Skip to main content

Full text of "Memorable American speeches"

See other formats 


Mei 


Slavery 


- 
- 

Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

The  Institute  of  Museum  and  Library  Services  through  an  Indiana  State  Library 'LSTA  Grant 


PANY 


http://www.archive.org/details/memorableamerica03chen 


WENDELL-      PHILLIPS 


■"" 


Qfyt  tlakesfoe  Classics? 


Memorable  American 
Speeches 


in 

Slavery 


COLLECTED  AND  EDITED 


JOHN  VANCE  CHENEY 


5  ■;.-:'■  i 


<@bz  Hafce#6e  $re£&  Chicago 

R.  R.  DONNELLEY  &  SONS  COMPANY 

CHRISTMAS,  MCMIX 


publigfyztg  preface 


THE  annual  volume  of  the  Lakeside  Clas- 
sics continues  the  series  of  Memorable 
American  Speeches;  and  again  the  pub- 
lishers have  been  embarrassed  by  the  great 
amount  of  material  from  which  to  make  a 
selection.  The  size  of  the  volume  precludes 
any  attempt  to  give  an  adequate  review  of 
the  oratorical  literature  of  the  slavery  period; 
but  with  the  aid  of  Mr.  John  Vance  Cheney, 
whose  wide  reading  and  rare  critical  ability 
make  him  specially  fitted  for  the  task  of  select- 
ing and  editing  these  speeches,  the  publishers 
believe  that  they  are  presenting  a  volume  well 
worth  the  perusal  of  the  busy  man. 

The  purpose  of  the  publication  of  these 
volumes  is  to  convey  an  annual  greeting  to 
the  friends  and  patrons  of  the  Lakeside  Press, 
and  the  publishers  have  adopted  this  medium 
as  best  expressing  the  ideals  of  a  printing-house 
that  aims,  even  under  the  demands  of  modern 
commerce,  to  hold  fast  to  the  real  essentials  of 
good  book-making. 

Relying  upon  the  belief  that  the  aspirations 
of  the  Lakeside  Press  may  be  of  interest  to 
their  friends,  the  publishers  feel  that  it  will 
not  be  amiss  to  say  another  word  upon  the 
working  out  of  their  recently  established  ap- 
prenticeship system;  for  upon  the  success 
5 


$ufcii$)er$r  preface 


of  this  apprenticeship  system,  they  believe, 
rests  the  hope  of  maintaining  in  the  future 
their  ideals  of  taste  and  craftsmanship. 

A  little  over  a  year  ago,  the  school  for 
apprentices  of  the  Lakeside  Press  was  organ- 
ized, last  year's  volume  being  the  first  produc- 
tion of  the  school.  Another  year's  experience 
has  strengthened  the  faith  of  the  publishers 
in  their  plan.  The  plan  is  to  place  boys  at  their 
life-work  immediately  after  their  graduation 
from  grammar  school,  thus  avoiding  the  usual 
demoralizing  hiatus  of  two  or  three  years 
between  school  and  serious  employment;  to 
teach  during  a  portion  of  the  day  the  technique 
of  the  trade  and  the  correlated  academic 
studies  in  a  factory  school  in  order  that  the 
boys  may  become  skillful  craftsmen,  and  the 
balance  of  the  day  in  the  factory  on  actual 
commercial  work  that  they  may  become  indus- 
trious and  efficient  workmen.  The  work  of 
the  second-year  boys  shows  a  technique  and 
grounding  in  the  theory  of  correct  composition 
that  promises  in  time  an  organization  for  the 
Lakeside  Press  that  will  make  for  intelligence 
and  efficiency.  No  greater  proof  of  the  worth 
of  this  school  can  be  given  than  the  interest 
shown  by  the  parents  in  the  progress  of  the 
boys  and  their  co-operation  in  maintaining 
discipline. 

THE    PUBLISHERS. 


Christmas,  1909. 


Slnttotiuctor?  $ote 


THE  period  of  our  history  covered  by  the 
present  volume  stands  second  only  in 
importance  to  the  creative  days  of  the 
declaration  and  achievement  of  freedom  and 
independence.  Four  speakers  have  been  chosen 
to  lead  the  reader  back  over  memorable  scenes 
of  it,  set  aglow  by  their  genius,  and  so  con- 
tributing splendid  glimpses  of  a  fateful  struggle 
of  principles  unsurpassed  in  bravery,  glory  and 
worth  in  the  long  records  of  men. 

These  four  orators,  statesmen,  patriots  and 
gentlemen,  all  had  the  accent  of  the  charmer; 
and  to  exercise  it,  they  "  stood  upon  the  world's 
great  threshold,"  at  the  time  now  engaging  our 
attention,  eagerly  regarded  by  their  countrymen 
and  by  peoples  divided  from  us  by  the  seas. 
Their  voices  are  mighty  yet,  inviting  to  the 
difficult  task  of  a  choice  between  them :  whether 
the  greener  laurel  should  crown  the  graceful 
periods  of  Pinkney,  the  trenchant  and  ready 
dialectic  of  the  "  Little  Giant,"  the  ornate,  fear- 
less fervor  of  Sumner,  or  the  clear,  bell-strokes 
of  the  one  man  among  them,  Phillips,  who 
could  wholly  lose  himself  in  his  cause. 

The  speeches  are,  Sumner's  excepted,  given 
practically  entire;  the  few  omissions  being 
concerned  with  negligible  interruptions  of  the 
speaker.  J.  V.  C. 

7 


Contents 


William  Pinkney  page 

On  the  Missouri  Question         .         .    13 

Wendell  Phillips 

On  the  Philosophy  of  the  Abolition 
Movement   .         .         .         .         .77 

Stephen  A.  Douglas 

On  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill    .         .  147 

Charles  Sumner 

The  Crime  against  Kansas        .         .225 


Memorable  American  Speeches 


( 1 764-1 822) 

ON  THE  MISSOURI  QUESTION 

[Delivered  February  15,  1820,  in  the  Senate.] 


AS  I  am  not  a  very  frequent  speaker  in 
this  assembly,  and  have  shown  a  desire, 
I  trust,  rather  to  listen  to  the  wisdom 
of  others  than  to  lay  claim  to  superior  knowl- 
edge by  undertaking  to  advise,  even  when 
advice,  by  being  seasonable  in  point  of  time, 
might  have  some  chance  of  being  profitable, 
you  will,  perhaps,  bear  with  me  if  I  venture  to 
trouble  you  once  more  on  that  eternal  subject 
which  has  lingered  here  until  all  its  natural 
interest  is  exhausted,  and  every  topic  connected 
with  it  is  literally  worn  to  tatters.  I  shall, 
I  assure  you,  sir,  speak  with  laudable  brevity; 
not  merely  on  account  of  the  feeble  state  of  my 
health,  and  from  some  reverence  for  the  laws 
of  good  taste  which  forbid  me  to  speak  other- 
wise, but  also  from  a  sense  of  justice  to  those 
who  honor  me  with  their  attention.  My  single 
purpose,  as  I  suggested  yesterday,  is  to  sub- 
ject to  a  friendly  yet  close  examination  some 
portions  of  a  speech,  imposing,  certainly,  on 
account  of  the  distinguished  quarter  from 
whence  it  came;  not  very  imposing  (if  I  may 
13 


Jftemorafcie  American  ^peerfjeg 

so  say  without  departing  from  that  respect 
which  I  sincerely  feel  and  intend  to  manifest 
for  eminent  abilities  and  long  experience)  for 
any  other  reason. 

I  believe,  Mr.  President,  that  I  am  about 
as  likely  to  retract  an  opinion  which  I  have 
formed  as  any  member  of  this  body,  who,  being 
a  lover  of  truth,  inquires  after  it  with  diligence 
before  he  imagines  that  he  has  found  it;  but 
I  suspect  that  we  are  all  of  us  so  constituted 
as  that  neither  argument  nor  declamation, 
leveled  against  recorded  and  published  deci- 
sion, can  easily  discover  a  practicable  avenue 
through  which  it  may  hope  to  reach  either  our 
heads  or  our  hearts.  I  mention  this  lest  it  may 
excite  surprise  when  I  take  the  liberty  to  add 
that  the  speech  of  the  honorable  gentleman 
from  New  York  [Rufus  King],  upon  the  great 
subject  with  which  it  was  principally  occupied, 
has  left  me  as  great  an  infidel  as  it  found  me 
It  is  possible,  indeed,  that  if  I  had  had  the 
good  fortune  to  hear  that  speech  at  an  earlier 
stage  of  this  debate,  when  all  was  fresh  and 
new, —  although  I  feel  confident  that  the  analy- 
sis which  it  contained  of  the  Constitution,  illus- 
trated as  it  was  by  historical  anecdote  rather 
than  by  reasoning,  would  have  been  just  as 
unsatisfactory  to  me  then  as  it  is  now,  —  I 
might  not  have  been  altogether  unmoved  by 
those  warnings  of  approaching  evil  which  it 
seemed  to  intimate,  especially  when  taken  in 
connection  with  the  observations  of  the  same 


IMliam  $inftnep 


honorable  gentleman  on  a  preceding  day,  "that 
delays  in  disposing  of  this  subject  in  the  man- 
ner he  desires  are  dangerous,  and  that  we 
stand  on  slippery  ground."  I  must  be  permit- 
ted, however  (speaking  only  for  myself),  to  say 
that  the  hour  of  dismay  is  passed.  I  have 
heard  the  tones  of  the  larum  bell  on  all  sides, 
until  they  have  become  familiar  to  my  ear,  and 
have  lost  their  power  to  appal,  if,  indeed,  they 
ever  possessed  it.  Notwithstanding  occasional 
appearances  of  rather  an  unfavorable  descrip- 
tion, I  have  long  since  persuaded  myself  that 
the  Missouri  question,  as  it  is  called,  might  be 
laid  to  rest  with  innocence  and  safety,  by  some 
conciliatory  compromise  at  least,  by  which,  as 
is  our  duty,  we  might  reconcile  the  extremes 
of  conflicting  views  and  feelings  without  any 
sacrifice  of  constitutional  principles ;  and  in 
any  event,  that  the  Union  would  easily  and 
triumphantly  emerge  from  those  portentous 
clouds  with  which  this  controversy  is  supposed 
to  have  environed  it. 

I  confess  to  you,  nevertheless,  that  some  of 
the  principles  announced  by  the  honorable 
gentleman  from  New  York,  with  an  explicit- 
ness  that  reflected  the  highest  credit  on  his 
candor,  did,  when  they  were  first  presented, 
startle  me  not  a  little.  They  were  not,  perhaps, 
entirely  new.  Perhaps  I  had  seen  them  before 
in  some  shadowy  and  doubtful  shape, 

"If  shape  it  might  be  call'd  that  shape  had  none. 
Distinguishable  in  member,  joint,  or  limb." 


jttemoraWe  American  J>peerfje£ 

But  in  the  honorable  gentleman's  speech 
they  were  shadowy  and  doubtful  no  longer. 
He  exhibited  them  in  forms  so  boldly  and  ac- 
curately defined,  with  contours  so  distinctly 
traced,  with  features  so  pronounced  and  strik- 
ing, that  I  was  unconscious  for  a  moment 
that  they  might  be  old  acquaintances.  I  re- 
ceived them  as  novi  hospites  within  these  walls, 
and  gazed  upon  them  with  astonishment  and 
alarm.  I  have  recovered,  however,  thank  God, 
from  this  paroxysm  of  terror,  although  not 
from  that  of  astonishment.  I  have  sought 
and  found  tranquillity  and  courage  in  my  former 
consolatory  faith.  My  reliance  is  that  these 
principles  will  obtain  no  general  currency;  for, 
if  they  should,  it  requires  no  gloomy  imagina- 
tion to  sadden  the  perspective  of  the  future. 
My  reliance  is  upon  the  unsophisticated  good 
sense  and  noble  spirit  of  the  American  people. 
I  have  what  I  may  be  allowed  to  call  a  proud 
and  patriotic  trust  that  they  will  give  counte- 
nance to  no  principles  which,  if  followed  out 
to  their  obvious  consequences,  will  not  only 
shake  the  goodly  fabric  of  the  Union  to  its 
foundations,  but  reduce  it  to  a  melancholy  ruin. 
The  people  of  this  country,  if  I  do  not  wholly 
mistake  their  character,  are  wise  as  well  as 
virtuous.  They  know  the  value  of  that  federal 
association  which  is  to  them  the  single 
pledge  and  guarantee  of  power  and  peace. 
Their  warm  and  pious  affections  will  cling  to 
it  as  to  their  only  hope  of  prosperity  and  hap- 
16 


IBiliiam  ftofenep 


piness,  in  defiance  of  pernicious  abstractions, 
by  whomsoever  inculcated,  or  howsoever  se- 
ductive or  alluring  in  their  aspect. 

Sir,  it  is  not  an  occasion  like  this,  although 
connected,  as  contrary  to  all  reasonable  expec- 
tation it  has  been,  with  fearful  and  disorganiz- 
ing theories,  which  would  make  our  estimates, 
whether  fanciful  or  sound,  of  natural  law,  the 
measure  of  civil  rights  and  political  sovereignty 
in  the  social  state  that  can  harm  the  Union. 
It  must,  indeed,  be  a  mighty  storm  that  can 
push  from  its  moorings  this  sacred  ark  of  the 
common  safety.  It  is  not  every  trifling  breeze, 
however  it  may  be  made  to  sob  and  howl,  in 
imitation  of  the  tempest,  by  the  auxiliary  breath 
of  the  ambitious^  the  timid,  or  the  discontented, 
that  can  drive  this  gallant  vessel,  freighted  with 
everything  that  is  dear  to  an  American  bosom, 
upon  the  rocks,  or  lay  it  a  sheer  hulk  upon  the 
ocean.  I  may,  perhaps,  mistake  the  flattering 
suggestions  of  hope  (the  greatest  of  all  flat- 
terers, as  we  are  told),  for  the  conclusions  of 
sober  reason.  Yet  it  is  a  pleasing  error,  if  it  be 
an  error,  and  no  man  shall  take  it  from  me.  I 
will  continue  to  cherish  the  belief,  in  defiance 
of  the  public  patronage  given  by  the  honorable 
gentleman  from  New  York,  with  more  than  his 
ordinary  zeal  and  solemnity,  to  deadly  specu- 
lations, which,  invoking  the  name  of  God  to 
aid  their  faculties  for  mischief,  strike  at  all 
establishments,  that  the  union  of  these  States  is 
formed  to  bear  up  against  far  greater  shocks 
17 


iHemoratrte  American  M>#tttfyc$ 

than,  through  all  vicissitudes,  it  is  ever  likely 
to  encounter.  I  will  continue  to  cherish  the 
belief  that,  although  like  all  other  human 
institutions  it  may  for  a  season  be  disturbed,  or 
suffer  momentary  eclipse  by  the  transit  across 
its  disk  of  some  malignant  planet,  it  possesses  a 
recuperative  force,  a  redeeming  energy  in  the 
hearts  of  the  people,  that  will  soon  restore  it 
to  its  wonted  calm,  and  give  it  back  its  accus- 
tomed splendor.  On  such  a  subject  I  will 
discard  all  hysterical  apprehensions;  I  will  deal 
in  no  sinister  auguries;  I  will  indulge  in  no 
hypochondriacal  forebodings.  I  will  look  for- 
ward to  the  future  with  gay  and  cheerful  hope  ; 
and  will  make  the  prospect  smile,  in  fancy  at 
least,  until  overwhelming  reality  shall  render  it 
no  longer  possible. 

I  have  said  thus  much,  sir,  in  order  that  I 
may  be  understood  as  meeting  the  constitu- 
tional question  as  a  mere  question  of  interpreta- 
tion, and  as  disdaining  to  press  into  the  service 
of  my  argument  upon  it  prophetic  fears  of  any 
sort,  however  they  may  be  countenanced  by  an 
avowal,  formidable  by  reason  of  the  high  rep- 
utation of  the  individual  by  whom  it  has  been 
hazarded,  of  sentiments  the  most  destructive, 
which  if  not  borrowed  from  are  identical  with 
the  worst  visions  of  the  political  philosophy  of 
France  when  all  the  elements  of  discord  and 
misrule  were  let  loose  upon  that  devoted  nation. 
I  mean  "the  infinite  perfectibility  of  man  and 
his  institutions,"  and  the  resolution  of  every- 
18 


fMIiam  $infenep 


thing  into  a  state  of  nature.  I  have  another 
motive  which,  at  the  risk  of  being  misconstrued, 
I  will  declare  without  reserve.  With  my 
convictions,  and  with  my  feelings,  I  never  will 
consent  to  hold  confederated  America  as  bound 
together  by  a  silken  cord,  which  any  instru- 
ment of  mischief  may  sever,  to  the  view  of 
monarchical  foreigners,  who  look  with  a  jealous 
eye  upon  that  glorious  experiment  which  is 
now  in  progress  amongst  us  in  favor  of  repub- 
lican freedom.  Let  them  make  such  prophe- 
cies as  they  will,  and  nourish  such  feelings  as 
they  may;  I  will  not  contribute  to  the  fulfill- 
ment of  the  former,  nor  minister  to  the  gratifi- 
cation of  the  latter. 

Sir,  it  was  but  the  other  day  that  we  were 
forbidden  (properly  forbidden,  I  am  sure,  for 
the  prohibition  came  from  you)  to  assume  that 
there  existed  any  intention  to  impose  a  pro- 
spective restraint  on  the  domestic  legislation  of 
Missouri;  a  restraint  to  act  upon  it  contempo- 
raneously with  its  origin  as  a  state,  and  to 
continue  adhesive  to  it  through  all  the  stages  of 
its  political  existence.  We  are  now,  however, 
permitted  to  know  that  it  is  determined  by  a 
sort  of  political  surgery  to  amputate  one  of  the 
limbs  of  its  local  sovereignty,  and  thus  mangled 
and  disparaged,  and  thus  only,  to  receive  it 
into  the  bosom  of  the  Constitution.  It  is  now 
avowed  that,  while  Maine  is  to  be  ushered 
into  the  Union  with  every  possible  demonstra- 
tion of  studious  reverence  on  our  part,  and  on 
19 


jttemoraMe  American  £peec|)eg 

hers,  with  colors  flying,  and  all  the  other  grace- 
ful accompaniments  of  honorable  triumph, 
this  ill-conditioned  upstart  of  the  west,  this 
obscure  foundling  of  a  wilderness  that  was  but 
yesterday  the  hunting-ground  of  the  savage,  is 
to  find  her  way  into  the  American  family  as 
she  can,  with  an  humiliating  badge  of  remedi- 
less inferiority  patched  upon  her  garments, 
with  the  mark  of  recent,  qualified  manumission 
upon  her,  or  rather  with  a  brand  upon  her 
forehead  to  tell  the  story  of  her  territorial 
vassalage,  and  to  perpetuate  the  memory  of 
her  evil  propensities.  It  is  now  avowed  that, 
while  the  robust  district  of  Maine  is  to  be  seated 
by  the  side  of  her  truly  respectable  parent, 
co-ordinate  in  authority  and  honor,  and  is  to  be 
dandled  into  that  power  and  dignity  of  which 
she  does  not  stand  in  need,  but  which  undoubt- 
edly she  deserves,  the  more  infantine  and  feeble 
Missouri  is  to  be  repelled  with  harshness,  and 
forbidden  to  come  at  all  unless  with  the  iron 
collar  of  servitude  about  her  neck  instead  of 
the  civic  crown  of  republican  freedom  upon 
her  brows,  and  is  to  be  doomed  for  ever  to 
leading-strings  unless  she  will  exchange  those 
leading-strings  for  shackles. 

I  am  told  that  you  have  the  power  to 
establish  this  odious  and  revolting  distinction, 
and  I  am  referred  for  the  proofs  of  that  power 
to  various  parts  of  the  Constitution,  but 
principally  to  that  part  of  it  which  authorizes 
the  admission  of  new  states  into  the  Union.     I 


fBilliam  $inftnep 


am  myself  of  opinion  that  it  is  in  that  part 
only  that  the  advocates  for  this  restriction  can, 
with  any  hope  of  success,  apply  for  a  license  to 
impose  it ;  and  that  the  efforts  which  have  been 
made  to  find  it  in  other  portions  of  that  instru- 
ment are  too  desperate  to  require  to  be  encoun- 
tered. I  shall,  however,  examine  those  other 
portions  before  I  have  done,  lest  it  should  be 
supposed  by  those  who  have  relied  upon  them 
that  what  I  omit  to  answer  I  believe  to  be 
unanswerable. 

The  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  relates 
to  the  admission  of  new  states  is  in  these 
words:  "The  Congress  may  admit  new  states 
into  this  Union,"  etc.,  and  the  advocates  for 
restriction  maintain  that  the  use  of  the  word 
"may"  imports  discretion  to  admit  or  to  reject; 
and  that  in  this  discretion  is  wrapped  up 
another,  —  that  of  prescribing  the  terms  and 
conditions  of  admission  in  case  you  are  willing 
to  admit,  Cujus  est  dare  ejus  est  dtsponere.  I 
will  not  for  the  present  inquire  whether  this 
involved  discretion  to  dictate  the  terms  of  ad- 
mission belongs  to  you  or  not.  It  is  fit  that  I 
should  first  look  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  it. 

I  think  I  may  assume  that  if  such  a  power 
be  anything  but  nominal,  it  is  much  more  than 
adequate  to  the  present  object;  that  it  is  a 
power  of  vast  expansion  to  which  human  sa- 
gacity can  assign  no  reasonable  limits;  that  it  is 
a  capacious  reservoir  of  authority  from  which 
you  may  take,  in  all  time  to  come,  as  occasion 
21 


ffiicmoxahlt  American  Jbpmtytg 

may  serve,  the  means  of  oppression  as  well  as 
of  benefactions.  I  know  that  it  professes,  at 
this  moment,  to  be  the  chosen  instrument  of 
protecting  mercy,  and  would  win  upon  us  by 
its  benignant  smiles;  but  I  know,  too,  it  can 
frown  and  play  the  tyrant  if  it  be  so  disposed. 
Notwithstanding  the  softness  which  it  now 
assumes,  and  the  care  with  which  it  conceals 
its  giant  proportions  beneath  the  deceitful 
drapery  of  sentiment,  when  it  next  appears 
before  you  it  may  show  itself  with  a  sterner 
countenance  and  in  more  awful  dimensions.  It 
is,  to  speak  the  truth,  sir,  8.  power  of  colossal 
size ;  if,  indeed,  it  be  not  an  abuse  of  language 
to  call  it  by  the  gentle  name  of  a  power.  Sir, 
it  is  a  wilderness  of  powers,  of  which  fancy,  in 
her  happiest  mood,  is  unable  to  perceive  the 
far  distant  and  shadowy  boundary.  Armed 
with  such  a  power,  with  religion  in  one  hand 
and  philanthropy  in  the  other,  and  followed 
with  a  goodly  train  of  public  and  private  vir- 
tues, you  may  achieve  more  conquests  over 
sovereignties  not  your  own  than  falls  to  the 
common  lot  of  even  uncommon  ambition.  By 
the  aid  of  such  a  power,  skilfully  employed,  you 
may  "bridge  your  way"  over  the  Hellespont 
that  separates  state  legislation  from  that  of 
Congress ;  and  you  may  do  so  for  pretty  much 
the  same  purpose  with  which  Xerxes  once 
bridged  his  way  across  the  Hellespont  that 
separates  Asia  from  Europe.  He  did  so,  in 
the  language  of  Milton,  "the  liberties  of 
22 


IBiUiam  $inhnep 


Greece  to  yoke."  You  may  do  so  for  the 
analogous  purpose  of  subjugating  and  reducing 
the  sovereignties  of  states,  as  your  taste  or 
convenience  may  suggest,  and  fashioning  them 
to  your  imperial  will.  There  are  those  in  this 
House  who  appear  to  think,  and  I  doubt  not 
sincerely,  that  the  particular  restraint  now 
under  consideration  is  wise  and  benevolent 
and  good;  wise  as  respects  the  Union,  good  as 
respects  Missouri,  benevolent  as  respects  the 
unhappy  victims  whom  with  a  novel  kindness 
it  would  incarcerate  in  the  South,  and  bless  by 
decay  and  extirpation.  Let  all  such  beware, 
lest,  in  their  desire  for  the  effect  which  they 
believe  the  restriction  will  produce,  they  are 
too  easily  satisfied  that  they  have  the  right  to 
impose  it.  The  moral  beauty  of  the  present 
purpose,  or  even  its  political  recommendations 
(whatever  they  may  be) ,  can  do  nothing  for  a 
power  like  this,  which  claims  to  prescribe  con- 
ditions ad  libitum  and  to  be  competent  to  this 
purpose  because  it  is  competent  to  all.  This 
restriction,  if  it  be  not  smothered  in  its  birth, 
will  be  but  a  small  part  of  the  progeny  of  that 
prolific  power.  It  teems  with  a  mighty  brood, 
of  which  this  may  be  entitled  to  the  distinction 
of  comeliness  as  well  as  of  primogeniture.  The 
rest  may  want  the  boasted  loveliness  of  their 
predecessor,  and  be  even  uglier  than  "Lapland 
witches." 

Perhaps,  sir,  you  will  permit  me  to  remind 
you  that  it  is  almost  always  in  company  with 
23 


jftemora&Ie  American  M>vtztfyt$ 

those  considerations  that  interest  the  heart  in 
some  way  or  other  that  encroachment  steals 
into  the  world.  A  bad  purpose  throws  no  veil 
over  the  licenses  of  power.  It  leaves  them  to 
be  seen  as  they  are.  It  affords  them  no  pro- 
tection from  the  inquiring  eye  of  jealousy.  The 
danger  is  when  a  tremendous  discretion  like 
the  present  is  attempted  to  be  assumed,  as  on 
this  occasion,  in  the  names  of  pity,  of  religion, 
of  national  honor  and  national  prosperity;  when 
encroachment  tricks  itself  out  in  the  robes  of 
piety,  or  humanity,  or  addresses  itself  to  pride 
of  country,  with  all  its  kindred  passions  and 
motives.  It  is  then  that  the  guardians  of  the 
Constitution  are  apt  to  slumber  on  their  watch, 
or,  if  awake,  to  mistake  for  lawful  rule  some 
pernicious  arrogation  of  power. 

I  would  not  discourage  authorized  legislation 
upon  those  kindly,  generous,  and  noble  feelings 
which  Providence  has  given  to  us  for  the  best 
of  purposes;  but  when  power  to  act  is  under 
discussion,  I  will  not  look  to  the  end  in  view, 
lest  I  should  become  indifferent  to  the  law- 
fulness of  the  means.  Let  us  discard  from  this 
high  constitutional  question  all  those  extrinsic 
considerations  which  have  been  forced  into 
its  discussion.  Let  us  endeavor  to  approach 
it  with  a  philosophic  impartiality  of  temper, 
with  a  sincere  desire  to  ascertain  the  boun- 
daries of  our  authority,  and  a  determination  to 
keep  our  wishes  in  subjection  to  our  allegiance 
to  the  Constitution. 


f&iftiam  $inhnep 


Slavery,  we  are  told  in  many  a  pamphlet, 
memorial,  and  speech  with  which  the  press  has 
lately  groaned,  is  a  foul  blot  upon  our  other- 
wise immaculate  reputation.  Let  this  be  con- 
ceded, yet  you  are  no  nearer  than  before  to 
the  conclusion  that  you  possess  power  which 
may  deal  with  other  subjects  as  effectually  as 
with  this.  Slavery,  we  are  further  told,  with 
some  pomp  of  metaphor,  is  a  canker  at  the 
root  of  all  that  is  excellent  in  this  republican 
empire,  a  pestilent  disease  that  is  snatching  the 
youthful  bloom  from  its  cheek,  prostrating  its 
honor,  and  withering  its  strength.  Be  it  so, 
yet  if  you  have  power  to  medicine  to  it  in  the 
way  proposed,  and  in  virtue  of  the  diploma 
which  you  claim,  you  have  also  power  in  the 
distribution  of  your  political  alexipharmics  to 
present  the  deadliest  drugs  to  every  territory 
that  would  become  a  state,  and  bid  it  drink  or 
remain  a  colony  forever.  Slavery,  we  are  also 
told,  is  now  "rolling  onward  with  a  rapid  tide 
towards  the  boundless  regions  of  the  west," 
threatening  to  doom  them  to  sterility  and  sor- 
row unless  some  potent  voice  can  say  to  it, 
Thus  far  shalt  thou  go,  and  no  farther.  Slavery 
engenders  pride  and  indolence  in  him  who 
commands,  and  inflicts  intellectual  and  moral 
degradation  on  him  who  serves.  Slavery,  in 
fine,  is  unchristian  and  abominable.  Sir,  I  shall 
not  stop  to  deny  that  slavery  is  all  this  and 
more;  but  I  shall  not  think  myself  the  less 
authorized  to  deny  that  it  is  for  you  to  stay  the 
25 


jftcmoraWe  American  £peecf)e£ 

course  of  this  dark  torrent  by  opposing  to  it 
a  mound  raised  up  by  the  labors  of  this  por- 
tentous discretion  on  the  domain  of  others, — 
a  mound  which  you  cannot  erect  but  through 
the  instrumentality  of  a  trespass  of  no  ordinary 
kind, — not  the  comparatively  innocent  trespass 
that  beats  down  a  few  blades  of  grass  which  the 
first  kind  sun  or  the  next  refreshing  shower 
may  cause  to  spring  again,  but  that  which  levels 
with  the  ground  the  lordliest  trees  of  the  for- 
est, and  claims  immortality  for  the  destruction 
which  it  inflicts. 

I  shall  not,  I  am  sure,  be  told  that  I  exag- 
gerate this  power.  It  has  been  admitted  here 
and  elsewhere  that  I  do  not.  But  I  want  no 
such  concession.  It  is  manifest  that  as  a 
discretionary  power  it  is  everything  or  nothing, 
that  its  head  is  in  the  clouds,  or  that  it  is  a 
mere  figment  of  enthusiastic  speculation,  that 
it  has  no  existence,  or  that  it  is  an  alarming 
vortex  ready  to  swallow  up  all  such  portions 
of  the  sovereignty  of  an  infant  state  as  you 
may  think  fit  to  cast  into  it  as  preparatory  to 
the  introduction  into  the  Union  of  the  miserable 
residue.  No  man  can  contradict  me  when  I 
say  that  if  you  have  this  power  you  may 
squeeze  down  a  new-born  sovereign  state  to  the 
size  of  a  pigmy,  and  then,  taking  it  between 
finger  and  thumb,  stick  it  into  some  niche  of  the 
Union,  and  still  continue,  by  way  of  mockery, 
to  call  it  a  state  in  the  sense  of  the  Constitu- 
tion. You  may  waste  it  to  a  shadow,  and  then 
26 


tteifliam  Jtaknep 


introduce  it  into  the  society  of  flesh  and  blood, 
an  object  of  scorn  and  derision.  You  may 
sweat  and  reduce  it  to  a  thing  of  skin  and  bone, 
and  then  place  the  ominous  skeleton  beside  the 
ruddy  and  healthful  members  of  the  Union, 
that  it  may  have  leisure  to  mourn  the  lament- 
able difference  between  itself  and  its  compan- 
ions, to  brood  over  its  disastrous  promotion, 
and  to  seek  in  justifiable  discontent  an 
opportunity  for  separation  and  insurrection 
and  rebellion.  What  may  you  not  do,  by 
dexterity  and  perseverance,  with  this  terrific 
power  ?  You  may  give  to  a  new  state,  in  the 
form  of  terms  which  it  cannot  refuse  (as  I  shall 
show  you  hereafter),  a  statute  book  of  a  thou- 
sand volumes,  providing  not  for  ordinary  cases 
only,  but  even  for  possibilities;  you  may  lay 
the  yoke,  no  matter  whether  light  or  heavy, 
upon  the  necks  of  the  latest  posterity;  you 
may  send  this  searching  power  into  every  ham- 
let for  centuries  to  come,  by  laws  enacted  in 
the  spirit  of  prophecy,  and  regulating  all  those 
dear  relations  of  domestic  concern  which 
belong  to  local  legislation,  and  which  even 
local  legislation  touches  with  a  delicate  and 
sparing  hand.  This  is  the  first  inroad.  But 
will  it  be  the  last?  This  provision  is  but  a 
pioneer  for  others  of  a  more  desolating  aspect. 
It  is  that  fatal  bridge  of  which  Milton  speaks, 
and  when  once  firmly  built,  what  shall  hinder 
you  to  pass  it,  when  you  please,  for  the  purpose 
of  plundering  power  after  power  at  the  expense 
27 


jttemorafcie  American  £peecf)c£ 

of  new  states,  as  you  will  still  continue  to  call 
them,  and  raising  up  prospective  codes,  irrevo- 
cable and  immortal,  which  shall  leave  to  those 
states  the  empty  shadows  of  domestic  sover- 
eignty, and  convert  them  into  petty  pageants, 
in  themselves  contemptible,  but  rendered  in- 
finitely more  so  by  the  contrast  of  their  humble 
faculties  with  the  proud  and  admitted  preten- 
sions of  those  who,  having  doomed  them  to  the 
inferiority  of  vassals,  have  condescended  to 
take  them  into  their  society  and  under  their 
protection  ? 

I  shall  be  told,  perhaps,  that  you  can  have 
no  temptation  to  do  all  or  any  part  of  this, 
and,  moreover,  that  you  can  do  nothing  of 
yourselves,  or,  in  other  words,  without  the 
concurrence  of  the  new  state.  The  last  of 
these  suggestions  I  shall  examine  by  and  by. 
To  the  first,  I  answer,  that  it  is  not  incumbent 
upon  me  to  prove  that  this  discretion  will  be 
abused.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  prove  the 
vastness  of  the  power  as  an  inducement  to 
make  us  pause  upon  it,  and  to  inquire  with 
attention  whether  there  is  any  apartment  in 
the  Constitution  large  enough  to  give  it  enter- 
tainment. It  is  more  than  enough  for  me  to 
show  that,  vast  as  is  this  power,  it  is,  with 
reference  to  mere  territories,  an  irresponsible 
power.  Power  is  irresponsible  when  it  acts 
upon  those  who  are  defenseless  against  it, 
who  cannot  check  it,  or  contribute  to  check  it, 
in  its  exercise;  who  can  resist  it  only  by  force. 
28 


fteiliiam  $infenep 


The  territory  of  Missouri  has  no  check  upon 
its  power.  It  has  no  share  in  the  government 
of  the  Union.  In  this  body  it  has  no  repre- 
sentative. In  the  other  House  it  has,  by 
courtesy,  an  agent,  who  may  remonstrate,  but 
cannot  vote.  That  such  an  irresponsible 
power  is  not  likely  to  be  abused,  who  will 
undertake  to  assert?  If  it  is  not,  "experience 
is  a  cheat  and  fact  a  liar."  The  power  which 
England  claimed  over  the  colonies  was  such 
a  power,  and  it  was  abused,  and  hence  the 
Revolution.  Such  a  power  is  always  perilous 
to  those  who  wield  it  as  well  as  to  those  on 
whom  it  is  exerted.  Oppression  is  but  another 
name  for  irresponsible  power,  if  history  is 
to  be  trusted. 

The  free  spirit  of  our  Constitution  and  of  our 
people  is  no  assurance  against  the  propension 
of  unbridled  power  to  abuse  when  it  acts  upon 
colonial  dependents  rather  than  upon  our- 
selves. Free  states,  as  well  as  despots,  have 
oppressed  those  whom  they  were  bound  to 
foster;  and  it  is  the  nature  of  man  that  it 
should  be  so. 

The  love  of  power,  and  the  desire  to  display 
it  when  it  can  be  done  with  impunity,  is  inher- 
ent in  the  human  heart.  Turn  it  out  at  the 
door,  and  it  will  in  again  at  the  window.  Power 
is  displayed  in  its  fullest  measure,  and  with 
a  captivating  dignity,  by  restraints  and  con- 
ditions. The  pruritus  leges  ferendi  is  an 
universal  disease;  and  conditions  are  laws  as 
29 


Memorable  American  ^peecfteg 

far  as  they  go.  The  vanity  of  human  wisdom 
and  the  presumption  of  human  reason  are  pro- 
verbial. This  vanity  and  this  presumption  are 
often  neither  reasonable  nor  wise.  Humanity, 
too,  sometimes  plays  fantastic  tricks  with 
power.  Time,  moreover,  is  fruitful  in  tempta- 
tions to  convert  discretionary  power  to  all  sorts 
of  purposes. 

Time,  that  withers  the  strength  of  man  and 
"strews  around  him  like  autumnal  leaves  the 
ruins  of  his  proudest  monuments,"  produces 
great  vicissitudes  in  modes  of  thinking  and  feel- 
ing. It  brings  along  with  it,  in  its  progress, 
new  circumstances,  new  combinations  and 
modifications  of  the  old,  generating  new  views, 
motives  and  caprices,  new  fanaticisms  of  end- 
less variety,  in  short,  new  everything.  We 
ourselves  are  always  changing,  and  what  to-day 
we  have  but  a  small  desire  to  attempt,  to- 
morrow becomes  the  object  of  our  passionate 
aspirations. 

There  is  such  a  thing  as  enthusiasm, — moral, 
religious,  or  political,  or  a  compound  of  all 
three, — and  it  is  wonderful  what  it  will  attempt, 
and  from  what  imperceptible  beginnings  it 
sometimes  rises  into  a  mighty  agent.  Rising 
from  some  obscure  or  unknown  source,  it 
first  shows  itself  a  petty  rivulet  which  scarcely 
murmurs  over  the  pebbles  that  obstruct  its 
way,  then  it  swells  into  a  fierce  torrent  bearing 
all  before  it,  and  then  again,  like  some  moun- 
tain stream,  which  occasional  rains  have  pre- 
30 


tteifliam  $infcnep 


cipitated  upon  the  valley,  it  sinks  once  more 
into  a  rivulet,  and  finally  leaves  its  channel 
dry.  Such  a  thing  has  happened.  I  do  not  say 
that  it  is  now  happening.  It  would  not  become 
me  to  say  so.  But  if  it  should  occur,  woe  to 
the  unlucky  territory  that  should  be  struggling 
to  make  its  way  into  the  Union  at  the  mo- 
ment when  the  opposing  inundation  was  at  its 
height,  and  at  the  same  instant  this  wide  Medi- 
terranean of  discretionary  powers,  which  it 
seems  is  ours,  should  open  up  all  its  sluices,  and 
with  a  consentaneous  rush  mingle  with  the 
turbid  waters  of  the  others ! 

"New  states  may  be  admitted  by  the  Con- 
gress into  this  Union."  It  is  objected  that  the 
word  "may"  imports  power,  not  obligation — 
a  right  to  decide;  a  discretion  to  grant  or 
refuse. 

To  this  it  might  be  answered  that  power  is 
duty  on  many  occasions.  But  let  it  be  con- 
ceded that  it  is  discretionary.  What  conse- 
quence follows  ?  A  power  to  refuse,  in  a  case 
like  this,  does  not  necessarily  involve  a  power 
to  exact  terms.  You  must  look  to  the  result 
which  is  the  declared  object  of  the  power. 
Whether  you  will  arrive  at  it  or  not  may  depend 
on  your  will;  but  you  cannot  compromise  with 
the  result  intended  and  professed. 

