of a newspaper.
It is to be greatly hoped . that under our system we shall never
have what is known as a government organ. [Rapturous ap
plause.]

[A noise again arose from the clamor of the crowd outside,
who wished to hear Mr. Stephens, and for some moments inter
rupted him. The mayor rose and called on- the police to preserve
order. Quiet being restored, Mr. S. proceeded.]

Another change in the constitution relates to the length of the
tenure of the presidential office. In the new constitution it is
six years instead of four, and the President rendered ineligible
for a re-election. This is certainly a decidedly conservative
change. It will remove from the incumbent all temptation to
use his office or exert the powers confided to him for any objects
of personal ambition. The only incentive to that higher ainbi-

SKETCH OF THE CORNER-STONE SPEECH. 721

tion which should move and actuate one holding such high trusts
in his hands, will be the good of the people, the advancement,
prosperity, happiness, safety, honor, and true glory of the con
federacy. [Applause.]

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes
for the better, allow me to allude to one other — though last, not
least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the
agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African
slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in
our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the
late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast,
had anticipated this, as the " rock upon which the old Union
would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is
now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the
great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be
doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of
the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old con
stitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in vio
lation of the laws of nature ; that it was wrong in principle,
socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not
well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that
day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the
institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea,
though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing
idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured eveiy essen
tial guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no
argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guaran
tees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day.
Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested
upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.
It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell
when the " storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the oppo
site idea ; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon
the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man ;
that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural
and normal condition. [Applause.]

This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the
world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral
truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its develop
ment, like all other truths in the various departments of science.
It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can
recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even
within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung
to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who
still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly
denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration
of the mind — from a defect in reasoning. It. is a species of insan
ity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in
46

722 SKETCH OF THE COKNER-STONE SPEECH.

many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or
erroneous premises ; so with the anti-slavery fanatics ; their con
clusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the
negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal
privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were
correct, their conclusions would be logical and just — but their
premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect
once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States,
of great power and ability, announce in the House of Represen
tatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be
compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that
it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in
politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle
would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it
exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle
founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The
reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should,
ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this cru
sade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth
announced, that it was as impossible to war successfuly against a
principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I ad
mitted ; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him,
who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to
make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete
throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States.
It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly
planted ; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate suc
cess of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civil
ized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in
development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various
branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by
Galileo— it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of politi
cal economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the cir
culation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the
medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the
truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally
acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to
the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which
our system rests ? It is the first government ever instituted
upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordi
nation of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human
society. Manjr governments have been founded upon the prin
ciple of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the
same race ; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature.
Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With
us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are
equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordina

SKETCH OF THE CORNER-STOXE SPEECH. 723

tion is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is
fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The
architect in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation
with the proper material — the granite ; then comes the brick or
the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the mate
rial fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know, that it is
best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it
should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of
the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his
ordinances, or to question them. For his own purposes, he has
made one race to differ from another, as he has made "one star
to differ from another star in glory."

The great objects of humanity are best attained when there
is conformity to his laws and decrees, in the formation of govern
ments as "well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded
upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone
which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of
the cornel '' — the real " corner-stone" — in our new edifice. [Ap
plause.]

I have been asked, what of the future ? It has been appre
hended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civil
ized world. I care not who or how maity they may be against
us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are
true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are
obliged to, and must triumph. [Immense applause.]

Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are
not yet complete!}' out of the shell ; they do not see them in their
length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and
christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judg
ment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching
them the lesson taught to Adam, that " in the sweat of his brow
he should eat his bread," [applause,] and teaching them to work,
and feed, and clothe themselves.

But to pass on : Some have propounded the inquiry whether
it is practicable for us to go on with the confederacy without
further accessions ? Have we the means and ability to maintain
nationality among the powers of the earth ? On this point I
would barely say, that as anxiously as we all have been, and are,
for the border States, with institutions similar to ours, to join us,
still we are abundantly able to maintain our position, even if they
should ultimately make up their minds not to cast their destiny
with us. That they ultimately will join us — be compelled to do
it — is my confident belief; but we can get on very well without
them, even if they should not.

We have all the essential elements of a high national career.
The idea has been given out at the North, and even in the border
States, that we are too small and too weak to maintain a separate
nationality. This is a great mistake. In extent of territory we
embrace five hundred and sixty -four thousand square miles and

724: SKETCH OF THE COKNER-STONE SPEECH.

upward. This is upward of two hundred thousand square miles
more than was included within the limits of the original thirteen
States. It is an area of country more than double the territory
of France or the Austrian empire. France, in round numbers,
has but two hundred and twelve thousand square miles. Austria,
in round numbers, has two hundred and forty-eight thousand
square miles. Ours is greater than both combined. It is greater
than all France, Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain, including
England, Ireland, and Scotland, together. In population we
have upward of five millions, according to the census of 1860 ;
this includes white and black. The entire, population, including
white and black, of the original thirteen States, was less than
four millions in 1790, and still less in "16, when the independence
of our fathers was achieved. If they, with a less population,
dared maintain their independence against the greatest power on
earth, shall we have any apprehension of maintaining ours now ?

In point of material wealth and resources, we are greatly in
advance of them. The taxable property of the Confederate States
cannot be less than thirty-two hundred millions of dollars !
This, I think I venture but little in saying, may be considered as
five times more than the colonies possessed at the time they
achieved their independence. Georgia, alone, possessed last
year, according to the report of our comptroller-general, six
hundred and seventy-two millions of taxable property. The
debts of the seven confederate States sum up in the aggregate
less than eighteen millions, while the existing debts of the other
of the late United States sum up in the aggregate the enormous
amount of one hundred and seventy-four millions of dollars. This
is without taking into the account the heavy city debts, corpora
tion debts, and railroad debts, which press, and will continue to
press, as a heavy incubus upon the resources of those States.
These debts, added to others, make a sum total not much under
five hundred millions of dollars. With such an area of territory
as we have — with such an amount of population — with a climate
and soil unsurpassed by any 011 the face of the earth — with such
resources already at our command — with productions which con
trol the commerce of the world — who can entertain any appre
hensions as to our ability to succeed, whether others join us or
not?

It is true, I believe I state but the common sentiment, when I
declare my earnest desire that the border States should join us.
The differences of opinion that existed among us anterior to
secession, related more to the policy in securing that result by
co-operation than from any difference upon the ultimate security
we all looked to in common.

These differences of opinion were more in reference to policy
than principle, and as Mr. Jefferson said in his inaugural, in
1801, after the heated contest preceding his election, there might
be differences of opinion without differences on principle, and

SKETCH OF THE CORNER-STOXE SPEECH. 725

that all, to some extent, had been federalists and all republicans ;
so it may now be said of us, that whatever differences of opinion as
to the best policy in having a co-operation with our border sister
slave States, if the worst came to the worst, that as we were all
co-operationists, we are now all for independence, whether the}7"
come or not. [Continued applause.]

In this connection I take this occasion to state, that I was not
without grave and serious apprehensions, that if the worst came
to the worst, and cutting loose from the old government should
be the only remedy for our safety and security, it would be
attended with much more serious ills than it has been as yet. Thus
far we have seen none of those incidents which usually attend
revolutions. No such material as such convulsions usually throw
up has been seen. Wisdom, prudence, and patriotism, have
marked every step of our progress thus far. This augurs well
for the future, and it is a matter of sincere gratification to me,
that I am enabled to make the declaration. Of the men I met in
the Congress at Montgomery, I may be pardoned for saying this,
an abler, wiser, a more conservative, deliberate, determined, reso
lute, and patriotic body of men, I never met in my life. [Great
applause.] Their works speak for them ; the provisional govern
ment speaks for them ; the constitution of the permanent govern
ment will be a lasting monument of their worth, merit, and states
manship. [Applause.]

But to return to the question of the future. What is to be the
result of this revolution ?

Will every thing, commenced so well, continue as it has begun ?
In reply to this anxious inquiry, I can only say it all depends
upon ourselves. A young man starting out in life on his majority,
with health, talent, and ability, under a favoring Providence,
may be said to be the architect of his own fortunes. His desti
nies are in his own hands. He may make for himself a name, of
honor or dishonor, according to his own acts. If he plants him
self upon truth, integrity, honor and uprightness, with industry,
patience and energy, he cannot fail of success. .So it is with us.
We are a young republic, just entering upon the arena of nations ;
we will be the architects of our own fortunes. Our destiny, under
Providence, is in our own hands. With wisdom, prudence, and
statesmanship on the part of our public men, and intelligence,
virtue and patriotism on the part of the people, success, to the
full measures of our most sanguine hopes, may be looked for.
But if unwise counsels prevail — if we become divided — if schisms
arise — if dissensions spring up — if factions are engendered — if
party spirit, nourished by unholy personal ambition shall rear its
hydra head, I have no good to prophesy for you. Without intel
ligence, virtue, integrity, and patriotism on the part of the people,
no republic or representative government can be durable or
stable.

We have intelligence, and virtue, and patriotism. All that is

726 SKETCH OF THE COKNER-STONE SPEECH.

required is to cultivate and perpetuate these. Intelligence will
not do without virtue. France was a nation of philosophers.
These philosophers become Jacobins. They lacked that virtue,
that devotion to moral principle, and that patriotism which is
essential to good government. Organized upon principles of
perfect justice and right — seeking amity and friendship with all
other powers — I see no obstacle in the way of our upward and
onward progress. Our growth, by accessions from other States,
will depend greatly upon whether we present to the world, as I
trust we shall, a better government than that to which neighbor
ing States belong. If we do this, North Carolina, Tennessee,
and Arkansas cannot hesitate long; neither can Virginia,
Kentucky, and Missouri. They will necessarily gravitate to us
by an imperious law. We made ample provision in our constitu
tion for the admission of other States ; it is more guarded, and
wisely so, I think, than the old constitution on the same subject,
but not too guarded to receive them as fast as it may be proper.
Looking to the distant future, and, perhaps, not very far distant
either, it is not beyond the range of possibility, and even proba
bility, that all the great States of the north-west will gravitate
this way, as well as Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas,
etc. Should the}?- do so, our doors are wide enough to receive
them, but not until they are ready to assimilate with us in
principle.

The process of disintegration in the old Union may be ex
pected to go on with almost absolute certainty if we pursue the
right course. We are now the nucleus of a growing power
which, if we are true to ourselves, our destiny, and high mission,
will become the controlling power on this continent. To what
extent accessions will go on in the process of time, or where it
will end, the future will determine. So far as it concerns States
of the old Union, this process will be upon no such principles of
reconstruction as now spoken of, but upon reorganization and
new assimilation. [Loud applause.] Such are some of the
glimpses of the future as I catch them.

But at first we must necessarily meet with the inconveniences
and difficulties and embarrassments incident to all changes of
government. These will be felt in our postal affairs and changes
in the channel of trade. These inconveniences, it is to be hoped,
will be but temporary, and must be borne with patience and
forbearance.

As to whether we shall have war with our late confederates, or
whether all matters of differences between us shall be amicably
settled, I can only say that the prospect for a peaceful adjust
ment is better, so far as I am informed, than it has been.

The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has
been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lin
coln's inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigor
ously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be

SKETCH OF THE CORNER-STONE SPEECH. 727

evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens,
and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is
to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered.
Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world.
All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of
the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing
to adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and
good faith. War can be of no more benefit to the North than to
us. Whether the intention of evacuating Fort Snmter is to be
received as an evidence of a desire for a peaceful solution
of our difficulties with the United States, or the result of neces
sity, I will not undertake to say. I would fain hope the
former. Rumors are afloat, however, that it is the result of
necessity. All I can say to you, therefore, on that point is,
keep your armor bright and your powder dry. [Enthusiastic
cheering.]

The surest way to secure peace, is to show your ability to
maintain your rights. The principles and position of the present
administration of the United States — the republican party —
present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle
with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave
territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part
with an inch " of the accursed soil." Notwithstanding their
clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed
to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were
ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready
to fight now on her secession. Why is this ? How can this
strange paradox be accounted for ? There seems to be but one
rational solution — and that is, notwithstanding their professions
of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they
derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their
interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object,
and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to
swell the fund, necessary to meet their heavy appropriations.
The spoils is what they are after — though they come from the
labor of the slave. [Continued applause.]

Mr. Stephens reviewed at some length, the extravagance and
profligacy of appropriations by the Congress of the United
States for several years past, and in this connection took occa
sion to allude to another one of the great improvements in our
new constitution, which is a clause prohibiting Congress from
appropriating any money from the treasury, except by a two-
third vote, unless it be for some object which the executive may
say is necessary to carry on the government.

When it is thus asked for, and estimated for, he continued, the
majority may appropriate. This was a new feature.

Our fathers had guarded the assessment of taxes by insisting
that representation and taxation should go together. This was

728 SKETCH OF THE COBXEE-STOXE SPEECH.

inherited from the mother country, England. It was one of the
principles upon which the revolution had been fought. Our
fathers also provided in the old constitution, that all appropria
tion bills should originate in the representative branch of Con
gress, but our new constitution went a step further, and guarded
not only the pockets of the people, but also the public money,
after it was taken from their pockets.

He alluded to the difficulties and embarrassments which seemed
to surround the question of a peaceful solution of the controversj7
with the old government. How can it be done ? is perplexing
many minds. The President seems to think that he cannot
recognize our independence, nor can he, with and by the advice
of the Senate, do so. The constitution makes no such provision.
A general convention of all the States has been suggested by
some.

Without proposing to solve the difficulty, he barely made the
following suggestion :

" That as the admission of States by Congress under the con
stitution was an act of legislation, and in the nature of a contract
or compact between the States admitted and the others admitting,
why should not this contract or compact be regarded as of like
character with all other civil contracts — liable to be rescinded by
mutual agreement of both parties ? The seceding States have
rescinded it on their part, they have resumed their sovereignty.
Why cannot the whole question be settled, if the north desire
peace, simply by the Congress, in both branches, with the con
currence of the President, giving their consent to the separation,
and a recognition of our independence ?" This he merely offered
as a suggestion, as one of the ways in which it might be done
with much less violence by constructions to the constitution than
many other acts of that government. [Applause.] The difficulty
has to be solved in some way or other — this may be regarded as
a fixed fact.

Several other points were alluded to by Mr. Stephens, particu
larly as to the policy of the new government toward foreign
nations, and our commercial relations with them. Free trade,
as far as practicable, would be the policy of this government.
No higher duties would be imposed on foreign importations than
would be necessary to support the government upon the strictest
economy.

In olden times the olive branch was considered the emblem of
peace ; we will send to the nations of the earth another and far
more potential emblem of the same, the cotton plant. The pres
ent duties were levied with a view of meeting the present necessi
ties and exigencies, in preparation for war, if need be ; but if we
have peace, and he hoped we might, and trade should resume its
proper course, a duty of ten per cent, upon foreign importations
it was thought might be sufficient to meet the expenditures of the

SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION. 729

government. If some articles should be left on the free list, as
they now are, such as breadstuffs, etc., then, of course, duties
upon others would have to be higher — but in no event to an ex
tent to embarrass trade and commerce. He concluded in an
earnest appeal for union and harmon}r, on part of all the people
in support of the common cause, in which we were all enlisted,
and upon the issues of which such great consequences depend.

If, said he, we are true to ourselves, true to our cause, true to
our destiny, true to our high mission, in presenting to the world
the highest t}^pe of civilization ever exhibited by man — there will
be found in our lexicon no such word as fail.

Mr. Stephens took his seat, amid a burst of enthusiasm and
applause, such as the Athenaeum has never had displayed within
its walls, within "the recollection of the oldest inhabitant."

[BEPORTER'S NOTE. — Your reporter begs to state that the above is not a
perfect report, but only such a sketch of the address of Mr. Stephens as
embraces, in his judgment, the most important points presented by the
orator. — G.]

SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION
CONVENTION.

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23D, 1861.

The President having again resumed the chair, said :
GENTLEMEN OP THE CONVENTION : — I have the honor to intro
duce the Hon. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, Vice-President of the
Confederates States, who comes charged with a special mission
from the Confederate States to the government of Virginia.

SPEECH OP THE HON. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

Mr. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OP THE CONVENTION: — I ap
pear before you on this occasion upon your own invitation,
representing the government of the Confederate States. My mis
sion was at your instance, in compliance with a resolution invit
ing that government to send a commissioner here. The powers
by which I am accredited were, I presume, communicated to you
by your executive yesterday ; and I have simply in this inter
view, in accordance with your request, to state to you very freely,
candidly, and frankly, what are the wishes and objects of our
government in sending me here. I will premise by stating with
equal candor and frankness that the communication from this con
vention to our government inviting this conference, was received
with a great deal of gratification, I presume that no event since
the' separation of the more southern States from the late Union,
has occurred to give such unbounded pleasure to the whole

730 SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION.

southern people, as the news that the Old Dominion had thrown
her fortunes with ours.

We had thought, from the beginning, that this result would
ultimately be inevitable. Individually, you will allow me to
say I had not the slightest doubt upon the subject, and I feel
extremely gratified that my anticipations have been so early
realized. When the communication was received that Virginia
had seceded, and wished a conference with our government, there
was not the slightest hesitation. The telegraph announced it at
two o'clock, p. M., and by eight in the evening I was on my way
here.

It is true your resolution simply indicated a wish to form an
alliance with the present Confederate States, in the present emer
gency, in the midst of the present perils which surround you and
us alike. The condition of this body is not unknown to our gov
ernment. The circumstances under which you are assembled,
and the limitations of the powers under which you act, are very
well known at Montgomery. We know the condition on which
your ordinance of secession was necessarily passed — that it wras,
under the circumstances, properly subjected to the popular rati
fication of your people. Embarrassments, it was known, there
fore, might attend any alliance that may be made ; but the great
question, looking to existing, present perils, and the dangers
which instantly press upon you and us alike, was how best to
meet these ; how best to provide for to-day, leaving the troubles
and embarrassments of future contingencies to be provided for
as they may arise. An immediate alliance to the extent of your
powers was by our government thought best. It was taken for
granted that such, also, was your opinion. This seems to be too
apparent to admit of doubt. The only question is as to details.
Common dangers require common and united action. A war is
upon us — upon 3^011 and the Confederate States alike. The extent
o? this war no human ken at this moment can foresee. Whether
it be short or prolonged ; whether it will be bloody and waged
on the part of our enemies, with a view to subjugation and exter
mination, are matters of uncertainty. In this free conference I
ina}r be permitted to give you my individual opinion on these
points, for what it is worth. We can lose nothing by looking
dangers full in the face, however great ; we may thereby be the
better enabled to meet them. My own opinion, then, is, that it is to
be a war for our subjugation and the extermination, if possible,
of the whole fabric of our civil and social institutions. This is
my view of its probable ultimate range ; and that it will require all
the resources of money and men of the southern people to maintain
their cause successfully, unless, fortunately, by immediate and
prompt action, such a decisive blow shall be given, on our part, as
will turn the tide of victory in our favor at the outset, and show our
full power to sustain independence. In this way it may be a war
of short duration ; but this is rather a hope than an expectation.

SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION. 731

As to the ultimate result — whether long or short, whether
waged on a small or extensive scale — I do not permit myself to
entertain a doubt. We have the means — the men, and those
resources which will command the money. All will be put forth,
if necessary. Still the issue of this war, as of all wars, as well as
the destinies of the nation, we should not forget, are in the hands
of the Great Sovereign of the universe. In Him and the justice
of our cause, and our own exertions, our trust and confidence of
success should be placed. Our enemies may rely upon their supe
riority of numbers, but the race is not alwa}Ts to the swift nor
the battle to the strong ; but it is with God who gives the victory
to the right. The war has not been of our seeking. We have
done all that we could to avoid it. We feel assured of the right
eousness of our cause, and that " thrice armed is he who hath his
quarrel just." We have committed no wrong on those who force
the war on us ; we have made no aggression on them or theirs ;
we have merely claimed and exercised the right of all free and
independent States to govern ourselves as we please, and accord
ing to our own wishes, without interfering with or in any way
molesting the other sovereign and independent States that formed
the old Union. With those States we were united under a com
pact known as the constitution, that imposed obligations upon
all the States. These obligations, on the part of the southern
States, have been faithfully performed, while on the part of a
large number of the northern States, they were openly and avow
edly disregarded. The breach of faith was on their part. In the
judgment of our people the only hope for safety was in a resump
tion of their delegated powers. Having resumed the powers dele
gated to the general government — a right which Yirginina dis
tinctly reserved to herself in the adoption of the Federal consti
tution — there is no power on earth that can rightfully call in
question our acts as free, sovereign, and independent States, so
far as the old Union is concerned. Even in the opinion of Mr.
Webster, the great northern expounder of the constitution, when
the northern States refused to fulfill their obligations under the
constitution, it was no longer binding upon the southern States.

But this is a digression. It was only intended to impress the
rightfulness of our cause. The matter now before us is the for
mation of a new alliance that will better secure our rights and
our safety — the first object of every State and community.

The importance of a union or an alliance of some sort on the
part of your commonwealth with the present Confederate States
south, in this conflict for our common rights, I need not discuss
before this intelligent body. Any one State, acting in its own
capacity, without concert with other States, would be pow
erless, or at least could not exert its power efficiently. The
cause of Virginia, and I will go further, the cause of Maryland,
and even the cause of Delaware, and of all the States with insti
tutions similar to ours, is the cause of the Confederate States — .

732 SPEECH BEFOEE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION.

the cause of each, the interests of each, the safety of each is the
same ; and the destiny of each, if they could all but be brought
to realize the dangers, would be the same. Therefore, where
there is a common danger ; where there is a common interest ;
where there is a common safety ; where there is a common des
tiny, there ought to be a common and united effort.

This is the view entertained by our government, and hence the
invitation of the commonwealth of Virginia was responded to so
promptly.

There are various reasons that I might present to enforce the
importance of such a policy, if I were aware of there being the
slightest necessity for it ; but I am not. Indeed, I am speaking
without knowing any thing of the individual sentiments of the
members of the convention ; and it may be that what I am now
stating to the convention as very important to them and to us, is
a subject upon which there is no difference of opinion. The truth
of the general propositions thus cursorily stated, /^ms to me to
be so self-evident, that I feel it hardly necessary'to argue them
before you. I will, however, add a few things, briefly.

First, as to the ends or objects of the alliance. To me it seems
very important that your military should at least be in co-opera
tion with, if not under the direction of the Confederate States
government. We will necessarily have a large amount of forces
in the field. When I left Montgomery there was 50,000 troops
ordered out ; 15,000 of them were then under arms, and most of
them are perhaps under arms by this time From information
received from the Executive to-day, it appears that the President
of the Confederacy has ordered out thirteen more regiments since
I left. That will be about 12,000 more troops. North Carolina
may be considered as co-operating with us now, though this
large force (12,000) does not embrace any from that State.
Tennessee also has tendered 5000, with an assurance from dis
tinguished gentlemen from that State to our government, on
Tuesday of last week, that soon after the news of the bombard
ment of Fort Sumter, 15,000 had tendered their services, and
that, if necessary, 50,000 would be forthcoming. So large a
number, however, would not be called for from there.

Kentucky, also, has a large body of men, who will be mustered
into our service should the exigency arise. It may be that some
of those troops may be discharged, and their places supplied by
others; but 100,000 men will perhaps be in the field in less than
three months. That is not counting Virginia. You, of course,
will have a large force. All these forces should co-operate to be
efficient ; and while I don't claim to be a military man, it seems
to me to be clear, on general rational principles, that all the
forces — those of the Confederate States, those of Virginia, as well
as those of the border States that are not yet out of the Union
—should be under one head, as also all the military operations
of the country directed to the same ends. It is generally admitted

SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION. 733

that, in the execution of laws, it is essential that there should be
one head ; but more important than in the usual execution of
laws is it that military operations should be under one head. In
physical economy all the parts and functions in each organism,
to be efficient, are under the control of one- head, one animating,
moving spirit, with one sensorium, one mind, one directing will.
In military matters, looking to the same ends and objects, there
should be one head. It is probable Virginia will be the main
theatre, to a great extent, of the pending conflict. Maryland
may be, perhaps — we don't know ; but the line of Virginia, your
great waters on th« North, necessarily make you, in this conflict,
the theatre of large and extensive rnilita^ operations, if not the
scene of the bloodiest conflicts that this continent has ever yet
witnessed. You will, necessarily, therefore, look to the southern
confederacy immediately for aid, even whether you become a
member of it or not. I will state here, however, before passing
any further, that we are looking to this, your ultimate union with
us, as a fixed fact ; and the unanimous desire of every branch of
our government is, that, just as speedily as possible, you will
thus link your fortunes with ours. Your cause is ours, your
future will be ours ; and your destiny must be ours.

But my mission relates to the intermediate time ; to such alli
ance as may be necessary for the next twenty or forty days —
before action can be taken ~by the people in their sovereign
capacity at the ballot-box. In the meantime, between now and
then, the salus populi must be the rule of your action as the
custodians of popular rights. Your duty to yourselves and your
homes, is to look immediately to the pressing wants of your
people, and, in the meantime, make such preparations as are
necessary to meet this extraordinary exigency. Is it not essen
tial that there should be concert and united action under one
head ? Now, what can Virginia do under a military organization
distinct from that of the Confederate States ? How can she act
in concert with her allies, or those willing to help her without
some compact or agreement ? Troops from the South are already
on the way here. Two regiments from South Carolina will, per
haps, be here within the next twenty-four hours. Forces have
been ordered from Louisiana, and are coming immediately to
your assistance. Ought there not to be some understanding as
to how they shall be received and how directed ? Would it not
be better that these troops, as well as your whole military opera
tions, should be under the control and supervision of our govern
ment ? To me it seems essential for efficient action. These sug
gestions are thrown out for the consideration of the convention.

There are other considerations which I might also present. I
know the condition of your State in financial matters only to a
limited extent. I know the vast resources of Virginia, and I
know that her people, with the patriotism that has ever distin
guished them, would never permit her cause to suffer for lack of

734 SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION".

means at any cost or sacrifice. But have you the means now at
command ? Arms must be had, munitions of war must be pro
cured, men must be sent immediately to the field — these must be
clothed and fed as well as armed. All this will require money.
"Money is the sinew of war." Where money cannot be had,
credit may answer. But money or credit, which will command
it, is essential. On the financial point, so far as'it relates to the
Confederate States, I may state here, that our Congress author
ized a loan of fifteen millions at its last session.

The Secretary of the Treasury advertised for five millions.
The loan was taken the day I left Montgomery. There were
two days for its subscription. When I left, news had already
reached by telegraph from the cities that seven millions of the
loan of fiye that had been offered had been taken. The subscrip
tions in the interior towns had not been heard from, but it was
believed that the whole amount would not fall far short of nine
or ten millions — double the amount offered. This shows how
our credit stands — the money thus raised is now at the disposal
of our government ; and it was believed that if an offer for the
other five millions should be made, making the whole fifteen
millions, it would be subscribed in ten days. Our people, from
South Carolina to the Rio Grande, are in this movement heart
and soul ; and every dollar that can be raised will be used for
the defence of the country in this emergency. No serious diffi
culty is apprehended as to our ability to raise the necessary
means. In the State of Georgia, before we entered into an alli
ance with the other States, apprehensions were felt as to our
available means. Georgia ordered a loan on her own account,
of one million of dollars. This was promptly raised or provided
for in our own State. What amount it will require to put your
State in proper defence and to meet the invasion that may be
looked for is a matter for your own considerate attention — and
also whether the State at this time could, without a sacrifice of
her credit, raise the requisite amount.

An army of not less than 50,000 men will doubtless be
required in you State. On this point your distinguished com-
mander-in-chief, just duly installed into office, can of course give
better information than any conjecture of mine. But whether
a small or large force shall be required, it may be considered as
certain that many millions will be required to cover the expense.
Whether you have the means to do this, is a matter for you to
consider.

Again : if you had the means, another question is, would it be
right for Virginia, on her own account, to make this heavy
expenditure in this enterprise? Because you stand on the
border, it is not our desire that you should fight our battles.
We don't wish you alone to fight these battles, or to bear your
self the expense of defending Virginia. I know that the intima
tion has been held out in other parts that we were not consider-

SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION. 735

ing the peculiar circumstances of our brethren on the border
States. I give you every assurance that our government feels
thoroughly identified with you in interest, and we do not wish
your great commonwealth to do more than bear her part in this
contest. We know she is willing to do that. So far as the
pecuniary matters are concerned then, I simply suggest whether
it would not be wise and just and proper that all should share
the burden equally — and whether we should not as our fathers
did, in the first struggle for independence, look to each other,
and bear equally the costs of a common cause ? This I present,
whether Virginia joins us ultimately or not. But to be entirely
frank. I must say that we are looking to a speedy and early
union of your State with our confederacy. Hence the greater
importance for this immediate and temporary alliance. We want
Virginia, the mother of States, as well as of statesmen, to be one
of the States of our confederation. We want it because your
people are our people — your interests are our interests ; nay,
more : because of the very prestige of the name of the old com
monwealth. We want it, because of the memory of Jefferson,
of Madison, and Washington, the father of his country — we
want it for all the associations of the past — we want it because
the principles in our constitution, both provisional and perma
nent, sprung from Virginia. They emanated from your states
men — they are Virginian throughout — taught by your illustrious
sages, and by their instrumentality mainly, were incorporated in
the old constitution. That ancient and sacred instrument has
no less of our regard and admiration now than it ever had. We
quit the Union, but not the constitution — this we have preserved.
Secession from the old Union on the part of the Confederate States
was founded upon the conviction that the time-honored constitu
tion of our fathers was about to be utterly undermined and
destroyed, and that if the present administration at Washington
had been permitted to rule over us, in less than four years, per
haps, this inestimable inheritance of liberty, regulated and pro
tected by fundamental law, would have been forever lost. We
believe that the movement with us has been the only course to
save that great work of Virginia statesmen.

On this point indulge me a moment. Under the latitudinarian
construction of the constitution which prevails at the north, the
general idea is maintained that the will of the majority is su
preme ; and as to constitutional checks or restraints, they have
no just conception of them. The constitution was, at first,
mainly the work of southern men, and Virginia men at that.
The government under it lasted only so long as it was kept in its
proper sphere with due regard to its limitations, checks, and bal
ances. This, from the origin of the government, was effected
mainly by southern statesmen. It was only when all farther
effort seemed to be hopeless to keep the federal government
within its proper sphere of delegated powers, that the Confederate

736 SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION.

States, each for itself, resumed those powers and looked out for
new safeguards for their rights and domestic tranquillity. These
are found not in abandoning the constitution, but in adhering
only to those who will faithfully sustain it.

We have rescued the constitution from utter annihilation.
This is our conviction, and we believe history will so record the
fact. You have seen what we have done. Our constitution has
been published. Perhaps most of you have read it. If not I
have a copy here, which is at the service of any who may wish to
examine it. It is the old constitution, with all its essentials and
some changes, of which I may speak presently.

It is upon this basis we are looking to your union with us ;
first, by the adoption of the provisional constitution, and then of
the permanent one, in such a way as you may consider best, under
the limitations of your powers. This I may be pardoned for
pressing upon the convention, and expressing the hope that they
may do it, utterly ignoring all past differences of opinion.

In all bodies of men differences of opinion may be expected ;
but the disagreements and differences, with you, as was the case
with us, will perhaps be found to relate more as to the mode of
action, than to the propriety and necessity of action of some
sort. As to differences in the past, on the subject of union and
secession, let them be buried and forgotten forever.