What  then  is  the  professed  result?  To 
admit  a  state  into  this  Union.  What  is  that 
Union?  A  confederation  of  states  equal  in 
3i 


jHemoraBic  American  &$mfyz$ 

sovereignty,  capable  of  everything  which  the 
Constitution  does  not  forbid  or  authorize  Con- 
gress to  forbid.  It  is  an  equal  union  between 
parties  equally  sovereign.  They  were  sover- 
eign independently  of  the  Union.  The  object 
of  the  Union  was  common  protection  for  the 
exercise  of  already  existing  sovereignty.  The 
parties  gave  up  a  portion  of  that  sovereignty 
to  insure  the  remainder.  As  far  as  they  gave 
it  up  by  the  common  compact  they  have  ceased 
to  be  sovereign.  The  Union  provides  the  means 
of  defending  the  residue;  and  it  is  into  that 
Union  that  a  new  state  is  to  come.  By  acced- 
ing to  it  the  new  state  is  placed  on  the  same 
footing  with  the  original  states.  It  accedes 
for  the  same  purpose,  i.  e.,  protection  for  their 
unsurrendered  sovereignty.  If  it  comes  in 
shorn  of  its  beams,  crippled  and  disparaged 
beyond  the  original  states,  it  is  not  into  the 
original  Union  that  it  comes.  For  it  is  a  differ- 
ent sort  of  Union.  The  first  was  Union  inter 
pares;  this  is  a  Union  between  "  disparates," 
between  giants  and  a  dwarf,  between  power 
and  feebleness,  between  full-proportioned  sov- 
ereignties and  a  miserable  image  of  power, — 
a  thing  which  that  very  Union  has  shrunk  and 
shriveled  from  its  just  size,  instead  of  preserv- 
ing it  in  its  true  dimensions. 

It  is  into  "this  Union,"  i.  e.,  the  Union  of 

the  Federal  Constitution,  that  you  are  to  admit 

or  refuse  to  admit.     You  can  admit  into  no 

other.     You  cannot  make  the  Union  as  to  the 

32 


IMliam  JMnftnep 


new  state  what  it  is  not  as  to  the  old;  for  then 
it  is  not  this  Union  that  you  open  for  the 
entrance  of  a  new  party.  If  you  make  it  enter 
into  a  new  and  additional  compact  is  it  any 
longer  the  same  Union  ? 

We  are  told  that  admitting  a  state  into  the 
Union  is  a  compact.  Yes,  but  what  sort  of  a 
compact  ?  A  compact  that  it  shall  be  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Union  as  the  constitution  has  made 
it.  You  cannot  new  fashion  it.  You  may 
make  a  compact  to  admit,  but  when  admitted 
the  original  compact  prevails.  The  Union  is 
a  compact  with  a  provision  of  political  power 
and  agents  for  the  accomplishment  of  its 
objects.  Vary  that  compact  as  to  a  new  state, 
give  new  energy  to  that  political  power  so  as 
to  make  it  act  with  more  force  upon  a  new 
state  than  upon  the  old;  make  the  will  of  those 
agents  more  effectually  the  arbiter  of  the  fate 
of  a  new  state  than  of  the  old,  and  it  may  con- 
fidently be  said  that  the  new  state  has  not 
entered  into  this  Union,  but  into  another 
Union.  How  far  the  Union  has  been  varied  is 
another  question.  But  that  it  has  been  varied 
is  clear. 

If  I  am  told  that  by  the  bill  relative  to 
Missouri,  you  do  not  legislate  upon  a  new 
state,  I  answer  that  you  do;  and  I  answer 
further  that  it  is  immaterial  whether  you  do  or 
not.  But  it  is  upon  Missouri  as  a  state  that 
your  terms  and  conditions  are  to  act.  Until 
Missouri  is  a  state  the  terms  and  conditions 
33 


Memorable  American  &pm$c$ 

are  nothing.  You  legislate  in  the  shape  of 
terms  and  conditions,  prospectively,  and  you 
so  legislate  upon  it  that  when  it  comes  into 
the  Union  it  is  to  be  bound  by  a  contract  de- 
grading and  diminishing  its  sovereignty,  and 
is  to  be  stripped  of  rights  which  the  original 
parties  to  the  Union  did  not  consent  to  aban- 
don, and  which  that  Union  (so  far  as  depends 
upon  it)  takes  under  its  protection  and  guar- 
antee. 

Is  the  right  to  hold  slaves  a  right  which 
Massachusetts  enjoys  ?  If  it  is,  Massachusetts 
is  under  this  Union  in  a  different  character 
from  Missouri.  The  compact  of  Union  for  it 
is  different  from  the  same  compact  of  Union 
for  Missouri.  The  power  of  Congress  is  dif- 
ferent; everything  which  depends  upon  the 
Union  is,  in  that  respect,  different. 

But  it  is  immaterial  whether  you  legislate 
for  Missouri  as  a  state  or  not.  The  effect  of 
your  legislation  is  to  bring  it  into  the  Union 
with  a  portion  of  its  sovereignty  taken  away. 

But  it  is  a  state  which  you  are  to  admit. 
What  is  a  state  in  the  sense  of  the  Constitu- 
tion ?  It  is  not  a  state  in  general,  but  a  state 
as  you  find  it  in  the  Constitution.  A  state 
generally  is  a  body  politic  or  independent 
political  society  of  men.  But  the  state  which 
you  are  to  admit  must  be  more  or  less  than 
this  political  entity.  What  must  it  be  ?  Ask 
the  Constitution.  It  shows  what  it  means  by 
a  state  by  reference  to  the  parties  to  it. 
34 


f@iftiam  ^inkncp 


It  must  be  such  a  state  as  Massachusetts, 
Virginia,  and  the  other  members  of  the  Amer- 
ican confederacy;  a  state  with  full  sovereignty 
except  as  the  Constitution  restricts  it. 

It  is  said  that  the  word  "may  "  necessarily 
implies  the  right  of  prescribing  the  terms  of 
admission.  Those  who  maintain  this  are 
aware  that  there  are  no  express  words,  such  as 
"upon  such  terms  and  conditions  as  Congress 
shall  think  fit";  words  which  it  was  natural  to 
expect  to  find  in  the  Constitution  if  the  effect 
contended  for  were  meant.  They  put  it, 
therefore,  on  the  word  "may"  and  on  that 
alone.  Give  to  that  word  all  the  force  you 
please,  what  does  it  import  ?  That  Congress 
is  not  bound  to  admit  a  new  state  into  this 
Union.  Be  it  so  for  argument's  sake.  Does 
it  follow  that  when  you  consent  to  admit  into 
this  Union  a  new  state  you  can  make  it  less  in 
sovereign  power  than  the  original  parties  to 
that  Union  ;  that  you  can  make  the  Union  as 
to  it  what  it  is  not  as  to  them  ;  that  you  can 
fashion  it  to  your  liking  by  compelling  it  to 
purchase  admission  into  a  Union  by  sacrificing 
a  portion  of  that  power  which  it  is  the  sole 
purpose  of  the  Union  to  maintain  in  all  the 
plenitude  which  the  Union  itself  does  not 
impair?  Does  it  follow  that  you  can  force 
upon  it  an  additional  compact  not  found  in  the 
compact  of  Union;  that  you  can  make  it 
come  into  the  Union  less  a  state  in  regard 
to  sovereign  power  than  its  fellows  in  that 
35 


jftemoraBle  American  J>peecf)e£ 

Union ;  that  you  can  cripple  its  legislative 
competency  (beyond  the  Constitution  which 
is  the  pact  of  Union  to  which  you  make  it  a 
party,  as  if  it  had  been  originally  a  party  to  it) 
by  what  you  choose  to  call  a  condition,  but 
which,  whatever  it  may  be  called,  brings  the 
new  government  into  the  Union  under  new 
obligations  to  it,  and  with  disparaged  power 
to  be  protected  by  it  ? 

In  a  word,  the  whole  amount  of  the  argu- 
ment on  the  other  side  is,  that  you  may  refuse 
to  admit  a  new  state,  and  that,  therefore,  if  you 
admit  you  may  prescribe  the  terms.  The 
answer  to  that  argument  is,  that  even  if  you 
can  refuse  you  can  prescribe  no  terms  which 
are  inconsistent  with  the  act  you  are  to  do. 
You  can  prescribe  no  conditions  which,  if 
carried  into  effect,  would  make  the  new  state 
less  a  sovereign  state  than,  under  the  Union  as 
it  stands,  it  would  be.  You  can  prescribe  no 
terms  which  will  make  the  compact  of  Union 
between  it  and  the  original  states  essentially 
different  from  that  compact  among  the  original 
states.  You  may  admit  or  refuse  to  admit; 
but  if  you  admit  it  you  must  admit  a  state  in 
the  sense  of  the  Constitution,  a  state  with  all 
such  sovereignty  as  belongs  to  the  original 
parties;  and  it  must  be  into  this  Union  that 
you  are  to  admit  it,  not  into  a  Union  of  your 
own  dictating,  formed  out  of  the  existing 
Union  by  qualifications  and  new  compacts, 
altering  its  character  and  effect,  and  making  it 
36 


tteiHiam  $infcnep 


fall  short  of  its  protecting  energy  in  reference 
to  the  new  state  whilst  it  acquires  an  energy 
of  another  sort,  the  energy  of  restraint  and 
destruction. 

I  have  thus  endeavored  to  show  that  even  if 
you  have  a  discretion  to  refuse  to  admit  you 
have  no  discretion,  if  you  are  willing  to  admit, 
to  insist  upon  any  terms  that  impair  the 
sovereignty  of  the  admitted  state  as  it  would 
otherwise  stand  in  the  Union  by  the  Constitu- 
tion which  receives  it  into  its  bosom.  To 
admit  or  not  is  for  you  to  decide.  Admission 
once  conceded,  it  follows  as  a  corollary  that 
you  must  take  the  new  state  as  an  equal  com- 
panion with  its  fellows  ;  that  you  cannot  recast 
or  new  model  the  Union  pro  hac  vice,  but  that 
you  must  receive  it  into  the  actual  Union  and 
recognize  it  as  a  parcener  in  the  common 
inheritance,  without  any  other  shackles  than 
the  rest  have,  by  the  Constitution,  submitted  to 
bear,  without  any  other  extinction  of  power 
than  is  the  work  of  the  Constitution  acting 
indifferently  upon  all. 

I  may  be  told,  perhaps,  that  the  restriction 
in  this  case  is  the  act  of  Missouri  itself; 
that  your  law  is  nothing  without  its  consent, 
and  derives  its  efficacy  from  that  alone.  I 
shall  have  a  more  suitable  occasion  to  speak  on 
this  topic  hereafter  when  I  come  to  consider 
the  treaty  which  ceded  Louisiana  to  the  United 
States.  But  1  will  say  a  few  words  upon 
it  now  of  a  more  general  application  than  it 
37 


jHemoraWe  American  g>#mfyt$ 

will  in  that  branch  of  the  argument  be  neces- 
sary to  use. 

A  territory  cannot  surrender  to  Congress, 
by  anticipation,  the  whole  or  part  of  the  sov- 
ereign power,  which,  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  Union,  will  belong  to  it  when  it  becomes  a 
state  and  a  member  of  the  Union.  Its  con- 
sent is,  therefore,  nothing.  It  is  in  no  situation 
to  make  this  surrender.  It  is  under  the  gov- 
ernment of  Congress.  If  it  can  barter  away 
a  part  of  its  sovereignty  by  anticipation,  it  can 
do  so  as  to  the  whole.  For  where  will  you 
stop?  If  it  does  not  cease  to  be  a  state  in 
the  sense  of  the  Constitution,  with  only  a 
certain  portion  of  sovereign  power,  what  other 
smaller  portion  will  have  that  effect  ?  If  you 
depart  from  the  standard  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, i.e.,  the  quantity  of  domestic  sovereignty 
left  in  the  first  contracting  states,  and  secured 
by  the  original  compact  of  Union,  where  will 
you  get  another  standard  ?  Consent  is  no 
standard;  for  consent  may  be  gained  to  a 
surrender  of  all.  No  state  or  territory,  in 
order  to  become  a  state,  can  alienate  or  sur- 
render any  portion  of  its  sovereignty  to  the 
Union,  or  to  a  sister  state,  or  to  a  foreign 
nation.  It  is  under  an  incapacity  to  disqualify 
itself  for  all  the  purposes  of  government  left 
to  it  in  the  Constitution,  by  stripping  itself  of 
attributes  which  arise  from  the  natural  equality 
of  states,  and  which  the  Constitution  recog- 
nizes, not  only  because  it  does  not  deny  them, 
38 


fBilliam  $inftncp 


but  presumes  them  to  remain  as  they  exist  by 
the  law  of  nature  and  nations.  Inequality  in 
the  sovereignty  of  states  is  unnatural,  and  re- 
pugnant to  all  the  principles  of  that  law. 
Hence  we  find  it  laid  down  by  the  text-writers 
on  public  law  that  "Nature  has  established  a 
perfect  equality  of  rights  between  independent 
nations,"  and  that  "whatever  the  quality  of  a 
free  sovereign  nation  gives  to  one  it  gives 
to  another."  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  proceeds  upon  the  truth  of  this  doc- 
trine. It  takes  the  states  as  it  finds  them, 
free  and  sovereign  alike  by  nature.  It  receives 
from  them  portions  of  their  power  for  the 
general  good,  and  provides  for  the  exercise 
of  it  by  organized  political  bodies.  It  dimin- 
ishes the  individual  sovereignty  of  each,  and 
transfers  what  it  subtracts  to  the  government 
which  it  creates;  it  takes  from  all  alike,  and 
leaves  them  relatively  to  each  other  equal  in 
sovereign  power. 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  New  York 
has  put  the  constitutional  argument  altogether 
upon  the  clause  relative  to  admission  of  new 
states  into  the  Union.  He  does  not  pretend 
that  you  can  find  the  power  to  restrain  in  any 
extent  elsewhere.  It  follows  that  it  is  not  a 
particular  power  to  impose  this  restriction, 
but  a  power  to  impose  restrictions  ad  libitum. 
It  is  competent  to  this,  because  it  is  compe- 
tent to  everything.  But  he  denies  that  there 
can  be  any  power  in  man  to  hold  in  slavery 
39 


^temoraBIe  American  £>pcttfyt& 

his  fellow-creature,  and  argues,  therefore,  that 
the  prohibition  is  no  restraint  at  all,  since  it 
does  not  interfere  with  the  sovereign  powers 
of  Missouri. 

One  of  the  most  signal  errors  with  which 
the  argument  on  the  other  side  has  abounded 
is  this  of  considering  the  proposed  restriction 
as  if  leveled  at  the  introduction  or  establish- 
ment of  slavery.  And  hence  the  vehement 
declamation,  which,  among  other  things,  has 
imformed  us  that  slavery  originated  in  fraud 
or  violence.  The  truth  is  that  the  restriction 
has  no  relation,  real  or  pretended,  to  the  right 
of  making  slaves  of  those  who  are  free,  or  of 
introducing  slavery  where  it  does  not  already 
exist.  It  applies  to  those  who  are  admitted  to 
be  already  slaves,  and  who,  with  their  posterity, 
would  continue  to  be  slaves  if  they  should 
remain  where  they  are  at  present,  and  to  a 
place  where  slavery  already  exists  by  the  local 
law.  Their  civil  condition  will  not  be  altered 
by  their  removal  from  Virginia  or  Carolina  to 
Missouri.  They  will  not  be  more  slaves  than 
they  now  are.  Their  abode,  indeed,  will  be 
different,  but  their  bondage  the  same.  Their 
numbers  may  possibly  be  augmented  by  the 
diffusion,  and  I  think  they  will.  But  this  can 
only  happen  because  their  hardships  will  be 
mitigated,  and  their  comforts  increased.  The 
checks  to  population  which  exist  in  the  older 
states  will  be  diminished.  The  restriction, 
40 


IBilliam  fBinftnep 


therefore,  does  not  prevent  the  establishment 
of  slavery,  either  with  reference  to  persons  or 
place;  but  simply  inhibits  the  removal  from 
place  to  place  (the  law  in  each  being  the  same) 
of  a  slave,  or  make  his  emancipation  the  con- 
sequence of  that  removal.  It  acts  professedly 
merely  on  slavery  as  it  exists;  and  thus  acting, 
restrains  its  present  lawful  effects.  That  slav- 
ery, like  many  other  human  institutions,  orig- 
inated in  fraud  or  violence  may  be  conceded  ; 
but  however  it  originated,  it  is  established 
among  us,  and  no  man  seeks  a  further  estab- 
lishment of  it  by  new  importations  of  freemen 
to  be  converted  into  slaves.  On  the  contrary, 
all  are  anxious  to  mitigate  its  evils  by  all  the 
means  within  the  reach  of  the  appropriate 
authority, — the  domestic  legislatures  of  the 
different  states. 

It  can  be  nothing  to  the  purpose  of  this 
argument,  therefore,  as  the  gentlemen  them- 
selves have  shaped  it,  to  inquire  what  was 
the  origin  of  slavery.  What  is  it  now,  and 
who  are  they  that  endeavor  to  innovate  upon 
what  it  now  is  (the  advocates  of  this  restriction 
who  desire  change  by  unconstitutional  means, 
or  its  opponents  who  desire  to  leave  the 
whole  matter  to  local  regulation),  are  the  only 
questions  worthy  of  attention. 

Sir,  if  we  too  closely  look  to  the  rise  and 

progress   of    long   sanctioned   establishments 

and  unquestioned  rights,  we  may  discover  other 

subjects  than  that  of  slavery  with  which  fraud 

41 


jmemorafcle  American  M>pmfyt$ 

and  violence  may  claim  a  fearful  connection, 
and  over  which  it  may  be  our  interest  to  throw 
the  mantle  of  oblivion.  What  was  the  settle- 
ment of  our  ancestors  in  this  country  but  an 
invasion  of  the  rights  of  the  barbarians  who 
inhabited  it?  That  settlement,  with  slight 
exceptions,  was  effected  by  the  slaughter  of 
those  who  did  no  more  than  defend  their 
native  land  against  the  intruders  of  Europe,  or 
by  unequal  compacts  and  purchases,  in  which 
feebleness  and  ignorance  had  to  deal  with 
power  and  cunning.  The  savages  who  once 
built  their  huts  where  this  proud  Capitol,  rising 
from  its  recent  ashes,  exemplifies  the  sov- 
ereignty of  the  American  people,  were  swept 
away  by  the  injustice  of  our  fathers,  and  their 
domain  usurped  by  force,  or  obtained  by  artifices 
yet  more  criminal.  Our  continent  was  full  of 
those  aboriginal  inhabitants.  Where  are  they 
or  their  descendants?  Either  "with  years 
beyond  the  flood,"  or  driven  back  by  the 
swelling  tide  of  our  population  from  the  bor- 
ders of  the  Atlantic  to  the  deserts  of  the  West. 
You  follow  still  the  miserable  remnants,  and 
make  contracts  with  them  that  seal  their  ruin. 
You  purchase  their  lands,  of  which  they  know 
not  the  value,  in  order  that  you  may  sell  them 
to  advantage,  increase  your  treasure,  and  en- 
large your  empire.  Yet,  further,  you  pursue 
as  they  retire;  and  they  must  continue  to 
retire  until  the  Pacific  shall  stay  their  retreat 
and  compel  them  to  pass  away  as  a  dream. 
42 


ttetfliam  $infcnep 


Will  you  recur  to  those  scenes  of  various 
iniquity  for  any  other  purpose  than  to  regret 
and  lament  them?  Will  you  pry  into  them 
with  a  view  to  shake  and  impair  your  rights  of 
property  and  dominion  ? 

But  the  broad  denial  of  the  sovereign  right 
of  Missouri,  if  it  shall  become  a  sovereign 
state,  to  recognize  slavery  by  its  laws  is 
rested  upon  a  variety  of  grounds,  all  of  which 
I  will  examine. 

It  is  an  extraordinary  fact  that  they  who 
urge  this  denial  with  such  ardent  zeal  stop 
short  of  it  in  their  conduct.  There  are  now 
slaves  in  Missouri  whom  they  do  not  insist 
upon  delivering  from  their  chains.  Yet,  if  it 
is  incompetent  to  sovereign  power  to  continue 
slavery  in  Missouri  in  respect  of  slaves  who 
may  yet  be  carried  thither,  show  me  the  power 
that  can  continue  it  in  respect  of  slaves  who 
are  there  already.  Missouri  is  out  of  the  old 
limits  of  the  Union;  and  beyond  those  limits, 
it  is  said,  we  can  give  no  countenance  to  slavery, 
if  we  can  countenance  or  tolerate  it  anywhere. 
It  is  plain  that  there  can  be  no  slaves  beyond 
the  Mississippi,  at  this  moment,  but  in  virtue 
of  some  power  to  make  or  keep  them  so. 
What  sort  of  power  was  it  that  has  made  or 
kept  them  so  ?  Sovereign  power  it  could  not 
be  according  to  the  honorable  gentlemen  from 
Pennsylvania  and  New  Hampshire  [Roberts, 
Lowrie,  and  Morril];  and  if  sovereign  power  is 
unequal  to  such  a  purpose,  less  than  sovereign 
43 


fitcmatahU  American  M>#tztfyz$ 

power  is  yet  more  unequal  to  it.  The  laws  of 
Spain  and  France  could  do  nothing,  the  laws 
of  the  territorial  government  of  Missouri 
could  do  nothing,  towards  such  a  result;  if  it 
be  a  result  which  no  laws,  in  other  words,  no 
sovereignty,  could  accomplish.  The  treaty  of 
1803  could  do  no  more,  in  this  view,  than  the 
laws  of  France  or  Spain,  or  the  territorial 
government  of  Missouri.  A  treaty  is  an  act  of 
sovereign  power,  taking  the  shape  of  a  com- 
pact between  the  parties  to  it ;  and  that  which 
sovereign  power  cannot  reach  at  all  it  cannot 
reach  by  a  treaty.  Those  who  are  now  held 
in  bondage,  therefore,  in  Missouri,  and  their 
issue,  are  entitled  to  be  free  if  there  be  any 
truth  in  the  doctrine  of  the  honorable  gentle- 
man; and  if  the  proposed  restriction  leaves  all 
such  in  slavery,  it  thus  discredits  the  very 
foundation  on  which  it  reposes.  To  be  incon- 
sistent is  the  fate  of  false  principles;  but  this 
inconsistency  is  the  more  to  be  remarked  since 
it  cannot  be  referred  to  mere  considerations  of 
policy  without  admitting  that  such  consider- 
ations may  be  preferred,  without  a  crime,  to 
what  is  deemed  a  paramount  and  indispensable 
duty. 

It  is  here,  too,  that  I  must  be  permitted  to 
observe  that  the  honorable  gentlemen  have 
taken  great  pains  to  show  that  this  restriction 
is  a  mere  work  of  supererogation  by  the  prin- 
cipal argument  on  which  they  rest  the  proof 
of  its  propriety.  Missouri,  it  is  said,  can  have 
44 


Jteiliiam  $mftnep 


no  power  to  do  what  the  restriction  would 
prevent.  It  would  be  void,  therefore,  without 
the  restriction.  Why  then,  I  ask,  is  the  re- 
striction insisted  upon?  Restraint  implies 
that  there  is  something  to  be  restrained.  But 
the  gentlemen  justify  the  restraint  by  showing 
that  there  is  nothing  upon  which  it  can  oper- 
ate !  They  demonstrate  the  wisdom  and  ne- 
cessity of  restraint  by  demonstrating  that, 
with  or  without  restraint,  the  subject  is  in  the 
same  predicament.  This  is  to  combat  with  a 
man  of  straw,  and  to  put  fetters  upon  a  shadow. 
The  gentlemen  must,  therefore,  abandon  either 
their  doctrine  or  their  restriction,  their  argu- 
ment or  their  object;  for  they  are  directly  in 
conflict,  and  reciprocally  destroy  each  other. 
It  is  evident  that  they  will  not  abandon  their 
object;  and,  of  course,  I  must  believe  that 
they  hold  their  argument  in  as  little  real  esti- 
mation as  I  myself  do.  The  gentlemen  can 
scarcely  be  sincere  believers  in  their  own  prin- 
ciple. They  have  apprehensions,  which  they 
endeavor  to  conceal,  that  Missouri  as  a  state 
will  have  power  to  continue  slavery  within  its 
limits ;  and,  if  they  will  not  be  offended,  I  will 
venture  to  compare  them,  in  this  particular, 
with  the  duelist  in  Sheridan's  comedy  of  The 
Rivals,  who,  affecting  to  have  no  fear  what- 
ever of  his  adversary,  is,  nevertheless,  careful 
to  admonish  Sir  Lucius  to  hold  him  fast. 

Let  us  take  it  for  granted,  however,  that 
they  are  in  earnest  in  their  doctrine,  and  that 
45 


jHemorabie  American  ^peecfje^ 

it  is  very  necessary  to  impose  what  they  prove 
to  be  an  unnecessary  restraint.  How  do  they 
support  that  doctrine?  The  honorable  gentle- 
man on  the  other  side  has  told  us,  as  a  proof 
of  his  great  position,  that  man  cannot  enslave 
his  fellow-man,  in  which  is  implied  that  all  laws 
upholding  slavery  are  absolute  nullities;  that 
the  nations  of  antiquity  as  well  as  of  modern 
times,  have  concurred  in  laying  down  that  po- 
sition as  incontrovertible.  He  refers  us,  in  the 
first  place,  to  the  Roman  law,  in  which  he  finds 
it  laid  down  as  a  maxim :  Jure  naturali  om- 
nes  homines  ab  initio  liberi  nascebantur.  From 
the  manner  in  which  this  maxim  was  pressed 
upon  us,  it  would  not  readily  have  been  con- 
jectured that  the  honorable  gentleman  who 
used  it  had  borrowed  it  from  a  slave-holding 
empire,  and  still  less  from  a  book  of  the  Insti- 
tutes of  Justinian,  which  treats  of  slavery,  and 
justifies  and  regulates  it.  Had  he  given  us  the 
context  we  should  have  had  the  modifications 
of  which  the  abstract  doctrine  was,  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  Roman  laws,  susceptible.  We 
should  have  had  an  explanation  of  the  compe- 
tency of  that  law  to  convert,  whether  justly  or 
unjustly,  freedom  into  servitude,  and  to  main- 
tain the  right  of  a  master  to  the  service  and 
obedience  of  his  slave. 

The  honorable  gentleman  might  also  have 
gone  to  Greece  for  a  similar  maxim  and  a  sim- 
ilar commentary,  speculative  and  practical. 

He  next  refers  us  to  Magna  Charta.  I  am 
46 


fteiiiiam  ftoftnep 


somewhat  familiar  with  Magna  Charta,  and  I 
am  confident  that  it  contains  no  such  maxim 
as  the  honorable  gentleman  thinks  he  has  dis- 
covered in  it.  The  great  charter  was  extorted 
from  John  and  his  feeble  son  and  successor, 
by  haughty,  slave-holding  barons  who  thought 
only  of  themselves  and  the  commons  of  Eng- 
land, then  inconsiderable,  whom  they  wished 
to  enlist  in  their  efforts  against  the  crown. 
There  is  not  in  it  a  single  word  which  condemns 
civil  slavery.  Freemen  only  are  the  objects  of 
its  protecting  care.  Nullus  liber  homo,  is  its 
phraseology.  The  serfs,  who  were  chained  to 
the  soil — the  villeins  regardant  and  in  gross — 
were  left  as  it  found  them.  All  England  was 
then  full  of  slaves,  whose  posterity  would  by 
law  remain  slaves  as  with  us,  except  only  that 
the  issue  followed  the  condition  of  the  father 
instead  of  the  mother.  The  rule  was,  Partus 
sequitur  patrem;  a  rule  more  favorable,  un- 
doubtedly, from  the  very  precariousness  of  its 
application,  to  the  gradual  extinction  of  slavery, 
than  ours,  which  has  been  drawn  from  the 
Roman  law,  and  is  of  sure  and  unavoidable 
effect.  Still  less  has  the  petition  of  right 
presented  to  Charles  I.,  by  the  long  Parlia- 
ment, to  do  with  the  subject  of  civil  slavery. 
It  looked  merely,  as  Magna  Charta  had  not 
done  before  it,  to  the  freemen  of  England,  and 
sought  only  to  protect  them  against  royal  pre- 
rogative and  the  encroaching  spirit  of  the 
Stuarts. 

47 


jftemorafcie  American  £peerf)eg 

As  to  the  Bill  of  Rights  enacted  by  the  Con- 
vention Parliament  of  1688,  it  is  almost  a  du- 
plicate of  the  Petition  of  Right,  and  arose  out 
of  the  recollection  of  that  political  tyranny 
from  which  the  nation  had  just  escaped,  and 
the  recurrence  of  which  it  was  intended  to 
prevent.  It  contains  no  abstract  principles. 
It  deals  only  with  practical  checks  upon  the 
power  of  the  monarch  and  in  safeguards  for 
institutions  essential  to  the  preservation  of  the 
public  liberty.  That  it  was  not  designed  to 
anathematize  civil  slavery  may  be  taken  for 
granted,  since  at  that  epoch,  and  long  after- 
wards, the  English  government  inundated  its 
foreign  plantations  with  slaves,  and  supplied 
other  nations  with  them  as  merchandise  under 
the  sanction  of  solemn  treaties  negotiated  for 
that  purpose.  And  here  I  cannot  forbear  to 
remark  that  we  owe  it  to  that  same  government, 
when  it  stood  towards  us  in  the  relation  of 
parent  to  child,  that  involuntary  servitude  ex- 
ists in  our  land,  and  that  we  are  now  deliber- 
ating whether  the  prerogative  of  correcting 
its  evils  belongs  to  the  national  or  the  state 
governments.  In  the  early  periods  of  our 
colonial  history  everything  was  done  by  the 
mother  country  to  encourage  the  importation 
of  slaves  into  North  America,  and  the  measures 
which  were  adopted  by  the  Colonial  Assemblies 
to  prohibit  it  were  uniformly  negatived  by  the 
crown.  It  is  not,  therefore,  our  fault,  nor  the 
fault  of  our  ancestors,  that  this  calamity  has 
48 


fBilliam  $inftnep 


been  entailed  upon  us ;  and,  notwithstanding  the 
ostentation  with  which  the  loitering  abolition 
of  the  slave  trade  by  the  British  Parliament  has 
been  vaunted,  the  principal  consideration  which 
at  last  reconciled  it  to  that  measure  was,  that 
by  suitable  care  the  slave  population  in  their 
West  India  Islands,  already  fully  stocked,  might 
be  kept  up  and  even  increased  without  the  aid 
of  importation.  In  a  word,  it  was  cold  calcu- 
lations of  interest,  and  not  the  suggestions  of 
humanity,  or  a  respect  for  the  philanthropic 
principles  of  Mr.  Wilberforce,  which  produced 
their  tardy  abandonment  of  that  abominable 
traffic. 

Of  the  declaration  of  our  independence, 
which  has  also  been  quoted  in  support  of  the 
perilous  doctrines  now  urged  upon  us,  I  need 
not  now  speak  at  large.  I  have  shown,  on  a 
former  occasion,  how  idle  it  is  to  rely  upon 
that  instrument  for  such  a  purpose;  and  I  will 
not  fatigue  you  by  mere  repetition.  The  self- 
evident  truths  announced  in  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  are  not  truths  at  all  if  taken 
literally;  and  the  practical  conclusions  con- 
tained in  the  same  passage  of  that  declaration 
prove  that  they  were  never  designed  to  be  so 
received. 

The  Articles  of  Confederation  contain  noth- 
ing on  the  subject;  whilst  the  actual  Constitu- 
tion recognizes  the  legal  existence  of  slavery 
by  various  provisions.  The  power  of  prohib- 
iting the  slave  trade  is  involved  in  that  of 
49 


ffiitmatabit  American  £>#cctl)t$ 

regulating  commerce ;  but  this  is  coupled  with 
an  express  inhibition  to  the  exercise  of  it  for 
twenty  years.  How,  then,  can  that  Constitu- 
tion which  expressly  permits  the  importation  of 
slaves  authorize  the  national  government  to  set 
on  foot  a  crusade  against  slavery  ? 

The  clause  respecting  fugitive  slaves  is  af- 
firmative and  active  in  its  effects.  It  is  a 
direct  sanction  and  positive  protection  of  the 
right  of  the  master  to  the  services  of  his  slave 
as  derived  under  the  local  laws  of  the  states. 
The  phraseology  in  which  it  is  wrapped  up 
still  leaves  the  intention  clear,  and  the  words, 
"person  held  to  service  or  labor  in  one  state 
under  the  laws  thereof,"  have  always  been  in- 
terpreted to  extend  to  the  case  of  slaves,  in 
the  various  acts  of  Congress  which  have  been 
passed  to  give  efficacy  to  the  provision,  and  in 
the  judicial  application  of  those  laws.  So,  also, 
in  the  clause  prescribing  the  ratio  of  represen- 
tation, the  phrase,  "three-fifths  of  all  other 
persons, "  is  equivalent  to  slaves,  or  it  means 
nothing.  And  yet  we  are  told  that  those  who 
are  acting  under  a  Constitution  which  sanc- 
tions the  existence  of  slavery  in  those  states 
which  choose  to  tolerate  it,  are  at  liberty  to 
hold  that  no  law  can  sanction  its  existence ! 

It  is  idle  to  make  the  rightfulness  of  an  act 
the  measure  of  sovereign  power.  The  distinc- 
tion between  sovereign  power  and  the  moral 
right  to  exercise  it  has  always  been  recognized. 
All  political  power  may  be  abused,  but  is  it  to 
5° 


IMiiam  $infcnep 


stop  where  abuse  may  begin?  The  power  of 
declaring  war  is  a  power  of  vast  capacity  for 
mischief,  and  capable  of  inflicting  the  most 
wide-spread  desolation.  But  it  is  given  to 
Congress  without  stint  and  without  measure. 
Is  a  citizen  or  are  the  courts  of  justice  to  in- 
quire whether  that  or  any  other  law  is  just  be- 
fore they  obey  or  execute  it?  And  are  there 
any  degrees  of  injustice  which  will  withdraw 
from  sovereign  power  the  capacity  of  making 
a  given  law? 

But  sovereignty  is  said  to  be  deputed  power. 
Deputed  by  whom?  By  the  people,  because 
the  power  is  theirs.  And  if  it  be  theirs,  does 
not  the  restriction  take  it  away?  Examine 
the  Constitution  of  the  Union,  and  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  people  of  the  states  are  regarded 
as  well  as  the  states  themselves.  The  Con- 
stitution was  made  by  the  people,  and  ratified 
by  the  people. 

Is  it  fit,  then,  to  hold  that  all  the  sovereignty 
of  a  state  is  in  the  government  of  the  state? 
So  much  is  there  as  the  people  grant ;  and  the 
people  can  take  it  away,  or  give  more,  or  new 
model  what  they  have  already  granted.  It  is 
this  right  which  the  proposed  restriction  takes 
from  Missouri.  You  give  them  an  immortal 
Constitution,  depending  on  your  will,  not  on 
theirs.  The  people  and  their  posterity  are  to 
be  bound  forever  by  this  restriction ;  and  upon 
the  same  principle,  any  other  restriction  may 
be  imposed.  Where,  then,  is  their  power  to 
5i 


jftemorafeie  American  g>$tttfyt$ 

change  the  Constitution,  and  to  devolve  new- 
sovereignty  upon  the  state  government  ?  You 
limit  their  sovereign  capacity  to  do  it ;  and 
when  you  talk  of  a  state,  you  mean  the  people 
as  well  as  the  government.  The  people  are 
the  source  of  all  power;  you  dry  up  that  source. 
They  are  the  reservoir;  you  take  out  of  it 
what  suits  you. 

It  is  said  that  this  government  is  a  govern- 
ment of  deputed  powers;  so  is  every  gov- 
ernment; and  what  power  is  not  deputed  re- 
mains. But  the  people  of  the  United  States 
can  give  it  more  if  they  please,  as  the  people  of 
each  state  can  do  in  respect  to  its  own  govern- 
ment. And  here  it  is  well  to  remember  that 
this  is  a  government  of  enumerated,  as  well  as 
deputed,  powers,  and  to  examine  the  clause  as 
to  the  admission  of  new  states  with  that  prin- 
ciple in  view.  Now  assume  that  it  is  a  part  of 
the  sovereign  power  of  the  people  of  Missouri 
to  continue  slavery,  and  to  devolve  that  power 
upon  its  government,  and  then  to  take  it  away, 
and  then  to  give  it  again.  The  government  is 
their  creature,  the  means  of  exercising  their 
sovereignty;  and  they  can  vary  those  means  at 
their  pleasure.  Independently  of  the  Union, 
their  power  would  be  unlimited.  By  coming 
into  the  Union  they  part  with  some  of  it,  and 
are  thus  less  sovereign.  Let  us  then  see 
whether  they  part  with  this  power. 

If  they  have  parted  with  this  portion  of  sov- 
ereign power  it  must  be  under  that  clause  of 
52 


iMliam  f^inftnep 


the  national  Constitution  which  gives  to  Con- 
gress "power  to  admit  new  states  into  this 
Union."  And  it  is  said  that  this  necessarily 
implies  the  authority  of  prescribing  the  condi- 
tions upon  which  such  new  states  shall  be 
admitted.  This  has  been  put  into  the  form  of 
a  syllogism  which  is  thus  stated: 

Major.  Every  universal  proposition  in- 
cludes all  the  means,  manner,  and  terms  of  the 
act  to  which  it  relates. 

Minor.     But  this  is  a  universal  proposition. 

Conclusion.  Therefore  the  means,  manner, 
and  terms  are  involved  in  it. 

But  this  syllogism  is  fallacious,  and  anything 
else  may  be  proved  by  it  by  assuming  one  of 
its  members  which  involves  the  conclusion. 
The  minor  is  a  mere  postulate.  Take  it  in  this 
way. 

Major.  None  but  a  universal  proposition 
includes  in  itself  the  terms  and  conditions  of 
the  act  to  be  done. 

Minor.  But  this  is  not  such  a  universal 
proposition. 

Conclusion.  Therefore  it  does  not  contain 
in  itself  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  act. 

In  both  cases  the  minor  is  a  gratuitous  postu- 
late. But  I  deny  that  a  universal  proposition 
as  to  a  specific  act  involves  the  terms  and  con- 
ditions of  that  act,  so  as  to  vary  it,  and  substi- 
tute another  and  a  very  different  act  in  its  place. 
The  proposition  contained  in  the  clause  is  uni- 
versal in  one  sense  only.  It  is  particular  in 
53 


ffiiematahlt  American  £>ptcdiz$ 

another.  It  is  universal  as  to  the  power  to 
admit  or  refuse.  It  is  particular  as  to  the  being 
or  thing  to  be  admitted,  and  the  compact  by 
which  it  is  to  be  admitted.  The  sophistry 
consists  in  extending  the  universal  part  of 
the  proposition  in  such  a  manner  as  to  make 
out  of  it  another  universal  proposition.  It 
consists  in  confounding  the  right  to  produce 
or  to  refuse  to  produce  a  certain  defined  effect, 
with  a  right  to  produce  a  different  effect  by- 
refusing  otherwise  to  produce  any  effect  at  all. 
It  makes  the  actual  right  the  instrument  of 
obtaining  another  right  with  which  the  actual 
right  is  incompatible.  It  makes,  in  a  word, 
lawful  power  the  instrument  of  unlawful  usur- 
pation. The  result  is  kept  out  of  sight  by  this 
mode  of  reasoning.  The  discretion  to  decline 
that  result,  which  is  called  a  universal  propo- 
sition, is  singly  obtruded  upon  us.  But  in 
order  to  reason  correctly  you  must  keep  in  view 
the  defined  result,  as  well  as  the  discretion  to 
produce  or  to  decline  to  produce  it.  The 
result  is  the  particular  part  of  the  proposition; 
therefore  the  discretion  to  produce  or  decline 
it  is  the  universal  part  of  it.  But  because  the 
last  is  found  to  be  universal,  it  is  taken  for 
granted  that  the  first  is  also  universal.  This 
is  a  sophism  too  manifest  to  impose. 