My position and views upon these questions in the past may
be known to you. If not, it may be proper to state, and I feel
no reluctance in declaring, in your presence here in the capitol
of the old commonwealth of Virginia, that there never breathed
a human spirit on the soil of America more strongly and devoutly
attached to the Union of our fathers than I. I was, however, in
favor of no Union that did not secure perfect equality and pro
tection of all rights guaranteed under the constitution. I was
not insensible of the fact that several of the northern States had
openly repudiated their constitutional obligations, and that if the
principles of the present dominant party should be carried out,
ultimate separation was inevitable. But still, I did trust that
there was wisdom and patriotism enough at the north, when
aroused, to correct the evils, to right the wrongs and to do us
justice. I trusted even to the last, for some hopeful reaction in
the popular sentiment at the North.

I was attached to the Union, however, not on account of the
Union per se, but I was attached to it for what was its soul, its
vitality and spirit ; these were the living embodiments of the
great principles of self-government, springing from the great
truth, that the just powers of all governments are derived from
the consent of the governed, as it was transmitted to us by our
fathers. This is the foundation on which alone all constitutional
liberty is and must be based — and to these principles I am to-day
attached just as ardently as I ever was before, and I now
announce to you my solemn conviction that the only hope you

SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION. 737

have for the preservation of these principles, is by your alliance
with those who have rescued, restored, and re-established them
in the constitution of the Confederate States — there is no hope
in the States north.

The disagreements that existed in our State as to the course
that we should pursue, before the last resort of secession was
adopted, were more as to the mode and manner of redress, than
as to the cause of the grievance or the existence of the grievance
requiring redress. I take this occasion, in passing, to state to
you, that in our convention there was considerable difference of
opinion on this view of the subject. It may not be known to you
that on that occasion, I disagreed with the majority on the course
adopted. My vote was recorded against the secession ordinance
in our State. I was for making one more effort, and for getting
the whole South united if possible in that effort for redress.

But when the State in her sovereign capacity determined
otherwise, my judgment was yielded to hers. My allegiance was
due to her. My fortunes were linked with hers ; her cause was
my cause ; and her destiny was my destiny. A large minority
in that convention voted as I did. But after secession was deter
mined on by the majority, a resolution was drawn up to the
effect, that whereas the lack of unanimity on the passage of the
ordinance, was owing more to a disagreement as to the proper
mode at the time for a redress of existing wrongs and threatened
wrongs, than as to the fact of the existence of such wrongs as
required redress; therefore, after the mode and manner was
adopted by a majority of the convention, that all of us, as an
evidence of our determination to maintain the State in her chosen
remedy, should sign the ordinance ; and with that determination
under that resolution, every member of the convention, except
six, signed it. Those six also declared upon record a like deter
mination on their part. So our State became a unit upon the
measure, when it was resolved upon. All anterior differences
amongst us were dropped. The cause of Georgia was the cause
of us all ; and so I trust it will be in Virginia. Let all past
differences be forgotten. Whether, if some other course had been
adopted, our rights could have ultimately been secured in the
old Union, is a problem now that can never be solved. I am free
to confess, as I frankly do, that the late indications afford strong
evidence that the majority at the North were bent upon our des
truction at every cost and every hazard. At all events, we know
that our only hope now is in our own strong arms and stout
hearts, with unity among ourselves. Our course is adopted. We
can take no steps backward. The time for compromise, if it ever
existed, is past. Many entertained hopes from the " Peace Con
gress" — that failed. Even an extension of the Missouri line,
which was offered by prominent southern men, was sullenly
rejected. Every indication of northern sentiment on the part of
the dominant party there, since the election last fall, shows that
47

738 SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION.

they were and are bent upon carrying out their aggressive and
destructive policy against us. This they insidiously expected to
succeed in, by relying upon the known strong Union sentiment
in the border States. They evidently relied strongly on this in
Virginia. Their policy being to divide and conquer. In this, I
think, however, they counted without their host.

The people of Virginia may have been attached to the Union ;
but they are much more attached to their homes, their firesides
and all that is dear to freemen — constitutional liberty.

All hopes of preserving this in the old Union are gone forever.
We must for the future look to ourselves. It is cheering to feel
conscious that we are not without hope in that quarter. At first,
I must confess, that I was not without serious apprehensions on
that point. These apprehensions were allayed at Montgomery.

The men who were sent there were not such materials as revo
lutions usually throw up. They seemed to understand thoroughly
the position of affairs — the past, the present, and the future.
They duly appreciated the magnitude of the responsibilities
resting upon them, and proved themselves, I trust, not only
determined to overthrow one government, but capable of build
ing up another. Their work, as I have said, is before you.
One leading idea runs through the whole — the preservation of
that time-honored constitutional liberty which they inherited
from their fathers.

The first thing was to organize a provisional government.
This was done by the adoption of the provisional constitution.
It is to last but one year, and conforms to our ancient usages as
nearly as practicable. No changes in essential or fundamental
principles. We have but one legislative body. This possesses
the powers of the old Senate and House combined ; but the
rights of the States and the sovereign equality of each is fully
recognized — more fully than under the old constitution, which
was the basis of the action of the convention ; for, during the
provisional government, on all questions in Congress, each State
has an equal vote. This provisional government was only a
temporary arrangement to meet the exigencies until a permanent
constitution could be formed and put into operation. This was
really the great work before them.

In this, as in the provisional government, the old constitution
of our fathers — the constitution of Madison and Washington,
was their model. I said I might say something touching its pro
visions. Time will not allow me to go much into details. You
will please read and examine it minutely for yourselves. While
the old constitution was the basis and model of its construction,
you will find in it several changes and modifications. Some of
them important. But of them all I make in passing this general
remark — they are all of a conservative character. This is the
most striki 'g characteristic of our revolution or change of gov-

SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION. 739

ernment thus far, that none of the changes introduced are of a
radical or downward tendency.

But all the changes — every one of them — are upon what is
called the conservative side. Now, this I ask your special atten
tion to. It is an important fact. I wish ycm specially to mark
it, for I know that efforts has been made to create prejudice
against our movement by telling the conservative men of the
country that it sprung from some of the hot heads down South,
and should not be relied on or trusted. But take the constitu
tion and read it, and you will find that every change in it from
the old constitution is conservative. In many respects it is an
improvement upon the constitution of our fathers. It has such
improvements as the experience of seventy years showed were
required. In this particular our revolution thus far is distin
guished from popular revolutions in the history of the world. In
it are settled many of the vexed questions wThich disturbed us in
the old confederacy. A few of these may be mentioned — such
as that no money shall be appropriated from the common treas
ury for internal improvement ; leaving all such matters for the
local and State authorities. The tariff question is also settled.
The presidential term is extended, and no re-election allowed.
This will relieve the country of those periodical agitations from
which sprang so much mischief in the old government. If his
tory shall record the truth in reference to our past system of
government, it will be written of us that one of the greatest
evils in the old government was the scramble for public offices
— connected with the Presidential election. This evil is entirely
obviated under the constitution which we have adopted.

Many other improvements, as I think, could be mentioned, but
it is unnecessary. I have barely alluded to the subject to show
you that we do not invite you to any wild scheme of revolution.
We invite Virginia to join us in perpetuating the principles upon
which she has ever stood — the only hope of constitutional liberty
in the world, as I now seriously apprehend. If it fails with us,
where else can we see hope ? But for the South, what would
have become of the principles of Jefferson, Madison, and Wash
ington, as embodied in the old constitution long ago ? What
ever the United States government has done in advancement of
civilization, by solving the great principles of self-government
by the people, through representatives clothed witli delegated
powers, is due mainly to the South. The achievement has been
by southern statesmen. The honor and glory of the western
republic, to which the eyes of the world has been directed for
years, was the work mainly of southern men, and my judgment
is, if you will pardon its expression, that just so soon as the
South is entirely separated from the North, and the government
at Washington has no longer the advice and counsel of your
statesmen and the men of the South, they will go into confusion
and anarchy speedily. It gives me no pleasure to think so. It

740 SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION.

would be to our advantage, as well as theirs, for them, as we can
no longer live in safety and peace under the same constitution, to
go on and be prosperous, and leave us to do the same. But my
conviction is that they will not. They do not understand consti
tutional liberty. It is an exotic in their clime. It is a plant of
southern growth. I have, however, no war to make on their
institutions. They seem to think them better than ours, and, not
satisfied with this, they war upon ours. Now, the true policy of
both sides, should be to let each other alone. Let both try their
systems, not in war, but in friendly rivalship. Hence it is from
no unkind feelings toward them or their institutions, that I
express the opinion I do. I believe that our institutions are by
far the best. My judgment is that theirs will be a failure. I
would give them every opportunity to try them thoroughly by
themselves, and for themselves. I simply give my view of what
I believe to be the prospect on both sides, as well as the true
policy of both ; but I seriousty doubt whether the rivalry which
I would fain indulge the hope of seeing carried out, will be
engaged in. War is what they are bent on in the start. Where
this will end, time alone can determine. What I have ventured
to say of the probable future of the North, is founded upon the
experience and associations of many years with their public men
in Washington. They do not seem to understand the nature or
workings of a federative system. They have but slender concep*-
tions of limited powers. Their ideas run into consolidation.

Whilst I was in Congress I knew of but few men there from
the North who ever made a constitutional argument on any ques
tion. They seemed to consider themselves as clothed with
unlimited power. Mr. Webster was one of these distinguished
few. Though he generally differed from southern men on points
of constitutional power, yet he argued his side with great ability.
Mr. Douglas is also another distinguished exception to the general
remark. One or two others might be named as exceptions to
the rule, but the great majority, the almost entire representation
from the North in Congress, both in the House and Senate,
seemed really to have no correct idea of the nature of the gov
ernment they were engaged in carrying on. They looked upon
it simply as a government of majorities.

They did not seem to understand that it was a government
that bound majorities by constitutional restraints. Now, nothing
is more fixed or certain than that constitutional liberty can be
maintained only by a rigid adherence to fundamental principles.
Government is a science — the northern mind seems disinclined
to that sort of study. Excuse this digression. It may not, how
ever, be altogether inappropriate to the occasion — all things being
duly considered. It springs from no disposition on my part
wantonly to disparage northern character. It is intended rather
to show where our future safety and security lies. We have our
destiny under Providence i our own hands, and we must work

SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION. 741

it out the best we can. All we ask of our late confederates is to
let us alone. But, be this as it may, we shall, I trust, be equal
to the future and our mission, whether they choose to pursue
toward us a peace or a war policy.

With union, harmony, concert of action and patriotism, our
ultimate success in establishing or rather perpetuating a stable
and good government on our ancient republican model need not
be feared.

One good and wise feature in our new or revised constitution is,
that we have put to rest the vexed question of slavery forever, so
far as the confederate legislative halls are concerned. On this
subject, from which sprung the immediate cause of our late troubles
and threatened dangers, you will indulge me in a few remarks as
not irrelevant to the occasion. The condition of the negro race
amongst us presents a peculiar phase of republican civilization and
constitutional liberty. To some, the problem seems hard to under
stand. The difficulty is in theory, not in practical demonstration ;
that works well enough — theories in government, as in all things
else, must yield to facts. No truth is clearer than that the best
form or system of government for any people or society is that
which secures the greatest amount of happiness, not to the greatest
number, but to all the constituent elements of that society, com
munity or State. If our s^ystem does not accomplish this ; if it
is not the best for the negro as well as for the white man ; for
the inferior as well as the superior race, it is wrong in principle.
But if it does, or is capable of doing this, then it is right, and
can never be successfully assailed by reason or logic. That the
negroes with us, under masters who care for, provide for and
protect them, are better off, and enjoy more of the blessings of
good government than their race does in an}'' other part of the
world, statistics abundantly prove. As a race, the African is
inferior to the white man. Subordination to the white man is his
normal condition. He is not his equal by nature, and cannot be
made so by human laws or human institutions. Our system,
therefore, so far as regards this inferior race, rests upon this
great immutable law of nature. It is founded not upon wrong
or injustice, but upon the eternal fitness of things. Hence, its
harmonious working for the benefit and advantage of both. Why
one race was made inferior to another, is not for us to inquire.
The statesman and the Christian, as well as the philosopher,
must take things as they find them, and do the best he can with
them as he finds them.

The great truth, I repeat, upon which our sj'stem rests, is the
inferiority of the African. The enemies of our institutions
ignore this truth. They* set out with the assumption that the
races are equal ; that the negro is equal to the white man. If
their premises were correct, their conclusions would be legiti
mate. But their premises being false, their conclusions are false
also. Most of that fanatical spirit at the North on this subject,

742 SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION.

which in its zeal without knowledge, would upturn our society
and lay waste our fair country, springs from this false reasoning.
Hence so much misapplied sympathy for fancied wrongs and
sufferings. These wrongs and sufferings exist only in their heated
imaginations. There can be no wrong where there is no violation
of nature's laws. We have heard much of the higher law. I
believe myself in the higher law. We stand upon that higher
law. I would defend and support no constitution that is against
the higher law. I mean by that the law of nature and of God.
Human constitutions and human laws that are made against the
law of nature or of God, ought to be overturned ; and if Seward
was right the constitution which he was sworn to support, and is
now requiring others to swear to support, ought to have been
overthrown long ago. It ought never to have been made. But
in point of fact it is he and his associates in this crusade against
us, who are warring against the higher law — we stand upon the
laws of the Creator, upon the highest of all laws. It is the fana
tics of the North, who are warring against the decrees of God
Almighty, in their attempts to make things equal which he made
unequal. .My assurance of ultimate success in this controversy
is strong from the conviction, that we stand upon the right.
Some years ago in the Hall of the House of Representatives, a
very prominent gentleman from Ohio, announced with a great
deal of effect, that we at the South would be obliged to yield
upon this question of slavery, because we warred against a
principle ; and that it was as impossible to war successfully
against principle in politics as it was in mechanics. The princi
ple, said he, would ultimately prevail. He announced this with
imposing effect, and endeavored to maintain that we were con
tending against the great principle of equality in holding our
fellow men in the unnatural condition of bondage. In reply, I
stated to him, that I admitted his proposition as he announced
it, that it was impossible to war successfully against a principle
in mechanics and the same was true in politics — the principle
would certainly prevail — and from that stand point I had come
to the conclusion that we of the South would ultimately succeed,
and the North would be compelled to yield their ideas upon this
subject. For it was they who were contending against a princi
ple and not we. It was they who were trying to make the black
man a white man, or his equal, which was nearly the same thing.
The controlling laws of nature regulate the difference between
them as absolutely as the laws of gravitation control whatever
comes within their action — and until he could change the laws
of gravitation, or any other law of nature, he could never make
the negro a white man or his equal. No human efforts or human
laws can change the leopard's spots or the Ethiopian's skin.
These are the works of Providence — in whose hands are the for
tunes of men as well as the destiny of nations and the distinc
tions of races

SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION. 743

On this subject a change is evidently going on in the intellec
tual world — in the republic of thinkers. The British West
India experiment has done much to produce this change. All
theories on the problem of human society must in the end yield
to facts — just as all theories and speculations in other depart
ments of science must yield to the same sure and unerring test.
The changes of sentiment upon the subject of negro subordina
tion have been great already, for this is the proper term to desig
nate his condition with us. That they will continue as truth pro
gresses, there can be no doubt. All new truths progress slowly.
With us this change of view and sentiment has been wonderful.
There has been almost a complete revolution within the last half
century. It was a question little understood by the eminent
statesmen of the south seventy years ago. This is no disparage
ment to their wisdom or ability. They were occupied in the so
lution of other great new truths upon which rested the first
great principles of self-government by the governing race. These
principles they solved and established. They met and proved
themselves equal to the exigencies of their day and generation —
that was enough to fill the measure of their fame. Each genera
tion in the eternal progress of all things connected with
existence, must meet new questions, new problems, new phases of
even old subjects, and it will be enough for the men of each gen
eration, if they prove themselves equal to the requirement of the
times in which they live. As our fathers were equal to all the
questions of their day, so may their sons be at this and all suc
ceeding times. This is the point to which our attention should
be chiefly directed.

In our constitution, provision is made for the admission of
other States into the confederacy ; but none can be admitted
without first adopting our constitution, and, consequently, none
can be admitted who does not first adopt the fundamental princi
ples on which our social and domestic institutions rest — thereby
removing forever from our public or confederate councils that
question which gave rise to so much disturbance in the old gov
ernment.

I have, perhaps, detained you much longer than I ought to
have done, and upon matters, perhaps, which you may consider
not very pertinent to the object of my mission. This you will
please excuse. As I said in the outset, I appeared before yon
upon your invitation and was rather at a loss what to say, until I
knew more of your own objects and wishes — and without, there
fore, trespassing further upon your time and patience, in con
clusion, I will barely add, by way of recapitulation, the main
object, then, I had in view in coming before you to-day, was
simply to announce that our government hailed with joy the news
of your secession from the old government, and a desire on your
part to form an alliance with us. Our government is very desir
ous that 3rour ancient commonwealth shall become a member of

744 SPEECH BEFORE THE VIRGINIA SECESSION CONVENTION.

our confederacy. Your interests and ours are the same ; your
safety the same, and your ultimate destiny must be the same.
\^e are looking to your union with us as a certainty. But, in
the meantime — before that union can be perfected by the action
of your people, we think a temporary alliance or convention of
the highest importance to meet the exigencies of the day and the
hour. The enemy is now on your border — almost at your door
— he must be met. This can best be done by having your mili
tary operations under the common head at Montgomery — or it
may be at Richmond. For, while I have no authority to speak
on that subject, I feel at perfect liberty to say, that it is quite
within the range of probability that, if such an alliance is made
as seems to me ought to be made, the seat of our government
will, within a few weeks, be moved to this place. There is no
permanent location at Montgomery — and should Virginia become,
as it probably will, the theatre of the war, the whole may be trans
ferred here — then all your military operations with ours will be
under a common head. Your distinguished commander-in-chief,
(General Lee,) will, doubtless, have such a position as his great
military talents and merits deserve. Whether in the Confederate
army proper, or in the State service, will, I doubt not, depend
upon his own choice. The great object is to have perfect union,
harmony, and co-operation under one head. We think also that
it is better for you, in a financial point of view, to unite with us
immediately. Besides this, we want your members at Montgom
ery. We want the voice of Virginia in our Confederate councils.

On this point, I would suggest to you that this convention im
mediately, if you think you have got the power, appoint dele
gates to our provisional Congress. My opinion is you have got
the power. You may have to refer back to jour constituents
whatever change you make in your federal relations and in 3rour
State constitution ; but in all other matters you have plenary
power. You certainly have full power to send delegates to the
provisional Congress.

Is it not expedient that you should send members immediately
to the Congress that is to assemble at Montgomery next week ?
If you think it is necessary that this matter should be decided
by the people, I would wait, even though perils threatened, before
I would infringe upon the rights of the people. But at all events,
I wish 3Tou to understand that we expect you to join us just as
soon as you can. If you see fit to make an alliance offensive
and defensive, we will have our military here just as soon after
the alliance is concluded as possible. We want you to join us
permanently by the adoption of the permanent constitution,
which will go into operation next winter, and of course it will be
important to you in regard to the elections, that you change
your fundamental law so far as relates to the election of mem
bers to the southern Congress under that constitution.

I must apologize to you for trespassing so long upon your

VIRGINIA ORDINANCE OF 1861. 745

patience. I have said so much in a desultory way that I have,
I fear, overlooked or omitted some things that would have been
more appropriate if I had known more of the temper and views of
your body. But this is a time for free conference and consulta
tion upon the general state of public affairs. It is from this
eonviction-that I have addressed you as I have. You are no\v
in possession of my views very fully and frankly. It may be
that something may occur that may render it proper for me to
appear before you again. In any discussions tfyat may grow out
of what I have submitted, I hold myself in readiness to confer
with you ; and if this body should decide to form any allianr^ or
treaty that may be thought proper, such as I have intimated, I
will be found ready to meet them or any number that may be
appointed to negotiate with me on the subject. I am alone, and
have no associate ; but any number that may be thought best on
your part to meet me can be appointed.

If you desire to hear from me on any other point, most cheer
fully I will be at your command.

THE CONVENTION ENTERED INTO BETWEEN VIR
GINIA AND THE CONFEDERACY, AND THE ORDI
NANCE ADOPTING IT, RATIFIED BY THE CON
VENTION.

On the 23d of April, 1861, Mr. STEPHENS addressed the Virgi
nia State Convention, and the following is the result:

PROVISIONAL ADOPTION OF THE CONFEDERATE CONSTITUTION BY

VIRGINIA.

An Ordinance for the adoption of the Constitution of the Provi
sional Government of the Confederate States of America.
We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, in convention as
sembled, solemnly impressed by the perils which surround the
commonwealth, and appealing to the Searcher of Hearts for the
rectitude of our intentions in assuming the grave responsibility
of this act, do, by this ordinance, adopt and ratify the constitu
tion of the provisional government of the Confederate States of
America, ordained and established at Montgomery, Alabama, on
the 8th of February, 1861 ; provided, that this ordinance shall
cease to have any legal operation or effect, if the people of this
commonwealth, upon the vote directed to be taken on the ordi
nance of secession passed by this convention on the 17th day of
April, 1861, shall reject the same.

A true copy. JOHN L. EUBANK, Secretary.

CONVENTION BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA AND THE
CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.

Tile commonwealth of Virginia, looking to a speedy union of
said commonwealth and the other slave States with, the Confed
erate States of America, according to the provisions of the consti-

746 VIRGINIA ORDINANCE OF 1861.

tuition for the provisional government of said States, enters into the
following temporary convention and agreement with said States,
for the purpose of meeting pressing exigencies affecting the com
mon rights, interests, and safety of said commonwealth and said
confederacy.

1st. Until the union of said commonwealth with said confed
eracy shall be perfected, and said commonwealth shall become a
member of said confederacy, according to the constitutions of
both powers, the, whole military force and military operations, of
fensive and defensive, of said commonwealth, in the impending
conflict with the United States, shall be under the chief control
and direction of the President of said Confederate States, upon
the same principles, basis and footing as if said commonwealth
were now, and during the interval, a member of said confederacy.

2d. The commonwealth of Virginia will, after the consummation
of the union contemplated in this convention, and her adoption of
the constitution for a permanent government of the said Confeder
ate States, and she shall become a member of said confederacy under
said permanent constitution, if the same occur, turn over to the
said Confederate States all the public property, naval stores, and
munitions of war, etc., she may then be in possession of, acquired
from the United States, on the same terms and in like manner as
the other States of said confederacy have done in like cases.

3d. Whatever expenditures of money, if any, said common
wealth of Virginia shall make before the union, under the provis
ional government as above contemplated, shall be consummated,
shall be met and provided for by said Confederate States.

This convention entered into and agreed to, in the city of Rich
mond, Virginia, on the 24th day of April, 1861, by Alexander H.
Stephens, the duly authorized commissioner, to act in the matter
for the said Confederate States, and John Tyler, William Ballard
Preston, Samuel McD. Moore, James P. Holcombe, James C.
Bruce, and Lewis E. Harvie, parties duly authorized to act in
like manner for the said commonwealth of Virginia — the whole
subject to the approval and ratification of the proper authorities
of both governments respectively.

In testimony whereof, the parties aforesaid have hereto set their
hands and seals, the day and year aforesaid, and at the place
aforesaid, in duplicate originals.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, [Seal.l
Commissioner for Confederate States.

JOHN TYLER,
WM. B. PRESTON,
S. McD. MOORE,
JAS. P. HOLCOMBE,
JAS. C. BRUCE,
LEWIS E. HARVIE,

Commis
sioners

for
Virginia.

Seal.
Seal.
Seal.
Seal.l
=Seal.
Seal.

Approved and ratified by the convention of Virginia, on the
25th of April, 1861. JOHN JANNEY, President.

JOHN L. EUBANK, Secretary.

LETTER ON MARTIAL LAW. 747

LETTER TO HON. JAMES M. CALHOUN, MAYOR OF
ATLANTA, ON THE SUBJECT OF MARTIAL LAW.

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA, SEPTEMBER STH, 1862.

Hon. James M. Calhoun, Atlanta, Ga :

DEAR SIR:— Your letter of the 28th nit., to Hon. B. H. Hill,
was submitted to me by him a few clays ago, for my views as to
the proper answer to be made to your several inquiries touching
your powers and duties in the office of civil governor of Atlanta,
to which you have been appointed by Gen. Bragg. I took the
letter with the promise to write to you fully upon the whole sub
ject. This, therefore, is the object of my now writing to you.
I regret the delay that has occurred in the fulfilment of my prom
ise. It has been occasioned by the press of other engagements,
and I now find my time too short to write as fully as I could
wish. The subject is one of great importance, and this, as well
as matters of a kindred sort, have given me deep concern for
some time past.

I am not at all surprised at your being at a loss to know what
your powers and duties are in your new position, and your ina
bility to find any thing in any written code of laws to enlighten
you upon them. The truth is your office is unknown to the law.
Gen. Bragg had no more authority for appointing you civil gov
ernor of Atlanta, than I had ; and I had, or have, no more author
ity than any street-walker in your city. Under his appointment,
therefore, you can rightfully exercise no more power than if the
appointment had been made by a street-walker.

We live under a constitution. That constitution was made
for war as well as peace. Under that constitution we have civil
laws and military laws ; laws for the civil authorities and laws
for the military. The first are to be found in the statutes at
large, and the latter in the rules and articles of war. But in this
country there is no such thing as martial law, and cannot be until
the constitution is set aside — if such an evil day shall ever come
upon us. All the law-making power in the Confederate States
government is vested in Congress. But Congress cannot declare
martial law, which in its proper sense is nothing but an abroga
tion of all laws. If Congress cannot do it, much less can any offi
cer of the government, either civil or military, do it rightfully,
from the highest to the lowest. Congress may, in certain cases
specified, suspend the writ of habeas corpus, but this by no means
interferes with the administration of justice so far as to deprive
any party arrested of his right to a speedy and public trial by a
jury, after indictment, etc. It does not lessen or weaken the
right of such party to redress for an illegal arrest. It does not
authorize arrests except upon oath or affirmation upon probable
cause. It only secures the party beyond misadventure to appear

748 LETTER ON MARTIAL LAW.

in person to answer the charge, and prevents a release in conse
quence of insufficiency of proof, or other like grounds, in any
preliminary inquiry as to the formality or legality of his arrest.
It does not infringe or impair his other constitutional rights.
These Congress cannot impair by law. The constitutional guar
antees are above and beyond the reach or power of Congress, and
much more, if it could be, above and beyond the power of any
officer of the government. Your appointment, therefore, in my
opinion, is simply a nullity. You, by virtue of it, possess no
rightful authority ; and can exercise none. The order creating
you civil governor of Atlanta, was a most palpable usurpation.
I speak of the act only in a legal and constitutional sense — not
of the motives that prompted it. But a wise people, jealous of
their rights, would do well to remember, as Delolme so well ex
pressed it, that " such'acts, so laudable when we only consider
the motive of them, make a breach at which tyranny will one day
enter," if quietly submitted to too long. Now, then, my opinion
is, if any one be brought before you for punishment for selling
liquor to a soldier, or any other allegation, where there is no law
against it, no law passed by the proper law-making power, either
State or Confederate, and where, as a matter of course, you have
no legal or rightful authority to punish either by fine, or corpore
ally, etc., you should simply make this response- to the one who
brings him or her, as the case may be, that you have no jurisdic
tion of the matter complained of.

A British queen (Anne) was once urged by the emperor of
Russia to punish one of her officers for what his majesty consid
ered an act of indignity to his ambassador to her court, though
the officer had violated no positive law. The queen's memorable
reply was that " she could inflict no punishment upon any, the
meanest of her subjects, unless warranted by the law of the
land."

This is an example you might well imitate. For I take it for
granted that no one will pretend that any general in command of
our armies, could confer upon you or anybody greater power than
the ruling sovereign of England possessed in like cases under
similar circumstances. The case referred to in England gave rise
to a change of the law. After that an act was passed exempting
foreign ministers from arrest. So with us. If the proper disci
pline and good order of the army require that the sale of liquor
to a soldier by a person not connected with the army should be
prohibited (which I do not mean to question in the slightest de
gree) let the prohibition be declared b^y law, passed by Congress,
with the pains and penalties for a violation of it, with the mode
and manner of trying the offence plainly set forth. Until this is
done, no one has any authority to punish in such cases ; and any
one who undertakes to do it is a trespasser and a violator of the
law. Soldiers in the service, as well as the officers, are subject
to the Rules and Articles of War, and if they commit any offence

ADDRESS AT CRAWFORDVILLE. 749

known to the military code therein prescribed, they are liable to
be tried, and punished according to the law made for their gov
ernment. If these Rules and Articles of War, or in other words,
if the military code for the government of the army is defective
in any respect, it ought to be amended by Congress. There
alone the power is vested. Neither generals nor the provost-
marshals have any power to make, alter or modify laws either
military or civil ; nor can they declare what shall be crimes,
either military or civil, or establish any tribunal to punish what
they may so declare All these matters belong to Congress ;
and I assure you, in my opinion, nothing is more essential to the
maintenance and preservation of constitutional liberty than that
the military be ever kept subordinate to the civil authorities.
You thus have my views hastily but pointly given.
Yours, most respectfully,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

SYNOPSIS OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ADDRESS
OF VICE-PRESIDENT STEPHENS, AT CRAWFORD-
YILLE, GEORGIA, ON THE IST OF NOYEMBER, 1862.
REPORTED BY J. HENLEY SMITH.

Mr. Stephens commenced by announcing the meeting to be
one eminently of a business character. Many in the lar^e
assembly had, perhaps, come out to hear something about the
war, looking upon it as a war meeting. This, also, was true. It
was a war meeting as well as a business meeting. Much the
greater part of war was business — practical good sense — common
every day business, such as marks the true economy of life. The
raising of men — the manoeuvring of troops in the field, their
bravery and gallantry in action and the best of generalship as
commonly understood, constitute but a small part of war. It is
an essential part, and not to be underestimated, but it is a small
part. Like the sulphur in gunpowder — only a twelfth part and
a fraction — it is a small part of the whole. To wage successful
wars, there must not only be men well trained and skilfully
handled with efficient weapons, but they must be clothed and fed.
This embraces the quartermaster and commissary departments
in all their ramifications. This is much the larger part of war.
The want of a nail in a horseshoe caused the lameness of a
horse that caused the loss of a battle. A pair of shoes is as
essential to a soldier as a lock to his gun ; and, to-day, fifty thou
sand pairs of shoes are equal to fifty thousand men in our army.
We have sent the men — they are now in the field — the object of
the present meeting was to see that those who have gone from
our midst are clothed and shod.

This, it is true, properly belongs to the government. It is the

750 ADDRESS AT CKAWFORDVILLE.

duty of the government to see that all who are called to the
field are properly equipped with every thing necessary to
make them efficient ; and the government is, doubtless doing
all it can.

But this is emphatically a war for the people's rights, and it is
snough for us to know that ample provision is not made by the
government. The object of the meeting was to see to it that all
the men from this (Taliaferro) county be provided with necessary
shoes and clothing. The original plan heretofore acted upon in
the county, was for some one to take particular soldiers under
their charge and see that they were provided for. This was the
best plan, and he hoped it would be continued. Then none
would be overlooked. He had lists of all the companies fully
organized and sent from the county. These lists he should read
over, and as each name was called he wished it to be announced
by some one whether provisions by any one had been made for
the one whose name should be called.

[Here the lists were read over and responses made at the call
of the name of each one known to be •provided for. It was
gratifying to perceive that a majority were already provided for.]

Mr. Stephens continued : Doubtless many of those for whom
110 response has been made, are also provided for by persons not
present ; but as some might not be, and all should be, he pro
posed that 'an executive committee of three be appointed to
thoroughly canvass the county, by themselves and sub-agents to
be appointed by them, and ascertain the number and names of
every one who was not provided for, and, by contributions to be
raised by them, to have the provision made.

Besides these companies there were quite a number of volun
teers from the county in several other companies. Let all from
the county be seen after — no one omitted — in whatever com
pany he may be. Let an agent, or as many as may be necessary,
be appointed by the executive committee, to carry the articles
when ready, and deliver them to the parties. Don't trust them
to any public agents for transportation. The only certain way
for speed and safety was for some one to accompany them. The
government would doubtless furnish transportation. It ought
to be done, and he supposed would be done. But if not, let the
executive committee see to it that the articles were delivered.

This part of the proceedings having been gone through with,
Mr. Stephens then made strong appeals to all, to contribute in
money or in kind to supply those who might be found by the
committee to be not provided for. Those who had sons, brothers,
or others for whom the}' had made provision, would not be expected
to do more than they had done, unless their means were ample,
in which case they ought to contribute liberally. The ladies
would cheerfully make up the clothing, if the cloth were fur
nished. Nobly have they done their part in this war. The battle
field was not their place, but in their sphere they had done that

ADDRESS AT CRAWFORDVILLE. 751

•which was just as essential to the success of our cause, as the man
who had won honor and glory on the field. With the spindle,
the loom, the needle, and in the hospital, willingly, liberally, gen
erously, patriotically, had they clone their duty. The men of our
country had done well — most gallantly — but let it never be for
gotten, that as well as the men have done in the cause of our
independence, the women have done better. To them the country
is mainly indebted for the clothing of the army when it first went
into the field. Their voluntary contributions of labor amounted to
many millions of dollars, worth infinitely more than the money in
dollars and cents, if the government had had it ; for the money could
not have commanded the labor. An army of hundreds of thou
sands was improvised, springing into existence fully armed and
equipped, as Minerva from the head of Jove. Such a spectacle
the world never saw before. This was done solely by the aid of
the women of the land. It could not have been done without
their aid. They did well to be at the meeting j for they are as
willing to do their part now, and in the future, as they were in
the beginning.

In his appeal for contributions, he alluded to those whose pur
suits, positions, or opportunities had enabled them to make money
in these times. Opportunities to realize unusual profits upon
labor or capital in particular pursuits or trades, were incidents
of all wars, and this one was no exception. These were evils of
war. They afford great temptations to frail human nature.
These temptations should be resisted by every one as the
approaches of the foul fiend.

Dickens had said the fumes of gold were more deadly to the
moral sensibilities than the fumes of charcoal to the physical. It
was true none should think of making money or growing rich out
of our common necessities ; but every one should feel and realize
the fact that* our common all is embarked in the common cause ;
that every thing is at stake, and every one should do his duty and
his whole duty, whether at home or in the field. Those at home, in
whatever position, have as important and as essential — though not
so hard and dangerous — duties to perform as those in the field. All
should co-operate harmoniously and patriotically to the great end,
and while they (the people of that community) had none among
them known as speculators or extortioners, yet there were some
whose pursuits enabled them or afforded them opportunities to
realize larger profits on their capital and labor than in times of
peace. To such he made a special appeal to contribute liberally
and generously, as he believed they would. Let no one, whether
body corporate or not, think of making profits out of articles
needed by the men in the field. The idea was abhorrent.

On the general subject of our present conflict, involving as it
does our individual as well as State existence, he said all wars
were calamities — the greatest that can befall a people, except,
perhaps, direct visitations from Providence, such as famines,

752 ADDRESS AT CBAWFORDVILLE.

plagues, and pestilence. The greater the war, the greater the
calamity. This war is a great calamity to us. We all feel it. It
is the greatest war, and waged on the largest scale of any since
the birth of Christ, the history of the world — not excepting
the crusades — furnishing no parallel to it in the present era.

The responsibility and guilt of it must be fearful somewhere.
As great calamities as wars are, they are, however, sometimes ne
cessary. Often forced by the highest dictates of patriotism — like
" offences " we are told of — they sometimes needs come. They
are, however, never right or justifiable on both sides. They may
be wrong on both sides, but can never be right on both. Unjust
wars, by the unanimous consent of civilized men, are held as the}7
should be, in condemnation and reprobation. People, therefore,
as well as their rulers, to whom such high trusts are confided,
should look well to it, and see that they are right before appeal
ing to this last and most terrific arbitrament of arms.

Some thoughts on this subject, Mr. Stephens said, might not
be out of place, even there. These he dwelt upon at some length,
showing the justice of our cause and the wanton aggression of the
enemy. He traced the history of the controversy between the
southern and northern States, the principles and nature of our gov
ernment, the independence and sovereignty of the States, and the
right of each to control its own destinies and act for itself in the
last resort, as each State might think best for itself. It was wholly
immaterial, he said, in considering the question of right and jus
tice, now to look any further than the solemn act of the States of
the South, after mature deliberation, each acting for itself in its
sovereign capacity. Each State had the right thus to act, and
when each for itself had thus acted, no power on earth had the
right justly to gainsay it.

The old Union was formed by the States, each acting for itself in
its sovereign character and capacity with the objeclTand purpose
of advancing their interests respectively thereby. Each State was
the sole judge in the last resort, whether the future interest, safety
and well-being of her people, required her to resume those sove
reign powers, the exercise of which had been delegated to other
hands under the old compact of Union. These principles have
ever been held not only true, but sacred,, with the friends of con
stitutional liberty in all the States since the old Union was
formed. They rest upon that fundamental principle set forth in
the Declaration of Independence, that all governments " derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed." The States
South, therefore, had done nothing but what was their right —
their inalienable right to do, the same as their ancestors did, in
common with the North, when they severed their connection with
the British government.

This war was waged by the North in denial of this right, and
for the purpose of conquest and subjugation. It was, therefore,
aggressive, wanton and unjust. Such must be the judgment of

ADDRESS AT CBAWFORDVILLE. 753

mankind, let its results be what they may. The responsibility,
therefore, for all its sacrifices of treasure and blood, heretofore,
or hereafter to be made in its prosecution, rests not upon us.

Mr. Stephens said that soon after the first battle of Manassas,
duty called him to our camps near that point. He went over the
ground on which that conflict had taken place. The evidences of
the late terrible strife were still fresh and visible all around. The
wide-spread desolation, the new-made graves, and the putrid ani
mal remains not yet removed by the vultures, fully attested what
a scene of blood it had been. While surveying the hills and de
files over which the various columns of our men and the enemy
passed and were engaged on that memorable day, amongst many
other things that crowded themselves upon his mind, were two
dying expressions reported to have been uttered in the midst of
the battle. One was b}^ a soldier on the side of the enemy, who,
fallen and weltering in his blood, exclaimed, " My God 1 what is
all this for?" The other was by the lamented Bartow, who said,
"Boys, they have killed me, but never give it up." These two
exclamations were made at no great distance apart, and perhaps
near the same time.

" What is all this for ?" Mr. Stephens said he could but think
the question was pertinent to both sides, and most pertinent from
him who uttered it, addressed to all his invading comrades and
those who sent them. Well might he there, in the agonies of
death, in the din and dust of strife, in the clangor of arms and
the thunder of artillery, ask, " What is all this for ?" Why this
array of armies ? Why this fierce meeting in mortal combat ?
What is all this carnage and slaughter for ? The same question
is still as pertinent to those who are waging this war against us,
as it was then. Why the prolongation of this conflict ? Why
this immense sacrifice of life in camp, and the numerous battles
that have been fought since ? Wiry this lamentation and mourn
ing going up from almost every house and family from Maine to
the Rio Grande, and from the Atlantic and Gulf to the lakes,
for friends and dear ones who have fallen by disease and violence
in this unparalleled struggle ? The question, if replied to by the
North, can have but one true answer. What is all this for on
their part, but to overturn the principle upon which their own
government, as wTell as ours, is based — to reverse the doctrine
that governments derive their "just powers from the consent of
the governed ?" What is it for but to overturn the principles
and practice of their own government from the beginning. That
government was founded and based upon the political axiom
that all States and people have the inalienable right to change
their forms of government at will.

This principle was acted on in the recognition by the United

States of the South American republics. It was the principle

acted on in the recognition of Mexico. It was acted on in the

straggle of Greece, to overthrow the Ottoman rule. On that

48

754 ADDEESS AT CBAWFOEDVILLE.

question the greatest constitutional expounder of the North, Mr.
Webster, gained his first laurels as an American statesman.
This principle was acted on in the recognition Of the government
of Louis Phillippe, on the overthrow of Charles X. of France, and
again in the recognition of the Lamartine government on the
overthrow of Louis Phillippe in 1848. At that time every man
at the North in Congress, save one, Mr. Stephens believed, voted
for the principle. The same principle was again acted upon with
out dissent in 1852, in the recognition of the government of Louis
Napoleon. The same principle was acted upon in the recogni
tion of Texas, when she seceded or withdrew from the govern
ment of Mexico.

Many at the North opposed the admission of Texas, as a State
in our then Union. But there was little, if any, opposition to
her recognition as an independent outside republic. Strange to
say, many of those' who were then fiercest in their opposition to
Texas coming into the Union, are now the fiercest in their denial
of the unquestioned right acknowledged to her before. Well
may any and every one, North or South, exclaim, what is all this
for ? What have we done to the North ? When have we ever
wronged them ? We quit them, it is true, as our ancestors and
their ancestors quit the British government. We quit as they
quit, upon a question of constitutional right. That question they
determined for themselves, and we have but done the same.
What, therefore, is all this for? Why this war on their part
against the uniform principles and practices of their own govern
ment ? There is but one plausible pretext for it ; that is to ex
terminate our southern institutions. It is to put the African on
an equality with the white man. It is to conquer and subjugate
independent and sovereign States, who deny their authority right
fully to rule over them. It is a war, in short, on their part,
against right, against reason, against justice, against nature.

If asked, on our side, what is all this for ?* The reply from
every breast is, that it is for home, for firesides, for our altars,
for our birthrights, for property, for honor, for life — in a word, for
ever}^ thing for which freemen should live, and for which all
deserving to be freemen should be willing, if need be, to die.

On the present condition and prospect of our affairs, Mr. Ste
phens said he had nothing new to say, and nothing that was not
known to all. From the past we had nothing to be discouraged
for the future. We had met with some reverses, but of eighteen
months fighting, we had lost no great battle. We had gained
many brilliant victories. The aggregate of advantage of the fight
on land thus far had been decidedly on our side. This was no
small consideration for hope and encouragement, looking at the
odds against us. At the beginning the enemy had all the army,
all the navy, all the revenue, all the credit, as well as the prestige
of the name of the old government, on their side. We were few
in number compared with them; without a regiment or a ship,

ADDRESS AT CKAWFORDVILLE. 755

without a dollar, and without credit except such, as the righteous
ness of our cause inspired in the breasts of our own people
secured. Thus we entered the contest, and thus we have main
tained it. At first 75,000 men were thought sufficient to con
quer us. This failing, 600,000 were called to the field. These,
too, failing, 600,000 more have been added, with a view to crush
us out with numbers. Judging from indications, the enemy seem
determined to put forth all their power. This is the present
prospect. We should be prepared to meet it to the best of our
ability. No one should despair or even despond from this array
of new forces to be brought against us. We may not be able to
match them in numbers. We are not able to do it, and should
not attempt it. It is not necessary to do it, to secure ultimate
success, if we avail ourselves of our advantages properly and
wisely. Numbers is one advantage the enemy has, and had from
the beginning. We have advantages on our side which we should
avail ourselves of. Frederick of Prussia fought all the great
neighboring powers of Europe for seven years and was success
ful in the end. The greatest number he could bring into the field
was 200,000 against 600,000. With this disparity of three to one,
they thought they could crush him, but they did not. It is true,
his country was overrun, and his capital, Berlin, was twice taken
and sacked during the war. He, however, did not give it up.
Richmond has not yet been taken, though three powerful onward
movements have been made against it. If Richmond should yet
fall, and twice fall, we should be no worse off than Prussia was* in
a like calamity ; nor should we be less disposed than the great
Frederick to give it up for a like cause.

The war of our first independence lasted seven years. During
that struggle, several of the States were overrun, occupied and
held for long periods by the enemy. The men of that " day that
tried men's souls" felt no inclination, on that account, to "give
it up." Philadelphia, their capital, was taken, but they did not
" give it up," or think of giving up the cause. They fought on,
as we can, for the same principles and rights, until final success.
Nor have our suffering or sacrifices, as great as they are, been
any thing like as severe as theirs were. If they suffered and bore
with patience and fortitude all they did to acquire and establish
principles so dear to them and to us, well may we, with equal
patience and fortitude, bear all now upon us, and all that may
hereafter await us, to maintain them.

The ability of a people to support and wage war depends
partly upon their resources, and partly upon the skill and
economy with which they are wielded. We have resources — ele
ments of power to wage war successfully, unknown to Frederick
or the men of '76. All necessaries of life, food and clothing,
with the materials and munitions of war, can, with skill and fore
cast, be made and supplied within ourselves. This goodly land
of ours is unequalled, or at least unsurpassed by any other

756 ADDRESS AT CRAWFORD VILLE.

part of the habitable globe in the character and variety of its
natural products, suited to man's needs and wants in every
emergency. Its mineral resources are also inexhaustible. It
is a land well worth fighting for. Our means are sufficient ;
they have only to be properly and- skilfully developed and
applied.

But besides the products necessary to sustain ourselves, to
support our armies, and carry on war, we have another element
of tremendous power, if properly used and applied — a resource
and power unknown in European wars, and unknown to our an
cestors in the war of their revolution. Mr. Stephens here said
he alluded to our great staple, cotton ; and he should not have
said more upon it at this time, than barety to ask those present to
call to their minds what he had said to most of them last year upon
that subject, when he addressed them upon the cotton loan, but
for some misconceptions that had got in the public mind from a
paragraphic report of some remarks he made at a meeting lately
in Sparta. Some, from that report, said Mr. Stephens, have taken
the idea that I urged upon the planters there, to plant largely
of cotton next year. Allow me in this connection to say, that
nothing could be further from the fact. I urged upon the
planters there, first and above all, to grow grain and stock for
home consumption and to supply the army. What I said at
Sparta upon the subject of cotton, many of you have often
heard me say in private conversation, and most of you, in the
public speech last year, to which I alluded. Cotton, I have
maintained, and do maintain, is one of the greatest elements of
power, if not the greatest at our command, if it were but prop
erly and efficiently used as it might have been and still might be,
Samson's strength was in his locks. Our strength is in our
locks — not of hair or wool, but in our locks of cotton. I believed
from the beginning that the enemy would inflict upon us more
serious injury by the blockade than by all other means combined.
It was, in the judgment of all, a matter of the utmost, if not
vital importance to have it raised, removed or broken up. How
was it to be done ? That was and is the question. It was
thought by many that such was the demand for cotton in Eng
land, that she would disregard the blockade, as it was, and has
been all along, not within the terms of the Paris agreement, that
is, has not been, at any time, entirely effectual, though close enough
to do us great injury. I did not concur in this opinion, as most
of you well know. I thought it would have to be done by our
selves, and could be done through the agency of cotton — not as
a political, but as a commercial and financial power. I was in
favor, as you know, of the government's taking all the cotton
that would be subscribed for eight per cent, bonds at a rate or
price as high as ten cents a pound. Two millions of the last
year's crop might have been counted upon as certain on this plan
This, at ten cents, with bags of the average commercial weight,

ADDRESS AT CRAWFORD VILLE. 757

would have cost the government one hundred millions of bonds,
With this amount of cotton in hand and pledged, any number,
short of fifty, of the best iron-clad steamers could have been con
tracted for and built in Europe — steamers at the cost of two
millions each could be procured every way equal to the Monitor.
Thirty millions would have got fifteen of these, which might have
been enough for our purpose. Five might have been ready by
the first of January last to open some one of the ports blockaded
on our coast. Three of these could have been left to keep the
port open, and two could have convoyed the cotton across the
water if necessary. Thus, the debt could have been promptly
paid with cotton at a much higher price than it cost, and a
channel of trade kept open till others, and as many more as
necessary, might have been built and paid for in the same way.
At a cost of less than one month's present expenditure on our
army, our coast might have been cleared. Besides this, at least,
two more millions of bales of the old crop on hand might have
been counted on — this with the other making a debt in round
numbers to the planters of $200,000,000. But this cotton, held in
Europe until its price shall be fifty cents a pound, would consti
tute a fund of at least $1,000,000,000, which would not only have
kept our finances in sound condition, but the clear profit of
$800,000,000 would have met the entire expenses of the war for
years to come.

In this way cotton, as a great element of power at our com
mand — such an element as no other people ever had — might have
been used, not only in breaking up the blockade by our own
means, without looking to foreign intervention, but in supplying
the treasur}^ with specie to pay interest on their bonds, thus giv
ing a credit that no government ever had before. The public
credit is as essential as subsistence in war. Such, at least, was,
and is my opinion. The government, however, took a different
view of the subject. Many thought it unconstitutional. Some
looked upon it as a project to relieve the planters. Others thought
it nothing short of a South sea speculation. I considered it then
and now just as constitutional as to give bonds for gunpowder,
or to buy other munitions of war. It was not with a view to
relieve the planters, though its incidental accommodation to them
would not have been objectionable, but with the view of wielding
effectually the element of the greatest power we could command,
that I wished this course adopted. This resource then ; this
element of power we still have — though not to the same' extent.
There is enough, however, to effect wonderful results, if properly
used, as it can be. We may have lost a year or two, but we are
far short of seven years' war yet. With our ports open many of the
present evils and hardships of the war would be relieved. We
would no longer have to give fifty dollars for a bushel of Liver
pool salt, or ten dollars for the roughest sort of shoes. With
ports open and this in hand, we should be much better able to

758 ADDRESS AT CRAWFORDVILLE.

make it a Peloponesian struggle, if our enemy choose so to
make it. This view and one other idea I presented to the people
at Sparta, upon the subject of cotton, which I will repeat here.

Many to be met with, suppose that by abandoning the growth
of cotton and burning what we have, we can force our recognition
abroad. This, I told the people there and tell you, is, in my
judgment, a radical and fundamental error. England will
never be controlled by such a policy. Our cotton should be
treasured up, not sold — more precious is it than gold — for it is
more powerful, as a sinew of war, than gold is. Like gold, and
every thing else of value, it should be destroyed, if need be, to
prevent its falling into the hands of the enemy, but with no view
to a foreign policy; nor should the production of cotton be
abandoned, with such a view. You could not please Lord
Palmerston better than to let him know that there would not
be grown a pound of cotton in the southern confederacy for
twenty years. The power of cotton is well known to and felt by
British statesmen. They know it is King in its proper sphere,
and hence they want the sceptre of this King for their own use.

The great error of those who suppose that King cotton would
compel the English ministry to recognize our government and
raise the blockade, and who will look for the same result from
the total abandonment of its culture, consists in mistaking the
nature of the kingdom of this potentate. His power is commer
cial and financial — not political. It has been one of the leading
objects of Lord Palmerston, ever since he has been in office, to
stimulate the production of cotton in his own dominions — or
those of his sovereign — so as not to be dependent upon us for
a supply. This he cannot do to any extent, while his inexperi
enced producers have to compete with us. Cotton can be raised
in their East India possessions and those on the western coast
of Africa, at eighteen or twenty cents a pound ; but it cannot
be raised there profitably to any extent in competition with us
at eight or ten cents. If assured, however, of no competition
from this quarter, they could, or it is believed would, after a while,
get to producing it as cheaply as we can.

Improvements in agriculture are slower in their progress than
in any other department of life. No one can safely or wisely say
how cheaply cotton may or may not be grown in those countries,
with a few years, absolute control of the market, nor that the
quality of the article may not be as good. No one can tell what
may be'effected by improvements in agriculture and the introduc-
Jion of new varieties suitable to climate and soil. More money
can be made here by growing cotton now at eight cents a pound,
than could be made at eighteen cents forty years ago. The quality
is also greatly superior to the old black seed. More persons can
now pick three hundred pounds a day than could pick one hundred
when I can first recollect ; and one hand and horse or mule can
cultivate t» ice as much land. It is a great mistake, I think, to

ADDRESS AT CBAWFORDVILLE. 759

suppose cotton cannot be grown as cheaply, and with as good a
staple — fine a fibre — in other countries, as it can in this — not in
all places where it is now grown, but in some.

There is nothing within the bounds of human knowledge on
which reliance can be placed with such certainty as to results, as
upon the laws of nature. It is on these laws governing the races
of men that our institutions are based. And there is nothing-
better ascertained in the floral kingdom, than that on the same
geological formation, within the same lines of temperature and
climatic conditions (either from altitude or latitude) the same
species and varieties of plants will grow, each producing its like
under similar culture to as great perfection in one hemisphere as
the other, and upon one continent as another. We have one ad
vantage in the production of cotton which they have not in the
British provinces. This has no reference to climate, soil or vari
eties. It is our system of labor. On our advantage in this par
ticular, and to this extent (which is no inconsiderable item) we
may rely in looking at the prospect of competition in the future,
with these countries, should they, by a continuation of our block
ade, or our necessary abandonment of the culture for a time, have
the market of the world to themselves.

We should not, therefore, think of abandoning the production
of cotton, with any idea of thereby advancing our interests —
politically — abroad. This would be but playing into the hands
of those powers who are trying to break it down. We have had
to curtail it, and shall have to curtail it while the Avar lasts —
especially while the blockade continues. Duty and patriotism, as
well as necessity, require this. The first great object of all now,
should be to sustain our cause ; to feed, as well as clothe men in
the field. To do this besides raising sufficient provisions for
home consumption, will necessarily require larger grain crops.
To have an abundance for home consumption, and for the
army, should be the object of every one. This is dictated by
the highest considerations of home policy, and not from any
view of advancing our interests abroad. On the contrary,
after sufficient provisions are made for home consumption and'
to supply the army, the more cotton that can be grown the
better. How to regulate this is a difficult matter. When the
duty rests upon all alike to grow grain, and raise stock for food,
some may be disposed to neglect it. How to meet this difficulty
is itself a difficult question. It might perhaps be done by each
State's passing a similar law upon the subject, limiting the pro
duction of each hand engaged in its culture. This would require
concert of action. What the limitation should be, I am not pre
pared to say. I have not the necessary estimates and statistics.

On the subject of foreign recognition, Mr. Stephens said he saw
no change in the prospect. Foreign governments, he thought,
wore very much disposed to stand aloof from this contest. He
did not believe they really sympathized with either side — he

760 ADDRESS AT CRAWFORD VILLE.

meant the ruling classes. The masses of the people, and the
eommereial interests generally, he thought did sympathize with
us. Not so with their rulers. They care but little for the success
of either the North or the South. Some of our people were dis
posed to think that their sympathies were with the North, while
the northern papers were charging them with sympathy for us.
He thought they had no kind feelings for either, but rather
rejoiced to see professed republicans cutting each other's throats.
He thought the remark reported to have lately been uttered by
Carlyle in his quaint style, embodied in a nutshell the diplo
matic feelings of Europe toward the cause on both sides. The
remark was that, " It was the foulest' chimney that had been on
fire for a century, and the best way is to let it burn itself out."

They were against republicanism. They are hostile to the
principle that man is capable of self-government. They are
doubtless in hope that this principle will be extinguished on both
sides of the line before the contest ends. They were wise enough
to see that the North (from the course commenced there) would
soon run into anarchy or despotism, and they are perhaps look
ing for the same fate to befall us. This has usually been the fate
of republics ; and one of the* highest duties we have to perform
to ourselves and posterity, was to see that their expectations
shall fail so far as we are concerned. We have a high mission to
perform ; and Mr. Stephens trusted the people of the South
would prove themselves equal to the task of its performance.
We have our independence to maintain and constitutional liberty
to preserve. With us now rest the hopes of the world. The
North has already become a despotism. The people, there, while
nominally free, are in no better condition, practically, than serfs.
The only plausibility they have for the war is to make freemen of
slaves, and those of an inferior race, while their efforts in this
unnatural crusade thus far have resulted in nothing but making
slaves of themselves. Presidential proclamations supersede and
set aside both laws and constitutions. Liberty with them is but
a name and a mockery. In separating from them, we quit the
Union, but we rescued the constitution. This was the Ark of
the Covenant of our fathers. It is our high duty to keep it, and
hold it, and preserve it forever. Independence with us was, said
Mr.' Stephens, a great object, but no greater than the maintenance
and perpetuation of constitutional liberty. The latter was even
more important than the other. Independence was resorted to
as the only* means to secure and maintain for ourselves constitu
tional rights. Let both independence and constitutional liberty
be kept constantly in view. Away with the idea of getting inde
pendence first, and looking after liberty afterward. Our liberties
once lost, may be lost forever.

SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY. 761

SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY, DE
LIVERED BEFORE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE,
AT MILLEDGEYILLE, GEORGIA; REPORTED BY A.
E. MARSHALL, AND REVISED BY HIMSELF. ON
WEDNESDAY NIGHT, MARCH 16th, 1864.

At the hour of f j- o'clock, P. M., the Hall had been filled to its
utmost capacity by members of the legislature and citizens gener
ally, and as the vast assemblage within saw the beloved form of
Georgia's proud and noble son, every eye grew bright with joy,
and a hearty and unanimous applause bid him welcome.

Mr. STEPHENS ascended the Speaker's stand and spoke as
follows :

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives :
In compliance with your request, or at least with that of a
large portion of your respective bodies. I appear before you to
night to speak of the state of public affairs. Never, perhaps, be
fore, have I risen to address a public audience under circum
stances of so much responsibility, and never did I feel more
deeply impressed with the weight of it. Questions of the most
momentous importance are pressing upon you for consideration
and action. Upon these I am to address you. Would that my
ability, physically, and in all other respects, were commensurate
with the magnitude of the occasion. We are in the midst of
dangers and perils. Dangers without and dangers within. Scyl-
la on the one side and Charybdis on the other. War is being
waged against us by a strong, unscrupulous and vindictive foe ;
a war for our subjugation, degradation and extermination. From
this quarter threaten the perils without. Those within a^ise from
questions of policy as to the best means, the wisest and safest, to
repel the enemy, achieve our independence, to maintain and keep
secure our rights and liberties. Upon the decision of these ques
tions, looking to the proper development of our limited resources,
wisely and patriotically, so that their entire efficiency may be ex
erted in our deliverance, with at the same time a watchful vigi
lance to the safety of the citadel itself, as much depends as upon
the skill of our commanders and the valor of our citizen soldiers
in the field. Every thing dear to us as freemen is at stake. An
error in judgment, though springing from the most patriotic mo
tives, whether in councils of war or councils of state, may be fatal.
He, therefore, who rises under sjch circumstances to offer words
of advice, not only assumes a position of great responsibility, but
stands on dangerous ground. Impressed profoundly with such
feelings and convictions, I should shrink from the undertaking
you have called me to, but for the strong consciousness that
where duty leads no one should ever fear to tread. Great as are
the dangers that threaten us, perilous as is our situation — and I

762 SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDEKACY.

do not intend to overstate or understate, neither to awaken un
due apprehension, or to excite hopes and expectations never to
be realized — perilous, therefore, as our situation is, it is far, far
from being desperate or hopeless, and I feel no hesitation in say
ing to you, in all frankness and candor, that if we are true to our
selves, and true to our cause, all may yet be well.

In the progress of the war thus far, it is true there is much
to be seen of suffering, of sacrifice and of desolation ; much to
sicken the heart and cause a blush for civilization and Chris
tianity. Cities have been taken, towns have been sacked, vast
amounts of property have been burned, fields have been laid
waste, records have been destroyed, churches have been dese
crated, women and children have been driven from their homes,
unarmed men have been put to death, States have been overrun
and whole populations made to groan under the heel of despot
ism ; all these things are seen and felt, but in them nothing is to
be seen to cause dismay, much less despair ; these deeds of ruin
and savage barbarity have been perpetrated only on the outer
borders, on the coast, and on the line of the rivers, where by the
aid of their ships of war and gunboats the enemy has had the ad
vantage ; the great breadth of the interior — the heart of our coun
try — has never yet been reached by them ; they have as yet, after a
struggle of nearly three years, with unlimited means, at a cost of
not less than four thousand millions of dollars (how much more
is unknown) and hundreds of thousands of lives, been able only
to break the outter shell of the Confederacy. -The only signal ad
vantages they have as yet gained have been on the water, or where
their land and naval forces were combined. That they should
have gained advantages under such circumstances, is not a mat
ter of in,uch surprise. Nations in war, like individual men or
animals, show their real power in combat when they stand upon
the advantages that nature has given them, and fight on their
own ground and in their own element. The lion, though king
of the forest, cannot contend successfully with the shark in the
water. In no conflict of arms away from gunboats, during the
whole war, since the first battle of Manassas to that of Ocean
Pond, have our gallant soldiers failed of victory when the num
bers on each side were at all equal. The furthest advance into
the interior from the base and protection of their gunboats,
either on the coast or the rivers, that the enemy has Ijeen able
to make for three j^ears was the late movement from Vicksburg
to Meridian, and the speedy turn of that movement shows nothing
more clearly than the difficulties and disadvantages attending ail
such ; these things should be noted and marked in considering
our present situation and the prospects of the future. In all
our losses up to this time, no vital blow has yet been given
either to our cause or our energies. We still hold Richmond,
after repeated efforts to take it, both by force and strategy. We
still hold on the Gulf, Mobile, and, on the ocean front, Wilming-

SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY. 763

ton. Savannah and Charleston. These places have been, and are still
held against the most formidable naval armament ever put afloat.
At Charleston the enemy seem to direct all their power, land
and naval, that can be brought to bear in combination — all their
energy, rancor, and vengeance. "Carthago delanda est," is their
vow as to this devoted city. Every means that money can com
mand and ingenuit}r suggest, from the hugest engines of war
never before known to the fiendish resort of Greek fire, have
been and are being applied for its destruction. For nearly nine
months the city, under the skill of our consummate commander,
his subordinates, and the heroic virtues of our matchless braves
in the ranks, still holds out against all the disadvantages of a
defence without suitable naval aid. That she ma}7 continue to
hold out, and her soil never be polluted by the unhallowed foot
prints of her vengeful besiegers, is, of course, the earnest wish
of all. But even if so great a disaster should happen to us as
the loss of Charleston, be not dismayed, indulge no sentiment
akin to that of despair — Charleston is not a vital part. We
may lose that place, Savannah, Mobile, Wilmington, and even
Richmond, the seat of government, and still survive. We may
lose all our strong places — the enemy may traverse our great
interior as they have lately done in Mississippi, and we may still
survive. We should, even under such calamities, be no worse
oif than our ancestors were in their struggle for independence.
During the time that " tried men's souls" with them every city
on the coast, from Boston to Savannah, was taken by the enemy.
Philadelphia was taken, and Congress driven away. South
Carolina, North Carolina, portions of Georgia, Virginia, and
other States, were overrun and occupied by the enemy as com
pletely as Kentucky, Missouri, Louisiana and Tennessee are now.
Take courage from the example of your ancestors — disasters
caused. with them nothing like dismay or despair — they only
aroused a spirit of renewed energy and fortitude. The princi
ples they fought for, suffered and endured so much for, are the
same for which we are now struggling — State rights, State
sovereignt}7", the great principle set forth in the declaration of
independence — the right of every State to govern itself as it
pleases. With the same wisdom, prudence, forecast and pa
triotism ; the same or equal statesmanship on the part of our
rulers in directing and wielding our resources, our material of
war, that controlled public affairs at that time, in the camp and
in the cabinet, and with the same spirit animating the breast of
the people, devotion to liberty and right, hatred of tyranny and
oppression, affection for the cause for the cause's sake ; with the
same sentiments and feelings on the part of rulers and people
in these days as were in those, we might and may be overrun as
they were ; our interior may be penetrated by superior hostile
armies, and our country laid waste as theirs was, but we can
never be conquered, as they never could be. The issues of war

764: SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDEEACY.

depend quite as much upon statesmanship as generalship ; quite
as much upon what is done at the council board, as upon what
is done in the field. Much the greater part of all wars, is busi
ness — plain practical every-day-life business ; there is in it no
art or mystery or special knowledge, except good, strong, com
mon sense — this relates to the finances, the quartermaster's and
commissary's departments, the ways and means proper — in a
word to the resources of a country and its capacities for war.
The number of men that can be spared from production, without
weakening the aggregate strength — the prospect of supplies,
subsistence, arms and munitions of all kinds. It is as necessary
that men called out should be armed, clothed, shod and fed, as
that they should be put in the field — subsistence is as essential
as men. At present we have subsistence sufficient for the year,
if it is taken care of and managed with economy. Upon a mod
erate estimate, one within reasonable bounds, the tithes of wheat
and corn for last year were not less, in the States east of the
Mississippi, (to say nothing of the other side,) than eighteen
million bushels. Kentucky and Tennessee are not included
in this estimate. This would bread an army of five hundred
thousand men and one hundred thousand horses for twelve
months, and leave a considerable margin for waste or loss.
This we have without bivying or impressing a bushel or pound.
Nor need a bushel of it be lost on account of the want of trans
portation from points at a distance from railroads. At such
places it could be fed to animals, put into beef and pork, and
thus lessen the amount of these articles of food to be bought.
Upon a like estimate the tithe of meat for the last year, will supply
the army for at least six months — rendering the purchase of sup
plies of this article necessary for only half the year — the surplus
in the country, over and above the tithes, is ample to meet the defi
ciency. All that is wanting is men of business capacity, honesty,
integrity, economy and industry in the management and control
of that department. There need be no fear of the want of sub
sistence this year, if our officials do their duty. But how it will
be next year, if the policy adopted by Congress, at its late ses
sion, is carried out, no one can safely venture to say.