But  discarding  the  machinery  of  syllogisms 

as  unfit  for  such  a  discussion  as  this,  let  us 

look  at  the  clause  with  a  view  of  interpreting  it 

by  the  rules  of  sound  logic  and  common  sense. 

54 


IMIiam  fMnfcnep 


The  power  is  "to  admit  new  states  into  this 
Union";  and  it  may  be  safely  conceded  that 
here  is  discretion  to  admit  or  refuse.  The 
question  is,  what  must  we  do  if  we  do  anything? 
What  must  we  admit,  and  into  what?  The 
answer  is,  a  state,  and  into  this  Union. 

The  distinction  between  federal  rights  and 
local  rights  is  an  idle  distinction.  Because 
the  new  state  acquires  federal  rights,  it  is  not, 
therefore,  in  this  Union.  The  Union  is  a 
compact;  and  is  it  an  equal  party  to  that  com- 
pact because  it  has  equal  federal  rights  ?  How 
is  the  Union  formed?  By  equal  contributions 
of  power.  Make  one  member  sacrifice  more 
than  another  and  it  becomes  unequal.  The 
compact  is  of  two  parts:  the  thing  obtained, — 
federal  rights;  the  price  paid, — local  sover- 
eignty. You  may  disturb  the  balance  of  the 
Union  either  by  diminishing  the  thing  acquired 
or  increasing  the  sacrifice  paid. 

What  were  the  purposes  of  coming  into  the 
Union  among  the  original  states?  The  states 
were  originally  sovereign  without  limit  as  to 
foreign  and  domestic  concerns.  But  being 
incapable  of  protecting  themselves  singly,  they 
entered  into  the  Union  to  defend  themselves 
against  foreign  violence.  The  domestic  con- 
cerns of  the  people  were  not,  in  general,  to  be 
acted  on  by  it.  The  security  of  the  power  of 
managing  them  by  domestic  legislature  is  one 
of  the  great  objects  of  the  Union.  The  Union 
is  a  means,  not  an  end.  By  requiring  greater 
55 


;|ttemoraMe  American  £peecf)e£ 

sacrifices  of  domestic  power,  the  end  is  sacri- 
ficed to  the  means.  Suppose  the  surrender  of 
all,  or  nearly  all,  the  domestic  powers  of  legis- 
lation were  required;  the  means  would  there 
have  swallowed  up  the  end. 

The  argument  that  the  compact  may  be 
enforced  shows  that  the  federal  predicament  is 
changed.  The  power  of  the  Union  not  only 
acts  on  persons  or  citizens,  but  on  the  faculty 
of  the  government,  and  restrains  it  in  a  way 
which  the  Constitution  nowhere  authorizes. 
This  new  obligation  takes  away  a  right  which 
is  expressly  "reserved  to  the  people  or  the 
states,"  since  it  is  nowhere  granted  to  the 
government  of  the  Union.  You  cannot  do 
indirectly  what  you  cannot  do  directly.  It  is 
said  that  this  Union  is  competent  to  make 
compacts.  Who  doubts  it?  But  can  you 
make  this  compact  ?  I  insist  that  you  cannot 
make  it,  because  it  is  repugnant  to  the  thing  to 
be  done.  The  effect  of  such  a  compact  would 
be  to  produce  that  inequality  in  the  Union  to 
which  the  Constitution,  in  all  its  provisions,  is 
adverse.  Everything  in  it  looks  to  equality 
among  the  members  of  the  Union.  Under  it, 
you  cannot  produce  inequality.  Nor  can  you 
get  beforehand  of  the  Constitution  and  do  it 
by  anticipation.  Wait  until  a  state  is  in  the 
Union,  and  you  cannot  do  it;  yet  it  is  only 
upon  the  state  in  the  Union  that  what  you  do 
begins  to  act. 


56 


tteifliam  $infcnep 


But  it  seems  that,  although  the  proposed  re- 
striction may  not  be  justified  by  the  clause  of  the 
Constitution  which  gives  power  to  admit  new 
states  into  the  Union,  separately  considered, 
there  are  other  parts  of  the  Constitution  which, 
combined  with  that  clause,  will  warrant  it. 
And,  first,  we  are  informed  that  there  is  a 
clause  in  this  instrument  which  declares  that 
Congress  shall  guarantee  to  every  state  a 
republican  form  of  government;  that  slavery 
and  such  a  form  of  government  are  incompat- 
ible; and,  finally,  as  a  conclusion  from  these 
premises,  that  Congress  not  only  have  a  right, 
but  are  bound,  to  exclude  slavery  from  a  new 
state.  Here  again,  sir,  there  is  an,  edifying 
inconsistency  between  the  argument  and  the 
measure  which  it  professes  to  vindicate.  By 
the  argument  it  is  maintained  that  Missouri 
cannot  have  a  republican  form  of  government 
and  at  the  same  time  tolerate  negro  slavery. 
By  the  measure  it  is  admitted  that  Missouri 
may  tolerate  slavery  as  to  persons  already  in 
bondage  there,  and  be  nevertheless  fit  to  be 
received  into  the  Union.  What  sort  of  con- 
stitutional mandate  is  this  which  can  thus  be 
made  to  bend  and  truckle  and  compromise  as 
if  it  were  a  simple  rule  of  expediency  that 
might  admit  of  exceptions  upon  motives  of 
countervailing  expediency?  There  can  be  no 
such  pliancy  in  the  peremptory  provisions  of 
the  Constitution.  They  cannot  be  obeyed  by 
moieties  and  violated  in  the  same  ratio.  They 
57 


jmemorable  American  J>peccfjeg 

must  be  followed  out  to  their  full  extent,  or 
treated  with  that  decent  neglect  which  has  at 
least  the  merit  of  forbearing  to  render  con- 
tumacy obtrusive  by  an  ostentatious  display  of 
the  very  duty  which  we  in  part  abandon.  If 
the  decalogue  could  be  observed  in  this  casu- 
istical manner,  we  might  be  grievous  sinners 
and  yet  be  liable  to  no  reproach.  We  might 
persist  in  all  our  habitual  irregularities,  and 
still  be  spotless.  We  might,  for  example, 
continue  to  covet  our  neighbors'  goods,  provid- 
ed they  were  the  same  neighbors  whose  goods 
we  had  before  coveted;  and  so  of  all  the  other 
commandments . 

Will  the  gentlemen  tell  us  that  it  is  the 
quantity  of  slaves,  not  the  quality  of  slavery, 
which  takes  from  a  government  the  republican 
form?  Will  they  tell  us  (for  they  have  not  yet 
told  us)  that  there  are  constitutional  grounds, 
to  say  nothing  of  common  sense,  upon  which 
the  slavery  which  now  exists  in  Missouri  may 
be  reconciled  with  a  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment, while  any  addition  to  the  number  of  its 
slaves  (the  quality  of  slavery  remaining  the 
same)  from  the  other  states,  will  be  repugnant 
to  that  form,  and  metamorphose  it  into  some 
nondescript  government  disowned  by  the  Con- 
stitution? They  cannot  have  recourse  to  the 
treaty  of  1803  for  such  a  distinction,  since 
independently  of  what  I  have  before  observed 
on  that  head,  the  gentlemen  have  contended 
that  the  treaty  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 
58 


tMiiam  $infcnep 


matter.  They  have  cut  themselves  off  from 
all  chance  of  a  convenient  distinction  in  or  out 
of  that  treaty,  by  insisting  that  slavery  beyond 
the  old  United  States  is  rejected  by  the  Con- 
stitution, and  by  the  law  of  God  as  discoverable 
by  the  aid  of  either  reason  or  revelation;  and, 
moreover,  that  the  treaty  does  not  include  the 
case,  and  if  it  did  could  not  make  it  better. 
They  have  therefore  completely  discredited 
their  own  theory  by  their  own  practice,  and 
left  us  no  theory  worthy  of  being  seriously 
controverted.  This  peculiarity  in  reasoning 
of  giving  out  a  universal  principle,  and  coup- 
ling with  it  a  practical  concession  that  it  is 
wholly  fallacious,  has  indeed  run  through  the 
greater  part  of  the  arguments  on  the  other  side; 
but  it  is  not,  as  I  think,  the  more  imposing  on 
that  account,  or  the  less  liable  to  the  criticism 
which  I  have  here  bestowed  upon  it. 

There  is  a  remarkable  inaccuracy  on  this 
branch  of  the  subject  into  which  the  gentlemen 
have  fallen,  and  to  which  I  will  give  a  moment's 
attention  without  laying  unnecessary  stress  up- 
on it.  The  government  of  a  new  state,  as  well 
as  of  an  old  state,  must,  I  agree,  be  republican 
in  its  form.  But  it  has  not  been  very  clearly  ex- 
plained what  the  laws  which  such  a  government 
may  enact  can  have  to  do  with  its  form.  The 
form  of  the  government  is  material  only  as  it 
furnishes  a  security  that  those  laws  will  protect 
and  promote  the  public  happiness,  and  be  made 
in  a  republican  spirit.  The  people  being,  in 
59 


Jftcmorable  American  g>$tztfyt$ 

such  a  government,  the  fountain  of  all  power, 
and  their  servants  being  periodically  responsi- 
ble to  them  for  its  exercise,  the  Constitution 
of  the  Union  takes  for  granted,  except  so  far 
as  it  imposes  limitations,  that  every  such  exer- 
cise will  be  just  and  salutary.  The  introduc- 
tion or  continuance  of  civil  slavery  is  manifestly 
the  mere  result  of  the  power  of  making  laws. 
It  does  not  in  any  degree  enter  into  the  form 
of  the  government.  It  presupposes  that  form 
already  settled,  and  takes  its  rise  not  from  the 
particular  frame  of  the  government,  but  from 
the  general  power  which  every  government 
involves.  Make  the  government  what  you 
will  in  its  organization  and  in  the  distribution 
of  its  authorities,  the  introduction  or  continu- 
ance of  involuntary  servitude  by  the  legislative 
power  which  it  has  created  can  have  no  in- 
fluence on  its  pre-established  form,  whether 
monarchial,  aristocratical,  or  republican.  The 
form  of  government  is  still  one  thing,  and  the 
law,  being  a  simple  exertion  of  the  ordinary 
faculty  of  legislation  by  those  to  whom  that 
form  of  government  has  intrusted  it,  another. 
The  gentlemen,  however,  identify  an  act  of 
legislation  sanctioning  involuntary  servitude 
with  the  form  of  government  itself,  and  then 
assure  us  that  the  last  is  changed  retroactively 
by  the  first,  and  is  no  longer  republican ! 

But  let  us  proceed  to  take  a  rapid  glance  at 
the  reasons  which  have  been  assigned  for  this 
notion  that  involuntary  servitude  and  a  repub- 
60 


IBiftiam  f&infcnep 


lican  form  of  government  are  perfect  antipa- 
thies. The  gentleman  from  New  Hampshire 
[Mr.  Morrill]  has  denned  a  republican  govern- 
ment to  be  that  in  which  all  the  men  participate 
in  its  power  and  privileges;  from  whence  it 
follows  that  where  there  are  slaves  it  can  have 
no  existence.  A  definition  is  no  proof,  how- 
ever; and  even  if  it  be  dignified,  as  I  think  it 
was,  with  the  name  of  a  maxim,  the  matter  is 
not  much  mended.  It  is  Lord  Bacon  who 
says  "that  nothing  is  so  easily  made  as  a 
maxim";  and  certainly  a  definition  is  manu- 
factured with  equal  facility.  A  political 
maxim  is  the  work  of  induction,  and  cannot 
stand  against  experience,  or  stand  on  anything 
but  experience.  But  this  maxim,  or  defini- 
tion, or  whatever  else  it  may  be,  sets  fact  at 
defiance.  If  you  go  back  to  antiquity  you 
will  obtain  no  countenance  for  this  hypothesis, 
and  if  you  look  at  home  you  will  gain  still 
less.  I  have  read  that  Sparta  and  Rome  and 
Athens,  and  many  others  of  the  ancient 
family,  were  republics.  They  were  so  in 
form  undoubtedly,  the  last  approaching  nearer 
to  a  perfect  democracy  than  any  other  gov- 
ernment which  has  yet  been  known  to  the 
world.  Judging  of  them  also  by  their  fruits, 
they  were  of  the  highest  order  of  republics. 
Sparta  could  scarcely  be  any  other  than  a 
republic  when  a  Spartan  matron  could  say  to 
her  son  just  marching  to  battle,  "  Return 
victorious,  or  return  no  more. "  It  was  the 
61 


jHcmoraMe  American  £>ptttfyz$ 

unconquerable  spirit  of  liberty,  nurtured  by 
republican  habits  and  institutions,  that  illus- 
trated the  Pass  of  Thermopylae.  Yet  slavery 
was  not  only  tolerated  in  Sparta,  but  was 
established  by  one  of  the  fundamental  laws 
of  Lycurgus,  having  for  its  object  the  encour- 
agement of  that  very  spirit.  Attica  was  full 
of  slaves,  yet  the  love  of  liberty  was  its 
characteristic.  What  else  was  it  that  foiled 
the  whole  power  of  Persia  at  Marathon  and 
Salamis  ?  What  other  soil  than  that  which 
the  genial  sun  of  republican  freedom  illumina- 
ted and  warmed,  could  have  produced  such  men 
as  Leonidas  and  Miltiades,  Themistocles  and 
Epaminondas  ?  Of  Rome  it  would  be  super- 
fluous to  speak  at  large.  It  is  sufficient  to 
name  the  mighty  mistress  of  the  world,  before 
Sylla  gave  the  first  stab  to  her  liberties,  and 
the  great  dictator  accomplished  their  final  ruin, 
to  be  reminded  of  the  practicability  of  union 
between  civil  slavery  and  an  ardent  love  of 
liberty  cherished  by  republican  establishments. 
If  we  return  home  for  instruction  upon  this 
point,  we  perceive  that  same  union  exempli- 
fied in  many  a  state  in  which  "liberty  has  a 
temple  in  every  house,  an  altar  in  every  heart,  " 
while  involuntary  servitude  is  seen  in  every 
direction.  Is  it  denied  that  those  states 
possess  a  republican  form  of  government? 
If  it  is,  why  does  our  power  of  correction 
sleep?  Why  is  the  constitutional  guaranty 
suffered  to  be  inactive  ?  Why  am  I  permit- 
62 


tteifliam  ftofcncp 


ted  to  fatigue  you,  as  the  representative  of  a 
slave-holding  state,  with  the  discussion  of  the 
nugce  canorce  (for  so  I  think  them)  that 
have  been  forced  into  this  debate  contrary  to 
all  the  remonstrances  of  taste  and  prudence  ? 
Do  gentlemen  perceive  the  consequences  to 
which  their  arguments  must  lead  if  they  are 
of  any  value  ?  Do  they  reflect  that  they  lead 
to  emancipation  in  the  old  United  States,  or  to 
an  exclusion  of  Delaware,  Maryland,  and  all 
the  South,  and  a  great  portion  of  the  West 
from  the  Union?  My  honorable  friend  from 
Virginia  has  no  business  here  if  this  disorgan- 
izing creed  be  anything  but  the  production 
of  a  heated  brain.  The  state  to  which  I 
belong  must  "perform  a  lustration,"  must 
purge  and  purify  herself  from  the  feculence 
of  civil  slavery,  and  emulate  the  states  of  the 
North  in  their  zeal  for  throwing  down  the 
gloomy  idol  which  we  are  said  to  worship, 
before  her  senators  can  have  any  title  to 
appear  in  this  high  assembly.  It  will  be  in 
vain  to  urge  that  the  old  United  States  are 
exceptions  to  the  rule;  or  rather,  as  the 
gentlemen  express  it,  that  they  have  no  dispo- 
sition to  apply  the  rule  to  them.  There  can 
be  no  exceptions  by  implication  only,  to  such 
a  rule;  and  expressions  which  justify  the 
exemption  of  the  old  states  by  inference,  will 
justify  the  like  exemption  of  Missouri  unless 
they  point  exclusively  to  them,  as  I  have 
shown  they  do  not.  The  guarded  manner, 
63 


jttemorable  American  g>pzttfyt$ 

too,  in  which  some  of  the  gentlemen  have 
occasionally  expressed  themselves  on  this  sub- 
ject is  somewhat  alarming.  They  have  no 
disposition  to  meddle  with  slavery  in  the  old 
United  States.  Perhaps  not;  but  who  shall 
answer  for  their  successors  ?  Who  shall  fur- 
nish a  pledge  that  the  principle,  once  ingrafted 
into  the  Constitution,  will  not  grow,  and 
spread,  and  fructify,  and  overshadow  the  whole 
land?  It  is  the  natural  office  of  such  a  prin- 
ciple to  wrestle  with  slavery  wheresoever  it 
finds  it.  New  states,  colonized  by  the  apostles 
of  this  principle,  will  enable  it  to  set  on  foot  a 
fanatical  crusade  against  all  who  still  continue 
to  tolerate  it,  although  no  practicable  means 
are  pointed  out  by  which  they  can  get  rid  of  it 
consistently  with  their  own  safety.  At  any 
rate,  a  present  forbearing  disposition,  in  a  few 
or  in  many,  is  not  a  security  upon  which 
much  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  a  subject 
as  to  which  so  many  selfish  interests  and 
ardent  feelings  are  connected  with  the  cold 
calculations  of  policy  Admitting,  however, 
that  the  old  United  States  are  in  no  danger 
from  this  principle,  why  is  it  so  ?  There  can 
be  no  other  answer  which  these  zealous 
enemies  of  slavery  can  use  than  that  the 
Constitution  recognizes  slavery  as  existing  or 
capable  of  existing  in  those  states.  The 
Constitution,  then,  admits  that  slavery  and  a 
republican  form  of  government  are  not  incon- 
gruous. It  associates  and  binds  them  up 
64 


iteiiiiam  $inftnep 


together,  and  repudiates  this  wild  imagination 
which  the  gentlemen  have  pressed  upon  us 
with  such  an  air  of  triumph.  But  the  Con- 
stitution does  more,  as  I  have  heretofore 
proved.  It  concedes  that  slavery  may  exist 
in  a  new  state  as  well  as  in  an  old  one,  since 
the  language  in  which  it  recognizes  slavery 
comprehends  new  states  as  well  as  actual.  I 
trust,  then,  that  I  shall  be  forgiven  if  I  sug- 
gest that  no  eccentricity  in  argument  can  be 
more  trying  to  human  patience  than  a  formal 
assertion  that  a  Constitution  to  which  slave- 
holding  states  were  the  most  numerous  parties, 
in  which  slaves  are  treated  as  property  as  well 
as  persons,  and  provision  is  made  for  the 
security  of  that  property,  and  even  for  an 
augmentation  of  it  by  a  temporary  importa- 
tion from  Africa,  a  clause  commanding 
Congress  to  guarantee  a  republican  form  of 
government  to  those  very  states,  as  well  as  to 
others,  authorizes  you  to  determine  that 
slavery  and  a  republican  form  of  government 
cannot  co-exist. 

But  if  a  republican  form  of  government  is 
that  in  which  all  the  men  have  a  share  in  the 
public  power,  the  slave-holding  states  will  not 
alone  retire  from  the  Union.  The  constitu- 
tions of  some  of  the  other  states  do  not  sanc- 
tion universal  suffrage,  or  universal  eligibility. 
They  require  citizenship,  and  age,  and  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  property,  to  give  a  title  to  vote 
or  to  be  voted  for;  and  they  who  have  not 
65 


Memorable  American  £peecf>eg 

those  qualifications  are  just  as  much  disfran- 
chised, with  regard  to  the  government  and  its 
power,  as  if  they  were  slaves.  They  have 
civil  rights  indeed  (and  so  have  slaves  in  a  less 
degree),  but  they  have  no  share  in  the  govern- 
ment. Their  province  is  to  obey  the  laws,  not 
to  assist  in  making  them.  All  such  states 
must  therefore  be  forisfamiliated  with  Virginia 
and  the  rest,  or  change  their  system;  for  the 
Constitution,  being  absolutely  silent  on  those 
subjects,  will  afford  them  no  protection.  The 
Union  might  thus  be  reduced  from  an  Union  to 
an  unit.  Who  does  not  see  that  such  conclu- 
sions flow  from  false  notions;  that  the  true 
theory  of  a  republican  government  is  mistaken; 
and  that  in  such  a  government  rights,  political 
and  civil,  may  be  qualified  by  the  fundamental 
law,  upon  such  inducements  as  the  freemen  of 
the  country  deem  sufficient?  That  civil  rights 
may  be  qualified  as  well  as  political,  is  proved 
by  a  thousand  examples.  Minors,  resident 
aliens  who  are  in  a  course  of  naturalization; 
the  other  sex,  whether  maids,  or  wives,  or 
widows,  furnish  sufficient  practical  proofs 
of  this. 

Again,  if  we  are  to  entertain  these  hopeful 
abstractions,  and  to  resolve  all  establishments 
into  their  imaginary  elements  in  order  to  recast 
them  upon  some  Utopian  plan,  and  if  it  be  true 
that  all  the  men  in  a  republican  government 
must  help  to  wield  its  power  and  be  equal  in 
rights, —  I  beg  leave  to  ask  the  honorable  gen- 
66 


fMIiam  ^inftnep 


tleman  from  New  Hampshire,  and  why  not  all 
the  women?  They,  too,  are  God's  creatures, 
and  not  only  very  fair  but  very  rational  crea- 
tures; and  our  great  ancestor,  if  we  are  to  give 
credit  to  Milton,  accounted  them  the  "wisest, 
virtuousest,  discreetest,  best";  although,  to 
say  the  truth,  he  had  but  one  specimen  from 
which  to  draw  his  conclusion,  and  possibly  if 
he  had  had  more  would  not  have  drawn  it 
at  all.  They  have,  moreover,  acknowledged 
civil  rights  in  abundance,  and  upon  abstract 
principles  more  than  their  masculine  rulers 
allow  them  in  fact.  Some  monarchies,  too, 
do  not  exclude  them  from  the  throne.  We 
have  all  read  of  Elizabeth  of  England,  of 
Catherine  of  Russia,  of  Semiramis  and  Zeno- 
bia,  and  a  long  list  of  royal  and  imperial  dames, 
about  as  good  as  an  equal  list  of  royal  and 
imperial  lords.  Why  is  it  that  their  exclusion 
from  the  power  of  a  popular  government  is  not 
destructive  of  its  republican  character  ?  I  do 
not  address  this  question  to  the  honorable 
gentleman's  gallantry,  but  to  his  abstraction, 
and  his  theories,  and  his  notions  of  the  infinite 
perfectibility  of  human  institutions,  borrowed 
from  Godwin  and  the  turbulent  philosophers 
of  France.  For  my  own  part,  sir,  if  I  may 
have  leave  to  say  so  much  in  the  presence  of 
this  mixed  uncommon  audience,  I  confess  I  am 
no  friend  to  female  government,  unless  indeed 
it  be  that  which  reposes  on  gentleness  and 
modesty  and  virtue  and  feminine  grace  and 
67 


Memorable  American  Jbptttfyt$ 

delicacy;  and  how  powerful  a  government  that 
is,  we  have  all  of  us,  as  I  suspect,  at  some  time 
or  other  experienced !  But  if  the  ultra  repub- 
lican doctrines  which  have  now  been  broached 
should  ever  gain  ground  among  us,  I  should 
not  be  surprised  if  some  romantic  reformer, 
treading  in  the  footsteps  of  Mrs.  Wollstone- 
craft,  should  propose  to  repeal  our  republican 
law  salique,  and  claim  for  our  wives  and  daugh- 
ters a  full  participation  in  political  power,  and 
to  add  to  it  that  domestic  power  which,  in 
some  families,  as  I  have  heard,  is  as  absolute 
and  unrepublican  as  any  power  can  be. 

I  have  thus  far  allowed  the  honorable  gen- 
tlemen to  avail  themselves  of  their  assumption 
that  the  constitutional  command  to  guarantee 
to  the  states  a  republican  form  of  government 
gives  power  to  coerce  those  states  in  the 
adjustment  of  the  details  of  their  constitutions 
upon  theoretical  speculations.  But  surely  it  is 
passing  strange  that  any  man  who  thinks  at 
all  can  view  this  salutary  command  as  the 
grant  of  a  power  so  monstrous,  or  look  at  it 
in  any  other  light  than  as  a  protecting  mandate 
to  Congress  to  interpose  with  the  force  and 
authority  of  the  Union  against  that  violence 
and  usurpation  by  which  a  member  of  it  might 
otherwise  be  oppressed  by  profligate  and  pow- 
erful individuals,  or  ambitious  and  unprincipled 
factions.  In  a  word,  the  resort  to  this  portion 
of  the  Constitution  for  an  argument  in  favor 
of  the  proposed  restriction  is  one  of  those 
68 


IMlxam  $inftnep 


extravagances  (I  hope  I  shall  not  offend  by 
this  expression)  which  may  excite  our  admira- 
tion, but  cannot  call  for  a  very  rigorous  refu- 
tation. I  have  dealt  with  it  accordingly,  and 
have  now  done  with  it. 

We  are  next  invited  to  study  that  clause  of 
the  Constitution  which  relates  to  the  migration 
or  importation,  before  the  year  1808,  of  such 
persons  as  any  of  the  states  then  existing 
should  think  proper  to  admit.  It  runs  thus: 
"The  migration  or  importation  of  such  persons 
as  any  of  the  states  now  existing  shall  think 
proper  to  admit,  shall  not  be  prohibited  by  the 
Congress  prior  to  the  year  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  eight,  but  a  tax  or  duty  may  be 
imposed  on  such  importation  not  exceeding  ten 
dollars  for  each  person." 

It  is  said  that  this  clause  empowers  Congress, 
after  the  year  1808,  to  prohibit  the  passage 
of  slaves  from  state  to  state,  and  the  word 
"migration"  is  relied  upon  for  that  purpose. 
I  will  not  say  that  the  proof  of  the  existence 
of  a  power  by  a  clause  which,  as  far  as  it 
goes,  denies  it,  is  always  inadmissable ;  but  I 
will  say  that  it  is  always  feeble.  On  this 
occasion  it  is  singularly  so.  The  power,  in 
an  affirmative  shape,  cannot  be  found  in  the 
Constitution;  or,  if  it  can,  it  is  equivocal  and 
unsatisfactory.  How  do  the  gentlemen  supply 
this  deficiency?  By  the  aid  of  a  negative 
provision  in  an  article  of  the  Constitution  in 
which  many  restrictions  are  inserted  ex  abun- 
69 


ffiltmatablz  American  £peed)e£ 

danti  cautela,  from  which  it  is  plainly  impossi- 
ble to  infer  that  the  power  to  which  they  apply 
would  otherwise  have  existed.  Thus,  "No 
bill  of  attainder  or  ex  post  facto  law  shall  be 
passed. "  Take  away  the  restriction  ;  could 
Congress  pass  a  bill  of  attainder,  the  trial  by 
jury  in  criminal  cases  being  expressly  secured 
by  the  Constitution?  The  inference,  there- 
fore, from  the  prohibition  in  question,  whatever 
may  be  its  meaning,  to  the  power  which  it  is 
supposed  to  restrain,  but  which  you  cannot 
lay  your  finger  upon  with  any  pretensions  to 
certainty,  must  be  a  very  doubtful  one.  But 
the  import  of  the  prohibition  is  also  doubtful, 
as  the  gentlemen  themselves  admit.  So  that 
a  doubtful  power  is  to  be  made  certain  by  a 
yet  more  doubtful  negative  upon  power;  or 
rather  a  doubtful  negative,  where  there  is  no 
evidence  of  the  corresponding  affirmative,  is  to 
make  out  the  affirmative,  and  to  justify  us  in 
acting  upon  it  in  a  matter  of  such  high 
moment  that  questionable  power  should  not 
dare  to  approach  it.  If  the  negative  were 
perfectly  clear  in  its  import,  the  conclusion 
which  has  been  drawn  from  it  would  be  rash, 
because  it  might  have  proceeded,  as  some  of 
the  negatives  in  whose  company  it  is  found 
evidently  did  proceed,  from  great  anxiety  to 
prevent  such  assumptions  of  authority  as  are 
now  attempted.  But  when  it  is  conceded  that 
the  supposed  import  of  this  negative  as  to  the 
term  "migration,"  is  ambiguous,  and  that  it 
70 


IMliam  $inhnep 


may  have  been  used  in  a  very  different  sense 
from  that  which  is  imputed  to  it,  the  conclusion 
acquires  a  character  of  boldness  which,  how- 
ever some  may  admire,  the  wise  and  reflect- 
ing will  not  fail  to  condemn. 

In  the  construction  of  this  clause  the  first 
remark  that  occurs  is  that  the  word  "migra- 
tion" is  associated  with  the  word  "importa- 
tion." I  do  not  insist  that  noscitur  a  sociis  is 
as  good  a  rule  in  matters  of  interpretation  as 
in  common  life,  but  it  is  nevertheless  of  consid- 
erable weight  when  the  associated  words  are 
not  qualified  by  any  phrases  that  disturb  the 
effect  of  their  fellowship;  and  unless  it  announ- 
ces, as  in  this  case  it  does  not,  by  specific 
phrases  combined  with  the  associated  term,  a 
different  intention.  Moreover,  the  ordinary 
unrestricted  import  of  the  word  migration  is 
what  I  have  here  supposed.  A  removal  from 
district  to  district  within  the  same  jurisdiction 
is  never  denominated  a  migration  of  persons. 
I  will  concede  to  the  honorable  gentlemen,  if 
they  will  accept  the  concession,  that  ants  may 
be  said  to  migrate  when  they  go  from  one  ant- 
hill to  another  at  no  great  distance  from  it.  But 
even  then  they  could  not  be  said  to  migrate  if 
each  ant-hill  was  their  home  in  virtue  of  some 
federal  compact  with  insects  like  themselves. 
But  however  this  may  be,  it  should  seem  to  be 
certain  that  human  beings  do  not  migrate,  in  the 
sense  of  a  Constitution,  simply  because  they 
transplant  themselves  from  one  place  to  which 
7i 


Memorable  American  £peerf>e£ 

that  Constitution  extends  to  another  which  it 
equally  covers. 

If  this  word  migration  applied  to  freemen  and 
not  to  slaves  it  would  be  clear  that  removal 
from  state  to  state  would  not  be  compre- 
hended within  it.  Why,  then,  if  you  choose  to 
apply  it  to  slaves,  does  it  take  another  mean- 
ing as  to  the  place  from  whence  they  are  to 
come  ?  Sir,  if  we  once  depart  from  the  usual 
acceptation  of  this  term,  fortified  as  it  is  by  its 
union  with  another  in  which  there  is  nothing  in 
this  respect  equivocal,  will  gentlemen  please  to 
intimate  the  point  at  which  we  are  to  stop? 
Migration  means,  as  they  contend,  a  removal 
from  state  to  state,  within  the  pale  of  the  com- 
mon government.  Why  not  a  removal  also  from 
county  to  county  within  a  particular  state, 
from  plantation  to  plantation,  from  farm  to 
farm,  from  hovel  to  hovel  ?  Why  not  any  ex- 
ertion of  the  power  of  locomotion  ?  I  protest  I 
do  not  see,  if  this  arbitary  limitation  of  the  nat- 
ural sense  of  the  term  migration  be  warrantable, 
that  a  person  to  whom  it  applies  may  not  be 
compelled  to  remain  immovable  all  the  days  of 
his  life  (which  could  not  well  be  many)  in  the 
very  spot,  literally  speaking,  in  which  it  was 
his  good  or  his  bad  fortune  to  be  born. 

Whatever  may  be  the  latitude  in  which  the 
word  "persons"  is  capable  of  being  received,  it 
is  not  denied  that  the  word  "  importation  "  in- 
dicates a  bringing  in  from  a  jurisdiction  foreign 
to  the  United  States.  The  two  termini  of  the 
72 


fMiiam  $inftnep 


importation  here  spoken  of  are  a  foreign 
country  and  the  American  Union;  the  first 
the  terminus  ad  quo,  the  second  the  terminus 
ad  quern.  The  word  migration  stands  in  sim- 
ple connection  with  it,  and  of  course  is  left 
to  the  full  influence  of  that  connection.  The 
natural  conclusion  is  that  the  same  termini 
belong  to  each;  or,  in  other  words,  that  if 
the  importation  must  be  abroad,  so  also  must 
be  the  migration ;  no  other  termini  being 
assigned  to  the  one  which  are  not  manifestly- 
characteristic  of  the  other.  This  conclusion 
is  so  obvious  that  to  repel  it,  the  word  migra- 
tion requires,  as  an  appendage,  explanatory 
phraseology,  giving  to  it  a  different  beginning 
from  that  of  importation.  To  justify  the 
conclusion  that  it  was  intended  to  mean  a 
removal  from  state  to  state,  each  within  the 
sphere  of  the  Constitution  in  which  it  is  used, 
the  addition  of  the  words,  from  one  to  another 
state  in  this  Union,  were  indispensable.  By 
the  omission  of  these  words,  the  word  "migra- 
tion "  is  compelled  to  take  every  sense  of 
which  it  is  fairly  susceptible  from  its  immedi- 
ate neighbor,  "importation."  In  this  view  it 
means  a  coming,  as  "  importation  "  means  a 
bringing,  from  a  foreign  jurisdiction  into  the 
United  States.  That  it  is  susceptible  of 
this  meaning  nobody  doubts.  I  go  further.  It 
can  have  no  other  meaning  in  the  place  in  which 
it  is  found.  It  is  found  in  the  Constitution 
of  this  Union;  which,  when  it  speaks  of 
73 


jftemorafcle  American  j&$ctttyc$ 

migration  as  of  a  general  concern,  must  be  sup- 
posed to  have  in  view  a  migration  into  the  do- 
main which  itself  embraces  as  a  general  govern- 
ment. Migration,  then,  even  if  it  compre- 
hends slaves,  does  not  mean  the  removal  of 
them  from  state  to  state,  but  means  the 
coming  of  slaves  from  places  beyond  their 
limits  and  their  power.  And  if  this  be  so,  the 
gentlemen  gain  nothing  for  their  argument  by 
showing  that  slaves  were  the  objects  of  this 
term. 

An  honorable  gentleman  from  Rhode  Island 
[Mr.  Burrill],  whose  speech  was  distinguished 
for  its  ability,  and  for  an  admirable  force  of 
reasoning,  as  well  as  by  the  moderation  and 
mildness  of  its  spirit,  informed  us,  with  less 
discretion  than  in  general  he  exhibited,  that  the 
word  "migration"  was  introduced  into  this 
clause  at  the  instance  of  some  of  the  Southern 
states,  who  wished  by  its  instrumentality  to 
guard  against  a  prohibition  by  Congress  of  the 
passage  into  those  states  of  slaves  from  other 
states.  He  has  given  us  no  authority  for  this 
supposition,  and  it  is,  therefore,  a  gratituous 
one.  How  improbable  it  is,  a  moment's  reflec- 
tion will  convince  him.  The  African  slave- 
trade  being  open  during  the  whole  of  the  time 
to  which  the  entire  clause  in  question  referred, 
such  a  purpose  could  scarcely  be  entertained; 
but  if  it  had  been  entertained,  and  there  was 
believed  to  be  a  necessity  for  securing  it  by  a 
restriction  upon  the  power  of  Congress  to 
74 


William  $inftnep 


interfere  with  it,  is  it  possible  that  they  who 
deemed  it  important  would  have  contented 
themselves  with  a  vague  restraint,  which  was 
calculated  to  operate  in  almost  any  other 
manner  than  that  which  they  desired  ?  If 
fear  and  jealousy,  such  as  the  honorable 
gentleman  has  described,  had  dictated  this 
provision,  a  better  term  than  that  of  "  mi- 
gration," simple  and  unqualified,  and  joined, 
too,  with  the  word  "importation,"  would  have 
been  found  to  tranquilize  those  fears  and  satisfy 
that  jealousy.  Fear  and  jealousy  are  watch- 
ful, and  are  rarely  seen  to  accept  a  security 
short  of  their  object,  and  less  rarely  to  shape 
that  security,  of  their  own  accord,  in  such  a 
way  as  to. make  it  no  security  at  all.  They 
always  seek  an  explicit  guaranty;  and  that  this 
is  not  such  a  guaranty  this  debate  has  proved, 
if  it  has  proved  nothing  else. 


75 


EEIentieU  philips 

(1811-1884) 

ON   THE    PHILOSOPHY   OF    THE 
ABOLITION    MOVEMENT 

[Delivered  before  the  Massachusetts  Antislavery 
Society,  Boston,  January  27,  1853.] 


Mr.  Chairman: 

I   HAVE    to    present,   from    the    Business 
Committee,    the    following   resolution:  — 

"Resolved,  that  the  object  of  this  society  is  now, 
as  it  has  always  been,  to  convince  our  countrymen, 
by  arguments  addressed  to  their  hearts  and  con- 
sciences, that  slave-holding  is  a  heinous  crime,  and 
that  the  duty,  safety,  and  interest  of  all  concerned 
demand  its  immediate  abolition,  without  expatria- 
tion." 

I  wish,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  notice  some  ob- 
jections that  have  been  made  to  our  course 
ever  since  Mr.  Garrison  began  his  career, 
and  which  have  been  lately  urged  again,  with 
considerable  force  and  emphasis,  in  the  col- 
umns of  the  London  Leader,  the  able  organ  of 
a  very  respectable  and  influential  class  in  Eng- 
land. I  hope,  sir,  you  will  not  think  it  waste 
of  time  to  bring  such  a  subject  before  you.  I 
know  these  objections  have  been  made  a  thou- 
sand times,  that  they  have  been  often  answered, 
77 


jftcmorafcle  American  g>#ett\}t$ 

though  we  generally  submitted  to  them  in  si- 
lence, willing  to  let  results  speak  for  us.  But 
there  are  times  when  justice  to  the  slave  will 
not  allow  us  to  be  silent.  There  are  many  in 
this  country,  many  in  England,  who  have  had 
their  attention  turned  recently  to  the  anti- 
slavery  cause.  They  are  asking,  "Which  is 
the  best  and  most  efficient  method  of  helping 
it?"  Engaged  ourselves  in  an  effort  for  the 
slave,  which  time  has  tested  and  success  hith- 
erto approved,  we  are  very  properly  desirous 
that  they  should  join  us  in  our  labors,  and  pour 
into  this  channel  the  full  tide  of  their  new  zeal 
and  great  resources.  Thoroughly  convinced 
ourselves  that  our  course  is  wise,  we  can  hon- 
estly urge  others  to  adopt  it.  Long  experience 
gives  us  a  right  to  advise.  The  fact  that  our 
course,  more  than  all  other  efforts,  has  caused 
that  agitation  which  has  awakened  these  new 
converts,  gives  us  a  right  to  counsel  them. 
They  are  our  spiritual  children ;  for  their  sakes 
we  would  free  the  cause  we  love  and  trust 
from  every  seeming  defect  and  plausible  ob- 
jection. For  the  slave's  sake,  we  reiterate 
our  explanations,  that  he  may  loose  no  tittle 
of  help  by  the  mistakes  or  misconceptions  of 
his  friends. 