This brings me to the main objects of this address, a review
of those acts of Congress to which your attention has been
specially called by the governor, and on which your action is
invoked — these are, the currency, the military, and the habeas
corpus suspension acts. It is the beauty of our S3^stem of gov
ernment, that all in authority are responsible to the people. It
is, too, always more agreeable to approve than to disapprove
what our agents have done. But in grave and important mat
ters, however disagreeable or even painful it may be to express
disapproval, yet sometimes the highest duty requires it. No
exceptions should be taken to this when it is done in a proper
spirit, and with a view solely for the public welfare. In free

SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY. 765

governments men will differ as to the best means of promoting
the public good. Honest differences of opinion should never
beget ill feelings, or personal alienations. The expressions of
differences of opinion do no harm when truth alone is the object
on both sides. Our opinions in all such discussions of public
affairs, should be given as from friends to friends, as from
borthers to brothers, in a common cause. We are all launched
upon the same boat, and must ride the storm or go down to
gether. Disagreements should«never arise, except from one cause
— a difference in judgment, as to the best means to be adopted,
or course to be pursued, for the common safety. This is" the
spirit by which I am actuated in the comments I shall make upon
these acts of Congress.

As to the first two of these measures, the Tax Act and Funding
Act, known together as the financial and currency measures, I
simply say, in my judgment, they are neither proper, wise or
just. Whether in the midst of conflicting views, in such diver
sity of opinion and interests, any thing better could not be
obtained, I know not — perhaps not. With that view we may be
reconciled to what we do not approve. It is useless now to go
into discussions of how better measures might have been obtained,
or how bad ones might have been avoided — the whole is a striking
illustration of the evils attending first departures from principle
— the "facilis descensus Averno." Error is ever the prolific
source of error. Our present financial embarrassments had their
origin in a blunder at the beginning, but we must deal with the
present, not the past. These two acts make it necessary for you
to change your legislation to save the State from loss. As to the
course you should adopt to do this, I know of none better than
that recommended by the governor. His views and suggestions
on this point seem to be proper and judicious.

The military act *by which conscription is extended so as to
embrace all between the ages of seventeen and fifty, and by which
the State is to be deprived of so much of its labor, and stripped
of the most efficient portion of her enrolled militia, presents a
much graver question. This whole system of conscription I have
looked upon from the beginning as wrong, radically wrong in
principle and in policy. Contrary opinions, however, prevailed.
But whatever differences of opinion may have been entertained
as to the constitutionality of the previous conscript acts, it
seems clear to my mind that but little difference can exist as to
the unconstitutionality of this late act. The act provides for the
organizing of troops of an anomalous character — partly as militia
and partly as a portion of the regular armies. But, in fact, they
are to be organized neither as militia or part of the regular army.
We have but two kinds of forces, the regular army and the militia
— this is neither. The men are to be raised as conscripts for the
regular forces, while their officers are to be appointed as if they
were militia. If they were intended as militia, they should have

766 SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY.

been called out, through the governor, in their present organiza
tions — if as regular forces, they cannot be officered as the act
provides. It is most clearly unconstitutional. Who is to com
mission these officers ? The governor cannot, for they are
taken from under his control ; the President cannot constitution
ally do it, for he can commission none except by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate. It is for 3rou to say whether
you will turn over these forces, and allow them to be conscripted,
as is provided, leaving the question of constitutionality for the
courts, or whether you will hold them in view of agricultural and
othe*r interest, or for the execution of your laws, and to be called
out for the public defence in case of emergency by the governor
when he sees the necessity, or when they are called for as militia
by the President. The act upon its face, in its provisions for
details, seems to indicate that its object is not to put the whole
of them in the field. Nothing could be more ruinous to our cause
if such were the object and intention, and should it ever be carried
into effect. For if all the white labor of the country, from seven
teen to fifty — except the few exemptions stated — be called out
and kept constantly in the field, we must fail, sooner or later, for
want of subsistence and other essential supplies. To wage war
successfully, men at home are as necessary as men in the field.
Those in the field must be provided for, and their families at
home must be provided for. In my judgment, no people can
successfully carry on a long war, with more than a third of its
arms-bearing population kept constantly in the field, especially if,
cut off by blockade, they are thrown upon their own internal
resources for all necessary supplies, subsistence and munitions
of war. This is a question of arithmetic on well, settled problems
of political economy. But can we succeed against the hosts of
the enemy unless all able to bear arms up to fifty years of age
are called to and kept in the field ? Yes, a thousand times yes, I
answer, with proper and skilful management. If we cannot
without such a call, we cannot with it, if the war last long. The
success of Greece against the invasion by Persia — the success of
the Netherlands against Philip — the success of Frederick against
the allied powers of Europe — the success of the colonies against
Great Britain, all show that it can be done. If our only hope was
in matching the enemy with equal numbers, then our cause would
be desperate indeed. Superior numbers is one of the chief advan
tages of the enemy. We must avail ourselves of our advantages.
W^e should not rely for success by playing into his hand. An
invaded people have many advantages that may be resorted to, to
counterbalance superiority of numbers. These should be studied,
sought, and brought into active co-operation. To secure success,
brains must do something as well as muskets.

Of all the dangers that threaten our ultimate success, I con
sider none more imminent than the policy embodied in this act,
if the object really be, as its broad terms declare, to put and keep

SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDEKACY 767

in active service all between the ages of seventeen and fifty,
except the exempts named. On that line we will most assuredly,
sooner or later, do what the enemy never could do, conquer our
selves. And if such be not the object of the act — if it is only
intended to conscript men not intended for service, not with a
view to fill the army, but for the officials, to take charge of the
general labor of the country and the various necessary vocations
and pursuits of life, then the act is not only wrong in principle
but exceedingly dangerous in its tendency.

I come, now, to the last of these acts of Congress. The sus
pension of the writ of habeas corpus in certain cases. This is
the most exciting as it is by far the most important question
before you. Upon this depends the question, whether the courts
shall be permitted to decide upon the constitutionality of the
late conscript act, should you submit that question to their de
cision, and upon it also depend other great essential rights
enjoyed by us as freemen. This act upon its face, confers upon
the President, secretary of war, and the general commanding in
the trans-Mississippi- department, (the two latter acting under
the control and authority of the President,) the power to arrest
and imprison any person who may be simply charged with certain
acts, not all of them even crimes under any law ; and this is to
be done without any oath or affirmation alledging probable cause
as to the guilt of the party. This is attempted to be done under
that clause of the constitution, which authorizes Congress to sus
pend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, in certain cases.

In my judgment this act is not only unwise, impolitic and
unconstitutional, but exceedingly dangerous to public liberty.
Its unconstitutionality does not rest upon the idea that Congress
has not got the power to suspend the privilege of this writ, nor
upon the idea that the power to suspend it is an implied one, or
that clearly implied powers are weaker as a class and subordinate
to others, positively and directly delegated.

I do not understand the executive of this State to put his
argument against this act upon an}' such grounds. He simply
states a fact, ^ it most clearly is, that the power to suspend at
all is an implied power. There is no positive, direct power dele
gated to do it. The power, however, is clear, and clear only
by implication. Tine language of the constitution, 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," clearly expresses the intention that the power
may be exercised in the cases stated ; but it does so by impli
cation only, just as if a mother should say to her daughter, you
shall not go unless you ride. Here the permission and authority
to go is clearly given, though by inference and implication only.
It is not positively and directly given. This, and this only, I
understand the governor to mean when he speaks of the power
being an implied one. He raises no question as to the existence

768 SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY.

of the power, or its validity when rightfully exercised, but he
maintains, as I do, that its exercise must be controlled by all
other restrictions in the constitution bearing upon its exercise.
Two of these are to be found in the words accompanying the dele
gation. It can never be exercised except in rebellion or invasion.
Other restrictions are to be found in other parts of the constitu
tion — in the amendments to the constitution adopted after the rati
fication of the words as above quoted. These amendments were
made, as is expressly declared in the preamble to them, to add
" further declaratory and restrictive clauses," to prevent " miscon
struction or abuse of the powers" previously delegated. To
understand all the restrictions, therefore, thrown around the
exercise of this power in the constitution, these additional " re
strictive clauses" must be read in conjunction with the original
grant, whether that was made positively and directly, or by
implication only. These restrictions, among other things, declare,
that " no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law," and that the right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the person or thing to be seized.

All admit that under the clause as it stands in the original
grant, with the restrictions there set forth, the power can be
rightfully exercised only in cases of rebellion or invasion. With
these additional clauses, put in as further restrictions to prevent
the abuse of powers previously delegated, how is this clause con
ferring the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, now to be read ? In this way, and ii> this way only :
" The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be sus
pended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public
safety may require it." And no person "shall be deprived of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." And fur
ther. "The right of the people to be secure in. 'Uieir persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonably searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but
upon probable cause, supported "by oath or affirmation, and par
ticularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized."

The attempted exercise of the power to suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus in this act, is in utter disregard in
the very face and teeth of these restrictions, as much so, as a like
attempt in time of profound peace would be in disregard of the
restrictions to cases of rebellion and invasion, as the constitution
was originally adopted. It attempts to provide for depriving
persons "of liberty, without due process of law." It attempts
to annul and set at naught the great constitutional " right" of
the people, to be secure in their persons against " unreasonable

SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY. 769

seizures." It attempts to destroy and annihilate the bulwark of
personal liberty, secured in our great chart to the humblest as
well as the highest, that " no warrants shall issue but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation," and " particu
larly describing the person to be seized." Nay, more, it attempts
to change and transform the distribution of powers in our system
of government. It attempts to deprive the judiciary department
of its appropriate and legitimate functions, and to confer them
upon the President, the secretary of war, and the general officer
commanding the trans-Mississippi department, or rather to confer
them entirely upon the President, for those subordinates named
in the act hold their places at his will, and in arrests under this
act are to be governed by his orders. This, by the constitution,
never can be done. Ours is not only a government of limited
powers, but each department, the legislative, executive and
judicial, are separate and distinct. The issuing of warrants,
which are nothing but orders for arrests, against civilians or
persons in civil life, is a judicial function. The President, under
the constitution, has not the power to issue any such. As com-
mander-in-chief of the land and naval forces, and the militia when
in actual service, he may order arrests for trials before courts-
martial, according to the rules and articles of war. But he is
clothed with no such power over those not in the military service
and not subject to the rules and articles of war. This act
attempts to clothe him with judicial functions, and in a judicial
character to do what no judge, under the constitution, can do :
issue orders or warrants for arrest, by which persons are to be
deprived of their liberty, imprisoned, immured in dungeons, it
may be without any oath or affirmation, even as to the probable
guilt of the party accused or charged with any of the offences or
acts stated. This, under the constitution, in nry judgment,
cannot be done. Congress can confer no such power upon our
chief magistrate. There is no such thing known in this country
as political warrants, or " lettres de cachet." This act attempts
to institute this new order of things so odious to our ancestors,
and so inconsistent with constitutional liberty.

This act, therefore, is unconstitutional, not because Congress
has not power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, but because they have no power to do the thing aimed at
in this attempted exercise of it. Congress can suspend the
privilege of the writ — the power is clear and unquestioned — •
neither is the power, as it stands, objectionable. Georgia, in the
convention, voted against the clause conferring it in the consti
tution as originally adopted — that, perhaps, was a wise and
prudent vote. But, with the restrictions subsequently adopted
there can be no well grounded objection to it. It is, under
existing restrictions, a wise pawer. In time of war, in cases of
rebellion or invasion, it may often be necessary to exercise it —
the public safety may require 't I am not prepared to say that
41)

770 SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY.

the public safety may not require it now. I am not informed of
the reasons which induced the President to ask the suspension
of the privilege of the writ at this time, or Congress to undertake
its suspension as provided in this act. I, however, know of no
reasons that require it and have heard of none. But in the exer
cise of an undisputed power, they have attempted to do just
what cannot be done — to authorize illegal and unconstitutional
arrests. There can be no suspension of the writ, under our s}'stem
of government, against unconstitutional arrests — there can be no
suspension allowing, or with a view to permit and authorize, the
seizure of persons without warrant issued by a judicial officer
upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation — the
whole constitution must be read together, and so read and con
strued as that every part and clause shall stand and have its
proper effect under the restrictions of other clauses.

If any conflict arises between clauses in the original and the
amendments subsequently made, the original must yield to the
amendments — as a will previously made always yields to the
modifications of a codicil. Such, of course, was the condition
of the old constitution with its amendments, when the States of
this confederacy adopted it — and it was adopted by these States
with the meaning, force and effect it then had. In construing,
therefore, those parts of the old constitution which we adopted,
we stand just where we should have stood, under like circum
stances, under it. With these views it will clearly appear that, under
our constitution, courts cannot be deprived of their right or be
relieved of their duty to inquire into the legality of all arrests
except in cases arising in the land and naval forces or in the
militia, when in actual service — for the government of which a
different provision is made in the constitution. Under a con
stitutional suspension of the privilege of the writ, all the courts
could do, would be to see that the party was legally arrested and
held — upon proper warrant — upon probable* cause, supported by
oath or affirmation setting forth a crime or some violation of
law. Literally and truly, then, the only effect of a constitutional
exercise of this power over the writ of habeas corpus by Congress
is to deprive a person, after being legally confined, of the privi
lege of a discharge before trial, by giving bail, or on account of
insufficiency of proof as to probable cause or other like grounds.
This privilege only can be suspended, and not the writ itself.
The words of the constitution are aptly chosen to express the
purpose and extent to which a suspension can go in this
country. With this view the power is a wise one. It can work
no serious injury to the citizen and it sufficiently guards the
public safety. The party against whom a grave accusation is
brought, supported by oath, or affirmation, founded upon proba
ble cause, must be held for trial, and if found to be guilty is to
be punished according to the nature of his offence. The mon
strous consequences of any other view of the subject are appar-

SPEECH OX THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY. 771

ent. The exercise of the power by Congress may be either
general or limited to special cases, as in this instance. If it had
been general, under any other view, what would have been the
condition of every citizen in the land ? The weaker would have
been completely in the power of the stronger, without remedy or
redress. Any one in the community might seize, for any motive
or for any purpose, any other, and confine him most wrongfully
and shamefully. Combinations of several against a few might
be formed for a like purpose, and there would be no remedy or
redress against this species of licensed lawlessness. The courts
would be closed — all personal security and personal safety would
be swept away. Instead of a land of laws, the whole country
would be no better than a Whitefriars domain — a perfect Alsatia.
This would be the inevitable effect of the exercise of the power,
by a general suspension, with any other view of the subject, than
this presented. The same effects as to outrages upon personal
rights must issue under a limited suspension confined to any
specified cases under any other view. No such huge and enor
mous wrongs can ever spring from our constitution if it be rightly
administered. So that the conclusion of the whole matter is
well stated by the governor in his late message, in the brief,
comprehensive, but exact terms : ." The only suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus known to our constitution
and compatible with the provisions already quoted, goes to the
simple extent of preventing the release, under it, of persons
whose arrests have been ordered, under constitutional warrants
from judicial authority."

On this subject much light is to be derived from English his
tory. Our whole system of constitutional liberty rests upon
principles established by our Anglo-Saxon ancestors. But be
tween their system and ours, there are several differences that
should be noted and marked — and none more striking and funda
mental than the difference between the two upon this subject.
With them the right of personal security against illegal arrests,
was wrested from the crown by the parliament, and established
by magna charta, the bill of rights, the abolition of star chamber,
and the grant of the great right of the writ of habeas corpus,
which is the means of redress against violations of law, and other
wrongs against rights secured and acknowledged. In the aboli
tion of the court of star chamber, the power was taken from the
king, his heirs and successors forever, and every member of his
privy council, to make any arrest of any person for any offence
or alleged crime, except by due process of law. By this act, the
power of the king to issue warrants or orders of arrest, unsup
ported by oath or affirmation, setting forth probable cause, which
before had been claimed as a royal prerogative, was taken away
from him and his successors forever. The ruling monarch,
Charles I., gave his consent to the act, and yielded the power.
He afterward broke his pledge. Civil commotions ensued from

772 SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDEKACY.

this and other causes. He lost his head upon the block. The
subsequent history of that strife between the people and the crown
of England, on this and other matters, is not now pertinent to
the object before us. Suffice it to say that it ended in the settle
ment, as it is termed, between the parliament and their new sove
reigns, William and Mary — in 1688, '89. In this settlement, all
the ancient rights and liberties of the English people, including
the right of the writ of habeas corpus., were reaffirmed and secured.
Such were the liberties, inherited as a birthright, that our British
$icestors brought with them to this continent. The principles
established in England, after centuries of struggle and blood,
formed the basis upon which the great structure of American con
stitutional liberty was erected. But the striking difference be
tween their system and ours, to which I have alluded, and which
should never be lost sight of, is that, with them, all power origin
ally belonged to the crown. All rights and liberties were grants
from the crown to the parliament, and through them to the peo
ple, while with us all power originally belonged to the people —
and, essentially, still resides with them. They have appointed
agents to perform the functions of government in the different
departments, executive, judicial, and legislative, under the form
of government set forth in the constitution, clothed with the ex
ercise of certain delegated, specific and limited powers. In Eng
land it is competent for the parliament at any time to return to
the crown all the powers heretofore extorted from their kings.
They are not restrained, as our Congress is, by a want of power
to do so on their part. They can repeal, any day, magna charta,
the habeas corpus act, and the whole bill of rights, and render
their ruling monarch as absolute as either of the Tudors or Stuarts
ever claimed or wished to be. The principles of magna charta as
to personal liberty, and the rights of the writ of habeas corpus to
secure those rights, are put in our fundamental law, and cannot
be violated by Congress, for their powers are limited, and they
are themselves bound by the constitution. That the British peo
ple would ever submit to a surrender of their rights by parlia
ment, no one can for a moment believe. But parliament claims
to be omnipotent, and could make the surrender, if they chose to
run the risk. Hence analogies between this country and that on
the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and the effect of such
suspension, either generally or specially, should be closely scanned.
Even in England, so great is the regard for liberty, suspensions
have been rare since the settlement of 1G88-89. The writ was
suspended there in 1715 and in 1745 — and in 1788 it was sus
pended in Ireland, with the power conferred on the lord-lieutenant
to make arrest. Under the system of government in England,
the parliament could confer this power upon the crown, or the
lord-lieutenant, or upon any other person they saw fit. Not so
with our Congress, under our constitution. In criticisms upon
the governor's message, these suspensions have been alluded

SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY. 773

to against the positions of the message. They are not in
conflict at all. What the governor states is that he is not
aware of any " instance in which the British king has ordered
the arrest of any person in civil life in any other manner
than by judicial warrant issued by the established courts of the
nation, or in which he has suspended, or attempted to suspend,
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, since the bill of rights
and the act of settlement passed in 1689." He did not say that
parliament had not suspended it, or that our Congress could not
suspend it, in a proper way, but that even in England, where par
liament was unrestrained, they had not, since the settlement, con
ferred upon the crown the power to make arrests, so far as he
was aware.

At this point I will briefly refer to the suspension by our Con
gress, alluded to the other night by the distinguished gentleman
(Hon. A. H. Kenan), who lately represented this district ; a gen
tleman whose remarks I listened to with a great deal of interest,
arid whose personal friendship I esteem so highly. He referred
to the act of the confederate Congress, passed October 13, 1862,
and asked — Why were there no objections made to that ? This
act he read. I have it before me. It provides that the " Presi
dent, during the present invasion, shall have the power to sus
pend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus in any city, town,
or military district, whenever, in his judgment, the public safety
may require it ; but such suspension shall apply only to arrests
made by the authorities of the confederate government, or for
offences against the same," and in section 2d, that " the President
shall cause proper officers to investigate the cases of all persons
so arrested, in order that they may be discharged if improperly
detained, unless they can be speedily tried in due course of law."
The 3d section limits the act to thirty days after the meeting of
the next Congress.

The answer to the inquiry, why there was no noise made about
this act, while there is so much made about the one lately passed,
is twofold. In the first place, this act applied " only to arrests
made by the authorities of the confederate government" — "for
offences against the same." The proper authorities for issuing
warrants to arrest, are the courts, whose duty it is to issue war
rants for arrests whenever offences or crimes are charged upon
oath or affirmation, stating probable cause. The section directing
the President to cause " proper officers to investigate the cases,
etc.," in its immediate connection with the proceeding, had noth
ing in it calculated to awaken, alarm, or excite objection, for by
" proper officers" all naturally supposed judicial officers only
could be meant— judges who would or might act in discharging
under writs of habeas corpus, if that privilege had not been sus
pended. In this connection, these words seemed naturally enough
to have a meaning far different from what they have when taken
from their contest and put into this late act, in which it is clear

774 SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY.

enough they are there intended to apply to other than judicial offi
cers. There was not then, nor now, any objection, as far as I am
aware of, to the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus in any city, town, or district, or generally throughout the
country, if Congress really has good reasons to believe the pub
lic safety requires it, and if the power to suspend be constitution
ally exercised. The objection to the late act is that it attempts
to do what cannot constitutionally be done.

But in the second place, in answer to the inquiry, why no noise
was made about the act of October, 1862, I need only say, that
upon the bare statement of the real and substantial objections
to that act, it was admitted to be unconstitutional and void,
because it attempted to confer the power to suspend the writ
upon the President, when, in his judgment, the public safety re
quired it in the localities embraced in its terms. Congress alone,
under the constitution, has the power to suspend the privileges
of the writ. They cannot confer this power upon the President
or anybody else. This is now conclusively admitted both by
Congress and the President in the late act, for it is set forth in
the preamble, " whereas, the power of suspending the privilege of
said writ is vested solely in the Congress, etc. This is an admis
sion on the record that the other act was unconstitutional and
void. But, to my mind, it is just as clear that Congress cannot
confer upon the President, or any other officer but a judicial one,
the power to issue orders or warrants for the arrest of persons
in civil life as it was then, and on the passage of a similar act
previously that they could not confer the power upon the Presi
dent to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. The
late act is just as void as the previous ones, and for a like reason.
In it Congress has attempted to do what they had not power to
do. The first act on the subject was assented to on the 27th
February, 1862. That attempted to confer on the President the
power not only to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus in certain cities, towns, military districts, etc., but to de
clare martial law, etc. This soon after was amended. But no
one can say that during the progress of these events I was
silent. My sentiments upon the subject of martial law, against
the unconstitutional usurpations of power, were proclaimed
throughout the confederacy, as they are now, and will be pro
claimed against the dangerous departures from principle in this
act. Martial law has been abandoned, and I trust the departures
from principle in this act will be, too. I speak upon these as I
wrote upon those. I have no inclination to arraign the motives
of those who disagree with me. Great principles are at stake,
and I feel impelled by a high sense of duty, when my opinions
are sought, to give them fully, clearly ind earnestly.

A few thoughts more upon the subject in another view. These
relate to the objects and workings of the act, if it be sustained
and car ied out. You have been told that it affects none but the

SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY. 775

disloyal, none but traitors, or those who are no better 'than trai
tors, spies, bridge-burners, and the like, and you have been ap
pealed to and asked, if any such are entitled to your sympathies?
I affirm, and shall maintain before the world that this act affects
and may wrongfully oppress as loyal and as good citizens and as
true to our cause as ever trod the .soil or breathed the air of the
South. This I shall make so plain to you that no man will ever
venture to gainsay or deny it. This long list of offences, set
forth in such array, in the thirteen specifications, are, as I view
them, but rubbish and verbiage, which tend to cover and hide
what in its workings will be found to be the whole gist of the
act. Whether such was the real object and intention of its
framers and advocates, I know not. Against their motives or
patriotism I have nothing to say. I take the act as I find it.
The real gist of the whole of it lies, so far as appears upon its
face, covered up in the fifth specification near the middle of the
act. It is embraced in these words — " and attempts to avoid
military service I"

Here is a plain indisputable attempt to deny every citizen in
this broad land the right, if ordered into service, to have the
question whether he is liable to military duty under the laws
tried and adjudicated by the courts ? Whether such was the real
object and intention of those who voted for the bill, I know not,
but such would be its undeniable effect if sustained and enforced.
A man over fifty years of age, with half a dozen sons in the field,
who has done every thing in his power for the cause from the
beginning of the war, may, under instructions from the secre
tary of war, be arrested by the sub-enrolling officer and ordered
to camp, upon the assumed ground that, in point of fact, he is
under fifty. Under this law, if it be law, he would be without
remedy or redress. A case to illustrate b}^ occurred within my
own knowledge last fall. Orders were issued to examine the
census returns of 1860, as to the ages of persons, and instruc
tions given to sub-enrolling officers to be governed as to the age
of parties by those returns. In the case alluded to by the census
returns, the party was not forty-five at the time of arrest. He
protested that he had not made the census returns himself — that
the return was erroneous, it was not given in under oath — that
he was able to prove by evidence entirely satisfactory, that he
was over forty-five and not liable under the law as it then stood
to military service. His privilege of the writ of habeas corpus —
his right to have this question of fact and law settled by the
courts — was not then suspended, and he was discharged. But
what would be his situation, and that of all others in like circum
stances, if this act be held to be law? It is said that the act
affects none but the disloyal, and that no good law-abiding man
can justly complain of it ! As I view it, its main effect is to close
the loors of justice against thousands of citizens, good and true,
who may appeal to the courts for their legal rights. Take the

776 SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY.

case of those who availed themselves of the law to put in substi
tutes — some for one motive, and some for another — some, doubt
less, for not only good but patriotic motives, believing that they
could render the country more service at home than in the field.
I know one who has put in two, one when the call was for those
up to thirty-five years of age, the other when the call was to
forty-five. One of these substitutes was an alien, whose services
could not have been commanded by the government, and who is
now at Charleston, and has been during the whole siege of that
place. This man, who put in these two substitutes, remained at
home most usefully employed in producing provisions for the
army. All his surplus went that way, while he had two men,
abler bodied than he was, fighting for him in the field. Who
would say that such a man is disloyal to the cause, if, believing
in his heart that he was not liable under his contract, as he sup
posed, with his government, he should appeal to the courts to
decide the question whether he is liable under the law or not ?
As to the law allowing substitutes in the first instance, and then
the law abrogating or annulling it, and calling the principals into
the field, I have nothing to say. What I maintain is, that it is
the great constitutional right of any and every party affected by
the last of these acts on the subject, to have the question of his
legal liability judicially determined if he chooses, and then as a
good law-abiding citizen act accordingly.

Take another illustration of the practical workings of the act.
Congress by law exempted from conscription such State officers
as the legislatures of the respective States might designate as
proper to be retained for State purposes. At your last session
you, by resolution, designated all the civil and militia officers of
the State. A late order has been issued by General Cooper, as
is seen in the papers, doubtless under order from the secretary
of war, to enrol and send to camp a large number of these offi
cers — amongst others, justices of the peace, tax receivers and
collectors. This order is clearly against the law of Congress
and your solemn resolution. It is in direct antagonism to the
decision of the Supreme Court of this State, in the very case in
which they sustained the power of Congress to raise troops by
conscription, but in which they held that the power was limited,
and that the civil officers of the States could not be constitu
tionally conscripted. I use the word conscripted purposely — I
know there is no such word in the English language — neither is
there any such word as conscribe, the one usually in vogue now a
days. A new word had to be coined for a process or mode of
raising armies, unheard of and undreamed of by our ancestors,
and I choose to coin one which best expresses my idea of it.
But under this order of General Cooper, is it not the right of
these officers, is it not the right of the State, to have the question
of their liability to conscription determined by the judiciary f
Is it not the high duty of Congress to compel the secretary of

SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDEKACY. 777

war and General Cooper to abide by that decision and to obey
their own laws, instead of attempting to close the doors of the
courts against the adjudication of all such matters that come
within the sphere of their constitutional duties.

Again, Congress by the last section of the first conscript act,
declared that all who were or should be subject to it might, pre
vious to enrolment, volunteer in any companies then in the
service. Notwithstanding this express law of Congress, securing
the right of any person liable to conscription, to volunteer in
any company then in the service previous to enrolment, General
Cooper has issued an order, by direction of the secretary of war,
doubtless, denying this right to volunteer in any company then
in existence, unless the number in such company is less than
sixty-four men. Under this illegal order a number of as brave,
gallant, chivalrous, noble spirited youths, as ever went forth to
battle for their country and peril their lives for constitutional
liberty, will be deprived of their birthright — the right to have
questions of law, affecting their liberty, determined by the courts
— if this act, closing courts against them, shall be held to be
valid ! Tell me not that this act affects none but traitors, spies,
and the disloyal. I heard not long since of a case in Albany ;
a father carried his son to the district enrolling officer ; he had
just arrived at the age when he was liable to conscription ; he
never wished him to go to the war as a conscript. His older
brothers had gone before him, they went out early in the war as
volunteers, and then formed part of that living wall of freemen
which still stands between us and a ruthless foe. He told the
enrolling officer, in substance, that he had brought his boy, the
Benjamin of his heart, as another offering on the altar of his
country. He was going as a volunteer under that clause of the
act alluded to ; he had selected the company to which his brothers
belonged. He was told this could not be allowed. At this, the
father was greatly surprised and mortified, as may be readily
understood ; he insisted upon the rights of his son. Great as his
surprise was at first, however, greater was it still to be. The
son was ordered to jail, to be sent to the camp of instruction, to
be assigned to any company his officers might choose. The high
spirited youth, scorning conscription, offering himself as a volun
teer, asking nothing but his legal rights, instead of being sent
on with cheers by the crowd, and a father's parting blessing, was
sent to jail as a felon !

Can any one say that this was not a most shameful outrage ?

It is, however, but one of a thousand cases like it that may
occur, and probably will occur, should this law be held to be con
stitutional ; and if the doors of the courts are to be closed against
all who may be ordered to the military service, without any regard
to law. I have here two letters which will further illustrate how
this act will work. They are both addressed to the governor.
One is from a Mr. Samuel H. Parker, written in Charleston jail.