All  that  I  have  to  say  on  these  points  will 
be  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  very  trite  and  famil- 
iar; but  the  facts  may  be  new  to  some,  and  I 
prefer  to  state  them  here,  in  Boston,  where 
we  have  lived  and  worked,  because,  if  our 
78 


WtnMl  $WW$ 


statements  are  incorrect,  if  we  claim  too  much, 
our  assertions  can  be  easily  answered  and  dis- 
proved. The  charges  to  which  I  refer  are 
these:  that,  in  dealing  with  slave-holders  and 
their  apologists,  we  indulge  in  fierce  denuncia- 
tions, instead  of  appealing  to  their  reason  and 
common  sense  by  plain  statements  and  fair 
argument;  that  we  might  have  won  the  sym- 
pathy and  support  of  the  nation  if  we  would 
have  submitted  to  argue  this  question  with 
a  manly  patience;  but,  instead  of  this,  we 
have  outraged  the  feelings  of  the  community 
by  attacks,  unjust  and  unnecessarily  severe, 
on  its  most  valued  institutions,  and  gratified 
our  spleen  by  indiscriminate  abuse  of  leading 
men,  who  were  often  honest  in  their  intentions, 
however  mistaken  in  their  views;  that  we  have 
utterly  neglected  the  ample  means  that  lay 
around  us  to  convert  the  nation,  submitted  to 
no  discipline,  formed  no  plan,  been  guided  by 
no  foresight,  but  hurried  on  in  childish,  reck- 
less, blind,  and  hot-headed  zeal,  —  bigots  in  the 
narrowness  of  our  views,  and  fanatics  in  our 
blind  fury  of  invective  and  malignant  judgment 
of  other  men's  motives. 

There  are  some  who  come  upon  our  platform 
and  give  us  the  aid  of  names  and  reputations 
less  burdened  than  ours  with  popular  odium, 
who  are  perpetually  urging  us  to  exercise  char- 
ity in  our  judgments  of  those  about  us,  and  to 
consent  to  argue  these  questions.  These  men 
are  ever  parading  their  wish  to  draw  a  line 
79 


;jttemora&le  American  jb$ztibt$ 

between  themselves  and  us,  because  they  must 
be  permitted  to  wait,  to  trust  more  to  reason 
than  feeling,  to  indulge  a  generous  charity,  to 
rely  on  the  sure  influence  of  simple  truth,  ut- 
tered in  love,  etc.,  etc.  I  reject  with  scorn 
all  these  implications  that  our  judgments  are 
uncharitable;  that  we  are  lacking  in  patience; 
that  we  have  any  other  dependence  than  on 
the  simple  truth,  spoken  with  Christian  frank- 
ness, yet  with  Christian  love.  These  lectures 
to  which  you,  sir,  and  all  of  us  have  so  often 
listened  would  be  impertinent  if  they  were 
not  rather  ridiculous  for  the  gross  ignorance 
they  betray  of  the  community,  of  the  cause, 
and  of  the  whole  course  of  its  friends. 

The  article  in  the  Leader  to  which  I  refer 
is  signed  "Ion,"  and  may  be  found  in  the 
Liberator  of  December  17,  1852.  The  writer 
is  cordial  and  generous  in  his  recognition  of 
Mr.  Garrison's  claim  to  be  the  representative 
of  the  antislavery  movement,  and  does  entire 
justice  to  his  motives  and  character.  The 
criticisms  of  "Ion"  were  reprinted  in  the 
Christian  Register,  of  this  city,  the  organ  of 
the  Unitarian  denomination.  The  editors  of 
that  paper,  with  their  usual  Christian  courtesy, 
love  of  truth,  and  fair  dealing,  omitted  all 
"Ion's"  expressions  of  regard  for  Mr.  Gar- 
rison, and  appreciation  of  his  motives,  and 
reprinted  only  those  parts  of  the  article  which 
undervalue  his  sagacity  and  influence,  and  in- 
dorse the  common  objections  to  his  method 
80 


IBennell  f^fjiliipg 


and  views.  You  will  see  in  a  moment,  Mr. 
President,  that  it  is  with  such  men  and  presses 
"Ion"  thinks  Mr.  Garrison  has  not  been 
sufficiently  wise  and  patient  in  trying  to  win 
their  help  for  the  antislavery  cause.  Perhaps 
were  he  on  the  spot,  it  would  tire  even  his 
patience  and  puzzle  even  his  sagacity  to  make 
any  other  use  of  them  than  that  of  the  drunken 
Helot, — a  warning  to  others  how  disgusting  is 
mean  vice.  Perhaps  were  he  here  he  would 
see  that  the  best  and  only  use  to  be  made  of 
them  is  to  let  them  unfold  their  own  characters, 
and  then  show  the  world  how  rotten  our  poli- 
tics and  religion  are,  that  they  naturally  bear 
such  fruit.  "Ion"  quotes  Mr.  Garrison's  origi- 
nal declaration  in  the  Liberator:  — 

"I  am  aware  that  many  object  to  the  severity  of 
my  language;  but  is  there  not  cause  for  severity?  I 
will  be  as  harsh  as  truth,  and  as  uncompromising 
as  justice.  I  am  in  earnest;  1  will  not  equivocate; 
I  will  not  excuse;  1  will  not  retreat  a  single  inch; 
and  I  will  be  heard. 

"  It  is  pretended  that  I  am  retarding  the  cause  of 
emancipation  by  the  coarseness  of  my  invective  and 
the  precipitancy  of  my  measures.  The  charge  is  not 
true.  On  this  question  my  influence,  humble  as  it 
is,  is  felt  at  this  moment  to  a  considerable  extent, 
and  shall  be  felt  in  coming  years ;  not  perniciously, 
but  beneficially;  not  as  a  curse,  but  as  a  blessing; 
and  posterity  will  bear  testimony  that  I  was  right. 
I  desire  to  thank  God  that  he  enables  me  to  disre- 
gard '  the  fear  of  man,  which  bringeth  a  snare,'  and 
to  speak  his  truth  in  its  simplicity  and  power." 

"Ion's"  charges  are  the  old  ones,  that  we 
abolitionists  are  hurting  our  own  cause  ;  that 
81 


jftemorafcie  American  &#tttfyz$ 

instead  of  waiting  for  the  community  to  come 
up  to  our  views,  and  endeavoring  to  remove 
prejudice  and  enlighten  ignorance  by  patient 
explanation  and  fair  argument,  we  fall  at  once, 
like  children,  to  abusing  everything  and  every- 
body;  that  we  imagine  zeal  will  supply  the  place 
of  common  sense ;  that  we  have  never  shown 
any  sagacity  in  adapting  our  means  to  our 
ends;  have  never  studied  the  national  charac- 
ter, or  attempted  to  make  use  of  the  materials 
which  lay  all  about  us  to  influence  public  opin- 
ion, but  by  blind,  childish,  obstinate  fury  and 
indiscriminate  denunciation  have  become  "hon- 
estly impotent,  and  conscientious  hindrances." 
These,  sir,  are  the  charges  which  have  uni- 
formly been  brought  against  all  reformers  in 
all  ages.  "Ion"  thinks  the  same  faults  are 
chargeable  on  the  leaders  of  all  the  "popular 
movements"  in  England,  which,  he  says,  "are 
led  by  heroes  who  fear  nothing  and  who  win 
nothing."  If  the  leaders  of  popular  move- 
ments in  Great  Britain  for  the  last  fifty  years 
have  been  losers,  I  should  be  curious  to  know 
what  party,  in  "Ion's"  opinion,  have  won? 
My  Lord  Derby  and  his  friends  seem  to  think 
democracy  has  made,  and  is  making,  danger- 
ous headway.  If  the  men  who,  by  popular 
agitation,  outside  of  Parliament,  wrung  from  a 
powerful  oligarchy  parliamentary  reform,  and 
the  abolition  of  the  test  acts,  of  high  post 
rates,  of  Catholic  disability,  of  negro  slavery, 
and  the  corn  laws,  did  "not  win  anything," 
82 


Wttfotll  $WW 


it  would  be  hard  to  say  what  winning  is.  If 
the  men  who,  without  the  ballot,  made  Peel 
their  tool  and  conquered  the  Duke  of  Welling- 
ton are  considered  unsuccessful,  pray  what 
kind  of  a  thing  would  success  be  ?  Those  who 
now,  at  the  head  of  that  same  middle  class, 
demand  the  separation  of  Church  and  State, 
and  the  extension  of  the  ballot,  may  well 
guess,  from  the  fluttering  of  Whig  and  Tory 
dove-cotes,  that  soon  they  will  "win"  that 
same  "nothing."  Heaven  grant  they  may  en- 
joy the  same  ill  success  with  their  predeces- 
sors !  On  our  side  of  the  ocean,  too,  we  ought 
deeply  to  sympathize  with  the  leaders  of  the 
temperance  movement  in  their  entire  want  of 
success!  If  "Ion's"  mistakes  about  the  anti- 
slavery  cause  lay  as  much  on  the  surface  as 
those  I  have  just  noticed,  it  would  be  hardly 
worth  while  to  reply  to  him  ;  for,  as  to  these, 
he  certainly  exhibits  only  "the  extent  and 
variety  of  his  misinformation." 

His  remarks  upon  the  antislavery  movement 
are,  however,  equally  inaccurate.  I  claim,  be- 
fore you  who  know  the  true  state  of  the  case, 
— I  claim  for  the  antislavery  movement  with 
which  this  society  is  identified,  that,  looking 
back  over  its  whole  course,  and  considering 
the  men  connected  with  it  in  the  mass,  it  has 
been  marked  by  sound  judgment,  unerring 
foresight,  the  most  sagacious  adaptation  of 
means  to  ends,  the  strictest  self-discipline,  the 
most  thorough  research,  and  an  amount  of 
83 


jftflemora&ie  American  g>ptttfyt$ 

patient  and  manly  argument  addressed  to  the 
conscience  and  intellect  of  the  nation,  such  as 
no  other  cause  of  the  kind,  in  England  or  this 
country,  has  ever  offered.  I  claim,  also,  that 
its  course  has  been  marked  by  a  cheerful  sur- 
render of  all  individual  claims  to  merit  or  lead- 
ership, the  most  cordial  welcoming  of  the 
slightest  effort,  of  every  honest  attempt,  to 
lighten  or  to  break  the  chain  of  the  slave.  I 
need  not  waste  time  by  repeating  the  super- 
fluous confession  that  we  are  men,  and  therefore 
do  not  claim  to  be  perfect.  Neither  would  I 
be  understood  as  denying  that  we  use  denun- 
ciation and  ridicule  and  every  other  weapon 
that  the  human  mind  knows.  We  must  plead 
guilty  if  there  be  guilt  in  not  knowing  how  to 
separate  the  sin  from  the  sinner.  With  all 
the  fondness  for  abstractions  attributed  to  us, 
we  are  not  yet  capable  of  that.  We  are  fight- 
ing a  momentous  battle  at  desperate  odds, — 
one  against  a  thousand.  Every  weapon  that 
ability  or  ignorance,  wit,  wealth,  prejudice,  or 
fashion,  can  command  is  pointed  against  us. 
The  guns  are  shotted  to  their  lips.  The  ar- 
rows are  poisoned.  Fighting  against  such  an 
array,  we  cannot  afford  to  confine  ourselves  to 
any  one  weapon.  The  cause  is  not  ours,  so 
that  we  might  rightfully  postpone  or  put  in  peril 
the  victory  by  moderating  our  demands,  stifling 
our  convictions,  or  filing  down  our  rebukes,  to 
gratify  any  sickly  taste  of  our  own,  or  to  spare 
the  delicate  nerves  of  our  neighbor.  Our  cli- 
84 


WtnMl  $J)itfip£ 


ents  are  three  millions  of  Christian  slaves, 
standing  dumb  suppliants  at  the  threshold  of 
the  Christian  world.  They  have  no  voice  but 
ours  to  utter  their  complaints,  or  to  demand 
justice.  The  press,  the  pulpit,  the  wealth,  the 
literature,  the  prejudices,  the  political  arrange- 
ments, the  present  self-interest  of  the  country* 
are  all  against  us.  God  has  given  us  no 
weapon  but  the  truth,  faithfully  uttered,  and 
addressed,  with  the  old  prophets'  directness,  to 
the  conscience  of  the  individual  sinner.  The 
elements  which  control  public  opinion  and 
mould  the  masses  are  against  us.  We  can 
pick  off  here  and  there  a  man  from  the  trium- 
phant majority.  We  have  facts  for  those  who 
think,  arguments  for  those  who  reason ;  but 
he  who  cannot  be  reasoned  out  of  his  preju- 
dices must  be  laughed  out  of  them ;  he  who 
cannot  be  argued  out  of  his  selfishness  must  be 
shamed  out  of  it  by  the  mirror  of  his  hateful 
self  held  up  relentlessly  before  his  eyes.  We 
live  in  a  land  where  every  man  makes  broad  his 
phylactery,  inscribing  thereon,  "All  men  are 
created  equal,"  "God  hath  made  of  one  blood 
all  nations  of  men."  It  seems  to  us  that  in 
such  a  land  there  must  be,  on  this  question  of 
slavery,  sluggards  to  be  awakened,  as  well  as 
doubters  to  be  convinced, — many  more,  we 
verily  believe,  of  the  first  than  of  the  last. 
There  are  far  more  dead  hearts  to  be  quickened 
than  confused  intellects  to  be  cleared  up  ;  more 
dumb  dogs  to  be  made  to  speak  than  doubting 
85 


Jftcmorafcle  American  g>yzttfyt$ 

consciences  to  be  enlightened.  We  have  use, 
then,  sometimes,  for  something  beside  argu- 
ment. 

What  is  the  denunciation  with  which  we 
are  charged?  It  is  endeavoring,  in  our  falter- 
ing human  speech,  to  declare  the  enormity  of 
the  sin  of  making  merchandise  of  men,  of 
separating  husband  and  wife ;  taking  the  infant 
from  its  mother,  and  selling  the  daughter  to 
prostitution  ;  of  a  professedly  Christian  nation 
denying,  by  statute,  the  Bible  to  every  sixth 
man  and  woman  of  its  population,  and  making 
it  illegal  for  "two  or  three"  to  meet  together, 
except  a  white  man  be  present!  What  is  this 
harsh  criticism  of  motives  with  which  we  are 
charged?  It  is  simply  holding  the  intelligent 
and  deliberate  actor  responsible  for  the  char- 
acter and  consequences  of  his  acts.  Is  there 
anything  inherently  wrong  in  such  denuncia- 
tion or  such  criticism?  This  we  may  claim: 
we  have  never  judged  a  man  but  out  of  his 
own  mouth.  We  have  seldom,  if  ever,  held 
him  to  account  except  for  acts  of  which  he 
and  his  own  friends  were  proud.  All  that 
we  ask  the  world  and  thoughtful  men  to 
note  are  the  principles  and  deeds  on  which 
the  American  pulpit  and  American  public 
plume  themselves.  We  always  allow  our 
opponents  to  paint  their  own  pictures.  Our 
humble  duty  is  to  stand  by  and  assure  the 
spectators  that  what  they  would  take  for  a 
knave  or  a  hypocrite  is  really,  in  American 
86 


WmM\  $W«ip£ 


estimation,  a  Doctor  of  Divinity  or  Secretary 
of  State. 

The  South  is  one  great  brothel,  where  half  a 
million  of  women  are  flogged  to  prostitution, 
or,  worse  still,  are  degraded  to  believe  it  hon- 
orable. The  public  squares  of  half  our  great 
cities  echo  to  the  wail  of  families  torn  asunder 
at  the  auction-block ;  no  one  of  our  fair  rivers 
that  has  not  closed  over  the  negro  seeking  in 
death  a  refuge  from  a  life  too  wretched  to 
bear;  thousands  of  fugitives  skulk  along  our 
highways,  afraid  to  tell  their  names,  and  trem- 
bling at  the  sight  of  a  human  being;  free  men 
are  kidnapped  in  our  streets,  to  be  plunged 
into  that  hell  of  slavery ;  and  now  and  then  one, 
as  if  by  miracle,  after  long  years,  returns  to 
make  men  aghast  with  his  tale.  The  press 
says,  "It  is  all  right";  and  the  pulpit  cries, 
"Amen. "  They  print  the  Bible  in  every 
tongue  in  which  man  utters  his  prayers;  and 
get  the  money  to  do  so  by  agreeing  never  to 
give  the  book,  in  the  language  our  mothers 
taught  us,  to  any  negro,  free  or  bond,  south  of 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line.  The  press  says,  "It 
is  all  right";  and  the  pulpit  cries,  "Amen." 
The  slave  lifts  up  his  imploring  eyes,  and  sees 
in  every  face  but  ours  the  face  of  an  enemy. 
Prove  to  me  now  that  harsh  rebuke,  indignant 
denunciation,  scathing  sarcasm,  and  pitiless 
ridicule  are  wholly  and  always  unjustifiable  ; 
else  we  dare  not,  in  so  desperate  a  case,  throw 
away  any  weapon  which  ever  broke  up  the 
87 


Memorable  American  £>pttttyt0 

crust  of  an  ignorant  prejudice,  roused  a  slum- 
bering conscience,  shamed  a  proud  sinner,  or 
changed,  in  any  way,  the  conduct  of  a  human 
being.  Our  aim  is  to  alter  public  opinion. 
Did  we  live  in  a  market,  our  talk  should  be  of 
dollars  and  cents,  and  we  would  seek  to  prove 
only  that  slavery  was  an  unprofitable  invest- 
ment. Were  the  nation  one  great,  pure  church, 
we  would  sit  down  and  reason  of  "righteous- 
ness, temperance,  and  judgment  to  come." 
Had  slavery  fortified  itself  in  a  college,  we 
would  load  our  cannons  with  cold  facts,  and 
wing  our  arrows  with  arguments.  But  we 
happen  to  live  in  the  world, — the  world  made 
up  of  thought  and  impulse,  of  self-conceit  and 
self-interest,  of  weak  men  and  wicked.  To 
conquer,  we  must  reach  all.  Our  object  is 
not  to  make  every  man  a  Christian  or  a  phil- 
osopher, but  to  induce  every  one  to  aid  in  the 
abolition  of  slavery.  We  expect  to  accom- 
plish our  object  long  before  the  nation  is  made 
over  into  saints  or  elevated  into  philosophers. 
To  change  public  opinion,  we  use  the  very 
tools  by  which  it  was  formed  ;  that  is,  all  such 
as  an  honest  man  may  touch. 

All  this  I  am  not  only  ready  to  allow,  but  I 
should  be  ashamed  to  think  of  the  slave,  or 
to  look  into  the  face  of  my  fellow-man,  if  it 
were  otherwise.  It  is  the  only  thing  which 
justifies  us  to  our  own  consciences,  and  makes 
us  able  to  say  we  have  done,  or  at  least  tried 
to  do,  our  duty. 

88 


fteenfcetf  $dttttp$ 


So  far,  however  you  distrust  my  philosophy, 
you  will  not  doubt  my  statements.  That  we 
have  denounced  and  rebuked  with  unsparing 
fidelity  will  not  be  denied.  Have  we  not  also 
addressed  ourselves  to  that  other  duty,  of  argu- 
ing our  question  thoroughly,  of  using  due 
discretion  and  fair  sagacity  in  endeavoring  to 
promote  our  cause?  Yes,  we  have.  Every 
statement  we  have  made  has  been  doubted. 
Every  principle  we  have  laid  down  has  been 
denied  by  overwhelming  majorities  against  us. 
No  one  step  has  ever  been  gained  but  by 
the  most  laborious  research  and  the  most  ex- 
hausting argument.  And  no  question  has 
ever,  since  Revolutionary  days,  been  so  thor- 
oughly investigated  or  argued  here  as  that  of 
slavery.  Of  that  research  and  that  argument, 
of  the  whole  of  it,  the  old-fashioned,  fanatical, 
crazy  Garrisonian  antislavery  movement  has 
been  the  author.  From  this  band  of  men  has 
proceeded  every  important  argument  or  idea 
which  has  been  broached  on  the  antislavery 
question  from  1830  to  the  present  time. 
I  am  well  aware  of  the  extent  of  the  claim  I 
make.  I  recognize  as  fully  as  any  one  can  the 
ability  of  the  new  laborers ;  the  eloquence 
and  genius  with  which  they  have  recommended 
this  cause  to  the  nation,  and  flashed  convic- 
tion home  on  the  conscience  of  the  community. 
I  do  not  mean,  either,  to  assert  that  they 
have  in  every  instance  borrowed  from  our 
treasury  their  facts  and  arguments.  Left  to 
89 


JHcmoraMe  &mecican  £peecf)eg 

themselves,  they  would  probably  have  looked 
up  the  one  and  originated  the  other.  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  however,  they  have  generally 
made  use  of  the  materials  collected  to  their 
hands.  But  there  are  some  persons  about 
us,  sympathizers  to  a  great  extent  with  "  Ion," 
who  pretend  that  the  antislavery  movement 
has  been  hitherto  mere  fanaticism,  its  only 
weapon  angry  abuse.  They  are  obliged  to 
assert  this  in  order  to  justify  their  past 
indifference  or  hostility.  At  present,  when 
it  suits  their  purpose  to  give  it  some  at- 
tention, they  endeavor  to  explain  the  change 
by  alleging  that  now  it  has  been  taken  up  by 
men  of  thoughtful  minds,  and  its  claims  are 
urged  by  fair  discussion  and  able  argument. 
My  claim,  then,  is  this :  that  neither  the  charac- 
ter of  the  most  timid  of  sects,  the  sagacity  of  our 
wisest  converts,  nor  the  culture  of  the  ripest 
scholars,  though  all  have  been  aided  by  our 
twenty  years,  experience,  has  yet  struck  out 
any  new  method  of  reaching  the  public  mind, 
or  originated  any  new  argument  or  train  of 
thought,  or  discovered  any  new  facts  bearing 
on  the  question.  When  once  brought  fully 
into  the  struggle,  they  have  found  it  necessary 
to  adopt  the  same  means,  to  rely  on  the  same 
arguments,  to  hold  up  the  same  men  and  the* 
same  measures  to  public  reprobation,  with 
the  same  bold  rebuke  and  unsparing  invective 
that  we  have  used.  All  their  conciliatory 
bearing,  their  painstaking  moderation,  their 
90 


WtnMl  $i>:Hip£ 


constant  and  anxious  endeavor  to  draw  a 
broad  line  between  their  camp  and  ours,  have 
been  thrown  away.  Just  so  far  as  they  have 
been  effective  laborers,  they  have  found,  as  we 
have,  their  hands  against  every  man,  and  every 
man's  hand  against  them.  The  most  experi- 
enced of  them  are  ready  to  acknowledge  that 
our  plan  has  been  wise,  our  course  efficient,  and 
that  our  unpopularity  is  no  fault  of  ours,  but 
flows  necessarily  and  unavoidably  from  our 
position.  "I  should  suspect,"  says  old  Fuller, 
"that  his  preaching  had  no  salt  in  it  if  no 
galled  horse  did  wince."  Our  friends  find, 
after  all,  that  men  do  not  so  much  hate  us 
as  the  truth  we  utter  and  the  light  we  bring. 
They  find  that  the  community  are  not  the 
honest  seekers  after  truth  which  they  fan- 
cied, but  selfish  politicians  and  sectarian 
bigots,  who  shiver,  like  Alexander's  butler, 
whenever  the  sun  shines  on  them.  Experience 
has  driven  these  new  laborers  back  to  our 
method.  We  have  no  quarrel  with  them, 
would  not  steal  one  wreath  of  their  laurels. 
All  we  claim  is,  that,  if  they  are  to  be  compli- 
mented as  prudent,  moderate,  Christian,  saga- 
cious, statesmanlike  reformers,  we  deserve  the 
same  praise;  for  they  have  done  nothing  that 
we,  in  our  measure,  did  not  attempt  before. 
I  claim  this,  that  the  cause,  in  its  recent  as- 
pect, has  put  on  nothing  but  timidity.  It  has 
taken  to  itself  no  new  weapons  of  recent  years; 
it  has  become  more  compromising, —  that  is  all! 


Jttemorafcie  American  £peedj)eg 

It  has  become  neither  more  persuasive,  more 
learned,  more  Christian,  more  charitable,  nor 
more  effective  than  for  the  twenty  years  preced- 
ing. Mr.  Hale,  the  head  of  the  Free  Soil  move- 
ment, after  a  career  in  the  Senate  that  would  do 
honor  to  any  man, —  after  a  six  years'  course 
which  entitles  him  to  the  respect  and  confidence 
of  the  antislavery  public,  can  put  his  name, 
within  the  last  month,  to  an  appeal  from  the 
city  of  Washington,  signed  by  a  Houston  and 
a  Cass,  for  a  monument  to  be  raised  to  Henry 
Clay!  If  that  be  the  test  of  charity  and 
courtesy,  we  cannot  give  it  to  the  world. 
Some  of  the  leaders  of  the  Free  Soil  par- 
ty of  Massachusetts,  after  exhausting  the 
whole  capacity  of  our  language  to  paint  the 
treachery  of  Daniel  Webster  to  the  cause  of 
liberty,  and  the  evil  they  thought  he  was  able 
and  seeking  to  do,  —  after  that,  could  feel  it 
in  their  hearts  to  parade  themselves  in  the 
funeral  procession  got  up  to  do  him  honor! 
•In  this  we  allow  we  cannot  follow  them.  The 
deference  which  every  gentleman  owes  to  the 
proprieties  of  social  life,  that  self-respect  and 
regard  to  consistency  which  is  every  man's 
duty  —  these,  if  no  deeper  feelings,  will  ever 
prevent  us  from  giving  such  proofs  of  this 
newly-invented  Christian  courtesy.  We  do 
not  play  politics ;  antislavery  is  no  half- 
jest  with  us;  it  is  a  terrible  earnest,  with 
life  or  death,  worse  than  life  or  death,  on 
the  issue.  It  is  no  lawsuit,  where  it  mat- 
92 


WtnMl  $t)illi|>£ 


ters  not  to  the  good  feeling  of  opposing 
counsel  which  way  the  verdict  goes,  and  where 
advocates  can  shake  hands  after  the  decision 
as  pleasantly  as  before.  When  we  think  of 
such  a  man  as  Henry  Clay,  his  long  life,  his 
mighty  influence  cast  always  into  the  scale 
against  the  slave,  of  that  irresistible  fascination 
with  which  he  moulded  every  one  to  his  will; 
when  we  remember  that,  his  conscience  ac- 
knowledging the  justice  of  our  cause,  and  his 
heart  open  on  every  other  side  to  the  gentlest 
impulses,  he  could  sacrifice  so  remorselessly 
his  convictions  and  the  welfare  of  millions  to 
his  low  ambition ;  when  we  think  how  the  slave 
trembled  at  the  sound  of  his  voice,  and  that 
from  a  multitude  of  breaking  hearts  there  went 
up  nothing  but  gratitude  to  God  when  it  pleased 
him  to  call  that  great  sinner  from  this  world, — 
we  cannot  find  it  in  our  hearts,  we  could  not 
shape  our  lips,  to  ask  any  man  to  do  him 
honor.  No  amount  of  eloquence,  no  sheen 
of  official  position,  no  loud  grief  of  par- 
tisan friends,  would  ever  lead  us  to  ask 
monuments  or  walk  in  fine  processions  for 
pirates ;  and  the  sectarian  zeal  or  selfish  ambi- 
tion which  gives  up,  deliberately  and  in  full 
knowledge  of  the  facts,  three  millions  of  human 
beings  to  hopeless  ignorance,  daily  robbery, 
systematic  prostitution,  and  murder,  which  the 
law  is  neither  able  nor  undertakes  to  prevent 
or  avenge,  is  more  monstrous,  in  our  eyes, 
than  the  love  of  gold  which  takes  a  score  of 
93 


fiiemotablt  American  £peecf>e£ 

lives  with  merciful  quickness  on  the  high  seas. 
Haynau  on  the  Danube  is  no  more  hateful  to 
us  than  Haynau  on  the  Potomac.  Why  give 
mobs  to  one  and  monuments  to  the  other  ? 

If  these  things  be  necessary  to  courtesy,  I 
cannot  claim  that  we  are  courteous.  We  seek 
only  to  be  honest  men,  and  speak  the  same  of 
the  dead  as  of  the  living.  If  the  grave  that 
hides  their  bodies  could  swallow  also  the  evil 
they  have  done  and  the  example  they  leave, 
we  might  enjoy  at  least  the  luxury  of  forget- 
ting them.  But  the  evil  that  men  do  lives  after 
them,  and  example  acquires  tenfold  authority 
when  it  speaks  from  the  grave.  History,  also, 
is  to  be  written.  How  shall  a  feeble  minority, 
without  weight  or  influence  in  the  country, 
with  no  jury  of  millions  to  appeal  to, — de- 
nounced, vilified,  and  contemned, — how  shall 
we  make  way  against  the  overwhelming  weight 
of  some  colossal  reputation  if  we  do  not  turn 
from  the  idolatrous  present,  and  appeal  to  the 
human  race,  saying  to  your  idols  of  to-day, 
"  Here  we  are  defeated;  but  we  will  write  our 
judgment  with  the  iron  pen  of  a  century  to 
come,  and  it  shall  never  be  forgotten,  if  we 
can  help  it,  that  you  were  false  in  your  gener- 
ation to  the  claims  of  the  slave  "  ? 

At  present,  our  leading  men,  strong  in  the 
support  of  large  majorities,  and  counting  safe- 
ly on  the  prejudices  of  the  community,  can 
afford  to  despise  us.  They  know  they  can 
over-awe  or  cajole  the  present;  their  only  fear 
94 


WtnbtXl  $J)tmp£ 


is  the  judgment  of  the  future, —  strange  fear, 
perhaps,  considering  how  short  and  local  their 
fame.  But  however  little,  it  is  their  all.  Our 
only  hold  upon  them  is  the  thought  of  that 
bar  of  posterity  before  which  we  are  all  to 
stand.  Thank  God,  there  is  the  elder  brother 
of  the  Saxon  race  across  the  water,  there  is 
the  army  of  honest  men  to  come !  Before  that 
jury  we  summon  you.  We  are  weak  here, 
out-talked,  out-voted.  You  load  our  names 
with  infamy,  and  shout  us  down.  But  our 
words  bide  their  time.  We  warn  the  living 
that  we  have  terrible  memories,  and  that  their 
sins  are  never  to  be  forgotten.  We  will  gib- 
bet the  name  of  every  apostate  so  black  and 
high  that  his  children's  children  shall  blush  to 
bear  it.  Yet  we  bear  no  malice,  cherish  no 
resentment.  We  thank  God  that  the  love  of 
fame,  "that  last  infirmity  of  noble  minds,"  is 
shared  by  the  ignoble.  In  our  necessity,  we 
seize  this  weapon  in  the  slave's  behalf,  and 
teach  caution  to  the  living  by  meting  out 
relentless  justice  to  the  dead.  How  strange 
the  change  death  produces  in  the  way  a  man 
is  talked  about  here  !  While  leading  men  live, 
they  avoid  as  much  as  possible  all  mention  of 
slavery,  from  fear  of  being  thought  abolition- 
ists. The  moment  they  are  dead,  their  friends 
rake  up  every  word  they  ever  contrived  to 
whisper  in  a  corner  for  liberty,  and  parade  it 
before  the  world  ;  growing  angry,  all  the  while, 
with  us,  because  we  insist  on  explaining  these 
95 


jftemoraMe  American  J&pcztfyt$ 

chance  expressions  by  the  tenor  of  a  long  and 
base  life.  While  drunk  with  the  temptations 
of  the  present  hour,  men  are  willing  to  bow  to 
any  Moloch.  When  their  friends  bury  them, 
they  feel  what  bitter  mockery,  fifty  years 
hence,  any  epitaph  will  be,  if  it  cannot  record 
of  one  living  in  this  era  some  service  rendered 
to  the  slave !  These,  Mr.  Chairman,  are  the 
reasons  why  we  take  care  that  "the  memory 
of  the  wicked  shall  rot." 

I  have  claimed  that  the  antislavery  cause 
has,  from  the  first,  been  ably  and  dispassion- 
ately argued,  every  objection  candidly  exam- 
ined, and  every  difficulty  or  doubt,  anywhere 
honestly  entertained,  treated  with  respect.  Let 
me  glance  at  the  literature  of  the  cause,  and 
try  not  so  much,  in  a  brief  hour,  to  prove  this 
assertion  as  to  point  out  the  sources  from 
which  any  one  may  satisfy  himself  of  its  truth. 

I  will  begin  with  certainly  the  ablest  and 
perhaps  the  most  honest  statesman  who  has 
ever  touched  the  slave  question.  Any  one 
who  will  examine  John  Quincy  Adams's  speech 
on  Texas,  in  1838  will  see  that  he  was  only 
seconding  the  full  and  able  exposure  of  the 
Texas  plot  prepared  by  Benjamin  Lundy,  to 
one  of  whose  pamphlets  Dr.  Channing,  in  his 
"Letter  to  Henry  Clay,"  has  confessed  his 
obligation.  Every  one  acquainted  with  those 
years  will  allow  that  the  North  owes  its  earliest 
knowledge  and  first  awakening  on  that  subject 
to  Mr.  Lundy,  who  made  long  journeys  and 
96 


Wtttotll  #f)iiiip£ 


devoted  years  to  the  investigation.  His  labors 
have  this  attestation,  that  they  have  quickened 
the  zeal  and  strengthened  the  hands  of  such 
men  as  Adams  and  Channing.  I  have  been 
told  that  Mr.  Lundy  prepared  a  brief  for  Mr. 
Adams,  and  furnished  him  the  materials  for 
his  speech  on  Texas. 

Look  next  at  the  right  of  petition.  Long 
before  any  member  of  Congress  had  opened 
his  mouth  in  its  defense,  the  abolition  presses 
and  lecturers  had  examined  and  defended  the 
limits  of  this  right  with  profound  historical 
research  and  eminent  constitutional  ability. 
So  thoroughly  had  the  work  been  done,  that  all 
classes  of  the  people  had  made  up  their  minds 
about  it  long  before  any  speaker  of  eminence 
had  touched  it  in  Congress.  The  politicians 
were  little  aware  of  this.  When  Mr.  Adams 
threw  himself  so  gallantly  into  the  breach,  it  is 
said  he  wrote  anxiously  home  to  know  whether 
he  would  be  supported  in  Massachusetts,  little 
aware  of  the  outburst  of  popular  gratitude 
which  the  Northern  breeze  was  even  then 
bringing  him,  deep  and  cordial  enough  to  wipe 
away  the  old  grudge  Massachusetts  had  borne 
him  so  long.  Mr.  Adams  himself  was  only  in 
favor  of  receiving  the  petitions,  and  advised  to 
refuse  their  prayer,  which  was  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  District.  He  doubted  the  power 
of  Congress  to  abolish.  His  doubts  were 
examined  by  Mr.  William  Goodell,  in  two 
letters  of  most  acute  logic  and  of  masterly 
97 


ffiltmotahlz  American  g>pcztfyt$ 

ability.  If  Mr.  Adams  still  retained  his  doubts, 
it  is  certain,  at  least,  that  he  never  expressed 
them  afterward.  When  Mr.  Clay  paraded  the 
same  objections,  the  whole  question  of  the 
power  of  Congress  over  the  District  was  treat- 
ed by  Theodore  D.  Weld  in  the  fullest  manner 
and  with  the  widest  research, — indeed,  leaving 
nothing  to  be  added;  an  argument  which  Dr. 
Channing  characterized  as  "demonstration," 
and  pronounced  the  essay  "one  of  the  ablest 
pamphlets  from  the  American  press."  No 
answer  was  ever  attempted.  The  best  proof 
of  its  ability  is,  that  no  one  since  has  presumed 
to  doubt  the  power.  Lawyers  and  statesmen 
have  tacitly  settled  down  into  its  full  acknowl- 
edgment. 

The  influence  of  the  Colonization  Society 
on  the  welfare  of  the  colored  race  was  the  first 
question  our  movement  encountered.  To  the 
close  logic,  eloquent  appeals,  and  fully  sus- 
tained charges  of  Mr.  Garrison's  letters  on 
that  subject  no  anwer  was  ever  made.  Judge 
Jay  followed  with  a  work  full  and  able,  estab- 
lishing every  charge  by  the  most  patient  inves- 
tigation of  facts.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say 
of  these  two  volumes,  that  they  left  the  Colon- 
ization Society  hopeless  at  the  North.  It 
dares  never  show  its  face  before  the  people, 
and  only  lingers  in  some  few  nooks  of  secta- 
rian pride,  so  secluded  from  the  influence  of 
present  ideas  as  to  be  almost  fossil  in  their 
character. 

98 


WmMl  $tyilli#$ 


The  practical  working  of  the  slave  system, 
the  slave  laws,  the  treatment  of  slaves,  their 
food,  the  duration  of  their  lives,  their  igno- 
rance and  moral  condition,  and  the  influence 
of  Southern  public  opinion  on  their  fate,  have 
been  spread  out  in  detail  and  with  a  fullness  of 
evidence  which  no  subject  has  ever  received 
before  in  this  country.  Witness  the  works  of 
Phelps,  Bourne,  Rankin,  Grimke,  the  "Anti- 
slavery  Record,"  and,  above  all,  that  encyclo- 
paedia of  facts  and  storehouse  of  arguments, 
the  "Thousand  Witnesses"  of  Mr.  Theodore 
D.  Weld.  He  also  prepared  that  full  and 
valuable  tract  for  the  World's  Convention, 
called  "  Slavery  and  the  Internal  Slave-trade 
in  the  United  States,"  published  in  London, 
1 84 1.  Unique  in  antislavery  literature  is  Mrs. 
Child's  "Appeal,"  one  of  the  ablest  of  our 
weapons,  and  one  of  the  finest  efforts  of  her 
rare  genius. 

The  Princeton  Review,  I  believe,  first  chal- 
lenged the  abolitionists  to  an  investigation  of 
the  teachings  of  the  Bible  on  slavery.  That 
field  had  been  somewhat  broken  by  our  English 
predecessors.  But  in  England  the  pro-slavery 
party  had  been  soon  shamed  out  of  the  attempt 
to  drag  the  Bible  into  their  service,  and  hence 
the  discussion  there  had  been  short  and  some- 
what superficial.  The  pro-slavery  side  of  the 
question  has  been  eagerly  sustained  by  theo- 
logical reviews  and  doctors  of  divinity  without 
number,  from  the  half-way  and  timid  faltering 
99 


;$ttemora&le  American  J>peecfjeg 

of  Wayland  up  to  the  unblushing  and  melan- 
choly recklessness  of  Stuart.  The  argument 
on  the  other  side  has  come  wholly  from  the 
abolitionists;  for  neither  Dr.  Hague  nor  Dr. 
Barnes  can  be  said  to  have  added  anything 
to  the  wide  research,  critical  acumen,  and 
comprehensive  views  of  Theodore  D.  Weld, 
Beriah  Green,  J.  G.  Fee,  and  the  old  work 
of  Duncan. 

On  the  constitutional  questions  which  have 
at  various  times  arisen,  —  the  citizenship  of  the 
colored  man,  the  soundness  of  the  "Prigg" 
decision,  the  constitutionality  of  the  old  fugi- 
tive slave  law,  the  true  construction  of  the 
slave-surrender  clause, —  nothing  has  been 
added,  either  in  the  way  of  fact  or  argument, 
to  the  works  of  Jay,  Weld,  Alvan  Stewart,  E. 
G.  Loring,  S.  E.  Sewall,  Richard  Hildreth, 
W.  I.  Bowditch,  the  masterly  essays  of  the 
Emancipator  at  New  York  and  the  Liberator 
at  Boston,  and  the  various  addresses  of  the 
Massachusetts  and  American  societies  for  the 
last  twenty  years.  The  idea  of  the  antislavery 
character  of  the  Constitution  —  the  opiate  with 
which  Free  Soil  quiets  its  conscience  for  voting 
under  a  pro-slavery  government  —  I  heard  first 
suggested  by  Mr.  Garrison  in  1838.  It  was 
elaborately  argued  that  year  in  all  our  anti- 
slavery  gatherings,  both  here  and  in  New  York, 
and  sustained  with  great  ability  by  Alvan 
Stewart,  and  in  part  by  T.  D.  Weld.  The 
antislavery  construction  of  the  Constitution 
100 


WtnMl  $J)iHip£ 


was  ably  argued  in  1836,  in  the  Antislavery 
Magazine,  by  Rev.  Samuel  J.  May,  one  of 
the  very  first  to  seek  the  side  of  Mr.  Garrison, 
and  pledge  to  the  slave  his  life  and  efforts, — a 
pledge  which  thirty  years  of  devoted  labors 
have  nobly  redeemed.  If  it  has  either  merit 
or  truth,  they  are  due  to  no  legal  learning 
recently  added  to  our  ranks,  but  to  some  of  the 
old  and  well-known  pioneers.  This  claim  has 
since  received  the  fullest  investigation  from 
Mr.  Lysander  Spooner,  who  has  urged  it  with 
all  his  unrivaled  ingenuity,  laborious  research, 
and  close  logic.  He  writes  as  a  lawyer,  and 
has  no  wish,  I  believe,  to  be  ranked  with  any 
class  of  antislavery  men. 