778 SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY.

[Here Mr. Stephens read the letter, stating that the writer was
a native Georgian. That he lived in Whitfield county. That
he was forty-seven years of age, as the record would show, then
in Whitfield county. That he was at his home with his wife,
(who was then sick,) with ten small children, on the 21th of
February, of this year, when a party on horses came and arrested
him, and carried him to Dalton. And from Dalton, he was
carried to Atlanta. He protested that he was over age, and not
liable to military duty ; that he was forty-seven years old. He
was told that that was the right age to make a soldier in South
Carolina, and he was sent on to Charleston, where he was in
jail. He appealed to the governor of his native State, and the
State of his residence, to have justice done him.] Of this Mr.
Parker, (said Mr. Stephens,) I know nothing, except what is
stated in this letter. It may be false, and yet it may be true.
If true, justice ought to be done to a man so greatly outraged
and wronged. But whether true or false, the courts ought
never to be closed against an inquiry into the facts, and never
will be, so long as personal security has any protection in this
country.

The other letter is from the Hon. John Oats, a member of
this House, from the county of Murray. It is dated the llth of
this month, the day after the meeting of this session. [Here
Mr. Stephens read Mr. Oats' letter, stating that he was detained
at Atlanta, under very painful circumstances. His oldest son,
who had been in the army, was subject to epilepsy, and had been
discharged in consequence. That afterward, he had been carried
before a board of physicians, who pronounced his case incurable,
and he was given a certificate of final discharge, on the grounds
of permanent disability. That on the morning Mr. Oats left
home for Milledgeville, the provost-guard at Dalton, went to his
house at Spring Place, and carried his son off to Dalton. They
carried him from there to Cartersville, to Captain Starr, the
enrolling officer for the tenth Congressional district, and he,
knowing all about his case, sent him back to Dalton, stating in
writing on the order, that he was sent there under, that accord
ing to law, and his orders from the war department, he was not
liable to conscription. That on his return to Dalton, they put
him in irons, and assigned him to Charleston, to go into the for
tifications, and that he expected him in Atlanta that evening.
He was waiting with the best counsel he could get, to see if there
was any virtue in the writ of habeas corpus. He asked that the
governor would get some member to procure for him leave of
absence from the House.]

Well for Mr. Oats (said Mr. Stephens) and his afflicted son,
there is some virtue yet in the writ of habeas corpus.

But what virtue would be in it, if it is denied under this act,
to all who attempt to avoid military service. Nothing could in
duce me to read such letters on such an occasion, but a sense of

SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY. 779

duty, to show you what will be the state of things all over the
country, under the operation of such a law, when orders are is
sued for its enforcement, and to put you on your guard, against
the flippant phrase that the act will eifect none but traitors,
spies, and disloyal people. Had . it been in operation, had ^he
courts regarded it, Mr. Oats' son, who had served his country
faithfully, as long as he was able, might now have been beyond
remedy, beyond redress, and beyond hope. Will you say, can
you say, that the courts ought to be, or can be closed, against
such monstrous wrongs? Will you not rather put upon the
attempt to do it, the seal of your unqualified condemnation ?
Tell me not to put confidence in the President. That he will
never abuse the power attempted to be lodged in his hands.
The abuses may not be by the President. He will not execute
the military orders that will be given. This will necessarily de
volve upon subordinates, scattered all over the country, from
the Potomac to the Rio Grande. He would have to possess two
superhuman attributes, to prevent abuses — omniscience and om
nipresence.

These things our forefathers knew, and hence they threw
around the personal security of the free citizens of this country
a firmer, safer, surer protection than confidence in any man,
against abuses of power, even when exercised under his own
eye and by himself. That protection is the shield of the constitu
tion. See to it that you do not in an evil hour tear this shield
o.l'and cast it away, or permit others to do it, lest in a day you
wot not of, you sorely repent it.

Enough has been said, without dwelling longer upon this
point, to show, without the possibility of a doubt, that the act
does affect others, and large classes of others, than spies, trai
tors, bridge-burners, and disloyal persons — that the very gist of
the act, whatever may have been the intent or the motive, will
operate most wrongfully and oppressively on as loyal, as patri
otic, and as true men as ever inherited a freeman's birthright
under a southern sky. You have also seen that there is and
can be no necessity for the passage of such an act, even if it
were constitutional, in the case of spies, traitors, or conspira
tors. For, if there be a traitor in the confederacy — if such a
monster exists — if any well grounded suspicion is entertained
that any such exists, why not have him legally arrested, by ju
dicial warrant, upon oath or affirmation, setting forth probable
cause, and then he can be held under a constitutional suspension
of the privileges of the writ — he can be tried, and if found guilty,
punished. What more can the public safety by possibility re
quire ? Why dispense with the oath ? Why dispense with judi
cial warrants ? Why put it in the power of &uy man on earth to
order the arrest of another on a simple charge, to which nobody
will swear ? Who is safe under such a law ? Who knows, when
he goes forth, when or whether he shall ever return ? The Presi*

780 SPEECH ON" THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY.

dent, according to this act, is to have power to arrest and im
prison whoever he pleases, upon a bare charge, made, perhaps,
by an enemy of disloyalty, the party making the charge not
being required to swear to it ! Who, I repeat, is safe, or would
be, under such a law ? What were the real objects of the act, in
these clauses, as to treason, disloyalty, and the others, I do not
kiiow. To me it seems to be unreasonable to suppose that it was
to reach real traitors and persons guilty of the offences stated.
For that object could have been easily accomplished without any
such extraordinary power. I was not at Richmond when the
act passed. I heard none of the discussions, and knew none
of the reasons asssigned, either by the President in asking it, or
the members or senators who voted for it. I was at home, pros
trate with disease, from which I have not yet recovered, and by
reason of which I address you with so much feebleness on this
occasion. But I have heard that one object was to control cer
tain elections and expected assemblages in North Carolina, to
put a muzzle upon certain presses, and a bit in the mouth of cer
tain speakers in that State. If this be so, I regard it the more
dangerous to public liberty. I know nothing of the politics of
North Carolina — nothing of the position of her leading public
men. If there be traitors there, let them be constitutionally ar
rested, tried, and punished. No fears need be indulged of bare
error there, or anywhere else, if reason is left free to combat it.
The idea is incredible, that a majority of the people of that gal
lant and noble old State, which was foremost in the war of the
revolution in her ever memorable Mecklenburg declaration of
Independence can, if let alone, ever be induced to prove them
selves so recreant to the principles of their fathers as to abandon
our cause and espouse the despotism of the North. Her people,
ahead of all the colonies, first flaunted in the breeze the flag of
Independence and State sovereignty. She cannot be the first to
abandon it — no, never ! I cannot believe it ! If her people were
really so inclined, however, we could not prevent it by force — we
could not, under the constitution, if we would, and we ought not
if we could. Ours is a government founded upon the consent of
sovereign States, and will be itself destroyed by the very act
whenever it attemps to maintain or perpetuate its existence by
force over its respestive members. The surest way to check any
inclination in North Carolina to quit our sisterhood, if any such
really exist even to the most limited extent amongst her people,
is to show them that the struggle is continued as it was begun,
for the maintenance of constitutional liberty. If, with this great
truth ever before them, a majority of her people should prefer
despotism to liberty, I would say to her, as to a " wayward
sister, depart in peace." I want to see no Maryland this side of
the Potomac.

Another serious objectioji to the measure, showing its impolicy,
16 the effect it will have upon our cause abroad. I have never

SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY. 781

looked to foreign intervention, or early recognition, and do not
now. European governments have no sympathy with either side
in this struggle. They are rejoiced to see professed republicans
cutting each other's throats, and the failure, as they think, of
the great experiment of self-government on this continent. They
saw that the ISTorth went into despotism immediately on the
separation of the South, and their fondest hopes and expecta
tions are that the same destiny awaits us. This has usually
been the fate of republics. This is the sentiment of all the gov
ernments in Europe. But we have friends there, as you heard
last night, in the eloquent remarks of the gentleman [Hon. L. Q.
C. LAMAR] who addressed you on our foreign relations, and who
has lately returned from those countries. Those friends are
anxiously and hopefully watching the issue of the present con
flict. In speeches, papers, and reviews they are defending our
cause. No argument used by them heretofore has been more
effectual than the contrast drawn between the federals and the
confederates upon the subject of the writ of habeas corpus.
Here, notwithstanding our dangers and perils, the military has
always been kept subordinate to the civil authorities. Here all the
landmarks of English liberty have been preserved and maintained,
wiiiie at the North scarcely a vestige of them is left. There,
instead of courts of justice with open doors, the country is dotted
all over with prisons and bastiles. No better argument in be
half of a people struggling for constitutional liberty could have
been presented to arouse sympathy in our favor. It showed that
we were passing through a fiery furnace for a great cause, and
passing through unscathed. It showed that whatever may be
the state of things at the North, that at the South at least the
great light of the principles of self-government, civil and religious
liberty, established on this continent by our ancestors, which was
looked to with encouragement and hope by the down-trodden of
all nations, was not yet extinguished, but was still burning
brightly in the hands of their southern sons, even burning the
more brightly from the intensity of the heat of the conflict in
which we are engaged. To us, in deed and in truth, is com
mitted the hopes of the world as to the capacity and ability of
man for self-government. Let us see to it that these hopes and
expectations do not fail. Let us prove ourselves equal to the
high mission before us.

One other view only : that relates to the particularly dangerous
tendency of this act in the present state of the country, and the
policy indicated by Congress. Conscription has been extended
to embrace all between seventeen and fifty years of age. It can
not be possible that the intention and object of that measure was
really to call and keep in the field all between those ages. The
folly and ruinous consequences of such a policy is too apparent.
Details are to be made, and must be made, to a large extent.
The effect and the object of this measure, therefore, was not to

782 SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY.

raise armies or procure soldiers, but to put all the population of
the country between those ages under military law. Whatever
the object was, the effect is to put much the larger portion of the
labor of the country, both white and slave, under the complete
control of the President. Under this system almost all the use
ful and necessary occupations of life will be completely under
the control of one man. No one between the ages of seventeen
and fifty can tan your leather, make your shoes, grind your
grain, shoe your horse, lay your plough, make }7our wagon,
repair your harness, superintend your farm, procure your salt,
or perform any other of the necessary vocations of life, (except
teachers, preachers, and physicians, and a very few others,) with
out permission from the President. This is certainly an extra
ordinary and a dangerous power. In this connection take in
view this habeas corpus suspension act, by which it has been
shown the attempt is made to confer upon him the power to
order the arrest and imprisonment of any man, woman or child
in the confederacy, on the bare charge, unsupported by oath,
of any of the acts for which arrests are allowed to be made.
Could the whole country be more completely under the power
and control of one man, except as to life or limb? Could dictato
rial powers be more complete ? In this connection consider, also,
the strong appeals that have been made for some time past, by
leading journals, openty for a dictator. Coming events often
cast their shadows before. Could art or ingenity have devised
a shorter or a surer cut to that end, for all practical purposes,
than the whole polic}7 adopted by the last Congress, and now
before you for consideration ? As to the objects, or motives,
or patriotism of those who adopted that policy, that is not the
question. The presentation of the case as it stands is what your
attention is called to. Nor is the probability of the abuse of the
power the question. Some, doubtless, think it for the best
interests of the country to have a dictator. Such are not unfre-
quently to be met with whose intelligence, probity, and general
good character in private life are not to be questioned, however
much their wisdom, judgment, and principles may be deplored.
In such times, when considering the facts as they exist, and
looking at the policy indicated in all its bearings, the most ill-
timed, delusive, and dangerous words that can be uttered are, can
you not trust the President ? Have you not confidence in him
that he will not abuse the powers thus confided in him ? To all
such questions my answer is, without any reflection or imputa
tion against our present chief magistrate, that the measure of
my confidence in him, and all other public officers, is the consti
tution. To the question of whether I would not or cannot trust
him with these high powers not conferred by the constitution,
my answer is the same that I gave to one who submitted a plan
for a dictatorship to me some months ago: "I am utterly
opposed to every thing looking to, or tending toward a dictator-

SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY. 783

ship in this country. Language would fail to give utterance to
my inexpressible repugnance at the bare suggestion of such a
lamentable catastrophe. There is no man living, and not one of
the illustrious dead, whom, if now living, I would so trust,"

In any and every view, therefore, I look upon this habeas corpus
suspension act as unwise, impolitic, unconstitutional, and dan
gerous to public liberty.

But you have been asked what can you do ? You can do
much. If you believe the act to be unconstitutional, you can
and ought so to declare your deliberate judgment to be. What
can you do ? What did Kentucky and Virginia do in 1198-99,
under similar circumstances ? What did Jefferson do, and what
did Madison do, and what did the legislators of those States
then do ?

Though a war was then threatening with France — though
armies were being raised — though Washington was called from
his retirement to take command as lieutenant-general — though
it was said then as now, that all discussions of even obnoxious
measures of Congress would be hurtful to the public cause, they
did not hesitate, by solemn resolves by the legislatures, to
declare the alien and sedition laws unconstitutional and utterly
void. Those acts of Congress, in my judgment, were not more
clearly unconstitutional, or more dangerous to liberty, than this
act now under review. What can you do ? You can invoke its
repeal, and ask the government officials and the people in the
meantime, to let the question of constitutionality be submitted to
the courts, and both sides to abide by the decision.

Some seem to be of the opinion, that those who oppose this
act are for a counter-revolution. No such thing; I am for no coun
ter-revolution. The object is to keep the present one, great in its
aims and grand in its purposes, upon the right track — the one on
which it was started, and that on which alone it can attain noble
objects and majestic achievements. The surest way to prevent a
counter-revolution, is for the State to speak out and declare her
opinions upon this subject. For as certain as day succeeds
night, the people of this confederacy will never live long in peace
and quiet under any government with the principles of this act
settled as its established policy, and held to be in conformity
with the provisions of its fundamental law. The action of the
Virginia legislature in 1799, saved the old government, beyond
question, from a counter and a bloody revolution ; kept it on the
right track for sixty years afterward, in its unparelleled career
of growth, prosperity, development, progress, happiness, and
renown. All our present troubles, North and South, sprang
from violations of those great constitutional principles therein
set forth.

Let no one, therefore, be deterred from performing his duty
on this occasion by the cry of counter-revolution, nor by the cry
that it is the duty of all, in this hour of peril, to support the gov-

784 SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY.

ernment. Our government is composed of executive, legisla
tive and judicial departments, under the constitution. He most
truly and fathfully supports the government who supports and
defends the constitution. Be not misled by this cry, or that you
must not say any thing against the administration, or you will
injure the cause. This is the argument of the preacher, who
insisted that his derelictions should not be exposed, because if
they were, it would injure his usefulness as a minister. Derelict
ministers are not the cause. Listen to no such cry. And let no
one be influenced by that other cry, of the bad effect such discus
sions and such action will have upon our gallant citizen soldiers
in the field. I know something of the feeling of these men. I
have witnessed their hardships, their privations, and their dis
comforts in camp. I have witnessed and ministered to their
wants and sufferings from disease and wounds, in hospitals. I
know something of the sentiments that actuated the great majority
of them, when they quit home, with all its endearments, and
went out to this war — not as mercenaries or human machines, but
as intelligent, high-minded, noble-spirited gentlemen, who were
proud of their birthright as freemen, and " who knowing their
rights, "dared maintain them, at any and every cost and sacrifice.
The old Barons who extorted Magna Charta from their oppressor
and wrongdoer by a resort to arms, did not present a grander
spectacle for the admiration of the world when they went forth
to their work, thoroughly imbued with a sense of the right for
the right's sake, than this gallant band of patriots did when they
went forth to this war, inspired with no motive but a thorough
devotion to and ardent attachment for constitutional liberty. To
defend this and maintain it inviolate for themselves and those
who should come after them, was their sole object. Their ancient
rights, usages, institutions, and liberties were threatened by an
insolent foe, who had trampled the constitution of our common
ancestors under foot. They and we all had quit the Union, when
the rights of all of us were no longer respected under it, but we
had rescued the constitution — the ark of the covenant — and
this is what they went forth to defend. These were the senti
ments with which your armies were raised, as if by magic. These
are the sentiments with which re-enlistments for the war have
been made. These are the sentiments with which your ranks
would have been filled to the last man whose services can be
relied upon in action if conscription had never been resorted to.
You cannot, therefore, send these gallant defenders of consti
tutional liberty, a more cheering message than that, while they
are battling for their rights and the common rights of all in the
field, you are keeping sacred watch, and guard over the same in
the public councils. They will enter the fight with renewed
vigor, from the assurance that their toil, and sacrifice and blood
will not be in vain, but that when the strife is over and inde
pendence is acknowledged, it will not be a bare name, a shadow

SPEECH ON THE STATE OF THE CONFEDERACY. 785

and a mockery, but that with it they and their children after
them shall enjoy that liberty for which they now peril all.
Next to this, the most encouraging message you could send
them is, that while all feel that the brunt of the fight must be
borne by them, and the only sure hope of success is in the
prowess of their arms, yet every possible and honorable effort
will be made by the civil departments of the government to ter
minate the struggle by negotiation and adjustment upon the
principles for which they entered the contest.

Gentlemen, I have addressed you longer than I expected to
be able to do. My strength will not allow me to say more. I do
not know that I shall ever address you again, or see you again.
Great events have passed since, standing in this place, three
3^ears ago, I addressed your predecessors on a similar request,
upon the questions then immediately preceding our present
troubles. Many who were then with us have since passed away
— some in the ordinary course of life, while many of them have
fallen upon the battle-field, offering up their lives in the great
cause in wrhich we are engaged. Still greater events may be just
ahead of us. What fate or fortune awaits you or me, in the con
tingencies of the times, is unknown to us all. We may meet
again, or we may not. But as a parting remembrance, a lasting
memento, to be engraven on your memories and your hearts, I
warn you against that most insidious enemy which approaches
with her syren song, "Independence first and liberty afterward."
It is a fatal delusion. Libert}' is the animating spirit, the soul
of our system of government, and like the soul of man, when
once lost it is lost forever. There is for it, at least, no redemption,
except through blood. Never for a moment permit }7ourselves
to look upon liberty, that constitutional liberty which you
inherited as a birthright, as subordinate to independence. The
one was resorted to to secure the other. Let them ever be held
and cherished as objects co-ordinate, co-existent, co-equal, co-eval,
and forever inseparable. Let them stand together " through weal
and through woe," and if such be our fate, let them and us all
go down together in a common ruin. Without liberty, I would
not turn upon my heel for independence. I scorn all indepen
dence which does not secure liberty. I warn you also against
another fatal delusion, commonly dressed up in the fascinating
language of, "If we are to have a master, who would not prefer
to have a southern one to a northern one?" Use no such lan
guage. Countenance none such. Evil communications are as
corrupting in politics as in morals.

" Vice is a monster of such hideous mien,
That to be hated, needs but to be seen ;
But seen too oft', familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace."

I would not turn upon my heel to choose between masters.
50

786 LETTER TO HON. JAMES A. SEDDOtf.

I was not born to acknowledge a master from either the North or
South. I shall never choose between candidates for that office.
Shall never degrade the right of suffrage in such an election. I
have no wish or desire to live after the degradation of my coun
try, and have no intention to survive its liberties, if life be the
necessary sacrifice of their maintenance to the utmost of my
ability, to the bitter end. As for myself, give me liberty as
secured in the constitution with all its guaranties, amongst
which is the sovereignty of Georgia, or give me death. This is
my motto while living, and I want no better epitaph when I am
dead.

Senators and representatives ! the honor, the rights, the dignity,
the glory of Georgia, are in your hands ! See to it as faithful
sentinels upon the watchtower, that no harm or detriment come
to any of those high and sacred trusts, while committed to your
charge. (Immense cheers and applause.)

LETTER TO HON. JAMES A. SEDDON, SECRETARY

OF WAR.

CRAWFORD VILLE, GA., APRIL 29, 1864.
HON. JAMES A. SEDDON, Sec. of War.

DEAR SIR : Your letter of the 21st instant was received yester
day. In my letter of the 15th instant to Judge Campbell, I re
ferred in a postscript to the fact of an editor of this State having
exhibited an extract of one of my communications to you, etc.,
barely as an explanation of the tone and manner of my speaking
to him as I did on certain subjects in that letter, which without
the explanation might have appeared strange and singular to him.
The tone and manner alluded to were simply repeated assurances
that my sole object was the public good, however strong and
earnest the expressions used. I did express surprise at the edi
tor's having the extract referred to, but no indignation. I felt
none such. How the editor became possessed of that portion of
my communication I did not know, and I added most truthfully
that it was a matter of very little consequence to me. I saw, to
my mortification, that the editor had put an erroneous construc
tion upon my motives and feelings in using the words I did.*
I did not know but that others who had seen it, had put a like
construction upon them, and hence I guarded myself against any
such construction of my motives from any earnestness of expres-

[* Substance of extract referred to. — "This is my judgment. Consider
it for what it is worth. The day may come when it will be considered as
worth more than it is at present." — ED.]

LETTER TO HON. JAMES A. SEDDON. 787

eion in what I had said to Judge Campbell, and in explanation of
my reasons for thus guarding him referred to the fact mentioned.
The editor alluded to had exhibited (privately not published) the
extract referred to. He showed it as evidence of my " bitterness,
hostility and malignancy" (I quote his words) against the admin
istration. Entertaining no such feelings, or any thing kindred to
them, I did not wish Judge Campbell to draw any such inference
from an}^ thing I said to him upon the subjects I was writing to
him about, however strong or earnest my language might be.

I should certainty have written immediately and directly to you
upon the subject, if I had attached any great importance to the
matter, or had really felt any thing like indignation on account
of it. I am glad Judge Campbell informed you of what I said
to him on this point. From what you say I can now readily
account for the editor alluded to having the extract. It was doubt
less furnished by some of the subordinates in the bureau of con
scription to whom it was referred. You cannot possibly regret
more sincerely or profoundly my disagreement with members of
the administration upon some of the late measures of legisla
tion than I do myself. And nothing could have induced me to
take public position against them, but a sense of public duty
arising from a strong conviction of the mischievous ancl danger
ous tendency of those measures — founded as they were, in my
judgment, upon great and radical errors. But in this, as in all
differences amongst common friends in a great common cause,
I assure }^ou I was influenced by nothing except what I regarded
as the public good. I was not influenced in the slightest degree
by feelings of hostility or bitterness, to say nothing of malignancy,
toward a single mortal who disagreed with me.

And while I am writing to you thus frankly, I will take occa
sion to say that I see and hear almost daily of matters involving
the deepest interest that ought to be corrected. Such at least is
my judgment; and I give it to 3^011 for what it is worth. Some
of these I mentioned in my letter to Judge Campbell ; they
relate to the waste and misuse of the tithes. With my ideas of
this war, its probable duration and the manner in which it can
be successfully conducted on our side, I think the greatest dan
ger ahead of us, under the present policy, is the ultimate failure
of subsistence. War, in one view, is eminently a business affair
upon a large and magnificent scale ; and it requires eminently
business qualities to conduct it safely and successfully against
such disadvantages as we labor under. But with the advantages
we possess I have never doubted for a moment, but that we can
wage it successfully in our defence, just as long as our enemies
shall choose to prosecute it, if our resources of men and means
are properly and efficiently wielded. From the beginning I be
lieved it would very probably be ultimately a war for our subju
gation or extermination. This opinion I gave the Virginia con
vention in April, 1861, as will be seen by reference to my speech

788 LETTER TO HON. JAMES A. SEDDON.

before that bocty ; and from the beginning I was for husbanding
and wielding our resources with this view. No equal number of
people on the face of the globe ever had superior elements of
power, or internal resources for defence than we had. How the
great elements of cotton and tobacco, in a financial point of view,
were neglected against my early and earnest appeals, I need not
now say any thing — nor need I now say any thing of other like
errors as to other resources I could mention. These things are
past. We have now to deal with the present, looking to the fu
ture. Our finances now are a wreck. Past all hope, in my judg
ment. Just where I was fully convinced they would be, and so
stated repeatedly and sorrowfully two years' ago, when the first
Congress, under the permanent constitution, adjourned without
passing a tax act, or making any provision for the redemption of
the issues of treasury notes. To me the result seemed as certain
and as inevitable as other results seem now if our policy is not
changed.

To be brief and pointed, our present reliance for sustaining the
war, feeding the armies, is upon the substance of the country —
the agricultural productions and not the credit of the govern
ment. The tax in kind or tithe is the surest hope ; that is abun
dant, if it be properly and wisely managed. But under present
management so far from doing the good it ought it only increases
the evil. It is wasting the substance of the country without sup
plying the army as it ought to do entirely. The tithe ought to
iced the army without the expenditure of a dollar by way of pur
chase. This it is abundantly sufficient to do upon the most
moderate estimates; and, if it were not, then our cause, if the war
last two years longer, would be hopeless. For if one tenth of the
food produced in the country will not support or feed the armies,
how can nine tenths support or keep from want and starvation
the rest of the population ? I suppose the whole list of our ra
tion-drawers does not exceed six hundred thousand. The re
maining population cannot be less than seven or eight millions —
perhaps more. I have not the census before me, and speak in
general terms, being quite certain that my statements are within
bounds. Now if one tenth of the food of the land will not support
six hundred thousand men with the horses etc. they have, it is
manifest that the other nine tenths cannot support the remaining
seven or eight millions with the stock they must keep to pro
duce with. The government, therefore, or those administering
the government, should look to the tithe as the main hope and
only sure reliance for the support of the army. With these views
premised, I now come to the errors I spoke of. From what I see
and hear I am at this time of the opinion that what ought to have
supplied the army for twelve months will be exhausted in less
than six. I allude specially to the articles of corn and wheat.
In this county, small and poor as it is, thousands of bushels of
tithe corn, and great amount of forage, have been fed to poor

LETTER TO HON. JAMES A. SEDDOtf. 789

cattle, bought up in February and March for beef, while the tithe
pork and bacon was tmcolleeted through the country. Had this
been used now the grasses of summer would have fattened the
beef to be used then, without consuming the tithe forage for
the army. This is the matter I alluded to in my letter to Judge
Campbell. This, it is true, is a small matter, but what is being
done here is doubtless being done elsewhere. And since that
letter I have learned the fact, that five thousand bushels of
tithe corn just above me have been turned over to a party to
distil into whiskey, right on the railroad and within two da3^s
transportation, or three at the furthest, to Johnston's army. And
these five thousand bushels, I am informed, were turned over to
the distiller upon a contract, that for the five thousand bushels
of corn he was to deliver five thousand gallons of whiskey ! Out
of which the contractor may make not less than $125,000 in
our currency. One bushel of corn in winter, it is said, will make
two gallons of whiskey, and besides, it is said, that the slops from
stills will fatten as much pork as the corn would if fed to hogs in
its natural state. With this view the contract was worth even
more to the distiller. Now, I assure you, I think this radically
wrong. I refer to it with no spirit of captiousness, but for the
sole purpose of having such errors corrected. This contract is a
small affair compared with others on the same principle. It is to
all contracts on such principles I call your attention. In the first
place, the army can do better without whiskey than bread ; and, in
the next place, if we have corn enough to put any into whiskey,
it ought to be so used in sections remote from railroads. So with
all corn or forage fed to cattle or hogs to fatten them for beef
or pork for the army.

The provision crop last year was abundant for all our popula
tion for the present year, for the army and people at home, if it
be economically used. But I sincerely fear it will not be next
year. The policy of impressing provisions without paying mar
ket price will greatly lessen production of itself; this was the
case when there was confidence in the credit of the government.
But that confidence is now lost by reason of the late financial and
currency acts. I assure you it is lost. People may not be as
candid in telling you the truth as I am ; but the fact is so, and
wise men should act accordingly. I mean wise statesmen. The
government cannot afford to buy provisions at the market price in
treasury notes six months to come, with any expectation of ever
redeeming their issues dollar for dollar in specie ; and to continue
to issue them with this semblance of integrity of purpose, will but
result in greater mischief in the end. The tithe, therefore, should
be and should have been husbanded and guarded as gold; not a
grain of corn or blade of grass should have been wasted, or lost,
or misapplied.

Our production of provisions this year will be greatty lessened
from another cause. That is the general disarrangement of labor,

790 LETTER TO HON. H. V. JOHNSON.

and the management of large planting interests, as well as small,
under the last military act. The uncertainty of whether parties
could get what is called details, has caused many to make arrange
ments to suit themselves ; many have gone into the army rather
than be conscripted ; many plantations have been virtually aban
doned to the negroes, without any suitable superintendent ; many
persons still at home, under the uncertainty of getting details, are
failing to plant their usual crops. And the bare absence from
home at this season of the year, in going to and returning from
camp to present their papers and look after them, will tell upon
the crops even if they should ultimate!}7- be detailed. I speak of
what I see around me, and don't for a moment suppose I am say
ing this to you with any other view than to present a fact which
is important for you to know. What is the case here it is
reasonable to suppose is the case elsewhere. In my judgment
this organization of what is now called the reserve force is
almost a farce. It would be indeed a farce if it were not for
the serious consequences attending it. There will hardly be as
many ablebodied men sent to the army under its operation, as
there are useless drones and consumers engaged in it. As a
reserved corps, to be relied on in emergency, the State militia
organization would have been much more efficient, and the agri
cultural or other interests would not have been so much deranged
by relying on that. But enough of this ; I find that I am writing
much more than I intended when I first set out. What I have
said is with great freedom and frankness, and with a profound
sense of the great interest at stake. I trust you will receive it
for what it is worth simply as a matter of opinion and judgment,
and as from one friend to another conferring together upon ques
tions in which each feels a like interest.

I hope to be in Richmond soon, when I can personally confer
more at large upon these and kindred questions, if it be agreea
ble to you. I am at present detained on some business, con
nected with the public service. I hope to be able to leave in a
few days. My health is much better, though not yet restored to
its usual standard. With sentiments of the highest esteem, I
remain, Yours, most respectfully,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

LETTER TO HON. HERSCHEL V. JOHNSON, OF GA.

CRAWFORD VILLE, GEORGIA, 22 JUNE, 1864.

MY DEAR SIR : — In my letter of yesterday, long as it was, I
omitted some points that ought not to be overlooked in replying
to yours of the 30th ultimo. You will therefore excuse me, I
trust, for resuming the subject this morning.