The  influence  of  slavery  on  our  government 
has  received  the  profoundest  philosophical 
investigation  from  the  pen  of  Richard  Hildreth, 
in  his  invaluable  essay  on  "Despotism  in 
America,"  a  work  which  deserves  a  place  by 
the  side  of  the  ablest  political  disquisitions 
of  any  age. 

Mrs.  Chapman's  survey  of  "Ten  Years  of 
Antislavery  Experience"  was  the  first  attempt 
at  a  philosophical  discussion  of  the  various 
aspects  of  the  antislavery  cause,  and  the 
problems  raised  by  its  struggles  with  sect  and 
party.  You,  Mr.  Chairman  [Edmund  Quincy, 
Esq.],  in  the  elaborate  Reports  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Antislavery  Society  for  the  last  ten 
years,  have  followed  in  the  same  path,  making 
to  American  literature  a  contribution  of  the 


Jftemorafcle  American  J>peecf)e£ 

highest  value,  and  in  a  department  where  you 
have  few  rivals  and  no  superior.  Whoever 
shall  write  the  history  either  of  this  movement, 
or  any  other  attempted  under  a  republican 
government,  will  find  nowhere  else  so  clear  an 
insight  and  so  full  an  acquaintance  with  the 
most  difficult  part  of  his  subject. 

Even  the  vigorous  mind  of  Rantoul,  the 
ablest  man,  without  doubt,  of  the  Democratic 
party,  and  perhaps  the  ripest  politician  in 
New  England,  added  little  or  nothing  to  the 
storehouse  of  antislavery  argument.  The 
grasp  of  his  intellect  and  the  fullness  of  his 
learning  every  one  will  acknowledge.  He 
never  trusted  himself  to  speak  on  any  subject 
till  he  had  dug  down  to  its  primal  granite.  He 
laid  a  most  generous  contribution  on  the  altar 
of  the  antislavery  cause.  His  speeches  on  our 
question,  too  short  and  too  few,  are  remark- 
able for  their  compact  statement,  iron  logic, 
bold  denunciation,  and  the  wonderful  light 
thrown  back  upon  our  history.  Yet  how  little 
do  they  present  which  was  not  familiar  for 
years  in  our  antislavery  meetings  ! 

Look,  too,  at  the  last  great  effort  of  the 
idol  of  so  many  thousands,  Mr.  Senator 
Sumner, — the  discussion  of  a  great  national 
question,  of  which  it  has  been  said  that  we 
must  go  back  to  Webster's  Reply  to  Hayne, 
and  Fisher  Ames  on  the  Jay  Treaty,  to  find  its 
equal  in  Congress, — praise  which  we  might, 
perhaps,  qualify  if  any  adequate  report  were 


mmbtii  $$m#$ 


left  us  of  some  of  the  noble  orations  of  Adams. 
No  one  can  be  blind  to  the  skillful  use  he  has 
made  of  his  materials,  the  consummate  ability 
with  which  he  has  marshaled  them,  and  the 
radiant  glow  which  his  genius  has  thrown 
over  all.  Yet,  with  the  exception  of  his  refer- 
ence to  the  antislavery  debate  in  Congress,  in 
1817,  there  is  hardly  a  train  of  thought  or 
argument,  and  no  single  fact,  in  the  whole 
speech  which  has  not  been  familiar  in  our 
meetings  and  essays  for  the  last  ten  years. 

Before  leaving  the  halls  of  Congress,  I  have 
great  pleasure  in  recognizing  one  exception  to 
my  remarks,  Mr.  Giddings.  Perhaps  he  is 
no  real  exception,  since  it  would  not  be  difficult 
to  establish  his  claim  to  be  considered  one  of 
the  original  Abolition  party.  But  whether  he 
would  choose  to  be  so  considered  or  not,  it  is 
certainly  true  that  his  long  presence  at  the  seat 
of  government,  his  whole-souled  devotedness, 
his  sagacity  and  unwearied  industry,  have  made 
him  a  large  contributor  to  our  antislavery 
resources. 

The  relations  of  the  American  Church  to 
slavery,  and  the  duties  of  private  Christians, — 
the  whole  casuistry  of  this  portion  of  the 
question,  so  momentous  among  the  descend- 
ants of  the  Puritans, —  have  been  discussed 
with  great  acuteness  and  rare  common  sense 
by  Messrs.  Garrison,  Goodell,  Gerritt  Smith, 
Pillsbury,  and  Foster.  They  have  never 
attempted  to  judge  the  American  church  by 
103 


J&emoraWe  American  £>pzzt$z$ 

any  standard  except  that  which  she  has  her- 
self laid  down,  never  claimed  that  she  should 
be  perfect,  but  have  contented  themselves  by- 
demanding  that  she  should  be  consistent. 
They  have  never  judged  her  except  out  of  her 
own  mouth,  and  on  facts  asserted  by  her  own 
presses  and  leaders.  The  sundering  of  the 
Methodist  and  Baptist  denominations,  and  the 
universal  agitation  of  the  religious  world,  are 
the  best  proof  of  the  sagacity  with  which  their 
measures  have  been  chosen,  the  cogent  argu- 
ments they  have  used,  and  the  indisputable 
facts  on  which  their  criticisms  have  been 
founded. 

In  nothing  have  the  abolitionists  shown 
more  sagacity  or  more  thorough  knowledge  of 
their  countrymen  than  in  the  course  they  have 
pursued  in  relation  to  the  Church.  None 
but  a  New  Englander  can  appreciate  the  power 
which  church  organizations  wield  over  all  who 
share  the  blood  of  the  Puritans.  The  influence 
of  each  sect  over  its  own  members  is  over- 
whelming, often  shutting  out,  or  controlling, 
other  influences.  We  have  popes  here,  all  the 
more  dangerous  because  no  triple  crown  puts 
you  on  your  guard.  The  Methodist  priest- 
hood brings  the  Catholic  very  vividly  to  mind. 
That  each  local  church  is  independent  of  all 
others,  we  have  been  somewhat  careful  to 
assert,  in  theory  and  practice.  The  individual's 
independence  of  all  organizations  which  place 
themselves  between  him  and  his  God,  some 
104 


fteen&eH  $WW 


few  bold  minds  have  asserted  in  theory,  but 
most,  even  of  these,  have  stopped  there. 

In  such  a  land,  the  abolitionists  early  saw 
that,  for  a  moral  question  like  theirs,  only 
two  paths  lay  open :  to  work  through  the 
Church;  that  failing,  to  join  battle  with  it. 
Some  tried  long,  like  Luther,  to  be  Protes- 
tants, and  yet  not  come  out  of  Catholicism  ; 
but  their  eyes  were  soon  opened.  Since  then 
we  have  been  convinced  that,  to  come  out 
from  the  Church,  to  hold  her  up  as  the  bul- 
wark of  slavery,  and  to  make  her  shortcomings 
the  main  burden  of  our  appeals  to  the  religious 
sentiment  of  the  community,  was  our  first  duty 
and  best  policy.  This  course  alienated  many 
friends,  and  was  a  subject  of  frequent  rebuke 
from  such  men  as  Dr.  Channing.  But  nothing 
has  ever  more  strengthened  the  cause,  or  won  it 
more  influence;  and  it  has  had  the  healthiest 
effect  on  the  Church  itself.  British  Christians 
have  always  sanctioned  it,  whenever  the  case 
has  been  fairly  presented  to  them.  Mr.  John 
Quincy  Adams,  a  man  far  better  acquainted 
with  his  own  times  than  Dr.  Channing,  recog- 
nized the  soundness  of  our  policy.  I  do  not 
know  that  he  ever  uttered  a  word  in  public  on 
the  delinquency  of  the  churches;  but  he  is 
said  to  have  assured  his  son,  at  the  time  the 
Methodist  Church  broke  asunder,  that  other 
men  might  be  more  startled  by  the  dclat  of 
political  success,  but  nothing,  in  his  opinion, 
promised  more  good,  or  showed  more  clearly 
105 


jftcmoratte  American  £>$mfyt$ 

the  real  strength  of  the  antislavery  movement, 
than  that  momentous  event. 

In  1838  the  British  emancipation  in  the  West 
Indies  opened  a  rich  field  for  observation, 
and  a  full  harvest  of  important  facts.  The 
abolitionists,  not  willing  to  wait  for  the  offi- 
cial reports  of  the  government,  sent  special 
agents  through  those  islands,  whose  reports 
they  scattered,  at  great  expense  and  by  great 
exertion,  broadcast  through  the  land.  This 
was  at  a  time  when  no  newspaper  in  the  coun- 
try would  either  lend  or  sell  them  the  aid  of 
its  columns  to  enlighten  the  nation  on  an 
experiment  so  vitally  important  to  us.  And 
even  now,  hardly  a  press  in  the  country  cares 
or  dares  to  bestow  a  line  or  communicate  a 
fact  toward  the  history  of  that  remarkable 
revolution.  The  columns  of  the  Antislavery 
Standard,  Pennsylvania  Freeman,  and  Ohio 
Bugle  have  been  for  years  full  of  all  that  a 
thorough  and  patient  advocacy  of  our  cause 
demands.  And  the  eloquent  lips  of  many 
whom  I  see  around  me,  and  whom  I  need  not 
name  here,  have  done  their  share  toward  press- 
ing all  these  topics  on  public  attention.  There 
is  hardly  any  record  of  these  labors  of  the 
living  voice.  Indeed,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  there  cannot  be  any  adequate  one.  Yet, 
unable  to  command  a  wide  circulation  for  our 
books  and  journals,  we  have  been  obliged  to 
bring  ourselves  into  close  contact  with  the 
people,  and  to  rely  mainly  on  public  addresses. 
106 


WmbtW  $PKip£ 


These  have  been  our  most  efficient  instru- 
mentality. For  proof  that  these  addresses  have 
been  full  of  pertinent  facts,  sound  sense,  and 
able  arguments,  we  must  necessarily  point  to 
results,  and  demand  to  be  tried  by  our  fruits. 
Within  these  last  twenty  years  it  has  been 
very  rare  that  any  fact  stated  by  your  lecturers 
has  been  disproved,  or  any  statement  of  theirs 
successfully  impeached.  And  for  evidence  of 
the  soundness,  simplicity,  and  pertinency  of 
their  arguments  we  can  only  claim  that  our 
converts  and  co-laborers  throughout  the  land 
have  at  least  the  reputation  of  being  specially 
able  "to  give  a  reason  for  the  faith  that  is  in 
them." 

I  remember  that  when,  in  1845,  the  present 
leaders  of  the  Free  Soil  party,  with  Daniel 
Webster  in  their  company,  met  to  draw  up 
the  Anti-Texas  address  of  the  Massachusetts 
convention,  they  sent  to  abolitionists  for  anti- 
slavery  facts  and  history,  for  the  remarkable 
testimonies  of  our  Revolutionary  great  men 
which  they  wished  to  quote.  When,  many 
years  ago,  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts 
wished  to  send  ■  to  Congress  a  resolution 
affirming  the  duty  of  immediate  emanci- 
pation, the  committee  sent  to  William  Lloyd 
Garrison  to  draw  it  up,  and  it  stands  now  on 
our  statute-book  as  he  drafted  it. 

How  vigilantly,  how  patiently,  did  we  watch 
the  Texas  plot  from  its  commencement !  The 
politic  South  felt  that  its  first  move  had  been 
107 


Jftemorafclc  American  g>$tttfyt$ 

too  bold,  and  thenceforward  worked  under- 
ground. For  many  a  year,  men  laughed  at  us 
for  entertaining  any  apprehensions.  It  was 
impossible  to  rouse  the  North  to  its  peril. 
David  Lee  Child  was  thought  crazy  because 
he  would  not  believe  there  was  no  danger.  His 
elaborate  "Letters  on  Texan  Annexation"  are 
the  ablest  and  most  valuable  contribution  that 
has  been  made  towards  a  history  of  the  whole 
plot.  Though  we  foresaw  and  proclaimed 
our  conviction  that  annexation  would  be,  in 
the  end,  a  fatal  step  for  the  South,  we  did  not 
feel  at  liberty  to  relax  our  opposition,  well 
knowing  the  vast  increase  of  strength  it  would 
give,  at  first,  to  the  slave  power.  I  remem- 
ber being  one  of  a  committee  which  waited  on 
Abbott  Lawrence,  a  year  or  so  only  before 
annexation,  to  ask  his  countenance  to  some 
general  movement,  without  distinction  of  party, 
against  the  Texas  scheme.  He  smiled  at  our 
fears,  begged  us  to  have  no  apprehensions  ; 
stating  that  his  correspondence  with  leading 
men  at  Washington  enabled  him  to  assure  us 
annexation  was  impossible,  and  that  the  South 
itself  was  determined  to  defeat  the  project. 
A  short  time  after  senators  and  representatives 
from  Texas  took  their  seats  in  Congress ! 

Many  of  these  services  to  the  slave  were 
done  before  I  joined  his  cause.  In  thus  refer- 
ring to  them,  do  not  suppose  me  merely 
seeking  occasion  of  eulogy  on  my  predecessors 
and  present  co-laborers.  I  recall  these  things 
108 


WmMl  $&iiiii>£ 


only  to  rebut  the  contemptuous  criticism  which 
some  about  us  make  the  excuse  for  their  past 
neglect  of  the  movement,  and  in  answer  to 
"Ion's"  representation  of  our  course  as  reck- 
less fanaticism,  childish  impatience,  utter  lack 
of  good  sense,  and  of  our  meetings  as  scenes 
only  of  excitement,  of  reckless  and  indiscrim- 
inate denunciation.  I  assert  that  every  social, 
moral,  economical,  religious,  political,  and  his- 
torical aspect  of  the  question  has  been  ably 
and  patiently  examined.  And  all  this  has 
been  done  with  an  industry  and  ability  which 
have  left  little  for  the  professional  skill,  schol- 
arly culture,  and  historical  learning  of  the  new 
laborers  to  accomplish.  If  the  people  are  still 
in  doubt,  it  is  from  the  inherent  difficulty  of 
the  subject,  or  a  hatred  of  light,  not  from 
want  of  it. 

So  far  from  the  antislavery  cause  having 
lacked  a  manly  and  able  discussion,  I  think  it 
will  be  acknowledged  hereafter  that  the  discus- 
sion has  been  one  of  the  noblest  contributions 
to  a  literature  really  American.  Heretofore, 
not  only  has  our  tone  been  but  an  echo  of 
foreign  culture,  but  the  very  topics  discussed 
and  the  views  maintained  have  been  too  often 
pale  reflections  of  European  politics  and  Eu- 
ropean philosophy.  No  matter  what  dress  we 
assumed,  the  voice  was  ever,  "the  voice  of 
Jacob."  At  last  we  have  stirred  a  question 
thoroughly  American;  the  subject  has  been 
looked  at  from  a  point  of  view  entirely  Amer- 
109 


ffiltvnotablc  American  ^peccljc^ 

ican;  and  it  is  of  such  deep  interest  that  it  has 
called  out  all  the  intellectual  strength  of  the 
nation.  For  once  the  nation  speaks  its  own 
thoughts,  in  its  own  language,  and  the  tone 
also  is  all  its  own.  It  will  hardly  do  for  the 
defeated  party  to  claim  that,  in  this  discussion, 
all  the  ability  is  on  their  side. 

We  are  charged  with  lacking  foresight,  and 
said  to  exaggerate.  This  charge  of  exaggera- 
tion brings  to  my  mind  a  fact  I  mentioned, 
last  month,  at  Horticultural  Hall.  The  thea- 
ters in  many  of  our  large  cities  bring  out,  night 
after  night,  all  the  radical  doctrines  and  all 
the  startling  scenes  of  "Uncle  Tom."  They 
preach  immediate  emancipation,  and  slaves 
shoot  their  hunters  to  loud  applause.  Two 
years  ago,  sitting  in  this  hall,  I  was  myself  some- 
what startled  by  the  assertion  of  my  friend 
Mr.  Pillsbury,  that  the  theaters  would  receive 
the  gospel  of  antislavery  truth  earlier  than 
the  churches.  A  hiss  went  up  from  the  gal- 
leries, and  many  in  the  audience  were  shocked 
by  the  remark.  I  asked  myself  whether  I 
could  indorse  such  a  statement,  and  felt  that 
I  could  not.  I  could  not  believe  it  to  be  true. 
Only  two  years  have  passed,  and  what  was 
then  deemed  rant  and  fanaticism,  by  seven  out 
of  ten  who  heard  it,  has  proved  true.  The 
theater,  bowing  to  its  audience,  has  preached 
immediate  emancipation,  and  given  us  the 
whole  of  "Uncle  Tom";  while  the  pulpit  is 
either  silent  or  hostile,  and  in  the  columns  of 


WtnMl  $|)imp£ 


the  theological  papers  the  work  is  subjected  to 
criticism,  to  reproach,  and  its  author  to  severe 
rebuke.  Do  not,  therefore,  friends,  set  down 
as  extravagant  every  statement  which  your 
experience  does  not  warrant.  It  may  be  that 
you  and  I  have  not  studied  the  signs  of  the 
times  quite  as  accurately  as  the  speaker.  Go- 
ing up  and  down  the  land,  coming  into  close 
contact  with  the  feelings  and  prejudices  of  the 
community,  he  is  sometimes  a  better  judge  than 
you  are  of  its  present  state.  An  abolitionist 
has  more  motives  for  watching,  and  more 
means  of  finding  out,  the  true  state  of  public 
opinion  than  most  of  those  careless  critics  who 
jeer  at  his  assertions  to-day,  and  are  the  first 
to  cry,  "  Just  what  I  said,"  when  his  prophecy 
becomes  a  fact  to-morrow. 

Mr.  "  Ion  "  thinks,  also,  that  we  have  thrown 
away  opportunities,  and  needlessly  outraged 
the  men  and  parties  about  us.  Far  from  it. 
The  antislavery  movement  was  a  patient  and 
humble  suppliant  at  every  door  whence  any 
help  could  possibly  be  hoped.  If  we  now  re- 
pudiate and  denounce  some  of  our  institutions, 
it  is  because  we  have  faithfully  tried  them,  and 
found  them  deaf  to  the  claims  of  justice  and 
humanity.  Our  great  leader,  when  he  first 
meditated  this  crusade,  did  not 

"At  once,  like  a  sunburst,  his  banner  unfurl." 

O   no!  he   sounded   his  way  warily  forward. 

Brought    up   in   the    strictest    reverence   for 

in 


jftemoraMe  American  J>peeri)e£ 

church  organizations,  his  first  effort  was  to 
enlist  the  clergymen  of  Boston  in  the  support 
of  his  views.  On  their  aid  he  counted  confi- 
dently in  his  effort  to  preach  immediate  repent- 
ance of  all  sin.  He  did  not  go,  with  malice 
prepense,  as  some  seem  to  imagine,  up  to  that 
"  attic  "  where  Mayor  Otis  with  difficulty 
found  him.  He  did  not  court  hostility  or  seek 
exile.  He  did  not  sedulously  endeavor  to  cut 
himself  off  from  the  sympathy  and  countenance 
of  the  community  about  him.  O  no!  A  fer- 
vid disciple  of  the  American  Church,  he  con- 
ferred with  some  of  the  leading  clergy  of  the 
city,  and  laid  before  them  his  convictions  on 
the  subject  of  slavery.  He  painted  their  re- 
sponsibility, and  tried  to  induce  them  to  take 
from  his  shoulders  the  burden  of  so  mighty  a 
movement.  He  laid  himself  at  their  feet.  He 
recognized  the  colossal  strength  of  the  clergy; 
he  knew  that  against  their  opposition  it  would 
be  almost  desperate  to  attempt  to  relieve  the 
slave.  He  entreated  them,  therefore,  to  take 
up  the  cause.  But  the  clergy  turned  away 
from  him!  They  shut  their  doors  upon  him! 
They  bade  him  compromise  his  convictions, 
smother  one-half  of  them,  and  support  the 
colonization  movement,  making  his  own  aux- 
iliary to  that,  or  they  would  have  none  of  him. 
Like  Luther,  he  said,  "Here  I  stand;  God  help 
me;  I  can  do  nothing  else!"  But  the  men 
who  joined  him  were  not  persuaded  that  the 
case  was  so  desperate.     They  returned,  each 


ffitttotll  $f)ilttpg 


to  his  own  local  sect,  and  remained  in  them 
until  some  of  us,  myself  among  the  number,  — 
later  converts  to  the  antislavery  movement, — 
thought  they  were  slow  and  faltering  in  their 
obedience  to  conscience,  and  that  they  ought  to 
have  cut  loose  much  sooner  than  they  did.  But 
a  patience  which  old  sympathies  would  not  al- 
low to  be  exhausted,  and  associations,  planted 
deeply  in  youth,  and  spreading  over  a  large  part 
of  manhood,  were  too  strong  for  any  mere 
arguments  to  dislodge  them.  So  they  still  per- 
sisted in  remaining  in  the  Church.  Their  zeal 
was  so  fervent,  and  their  labors  so  abundant,  that 
in  some  towns  large  societies  were  formed,  led 
by  most  of  the  clergymen,  and  having  almost  all 
the  church-members  on  their  lists.  In  those 
same  towns  now  you  will  not  find  one  single 
abolitionist,  of  any  stamp  whatever.  They 
excuse  their  falling  back  by  alleging  that  we 
have  injured  the  cause  by  our  extravagance 
and  denunciation,  and  by  the  various  other 
questions  with  which  our  names  are  associated. 
This  might  be  a  good  reason  why  they  should 
not  work  with  us,  but  does  it  excuse  their  not 
working  at  all  ?  These  people  have  been  once 
awakened,  thoroughly  instructed  in  the  mo- 
mentous character  of  the  movement,  and  have 
acknowledged  the  rightful  claim  of  the  slave 
on  their  sympathy  and  exertions.  It  is  not 
possible  that  a  few  thousand  persons,  however 
extravagant,  could  prevent  devoted  men  from 
finding  some  way  to  help  such  a  cause,  or  at 
113 


JHntiorable  American  ^peecfje^ 

least  manifesting  their  interest  in  it.  But  they 
have  not  only  left  us,  they  have  utterly  desert- 
ed the  slave  in  the  hour  when  the  interests  of 
their  sects  came  across  his  cause.  Is  it  un- 
charitable to  conjecture  the  reason?  At  the 
early  period,  however,  to  which  I  have  referred, 
the  Church  was  much  exercised  by  the  persist- 
ency of  the  abolitionists  in  not  going  out  from 
her.  When  I  joined  the  antislavery  ranks, 
sixteen  years  ago,  the  voice  of  the  clergy  was: 
"  Will  these  pests  never  leave  us?  Will  they 
still  remain  to  trouble  us?  If  you  do  not  like 
us,  there  is  the  door!  "  When  our  friends  had 
exhausted  all  entreaty,  and  tested  the  Chris- 
tianity of  that  body,  they  shook  off  the  dust  of 
their  feet,  and  came  out  of  her. 

At  the  outset,  Mr.  Garrison  called  on  the 
head  of  the  orthodox  denomination,  —  a  man 
compared  with  whose  influence  on  the  mind  of 
New  England  that  of  the  statesmen  whose 
death  you  have  just  mourned  was,  I  think,  but 
as  dust  in  the  balance,  —  a  man  who  then  held 
the  orthodoxy  of  Boston  in  his  right  hand, 
and  who  has  since  taken  up  the  West  by  its 
four  corners,  and  given  it  so  largely  to  Puri- 
tanism,—  I  mean  the  Rev.  Dr.  Lyman  Beecher. 
Mr.  Garrison  was  one  of  those  who  bowed 
to  the  spell  of  that  matchless  eloquence  which 
then  fulmined  over  our  Zion.  He  waited 
on  his  favorite  divine,  and  urged  him  to  give 
to  the  new  movement  the  incalculable  aid  of 
his  name  and  countenance.  He  was  patiently 
114 


f^enfceli  $f)imp£ 


heard.  He  was  allowed  to  unfold  his  plans 
and  array  his  facts.  The  reply  of  the  veteran 
was,  "Mr.  Garrison,  I  have  too  many  irons  in 
the  fire  to  put  in  another."  My  friend  said, 
"Doctor,  you  had  better  take  them  all  out  and 
put  this  one  in,  if  you  mean  well  either  to  the 
religion  or  to  the  civil  liberty  of  our  country." 

The  great  orthodox  leader  did  not  rest  with 
merely  refusing  to  put  another  iron  in  his  fire; 
he  attempted  to  limit  the  irons  of  other  men. 
As  President  of  Lane  Theological  Seminary, 
he  endeavored  to  prevent  the  students  from  in- 
vestigating the  subject  of  slavery.  The  result, 
we  all  remember,  was  a  strenuous  resistance 
on  the  part  of  a  large  number  of  the  students, 
led  by  that  remarkable  man,  Theodore  D. 
Weld.  The  right  triumphed,  and  Lane  Sem- 
inary lost  her  character  and  noblest  pupils  at 
the  same  time.  She  has  languished  ever  since, 
even  with  such  a  president.  Why  should  I 
follow  Dr.  Beecher  into  those  ecclesiastical 
conventions  where  he  has  been  tried  and  found 
wanting  in  fidelity  to  the  slave  ?  He  has  done 
no  worse,  indeed  he  has  done  much  better, 
than  most  of  his  class.  His  opposition  has 
always  been  open  and  manly. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  something  in 
the  blood  which,  men  tell  us,  brings  out  virtues 
and  defects,  even  when  they  have  lain  dormant 
for  a  generation.  Good  and  evil  qualities  are 
hereditary,  the  physicians  say.  The  blood 
whose  warm  currents  of  eloquent  aid  my  friend 
ii5 


iftemoraMe  American  J>pcecf>e^ 

solicited  in  vain  in  that  generation,  has  sprung 
voluntarily  to  his  assistance  in  the  next,  both 
from  the  pulpit  and  the  press,  to  rouse  the 
world  by  the  vigor  and  pathos  of  its  appeals. 
Even  on  that  great  triumph  I  would  say  a 
word.  Marked  and  unequaled  as  has  been 
that  success,  remember,  in  explanation  of  the 
phenomenon,  —  for  "Uncle  Tom's  Cabin"  is 
rather  an  event  than  a  book,  —  remember 
this;  if  the  old  antislavery  movement  had  not 
roused  the  sympathies  of  Mrs.  Stowe,  the 
book  had  never  been  written;  if  that  movement 
had  not  raised  up  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  hearts  to  sympathize  with  the  slave,  the 
book  had  never  been  read.  Not  that  the  gen- 
ius of  the  author  has  not  made  the  triumph 
all  her  own;  not  that  the  unrivaled  felicity 
of  its  execution  has  not  trebled,  quadrupled, 
increased  tenfold,  if  you  please,  the  num- 
ber of  readers;  but  there  must  be  a  spot 
even  for  Archimedes  to  rest  his  lever  upon 
before  he  can  move  the  world,  and  this  effort 
of  genius,  consecrated  to  the  noblest  pur- 
pose, might  have  fallen  dead  and  unnoticed 
in  1835.  It  is  the  antislavery  movement 
which  has  changed  1835  to  1852.  Those  of 
us  familiar  with  antislavery  literature  know 
well  that  Richard  Hildreth's  "Archy  Moore," 
now  "The  White  Slave,"  was  a  book  of  eminent 
ability;  that  it  owed  its  want  of  success  to  no 
lack  of  genius,  but  only  to  the  fact  that  it  was 
a  book  born  out  of  due  time;  that  the  anti- 
116 


Wmtxtll  $f>itfip£ 


slavery  cause  had  not  then  aroused  sufficient 
numbers,  on  the  wings  of  whose  enthusiasm 
even  the  most  delightful  fiction  could  have 
risen  into  world-wide  influence  and  repute.  To 
the  cause  which  had  changed  1835  to  1852  is 
due  somewhat  of  the  influence  of  "Uncle 
Tom's  Cabin." 

The  abolitionists  have  never  overlooked  the 
wonderful  power  which  the  wand  of  the  novel- 
ist was  yet  to  wield  in  their  behalf  over  the 
hearts  of  the  world.  Fredrika  Bremer  only 
expressed  the  common  sentiment  of  many  of 
us  when  she  declared  that  "the  fate  of  the  ne- 
gro is  the  romance  of  our  history."  Again  and 
again,  from  my  earliest  knowledge  of  the  cause, 
have  I  heard  the  opinion  that  in  the  debatable 
land  between  freedom  and  slavery,  in  the  thrill- 
ing incidents  of  the  escape  and  sufferings  of 
the  fugitive,  and  the  perils  of  his  friends,  the 
future  Walter  Scott  of  America  would  find  the 
"border-land"  of  his  romance  and  the  most 
touching  incidents  of  his  "  Sixty  Years  Since  "; 
and  that  the  literature  of  America  would 
gather  its  freshest  laurels  from  that  field. 

So  much,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  our  treatment 
of  the  Church.  We  clung  to  it  as  long  as  we 
hoped  to  make  it  useful.  Disappointed  in  that, 
we  have  tried  to  expose  its  paltering  and  hy- 
pocrisy on  this  question,  broadly  and  with  un- 
flinching boldness,  in  hopes  to  purify  and  bring 
it  to  our  aid.  Our  labors  with  the  great  re- 
ligious societies,  with  the  press,  with  the  insti- 
ll? 


Jftemorable  American  ^peccfjeg 

tutions  of  learning,  have  been  as  untiring  and 
almost  as  unsuccessful.  We  have  tried  to  do 
our  duty  to  every  public  question  that  has  aris- 
en which  could  be  made  serviceable  in  rousing 
general  attention.  The  right  of  petition,  the 
power  of  Congress,  the  internal  slave-trade, 
Texas,  the  compromise  measures,  the  fugitive 
slave  law,  the  motions  of  leading  men,  the 
tactics  of  parties,  have  all  been  watched  and 
used  with  sagacity  and  effect  as  means  to  pro- 
duce a  change  in  public  opinion.  Dr.  Channing 
has  thanked  the  abolition  party,  in  the  name  of 
all  the  lovers  of  free  thought  and  free  speech, 
for  having  vindicated  that  right,  when  all  others 
seemed  ready  to  surrender  it,  — vindicated  it  at 
the  cost  of  reputation,  ease,  property,  even  life 
itself.  The  only  blood  that  has  ever  been  shed 
on  this  side  the  ocean,  in  defense  of  the  freedom 
of  the  press,  was  the  blood  of  Lovejoy,  one  of 
their  number.  In  December,  1836,  Dr.  Chan- 
ning spoke  of  their  position  in  these  terms: 

"  Whilst,  in  obedience  to  conscience,  they  have 
refrained  from  opposing  force  to  force,  they  have 
still  persevered,  amidst  menace  and  insult,  in  bear- 
ing their  testimony  against  wrong,  in  giving  utter- 
ance to  their  deep  convictions.  Of  such  men,  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  say,  that  they  have  rendered  to  free- 
dom a  more  essential  service  than  any  body  of  men 
among  us.  The  defenders  of  freedom  are  not  those 
who  claim  and  exercise  rights  which  no  one  assails, 
or  who  wins  shouts  of  applause  by  well-turned  com- 
pliments to  liberty  in  the  days  of  her  triumph.  They 
are  those  who  stand  up  for  rights  which  mobs,  con- 
spiracies, or  single  tyrants  put  in  jeopardy;  who 
118 


Wtntxtll  $*)iHij)£ 


contend  for  liberty  in  that  particular  form  which  is 
threatened  at  the  moment  by  the  many  or  the  few. 
To  the  abolitionists  this  honor  belongs.  The  first 
systematic  effort  to  strip  the  citizen  of  freedom  of 
speech  they  have  met  with  invincible  resolution. 
From  my  heart  I  thank  them.  I  am  myself  their 
debtor.  I  am  not  sure  that  I  should  this  moment 
write  in  safety  had  they  shrunk  from  the  conflict, 
had  they  shut  their  lips,  imposed  silence  on  their 
presses,  and  hid  themselves  before  their  ferocious 
assailants.  I  know  not  where  these  outrages  would 
have  stopped  had  they  not  met  resistance  from 
their  first  destined  victims.  The  newspaper  press, 
with  a  few  exceptions,  uttered  no  genuine  indignant 
rebuke  of  the  wrong-doers,  but  rather  countenanced 
by  its  gentle  censures  the  reign  of  force.  The  mass 
of  the  people  looked  supinely  on  this  new  tyranny, 
under  which  a  portion  of  their  fellow-citizens  seemed 
to  be  sinking.  A  tone  of  denunciation  was  begin- 
ning to  proscribe  all  discussion  of  slavery;  and  had 
the  spirit  of  violence,  which  selected  associations  as 
its  first  objects,  succeeded  in  this  preparatory  enter- 
prise, it  might  have  been  easily  turned  against  any 
and  every  individual  who  might  presume  to  agitate 
the  unwelcome  subject.  It  is  hard  to  say  to  what 
outrage  the  fettered  press  of  the  country  might  not 
have  been  reconciled.  I  thank  the  abolitionists  that, 
in  this  evil  day,  they  were  true  to  the  rights  which 
the  multitude  were  ready  to  betray.  Their  purpose 
to  suffer,  to  die,  rather  than  surrender  their  dearest 
liberties,  taught  the  lawless  that  they  had  a  foe  to 
contend  with  whom  it  was  not  safe  to  press,  whilst, 
like  all  manly  appeals,  it  called  forth  reflection  and 
sympathy  in  the  better  portion  of  the  community. 
In  the  name  of  freedom  and  humanity,  I  thank 
them." 

No  one,  Mr.  Chairman,  deserves  more  of 
that  honor  than  he  whose  chair  you  now  occu- 
py.    Our  youthful  city  can  boast  of  but  few 
119 


jHcmoraMe  American  £peecfjeg 

places  of  historic  renown  ;  but  I  know  of  no 
one  which  coming  time  is  more  likely  to  keep 
in  memory  than  the  roof  which  Francis  Jack- 
son offered  to  the  antislavery  women  of 
Boston,  when  Mayor  Lyman  confessed  he  was 
unable  to  protect  their  meeting,  and  when  the 
only  protection  the  laws  could  afford  Mr.  Gar- 
rison was  the  shelter  of  the  common  jail. 

Sir,  when  a  nation  sets  itself  to  do  evil,  and 
all  its  leading  forces,  wealth,  party,  and  piety, 
join  in  the  career,  it  is  impossible  but  that 
those  who  offer  a  constant  opposition  should 
be  hated  and  maligned,  no  matter  how  wise, 
cautious,  and  well  planned  their  course  may 
be.  We  are  peculiar  sufferers  in  this  way. 
The  community  has  come  to  hate  its  reprov- 
ing Nathan  so  bitterly  that  even  those  whom 
the  relenting  part  of  it  is  beginning  to  regard 
as  standard-bearers  of  the  antislavery  host 
think  it  unwise  to  avow  any  connection  or 
sympathy  with  him.  I  refer  to  some  of  the 
leaders  of  the  political  movement  against 
slavery.  They  feel  it  to  be  their  mission  to 
marshal  and  use  as  effectively  as  possible  the 
present  convictions  of  the  people.  They  can- 
not afford  to  encumber  themselves  with  the 
odium  which  twenty  years  of  angry  agitation 
have  engendered  in  great  sects  sore  from  un- 
sparing rebuke,  parties  galled  by  constant 
defeat,  and  leading  men  provoked  by  unex- 
pected exposure.  They  are  willing  to  con- 
fess, privately,  that  our  movement  produced 
120 


Wzxtotll  $&iili}j£ 


theirs,  and  that  its  continued  existence  is  the 
very  breath  of  their  life.  But,  at  the  same 
time,  they  would  fain  walk  on  the  road  with- 
out being  soiled  by  too  close  contact  with  the 
rough  pioneers  who  threw  it  up.  They  are 
wise  and  honorable,  and  their  silence  is  very 
expressive. 

When  I  speak  of  their  eminent  position 
and  acknowledged  ability,  another  thought 
strikes  me.  Who  converted  these  men  and 
their  distinguished  associates  ?  It  is  said  we 
have  shown  neither  sagacity  in  plans,  nor 
candor  in  discussion,  nor  ability.  Who,  then, 
or  what,  converted  Burlingame  and  Wilson, 
Sumner  and  Adams,  Palfrey  and  Mann,  Chase 
and  Hale,  and  Phillips  and  Giddings  ?  Who 
taught  the  Christian  Register,  the  Daily  Ad- 
vertiser, and  that  class  of  prints,  that  there 
were  such  things  as  a  slave  and  a  slave-holder 
in  the  land,  and  so  gave  them  some  more 
intelligent  basis  than  their  mere  instincts  to 
hate  William  Lloyd  Garrison  ?  What  magic 
wand  was  it  whose  touch  made  the  toadying 
servility  of  the  land  start  up  the  real  demon 
that  it  was,  and  at  the  same  time  gathered 
into  the  slave's  service  the  professional 
ability,  ripe  culture,  and  personal  integrity 
which  grace  the  Free  Soil  ranks  ?  We 
never  argue !  These  men,  then,  were  con- 
verted by  simple  denunciation !  They  were 
all  converted  by  the  "hot,"  "reckless," 
"ranting,"    "bigoted,"    "fanatic"    Garrison, 


jHemorafcle  American  M>pttttyz$ 

who  never  troubled  himself  about  facts,  nor 
stopped  to  argue  with  an  opponent,  but 
straightway  knocked  him  down  !  My  old  and 
valued  friend,  Mr.  Sumner,  often  boasts  that 
he  was  a  reader  of  the  Liberator  before  I  was. 
Do  not  criticize  too  much  the  agency  by  which 
such  men  were  converted.  That  blade  has  a 
double  edge.  Our  reckless  course,  our  empty 
rant,  our  fanaticism,  has  made  abolitionists  of 
some  of  the  best  and  ablest  men  in  the  land. 
We  are  inclined  to  go  on,  and  see  if  even  with 
such  poor  tools  we  cannot  make  some  more. 
Antislavery  zeal  and  the  roused  conscience  of 
the  "godless  come-outers  "  made  the  trembling 
South  demand  the  fugitive-slave  law,  and  the 
fugitive-slave  law  "  provoked "  Mrs.  Stowe 
to  the  good  work  of  "Uncle  Tom."  That 
is  something!  Let  me  say,  in  passing,  that 
you  will  nowhere  find  an  earlier  or  more 
generous  appreciation,  or  more  flowing  eulogy, 
of  these  men  and  their  labors,  than  in  the 
columns  of  the  Liberator.  No  one,  however 
feeble,  has  ever  peeped  or  muttered,  in  any 
quarter,  that  the  vigilant  eye  of  the  Pioneer 
has  not  recognized  him.  He  has  stretched 
out  the  right  hand  of  a  most  cordial  welcome 
the  moment  any  man's  face  was  turned  Zion- 
ward. 

I  do  not  mention  these  things  to  praise  Mr. 
Garrison;  I  do  not  stand  here  for  that  pur- 
pose. You  will  not  deny  —  if  you  do,  I  can 
prove  it  —  that  the  movement  of  the  abolition- 

122 


fflmbcll  $&ittii>£ 


ists  converted  these  men.  Their  constituents 
were  converted  by  it.  The  assault  upon  the 
right  of  petition,  upon  the  right  to  print  and 
speak  of  slavery,  the  denial  of  the  right  of 
Congress  over  the  District,  the  annexation  of 
Texas,  the  fugitive-slave  law,  were  measures 
which  the  antislavery  movement  provoked, 
and  the  discussion  of  which  has  made  all  the 
abolitionists  we  have.  The  antislavery  cause, 
then,  converted  these  men;  it  gave  them  a 
constituency;  it  gave  them  an  opportunity 
to  speak,  and  it  gave  them  a  public  to  listen. 
The  antislavery  cause  gave  them  their  votes, 
got  them  their  offices,  furnished  them  their 
facts,  gave  them  their  audience.  If  you  tell 
me  they  cherished  all  these  principles  in  their 
own  breasts  before  Mr.  Garrison  appeared, 
I  can  only  say,  if  the  antislavery  movement 
did  not  give  them  their  ideas,  it  surely  gave  the 
courage  to  utter  them. 

In  such  circumstances,  is  it  not  singular  that 
the  name  of  William  Lloyd  Garrison  has  nev- 
er been  pronounced  on  the  floor  of  the  United 
States  Congress  linked  with  any  epithet  but 
that  of  contempt !  No  one  of  those  men  who 
owe  their  ideas,  their  station,  their  audience,  to 
him,  have  ever  thought  it  worth  their  while  to 
utter  one  word  in  grateful  recognition  of  the 
power  which  called  them  into  being.  When 
obliged,  by  the  course  of  their  argument,  to 
treat  the  question  historically,  they  can  go 
across  the  water  to  Clarkson  and  Wilberforce, 


123 


jflemoraMe  American  g>#zzttyt$ 

— yes,  to  a  safe  salt-water  distance.  As  Dan- 
iel Webster,  when  he  was  talking  to  the  farmers 
of  western  New  York,  and  wished  to  contrast 
slave  and  free  labor,  did  not  dare  to  compare 
New  York  with  Virginia,  — sister  States,  under 
the  same  government,  planted  by  the  same 
race,  worshiping  at  the  same  altar,  speaking 
the  same  language, —  indentical  in  all  respects, 
save  that  one  in  which  he  wished  to  seek  the 
contrast;  but  no!  he  compared  it  with  Cuba — , 
the  contrast  was  so  close!  Catholic — Protes- 
tant; Spanish  —  Saxon;  despotism — municipal 
institutions;  readers  of  Lope  de  Vega  and  of 
Shakespeare;  mutters  of  the  mass  —  children 
of  the  Bible!  But  Virginia  is  too  near  home  ! 
So  is  Garrison!  One  would  have  thought  there 
was  something  in  the  human  breast  which 
would  sometimes  break  through  policy.  These 
noble-hearted  men  whom  I  have  named  must 
surely  have  found  quite  irksome  the  constant 
practice  of  what  Dr.  Gardiner  used  to  call  "that 
despicable  virtue,  prudence  ! "  One  would  have 
thought,  when  they  heard  that  name  spoken 
with  contempt,  their  ready  eloquence  would 
have  leaped  from  its  scabbard  to  avenge  even 
a  word  that  threatened  him  with  insult.  But 
it  never  came, —  never !  I  do  not  say  I  blame 
them.  Perhaps  they  thought  they  should  serve 
the  cause  better  by  drawing  a  broad  black  line 
between  themselves  and  him.  Perhaps  they 
thought  the  devil  could  be  cheated;  I  do  not 
think  he  can. 

124 


Wtxtotll  gtyitfijtf 


We  are  perfectly  willing  —  I  am,  for  one  — 
to  be  the  dead  lumber  that  shall  make  a  path 
for  these  men  into  the  light  and  love  of  the 
people.  We  hope  for  nothing  better.  Use 
us  freely,  in  any  way,  for  the  slave.  When 
the  temple  is  finished,  the  tools  will  not  com- 
plain that  they  are  thrown  aside,  let  who  will 
lead  up  the  nation  to  "put  on  the  topstone 
with  shoutings."  But  while  so  much  remains 
to  be  done,  while  our  little  camp  is  beleaguered 
all  about,  do  nothing  to  weaken  his  influence, 
whose  sagacity,  more  than  any  other  single 
man's,  has  led  us  up  hither,  and  whose  name  is 
identified  with  that  movement  which  the  North 
still  heeds,  and  the  South  still  fears  the  most. 
After  all,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  no  hard  task. 
We  know  very  well  that,  notwithstanding  this 
loud  clamor  about  our  harsh  judgment  of  men 
and  things,  our  opinions  differ  very  little  from 
those  of  our  Free  Soil  friends,  or  of  intelligent 
men  generally,  when  you  really  get  at  them. 
It  has  even  been  said  that  one  of  that  family 
which  has  made  itself  so  infamously  conspic- 
uous here  in  executing  the  fugitive-slave 
law,  a  judge,  whose  earnest  defense  of  that 
law  we  all  heard  in  Faneuil  Hall,  did  himself, 
but  a  little  before,  arrange  for  a  fugitive  to  be 
hid  till  pursuit  was  over.  I  hope  it  is  true; 
it  would  be  an  honorable  inconsistency.  And 
if  it  be  not  true  of  him,  we  know  it  is  of  others. 
Yet  it  is  base  to  incite  others  to  deeds  at 
which,  whenever  we  are  hidden  from  public 
125 


Memorable  American  <£pcetf)eg 

notice,  our  own  hearts  recoil !  But  thus  we 
see  that  when  men  lay  aside  the  judicial  ermine, 
the  senator's  robe,  or  the  party  collar,  and 
sit  down  in  private  life,  you  can  hardly 
distinguish  their  tone  from  ours.  Their  eyes 
seem  as  anointed  as  our  own.  As  in  Pope's 
day, — 

"At  all  we  laugh  they  laugh,  no  doubt; 
The  only  difference  is,  we  dare  laugh  out." 

Caution  is  not  always  good  policy  in  a  cause 
like  ours.  It  is  said  that  when  Napoleon  saw 
the  day  going  against  him,  he  used  to  throw 
away  all  the  rules  of  war,  and  trust  himself  to 
the  hot  impetuosity  of  his  soldiers.  The 
masses  are  governed  more  by  impulse  than 
conviction;  and  even  were  it  not  so,  the  con- 
victions of  most  men  are  on  our  side,  and  this 
will  surely  appear,  if  we  can  only  pierce  the 
crust  of  their  prejudice  or  indifference.  I 
observe  that  our  Free  Soil  friends  never  stir 
their  audience  so  deeply  as  when  some  indi- 
vidual leaps  beyond  the  platform,  and  strikes 
upon  the  very  heart  of  the  people.  Men  listen 
to  discussions  of  laws  and  tactics  with  ominous 
patience.  It  is  when  Mr.  Sumner,  in  Faneuil 
Hall,  avows  his  determination  to  disobey  the 
fugitive-slave  law,  and  cries  out,  "I  was  a 
man  before  I  was  a  commissioner";  when  Mr. 
Giddings  says  of  the  fall  of  slavery,  quoting 
Adams,  "  Let  it  come!  if  it  must  come  in  blood, 
yet  I  say,  let  it  come!" — that  their  associates 
126 


WmMl  $ f)Mip£ 


on  the  platform  are  sure  they  are  wrecking  the 
party,  while  many  a  heart  beneath  beats  its 
first  pulse  of  anti slavery  life. 

These  are  brave  words.  When  I  compare 
them  with  the  general  tone  of  Free  Soil  men 
in  Congress,  I  distrust  the  atmosphere  of 
Washington  and  of  politics.  These  men  move 
about,  Sauls  and  Goliaths,  among  us,  taller  by 
many  a  cubit.  There  they  lose  port  and 
stature.  Mr.  Sumner's  speech  in  the  Senate 
unsays  no  part  of  his  Faneuil  Hall  pledge. 
But,  though  discussing  the  same  topic,  no  one 
would  gather  from  any  word  or  argument  that 
the  speaker  ever  took  such  ground  as  he  did 
in  Faneuil  Hall.  It  is  all  through,  the  law, 
the  manner  of  the  surrender,  not  the  surrender 
itself,  of  the  slave,  that  he  objects  to.  As  my 
friend  Mr.  Pillsbury  so  forcibly  says,  so  far  as 
anything  in  the  speech  shows,  he  puts  the  slave 
behind  the  jury  trial,  behind  the  habeas  corpus 
act,  and  behind  the  new  interpretation  of  the 
Constitution,  and  says  to  the  slave  claimant: 
"  You  must  get  through  all  these  before  you 
reach  him;  but  if  you  can  get  through  all 
these,  you  may  have  him!  "  It  was  no  tone 
like  this  which  made  the  old  Hall  rock  !  Not 
if  he  got  through  twelve  jury  trials,  and  forty 
habeas  corpus  acts,  and  Constitutions  built  high 
as  yonder  monument,  would  he  permit  so  much 
as  the  shadow  of  a  little  finger  of  the  slave 
claimant  to  touch  the  slave  !  At  least,  so  he 
was  understood.  In  an  elaborate  discussion, 
127 


jftemorable  American  <§peecl)e£ 

by  the  leader  of  the  political  antislavery  party, 
of  the  whole  topic  of  fugitive  slaves,  you  do  not 
find  one  protest  against  the  surrender  itself, 
one  frank  expression  on  the  constitutional 
clause,  or  any  indication  of  the  speaker's  final 
purpose,  should  any  one  be  properly  claimed 
under  that  provision.  It  was  under  no  such 
uncertain  trumpet  that  the  antislavery  host  was 
originally  marshaled.  The  tone  is  that  of 
the  German  soldiers  whom  Napoleon  routed. 
They  did  not  care,  they  said,  for  the  defeat, 
but  only  that  they  were  not  beaten  according 
to  the  rule.  Mr.  Mann,  in  his  speech  of  Feb- 
ruary 15,  1850,  says:  "77?^  states  being  sepa- 
rated, I  would  as  soon  return  my  own  brother 
or  sister  into  bondage  as  I  would  return  a 
fugitive  slave.  Before  God  and  Christ,  and 
all  Christian  men,  they  are  my  brothers  and 
sisters."  What  a  condition!  from  the  lips,  too, 
of  a  champion  of  the  Higher  Law!  Wheth- 
er the  states  be  separate  or  united,  neither 
my  brother  nor  any  other  man's  brother  shall, 
with  my  consent,  go  back  into  bondage.  So 
speaks  the  heart;  Mr.  Mann's  version  is  that 
of  the  politician. 

Mr.  Mann's  recent  speech  in  August,  1852, 
has  the  same  non-committal  tone  to  which  I 
have  alluded  in  Mr.  Sumner's.  While  pro- 
fessing, in  the  most  eloquent  terms,  his  loyalty 
to  the  Higher  Law,  Mr.  Sutherland  asked: 
"Is  there,  in  Mr.  Mann's  opinion,  any  conflict 
between  that  Higher  Law  and  the  Constitu- 
128 


Wzttotll  $>WW 


tion  ?  If  so,  what  is  it  ?  If  not  so,  why  in- 
troduce an  irrelevant  topic  into  the  debate  ?  " 
Mr.  Mann  avoided  any  reply,  and  asked  not  to 
be  interrupted !  Is  that  the  frankness  which 
becomes  an  abolitionist  ?  Can  such  conceal- 
ment help  any  cause  ?  The  design  of  Mr. 
Sutherland  is  evident.  If  Mr.  Mann  had  al- 
lowed there  was  no  conflict  between  the  High- 
er Law  and  the  Constitution,  all  his  remarks 
were  futile  and  out  of  order.  But  if  he  asserted 
that  any  such  conflict  existed,  how  did  he 
justify  himself  in  swearing  to  support  that  in- 
strument?—  a  question  our  Free  Soil  friends 
are  slow  to  meet.  Mr.  Mann  saw  the  dilemma, 
and  avoided  it  by  silence ! 

The  same  speech  contains  the  usual  depre- 
catory assertions  that  Free  Soilers  have  no 
wish  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  states; 
that  they  "consent  to  let  slavery  remain  where 
it  is."  If  he  means  that  he,  Horace  Mann, 
a  moral  and  accountable  being,  "consents  to 
let  slavery  remain  where  it  is,"  all  the  rest  of 
his  speech  is  sound  and  fury,  signifying  noth- 
ing. If  he  means  that  he,  Horace  Mann,  as 
a  politician  and  party  man,  consents  to  that, 
but  elsewhere  and  otherwise  will  do  his  best 
to  abolish  this  "  all-comprehending  wickedness 
of  slavery,  in  which  every  wrong  and  every 
crime  has  its  natural  home,"  then  he  should 
have  plainly  said  so.  Otherwise,  his  disclaimer 
is  unworthy  of  him,  and  could  have  deceived 
no  one.  He  must  have  known  that  all  the 
129 


Memorable  American  <£>peerf)e£ 

South   care    for   is   the    action,  not   in   what 
capacity  the  deed  is  done. 

Mr.  Giddings  is  more  careful  in  his  state- 
ment; but,  judged  by  his  speech  on  the  "Plat- 
forms," how  little  does  he  seem  to  understand 
either  his  own  duty  or  the  true  philosophy 
of  the  cause  he  serves !     He  says: 

"We,  sir,  would  drive  the  slave  question  from  dis- 
cussion in  this  hall.  It  never  had  a  constitutional 
existence  here.  Separate  this  government  from  all 
interference  with  slavery;  let  the  federal  power  wash 
its  hands  from  that  institution;  let  us  purify  our- 
selves from  its  contagion;  leave  it  with  the  states, 
who  alone  have  the  power  to  sustain  it,  — ■  then,  sir, 
will  agitation  cease  in  regard  to  it  here;  then  we 
shall  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  it ;  our  time  will 
be  no  more  occupied  with  it;  and,  like  a  band  of 
freemen,  a  band  of  brothers,  we  could  meet  here, 
and  legislate  for  the  prosperity,  the  improvement,  of 
mankind,  for  the  elevation  of  our  race." 

Mr.  Sumner  speaks  in  the  same  strain. 
He  says: 

"The  time  will  come  when  courts  or  Congress 
will  declare  that  nowhere  under  the  Constitution  can 
man  hold  property  in  man.  For  the  republic,  such 
a  decree  will  be  the  way  of  peace  and  safety.  As 
slavery  is  banished  from  the  national  jurisdiction,  it 
will  cease  to  vex  our  national  politics.  It  may  linger 
in  the  states  as  a  local  institution,  but  it  will  no 
longer  endanger  national  animosities  when  it  no 
longer  demands  national  support For  him- 
self, he  knows  no  better  aim,  under  the  Constitution, 
than  to  bring  the  government  back  to  the  precise 
position  which  it  occupied  when  it  was  launched." 

This  seems  to  me  a  very  mistaken  strain. 
130 


Wtxtotll  $Wli$$ 


Whenever  slavery  is  banished  from  our  nation- 
al jurisdiction,  it  will  be  a  momentous  gain,  a 
vast  stride.  But  let  us  not  mistake  the  half- 
way house  for  the  end  of  the  journey.  I 
need  not  say  that  it  matters  not  to  abolitionists 
under  what  special  law  slavery  exists.  Their 
battle  lasts  while  it  exists  anywhere,  and  I 
doubt  not  Mr.  Sumner  and  Mr.  Giddings  feel 
themselves  enlisted  for  the  whole  war.  I  will 
even  suppose,  what  neither  of  these  gentlemen 
states,  that  their  plan  includes  not  only  that 
slavery  shall  be  abolished  in  the  District  and 
territories,  but  that  the  slave  basis  of  repre- 
sentation shall  be  struck  from  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  the  slave-surrender  clause  construed 
away.  But  even  then,  does  Mr.  Giddings  or 
Mr.  Sumner  really  believe  that  slavery,  exist- 
ing in  its  full  force  in  the  states,  "will  cease 
to  vex  our  national  politics"?  Can  they 
point  to  any  state  where  a  powerful  oligarchy, 
possessed  of  immense  wealth,  has  ever  existed 
without  attempting  to  meddle  in  the  govern- 
ment? Even  now,  does  not  manufacturing, 
banking,  and  commercial  capital  prepetually 
vex  our  politics  ?  Why  should  not  slave  capital 
exert  the  same  influence  ?  Do  they  imagine 
that  a  hundred  thousand  men,  possessed  of 
two  thousand  million  of  dollars,  which  they  feel 
the  spirit  of  the  age  is  seeking  to  tear  from  their 
grasp,  will  not  eagerly  catch  at  all  the  support 
they  can  obtain  by  getting  the  control  of  the 
government  ?  In  a  land  where  the  dollar  is 
131 


jHcmoratile  American  ^>peecftejGf 

almighty,  "where  the  sin  of  not  being  rich 
is  only  atoned  for  by  the  effort  to  become 
so,"  do  they  doubt  that  such  an  oligarchy 
will  generally  succeed  ?  Besides,  banking 
and  manufacturing  stocks  are  not  urged  by 
despair  to  seek  a  controlling  influence  in  poli- 
tics. They  know  they  are  about  equally  safe, 
whichever  party  rules;  that  no  party  wishes 
to  legislate  their  rights  away.  Slave  property 
knows  that  its  being  allowed  to  exist  depends 
on  its  having  the  virtual  control  of  the  govern- 
ment. Its  constant  presence  in  politics  is 
dictated,  therefore,  by  despair,  as  well  as  by  the 
wish  to  secure  fresh  privileges.  Money,  how- 
ever, is  not  the  only  strength  of  the  slave  power. 
That,  indeed,  were  enough  in  an  age  when 
capitalists  are  our  feudal  barons.  But  though 
driven  entirely  from  national  shelter  the  slave- 
holders would  have  the  strength  of  old  asso- 
ciations, and  of  peculiar  laws  in  their  own 
states,  which  give  those  states  wholly  into 
their  hands.  A  weaker  prestige,  fewer  privi- 
leges, and  less  comparative  wealth  have  en- 
abled the  British  aristocracy  to  rule  England 
for  two  centuries,  though  the  root  of  their 
strength  was  cut  at  Naseby.  It  takes  ages 
for  deeply-rooted  institutions  to  die;  and 
driving  slavery  into  the  states  will  hardly 
be  our  Naseby.  Whoever,  therefore,  lays 
the  flattering  unction  to  his  soul,  that,  while 
slavery  exists  anywhere  in  the  states,  our 
legislators  will  sit  down  "  like  a  band  of 
132 


Wzrtotll  $&iHip£ 


brothers," — unless  they  are  all  slave-holding 
brothers, —  is  doomed  to  find  himself  wo  fully 
mistaken.  Mr.  Adams,  ten  years  ago,  re- 
fused to  sanction  this  doctrine  of  his  friend 
Mr.  Giddings,  combating  it  ably  and  eloquently 
in  his  well-kown  reply  to  Ingersoll.  Though 
Mr.  Adams  touches  on  but  one  point,  the  prin- 
ciple he  lays  down  has  many  other  applications. 
But  is  Mr.  Giddings  willing  to  sit  down  with 
slave-holders,  "like  a  band  of  brothers,"  and 
not  seek,  knowing  all  the  time  that  they  are 
tyrants  at  home,  to  use  the  common  strength  to 
protect  their  victims  ?  Does  he  not  know  that 
it  is  impossible  for  free  states  and  slave  states 
to  unite  under  any  form  of  constitution,  no 
matter  how  clean  the  parchment  may  be,  with- 
out the  compact  resulting  in  new  strength  to 
the  slave  system  ?  It  is  the  unimpaired  strength 
of  Massachusetts  and  New  York,  and  the 
youthful  vigor  of  Ohio,  that,  even  now,  enable 
bankrupt  Carolina  to  hold  up  the  institution. 
Every  nation  must  maintain  peace  within  her 
limits.  No  government  can  exist  which  does 
not  fulfill  that  function.  When  we  say  the 
Union  will  maintain  peace  in  Carolina,  that 
being  a  slave  state,  what  does  "peace"  mean  ? 
It  means  keeping  the  slave  beneath  the  heel  of 
his  master.  Now,  even  on  the  principle  of  two 
wrongs  making  a  right,  if  we  put  this  great 
weight  of  a  common  government  into  the  scale 
of  the  slave-holder,  we  are  bound  to  add  some- 
thing equal  to  the  slave's  side.  But  no,  Mr. 
133 


Jttcmorable  American  ^peecfjeg 

Giddings  is  content  to  give  the  slave-holder  the 
irresistible  and  organic  help  of  a  common  gov- 
ernment, and  bind  himself  to  utter  no  word, 
and  move  not  a  finger,  in  his  civil  capacity,  to 
help  the  slaves !  An  abolitionist  would  find 
himself  not  much  at  home,  I  fancy,  in  that 
"band  of  brothers"! 

And  Mr.  Sumner  "knows  no  better  aim, 
under  the  Constitution,  than  to  bring  back  the 
government "  to  where  it  was  in  1789!  Has 
the  voyage  been  so  very  honest  and  prosperous 
a  one,  in  his  opinion,  that  his  only  wish  is  to 
start  again  with  the  same  ship,  the  same  crew, 
and  the  same  sailing-orders?  Grant  all  the 
claims  as  to  the  state  of  public  opinion,  the 
intentions  of  leading  men,  and  the  form  of  our 
institutions  at  that  period;  still,  with  all  these 
checks  on  wicked  men,  and  helps  to  good  ones, 
here  we  are,  in  1853,  according  to  his  own 
showing,  ruled  by  slavery,  tainted  to  the  core 
with  slavery,  and  binding  the  infamous  fugitive- 
slave  law  like  an  honorable  frontlet  on  our 
brows!  The  more  accurate  and  truthful  his 
glowing  picture  of  the  public  virtue  of  1789, 
the  stronger  my  argument.  If  even  all  those 
great  patriots,  and  all  that  enthusiasm  for  jus- 
tice and  liberty,  did  not  avail  to  keep  us  safe 
in  such  a  Union,  what  will  ?  In  such  desperate 
circumstances,  can  his  statesmanship  devise  no 
better  aim  than  to  try  the  same  experiments 
over  again,  under  precisely  the  same  condi- 
tions ?  What  new  guaranties  does  he  propose, 
134 


WmMl  $ ftittipg 


to  prevent  the  voyage  from  being  again  turned 
into  a  piratical  slave-trading  cruise  ?  None  ! 
Have  sixty  years  taught  us  nothing?  In  1660, 
the  English  thought,  in  recalling  Charles  II., 
that  the  memory  of  that  scaffold  which  had 
once  darkened  the  windows  of  Whitehall  would 
be  guaranty  enough  for  his  good  behavior.  But, 
spite  of  the  specter,  Charles  II .  repeated  Charles 
I.,  and  James  outdid  him.  Wiser  by  this  ex- 
perience, when  the  nation,  in  1689,  got  another 
chance,  they  trusted  to  no  guaranties,  but  so 
arranged  the  very  elements  of  their  govern- 
ment that  William  III.  could  not  repeat  Charles 
I.  Let  us  profit  by  the  lesson.  These  mis- 
takes of  leading  men  merit  constant  attention. 
Such  remarks  as  those  I  have  quoted,  uttered 
from  the  high  places  of  political  life,  however 
carefully  guarded,  have  a  sad  influence  on  the 
rank  and  file  of  the  party.  The  antislavery 
awakening  has  cost  too  many  years  and  too 
much  labor  to  risk  letting  its  energy  be 
turned  into  a  wrong  channel,  or  balked  by 
fruitless  experiments.  Neither  the  slave  nor 
the  country  must  be  cheated  a  second  time. 

Mr.  Chairman,  when  I  remember  the  grand 
port  of  these  men  elsewhere,  and  witness  this 
confusion  of  ideas,  and  veiling  of  their  proud 
crests  to  party  necessities,  they  seem  to  me  to 
lose  in  Washington  something  of  their  old 
giant  proportions.  How  often  have  we  wit- 
nessed this  change  !  It  seems  the  inevitable 
result  of  political  life  under  any  government, 
135 


Memorable  American  £>$mfyt$ 

but  especially  under  ours;  and  we  are  surprised 
at  it  in  these  men  only  because  we  fondly 
hoped  they  would  be  exceptions  to  the  general 
rule.  It  was  Chamfort,  I  think,  who  first 
likened  a  republican  senate-house  to  Milton's 
Pandemonium;  another  proof  of  the  rare 
insight  French  writers  have  shown  in  criticis- 
ing republican  institutions.  The  capitol  at 
Washington  always  brings  to  my  mind  that 
other  capitol,  which  in  Milton's  great  epic  "rose 
like  an  exhalation"  "from  the  burning  marl," 
—  that  towering  palace,  "with  starry  lamps 
and  blazing  cressets"  hung, — with  "roof  of 
fretted  gold"  and  stately  height,  its  hall  "like 
a  covered  field."  You  remember,  sir,  the  host 
of  archangels  gathered  round  it,  and  how  thick 
the  airy  crowd 

"  Swarmed  and  were  straitened;  till,  the  signal  given, 
Behold  a  wonder  !     They  but  now  who  seemed 
In  bigness  to  surpass  earth's  giant  sons, 
Now  less  than  smallest  dwarfs,  in  narrow  room 
Throng  numberless,  like  that  pygmean  race 
Beyond  the  Indian  mount;  or  fairy  elves, 
Whose  midnight  revels,  by  a  forest  side 
Or  fountain,  some  belated  peasant  sees. 

Thus  incorporeal  spirits  to  smallest  forms 
Reduced  their  shapes  immense,  and  were  at  large, 
Though  without  number  still,  amid  the  hall 
Of  that  infernal  court." 

Mr.  Chairman,  they  got  no  further  than  the 

hall.     They  were  not,  in  the  current  phrase, 

"a    healthy  party"!     The    healthy    party — 

the  men  who  made  no  compromise  in  order 

136 


Wmtxtll  $J)iUi|j£ 


to  come  under  that  arch  —  Milton   describes 
further  on,  where  he  says : 

"But  far  within, 
And  in  their  own  dimensions,  like  themselves, 
The  great  seraphic  lords  and  cherubim, 
In  close  recess  and  secret  conclave,  sat; 
A  thousand  demigods  on  golden  seats 
Frequent  and  full." 
These   were   the  healthy   party!     These  are 
the    Casses   and   the    Houstons,    the    Footes 
and   the    Soules,    the    Clays,    the    Websters, 
and  the  Douglases,   that  bow  no  lofty  fore- 
head in  the  dust,  but  can  find  ample  room 
and   verge   enough    under    the    Constitution. 
Our   friends   go   down   there,   and    must    be 
dwarfed  into  pygmies    before  they  can  find 
space  within  the  lists  ! 

It  would  be  superfluous  to  say  that  we  grant 
the  entire  sincerity  and  true-heartedness  of 
these  men.  But  in  critical  times,  when  a  wrong 
step  entails  most  disastrous  consequences,  to 
"mean  well"  is  not  enough.  Sincerity  is  no 
shield  for  any  man  from  the  criticism  of  his 
fellow-laborers.  I  do  not  fear  such  men  as 
these  will  take  offense  at  our  discussion  of  their 
views  and  conduct.  Long  years  of  hard  labor, 
in  which  we  have  borne  at  least  our  share, 
have  resulted  in  a  golden  opportunity.  How 
to  use  it,  friends  differ.  Shall  we  stand  courte- 
ously silent,  and  let  these  men  play  out  the  play, 
when,  to  our  thinking,  their  plan  will  slacken 
the  zeal,  balk  the  hopes,  and  waste  the  efforts 
of  the  slave's  friends  ?    No  !     I  know  Charles 


137 


Jftemorabie  American  &$tttfyt$ 

Sumner's  love  for  the  cause  so  well,  that  I  am 
sure  he  will  welcome  my  criticism  whenever  I 
deem  his  counsel  wrong;  that  he  will  hail  every 
effort  to  serve  our  common  client  more 
efficiently.  It  is  not  his  honor  nor  mine 
that  is  at  issue;  not  his  feeling  nor  mine 
that  is  at  issue;  not  his  feeling  nor  mine  that 
is  to  be  consulted.  The  only  question  for 
either  of  us  is,  What  in  these  golden  moments 
can  be  done  ?  Where  can  the  hardest  blow  be 
struck  ?  I  hope  I  am  just  to  Mr.  Sumner; 
I  have  known  him  long  and  honor  him.  I 
know  his  genius,  I  honor  his  virtues;  yet 
if,  from  his  high  place,  he  sends  out  coun- 
sels which  I  think  dangerous  to  the  cause, 
I  am  bound  to  raise  my  voice  against  them. 
I  do  my  duty  in  a  private  communication 
to  him  first,  then  in  public  to  his  friends 
and  mine.  The  friendship  that  will  not 
bear  this  criticism  is  but  the  frost-work  of  a 
winter's  morning,  which  the  sun  looks  upon 
and  it  is  gone.  His  friendship  will  survive  all 
that  I  say  of  him,  and  mine  will  survive  all  that 
he  shall  say  of  me;  and  this  is  the  only  way 
in  which  the  antislavery  cause  can  be  served. 
Truth,  success,  victory,  triumph  over  the  ob- 
stacles that  beset  us;  this  is  all  either  of  us 
wants. 

If  all  I  have  said  to  you  is  untrue,  if  I  have 

exaggerated,  explain  to  me  this  fact:    in  183 1, 

Mr.  Garrison  commenced  a  paper  advocating 

the  doctrine  of  immediate  emancipation.     He 

138 


US>entieII  $t}illi$$ 


had  against  him  the  thirty  thousand  churches 
and  all  the  clergy  of  the  country, —  its  wealth, 
its  commerce,  its  press.  In  183 1,  what  was 
the  state  of  things?  There  was  the  most 
entire  ignorance  and  apathy  on  the  slave  ques- 
tion. If  men  knew  of  the  existence  of  slavery, 
it  was  only  as  a  part  of  picturesque  Virginia 
life.  No  one  preached,  no  one  talked,  no  one 
wrote,  about  it.  No  whisper  of  it  stirred  the 
surface  of  the  political  sea.  The  church  heard 
of  it  occasionally,  when  some  colonization  agent 
asked  funds  to  send  the  blacks  to  Africa.  Old 
school-books  tainted  with  some  antislavery 
selections  had  passed  out  of  use,  and  new  ones 
were  compiled  to  suit  the  times.  Soon  as  any 
dissent  from  the  prevailing  faith  appeared, 
every  one  set  himself  to  crush  it  The  pulpits 
preached  at  it;  the  press  denounced  it;  mobs 
tore  down  houses,  threw  presses  into  the  fire 
and  the  stream,  and  shot  the  editors;  religious 
conventions  tried  to  smother  it;  parties  arrayed 
themselves  against  it.  Daniel  Webster  boast- 
ed in  the  Senate  that  he  had  never  introduced 
the  subject  of  slavery  to  that  body,  and  never 
would.  Mr.  Clay,  in  1 839,  made  a  speech 
for  the  Presidency,  in  which  he  says,  that  to 
discuss  the  subject  of  slavery  is  moral  treason, 
and  that  no  man  has  a  right  to  introduce  the 
subject  into  Congress.  Mr.  Benton,  in  1844, 
laid  down  his  platform,  and  he  not  only  denies 
the  right,  but  asserts  that  he  never  has  and 
never  will  discuss  the  subject.  Yet  Mr.  Clay, 
139 


jftemotafcle  American  £peecf)eg 

from  1839  down  to  his  death,  hardly  made 
a  remarkable  speech  of  any  kind  except  on 
slavery.  Mr.  Webster,  having  indulged  now 
and  then  in  a  little  easy  rhetoric,  as  at  Niblo's 
and  elsewhere,  opens  his  mouth  in  1840,  gen- 
erously contributing  his  aid  to  both  sides,  and 
stops  talking  about  it  only  when  death  closes 
his  lips.  Mr.  Benton's  six  or  eight  speeches 
in  the  United  States  Senate  have  all  been  on 
the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  southwestern 
section  of  the  country,  and  form  the  basis  of 
whatever  claim  he  has  to  the  character  of  a 
statesman;  and  he  owes  his  seat  in  the  next 
Congress  somewhat,  perhaps,  to  antislavery 
pretensions!  The  Whig  and  Democratic  par- 
ties pledged  themselves  just  as  emphatically 
against  the  antislavery  discussion, — against 
agitation  and  free  speech.  These  men  said, 
"It  sha'n't  be  talked  about,  it  won't  be  talked 
about!"  These  are  your  statesmen/ — men 
who  understand  the  present,  that  is,  and 
mould  the  future  !  The  man  who  understands 
his  own  time,  and  whose  genius  moulds  the 
future  to  his  views,  he  is  a  statesman,  is  he 
not  ?  These  men  devoted  themselves  to  banks, 
to  the  tariff,  to  internal  improvements,  to 
constitutional  and  financial  questions.  They 
said  to  slavery:  "Back!  no  entrance  here! 
We  pledge  ourselves  against  you."  And  then 
there  came  up  a  humble  printer-boy,  who 
whipped  them  into  the  traces,  and  made  them 
talk,    like    Hotspur's    starling,    nothing    but 


Wmhtll  $ {)illip£ 


slavery.  He  scattered  all  these  gigantic  shad- 
ows,—  tariff,  bank,  constitutional  questions, 
financial  questions, —  and  slavery  like  the  colos- 
sal head  in  Walpole's  romance,  came  up  and 
filled  the  whole  political  horizon!  Yet  you 
must  remember  he  is  not  a  statesman; 
he  is  a  "fanatic."  He  has  no  discipline, 
—  Mr.  "Ion"  says  so;  he  does  not  under- 
stand the  "discipline  that  is  essential  to 
victory"!  This  man  did  not  understand  his 
own  time ;  he  did  not  know  what  the  future 
was  to  be;  he  was  not  able  to  shape  it;  he 
had  no  "prudence"  ;  he  had  no  "foresight"  ! 
Daniel  Webster  says,  "  I  have  never  introduced 
this  subject,  and  never  wilt," — and  died  broken- 
hearted because  he  had  not  been  able  to  talk 
enough  about  it.  Benton  says,  "I  will  never 
speak  of  slavery,"  and  lives  to  break  with  his 
party  on  this  issue !  Mr.  Clay  says  it  is  "moral 
treason"  to  introduce  the  subject  into  Congress, 
and  lives  to  see  Congress  turned  into  an  anti- 
slavery  debating-society,  to  suit  the  purpose 
of  one  "too  powerful  individual  "! 

These  were  statesmen,  mark  you !  Two  of 
them  have  gone  to  their  graves  covered  with 
eulogy;  and  our  national  stock  of  eloquence  is 
all  insufficient  to  describe  how  profound  and 
far-reaching  was  the  sagacity  of  Daniel  Web- 
ster! Remember  who  it  was  that  said,  in 
1 83 1,  "I  am  in  earnest;  I  will  not  equivocate; 
I  will  not  excuse;  I  will  not  retreat  a  single 
inch;  and  I  will  be  heard!"  That  speaker  has 
141 


Memorable  American  g>#tttfyz$ 

lived  twenty-two  years,  and  the  complaint  of 
twenty-three  millions  of  people  is,  "  Shall  we 
never  hear  of  anything  but  slavery  ?  "  I  heard 
Dr.  Kirk,  of  Boston,  say  in  his  own  pulpit, 
when  he  returned  from  London,  where  he  had 
been  as  a  representative  to  the  Evangelical 
Alliance,  —  "I  went  up  to  London,  and  they 
asked  me  what  I  thought  of  the  question  of 
immediate  emancipation.  They  examined  us 
all.  Is  an  American  never  to  travel  anywhere 
in  the  world  but  men  will  throw  this  trouble- 
some question  in  his  face?"  Well,  it  is  all 
his  fault  [pointing  to  Mr.  Garrison]. 

Now,  when  we  come  to  talk  of  statesman- 
ship, of  sagacity  in  choosing  time  and  measures, 
of  endeavor,  by  proper  means,  to  right  the 
public  mind,  of  keen  insight  into  the  present 
and  potent  sway  over  the  future,  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  abolitionists  who  have  taken  — 
whether  for  good  or  for  ill,  whether  to  their 
discredit  or  to  their  praise  —  this  country  by 
the  four  corners,  and  shaken  it  until  you  can 
hear  nothing  but  slavery,  whether  you  travel 
in  railroad  or  steamboat,  whether  you  enter 
the  hall  of  legislation  or  read  the  columns  of  a 
newspaper, —  it  seems  to  me  that  such  men 
may  point  to  the  present  aspect  of  the  nation,  to 
their  originally  avowed  purpose,  to  the  pledges 
and  efforts  of  all  your  great  men  against  them, 
and  then  let  you  determine  to  which  side  the 
credit  of  sagacity  and  statesmanship  belongs. 
Napoleon  busied  himself,  at  St.  Helena,  in 
142 


WtnMl  $f)iliip£ 


showing  how  Wellington  ought  not  to  have  con- 
quered at  Waterloo.  The  world  has  never  got 
time  to  listen  to  the  explanation.  Sufficient  for 
it  that  the  allies  entered  Paris.  In  like  manner, 
it  seems  hardly  the  province  of  a  defeated 
Church  and  State  to  deny  the  skill  of  measures 
by  which  they  have  been  conquered. 

It  may  sound  strange  to  some,  this  claim  for 
Mr.  Garrison  of  a  profound  statesmanship. 
Men  have  heard  him  styled  a  mere  fanatic  so 
long,  that  they  are  incompetent  to  judge  him 
fairly.  "The  phrases  men  are  accustomed," 
says  Goethe,  "to  repeat  incessantly  end  by 
becoming  convictions,  and  ossify  the  organs  of 
intelligence."  I  cannot  accept  you,  therefore, 
as  my  jury.  I  appeal  from  Festus  to  Caesar; 
from  the  prejudice  of  our  streets  to  the  com- 
mon sense  of  the  world,  and  to  your  children. 

Every  thoughtful  and  unprejudiced  mind 
must  see  that  such  an  evil  as  slavery  will  yield 
only  to  the  most  radical  treatment.  If  you 
consider  the  work  we  have  to  do,  you  will  not 
think  us  needlessly  aggressive,  or  that  we  dig 
down  unnecessarily  deep  in  laying  the  founda- 
tions of  our  enterprise.  A  money  power  of 
two  thousand  millions  of  dollars,  as  the  prices 
of  slaves  now  range,  held  by  a  small  body  of 
able  and  desperate  men ;  that  body  raised  into 
a  political  aristocracy  by  special  constitutional 
provisions;  cotton,  the  product  of  slave  labor, 
forming  the  basis  of  our  whole  foreign  com- 
merce, and  the  commercial  class  thus  subsi- 
143 


^emorafcle  American  Jb$tttfyt$ 

dized;  the  press  bought  up,  the  pulpit  reduced 
to  vassalage,  the  heart  of  the  common  people 
chilled  by  a  bitter  prejudice  against  the  black 
race;  our  leading  men  bribed,  by  ambition, 
either  to  silence  or  open  hostility; — in  such  a 
land  on  what  shall  an  abolitionist  rely?  On  a 
few  cold  prayers,  mere  lip-service,  and  never 
from  the  heart?  On  a  church  resolution, 
hidden  often  in  its  records,  and  meant  only  as 
a  decent  cover  for  servility  in  daily  practice  ? 
On  political  parties,  with  their  superficial 
influence  at  best,  and  seeking  ordinarily  only 
to  use  existing  prejudices  to  the  best  advan- 
tage ?  Slavery  has  deeper  root  here  than  any 
aristocratic  institution  has  in  Europe;  and 
politics  is  but  the  common  pulse-beat,  of  which 
revolution  is  the  fever-spasm.  Yet  we  have 
seen  European  aristocracy  survive  storms 
which  seemed  to  reach  down  to  the  primal 
strata  of  European  life.  Shall  we  then  trust 
to  mere  politics,  where  even  revolution  has 
failed?  How  shall  the  stream  rise  above  its 
fountain?  Where  shall  our  church  organiza- 
tions or  parties  get  strength  to  attack  their 
great  parent  and  moulder,  the  slave  power? 
Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to  him  that  formed 
it,  Why  hast  thou  made  me  thus  ?  The  old 
jest  of  one  who  tried  to  lift  himself  in  his  own 
basket  is  but  a  tame  picture  of  the  man  who 
imagines  that  by  working  solely  through  exist- 
ing sects  and  parties  he  can  destroy  slavery. 
Mechancis  say  nothing  but  an  earthquake, 
144 


iteen&eil  $I)itfip£ 


strong  enough  to  move  all  Egypt,  can  bring 
down  the  pyramids. 