The first of these omitted points, that now occurs to me, is what

LETTER TO HON. H. V. JOHNSON. 791

you say of the reason assigned by some, why Gov. Brown had
not sent on the resolutions passed by our legislature. Why he
had not sent them, I do not know. Perhaps he had, and some
miscarriage of the mail attended them. Perhaps he had not,
because he was not directed to send them. How this is, I do not
know. But if he has not sent them, I feel confident that his
motives in not doing so, or in withholding them, could not have
been such as you mention some had attributed to him. The
resolution expressing "undiminished confidence" in the President,
was, I think, not connected with either set of resolutions on
public affairs — either the habeas corpus or the peace resolutions.
It was a distinct and separate resolution. This is my remem
brance ; and, if I am right in it, he could have withheld that if he
chose, and sent on the others. But then, I do not think Gov.
Brown regarded either that resolution or the others in the light
in which, as you say, some are inclined to think he did. I judge him
by myself. I think I took as much interest in the passage of the
habeas corpus resolutions as anybody did or could ; and I assure
you much greater and higher objects by far occupied, filled, and
absorbed my mind, than the censure of the President. These
related to the welfare of millions living, and millions unborn —
transcendently beyond in importance the contracted considera
tion of the position or popularity of any man living or dead !
Would it not be humiliating, and almost degrading to human
nature, to suppose that Washington, in his ever-memorable
address to the army, in March, 1783 — the greatest speech I have
often thought, all things considered, that was ever made by man
(the speech he made in reply to the anonymous appeal that had
been made to the army, to take the redress of their Wrongs into
their own hands) — would it not, I say, be humiliating and almost
degrading to human nature to suppose, that in that noblest exhibi
tion of patriotism upon record, that Washington was influenced
by no higher object than to censure or put down the supposed
author of that appeal ? I do not claim for Gov. Brown, or myself,
the exalted position of Washington, but I give the illustration in
vindication of the honor and dignity of human nature, degraded
as it is, to show that upon great occasions it is possible for the
mind and soul to be elevated above the low and grovelling pas
sions, which the reason assigned for Gov. Brown's motives pre
supposes. And as I think it hardly probable that Armstrong (I
believe that was the name of the supposed author of the appeal)
entered the mind of Washington at that time, so I think it hardly
probable that Gov. Brown thought of President Davis in the
connection or with the view attributed to him. He of course did
not approve of President Davis' agency in the passage of the act,
or his sanction of it ; nor did I. This was a source of deep pain
and mortification to me, and I think it was to him. I was with
him a great deal. But the objects expressed by him, and certainly
entertained by me, were far higher than the bare expression of

792 LETTER TO HON. H. V. JOHNSON.

this disapprobation of the President's conduct. That was not
thought of by me further than as an argument, or the expression
of popular feeling upon a vital question affecting public rights, it
might cause him to review the subject, arid induce him to change
or modify his policy in reference to it. Even this incidental
effect was the source of no pleasure or gratification. It was, on
the contrary, disagreeable and painful. My opinion is that Gov.
Brown's feelings and views upon the subject were very similar
to my own. I believe, from all that I have seen of him, that he is
an ardent friend of the cause — the cause of constitutional liberty
— that his whole soul is in the contest with this object, and has
been from the beginning ; that his everjr effort and every act is
made and done with a view to secure its success ; that so far
from courting or seeking points of controversy with the head of
the confederate government, his earnest desire is and has been
to keep that government on that line of policy on which alone he
thinks success is attainable — success not in achieving indepen
dence only, but success in the maintenance of constitutional
liberty. He is as anxious, I believe, for harmony between the
action of the State and confederate governments as any man can
be, but for the sake of harmony he can never surrender principles,
which he thinks if surrendered will be attended with a loss of
great essential rights. When he finds himself differing from the
President, whether he be right or wrong in the points of differ
ence, justice to him requires it to be said, I think, that the cause
of difference is a source to him, not of gratification, but of the
deepest regret and pain. I know this is the case with myself,
and I believe it to be the same with him. Moreover, with regard
to that restitution which it has been supposed that Gov. Brown
had such opposition to — the one complimenting the President, or
expressing undiminished confidence in him — I will add, that it
was offered by one of the warmest advocates of the action of the
majority. It was shown to me by the mover before it was intro
duced. I had no objection to its passage by the legislature, and
I suppose that Gov. Brown had none ; especially as the object
stated for offering it was to rebut the charge that the majority
resolutions were intended as a mere censure of the President, and
got up with a view of raising a party in opposition to him. The
resolution passed without a dissenting vote. This is a history
of the matter. Others may think as they please ; I know my
objects, views, and feelings. They looked not to a reproof or
censure of the President, nor to the very small and almost con
temptible idea of raising a party in opposition to him and his
administration. They looked to far higher, greater, nobler pur
poses, not unaccompanied with an ardent and, I will add, a patri
otic desire to direct and guide the President and his administra
tion to these ends and results.

Another point in your letter of the 30th ultimo, omitted by
me yesterday, was the probable extension of the habeas corpus

LETTER TO HON. H. V. JOHNSON". 793

suspension to the end of the next session of Congress, and
probably to the end of the war. This you attribute to the tone
of expression on that measure in Georgia and North Carolina.
Its harshness, in your opinion, I judge from your manner of
speaking of it, tended to exasperate the advocates of the
measure, and had rendered them " more tenacious," etc. Now
allow me to say to you in all frankness, candor, and sincerity,
as I always write or speak to you on all subjects and on all occa
sions, that I think you are entirely mistaken in your views of the
cause and effect in this matter. I was not at all surprised at
Vhat you stated the prospect of the question to be, but I differ
entirely as to the effect of the tone of expression in Georgia and
North Carolina, and Mississippi may also be added. I looked
upon the act at first as only an entering wedge. Power is ever
insidious in its encroachments, or at least is usually so. Give it
an inch and an ell is soon taken. Various attempts had been
made to get some such policy fixed upon the country ; all had
failed of perfect success. This was started and had been
adopted under far more favorable auspices than any of its pre
decessors. It was, therefore, by far the more dangerous. When
error once gets foothold, it seldom ever voluntarily abandons its
advantage. Power, however insidious in its approaches, is ever
insolent in a position once gained. The only sure way to meet
it successfully, is with a bold, unyielding defiance at the begin
ning. Whoever trifles with it or dallies with it at first, is certain
to become its victim in the end. This was my view of this
matter when I first heard of the passage of this most monstrous
act. The only sure hope of preventing its principles from
becoming fixed upon the country, was such an immediate,
prompt, bold, and harsh, if you please, expression of popular
indignation and reprobation of it as to cause, if possible, its im
mediate abandonment. It was no time for soft words or tem
porizing. Usurpation never did and never will yield to gentle
suasion. Power never let go its grasp, and never will upon mild
entreaty. I speak to you eternal truths in all soberness. In
this instance, had the Georgia delegation in Congress, and the
delegations from Mississippi and North Carolina, uttered the
same stern sentiments in the same stern language which their
State legislatures used, and which the great body of the people
everywhere felt, this monster evil — this escaped demon from the
perdition of other regions — might have been expelled and driven
from our Eden ! I say it might have been. That was the only
sure way of its ever being done. How it may now result, time
must disclose. I had but little hope, when this measure first
passed, that we should ever again have constitutional liberty
upon this continent. This you well know. The measure, as
passed, was somewhat different from what I had supposed it to
be upon the first intelligence of it. This difference afforded me
grounds of stronger hopes for arresting its progress — for pre-

794: LETTER TO HON. H. V. JOHNSON.

venting the consummation of its mischiefs. These hopes, in turn,
were soon greatly weakened by seeing the opponents of the
measure yielding their position, and coming to terms with its ad
vocates. From that day to this I have had but little hope. I
was not at all surprised, therefore, at what you said was the
prospect before us on this question ; still while I live and
breathe I shall do, and continue to do, what I can to preserve
the liberties of the people from overthrow and ruin. I have
nothing to do with the motives of men ; I wish this distinctly
understood, not only for once, but always. I arraign no one,
and pronounce judgment upon no one. I speak of things, acts,
and measures, and their inevitable tendency. My deliberate
opinion is, that very few men understand, know, or appreciate
the nature of their acts, the character or tendency of them.
Men, at best, are but grown up children. In legislatures, or
other deliberate bodies, they generally act in masses ; the indi
vidual is merged in the multitude ; he exercises very little of
his own private judgment. This is the general rule with a large
majority according to my experience and observation. To
assign bad motives to such, would be as cruel, as unjust. I
have no disposition to do it. As well might one poor wretch be
held responsible for the sins of society. But this cannot pre
vent or modify my judgment of the acts of the aggregate mass,
the great sins of the whole, or the ruinous tendency of them. My
experience has also taught me that men hardly ever understand
themselves. The wisest uninspired maxim that ever was uttered,
I think is this : " Know thyself." Millions have repeated it, and
other millions still repeat it, without the slightest comprehension
of its import ; hence it not unfrequently happens, when the
nature or tendency of one's acts are stated to him, he flares up
in a passion and in a rage, because he thinks his motives have
been impugned. " Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this
thing?" exclaimed Hazsel, on such an occasion. Now I wish to
be understood, as giving it as my deliberate opinion, that,
Hazsel was perfectly honest and sincere in the passion and indig
nation he expressed. The difficulty or error with him was, he did
not know himself. Hazsel was a representative man. As I
really do not believe he was actuated by bad motives at the time
the prophet was speaking to him, so I am willing to admit that
every one who disagrees with me upon these questions may be
equally free from bad motives ; hence I assign none ; charge none.
But that Hazael did as he did, is history ; that thousands of
others under like circumstances have done as he did, is history,
too ; and that others still under like temptation will hereafter do
what they may now think they would sooner become a dog than
do, will not only probably, but almost certainly be history also.
Power is corrupting. It fascinates, intoxicates, turns the brain,
and changes the nature of man ; it transforms those who touch
and handle it. Such is its unvarying tendency. This is an

LETTER TO HON. H. V. JOHNSON. 795

eternal truth, and no wise man or people will ever disregard it.
People are never in so much danger as they are when unlimited
power is in the hands of those in whom they perfectly confide.
Personalities, therefore, with me, are out of the question on these
great subjects. They dwindle into insignificance; and I assure
you, I almost weep for the weakness, frailty, and short-sighted
ness of my fellow-beings, when I see and hear such motives or
feelings attributed to me.

But I must again stop. This letter is becoming itself long,
almost as long as the one of yesterday. I fear I shall bore you.
I do not wish or intend to do so. What I write is, of course, for
yourself only, not for the public. I do not put any injunction
upon you in reference to it, however, further than the dictates of
your own judgment and discretion ma}r suggest — only one request
I will make, and that is, that you will preserve what I have
written that you may review it at a future day. Neither my sen
timents nor my acts, on the matters under consideration, are the
result of impulse or passion. I am perfectly willing that they
may be laid away and turned to hereafter, in condemnation or
vindication of the impropriety or wisdom of my present course,
or, at least, in condemnation or vindication of my memory : for
I do not feel as if my days on this earth are many. The time
that I shall be further perplexed with its scenes, strifes, cares,
and anxieties, is, and must be short, at best. This reflection
brings but little regret to me. What of future in this existence
is left for me is without any personal aspiration for myself, and
with very little hope for others, so far as concerns the present
prospect of good government in any part of this once happy and
prosperous country. Life, therefore, has but few attractions for
me. While I have been here I have with free will and of my own
accord labored, I think, more for the benefit of others than I have
for myself, which is more than many mortals I ever knew could
say of themselves. It ma}^ be presumption in me to say it of
myself, but I nevertheless do say it, believing it to be true. The
consciousness that it is the truth affords me more consolation and
gratification than all the honors that it is in the power of man to
bestow, could possibly impart. But enough. Adieu. Let me
hear from you when you have leisure.

Yours, truly,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

HON. HERSCHEL V. JOHNSON, SANDY GROVE, Ga,

796 LETTER TO HON. ALEXANDER J. MARSHALL.

LETTER TO HON. ALEXANDER J. MARSHALL,
RICHMOND, YA.

CRAWTORDVILLE, GA., 4th Nov., 1864.
HON. ALEXANDER J. MARSHALL, RICHMOND, VA.

MY DEAR SIR: — Your kind letter of the 1st instant was re
ceived yesterday. The other package referred to in it came by
the same mail. I have read both with serious attention and pro
found interest. The defects of the old constitution, and the
causes of disunion, are now more properly fit subjects for the
speculative philosophy of the historian, than the practical objects
of inquiry on the part of the living actors who have to deal with
facts as they find them, and make the best of them as they arise.
Wise men will, however, study the past as closely as they watch
the present and guard the future. With this view your reflec
tions are not only entertaining but useful.
* # # * * *

Secession, with us, I regarded as one of those moral or political
epidemics to which States and communities are often subject —
like other epidemics of a physical character to which humanity
in general is subject. It was both infectious and contagious,
baffling all skill and defying all treatment. Logically speaking,
there was but one real and substantial cause for it. That was the
open, palpable, and avowed breach of the compact of 178*7, by a
number of the States at the North in the matter of rendition of
fugitives from service. A compact broken by one party to it is
broken as to all. This is a universal rule of law amongst all
people, civilized or savage. The old Union was, therefore, vir
tually broken by those faithless States at the North. Other irri
tating causes and apprehended dangers contributed to the con
summation of the result at the South. But for this cause by
itself, the seceding States will ever be justified in what they did
by an impartial and enlightened world. The wisdom or policy
of their course looking to their own interest is not now the ques
tion. That was a matter for them to determine for themselves
in view of all the consequences attending it. What they did
they had a perfect right, moral as well as civil, to do. Statec,
however, are not bound even by honor to resort to the " ultima
ratio regum," or that which may involve it, for every cause that
would fully justify them in doing it. The redress of grievances
of this sort may often most wisely be postponed and other
methods adopted to secure their removal. Such was my view of
our case as you may, perhaps, know, in the fall of 1860. The old
Union was founded upon a compact between sovereign and inde
pendent States. This compact was based upon the idea or
assumption that it was for the best interests of all to be united
upon its terms, each performing and discharging faithfully to all

LETTER TO HON. ALEXANDER J. MARSHALL. 797

the rest the obligations imposed by it. That assumption, in my
judgment, was sound and correct. I was, therefore, not with
out hopes that by our adopting a different course the offending
States at the North might be brought to a reconsideration of
their action. Whether that view was correct can never be cer
tainly known. A different line of policy was adopted. By that
we must abide and bring it to the best results possible. If the
assumption upon which the old Union was originally based was
correct, of course there could not, logically, as you say, be any
objection to its ultimate restoration, if all parties could be
brought to a faithful discharge of their obligations under it.
But, my dear sir, the actions of men in the aggregate, of commu
nities, states or nations, are seldom governed or controlled by
logic. If they had been, many of the bloody wars which fill the
history of our race never would have occurred. What was more
illogical than the influences that produced the crusades for the
recovery of the Holy Sepulchre, or the passions that incited
deadly strife on so man}' fields of carnage upon such a question as
the real presence ? Man is certainly a strange creature, and both
" fearfully and wonderfully made."

Governments, philosophically considered, are but the outward
coverings, the skins or shells of society, or political organisms
thrown out or developed by a natural process for the protection of
the inner life, according to the laws of its being. Hence the consti
tutions of States must grow — the}7 can never be made — they must
spring from natural development. What is to be the future of
this country time must disclose upon this principle. For dead
governments or defunct empires there is no resurrection. After
dissolution their elements may come up in some other living
form ; not upon the principle, however, of reconstruction, but
upon that of new assimilation. Without busying ourselves much
about the future, or making efforts to shape its destinies, the
great object at present of every well-wisher to his country should
be to direct all energies, moral, intellectual, and physical, to the
vindication and establishment of the principle for which the war
now upon us is waged on our part — that is the ultimate absolute
sovereignty of the several States. This principle once recognized,
permanently fixed and adhered to, affords the surest grounds for
the hope of a lasting peace. This, and this only, so far as I can
see, will prove the self-adjusting principle, the perfect regulator
in the working of our present or an}r new system of association
of States that may arise. With this principle settled the future
may well be left to take care of itself. Mutual safety, security,
protection, and interest are the natural affinities that draw people
or States into alliances and confederations. When these natural
laws are left perfectly free in their operation, they never fail to
produce their legitimate results — the peace, prosperity, and hap
piness of the people in whatever associations or alliances they
may arrange themselves. After the long struggle of the first war

798 LETTER TO HON. ALEXANDER J. MARSHALL.

of independence, both parties came to the conclusion that
" reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience are found by
experience to be the only permanent foundation for peace and
friendship between States."

This great truth, found after the most painful analysis of years
in the crucible of blood, was set forth in the preamble of the pro
visional treaty of peace. It is for the statesman a far more use
ful truth than was ever th,e fancied philosopher's stone for the
alchymist. Had it been recognized and acted upon this war
with its horrors, its cruelties, sufferings, and desolation never
would have occurred. To illustrate : — If, after the secession of
the southern States, clearly justified by the breach of faith on
the part of their northern confederates, the latter States had dis
covered, as they seem to have done, that the Union was of so
much benefit to them, they would have looked to its restoration
not by force but by a correction of their own error — by renewed
assurance of good faith in the future. If, after that, the seceded
States had found it to their benefit and advantage, all things
duly considered, to be in union on the original terms, with good
faith maintained by all, they would, as naturally as every thing
in the material world obeys the law of affinity, have adjusted
themselves accordingly. If they had not so found it to be their
interest to renew that confederation, they would have remained
separate and independent, as they ought to have done. For
safety, security, and self-preservation is the first law of nature
with States as well as with individuals. In the latter event,
whatever treaties or leagues the reciprocal advantages and
mutual convenience of both or each and all required, would have
been entered into and nothing more. There would have been no
\var — no force — but each and all would have moved on peacefully
and prosperously in their own rightful spheres. The surest way
to preserve the health and vigor of the physical body, is strictly
to conform to the laws of its existence. The same is true of
States or governments. A fundamental principle in the old
Union and constitution, one of the laws of its existence, was the
reserved sovereignty of the several States.

The right to resume the exercise of all powers delegated when
safety required it, was declared by Virginia in her act of ratifica
tion. The Union was one eminently of consent. An attempt
to continue it by force, violates the law of its existence. As
paradoxal as it appears to many, yet it is nevertheless true, that
the doctrine of the reserved sovereignty of the State, under the
old constitution, carrying with it the perfect right on the part of
any State to secede at pleasure, subject to no control but moral
obligation, was the strongest Union doctine consistent with the
preservation of liberty ever proclaimed. * * * * * *
Governments to be strong must indeed be held together in its
parts by force. The universe is held together by force, b^y the
strongest of all forces, by Omnipotence itself; yet the power that

LETTER TO HON. ALEXANDER J. MARSHALL. 799

controls its every part, preserving forever one indissoluble whole,
is nothing but the simple law of attraction. This is the force
that should be looked to in binding States indissolubly. This is
the force that gives governments irresistable strength in the
union of all their parts. *

Under its operations, (whether our present organization shall
remain, or whether new ones shall take their places in whole or in
part, as exigencies may arise and the interests and the affinities
of the parties may determine, in the process of future assimila
tion,) I can but hope that the States, both South and North, will
enter upon a new career of development, prosperity, and greatness,
exciting increased wonder in the old world by grander achieve
ments hereafter to be made, than any heretofore attained under the
true workings of the principles of our American institutions of
self-government. But I cannot continue this theme. I must stop.

You ask my criticism on your views, as to certain amend
ments of the old constitution, and certain defects in it, which
caused the present alienation and disruption of the States. My
opinion, as to the origin and cause of these troubles, is that
it existed more with the people than with the government ; or
rather it may more properly be assigned to the prejudices and
passions of the people, excited, aroused, and inflamed by un
principled, ambitious, and selfish demagogues, North and South,
than to any radical defect in the constitution. The ship was
strong enough, large enough, safe enough ; the real difficulty was
with the crew, or those of the crew who strove amongst themselves
for some share in the guidance and control of the noble, stately
old craft. Of course she was not perfect in all her parts, as
nothing from human hands ever was or ever will be ; still, in my
judgment, there was in the old constitution no inherent radical
defect. As expounded by Jefferson and the States rights men in
the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1198 and 1799, it was
intended to, and did, in deed and in truth, establish the " best
government on earth." This is my deliberate judgment. So far
as our troubles in their origin can be traced to the constitution, I
think, without doubt, they are attributed to the consolidating
tendency with which it was administered. It was the centralizing
idea that carried protection into the halls of Congress ; then in
ternal improvements ; and lastly, satan-like, the slavery question.

This, after being agitated there until the popular mind was
greatly excited, was carried back to the northern States by their
demagogues, and made the test of party organizations. In this
way those States at the North, before alluded to, were brought to
their open breach of faith under the constitution, and to their vir
tual disruption of the Union under the compact. But for the cen
tralizing, consolidating ideas under which the constitution was
administered, (not as it was made and intended to operate by the
States which formed it,) these disturbing questions would never
have been entertained by Congress. But for getting seats iu

800 LETTER TO HON. ALEXANDER J. MARSHALL.

Congress on this hobby, there would have been no such parties
formed at the North ; and no such breach of faith would ever have
been committed, nor would any of the other evils and excitements
growing out of the slavery question, Avhich so agitated the public
mind North and South, and which did so much in the hands of
demagogues in both sections, in producing the actual and final
rupture, ever have occurred. In this view our present troubles
may be mainly attributed to this tendency in the administration
of the government to centralism and consolidation. That clause
in the constitution, to which you refer, did work injuriously to the
South : but that (I speak of the whole clause) was one of the
compromises of the constitution. The southern States yielded
that to the North in consideration of some concession, (which
one 1 forget now,) made by them upon the subject of slavery.
That whole clause, giving Congress power to regulate commerce,
was the source of more injury to southern interests than every
thing else together. This clause authorized the navigation acts
under the operation of which southern importations, and their
direct trade from abroad, were crippled, and soon amounted to
little or nothing. The financial system adopted, centralizing the
capital of the funded public debt at the North, in combination
with the navigation laws, completely revolutionized commerce, or
at least changed its channels and marts in the States. Charleston,
before the constitution was formed, was not much, if in any degree,
inferior in trade and commerce to Boston or New York. I do
not recollect the statistics exactty, but all southern ports lost
largely in their trade by the operation of these navigation acts.
This principle was not well understood by our people ; much
that was attributed to the tariff, and other imaginary causes, was
due to this. The monied capital was at the North ; the ship
ping was owned at the North. The whole coast trade was
secured to American bottoms. No foreign vessel was allowed
to break, bulk, or unload parts of her cargo in different ports.
Hence nearly all importations in foreign bottoms were thrown
into New York, Boston, or Philadelphia. These became the great
marts. A ship from Liverpool coming for cotton, rice, or tobacco,
would first leave her cargo of imports at New York, thence sail
in ballast to Savannah, Charleston, or Norfolk for her return
cargo. Northern shipping, then, under the monopoly secured by
the navigation laws, distributed the assorted cargoes accumulated
in the great marts as the demands in other ports required. South
ern cities thus became nothing but tributaries and dependencies
upon those of the North. The latter grew and prospered, while
the former remained stationary or declined. This is but a glance
at the system. All growing out of that clause of the constitution
agreed to on compromise as stated.

But these navigation laws might have been revised and amend
ed, so as to break down this monopoly of New England ship
ping, if the southern members of Congress had united with those

LETTER TO HOX. ALEXANDER J. MARSHALL. 801

of the west upon the question, and exerted half the efforts they
wasted upon many very trifling subjects. I am not prepared to
say what would be the practical workings of the system, with the
omission in this clause of the words " between the States." I
should have to think about it and study it more than I now have
time to do, before arriving at any opinion satisfactory even to
myself upon it. I am so much of a States rights man, however,
by nature; my first impulse is strongly in favor of the opinion that
it would have been better to leave that matter to the States. Had
the States retained that power under the old S37stem, we might
perhaps under it have been enabled to bring the covenant breakers
to a reconsideration of their acts of bad faith, in the matter be
fore alluded to, without resorting to secession. This power, re
tained by States thus confederated, might be an important and
useful check in bringing delinquent members up to the full dis
charge of their duties and obligations under the compact. Still
I could not venture a positive opinion one way or the other, with
out more reflection. I should, however, never favor its exercise,
simply with a view to the protection of any of the mechanic arts
or industrial pursuits. That whole theory, in my judgment, is
radically wrong.

I agree with you entirely about parties and party organizations.
They are the curse and bane of republics. They can exist no
where else. They are generally considered, to some extent, the
life of free institutions ; at least they seern to be so to the casual
observer ; and yet they have never failed to be the cause of their
ultimate overthrow. This is somewhat paradoxical. Perhaps they
are not what they even seem to some extent to be — the life of free
institutions. This, I think, is the truth ; and a little analysis will
show it. Free thought, free speech, and free discussion, are the
life as well as soul of free institutions. Parties generally spring
from these, and necessarily, under our present modes of deciding
questions. They never arise, however, except when questions are to
be decided by a count of votes. The freest and most enlightened dis
cussion may exist, and progress without any party organization,
until arrangements are made for marshalling the forces for a deci
sion of the question. How then can the bad effects of this marshal
ling of the forces (which soon becomes so corrupt) be best guarded
against, or prevented consistently with the progress of thought,
interests, and welfare of societ}^ I have thought of it a good deal
recently. To my mind the remedy is now clear. It lies in a modifi
cation of the bare plurality principle, in the decision of all questions
affecting the general interest of society. A larger portion than a
bare half of these, who are to decide all such questions, should be
required to be consentient to any decision before it is binding upon
the whole. The jury trial, which has worked so well for centuries in
England, and with us, requires unanimity to give validity to the
verdict. This principle might, with great profit, be carried also to the
halls o :' legislation and the forums of election. I will not undertake
51

802 LETTER TO HON. ALEXANDER J. MARSHALL.

to say to what extent, above plurality, and short of unanimity, it
could be properly carried in either. But in a resort to this prin
ciple, lies the surest guarantees against corrupt party organiza
tions in a republic. One of the most erroneous ideas generally
entertained is, that a majority barely should govern, and that
any measure is right which secures the greatest good to the
greatest number. This dogma, or these dogmas, are both funda
mentally wrong. That society, or the body politic, should gov
ern itself, is true. This, however, does not imply that a bare
plurality should govern all the rest. If this were so, no consti
tutional barriers or checks would ever be proper. The objects to
be aimed at in providing a proper system for society to govern
itself justly, so as that the rights of each shall be secured and the
common interests of all promoted, should be to require, as far as
practicable, the consentient will of the whole, expressed through
its proper channels, to give validity and sanction to any meas
ure affecting the general interests or welfare of all.

No doctrine or principle is more unjust or pernicious than
that " of the greatest good to the greatest number." The true
rule is the greatest good to all, to each and every one, without
injury to any. ]STo one hundred men on earth have the moral
right to govern any other ninety-nine men or, less number, and
to make the interests of the ninety-nine, or less number, subser
vient to the interests of the hundred, because thereby the greatest
good to the greatest number will be promoted. Some persons
on this view (not understanding it properly) attack our institu
tions of the subordination of the inferior race amongst us, while
others defend that system upon the principle of the greatest good
to the greatest number, which I am combatting. Both these
classes of persons are wrong. If slavery with us rested upon this
principle, which these advocates advance, it would be wrong, and
ought to be abolished, while the position assumed by me above is
perfectly consistent with that institution. The solution is this :
The negroes amongst us, it is true, form component elements in
society. But subordination from natural inferiority is their normal
condition. This does not imply, however, that they have no rights
or interests that society in its government of all its members should
look after. Our institutions logically rest upon the assumption,
which I think demonstrably correct, that their present relation to
the white race, when properly regulated by law, is best for both par
ties. One thing is certain, if it is not best for both, or cannot be
made best for both in view of the physical, moral, and intellectual
development and advancement of both, by proper regulations to be
adopted by society in its government of the whole, then the insti
tution is wrong in principle, and ought to be abandoned. The
fact is, that the relation properly regulated by law is the best for
both in every view of the question in my judgment.

T ;is digression you will pardon. I was drawn into it only
for llustration. Society in its government should look not

• LETTER TO HON. ALEXANDER J. MARSHALL. 803

to the greatest good to the greatest number, but to the great
est attainable good to all without injury or detriment to any.
This should be the universal rule. The best way to secure its
practical application in republics or popular governments, in my
opinion, is to make approaches toward the unanimity principle,
at least in legislation. How nearly perfect unanimity should be
required, or what proportion of the votes in legislative bodies
should be required to pass any law, I am not prepared to say.
While great mischiefs grow out of the bare majority principle as
our own, as well as the history of many other countries shows, very
little danger need be apprehended from such modification of it
as I speak of — not even if it should be extended to a requisition
of perfect unanimity. All proper laws are steps in progress by
society. Society can much more safely stand still awhile as a
general rule, than to venture a step without a full and clear con
viction that it is in the right direction. No truth is better
established than that "the world is governed too much." No
new law ought ever to be passed until the wants and needs
of society as a whole in its progress requires it. All checks
upon legislation looking to this end are not only proper, but
eminently wise. With free speech, free discussion, and a free
press, the power of truth, amongst an enlightened people, would
not be long in bringing the general opinion of the whole body of
legislators to a proper and just appreciation of any new measure
or proposed advanced step in progress — quite soon enough for
that prudent, safe, and stately step, that all governments should
be careful to make. Many, I am fully aware, would be disposed
to consider these views utterly impracticable, if not chimerical ;
such persons are but superficial observers. They do not under
stand the true philosophy of government. It is a lamentable
fact, that there has been less improvement in the progress of
civilization from the lights of experience in the science of gov
ernment, than in any other branch of human knowledge. I have
not time now to enlarge upon those views, or to fortify the posi
tions taken. I will simply add, that those who doubt the efficient
practical working of such new checks upon legislation in our sys
tems, as I suggest, would do well to study the annals of Poland
and the kingdom of Arragon. Mr. Calhoun, in his matchless
treatise upon government, has clearly shown the admirable work
ings of the unanimity principle, even in the election of their chief
magistrate in the former of these countries for centuries. While
in Arragon, to which he does not refer, history teaches that for
several hundred years the Cortes, the legislative body of the king
dom, could pass no law or elect a ruler without the vote of every
member in each house. The system worked well with them.
Under that system, Ferdinand with Isabella reigned. Under
that system, Spain reached a higher degree of civilization than
any of her neighboring States. She took the lead of all Europe —
and under her liberal and enlightened auspices the new western

804 ADDRESS BEFORE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE/

world was discovered. Let no one hastily or rashly condemn
even the unanimity principle in view of this actual practical ex
periment as to its workings, and working well for ages. Indeed,
the liberties of Arragon wrere never lost until the ambitious
Charles V. by corrupt means procured the abandonment of this
principle in the Cortes. Under it, there can be no such thing as
party or party organization. All must agree ; all must be of the
same way of thinking; all must be of the same party before any
thing can be done. Without saying more on the subject, I submit
these thoughts to you as the key to the surest prevention of par
ties in Republics. * * * * This letter is already much too
long. I have been interrupted several times since its commence
ment. It is not, therefore, so connected as it otherwise might
have been. I trust, however, that as long and as disjointed as
it is, you will not feel bored by its perusal; if, indeed, you shall
be able to decipher my hieroglyphics. I hope to be in Richmond
before long, when I should like to talk over these and other
matters. My health is quite feeble, though it is much better
than it was last fall and winter.

Yours, most respectfully,

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

ADDRESS BEFORE THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
THE STATE OF GEORGIA, FEBRUARY 22, 1866.

Gentlemen of the Senate and House of Representatives :

I appear before you in answer to your call. This call, coming
in the imposing form it does, and under the circumstances it does,
requires a response from me. You have assigned to me a very
high, a very honorable and responsible position. This position
you know I did not seek. Most willingly would I have avoided
it ; and nothing but an extraordinary sense of duty could have
induced me to yield my own disinclinations and aversions to your
wishes and judgment in the matter. For this unusual manifesta
tion of esteem and confidence, I return you my prt)foundest
acknowledgments of gratitude. Of one thing only can I give you
any assurance, and that is, if I shall be permitted to discharge the
trusts thereby imposed, they will be discharged with a singleness
of purpose to the public good.

The great object with me now, is to see a restoration, if possible,
of peace, prosperity, and constitutional liberty in this once happ}^
but now disturbed, agitated, and distracted country. To this end,
all my energies and efforts, to the extent of their powrers, will be
devoted.

Yon a^k my views on the existing state of affairs ; our duties

ADDRESS BEFORE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE. 805

at the present, and the prospects of the future ? This is a task
from which, under other circumstances, I might very well shrink.
He who ventures to speak, and to give counsel and advice in times
of peril, or disaster, assumes no enviable position. Far be that
rashness from me which sometimes prompts the forward to rush
in where angels might fear to tread. In responding, therefore,
briefly to your inquiries, I feel, I trust, the full weight and mag
nitude of the subject. It involves the welfare of millions now liv
ing, and that of many more millions who are to come after us. I
am also fully impressed with the consciousness of the inconceiva
bly small effect of what I shall say upon the momentous results
involved in the subject itself.