Experience  has  confirmed  these  views.  The 
abolitionists  who  have  acted  on  them  have  a 
"short  method"  with  all  unbelievers.  They 
have  but  to  point  to  their  own  success,  in 
contrast  with  every  other  man's  failure.  To 
waken  the  nation  to  its  real  state,  and  chain  it 
to  the  consideration  of  this  one  duty,  is  half 
the  work.  So  much  we  have  done.  Slavery 
has  been  made  the  question  of  this  generation. 
To  startle  the  South  to  madness,  so  that  every 
step  she  takes,  in  her  blindness,  is  one  step 
more  toward  ruin,  is  much.  This  we  have 
done.  Witness  Texas  and  the  fugitive-slave 
law.  To  have  elaborated  for  the  nation  the 
only  plan  of  redemption,  pointed  out  the  only 
exodus  from  this  "sea  of  troubles,"  is  much. 
This  we  claim  to  have  done  in  our  motto  of 
Immediate,  unconditional  emancipation  on  the 
soil.  The  closer  any  statesmanlike  mind  looks 
into  the  question,  the  more  favor  our  plan 
finds  with  it.  The  Christian  asks  fairly  of  the 
infidel,  "  If  this  religion  be  not  from  God,  how 
do  you  explain  its  triumph,  and  the  history  of 
the  first  three  centuries?"  Our  question  is 
similar.  If  our  agitation  has  not  been  wisely 
planned  and  conducted,  explain  for  us  the  his- 
tory of  the  last  twenty  years.  Experience  is 
a  safe  light  to  walk  by,  and  he  is  not  a  rash  man 
who  expects  success  in  future  from  the  same 
means  which  have  secured  it  in  times  past. 
145 


(1813-1860 

ON    THE    KANSAS-NEBRASKA    BILL 
[Delivered  March  3,  1854,  in  the  Senate.] 


IT  has  been  urged  in  debate  that  there  is  no 
necessity  for  these  territorial  organiza- 
tions; and  I  have  been  called  upon  to  point 
out  any  public  and  national  considerations 
which  require  action  at  this  time.  Senators 
seem  to  forget  that  our  immense  and  valuable 
possessions  on  the  Pacific  are  separated  from 
the  states  and  organized  territories  on  this 
side  of  the  Rocky  Mountains  by  a  vast  wilder- 
ness, filled  by  hostile  savages;  that  nearly  a 
hundred  thousand  emigrants  pass  through  this 
barbarous  wilderness  every  year,  on  their  way 
to  California  and  Oregon ;  that  these  emigrants 
are  American  citizens,  our  own  constituents, 
who  are  entitled  to  the  protection  of  law  and 
government;  and  that  they  are  left  to  make 
their  way  as  best  they  may,  without  the  pro- 
tection or  aid  of  law  or  government. 

The   United  States  mails  for  Mexico  and 

Utah,  and  all  official  communications  between 

this  government  and  the  authorities  of  those 

territories,  are  required  to  be  carried  over  these 

147 


ftitmtizahlt  American  g>pcctfyt$ 

wild  plains,  and  through  the  gorges  of  the 
mountains,  where  you  have  made  no  provision 
for  roads,  bridges,  or  ferries  to  facilitate  travel, 
or  forts  or  other  means  of  safety  to  protect 
life.  As  often  as  I  have  brought  forward  and 
urged  the  adoption  of  measures  to  remedy 
these  evils,  and  afford  security  against  the 
dangers  to  which  our  people  are  constantly 
exposed,  they  have  been  promptly  voted  down 
as  not  being  of  sufficient  importance  to  com- 
mand the  favorable  consideration  of  Congress. 
Now,  when  I  propose  to  organize  the  territo- 
ries, and  allow  the  people  to  do  for  themselves 
what  you  have  so  often  refused  to  do  for  them, 
I  am  told  that  there  are  not  white  inhabitants 
enough  permanently  settled  in  the  country  to 
require  and  sustain  a  government.  True,  there 
is  not  a  very  large  population  there,  for  the 
very  good  reason  that  your  Indian  code  and 
intercourse  laws  exclude  the  settlers,  and  forbid 
their  remaining  there  to  cultivate  the  soil.  You 
refuse  to  throw  the  country  open  to  settlers, 
and  then  object  to  the  organization  of  the  ter- 
ritories, upon  the  ground  that  there  is  not  a 
sufficient  number  of  inhabitants. 

The  senator  from  Connecticut  [Mr.  Smith] 
has  made  a  long  argument  to  prove  that  there 
are  no  inhabitants  in  the  proposed  terri- 
tories, because  nearly  all  of  those  who  have 
gone  and  settled  there  have  done  so  in  violation 
of  certain  old  acts  of  Congress  which  forbid 
the  people  to  take  possession  of,  and  settle 
148 


upon,  the  public  lands  until  after  they  should  be 
surveyed  and  brought  into  market. 
'  I  do  not  propose  to  discuss  the  question 
whether  these  settlers  are  technically  legal 
inhabitants  or  not.  It  is  enough  for  me  that 
they  are  a  part  of  our  own  people ;  that  they 
are  settled  on  the  public  domain  ;  that  the 
public  interests  would  be  promoted  by  throwing 
that  public  domain  open  to  settlement;  and  that 
there  is  no  good  reason  why  the  protection  of 
law  and  the  blessings  of  government  should 
not  be  extended  to  them.  I  must  be  permitted 
to  remind  the  senator  that  the  same  objection 
existed  in  its  full  force  to  Minnesota,  to  Ore- 
gon, and  to  Washington,  when  each  of  those 
territories  were  organized;  and  that  I  have  no 
recollection  that  be  deemed  it  his  duty  to  call 
the  attention  of  Congress  to  the  objection,  or 
considered  it  of  sufficient  importance  to  justify 
him  in  recording  his  own  vote  against  the 
organization  of  either  of  those  territories. 

Mr.  President,  I  do  not  feel  called  upon  to 
make  any  reply  to  the  argument  which  the 
senator  from  Connecticut  has  urged  against 
the  passage  of  this  bill,  upon  the  score  of 
expense  in  sustaining  these  territorial  govern- 
ments, for  the  reason,  that  if  the  public  inter- 
ests require  the  enactment  of  the  law,  it 
follows,  as  a  natural  consequence,  that  all  the 
expenses  necessary  to  carry  it  into  effect  are 
wise  and  proper. 

I  will  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the 
149 


jEemoratile  American  gpmfyzg 

great  principle  involved  in  the  bill,  without 
omitting,  however,  to  notice  some  of  those  ex- 
traneous matters  which  have  been  brought 
into  the  discussion  with  the  view  of  producing 
another  antislavery  agitation.  We  have 
been  told  by  nearly  every  senator  who  has 
spoken  in  opposition  to  this  bill,  that  at  the 
time  of  its  introduction  the  people  were  in  a 
state  of  profound  quiet  and  repose;  that  the 
antislavery  agitation  had  entirely  ceased;  and 
that  the  whole  country  was  acquiescing  cheer- 
fully and  cordially  in  the  compromise  measures 
of  1850  as  a  final  adjustment  of  this  vexed 
question.  Sir,  it  is  truly  refreshing  to  hear 
senators  who  contested  every  inch  of  ground 
in  opposition  to  those  measures  when  they 
were  under  discussion,  who  predicted  all  man- 
ner of  evils  and  calamities  from  their  adoption, 
and  who  raised  the  cry  of  repeal  and  even 
resistance  to  their  execution  after  they  had 
become  the  laws  of  the  land, — I  say  it  is  really 
refreshing  to  hear  these  same  senators  now 
bear  their  united  testimony  to  the  wisdom  of 
those  measures,  and  to  the  patriotic  motives 
which  induced  us  to  pass  them  in  defiance  of 
their  threats  and  resistance,  and  to  their 
beneficial  effects  in  restoring  peace,  harmony 
and  fraternity  to  a  distracted  country.  These 
are  precious  confessions  from  the  lips  of  those 
who  stand  pledged  never  to  assent  to  the  pro- 
priety of  those  measures,  and  to  make  war 
upon  them  so  long  as  they  shall  remain  upon 
150 


£tqrt>en  &ntoUi  SDougiag 

the  statute-book.  I  well  understand  that  these 
confessions  are  now  made,  not  with  the  view  of 
yielding  their  assent  to  the  propriety  of  carrying 
those  enactments  into  faithful  execution,  but 
for  the  purpose  of  having  a  pretext  for  charg- 
ing upon  me,  as  the  author  of  this  bill,  the 
responsibility  of  an  agitation  which  they  are 
striving  to  produce.  They  say  that  I,  and  not 
they,  have  revived  the  agitation.  What  have 
I  done  to  render  me  obnoxious  to  this  charge  ? 
They  say  I  wrote  and  introduced  this  Nebraska 
bill.  That  is  true;  but  I  was  not  a  volunteer 
in  the  transaction.  The  Senate,  by  a  unani- 
mous vote,  appointed  me  chairman  of  the 
territorial  committee,  and  associated  five  intel- 
ligent and  patriotic  senators  with  me,  and  thus 
made  it  our  duty  to  take  charge  of  all  terri- 
torial business.  In  like  manner,  and  with  the 
concurrence  of  these  complaining  senators, 
the  Senate  referred  to  us  a  distinct  proposi- 
tion to  organize  this  Nebraska  territory,  and 
required  us  to  report  specifically  upon  the 
question.  I  repeat,  then,  we  were  not  volun- 
teers in  this  business.  The  duty  was  imposed 
upon  us  by  the  Senate.  We  were  not  unmind- 
ful of  the  delicacy  and  responsibility  of  the  posi- 
tion. We  were  aware  that  from  1820  to  1 850 
the  abolition  doctrine  of  congressional  inter- 
ference with  slavery  in  the  territories  and  new 
states  had  so  far  prevailed  as  to  keep  up  an 
incessant  slavery  agitation  in  Congress  and 
throughout  the  country  whenever  any  new 
151 


^temoraBIe  American  g>pzttfyz$ 

territory  was  to  be  acquired  or  organized. 
We  were  also  aware  that,  in  1 850,  the  right 
of  the  people  to  decide  this  question  for  them- 
selves, subject  only  to  the  Constitution,  was 
submitted  for  the  doctrine  of  congressional 
intervention.  This  first  question,  therefore, 
which  the  committee  were  called  upon  to  de- 
cide, and  indeed  the  only  question  of  any 
material  importance  in  framing  this  bill,  was 
this :  Shall  we  adhere  to  and  carry  out  the  prin- 
ciple recognized  by  the  compromise  measures 
of  1850,  or  shall  we  go  back  to  the  old  explod- 
ed doctrine  of  congressional  interference,  as  es- 
tablished in  1820  in  a  large  portion  of  the  coun- 
try, and  which  it  was  the  object  of  the  Wilmot 
proviso  to  give  a  universal  application,  not  only 
to  all  the  territory  which  we  then  possessed, 
but  all  which  we  might  hereafter  acquire? 
There  were  no  other  alternatives.  We  were 
compelled  to  frame  the  bill  upon  the  one  or 
the  other  of  these  two  principles.  The  doctrine 
of  1820,  or  the  doctrine  of  1850,  must  prevail. 
In  the  discharge  of  the  duty  imposed  upon  us 
by  the  Senate,  the  committee  could  not  hesitate 
upon  this  point,  whether  we  consulted  our 
individual  opinions  and  principles,  or  those 
which  were  known  to  be  entertained  and  boldly 
avowed  by  a  large  majority  of  the  Senate. 
The  two  great  political  parties  of  the  country 
stood  solemnly  pledged  before  the  world  to 
adhere  to  the  compromise  measures  of  1 850, 
"  in  principle  and  substance."  A  large  major- 
152 


£tq>j)cn  &rnolfc  2Dougia£ 

ity  of  the  Senate,  indeed  every  member  of  the 
body,  I  believe,  except  the  two  avowed  aboli- 
tionists [Mr.  Chase  and  Mr.  Sumner],  profess 
to  belong  to  the  one  or  the  other  of  these 
parties,  and  hence  was  supposed  to  be  under 
a  high  moral  obligation  to  carry  out  the  "  prin- 
ciple and  substance  "  of  those  measures  in  all 
new  territorial  organizations.  The  report  of 
the  committee  was  in  accordance  with  this  obli- 
gation. I  am  arraigned,  therefore,  for  having 
endeavored  to  represent  the  opinions  and  prin- 
ciples of  the  Senate  truly;  for  having  performed 
my  duty  in  conformity  with  the  parliamentary 
law;  for  having  been  faithful  to  the  trust 
reposed  in  me  by  the  Senate.  Let  the  vote 
this  night  determine  whether  I  have  thus  faith- 
fully represented  your  opinions.  When  a 
majority  of  the  Senate  shall  have  passed  the 
bill;  when  a  majority  of  the  states  shall  have 
indorsed  it  through  their  representatives  upon 
this  floor;  when  a  majority  of  the  South  and  a 
majority  of  the  North  shall  have  sanctioned  it; 
when  a  majority  of  the  Whig  party  and  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Democratic  party  shall  have  voted 
for  it;  when  each  of  these  propositions  shall 
be  demonstrated  by  the  vote  this  night  on  the 
final  passage  of  the  bill, —  I  shall  be  willing  to 
submit  the  question  to  the  country,  whether,  as 
the  organ  of  the  committee,  I  performed  my 
duty  in  the  report  and  bill  which  have  called 
down  upon  my  head  so  much  denunciation 
and  abuse. 

153 


jftemorabie  American  Jb#tzt$t$ 

Mr.  President,  the  opponents  of  this  meas- 
ure have  had  much  to  say  about  the  mutations 
and  modifications  which  this  bill  has  undergone 
since  it  was  first  introduced  by  myself,  and 
about  the  alleged  departure  of  the  bill,  in  its 
present  form,  from  the  principle  laid  down  in 
the  original  report  of  the  committee  as  a  rule 
of  action  in  all  future  territorial  organizations. 
Fortunately  there  is  no  necessity,  even  if  your 
patience  would  tolerate  such  a  course  of  argu- 
ment at  this  late  hour  of  the  night,  for  me  to 
examine  these  speeches  in  detail,  and  reply  to 
each  charge  separately.  Each  speaker  seems 
to  have  followed  faithfully  in  the  footsteps  of 
his  leader  in  the  path  marked  out  by  the  aboli- 
tion confederates  in  their  manifesto,  which  I 
took  occasion  to  expose  on  a  former  occasion. 
You  have  seen  them  on  their  winding  way, 
meandering  the  narrow  and  crooked  path  in 
Indian  file,  each  treading  close  upon  the  heels  of 
the  other,  and  neither  venturing  to  take  a  step 
to  the  right  or  left,  or  to  occupy  one  inch 
of  ground  which  did  not  bear  the  footprint  of 
the  abolition  champion.  To  answer  one, 
therefore,  is  to  answer  the  whole.  The  state- 
ment to  which  they  seem  to  attach  the  most 
importance,  and  which  they  have  repeated 
oftener,  perhaps,  than  any  other,  is,  that,  pend- 
ing the  compromise  measures  of  1850,  no  man 
in  or  out  of  Congress  ever  dreamed  of  abro- 
gating the  Missouri  Compromise;  that  from 
that  period  down  to  the  present  session  nobody 
154 


g>tzpfytn  &rnofa  a>oug!a£ 

supposed  that  its  validity  had  been  impaired,  or 
anything  done  which  rendered  it  obligatory 
upon  us  to  make  it  inoperative  hereafter;  that 
at  the  time  of  submitting  the  report  and  bill 
to  the  Senate  on  the  4th  of  January  last,  neither 
I  nor  any  member  of  the  committee  ever 
thought  of  such  a  thing;  and  that  we  could 
never  be  brought  up  to  the  point  of  abrogating 
the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act  until 
after  the  senator  from  Kentucky  introduced  his 
amendment  to  my  bill. 

Mr.  President,  before  I  proceed  to  expose 
the  many  misrepresentations  contained  in  this 
complicated  charge,  I  must  call  the  attention  of 
the  Senate  to  the  false  issue  which  these  gen- 
tlemen are  endeavoring  to  impose  upon  the 
country,  for  the  purpose  of  diverting  public 
attention  from  the  real  issue  contained  in  the 
bill.  They  wish  to  have  the  people  believe  that 
the  abrogation  of  what  they  call  the  Missouri 
Compromise  was  the  main  object  and  aim  of 
the  bill,  and  that  the  only  question  involved  is, 
whether  the  prohibition  of  slavery  north  of 
360  30'  shall  be  repealed  or  not  ?  That  which 
is  a  mere  incident  they  choose  to  consider  the 
principal.  They  make  war  on  the  means  by 
which  we  propose  to  accomplish  an  object 
instead  of  openly  resisting  the  object  itself. 
The  principle  which  we  propose  to  carry  into 
effect  by  the  bill  is  this :  That  Congress  shall 
neither  legislate  slavery  into  any  territories  or 
state,  nor  out  of  the  same;  but  the  people  shall 
155 


jHemoraWe  American  M>#tztfyz$ 

be  left  free  to  regulate  their  domestic  concerns  in 
their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States. 

In  order  to  carry  this  principle  into  practical 
operation,  it  becomes  necessary  to  remove 
whatever  legal  obstacles  might  be  found  in  the 
way  of  its  free  exercise.  It  is  only  for  the 
purpose  of  carrying  out  this  great  fundamental 
principle  of  self-government  that  the  bill  ren- 
ders the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act 
inoperative  and  void. 

Now,  let  me  ask,  will  these  senators  who 
have  arraigned  me,  or  any  one  of  them,  have 
the  assurance  to  rise  in  his  place  and  declare 
that  this  great  principle  was  never  thought 
of  or  advocated  as  applicable  to  territorial 
bills  in  1850;  that  from  that  session  until  the 
present  nobody  ever  thought  of  incorporating 
this  principle  in  all  new  territorial  organiza- 
tions; that  the  Committee  on  Territories  did 
not  recommend  it  in  their  report;  and  that  it 
required  the  amendment  of  the  senator  from 
Kentucky  to  bring  us  up  to  that  point  ?  Will 
any  one  of  my  accusers  dare  to  make  this 
issue,  and  let  it  be  tried  by  the  record  ?  I 
will  begin  with  the  compromises  of  1850. 
Any  senator  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  exam- 
ine our  journals  will  find  that  on  the  25th  of 
March'  of  that  year  I  reported  from  the  Com- 
mittee on  Territories  two  bills,  including  the 
following  measures:  the  admission  of  California, 
a  territorial  government  for  Utah,  a  territorial 
156 


government  for  New  Mexico,  and  the  adjust- 
ment of  the  Texas  boundary.  These  bills 
proposed  to  leave  the  people  of  Utah  and  New 
Mexico  free  to  decide  the  slavery  question 
for  themselves,  in  the  precise  language  of  the 
Nebraska  bill  now  under  discussion.  A  few 
weeks  afterwards  the  committee  of  thirteen 
took  those  two  bills  and  put  a  wafer  between 
them,  and  reported  them  back  to  the  Senate  as 
one  bill,  with  some  slight  amendments.  One 
of  those  amendments  was,  that  the  territorial 
legislatures  should  not  legislate  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  African  slavery.  I  objected  to  that 
provision,  upon  the  ground  that  it  subverted 
the  great  principle  of  self-government  upon 
which  the  bill  had  been  originally  framed  by 
the  Territorial  Committee.  On  the  first  trial, 
the  Senate  refused  to  strike  it  out,  but  subse- 
quently did  so,  after  full  debate,  in  order  to 
establish  that  principle  as  the  rule  of  action 
in  territorial  organizations. 

Mr.  President,  I  could  multiply  extract  after 
extract  from  my  speeches  in  1850,  and  prior  to 
that  date,  to  show  that  this  doctrine  of  leaving 
the  people  to  decide  these  questions  for  them- 
selves is  not  an  "afterthought"  with  me,  seized 
upon  this  session,  for  the  first  time,  as  my  calum- 
niators have  so  frequently  and  boldly  charged  in 
their  speeches  during  this  debate,  and  in  their 
manifesto  to  the  public.  I  refused  to  support 
the  celebrated  omnibus  bill  in  1850  until  the 
157 


JttemoraMe  American  J>pectf>e£ 

obnoxious  provision  was  stricken  out,  and  the 
principle  of  self-government  restored  as  it  ex- 
isted in  my  original  bill.  No  sooner  were  the 
compromise  measures  of  1 850  passed  than  the 
abolition  confederates,  who  lead  the  opposition 
to  this  bill  now,  raised  the  cry  of  repeal  in  some 
sections  of  the  country,  and  in  others  forcible 
resistance  to  the  execution  of  the  law.  In 
order  to  arrest  and  suppress  the  treasonable 
purposes  of  these  abolition  confederates,  and 
avert  the  horrors  of  civil  war,  it  became  my 
duty,  on  the  23d  of  October,  1850,  to  address 
an  excited  and  frenzied  multitude  at  Chicago, 
in  defense  of  each  and  all  of  the  compromise 
measures  of  that  year.  I  will  read  one  or  two 
sentences  from  that  speech,  to  show  how  these 
measures  were  then  understood  and  explained 
by  their  advocates: 

"  These  measures  are  predicated  on  the  great  funda- 
mental principle  that  every  people  ought  to  possess  the 
right  of  forming  and  regulating  their  own  internal  con- 
cerns and  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way" 

Again: 

"  These  things  are  all  confided  by  the  Constitution  to 
each  state  to  decide  for  itself,  and  I  know  of  no  reason 
why  the  same  principle  should,  not  be  confided  to  the  ter- 
ritories." 

In  this  speech  it  will  be  seen  that  I  lay  down 

a  general  principle   of  universal  application, 

and   make  no   distinction  between  territories 

north  or  south  of  3 6°  30'.     I  am  aware  that 

158 


some  of  the  abolition  confederates  have  perpet- 
uated a  monstrous  forgery  on  that  speech,  and 
are  now  circulating  through  the  abolition  news- 
papers the  statement  that  I  said  that  I  would 
"cling  with  the  tenacity  of  life  to  the  compro- 
mise of  1820."  This  statement,  false  as  it  is, 
— a  deliberate  act  of  forgery,  as  it  is  known  to 
be  by  all  who  have  ever  seen  or  read  the  speech 
referred  to, —  constitutes  the  staple  article  out 
of  which  most  of  the  abolition  orators  at  the 
small  anti-Nebraska  meetings  manufacture  the 
greater  part  of  their  speeches.  I  now  declare 
that  there  is  not  a  sentence,  a  line,  nor  even  a 
word,  in  that  speech  which  imposes  tne  slight- 
est limitation  on  the  application  of  the  great 
principle  embraced  in  this  bill  in  all  new  terri- 
torial organizations,  without  the  least  reference 
to  the  line  of  3 6°  30'? 

At  the  session  of  1850-51,  a  few  weeks 
after  this  speech  was  made  at  Chicago,  and 
when  it  had  been  published  in  pamphlet  form 
and  circulated  extensively  over  the  state,  the 
legislature  of  Illinois  proceeded  to  revise  its 
action  upon  the  slavery  question,  and  define 
its  position  on  the  compromises  of  1850. 
After  rescinding  the  resolutions  adopted  at  a 
previous  session  instructing  my  colleague 
and  myself  to  vote  for  a  proposition  pro- 
hibiting slavery  in  the  territories,  resolu- 
tions were  adopted  approving  the  compromise 
measures  of  1850.  I  will  read  one  of  the 
resolutions,  which  was  adopted  in  the  House 
159 


Memorable  American  £peed>eg 

of  Representatives  by  a  vote  of  61   yeas  to 
4  nays : 

Resolved,  that  our  liberty  and  independence  are 
based  upon  the  right  of  the  people  to  form  for  them- 
selves such  a  government  as  they  may  choose;  that 
this  great  privilege  —  the  birthright  of  freemen,  the 
gift  of  Heaven,  secured  to  us  by  the  blood  of  our 
ancestors  —  ought  to  be  extended  to  future  genera- 
tions; and  no  limitation  ought  to  be  applied  to  this 
power  in  the  organization  of  any  territory  of  the 
United  States,  of  either  a  territorial  government  or 
a  state  constitution;  provided,  the  government 
so  established  shall  be  republican,  and  in  conformity 
with  the  Constitution." 

Another  series  of  resolutions  having  passed 
the  Senate  almost  unanimously,  embracing  the 
same  principle  in  different  language,  they  were 
concurred  in  by  the  House.  Thus  was  the 
position  of  Illinois  upon  the  slavery  question 
defined  at  the  first  session  of  the  legislature 
after  the  adoption  of  the  compromise  of  1850. 

Now,  sir,  what  becomes  of  the  declaration 
which  has  been  made  by  nearly  every  opponent 
of  this  bill,  that  nobody  in  this  whole  Union 
ever  dreamed  that  the  principle  of  the  Utah 
and  New  Mexican  bill  was  to  be  incorporated 
into  all  future  territorial  organizations?  I  have 
shown  that  my  own  state  so  understood  and 
declared  it,  at  the  time,  in  the  most  implicit 
and  solemn  manner.  Illinois  declared  that  our 
"liberty  and  independence"  rest  upon  this 
"principle";  that  the  principle  "ought  to  be 
extended  to  future  generations";  and  that 
"no  limitation  ought  to  be  applied  to  this 
160 


£>tt$fym  &rnoIti  SDouglag 

power  in  the  organization  of  any  territory  of 
the  United  States."  No  exception  is  made  in 
regard  to  Nebraska.  No  Missouri  Compro- 
mise lines,  no  reservations  of  the  country  north 
of  360  30'.  The  principle  is  declared  to  be 
the  "birthright  of  freemen,"  the  "gift  of 
Heaven";  to  be  applied  without  "limitation," 
in  Nebraska  as  well  as  Utah,  north  as  well  as 
south  of  3 6°  30'. 

It  may  not  be  out  of  place  here  to  remark 
that  the  legislature  of  Illinois,  at  its  recent 
session,  has  passed  resolutions  approving  the 
Nebraska  bill;  and  among  the  resolutions  is 
one  in  the  precise  language  of  the  resolution 
of  1 85 1,  which  I  have  just  read  to  the  Senate. 
Thus  I  have  shown,  Mr.  President,  that  the 
legislature  and  people  of  Illinois  have  always 
understood  the  compromise  measures  of  1 850 
as  establishing  certain  principles  as  rules  of 
action  in  the  organization  of  all  new  territo- 
ries, and  that  no  limitation  was  to  be  made  on 
either  side  of  the  geographical  line  of  36  °30' . 
Neither  my  time  nor  your  patience  will  allow 
me  to  take  up  the  resolutions  of  the  different 
states  in  detail,  and  show  what  has  been  the 
common  understanding  of  the  whole  country 
upon  this  point.  I  am  now  vindicating  myself 
and  my  own  action  against  the  assaults  of  my 
calumniators;  and,  for  that  purpose,  it  is  suffi- 
cient to  show  that,  in  the  report  and  bill  which 
I  have  presented  to  the  Senate,  I  have  only 
carried  out  the  known  principles  and  solemnly 
161 


ittemoratrte  American  £peecl)eg 

declared  will  of  the  state  whose  representative 
I  am.  I  will  now  invite  the  attention  of  the 
Senate  to  the  report  of  the  committee,  in  order 
that  it  may  be  known  how  much,  or  rather 
how  little,  truth  there  is  for  the  allegation 
which  has  been  so  often  made  and  repeated 
on  this  floor,  that  the  idea  of  allowing  the 
people  in  Nebraska  to  decide  the  slavery 
question  for  themselves  was  a  "sheer  after- 
thought," conceived  since  the  report  was 
made,  and  not  until  the  senator  from  Ken- 
tucky proposed  his  amendment  to  the  bill. 

I  read  from  that  portion  of  the  report  in 
which  the  committee  lay  down  the  principle 
by  which  they  propose  to  be  governed  : 

"  In  the  judgment  of  your  committee,  those  meas- 
ures [compromise  of  1850]  were  intended  to  have  a 
far  more  comprehensive  and  enduring  effect  than 
the  mere  adjustment  of  the  difficulties  arising  out  of 
the  recent  acquisition  of  Mexican  territory.  They 
were  designed  to  establish  certain  great  principles, 
which  would  not  only  furnish  adequate  remedies  for 
existing  evils,  but  in  all  time  to  come  avoid  the  perils 
of  a  similar  agitation,  by  withdrawing  the  question  of 
slavery  from  the  halls  oj  Congress  and  the  political 
arena,  and  committing  it  to  the  arbitrament  oj  those 
who  were  immediately  interested  in  and  alone  responsi- 
ble for  its  consequences. ' ' 

After  making  a  brief  argument  in  defense  of 
this  principle,  the  report  proceeds  as  follows: 

"From  these  provisions,  it  is  apparent  that  the 
compromise  measures  of  1850  affirm  and  rest  upon 
the  following  propositions: 

First.  That  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery  in 
162 


M>tzpfym  &rnofa  2Dougla£ 

the  territories,  and  in  the  new  states  to  be  formed 
therefrom,  are  to  be  left  to  the  decision  of  the  people 
residing  therein,  by  their  appropriate  representatives, 
to  be  chosen  by  them  for  that  purpose." 

And  in  conclusion,  the  report  proposes  a 
substitute  for  the  bill  introduced  by  the  senator 
from  Iowa,  and  concludes  as  follows: 

"  The  substitute  for  the  bill  which  your  committee 
have  prepared,  and  which  is  commended  to  the  favor- 
able action  of  the  Senate,  proposes  to  carry  these 
propositions  and  principles  into  practical  operation, 
in  the  precise  language  of  the  compromise  measures 
of  1850." 

Mr.  President,  as  there  has  been  so  much 
misrepresentation  upon  this  point,  I  must  be 
permitted  to  repeat  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
report  of  the  committee,  as  has  been  conclu- 
sively proved  by  these  extracts,  is: 

First.  That  the  whole  question  of  slavery 
should  be  withdrawn  from  the  halls  of  Con- 
gress and  the  political  arena,  and  committed 
to  the  arbitrament  of  those  who  are  immedi- 
ately interested  in  and  alone  responsible  for  its 
existence. 

Second.  The  applying  this  principle  to  the 
territories,  and  the  new  states  to  be  formed 
therefrom,  all  questions  pertaining  to  slavery 
were  to  be  referred  to  the  people  residing 
therein. 

Third.     That  the  committee  proposed  to 
carry  these  propositions  and  principles  into 
effect  in  the  precise  language  of  the  compro- 
mise measures  of  1850. 
163 


Memorable  American  &$tttfyt$ 

Are  not  these  propositions  identical  with  the 
principles  and  provisions  of  the  bill  on  your 
tables  ?  If  there  is  a  hair's  breadth  of  discrep- 
ancy between  the  two,  I  ask  any  senator  to  rise 
in  his  place  and  point  it  out.  Both  rest  upon 
the  great  principle  which  forms  the  basis  of  all 
our  institutions, — that  the  people  are  to  decide 
the  question  for  themselves,  subject  only  to  the 
Constitution. 

But  my  accusers  attempt  to  raise  up  a  false 
issue,  and  thereby  divert  public  attention  from 
the  real  one,  by  the  cry  that  the  Missouri 
compromise  is  to  be  repealed  or  violated  by 
the  passage  of  this  bill.  Well,  if  the  eighth 
section  of  the  Missouri  act,  which  attempted 
to  fix  the  destinies  of  future  generations  in 
those  territories  for  all  time  to  come,  in  utter 
disregard  of  the  rights  and  wishes  of  the  peo- 
ple when  they  should  be  received  into  the 
Union  as  states,  be  inconsistent  with  the  great 
principle  of  self-government  and  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  it  ought  to  be  abro- 
gated. The  legislation  of  1 850  abrogated  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  so  far  as  the  country 
embraced  within  the  limits  of  Utah  and  New 
Mexico  was  covered  by  the  slavery  restriction. 
It  is  true  that  those  acts  did  not,  in  terms  and 
by  name,  repeal  the  act  of  1820,  as  originally 
adopted,  or  as  extended  by  the  resolutions 
annexing  Texas  in  1845,  any  more  than  the 
report  of  the  Committee  on  Territories  pro- 
poses to  repeal  the  same  acts  this  session. 
164 


£>ttptym  &rnolti  SDouglag 

But  the  acts  of  1850  did  authorize  the  people 
of  those  territories  to  exercise  "all  rightful 
powers  of  legislation  consistent  with  the  Con- 
stitution," not  excepting  the  question  of  slav- 
ery; and  did  provide  that,  when  those  territo- 
ries should  be  admitted  into  the  Union,  they 
should  be  received  with  or  without  slavery  as 
the  people  thereof  might  determine  at  the  date 
of  their  admission.  These  provisions  were 
in  direct  conflict  with  a  clause  in  a  former 
enactment,  declaring  that  slavery  should  be 
forever  prohibited  in  any  portion  of  said  terri- 
tories, and  hence  rendered  such  clause  inoper- 
ative and  void  to  the  extent  of  such  conflict. 
This  was  an  inevitable  consequence,  resulting 
from  the  provisions  in  those  acts  which  gave 
the  people  the  right  to  decide  the  slavery 
question  for  themselves,  in  conformity  with  the 
Constitution.  It  was  not  necessary  to  go 
further  and  declare  that  certain  previous  enact- 
ments which  were  incompatible  with  the  exer- 
cise of  the  powers  conferred  in  the  bills  "are 
hereby  repealed."  The  very  act  of  granting 
those  powers  and  rights  have  the  legal  effect 
of  removing  all  obstructions  to  the  exercise  of 
them  by  the  people  as  prescribed  in  those  terri- 
torial bills.  Following  that  example,  the  Com- 
mittee on  Territories  did  not  consider  it  neces- 
sary to  declare  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missou- 
ri act  repealed.  We  were  content  to  organize 
Nebraska  in  the  precise  language  of  the  Utah 
and  New  Mexican  bills.  Our  object  was  to 
165 


Memorable  &mmcan  £>#ccttyz$ 

leave  the  people  entirely  free  to  form  and  regu- 
late their  domestic  institutions  and  internal  con- 
cerns in  their  own  way,  under  the  Constitution; 
and  we  deemed  it  wise  to  accomplish  that 
object  in  the  exact  terms  in  which  the  same 
thing  had  been  done  in  Utah  and  New  Mex- 
ico by  the  acts  of  1850.  This  was  the  prin- 
ciple upon  which  the  committee  voted;  and 
our  bill  was  supposed,  and  is  now  believed,  to 
have  been  in  accordance  with  it.  When 
doubts  were  raised  whether  the  bill  did  fully 
carry  out  the  principle  laid  down  in  the  report, 
amendments  were  made,  from  time  to  time, 
in  order  to  avoid  all  misconstruction,  and  make 
the  true  intent  of  the  act  more  explicit.  The 
last  of  these  amendments  was  adopted  yester- 
day, on  the  motion  of  the  distinguished  senator 
from  North  Carolina  [Mr.  Badger],  in  regard 
to  the  revival  of  any  laws  or  regulations  which 
may  have  existed  prior  to  1 820.  That  amend- 
ment was  not  intended  to  change  the  legal 
effect  of  the  bill.  Its  object  was  to  repel  the 
slander  which  had  been  propagated  by  the  en- 
emies of  the  measure  in  the  North,  that  the 
southern  supporters  of  the  bill  desired  to 
legislate  slavery  into  these  territories.  The 
South  denies  the  right  of  Congress  either  to 
legislate  slavery  into  any  territory  or  state,  or 
out  of  any  territory  or  state.  Non-interven- 
tion by  Congress  with  slavery  in  the  states  or 
territories  is  the  doctrine  of  the  bill ;  and  all 
the  amendments  which  have  been  agreed  to 
166 


Jbttpfytn  &rnol&  ^ougla^ 

have  been  made  with  the  view  of  removing  all 
doubt  and  cavil  as  to  the  true  meaning  and 
object  of  the  measure. 

Mr.  President,  I  think  I  have  succeeded  in 
vindicating  myself  and  the  action  of  the  com- 
mittee from  the  assaults  which  have  been  made 
upon  us  in  consequence  of  these  amendments. 
It  seems  to  be  the  tactics  of  our  opponents  to 
direct  their  arguments  against  the  unimportant 
points  and  incidental  questions  which  are  to  be 
effected  by  carrying  out  a  principle,  with  the 
hope  of  relieving  themselves  from  the  necessi- 
ty of  controverting  the  principle  itself.  The 
senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Chase]  led  off  gallant- 
ly in  the  charge  that  the  committee,  in  the 
report  and  bill  first  submitted,  did  not  contem- 
plate the  repeal  of  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
and  could  not  be  brought  to  that  point  until 
after  the  senator  from  Kentucky  offered  his 
amendment.  The  senator  from  Connecticut 
[Mr.  Smith]  followed  his  lead,  and  repeated  the 
same  statement.  Then  came  the  other  sena- 
tor from  Ohio  [Mr.  Wade],  and  the  senator 
from  New  York  [Mr.  Seward],  and  the  sena- 
tor from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Sumner],  all 
singing  the  same  song,  only  varying  the  tune. 