It is with these feelings I offer my mite of counsel at your re
quest. And in the outset of the undertaking, limited as it is in
tended to be to a few general ideas only, well may I imitate an
illustrious example in invoking aid from on high; ''that I may
say nothing on this occasion which may compromit the rights,
the honor, the dignity, or best interests of my country." I mean
specially the rights, h'onor, dignity, and best interests of the peo
ple of Georgia. With their sufferings, their losses, their misfor
tunes, their bereavements, and their present utter prostration, my
heart is in deepest sympathy.

We have reached that point in our affairs at which the great
question before us is — "To be or not to be?" — and if to be —
How ? Hope, ever springing in the human breast, prompts, even
under the greatest calamities and adversities, never to despair.
Adversit}r is a severe school, a terrible crucible ; both for individ
uals and communities. We are now in this school, this crucible,
and should bear in mind that it is never negative in its action. It
is always positive. It is ever decided in its effects, one way or
the other. It either makes better or worse. It either brings out
unknown vices, or arouses dormant virtues. In morals ; its ten
dency is to make saints or reprobates — in politics to make heroes
or desperadoes. The first indication of its working for good, to
which hope looks anxiously, is the manifestation of a full con
sciousness of its nature and extent ; and the most promising grounds
of hope for possible good from our present troubles, or of things
with us getting better instead of worse, is the evident general re
alization, on the part of our people, of their present situation :
of the evils now upon them, and of the greater ones still impend
ing. These it is not my purpose to exaggerate if I could ; that
would be useless ; nor to lessen or extenuate ; that would be worse
than useless. All fully understand and realize them. They feel
them. It is well they do.

Can these evils upon us — the absence of law ; the want of pro
tection and security of person and property, without which civil
ization cannot advance — be removed ? or can those greater ones
which threaten our very political existence, be averted ? These
are the questions.

806 ADDRESS BEFORE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE.

It is true we have not the control of all the remedies, even if
these questions could be satisfactorily answered. Our fortunes
and destiny are not entirely in our own hands. Yet there are
some things that we may, and can, and ought, in my judgment, to
do, from which no harm can come, and from which some good
may follow, in bettering our present condition. States and com
munities, as well as individuals, when they have done the best
they can in view of surrounding circumstances, with all the lights
they have before them — let results be what they may — can at
least enjoy the consolation — no small recompense that — of having
performed their duty, and of having a conscience void of offence
before God and man. This, if no more valuable result, will, I
trust, attend the doing of what I propose.

The first great duty, then, I would enjoin at this time, is the ex
ercise of the simple, though difficult and trying, but nevertheless
indispensable quality of patience. Patience requires of those
afflicted to bear and to suffer with fortitude whatever ills may be
fall them. This is often, and especially is it the case with us now,
essential for their ultimate removal by any instrumentalities what
ever. We are in the condition of a man with a dislocated limb,
or a broken leg, and a very bad compound fracture at that. How
it became broken should not be with him a question of so much
importance, as how it can be restored to health, vigor, and strength.
This requires of him, as the highest duty to himself, to wait qui
etly and patiently in splints and bandages, until nature resumes
her active powers — until the vital functions perform their office.
The knitting of the bones and the granulation of the flesh require
time ; perfect quiet and repose, even under the severest pain, is
necessary. It will not do to make too great haste to get well ;
an attempt to walk too soon will only make the matter worse.
We must or ought now, therefore, in a similar manner to disci
pline ourselves to the same or like degree of patience. I know
the anxiety and restlessness of the popular mind to be fully on
our feet again — to walk abroad as we once did— -to enjoy once
more the free outdoor air of heaven, with the perfect use of all
our limbs. I know how trying it is to be denied representation
in Congress, while we are paying our proportion of the taxes —
how anno37ing it is to be even partially under military rule — and
how injurious it is to the general interest and business of the
country to be without post-offices and mail communications ; to
say nothing of divers other matters on the long list of our present
inconveniences and privations. All these, however, we must pa
tiently bear and endure for a season. With quiet and repose we
may get well — may get once more on our feet again. One thing-
is certain, that bad humor, ill-temper, exhibited either in restless
ness or grumbling, will not hasten it.

Next to this, another great duty we owe to ourselves is the ex
ercise of a liberal spirit of forbearance amongst ourselves.

The firiV: step toward local or general harmony, is the banish-

ADDRESS BEFORE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE. 807

ment from our breasts of every feeling and sentiment calculated
to stir the discords of the past. Nothing could be more injurious
or mischievous to the future of this country, than the agitation, at
present, of questions that divided the people anterior to, or dur
ing the existence of the late war. On no occasion, and especially
in the bestowment of office, ought such differences of opinion in
the past ever to be mentioned, either for or against any one, oth
erwise equally entitled to confidence. These ideas or sentiments
of other times and circumstances are not the germs from which
hopeful organizations can now arise. Let all differences of opinion,
touching errors, or supposed errors, of the head or heart, on the
part of any, in the past, growing out of these matters, be at once,
in the deep ocean of oblivion forever buried. Let there be no
criminations or recriminations on account of acts of other days.
No canvassing of past conduct or motives. Great disasters are
upon us and upon the whole country, and without inquiring how
these originated, or at whose door the fault should be laid, let us
now as common sharers of common misfortunes, on all occasions,
consult only as to the best means, under the circumstances as we
find them, to secure the best ends toward future amelioration.
Good government is what we want. This should be the leading-
desire and the controlling object with all ; and I need not assure
you, if this can be obtained, that our desolated fields, our towns
and villages, and cities now in ruins, will soon — like the Phoenix —
rise again from their ashes ; and all our waste places will again^
at no distant day, blossom as the rose.

This view should also be borne in mind, that whatever differ
ences of opinion existed before the late fury of the war, they
sprung mainly from differences as to the best means to be used,
and the best line of policy to be pursued, to secure the great con
trolling object of all — which was GOOD GOVERNMENT. Whatever
may be said of the loyalty or disloyalty of any, in the late most
lamentable conflict of arms, I think I may venture safely to say,
that there was, on the part of the great mass of the people of
Georgia, and of the entire South, no disloyalty to the principles
of the constitution of the United States. To that system of rep
resentative government ; of delegated and limited powers ; that
establishment in a new phase, on this continent, of all the essen
tials of England's Magna Charta, for the protection and security
of life, liberty and property ; with the additional recognition of
the principle as a fundamental truth, that all political power re
sides in the people. With us it was simply a question as to where
our allegiance was due in the maintenance of these principles —
which authority was paramount in the last resort — State or fed
eral. As for myself, I can affirm that, no sentiment of disloyalty
to these great principles of self-government, recognized and em
bodied in the constitution of the United States, ever beat or
throbbed in breast or heart of mine. To their maintenance my
whole soul was ever enlisted, and to this end my whole life has

808 ADDRESS BEFORE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE.

heretefore been devoted, and will continue to be the rest of my
days — God willing. In devotion to these principles, I yield to
no man living. This much I can say for myself; may I not say
the same for you and for the great mass of the people of Georgia,
and for the great mass of the people of the entire South ? What
ever differences existed amongst us, arose from differences as to
the best and surest means of securing these great ends, which was
the object of all. It was with this view and this purpose secession
was tried. That has failed. Instead of bettering our condition,
instead of establishing our liberties upon a surer foundation, we
have, in the war that ensued, come well nigh losing the whole of
the rich inheritance with which we set out.

This is one of the sad realizations of the present. In this, too,
we are but illustrating the teachings of history. Wars, and civil
wars especially, always menace liberty ; they seldom advance it ;
while they usually end in its entire overthrow and destruction.
Ours stopped just short of such a catastrophe. Our only alter
native now is, either to give up all hope of constitutional liberty,
or to retrace our steps, and to look for its vindication and main
tenance in the forums of reason and justice, instead of on the arena
of arms — in the courts and halls of legislation, instead of on the
fields of battle.

I am frank and candid in telling you right here, that our surest
hopes, in my judgment, of these ends, are in the restoration policy
<pf the President of the United States. I have little hope for
liberty — little hope for the success of the great American experi
ment of self-government — but in the success of the present efforts
for the restoration of the States to their former practical relations
in a common government, under the constitution of the United
States.

We are not without an encouraging example on this line in the
history of the mother country — in the history of our ancestors —
from whom we derived, in great measure, the principles to which
we are so much devoted. The truest friends of liberty in Eng
land once, in 1642, abandoned the forum of reason, and appealed,
as we did, to the sword, as the surest means, in their judgment,
of advancing their cause. This was after they had made great
progress, under the lead of Coke, Hampden, Falkland and others,
in the advancement of liberal principles. Many usurpations had
been checked; many of the prerogatives of the crown had been
curtailed ; the petition of right had been sanctioned ; ship-money
had been abandoned; courts-martial had been done away with;
habeas corpus had been re-established ; high courts of commission
and star-chamber had been abolished ; many other great abuses
of power had been corrected, and other reforms established. But
not satisfied with these, and not satisfied with the peaceful work
ing of reason, to go on in its natural sphere, the denial of the
sovereignty of the crown was pressed by the too ardent reformers
upon Charles the First. All else he had yielded — this he would

ADDRESS BEFORE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE. 809

not. The sword was appealed to, to settle the question ; a civil
war was the result ; great valor and courage were displayed on
both sides ; men of eminent virtue and patriotism fell in the san
guinary and fratricidal conflict ; the king was deposed and exe
cuted ; a commonwealth proclaimed. But the end was the reduc
tion of the people of England to a worse state of oppression than
they had been in for centuries. They retraced their steps. After
neaii3r twenty years of exhaustion and blood, and the loss of the
greater portion of the liberties enjoyed by them before, they, by
almost unanimous consent, called for restoration. The restora
tion came. Charles the Second ascended the throne, as unlimited
a monarch as ever ruled the empire. Not a pledge was asked or
a guarantee given, touching the concessions of the royal preroga
tive, that had been exacted and obtained from his father.

The true friends of liberty, of reform and of progress in gov
ernment, had become convinced that these were the offspring of
peace and of enlightened reason, and not of passion nor of arms.
The House of Commons and the House of Lords were henceforth
the theatres of their operations, and not the fields of Newberry or
Marston-Moor. The result was, that in less than thirty years, all
their ancient rights and privileges, which had been lost in the civil
war, with new securities, were re-established in the ever-memora
ble settlement of 1688 ; which, for all practical purposes, may be
looked upon as a bloodless revolution. Since that time, England
has made still further and more signal strides in reform and pro
gress. But not one of these has been effected by resort to arms.
Catholic emancipation was carried in parliament, after years of
argument, against the most persistent opposition. Reason and
justice ultimately prevailed. So with the removal of the disability
of the Jews — so with the overthrow of the rotten-borough sys
tem — so with the extension of franchise — so with the modification
of the corn-laws, and restrictions on commerce, opening the way
to the establishment of the principles of free-trade — and so with
all the other great reforms by parliament, which have so distin
guished English history for the last half century.

May wre not indulge hope, even in the alternative before us
now, from this great example of restoration, if we but do as the
friends of liberty there did ? This is my hope, my only hope.
It is founded on the virtue, intelligence and patriotism of the
American people. I have not lost my faith in the people, or in
their capacity for self-government. But for these great essential
qualities of human nature, to be brought into active and efficient
exercise, for the fulfilment of patriotic hopes, it is essential that
the passions of the day should subside ; that the causes of these
passions should not now be discussed ; that the embers of the
late strife shall not be stirred.

Man by nature is ever prone to scan closely the errors and
defects of his fellow man — ever ready to rail at the mote in his
brother's eye, without considering the beam that is in his own.

810 ADDRESS BEFORE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE.

This should not be. We all have our motes or beams. We are
all frail ; perfection is the attribute of none. Prejudice or pre-
judgment should be indulged toward none. Prejudice! What
wrongs, what injuries what mischiefs, what lamentable conse
quences, have resulted at all times from nothing but this perver
sity of the intellect ! Of all the obstacles to the advancement of
truth and human progress, in every department — in science, in
art, in government, and in religion, in all ages and climes, not
one on the list is more formidable, more difficult to overcome and
subdue, than this horrible distortion of the moral as well as in
tellectual faculties. It is a host of evil within itself. I could
enjoin no greater duty upon my countrymen now, North and
South, than the exercise of that degree of forbearance which
would enable them to conquer their prejudices. One of -the
highest exhibitions of the moral sublime the world ever wit
nessed, was that of Daniel Webster, when in an open barouche
in the streets of Boston, he proclaimed in substance, to a vast
assembly of his constituents — unwilling hearers — that " they had
conquered an uncongenial clime ; they had conquered a sterile
soil ; they had conquered the winds and currents of the ocean ;
they had conquered most of the elements of nature ; but they
must yet learn to conquer their prejudices !" I know of no
more fitting incident or scene in the life of that wonderful man,
" Clarus et vir Fortissimus," for perpetuating the memory of the
true greatness of his character, on canvas or in marble, than a
representation of him as he then and there stood and spoke ! It
was an exhibition of moral grandeur surpassing that of Aristides
when he said, " Oh Athenians, what Themistocles recommends
would be greatly to your interest, but it would be unjust" !

I say to you, and if my voice could extend throughout this
vast country, over hill and dale, over mountain and valley, to
hovel, hamlet and mansion, village, town and city, I would say,
among the first, looking to restoration of peace, prosperity and
harmony in this land, is the great duty of exercising that degree
of forbearance which will enable them to conquer their prejudices.
Prejudices against communities as well as individuals.

And next to that, the indulgence of a Christian spirit of char
ity. " Judge not that ye be not judged," especially in mat
ters growing out of the late war. Most of the wars that have
scourged the world, even in the Christian era, have arisen on
points of conscience, or differences as to the surest wray of sal
vation. A strange way that to heaven, is it not ? How much
disgrace to the church, and shame to mankind, would have been
avoided, if the ejaculation of each breast had been, at all times, as
it should have been,

" Let not this weak, unknowing hand,

Presume Thy bolts to throw ;
And deal damnation round the land,
On him /deem Tliy foe. "

ADDRESS BEFORE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE. 811

How equally proper is it now, when the spirit of peace seems
to be hovering over our war-stricken land, that in canvassing the
conduct or motives of others during the late conflict, this great
truth should be impressed upon the minds of all,

" Who made the heart ? Tis He alone

Decidedly, can try us ;
He knows each chord, its various tone,

Each spring, its various bias ;
Then at the balance, let's be mute,

We never can adjust it ;
What's done, we partly may compute,

But know not what's resisted."

Of all the heaven descended virtues, that elevate and ennoble
human nature, the highest, the sublimest, and the divinest is
charity. By all means, then, fail not to exercise and cultivate
this soul-regenerating element of fallen nature. Let it be culti
vated and exercised not only amongst ourselves and toward our
selves, on all questions of motive or conduct touching the late
war, but toward all mankind. Even toward our enemies, if we
have any, let the aspirations of our hearts be. " Father, forgive
them; they know not what they do." The exercise of patience,
forbearance, and charity, therefore, are the three first duties I
would at this time enjoin — and of these three, " the greatest is
charity."

But to proceed. Another one of our present duties, is this :
we should accept the issues of the war, and abide by them in
good faith. This, I feel fully persuaded, it is your purpose to
do, as well as that of your constituents. The people of Georgia
have in convention revoked and annulled her ordinance of 1861,
which was intended to sever her from the compact of Union of
1187. The constitution of the United States has been reor-
dained as the organic law of our land. Whatever differences of
opinion heretofore existed as to where our allegiance was due,
during the late state of things, none for any practical purpose
can exist now. Whether Georgia, by the action of her conven
tion of 1861, was ever rightfully out of the Union or not, there
can be no question that she is now in, so far as depends upon
her will and deed. The whole United States, therefore, is now
without question our country, to be cherished and defended as
such, by all our hearts and by all our arms.

The constitution of the United States, and the treaties and laws
made in pursuance thereof, are now acknowledged to be the para
mount law in this whole country. Whoever, therefore, is true to
these principles as now recognized, is loyal as far as that term
has any legitimate use or force under our institutions. This is
the only kind of loyalty and the only test of loyalty the constitu
tion itself requires. In any other view, every thing pertaining to
restoration, so far as regards the great body of the people in at
least eleven States of the Union, is but making a promise to the

812 ADDRESS BEFORE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE.

car to be broken to the hope. All, therefore, who accept the is
sue of war in good faith, and come up to the test required by the
constitution, are now loyal, however they may have heretofore
been.

But with this change comes a new order of things. One of the
results of the war is a total change in our whole internal polity.
Our former social fabric has been entirely subverted. Like those
convulsions in nature which break up old incrustations, the war
has wrought a new epoch in our political existence. Old things
have passed away, and all things among us in this respect are
new. The relation heretofore, under our old system, existing
between the African and European races, no longer exists.
Slavery, as it was called, or the status of the black race, their sub
ordination to the white, upon which all our institutions rested, is
abolished forever, not only in Georgia, but throughout the limits
of the United States. This change should be received and ac
cepted as an irrevocable fact. It is a bootless question now to
discuss, whether the new sj^stem is better for both races than the
old one was or not. That may be proper matter for the philo
sophic and philanthropic historian, at some future time to inquire
into, after the new system shall have been fully and fairly tried.

All changes of systems or proposed reforms are but experi
ments and problems to be solved. Our system of self-govern
ment was an experiment at first. Perhaps as a problem it is not
yet solved. Our present duty on this subject is not with the past
or the future ; it is with the present. The wisest and the best
often err, in their judgments as to the probable workings of any
new system. Let us therefore give this one a fair and just trial,
without prejudice, and with that earnestness of purpose which
always looks hopefully to success. It is an ethnological problem,
on the solution of which depends, not only the best interests of
both races, but it may be the existence of one or the other, if not
both.

This duty of giving this new system a fair and just trial will
require of you, as legislators of the land, great changes in our
former laws in regard to this large class of population. Wise
and humane provisions should be made for them. It is not for
me to go into detail. Suffice it to say on this occasion, that am
ple and full protection should be secured to them, so that they
may stand equal before the law, in the possession and enjoyment
of all rights of person, liberty and property. Many considerations
claim this at your hands. Among these may be stated their fidelity
in times past. They cultivated your fields, ministered to your
personal wants and comforts, nursed and reared your children ;
and even in the hour of danger and peril they were, in the main,
true to you and yours. To them we owe a debt of gratitude, as
well as acts of kindness. This should also be done because they
are poor, untutored, uninformed ; many of them helpless, liable to
be imposed upon, and need it. Legislation should ever look to

ADDRESS BEFOEE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE. 813

the protection of the weak against the strong. Whatever may be
said of the equality of races, or their natural capacity to become
equal, no one can doubt that at this time this race among us is
not equal to the Caucasian. This inequality does not lessen the
moral obligations on the part of the superior to the inferior, it
rather increases them. From him who has much, more is required
than from him who has little. The present generation of them, it is
true, is far above their savage progenitors, who were at first intro
duced into this country, in general intelligence, virtue, and moral
culture. This shows capacity for improvement. But in all the
higher characteristics of mental development, they are still very
far below the European type. What further advancement they
may make, or to what standard they may attain, under a different
sj^stem of laws every way suitable and wisely applicable to their
changed condition, time alone can disclose. I speak of them as
we now know them to be ; having no longer the protection of a
master, or legal guardian, they now need all the protection which
the shield of the law can give.

But, above all, this protection should be secured, because it is
right and just that it should be, upon general principles. All
governments in their organic structure, as well as in their admin
istration, should have this leading object in view ; the good of the
governed. Protection and security to all under its jurisdiction,
should be the chief end of every government. It is a melancholy
truth that while this should be the chief end of all governments,
most of them are'used only as instruments of power, for the aggran
dizement of the few, at the expense of, and by the oppression of,
the many. Such are not our ideas of government, never have
been and never should be. Governments, according to our ideas,
should look to the good of the whole, and not a part only.
" The greatest good to the greatest number," is a favorite dogma
with some. Some so defended our old system. But you know
this was never my doctrine. The greatest good to all, without
detriment or injury to any, is the true rule. Those governments
only are founded upon correct principles, of reason and justice,
which look to the greatest attainable advancement, improvement
and progress, physically, intellectually and morally, of all classes
and conditions within their rightful jurisdiction. If our old sys
tem was not the best, or could not have been made the best, for
both races, in this respect and upon this basis, it ought to have
been abolished. This was my view of that system while it lasted,
and I repeat it now that it is no more. In legislation, therefore,
under the new system, you should look to the best interest of all
classes ; their protection, security, advancement and improvement,
physically, intellectually, and morally. All obstacles, if there be
any, should be removed, which can possibly hinder or retard, the
improvement of the blacks to the extent of their capacity. All
proper aid should be given to their own efforts. Channels of
education should be opened up to them. Schools, and the usual

814: ADDRESS BEFORE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE.

means of moral and intellectual training, should be encouraged
amongst them. This is the dictate, not only of what is right and
proper, and just in itself, but it is also the promptings of the high
est considerations of interest. It is difficult to conceive a greater
evil or curse, that could befall our country, stricken and distressed
as it now is, than for so large a portion of its population, as this
class will quite probably constitute amongst us, hereafter, to be
reared i» ignorance, depravity and vice. In view of such a state
of things well might the prudent even now look to its abandon
ment. Let us not however indulge in such thoughts of the future,
nor let us, without an effort, say the system cannot be wrorked.
Let us not, standing still, hesitatingly ask, " Can there any good
thing come out of Nazareth?" but let us rather say as Gamaliel
did, " If this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to
naught, but if it be of God ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye
be found even to fight against God." The most vexed questions
of the age are social problems. These we have heretofore had
but little to do with; we were relieved from-them by our peculiar
institution. Emancipation of the blacks, with its consequences,
was ever considered by me with much more interest as a social
question, one relating to the proper status of the different elements
of society, and their relations toward each other, looking to the
best interest of all, than in any other light. The pecuniary as
pect of it, the considerations of labor and capital, in a politico
economic view, sunk into insignificance, in comparison with this.
This problem, as one of the results of the war, is now upon us,
presenting one of the most perplexing questions of the sort that
any people ever had to deal with. Let us resolve to do the best
we can with it, from all the lights we have, or can get from any
quarter. With this view, and in this connection, I take the liberty
of quoting for your consideration, some remarks even from the
Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. I met with them some months ago
while pondering on this subject, and was as much struck as sur
prised, with the drift of their philosophy, coming from the source
they did. I give them as I find them in the New York Times
where they were reported. You may be as much surprised at
hearing such ideas from Mr. Beecher, as I was, But however
much we may differ from him 011 many questions, and on many
questions connected with this subject, yet all must admit him
to rank amongst the master spirits of the age. And no one per
haps has contributed more by the power of his pen and voice in
bringing about the present state of things, than he has. Yet,
nevertheless, I commend to your serious consideration, as perti
nent to my present object, what he was reported to have said, as
follows :

'* In our land and time facts and questions are pressed upon us which
demand Christian settlement — settlement on this ground and doctrine.
We cannot escape the responsibility. Being strong and powerful, we
must nurse, and help, and educate, and foster the weak, and poor, and igno-

ADDEESS BEFORE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE. 815

rant. For my own part I cannot see how we shall escape the most terri
ble conflict or classes, by and by, unless we are educated into this doc-
Irine of duty, on the part of the superior to the inferior. We are told by
zealous and fanatical individuals, that all men are equal. We know bet
ter. They are not equal. A common brotherhood teaches no such ab
surdity. A theory of universal, physical likeness, is no more absurd than
this. Now, as in all times, the strong go to the top, the weak go to the
bottom. Its natural, right and can't be helped. All branches are not at
the top of the tree, but the top does not despise the lower ; nor do they
all despise the limb or the parent trunk ; and so with the body politic,
there must be classes. Some must be at the top and some must be at
the bottom, It is difficult to foresee, and estimate the development of
the poiver of classes in America. They are simply inevitable. They are
here now, and will be more. If they are friendly, living at peace, loving
and respecting and helping one another, all will be well. But if they are
selfish, unchristian ; if the old heathen feeling is to reign, each extracting
all he can from his neighbor, and caring nothing for him ; society will be
lined by classes as by seams — like batteries, each firing broadside after
broadside, the one upon the other. If, on the other hand, the law oNove
prevails, there will be no ill-will, no envy, no disturbance. Does a child
hate his father because -he is chief, because he is strong and wise ? On
the contrary, he grows with his father's growth, and strengthens with his
strength. And if in society there should be fifty grades or classes, all
helping each other, there will be no trouble, but perfect satisfaction and
content. This Christian doctrine carried into practice, will easily settle
the most troublesome of all home present questions."

What he here said of the state of things where he spoke in the
State of New York, and the fearful antagonism of classes there,
is much more applicable to us. Here, it is true, only two great
classes exist, or are likely to exist, but these are deeply marked
by distinctions bearing the impress of nature. The one is now
beyond all question greatly superior to the other. These classes
are as distinct as races of men can be. The one is of the highest
type of humanity, the other of the lowest. All that he says of
the duty of the superior, to protect, to aid, to encourage, and to
help the inferior, I fully and cordially indorse and commend to
you as quite as applicable to us and our situation, as it was to his
auditors. Whether the doctrine, if carried out and practiced, will
settle all these most troublesome home questions with us as easily
as he seemed to think it would like home questions with those
whom he was addressing, I will not undertake to say. I have no
hesitancy, however, in saying that the general principles announced
by him are good. Let them be adopted by us as far as practica
ble. No harm can come from it, much good may. Whether the
great barrier of races which the Creator has placed between this,
our inferior class and ourselves,, shall prevent a success of the ex
periment now on trial, of a peaceful, happy, and prosperous com
munity, composed of such elements and sustaining present rela
tions toward each other, or even a further elevation on the part
of the inferior, if they prove themselves fit for it, let the future,
under the dispensations of Providence, decide. We have to deal

816 ADDRESS BEFORE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE.

with the present. Let us do our duty now, leaving results and
ultimate consequences to that

" Divinity which shapes our ends,
Rough hew them how we will."

In all things on this subject, as in all others, let our guide be the
admirable motto of our State. Let our counsels be governed by
wisdom, our measures by moderation, and our principles by justice.

So much for what I have to say on this occasion, touching our
present duties on this absorbing subject, and some of our duties
in reference to a restoration of peace, law and order ; without
which all must, sooner or later, end in utter confusion, anarchy
and despotism. I have, as I said I should, only glanced at some
general ideas.

Now as to the future, and the prospect before us! On this
branch of the subject I can add but little. You can form some
ideas of my views of that from what has already been said. Would
that I could say something cheerful ; but that caiidor, which has
marked all that I have said, compels me to say that to me the fu
ture is far from being bright. Nay, it is dark and impenetrable ;
thick gloom curtains and closes in the horizon all around us.
Thus much I can say : my only hope is in the peaceful re-estab
lishment of good government, and its peaceful maintenance after
ward. And, further, the most hopeful prospect to this end now
is the restoration of the old Union, and with it the speedy return
of fraternal feeling throughout its length and breadth. These re
sults depend upon the people themselves — upon the people of the
North quite as much as the people of the South — upon their vir
tue, intelligence, and patriotism. I repeat, I have faith in the
American people, in their virtue, intelligence and patriotism. But
for this I should long since have despaired. Dark and gloomy
as the present hour is, I do not yet despair of free institutions.
Let but the virtue, intelligence, and patriotism of the people
throughout the whole country be properly appealed to, aroused
and brought into action, and all may yet be well. The masses,
everj^where, are alike equally interested in the great object. Let
old issues, old questions, old differences, and old feuds, be regarded
as fossils of another epoch. They belong to what may hereafter
be considered, the Silurian period of our history. Great, new,
living questions are before us. Let it not be said of us in this day,
not yet passed, of our cpuntry's greatest trial and agony, that,
"there was a party for Caesar, a party for Pompey, and a party
for Brutus, but no party for Rome."

But let all patriots, by whatever distinctive name heretofore
styled, rally, in all elections everywhere, to the support of him,
be he who he may, who bears the standard with " Constitutional
JJnion" emblazoned on its folds. President Johnson is now, in
my judgment, the chief great standard-bearer of these principles,

ADDRESS BEFORE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE. 817

and in his efforts at restoration should receive the cordial sup
port of every well-wisher of his country.

In this consists, on this rests, my only hope. Should he be
sustained, and the government be restored to its former functions,
all the States brought back to their practical relations under the
constitution, our situation will be greatly changed from what it
was before. A radical and fundamental change, as has been stated,
has been made in that organic law. We shall have lost what was
known as our " peculiar institution" which was so intertwined with
the whole framework of our State body politic. We shall have lost
nearly half the accumulated capital of a century. But we shall
have still left all the essentials of free government, contained and
embodied in the old constitution, untouched and unimpaired as
they came from the hands of our fathers. With these, even if we
had to begin entirely anew, the prospect before us would be much
more encouraging than the prospect was before them, when they
fled from the oppressions of the old world, and sought shelter and
homes in this then wilderness land. The liberties we begin with,
they had to achieve. With the same energies and virtues they
displayed, we have much more to cheer us than they had. With
a climate unrivalled in salubrity ; with a soil unsurpassed in fer
tility ; and with products unequalled in value in the markets of
the world, to say nothing of our mineral resources, we shall have
much still to wed us to the good old land. With good govern
ment, the matrix from which alone spring all great human achiev-
ments, we shall lack nothing but our own proper exertions, not
only to recover our former prosperity, but to attain a much higher
degree of development in every thing that characterizes a great,
free, and happy people. At least I know of no other land that
the sun shines upon, that offers better prospects under the con
tingencies stated.

The old Union was based upon the assumption, that it was for
the best interest of the peoj>.e of all the States to be united as
they were, each State faithfully performing to the people of the
other States all their obligations under the common compact. I
always thought this assumption was founded upon broad, correct,
and statesman-like principles. I think so yet. It was only when
it seemed to be impossible further to maintain it, without hazard
ing greater evils than would perhaps attend a separation, that I
yielded my assent in obedience to the voice of Georgia, to try the
experiment which has just resulted so disastrously to us. In
deed, during the whole lamentable conflict, it was my opinion
that however the pending strife might terminate, so far as the
appeal to the sword was concerned, yet after a while, when the
passions and excitements of the day should pass away, an adjust
ment or arrangement would be made upon continental principles,
upon the general basis of " reciprocal advantage and mutual con
venience," on which the Union was first established. My earnest
desire, however, throughout, was whatever might be done, might
52

818 ADDRESS BEFORE THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE.

be peaceably done ; might be the result of calm, dispassionate,
and enlightened reason ; looking to the permanent interests and
welfare of all. And now, after the severe chastisement of war,
if the general sense of the whole country shall come back to the
acknowledgment of the original assumption, that it is for the
best interests of all the States to be so united, as I trust it will ;
the States still being " separate as the billows but one as the sea ;"
I can perceive no reason why, under such restoratian, we as a
whole, with " peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all na
tions and entangling alliances with none," may not enter upon a
new career, exciting increased wonder in the old world, by gran
der achievements hereafter to be made, than any heretofore at
tained, by the peaceful and harmonious workings of our American
institutions of self-government. All this is possible if the hearts
of the people be right. It is my earnest wish to see it. Fondly
would I indulge my fancy in gazing on such a picture of the fu
ture. With what rapture may we not suppose the spirits of our
fathers would hail its opening scenes from their mansions above.
Such are my hopes, resting on such contingencies. But if, in
stead of all this, the passions of the day shall continue to bear
sway ; if prejudice shall rule the hour ; if a conflict of races shall
arise ; if ambition shall turn the scale ; if the sword shall be
thrown in the balance against patriotism ; if the embers of the
late war shall be kept a-glowing until with new fuel they shall
flame up again, then our present gloom is but the shadow, the
penumbra of that deeper and darker eclipse, which is to totally
obscure this hemisphere and blight forever the anxious anticipa
tions and expectations of mankind ! Then, hereafter, by some
bard it may be sung,

" The Star of Hope shone brightest in the West,
The hope of Liberty, the last, the best ;
That, too, has set, upon her darkened shore,
And Hope and Freedom light up earth no more."

May we not all, on this occasion, on this anniversary of the
birth day of Washington, join in a fervent prayer to Heaven that
the Great Ruler of events may avert from this land such a fall,
such a fate, and such a requiem !

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE. 819

KESTOBATIOlSr.

TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS BEFORE
THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. — Sworn and examined :

By Mr. Boutwell :

Q. State your residence.

A. Crawfordsville, Georgia.

Q. What means have you had since Lee's surrender to ascer
tain the sentiments of the people of Georgia with regard to the
Union ?

A. I was at home, in Georgia, at the time of the surrender of
General Lee, and remained there until the llth of May, and
during that time conferred very freely with the people in my im
mediate neighborhood, with the governor of the State, and with
one or two other leading or prominent men in the State. From
the llth of May until my return to Georgia, which was the 25th
of October, I had no means of knowing any thing of the public
sentiment there, except through the public press and such letters
as I received. Fro m the time of my return until I left the State
on my present visit here, I had very extensive intercourse with
the people, visiting Augusta, visiting Milledgeville during the
session of the legislature, first on their assembling, again in Janu
ary upon their reassembling, and again in the latter part of Feb
ruary. While there, I conversed very freely and fully with all
the-prominent leading men, or most of them, in the legislature,
and met a great many of the prominent, influential men of the
State, not connected with the legislature ; and by letters from and
correspondence with men in the State whom I have not met. I
believe that embraces a full answer to the question as to my
means of ascertaining the sentiments of the people of that State
upon the subject stated in the question.

Q. As the result of your observations, what is your opinion of
the purpose of the people with reference to the reconstruction of
the government, and what are their desires and purposes concern
ing the maintenance of the government ?

A. My opinion, and decided opinion, is that an overwhelming
majority of the people of Georgia are exceedingly anxious for the
restoration of the government, and for the State to take her for
mer position in the Union, to have her senators and representa
tives admitted into Congress, and to enjoy all her rights and to
discharge all her obligations as a State under the constitution of
the United States as it stands amended.

Q. What are their present views concerning the justice of the
rebellion ? Do they at present believe that it was a reasonable
and proper undertaking, or otherwise?

A. My opinion of the sentiment of the people of Georgia upon

820 TESTIMONY BEFOKE THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.

that subject is, that the exercise of the right of secession was re
sorted to by them from a desire to render their liberties and in
stitutions more secure, and a belief on their part that this was
absolutely necessary for that object. They were divided upon the
question of the polic}^ of the measure ; there was, however, but
very little division among them upon the question of the right of
it. It is now their belief, in my opinion — and I give it merely as
an opinion — that the surest, if not the only hope for their liberties
is the restoration of the constitution of the United States and of
the government of the United States under the constitution.

Q. Has there been any change of opinion as to the right of se
cession, as a right in the people or in the States ?

A. I think there has been a very decided change of opinion, as
to the policy, by those who favored it. I think the people gen
erally are satisfied sufficiently with the experiment, never to re
sort to that measure of redress again, by force, whatever may be
their own abstract ideas upon that subject. They have given up
all idea of a maintenance of these opinions by a resort to force.
They have come to the conclusion that it is better to appeal to
the forums of reason and justice, to the halls of legislation and
the courts, for the preservation of the principles of constitutional
liberty, than to the arena of arms. It is nr^ settled conviction
that there is not any idea cherished at all in the public mind of
Georgia, of ever resorting again to secession, or to the exercise
of the right of secession by force. That whole policy for the main
tenance of their rights, in my opinion, is at this time totally aban
doned.

Q. But the opinion as to the right, as I understand, remains
substantially the same ?

A. I cannot answer as to that. Some may have changed their
opinion in this respect. It would be an unusual thing, as well as
a difficult matter, for a whole people to change their convictions
upon abstract truths or principles. I have not heard this view
of the subject debated or discussed recently, and I wish to be
understood as giving my opinion only on that branch of the sub
ject which is of practical character and importance.

Q. To what do you attribute the change of opinion as to the
propriety of attempting to maintain their views by force ?

A. Well, sir, my opinion about that — my individual opinion,
derived from observation — is that this change of opinion arose
mainly from the operation of the war among themselves, and the
results of the conflict, from their own authorities on their indi
vidual rights of person and property — the general breaking down
of constitutional barriers which usually attend all protracted
wars.

Q. In 1861, when the ordinance of secession was adopted in
your State, to what extent was it supported by the people ?

A. After the proclamation of President Lincoln calling out
seventy-five thousand militia, under the circumstances it was is-

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE. 821

sued, and blockading the southern ports, and the suspension of
the writ of habeas corpus, the southern cause, as it was termed,
received the almost unanimous support of the people of Georgia,
Before that they were very much divided on the question of the
policy of secession. But afterward they supported the cause
within the range of my knowledge, with very few exceptions,
(there were some few exceptions, not exceeding half a dozen I
think.) The impression then prevailing was, that public liberty
was endangered, and they supported the cause because of their
zeal for constitutional rights. They still differed very much as
to the ultimate object to be attained, and the means to be used,
but these differences yielded to the emergency of the apprehended
common danger.

Q. Was not the ordinance of secession adopted in Georgia,
earlier in date than the proclamation for seventy-five thousand
volunteers ?

A. Yes, sir. I stated that the people were very much divided
on the question of the ordinance of secession, but that after the
proclamation the people became almost unanimous in their sup
port of the cause. There were some few exceptions in the State
— I think not more than half a dozen among my acquaintances. As I
said, while they were thus almost unanimous in support of the
cause, they differed also as to the end to be attained by sustaining it
Some looked to an adjustment or settlement of the controversy upon
any basis that would secure their constitutional rights ; others
looked to a southern separate nationality as their only object and
hope. These different views as to the ultimate objects did not
interfere with the general active support of the cause.

Q. Was there a popular vote upon the ordinance of secession ?

A. Only so far as in the election of delegates to the convention.

Q. There was no subsequent action ?

A. No, sir ; the ordinance of secession was not submitted to a
popular vote afterward.

Q. Have you any opinion as to the vote it would have received,
as compared with the whole, if it had been submitted to the free
action of the people ?

Witness. Do you mean after it was adopted by the conven
tion ?

Mr. Boutwell. Yes ; after it was adopted by the convention, if
it had been submitted forthwith, or within a reasonable time.

A. Taking the then state of things into consideration, South
Carolina, Florida, and Mississippi, I think, having seceded, my
opinion is that a majority of the people would have ratified it, and
perhaps a decided or large majority. If, however, South Carolina
and the other States had not adopted their ordinances of secession,
I am very well satisfied that a majority of the people of Georgia,
and perhaps a very decided majority, would have been against
secession if the ordinance had been submitted to them. But as
matters stood at the time if the ordinance had been submitted to

822 TESTIMONY BEFOKE THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.

a popular vote of the State, it would have been sustained. That
is my opinion about that matter.

Q. What was the date of the Georgia ordinance ?

A. The 18th or 19th ; I think the 19th of January, 1861, though
I am not certain.

Q. The question of secession was involved in the election of
delegates to that convention, was it not ?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And was there on the part of candidates a pretty general
avowal of opinions ?

A. Yery general.

Q. What was the result of the election as far as the convention
expressed any opinion upon the question of secession ?

A. I think the majority was about thirty in the convention in
favor of secession. I do not recollect the exact vote.

Q. In a convention of how many ?

A. In a convention based upon the number of senators and
members of the House in the general assembly of the State. The
exact number I do not recollect, but I think it was near three
hundred, perhaps a few over or under.

Q. Was there any difference in different parts of the State in
the strength of Union sentiment at that time ?

A. In some of the mountain counties the Union sentiment was
generally prevalent. The cities, towns, and villages were gener
ally for secession throughout the State, I think, with some excep
tions. The anti-secession sentiment was more general in the ru
ral districts and in the mountain portions of the State ; yet the
people of some of the upper counties were very active and decided
secessionists. There was nothing like a sectional division of the
State at all. For instance, the delegation from Floyd county, in
which the city of Rome is situated, in the upper portion of the
State, was an able one, strong for secession, while the county of
Jefferson, down in the interior of the cotton belt, sent one of the
most prominent delegations for the Union. I could designate
other particular counties in that way throughout the State, show
ing that there was not what might be termed a sectional or geogra
phical division of the State on the question.

Q. In what particular did the people believe their constitutional
liberties were assailed or endangered from the Union ?

A. Mainly, I would say, in their internal social polity and their
apprehension from the general consolidating tendencies of the
doctrines and principles of that political party which had recently
succeeded in the choice of a President and Yice-President of the
United States. It was the serious apprehension that if the repub
lican organization, as then constituted, would succeed to power,
it would lead ultimately to a virtual subversion of the constitution
of the United States, and all essential guaranties of public liberty.
I think that was the sincere and honest conviction in the minds
of our people. Those who opposed secession did not apprehend

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE. 823

that any such result would necessarily follow the elections which
had taken place ; they still thought that all their rights might be
maintained in the Union and under the constitution, especially as
there were majorities in both Houses of Congress who agreed
with them on constitutional questions.

Q. To what feature of their internal social polity did they appre
hend danger?

A. Principally the subordination of the African race as it ex
isted under their laws and institutions.

Q. In what spirit is the emancipation of slaves received by the
people ?

A. Generally it is acquiesced in and accepted, I think, in per
fect good faith, and with a disposition to do the best that can be
done in the new order of things in this particular.

Q. What at present are the relations subsisting between the
white people and black people, especially in the relation of em
ployers and employed ?

A. Quite as good, I think, as in any part of the world that ever
I have been in, between like classes of employers and employes.
The condition of things, in this respect, on my return last fall,
was very different from what it was when I left home for my pre
sent visit to this city. During the fall and up to the close of the
year, there was a general opinion prevailing among the colored
people that at Christmas there would be a division of the lands,
and a very general indisposition on their part to make any con
tracts at all for the present year. Indeed, there were very few
contracts, I think, made throughout the State until after Christ
mas, or about the 1st of January. General Tillson, who is at the
head of the bureau in the State, and whose administration has
given very general satisfaction to our people, I think, was very
active in disabusing the minds of the colored people from their
error in this particular. He visited quite a number of places in
the State, and addressed large audiences of colored people, and
when they became satisfied they were laboring under a mistake
in anticipating a division of lands after Christmas and the 1st of
January, they made contracts very readily generally, and since that
time affairs have, in the main, moved on quite smoothly and
quietly.

Q. Are the negroes generally at work ?

A. Yes, sir; they are generally at work. There are some
idlers ; but this class constitutes but a small proportion.

Q. What upon the whole has been their conduct ? Proper un
der the circumstances in which they have been placed, or other
wise?

A. As a whole, much better than the most hopeful looked for.

Q. As far as you know, what are the leading objects and desires
of the negro population at the present time in reference to them
selves ?

TESTIMONY BEFOEE THE KECONSTEUCTION COMMITTEE.

A. It is to be protected in their rights of persons and of prop
erty — to be dealt by fairly and justly.

Q. What, if any thing, has been done by the legislature of your
State for the accomplishment of these objects ?

A. The legislature has passed an act of which the following is
a copy :

" [No. 90.]

" AN ACT to define the term ' persons of color,' and to declare the rights
of such persons.

" SEC. 1. Be it enacted, etc,, That all negroes, mulattoes, mestizoes, and
their descendants, having one eighth negro or African blood in their
veins, shall be known in this State, as ' persons of color."

"Sec. 2. Be it further enacted, That persons of color shall have the
right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be sued, to be parties and give
evidence, to inherit, to purchase, and to have full and equal benefit of all
laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, and shall not
be subjected to any other or different punishment, pain, or penalty for
the commission of any act or offence than such as are prescribed for white
persons committing like acts or offences."

The third section of this act simply repeals all conflicting laws.
It was approved by the governor on the 17th of March last.

Q. Does this act express the opinions of the people, and will it
be sustained !

A. I think it will be sustained by the courts as well as by public
sentiment. It was passed by the present legislature. As an evi
dence of the tone of the legislature of the State, as well as that of
the people of the State upon this subject, I will refer you simply
to a letter I wrote to Senator Stewart upon the same subject. I
submit to you a copy of that letter. It is as follows :

" WASHINGTON, D. C., April 4, 1866.

" DEAR SIR : In answer to your inquiries touching the sentiments and
feelings of the people of Georgia toward the freedmen, and the legal
status of this class of population in the State, etc, allow me briefly to
say that the address delivered by me on the 22d of February last before
the legislature (a copy of which I herewith hand you) expresses very
fully and clearly my own opinions and feelings upon the subjects of your
inquiry. This address was written and printed as you now see it, before
its delivery. It was delivered verbatim as you now read it, that there
might be no mistake about it. It was as it now stands unanimously in
dorsed by the Senate in a joint resolution, which was concurred in in the
House without dissent, and was ordered to be spread upon the journals
of both Houses. This I refer you to as a better and more reliable index
of the feelings and views of the people of the State on this subject than
any bare individual opinion I might entertain or express. The legislature
of the State, it is to be presumed, is as correct an exponent of the general
feelings and views of the State upon any political question as any that
can be obtained from any quarter. In addition to this, the legislature
subsequently evinced their principles by their works in passing an act,
which I also inclose to you. This act speaks for itself. It is short, con
cise, pointed, as well as comprehensive. It secures to the colored race
the right to contract and to enforce contracts, the right to sue and to be

TESTIMONY BEFOKE THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE. 825

sued, the right to testify in the courts, subject to the same rules that
govern the testimony of whites, and it subjects them to the same punish
ments for all offences as the whites. In these respects, embracing all es
sential civil rights, all classes in Georgia now stand equal before the law.
There is no discrimination in these particulars on account of race or color.
u Please excuse this hasty note ; I have no time to go more in detail.
"Yours, most respectfully,

" ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.
"Hon. WILLIAM M. STEWART, United States Senate."

Q. What, if any thing is being done in Georgia with regard to
the education of the negroes, either children or adults ?

A. Nothing by the public authorities as yet. Schools are being
established in many portions of the State, under the auspices, I
think, of the Freedmen's Bureau, and quite a number by the
colored people themselves, encouraged by the whites.

Q. W7hat disposition do the negroes manifest in regard to edu
cation ?

A. There seems to be a very great desire on the part of the
children and younger ones, and with their parents to have them
educated.

Q. What is the present legal condition of those who have lived
together as husband and wife ? Do the laws recognize and sus
tain the relations and the legitimacy of their offspring ?

A. Our State laws do. They recognize all those living as man
and wife as legally man and wife. A good man}T of them took
out licenses, and were married in the usual way. There is no
difference in our laws in that respect. Licenses are issued for
white and black alike, only they are prohibited from intermarry
ing with each other. The races are not permitted to intermarry.

Q. Were the amendments to the constitution of the State of
Georgia, recently adopted, submitted to the people ?

A. No, sir ; they were not submitted. I have no hesitation,
however, in expressing the opinion that nine tenths of the people
would have voted for them if the constitution had been submitted.
That is but an opinion. I heard no dissent at all in the State.
I was there all the time. I got home before the convention ad
journed. The State constitution, as made by the convention,
would have been ratified almost without opposition. It would
have been ratified nem. con. if it had been submitted. This, at
least, is my opinion.

Q. What was the voting population of your State in 1860?

A. Something upward of a hundred thousand.

Q. What is probably the present voting population ?

A. The voting population of the State, under the present con
stitution, is perhaps eighty thousand. That is a mere estimate.

Q. Has there been an}r enumeration of the losses of Georgia in
the field, in the military service ?

A. No accurate estimate that I am aware of.

Q. What is it supposed to have been ?

826 TESTIMONY BE1-OKE THE KECONSTEUCTION COMMITTEE.

A. I am not able to answer the question with any thing like
accuracy.

Q. What is the public sentiment of Georgia with regard to the
extension of the right of voting to the negroes ?

A. The general opinion in the State is very much averse to it.

Q. If a proposition were made to amend the constitution so as
to have representation in Congress based upon voters substantial
ly, would Georgia ratify such a proposed amendment, if it were
made a condition precedent to the restoration of the State to
political power in the government ?

A. I do not think they would. The people of Georgia, in my
judgment, as far as I can reflect or represent their opinions, feel
that they are entitled under the constitution of the United States
to representation without any further condition precedent. They
would not object to entertain, discuss, and exchange views in
the common councils of the country with the other States upon
such a proposition, or any proposition to amend the consti
tution, or change it in any of its features, and they would abide
by any such change if made as the constitution provides ; but they
feel that they are constitutionally entitled to be heard by their
senators and members in the houses of Congress upon this or any
other proposed amendment. I do not therefore think that they
would ratify that amendment suggested as a condition prece
dent to her being admitted to representation in Congress. Such,
at least, is my opinion.

Q. It is then your opinion that at present the people of Georgia
would neither be willing to extend suffrage to the negroes, nor
consent to the exclusion of the negroes from the basis of repre
sentation ?

A. The people of Georgia, in my judgment, are perfectly wil
ling to leave suffrage and the basis of representation where the
constitution leaves it. They look upon the question of suffrage
as one belonging exclusively to the States ; one over which, under
the constitution of the United States, Congress has no jurisdic
tion, power, or control, except in proposing amendments to the
States, and not in exacting them from them, and I do not think,
therefore, that the people of that State, while they are disposed,
as I believe, earnestly, to deal fairly, justly, and generously with
the freedmen, would be willing to consent to a change in the con
stitution that would give Congress jurisdiction over the question
of suffrage. And especially would they be very much averse to
Congress exercising any such jurisdiction, without their represen
tatives in the Senate and House being heard in the public council
upon this question that so vitally concerns their internal policy,
as well as the internal policy of all the States.

Q. If the proposition were to be submitted to Georgia as one
of the eleven States latel}' in rebellion, that she might be re
stored to political power in the government of the country upon
the condition precedent that she should, on the one hand, extend

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE. 827

suffrage to the negro, or, on the other, consent to their exclusion
from the basis of representation, would she accept either proposi
tion and take her place in the government of the country ?

A. I can only give my opinion. I do not think she would ac
cept either as a condition precedent presented by Congress, for
they do not believe that Congress has the rightful power under
thp constitution to prescribe such a condition. If Georgia is a
State in the Union, her people feel that she is entitled to repre
sentation without conditions imposed by Congress. And if she
is not a State in the Union, then she could not be admitted as an
equal with the others if her admission were trammelled with con
ditions that do not apply to all the rest alike. General universal
suffrage amongst the colored people, as they are now there, would
by our people be regarded as about as great a political evil as
could befall them.

Q. If the proposition were to extend the right of suffrage to
those who could read, and to those who had served in the Union
armies, would that modification affect the action of the State ?

A. I think the people of the State would be unwilling to do more
than they have done for restoration. Restricted or limited suffrage
would not be so objectionable as general or universal ; but it is
a matter that belongs to the State to regulate. The question of
suffrage, whether universal or restricted, is one of State policy ex-
clusivety, as they believe. Individually I should not be opposed
to a proper system of restricted or limited suffrage to this class
of our population ; but in my judgment it is a matter that belongs
of constitutional right to the States to regulate exclusively, each
for itself. But the people of that State, as I have said, would not
willingly, I think, do more than they have done for restoration.
The only view in their opinion that -could possibly justify the war
which was carried on by the Federal government against them
was the idea of the indissolubleness of the Union — that those who
held the administration for the time were bound to enforce the
execution of the laws and the maintenance of the integrity of the
country under the constitution ; and since that was accomplished,
since those who had assumed the contrary principle — the right of
secession, and the reserved sovereignty of the States — had aban
doned their cause, and the administration here was successful in
maintaining the idea upon which war was proclaimed and waged,
and the only view in which they supposed it could be justified at
all — when that was accomplished, I say, the people of Georgia
supposed their State was immediately entitled to all her rights
under the constitution. That is my opinion of the sentiment of
the people of Georgia, and I do not think they would be willing
to do any thing further as a condition precedent to their being
permitted to enjoy the full measure of their constitutional rights.
I only give my opinion of the sentiment of the people at this time.
They expected that as soon as the confederate cause was aban
doned, that immediately the States would be brought back into

828 TESTIMONY BEFORE THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.

their practical relations with the government, as previously con
stituted. That is what they looked to. They expected that the
State would immediately have their representatives in the Senate
and in the House, and they expected in good faith, as loyal men,
as the term is frequentty used — I mean by it loyal to law, order,
and the constitution — to support the government under the con
stitution. That was their feeling. They did what they did, be
lieving it was best for the protection o*f constitutional liberty.
Toward the constitution of the United States, as they construed
it, the great mass of our people were as much devoted in their
feelings as any people ever were toward any cause. This is my
opinion. As I remarked before, they resorted to secession with a
view of maintaining more securely these principles. And when
they found they were not successful in their object, in perfect good
faith, as far as I can judge from meeting with them and convers
ing with them, looking to the future developments of their coun
try in its material resources, as well as its moral and intellectual
progress, their earnest desire and expectation was to allow the
past struggle, lamentable as it was in its results, to pass by, and
to co-operate with the true friends of the constitution, with those
of all sections who earnestly desire the preservation of constitu
tional liberty, and the perpetuation of the government in its pu
rity. They have been a little disappointed in this, and are so now.
They are patiently waiting, however, and believing that when the
passions of the hour have passed awa}^ this delay in restoration
will cease. They think they have done every thing that was es
sential and proper, and my judgment is that they would not be
willing to do any thing further as a condition precedent. They
would simply remain quiet and passive.

Q. Does your own judgment approve the view you have given
as the opinion of the people of the State ?

A. My own judgment is very decided that the question of suf
frage is one that belongs, under the constitution — and wisely so,
too — to the States respectively and exclusively.

Q. Is it your opinion that neither of the alternatives suggested
in the question ought to be accepted by the people of Georgia ?

A. My own opinion is, that these terms ought not to be offered
as conditions precedent. In other words, my opinion is, that it
would be best for the peace, harmony, and prosperity of the whole
country that there should be an immediate restoration — an imme
diate bringing back of the States into their original practical rela
tions — and let all these questions then be discussed in common
council. Then the representatives from the South could be heard,
and you and all could judge much better of the tone and temper
of the people than you could from the opinions given by any in
dividuals. You may take my opinion, or the opinion of any indi
vidual, but they will not enable you to judge of the condition of
the State of Georgia so well as for her own representatives to be
heard in your public councils in her own behalf My judgment,

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE. 829

therefore, is ve^ decided that it would have been better, as soon
as the lamentable conflict was over, when the people of the South
abandoned their cause and agreed to accept the issue — desiring,
as they do, to resume their places for the future in the Union, and
to look to the halls of Congress and the courts for the protection
of their rights in the Union — it would have been better to have
allowed that result to follow, under the policy adopted by the ad
ministration, than to delay it or hinder it by propositions to
amend the constitution in respect to suffrage or any other new
matter. I think the people of all the southern States would, in
the halls of Congress, discuss these questions calmly and de
liberately ; and if they did not show that the views they enter
tained were just and proper, such as to control the judgment of
the people of the other sections and States, they would quietly,
patiently, and patriotically yield to whatever should be constitu
tionally determined in common council. But I think they feel
very sensitively the offer to them of propositions to accept, while
they are denied all voice in the common council of the Union
under the constitution in the discussion of these propositions. I
think they feel very sensitively that they are denied the right to
be heard. And while, as I have said, they might differ among
themselves in many points in regard to suffrage, they would not
differ upon the question of doing any thing further as a condition
precedent to restoration. And in respect to the alternate con
ditions to be so presented, I do not think they would accept the
one or the other. My individual general views as to the proper
course to be pursued in respect to the colored people are expressed
in a speech made before the Georgia legislature, referred to in my
letter to Senator Stewart, that was the proper forum, as I con
ceive, in which to discuss this subject. And I think a great deal
depends in the advancement of civilization and progress, looking to
the benefit of all classes, that these questions should be consid
ered and kept before the proper forum.

Q. Suppose the States that are represented in Congress and
Congress itself should be of the opinion that Georgia should not
be permitted to take its place in the government of the country
except upon its assent to one or the other of the two propositions
suggested : is it then your opinion that under such circumstances
Georgia ought to decline ?

Witness. You mean the States now represented, and those
only ?

Mr. Boutwell. Yes.

Witness. You mean by Congress, Congress as it is now con
stituted, with the other eleven States excluded ?

Mr. Boutwell. I do.

Witness. And you mean the same alternative proposition to be
applied to all the eleven States as conditions precedent to their
restoration ?

Mr. Boutwell. I do.

830 TESTIMONY BEFORE THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE.

A. Then I think she ought to decline under the circumstances,
and for the reasons stated ; and so ought the whole eleven.
Should such an offer be made and declined, and these States should
thus continue to be excluded and kept out, a singular spectacle
would be presented. A complete reversal of positions would be
presented. In 1861 these States thought they could not remain
safely in the Union without new guaranties, and now, when they
agree to resume their former practical relations in the Union un
der the constitution as it is, the other States turn upon them and
say they cannot permit them to do so, safely to their interest,
without new guaranties on their part. The Southern States would
thus present themselves as willing for immediate Union under the
constitution, while it would be the Northern States opposed to it.
The former disunionists would thereby become unionists, and the
former unionists the practical disunionists.

Examination of ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS resumed :

By Mr. Boutwell:

Q. Do you mean to be understood in your last answer that there
is no constitutional power in the government, as at present organ
ized, to exact conditions precedent to the restoration to political
power of the eleven States that have been in rebellion ?

A. Yes, sir. That is my opinion.

Q. Do you entertain the same opinion in reference to the amend
ment to the constitution abolishing slavery ?

A. I do. I think the States, however, abolished slavery in good
faith, as one of the results of the war. Their ratification of the
constitutional amendment followed as a consequence. I do not
think there is any constitutional power on the part of the govern
ment to have exacted it as a condition precedent to their restora
tion under the constitution, or to the resumption of their places
as members of the Union.

Q. What, in your opinion, is the legal value of the laws passed
by Congress and approved by the President in the absence of
senators and representatives from the eleven States ?

A. I do not know what particular law you refer to ; but my an
swer, generally, is, that the validity of all laws depends on their
constitutionality. This is a question for the judiciary to deter
mine. My own judgment, whatever it might be, would have to
conform to the judicial determination of the question. It is a
question for the courts to determine.

Q. Have you formed any opinion upon that question ?

A. I cannot say that I have formed any matured opinion in
reference to any particular act of Congress embraced in the ques
tion.

Q. Assume that Congress shall in this session, in the absence
of senators and representatives from the eleven States, pass an
act levying taxes upon all the people of the United States, includ

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE. 831

ing the eleven : is it your opinion that such an act would be con
stitutional ?

A. I should doubt if it would be. It would certainly, in my
opinion, be manifestly unjust, and against all ideas of American
representative government. Its constitutionality would, however,
be a question for the judiciary to decide, and I should be willing
to abide by that decision, whatever it might be.

Q. If the eleven States have at present an immediate constitu
tional right to be represented in Congress on a footing with the
States at present represented, has that been a continuous right
from the formation* of the government, or from the time of the ad
mission of the new States respectively, or has it been interrupted
by war ?

A. I think, as the Congress of the United States did not con
sent to the withdrawal of the seceding States, it was a continuous
right under the constitution of the United States, to be exercised
so soon as the seceding States respectively made known their
readiness to resume their former practical relations with the
federal government, under the constitution of the United States.
As the general government denied the right of secession, I do not
think any of the States attempting to exercise it thereby lost any
of their rights under the constitution, as States, when their people
abandoned that attempt.

Q. Is it or not your opinion that the legislatures and people of
the eleven States, respectively, have at present such a right to
elect senators and representatives to Congress ; that it may be
exercised without regard to the part which persons elected may
have had in the rebellion ?

A. I do not think they could exercise that right in the choice
of their senators and members, so as to impair in the slightest
degree the constitutional right of each House for itself to judge
of the qualifications of those who might be chosen. The right of
the constitutional electors of a State to choose, and the right of
each House of Congress to judge, of the qualifications of those
elected to their respective bodies, are very distinct and different
questions. And in thus judging of qualifications, I am free to
admit that in my opinion no one should be admitted as a member
of either House of Congress who is not really and truly loyal to
the constitution of the United States and to the government
established by it.

Q. State whether from your observation the events of the war
have produced any change in the public mind of the South upon
the question of the reserved rights of the States under the con
stitution of the United States.

A. That question I answered in part yesterday. While I can
not state from personal knowledge to what extent the opinions of
the southern States upon the abstract question of the reserved
rights of the States may have changed, my decided opinion is

832 TESTIMONY BEFOKE THE BECONSTBUCTION COMMITTEE.

that a very thorough change has taken place upon the practical
policy of resorting to any such right.

Q. What events or experience of the war have contributed to
this change ?

A. First, the people are satisfied that a resort to the exercise
of this right, while it is denied by the federal government, will
lead to war, which many thought before the late attempted seces
sion would not be the case ; and civil wars they are also now veiy
well satisfied are dangerous to liberty ; and, moreover, their expe
rience in the late war I think satisfied them that it greatly endan
gered their own. I allude especially to the suspension of the writ
of habeas corpus, the militar}^ conscriptions, the proclamations
of martial law in various places, general impressments, and the
levying of forced contributions, as well as the very demoralizing
effects of war generally.

Q. When were you last a member of the Congress of the United
States ?

A. I went out on the 4th of March, 1859.

Q. Will you state, if not indisposed to do so, the considerations
or opinions which led you to identify yourself with the rebellion
so far as to accept the office of Vice-President of the Confederate
States of America, so called ?

A. I believed thoroughly in the reserved sovereignty of the
several States of the Union under the compact of Union or con
stitution of 1187. I opposed secession, therefore, as a question
of policy, and not one of right on the part of Georgia. When the
State seceded against my judgment and vote, I thought my ulti
mate allegiance was due to her, and I preferred to cast my fortunes
and destinies with hers and her people, rather than to take any
other course, even though it might lead to my sacrifice and her
ruin. In accepting position under the new order of things, my
sole object was to do all the good I could in preserving and per
petuating the principles of liberty, as established under the con
stitution of the United States. If the Union was to be abandoned
either with or without force — which I thought a very impolitic
measure — I wished, if possible, to rescue, preserve, and perpetu
ate the principles of the constitution. This, I was not without
hope, might be done in the new confederacy of States formed.
When the conflict arose, my efforts were directed to as speedy
and peaceful an adjustment of the questions as possible. This ad
justment I always thought to be lasting, would have ultimately to
be settled upon a continental basis, founded upon the principles of
mutual convenience and reciprocal advantage on the part of the
States, on which the constitution of the United States was origi
nally formed. I was wedded to no particular plan of adjustment,
except- the recognition, as a basis, of the separate sovereignty of
the several States. With this recognized as a principle, I thought
all other questions of difference would soon adjust themselves,
according to the best interests, peace, welfare, and prosperity of

.
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE RECONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE. 833

the whole country, as enlightened reason, calm judgment, and a
sense of justice might direct. This doctrine of the sovereignty
of the several States I regarded as a self-adjusting, self-regulating
principle of our American system of State governments, extend
ing, possibly, over the continent.

Q. Have your opinions undergone any change since the open
ing of the rebellion in reference to the reserved rights of States
under the constitution of the United States ?

A. My convictions on the original abstract question have under
gone no change, but I accept the issues of the war and the result
as a practical settlement of that question. The sword was ap
pealed to to decide the question, and by the decision of the sword
I am willing to abide.
53

THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE
STAMPED BELOW

RENEWED BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE
RECALL

1 CD LIBRARY

LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS

Book Slip-35m-7,'62(D296s4)458

_______

Cleveland, H
Alexander H. Stephens
public & private.

Call Number:

EU67.1

S85

C6

CkveUwcl

SS5
Gb

263054