Let  me  ask  these  senators  what  they  mean 
by  this  statement  ?  Do  they  wish  to  be  under- 
stood as  saying  that  the  report  and  first  form 
of  the  bill  did  not  provide  for  leaving  the 
slavery  question  to  the  decision  of  the  people 
in  the  terms  of  the  Utah  bill?  Surely  they 
167 


;fttemoraWe  American  ^peecjeg 

will  not  dare  to  say  that;  for  I  have  already 
shown  that  the  two  measures  were  identical  in 
principle  and  enactment.  Do  they  mean  to 
say  that  the  adoption  of  our  first  bill  would 
not  have  had  the  legal  effect  to  have  rendered 
the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act  "inop- 
erative and  void,"  to  use  the  language  of  the 
present  bill  ?  If  this  be  not  their  meaning,  will 
they  rise  in  their  places  and  inform  the  Senate 
what  their  meaning  was?  They  must  have 
had  some  object  in  giving  so  much  prominence 
to  this  statement,  and  in  repeating  it  so  often. 
I  address  the  question  to  the  senators  from 
Ohio  and  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Chase  and  Mr. 
Sumner].  I  despair  in  extorting  a  response  from 
them;  for  no  matter  in  what  way  they  may 
answer  upon  this  point,  I  have  in  my  hand  the 
evidence,  over  their  own  signatures,  to  disprove 
the  truth  of  their  answer.  I  allude  to  their 
appeal  or  manifesto  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  in  which  they  arraign  the  bill  and 
report  in  coarse  and  savage  terms,  as  a  prop- 
osition to  repeal  the  Missouri  Compromise,  to 
violate  plighted  faith,  to  abrogate  a  solemn 
compact,  etc.,  etc.  This  document  was  signed 
by  these  two  senators  in  their  official  capacity, 
and  published  to  the  world  before  any  amend- 
ments had  been  offered  to  the  bill.  It  was 
directed  against  the  committee's  first  bill  and 
report,  and  against  them  alone.  If  the  state- 
ments in  this  document  be  true,  that  the  first 
bill  did  repeal  the  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri 
168 


£tqi!)en  &rnotti  SDougkg 

act,  what  are  we  to  think  of  the  statements  in 
their  speeches  since,  that  such  was  not  the  in- 
tention of  the  committee,  was  not  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  report,  and  was  not  the  legal 
effect  of  the  bill?  On  the  contrary,  if  the 
statements  in  their  subsequent  speeches  are 
true,  what  apology  do  those  senators  propose 
to  make  to  the  Senate  and  country  for  having 
falsified  the  action  of  the  committee  in  a  docu- 
ment over  their  own  signatures,  and  thus  spread 
a  false  alarm  among  the  people,  and  misled  the 
public  mind  in  respect  to  our  proceedings? 
These  senators  cannot  avoid  the  one  or  the 
other  of  these  alternatives.  Let  them  seize 
upon  either,  and  they  stand  condemned  and 
self-convicted;  in  the  one  case  by  their  mani- 
festo, and  in  the  other  by  their  speeches.  In 
fact,  it  is  clear  that  they  have  understood  the 
bill  to  mean  the  same  thing,  and  to  have  the 
same  legal  effect  in  whatever  phase  it  has  been 
presented.  When  first  introduced,  they  de- 
nounced it  as  a  proposition  to  abrogate  the 
Missouri  restriction.  When  amended,  they 
repeated  the  same  denunciation,  and  so  on 
each  successive  amendment.  They  now  ob- 
ject to  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  same 
reason;  thus  proving  conclusively  that  they 
have  not  the  least  faith  in  the  correctness  of 
their  own  statements  in  respect  to  the  muta- 
tions and  changes  in  the  bill.  They  seem  very 
unwilling  to  meet  the  real  issue.  They  do  not 
like  to  discuss  the  principle.  There  seems  to 
169 


^emorafcle  American  ^peecfje^ 

be  something  which  strikes  them  with  terror 
when  you  invite  their  attention  to  that  great 
fundamental  principle  of  popular  sovereignty. 
Hence  you  find  that  all  the  memorials  they 
have  presented  are  against  repealing  the  Mis- 
souri Compromise,  and  in  favor  of  the  sanctity 
of  compacts,  in  favor  of  preserving  plighted 
faith.  The  senator  from  Ohio  is  cautious  to 
dedicate  his  speech  with  some  such  heading  as 
"Maintain  plighted  faith.  "  The  object  is  to 
keep  the  attention  of  the  people  as  far  as 
possible  from  this  principle  of  self-government 
and  constitutional  right. 

Well,  sir,  what  is  this  Missouri  Compromise, 
of  which  we  have  heard  so  much  of  late  ?  It 
has  been  read  so  often  that  it  is  not  necessary 
to  occupy  the  time  of  the  Senate  in  reading  it 
again.  It  was  an  act  of  Congress,  passed  on 
the  6th  of  March,  1820,  to  authorize  the  people 
of  Missouri  to  form  a  constitution  and  a  state 
government,  preparatory  to  the  admission  of 
such  state  into  the  Union.  The  first  section 
provided  that  Missouri  should  be  received  into 
the  Union  "  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
states  in  all  respects  whatsoever."  The  last 
and  eighth  section  provided  that  slavery  should 
be  "forever  prohibited"  in  all  the  territory 
which  had  been  acquired  from  France  north  of 
360  30',  and  not  included  within  the  limits  of 
the  state  of  Missouri.  There  is  nothing  in 
the  terms  of  the  law  that  purports  to  be  a 
compact,  or  indicates  that  it  was  anything 
170 


J>tqpJ)en  &rnofti  Douglas 

more  than  an  ordinary  act  of  legislation.  To 
prove  that  it  was  more  than  it  purports  to  be 
on  its  face,  gentlemen  must  produce  other 
evidence,  and  prove  that  there  was  such  an 
understanding  as  to  create  a  moral  obligation 
in  the  nature  of  a  compact.  Have  they  shown 
it? 

I  have  heard  but  one  item  of  evidence  pro- 
duced during  this  whole  debate,  and  that  was 
a  short  paragraph  from  Niles's  Register,  pub- 
lished a  few  days  after  the  passage  of  the  act. 
But  gentlemen  aver  that  it  was  a  solemn  com- 
pact, which  could  not  be  violated  or  abrogated 
without  dishonor.  According  to  their  under- 
standing, the  contract  was  that,  in  consideration 
of  the  admission  of  Missouri  into  the  Union  on 
an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states,  in  all 
respects  whatsoever,  slavery  should  be  pro- 
hibited forever  in  the  territories  north  of  3  6°  30 ' . 
Now,  who  were  the  parties  to  this  alleged 
compact  ?  They  tell  us  that  it  was  a  stipulation 
between  the  North  and  the  South.  Sir,  I 
know  of  no  such  parties  under  the  Consti- 
tution. I  am  unwilling  that  there  shall  be  any 
such  parties  known  in  our  legislation.  If  there 
is  such  a  geographical  line,  it  ought  to  be 
obliterated  forever,  and  there  should  be  no 
other  parties  than  those  provided  for  in  the 
Constitution;  viz.,  the  states  of  this  Union. 
These  are  the  only  parties  capable  of  contract- 
ing under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

171 


jftemoraMe  American  J>peetf)e£ 

Now,  if  this  was  a  compact,  let  us  see  how 
it  was  entered  into.  The  bill  originated  in 
the  House  of  Representatives,  and  passed 
that  body  without  a  southern  vote  in  its  favor. 
It  is  proper  to  remark,  however,  that  it  did 
not  at  that  time  contain  the  eighth  section, 
prohibiting  slavery  in  the  territories ;  but  in 
lieu  of  it,  contained  a  provision  prohibiting 
slavery  in  the  proposed  state  of  Missouri. 
In  the  Senate  the  clause  prohibiting  slavery  in 
the  state  was  stricken  out,  and  the  eighth  sec- 
tion added  to  the  end  of  the  bill,  by  the  terms 
of  which  slavery  was  to  be  forever  prohibited 
in  the  territory  not  embraced  in  the  state  of 
Missouri  north  of  3  6°  30'.  The  vote  on  add- 
ing this  section  stood  in  the  Senate,  34  in  the 
affirmative,  10  in  the  negative.  Of  the  North- 
ern senators,  20  voted  for  it  and  2  against  it. 
On  the  question  of  ordering  the  bill  to  a  third 
reading  as  amended,  which  was  the  test  vote 
on  its  passage,  the  vote  stood  24  yeas  and  20 
nays.  Of  the  northern  senators,  4  only  voted 
in  the  affirmative,  and  18  in  the  negative. 
Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  if  it  was  intended  to 
be  a  compact,  the  North  never  agreed  to  it. 
The  northern  senators  voted  to  insert  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  territories  ;  and 
then,  in  the  proportion  of  more  than  four  to 
one,  voted  against  the  passage  of  the  bill. 
The  North,  therefore,  never  signed  the  com- 
pact, never  consented  to  it,  never  agreed  to  be 
bound  by  it.  This  fact  becomes  very  impor- 
172 


£tepften  &rnofti  2DougIa£ 

tant  in  vindicating  the  character  of  the  North 
for  repudiating  this  alleged  compromise  a  few- 
months  afterwards.  The  act  was  approved 
and  became  a  law  on  the  6th  of  March,  1820. 
In  the  summer  of  that  year,  the  people  of 
Missouri  formed  a  constitution  and  state  gov- 
ernment preparatory  to  admission  into  the 
Union,  in  conformity  with  the  act.  At  the 
next  session  of  Congress  the  Senate  passed  a 
joint  resolution,  declaring  Missouri  to  be  one 
of  the  states  of  the  Union,  on  an  equal  foot- 
ing with  the  original  states.  This  resolution 
was  sent  to  the  House  of  Representatives, 
where  it  was  rejected  by  the  northern  votes ; 
and  thus  Missouri  was  voted  out  of  the  Union, 
instead  of  being  received  into  the  Union  under 
the  act  of  the  6th  of  March,  1820,  now  known 
as  the  Missouri  Compromise.  Now,  sir,  what 
becomes  of  our  plighted  faith,  if  the  act  of  the 
6th  of  March,  1820,  was  a  solemn  compact, 
as  we  are  now  told  ?  They  have  all  rung  the 
changes  upon  it,  that  it  was  a  sacred  and 
irrevocable  compact,  binding  in  honor,  in  con- 
science, and  morals,  which  could  not  be  vio- 
lated or  repudiated  without  perfidy  and  dis- 
honor! The  two  senators  from  Ohio  [Mr. 
Chase  and  Mr.  Wade],  the  senator  from 
Massachusetts  [Mr.  Sumner],  the  senator 
from  Connecticut  [Mr.  Smith],  the  senator 
from  New  York  [Mr.  Seward],  and  perhaps 
others,  have  all  assumed  this  position. 


173 


Memorable  American  J>peecl>e£ 

After  having  procured  the  prohibition  in  the 
territories,  the  North,  by  a  majority  of  her 
votes,  refused  to  admit  Missouri  as  a  slave- 
holding  state,  and,  in  violation  of  the  alleged 
compact,  required  her  to  prohibit  slavery  as  a 
further  condition  of  her  admission.  This  re- 
pudiation of  the  alleged  compact  by  the  North 
is  recorded  by  yeas  and  nays,  sixty-one  to 
thirty-three,  and  entered  upon  the  Journal,  as 
an  imperishable  evidence  of  the  fact.  With 
this  evidence  before  us,  against  whom  should 
the  charge  of  perfidy  be  preferred  ? 

Sir,  if  this  was  a  compact,  what  must  be 
thought  of  those  who  violated  it  almost  imme- 
diately after  it  was  formed  ?  I  say  it  is  a  cal- 
umny upon  the  North  to  say  that  it  was  a 
compact.  I  should  feel  a  flush  of  shame 
upon  my  cheek,  as  a  northern  man,  if  I  were 
to  say  that  it  was  a  compact,  and  that  the  sec- 
tion of  the  country  to  which  I  belong  received 
the  consideration,  and  then  repudiated  the  ob- 
ligation in  eleven  months  after  it  was  entered 
into.  I  deny  that  it  was  a  compact,  in  any 
sense  of  the  term.  But  if  it  was,  the  record 
proves  that  faith  was  not  observed  ;  that  the 
contract  was  never  carried  into  effect ;  that 
after  the  North  had  procured  the  passage  of 
the  act  prohibiting  slavery  in  the  territories, 
with  a  majority  in  the  House  large  enough  to 
prevent  its  repeal,  Missouri  was  refused  ad- 
mission into  the  Union  as  a  slave-holding  state, 
in  conformity  with  the  act  of  March  6,  1 820. 
174 


If  the  proposition  be  correct,  as  contended  for 
by  the  opponents  of  this  bill,  that  there  was  a 
solemn  compact  between  the  North  and  South 
that,  in  consideration  of  the  prohibition  of  slav- 
ery in  the  territories,  Missouri  was  to  be  admit- 
ted into  the  Union,  in  conformity  with  the  act 
of  1820,  that  compact  was  repudiated  by  the 
North,  and  rescinded  by  the  joint  action  of  the 
two  parties,  within  twelve  months  from  its  date. 
Missouri  was  never  admitted  under  the  act  of 
the  6th  of  March,  1820.  She  was  refused 
admission  under  that  act.  She  was  voted  out 
of  the  Union  by  northern  votes,  notwithstand- 
ing the  stipulation  that  she  should  be  received ; 
and,  in  consequence  of  these  facts,  a  new 
compromise  was  rendered  necessary,  by  the 
terms  of  which  Missouri  was  to  be  admitted 
into  the  Union  conditionally ;  admitted  on  a 
condition  not  embraced  in  the  act  of  1 820, 
and,  in  addition,  to  a  full  compliance  with  all 
the  provisions  of  said  act.  If,  then,  the  act  of 
1820,  by  the  eighth  section  of  which  slavery 
was  prohibited  in  Missouri,  was  a  compact,  it 
is  clear  to  the  comprehension  of  every  fair- 
minded  man  that  the  refusal  of  the  North  to 
admit  Missouri,  in  compliance  with  its  stip- 
ulations, and  without  further  conditions,  im- 
poses upon  us  a  high  moral  obligation  to  remove 
the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  territories, 
since  it  has  been  shown  to  have  been  procured 
upon  a  condition  never  performed. 

Mr.    President,    inasmuch    as    the    senator 
175 


ffiicmoxahlt  American  &$tttfyz$ 

from  New  York  has  taken  great  pains  to 
impress  upon  the  public  mind  of  the  North 
the  conviction  that  the  act  of  1820  was  a 
solemn  compact,  the  violation  or  repudiation 
of  which,  by  either  party,  involves  perfidy  and 
dishonor,  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  that 
senator  [Mr.  Seward]  to  the  fact,  that  his  own 
state  was  the  first  to  repudiate  the  compact, 
and  to  instruct  her  senators  in  Congress  not 
to  admit  Missouri  into  the  Union  in  compli- 
ance with  it,  nor  unless  slavery  should  be 
prohibited  in  the  state  of  Missouri. 

Mr.  President,  I  cannot  let  the  senator  off 
on  the  plea  that  I,  for  the  sake  of  argument, 
in  reply  to  him  and  other  opponents  of  this 
bill,  have  called  it  a  compact;  or  that  other 
friends  of  Nebraska  have  called  it  a  compact 
which  has  been  violated  and  rendered  invalid. 
He  and  his  abolition  confederates  have  ar- 
raigned me  for  the  violation  of  a  compact 
which,  they  say,  is  binding  in  morals,  in  con- 
science, and  honor.  I  have  shown  that  the  leg- 
islature of  New  York,  at  its  present  session, 
has  declared  it  to  be  "a  solemn  compact,"  and 
that  its  repudiation  would  "be  regarded  by 
them  as  a  violation  of  right  and  of  faith,  and 
destructive  of  confidence  and  regard."  I 
have  also  shown,  that  if  it  be  such  a  compact, 
the  state  of  New  York  stands  self-condemned 
and  self-convicted  as  the  first  to  repudiate  and 
violate  it. 

176 


£tqrf)en  &tnoiti  £>oug!a£ 

But  since  the  senator  has  chosen  to  make 
an  issue  with  me  in  respect  to  the  action  of 
New  York,  with  the  view  of  condemning  my 
conduct  here,  I  will  invite  the  attention  of  the 
senator  to  another  portion  of  these  resolutions. 
Referring  to  the  fourteenth  section  of  the  Ne- 
braska bill,  the  legislature  of  New  York  says: 

"That  the  adoption  of  this  provision  would  be  in 
derogation  of  the  truth,  a  gross  violation  of  plighted 
faith,  and  an  outrage  and  indignity  upon  the  free 
states  of  the  Union,  whose  assent  has  been  yielded 
to  the  admission  into  the  Union  of  Missouri  and  of 
Arkansas,  with  slavery,  in  reliance  upon  the  faithful 
observance  of  the  provision  (now  sought  to  be  ab- 
rogated) known  as  the  Missouri  Compromise,  where- 
by slavery  was  declared  to  be  forever  prohibited  in  all 
that  territory  ceded  by  France  to  the  United  States, 
under  the  name  of  Louisiana,  which  lies  north  of  360 
30' north  latitude,  not  included  within  the  limits  of 
the  state  of  Missouri." 

I  have  no  comments  to  make  upon  the 
courtesy  and  propriety  exhibited  in  this  legis- 
lative declaration,  that  a  provision  in  a  bill, 
reported  by  a  regular  committee  of  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States,  and  known  to  be  approved 
by  three-fourths  of  the  body,  and  which  has 
since  received  the  sanction  of  their  votes, 
is  "in  derogation  of  truth,  a  gross  violation  of 
plighted  faith,  and  an  outrage  and  indignity," 
etc.  The  opponents  of  this  measure  claim 
a  monopoly  of  all  the  courtesies  and  amenities 
which  should  be  observed  among  gentlemen, 
and  especially  in  the  performance  of  official 
duties;  and  I  am  free  to  say  that  this  is  one 
177 


jftemorafrie  American  £>ptttfyt$ 

of  the  mildest  and  most  respectful  forms  of 
expression  in  which  they  have  indulged.  But 
there  is  a  declaration  in  this  resolution  to 
which  I  wish  to  invite  the  particular  attention 
of  the  Senate  and  the  country.  It  is  the  dis- 
tinct allegation  that  "the  free  states  of  the 
Union,"  including  New  York,  yielded  their 
"assent  to  the  admission  into  the  Union  of 
Missouri  and  Arkansas,  with  slavery,  in  reli- 
ance upon  the  faithful  observance  of  the 
provision  known  as  the  Missouri  Compromise." 
Now,  sir,  since  the  legislature  of  New 
York  has  gone  out  of  its  way  to  arraign  the 
state  on  matters  of  truth,  I  will  demonstrate 
that  this  paragraph  contains  two  material 
statements  in  "derogation  of  truth."  I  have 
already  shown  beyond  controversy,  by  the 
records  of  the  legislature  and  by  the  journals 
of  the  Senate,  that  New  York  never  did  give 
her  assent  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  with 
slavery!  Hence,  I  must  be  permitted  to  say, 
in  the  polite  language  of  her  own  resolutions, 
that  the  statement  that  New  York  yielded  her 
assent  to  the  admission  of  Missouri  with  slav- 
ery is  in  "derogation  of  truth";  and  secondly, 
the  statement  that  such  assent  was  given  "in 
reliance  upon  the  faithful  observance  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise"  is  equally  "in  deroga- 
tion of  truth."  New  York  never  assented  to 
the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  slave  state, 
never  assented  to  what  she  now  calls  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  never  observed  its  stip- 
178 


ulations  as  a  compact,  never  has  been  willing 
to  carry  it  out;  but,  on  the  contrary,  has 
always  resisted  it,  as  I  have  demonstrated  by 
her  own  records. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  before  me  other 
journals,  records,  and  instructions,  which  prove 
that  New  York  was  not  the  only  free  state 
that  repudiated  the  Missouri  Compromise  of 
1820  within  twelve  months  from  its  date.  I 
will  not  occupy  the  time  of  the  Senate  at 
this  late  hour  of  the  night,  by  referring  to 
them,  unless  some  opponent  of  the  bill  renders 
it  necessary.  In  that  event,  I  may  be  able  to 
place  other  senators  and  their  states  in  the 
same  unenviable  position  in  which  the  senator 
from  New  York  has  found  himself  and  his 
state. 

I  think  I  have  shown  that  to  call  the  act  of 
the  6th  of  March,  1 820,  a  compact,  binding  in 
honor,  is  to  charge  the  northern  states  of  this 
Union  with  an  act  of  perfidy  unparalleled  in 
the  history  of  legislation  or  of  civilization. 
I  have  already  adverted  to  the  facts  that 
in  the  summer  of  1820  Missouri  formed  her 
constitution,  in  conformity  with  the  act  of 
the  6th  of  March;  that  it  was  presented  to 
Congress  at  the  next  session ;  that  the  Senate 
passed  a  joint  resolution  declaring  her  to  be 
one  of  the  states  of  the  Union,  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  states;  and  that 
the  House  of  Representatives  rejected  it, 
and  refused  to  allow  her  to  come  into  the 
i79 


jftemoraMe  American  £>#tttfyt$ 

Union  because  her  constitution  did  not   pro- 
hibit slavery. 

These  facts  created  the  necessity  for  a  new 
compromise,  the  old  one  having  failed  of  its  ob- 
ject, which  was  to  bring  Missouri  into  the 
Union.  At  this  period  in  the  order  of  events, 
in  February,  1821,  when  the  excitement  was 
almost  beyond  restraint,  and  a  great  funda- 
mental principle  involving  the  right  of  the 
people  of  the  new  states  to  regulate  their 
own  domestic  institutions,  was  dividing  the 
Union  into  two  great  hostile  parties,  Henry 
Clay,  of  Kentucky,  came  forward  with  a 
new  compromise,  which  had  the  effect  to 
change  this  issue,  and  make  the  result  of 
the  controversy  turn  upon  a  different  point. 
He  brought  in  a  resolution  for  the  admission 
of  Missouri  into  the  Union,  not  in  pursuance 
of  the  act  of  1820,  not  in  obedience  to  the 
understanding  when  it  was  adopted,  and  not 
with  her  constitution  as  it  had  been  formed 
in  conformity  with  that  act,  but  he  proposed 
to  admit  Missouri  into  the  Union  upon  a 
"fundamental  condition";  which  condition 
was  to  be  in  the  nature  of  a  solemn  compact 
between  the  United  States  on  the  one  part  and 
the  state  of  Missouri  on  the  other  part,  and 
to  which  "fundamental  condition"  the  state 
of  Missouri  was  required  to  declare  her  assent 
in  the  form  of  "a  solemn  public  act."  This 
joint  resolution  passed,  and  was  approved 
March  2,  1 821,  and  is  known  as  Mr.  Clay's 
180 


Missouri  Compromise,  in  contradistinction  to 
that  of  1820,  which  was  introduced  into  the 
Senate  by  Mr.  Thomas,  of  Illinois.  In  the 
month  of  June,  1 82 1 ,  the  legislature  of  Missouri 
assembled  and  passed  the  "solemn  public  act," 
and  furnished  an  authenticated  copy  thereof  to 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  compli- 
ance with  Mr.  Clay's  compromise,  or  joint  reso- 
lution. On  August  10,  1 82 1,  James  Monroe, 
President  of  the  United  States,  issued  his 
proclamation,  in  which,  after  reciting  the  fact 
that  on  the  2d  of  March,  1 821,  Congress  had 
passed  a  joint  resolution,  "  providing  for  the  ad- 
mission of  the  state  of  Missouri  into  the  Union 
on  a  certain  condition";  and  that  the  general 
assembly  of  Missouri,  on  the  26th  of  June, 
having,  "by  a  solemn  public  act,  declared  the 
assent  of  said  state  of  Missouri  to  the  funda- 
mental condition  contained  in  said  joint  resolu- 
tion," and  having  furnished  him  with  an  authen- 
ticated copy  thereof,  he,  "  in  pursuance  of  the 
resolution  of  Congress  aforesaid,"  declared  the 
admission  of  Missouri  to  be  complete. 

I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  discuss  the 
question  whether  the  conditions  upon  which 
Missouri  was  admitted  were  wise  or  unwise. 
It  is  sufficient  for  my  present  purpose  to  remark, 
that  the  ' '  fundamental  condition  ' '  of  her 
admission  related  to  certain  clauses  in  the 
constitution  of  Missouri  in  respect  to  the 
migration  of  free  negroes  into  that  state  ; 
clauses  similar  to  those  now  in  force  in  the 
181 


ffiltmoxablz  American  ^peectjejef 

constitutions  of  Illinois  and  Indiana,  and  per- 
haps other  states  ;  clauses  similar  to  the 
provisions  of  law  in  force  at  that  time  in  many 
of  the  old  states  of  the  Union;  and,  I  will  add, 
clauses  which,  in  my  opinion,  Missouri  had 
a  right  to  adopt  under  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States.  It  is  no  answer  to  this 
position  to  say  that  those  clauses  in  the  con- 
stitution of  Missouri  were  in  violation  of  the 
Constitution.  If  they  did  conflict  with  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  they  were 
void;  if  they  were  not  in  conflict,  Missouri  had 
a  right  to  put  them  there,  and  to  pass  all  laws 
necessary  to  carry  them  into  effect.  Whether 
such  conflict  did  exist  is  a  question  which,  by 
the  Constitution,  can  only  be  determined  au- 
thoritatively by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States.  Congress  is  not  the  appropri- 
ate and  competent  tribunal  to  adjudicate  and 
determine  questions  of  conflict  between  the 
constitution  of  a  state  and  that  of  the  United 
States.  Had  Missouri  been  admitted  without 
any  condition  or  restriction  she  would  have 
had  an  opportunity  of  vindicating  her  constitu- 
tion and  rights  in  the  Supreme  Court, — the 
tribunal  created  by  the  Constitution  for  that 
purpose. 

By  the  condition  imposed  on  Missouri,  Con- 
gress not  only  deprived  that  State  of  a  right 
which  she  believed  she  possessed  under  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  but  denied 
her  the  privilege  of  vindicating  that  right  in 
182 


<§>tepf)en  &rnoto  2Douglag 

the  appropriate  and  constitutional  tribunal,  by- 
compelling  her,  "by  a  solemn  public  act,"  to 
give  an  irrevocable  pledge  never  to  exercise  or 
claim  the  right.  Therefore,  Missouri  came  in 
under  a  humiliating  condition, —  a  condition 
not  imposed  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  which  destroys  the  principle  of 
equality  which  should  exist,  and  by  the  Consti- 
tution does  exist,  between  all  the  states  of  this 
Union.  This  in  equality  results  from  Mr. 
Clay's  compromise  of  1821,  and  is  the  princi- 
ple upon  which  that  compromise  was  construct- 
ed. I  own  that  the  act  is  couched  in  general 
terms  and  vague  phrases,  and  therefore  may 
possibly  be  so  construed  as  not  to  deprive  the 
state  of  any  right  she  might  possess  under  the 
Constitution.  Upon  that  point  I  wish  only  to 
say,  that  such  a  construction  makes  the  "fun- 
damental condition"  void,  while  the  opposite 
construction  would  demonstrate  it  to  be  un- 
constitutional. I  have  before  me  the  "solemn 
public  act"  of  Missouri  to  this  fundamental 
condition.  Whoever  will  take  the  trouble  to 
read  it  will  find  it  the  richest  specimen  of  irony 
and  sarcasm  that  has  ever  been  incorporated 
into  a  solemn  public  act. 

Sir,  in  view  of  these  facts,  I  desire  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  senator  from  New  York 
to  a  statement  in  his  speech  upon  which  the 
greater  part  of  his  argument  rested.  His 
statement  was,  and  it  is  now  being  published 
in  every  abolition  paper,  and  repeated  by  the 
183 


jftemorable  American  M>ptztfyt$ 

whole  tribe  of  abolition  orators  and  lecturers, 
that  Missouri  was  admitted  as  a  slaveholding 
state,  under  the  act  of  1820 ;  while  I  have 
shown,  by  the  President's  proclamation  of 
August  10,  1 82 1,  that  she  was  admitted  in 
pursuance  of  the  resolution  of  March  2,  1 82 1. 
Thus  it  is  shown  that  the  material  point  of  his 
speech  is  contradicted  by  the  highest  evi- 
dence,—  the  record  in  the  case.  The  same 
statement,  I  believe,  was  made  by  the  senator 
from  Connecticut  [Mr.  Smith],  and  the  sen- 
ators from  Ohio,  [Mr.  Chase  and  Mr.  Wade], 
and  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
Sumner].  Each  of  these  senators  made  and 
repeated  this  statement,  and  upon  the  strength 
of  this  erroneous  assertion  called  upon  us  to 
carry  into  effect  the  eighth  section  of  the  same 
act.  The  material  fact  upon  which  their  ar- 
guments rested  being  overthrown,  of  course 
their  conclusions  are  erroneous  and  deceptive. 
I  call  on  them  to  correct  the  erroneous 
statement  in  respect  to  the  admission  of  Mis- 
souri, and  to  make  restitution  of  the  consider- 
ation by  voting  for  this  bill.  I  repeat,  that 
this  is  not  an  immaterial  statement.  It  is  the 
point  upon  which  the  abolitionists  rest  their 
whole  argument.  They  could  not  get  up  a 
show  of  pretext  against  the  great  principle  of 
self-government  involved  in  this  bill  if  they 
could  not  repeat  all  the  time,  as  the  senator 
from  New  York  did  in  his  speech,  that  Mis- 
souri came  into  the  Union  with  slavery,  in  con- 
184 


£tepf)en  9Unoifc  2DougIa£ 

formity  to  the  compact  which  was  made  by 
the  act  of  1820,  and  that  the  South,  having 
received  the  consideration,  is  now  trying  to 
cheat  the  North  out  of  her  part  of  the  benefits. 
I  have  proven  that,  after  abolitionism  had 
gained  its  point,  so  far  as  the  eighth  section  of 
the  act  prohibited  slavery  in  the  territories, 
Missouri  was  denied  admission  by  Northern 
votes  until  she  entered  into  a  compact  by 
which  she  was  understood  to  surrender  an 
important  right  now  exercised  by  several 
states  of  the  Union. 

Mr.  President,  I  did  not  wish  to  refer  to 
these  things.  I  did  not  understand  them  fully 
in  all  their  bearings  at  the  time  I  made  my 
first  speech  on  this  subject;  and,  so  far  as  I 
was  familiar  with  them,  I  made  as  little  refer- 
ence to  them  as  was  consistent  with  my  duty ; 
because  it  was  a  mortifying  reflection  to  me, 
as  a  northern  man,  that  we  had  not  been  able, 
in  consequence  of  the  abolition  excitement  at 
the  time,  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  bad  faith 
in  the  observance  of  legislation  which  has 
been  denominated  a  compromise.  There  were 
a  few  men  then,  as  there  are  now,  who  had  the 
moral  courage  to  perform  their  duty  to  the 
country  and  the  Constitution,  regardless  of 
consequences  personal  to  themselves.  There 
were  ten  northern  men  who  dared  to  perform 
their  duty  by  voting  to  admit  Missouri  into  the 
Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original 
states,  and  with  no  other  restriction  than  that 
185 


jmcmoraMe  American  £>$tttl}Z0 

imposed  by  the  Constitution.  I  am  aware  that 
they  were  abused  and  denounced,  as  we  are 
now;  that  they  were  branded  as  dough-faces, 
traitors  to  freedom  and  to  the  section  of  the 
country  whence  they  came. 

The  senator  from  Ohio  presented  here  the 
other  day  a  resolution — he  says  unintention- 
ally, and  I  take  it  so — declaring  that  every 
senator  who  advocated  this  bill  was  a  traitor 
to  his  country,  to  humanity,  and  to  God;  and 
even  he  seemed  to  be  shocked  at  the"  results  of 
his  own  advice  when  it  was  exposed.  Yet  he 
did  not  seem  to  know  that  it  was,  in  substance, 
what  he  had  advised  in  his  address,  over  his 
own  signature,  when  he  called  upon  the  people 
to  assemble  in  public  meetings  and  thunder 
forth  their  indignation  at  the  criminal  betrayal 
of  precious  rights ;  when  he  appealed  to  min- 
isters of  the  gospel  to  desecrate  their  holy 
calling,  and  attempted  to  inflame  passions, 
and  fanaticism,  and  prejudice  against  senators 
who  would  not  consider  themselves  very  highly 
complimented  by  being  called  his  equals.  And 
yet,  when  the  natural  consequences  of  his  own 
action  and  advice  come  back  upon  him,  and 
he  presents  them  here,  and  is  called  to  an 
account  for  the  indecency  of  the  act,  he  pro- 
fesses his  profound  regret  and  surprise  that 
anything  should  have  occurred  which  could 
possibly  be  deemed  unkind  or  disrespectful  to 
any  member  of  this  body !  There  has  not  been 
an  argument  against  the  measure  every  word 
1 86 


of  which,  in  regard  to  the  faith  of  compacts, 
is  not  contradicted  by  the  public  records. 
What  I  complain  of  is  this: 

The  people  may  think  that  a  senator,  having 
the  laws  and  journals  before  him,  to  which  he 
could  refer,  would  not  make  a  statement  in 
contravention  of  those  records.  They  make 
the  people  believe  these  things,  and  cause 
them  to  do  great  injustice  to  others,  under  the 
delusion  that  they  have  been  wronged,  and 
their  feelings  outraged.  Sir,  this  address  did, 
for  a  time,  mislead  the  whole  country.  It  made 
the  legislature  of  New  York  believe  that  the 
act  of  1820  was  a  compact  which  it  would  be 
disgraceful  to  violate;  and,  acting  under  that 
delusion,  they  framed  a  series  of  resolu- 
tions, which,  if  true  and  just,  convict  that  state 
of  an  act  of  perfidy  and  treachery  unparalleled 
in  the  history  of  free  governments.  You  see, 
therefore,  the  consequences  of  these  misstate- 
ments. You  degrade  your  own  states,  and 
induce  the  people,  under  the  impression  that 
they  have  been  injured,  to  get  up  a  violent 
crusade  against  those  whose  fidelity  and  truth- 
fulness will,  in  the  end,  command  their  respect 
and  admiration.  In  consequence  of  arousing 
passions  and  prejudices,  I  am  now  to  be  found 
in  effigy,  hanging  by  the  neck,  in  all  the  towns 
where  you  have  the  influence  to  produce  such 
a  result.  In  all  these  excesses  the  people 
are  yielding  to  an  honest  impulse,  under  the 
impression  that  a  grievous  wrong  has  been 
187 


^temorable  American  g>ptttfyz$ 

perpetrated.  You  have  had  your  day  of  tri- 
umph. You  have  succeeded  in  directing  upon 
the  heads  of  others  a  torrent  of  insult  and 
calumny  from  which  even  you  shrink  with 
horror  when  the  fact  is  exposed  that  you  have 
become  the  conduits  for  conveying  it  into  this 
hall.  In  your  state,  sir  [addressing  himself  to 
Mr.  Chase],  I  find  that  I  am  burnt  in  effigy  in 
your  abolition  towns.  All  this  is  done  because 
I  have  proposed,  as  it  is  said,  to  violate  a 
compact !  Now,  what  will  those  people  think 
of  you  when  they  find  out  that  you  have  stim- 
ulated them  to  these  acts,  which  are  disgrace- 
ful to  your  state,  disgraceful  to  your  party, 
and  disgraceful  to  your  cause,  under  a  mis- 
representation of  the  facts,  which  misrepresen- 
tation you  ought  to  have  been  aware  of,  and 
should  never  have  been  made? 

The  senator  says  that  he  never  intended  to 
do  me  injustice,  and  he  is  sorry  that  the  peo- 
ple of  his  state  have  acted  in  the  manner  to 
which  I  have  referred.  Sir,  did  he  not  say  in 
the  same  document  to  which  1  have  already 
alluded,  that  I  was  engaged,  with  others,  in  "a 
criminal  betrayal  of  precious  rights,"  in  an 
"atrocious  plot"?  Did  he  not  say  that  I  and 
others  were  guilty  of  "meditated  bad  faith"? 
Are  not  these  his  exact  words?  Did  he  not 
say  that  "servile  demagogues"  might  make 
the  people  believe  certain  things,  or  attempt  to 
do  so  ?  Did  he  not  say  everything  calculated 
to  produce  and  bring  upon  my  head  all  the 
1 88 


insults  to  which  I  have  been  subjected  publicly 
and  privately,  not  even  excepting  the  insulting 
letters  which  I  have  received  from  his  constit- 
uents, rejoicing  at  my  domestic  bereavements, 
and  praying  that  other  and  similar  calamities 
may  befall  me  ?  All  these  have  resulted  from 
that  address.  I  expected  such  consequences 
when  I  first  saw  it.  In  it  he  called  upon  the 
preachers  of  the  gospel  to  prostitute  the  sacred 
desk  in  stimulating  excesses;  and  then,  for 
fear  that  the  people  would  not  know  who  it 
was  that  was  to  be  insulted  and  calumniated, 
he  told  them,  in  a  postscript,  that  Mr.  Douglas 
was  the  author  of  all  this  iniquity,  and  that 
they  ought  not  to  allow  their  rights  to  be  made 
the  hazard  of  a  presidential  game!  After 
having  used  such  language,  he  says  he  meant 
no  disrespect,  he  meant  nothing  unkind!  He 
was  amazed  that  I  said  in  my  opening  speech 
that  there  was  anything  offensive  in  his  ad- 
dress ;  and  he  could  not  suffer  himself  to  use 
harsh  epithets,  or  to  impugn  a  gentleman's 
motives !  No !  not  he !  After  having  deliber- 
ately written  all  these  insults,  impugning 
motive  and  character,  and  calling  upon  our 
holy  religion  to  sanctify  the  calumny,  he  could 
not  think  of  losing  his  dignity  by  bandying 
epithets,  or  using  harsh  and  disrespectful 
terms ! 

Mr.  President,  I  expected  all  that  has  oc- 
curred, and  more  than  has  come,  as  the  legiti- 
mate result  of  that  address.     The  things  to 
189 


ffiemntaMz  American  g>#mfyt$ 

which  I  referred  are  the  natural  consequences 
of  it.  The  only  revenge  I  seek  is  to  expose 
the  authors,  and  leave  them  to  bear,  as  best 
they  may,  the  just  indignation  of  an  honest 
community  when  the  people  discover  how 
their  sympathies  and  feelings  have  been  out- 
raged by  making  them  the  instruments  in  per- 
forming such  desperate  acts.  Sir,  even  in 
Boston  I  have  been  hung  in  effigy.  I  may 
say  that  I  expected  it  to  occur,  even  there; 
for  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  lives 
there.  He  signed  his  name  to  that  address; 
and  for  fear  the  Boston  abolitionists  would 
not  know  that  it  was  he,  he  signed  it  "  Charles 
Sumner,  Senator  from  Massachusetts."  The 
first  outrage  was  in  Ohio,  where  the  address 
was  circulated  under  the  signature  of  "  Salmon 
P.  Chase,  Senator  from  Ohio."  The  next 
came  from  Boston, —  the  same  Boston,  sir, 
which,  under  the  direction  of  the  same  leaders, 
closed  Faneuil  Hall  to  the  immortal  Webster 
in  1850,  because  of  his  support  of  the  compro- 
mise measures  of  that  year,  which  all  now 
confess  have  restored  peace  and  harmony  to  a 
distracted  country.  Yes,  sir,  even  Boston,  so 
glorious  in  her  early  history;  Boston,  around 
whose  name  so  many  historical  associations 
cling  to  gratify  the  heart  and  exalt  the  pride 
of  every  American, —  could  be  led  astray  by 
abolition  misrepresentations  so  far  as  to  deny 
a  hearing  to  her  own  great  man  who  had  shed 
so  much  glory  upon  Massachusetts  and  her 
190 


£>tt#fym  Arnold  2Douglag 

metropolis!  I  know  that  Boston  now  feels 
humiliated  and  degraded  by  the  act.  And, 
sir  [addressing  himself  to  Mr.  Sumner],  you 
will  remember  that  when  you  came  into  the 
Senate,  and  sought  an  opportunity  to  put 
forth  your  abolition  incendiarism,  you  appealed 
to  our  sense  of  justice  by  the  sentiment, 
"  Strike,  but  hear  me  first."  But  when  Mr. 
Webster  went  back  in  1850,  to  speak  to  his 
constituents  in  his  own  self-defense,  to  tell 
the  truth,  and  to  expose  his  slanderers,  you 
would  not  hear  him,  but  you  struck  first. 

Again,  sir,  even  Boston,  with  her  Faneuil 
Hall  consecrated  to  liberty,  was  so  far  led 
astray  by  abolitionism,  that  when  one  of  her 
gallant  sons,  gallant  by  his  own  glorious  deeds, 
inheriting  an  heroic  revolutionary  name,  had 
given  his  life  to  his  country  upon  the  bloody 
field  of  Buena  Vista,  and  when  his  remains 
were  brought  home,  even  that  Boston,  under 
abolition  guidance  and  abolition  preaching, 
denied  him  a  decent  burial,  because  he  lost  his 
life  in  vindicating  his  country's  honor  upon 
the  southern  frontier!  Even  the  name  of 
Lincoln,  and  the  deeds  of  Lincoln,  could  not 
secure  for  him  a  decent  interment,  because 
abolitionism  follows  a  patriot  beyond  the 
grave. 

Mr.  President,  with  these  facts  before  me, 

how  could  I  hope  to  escape  the  fate  which 

had    followed    these    great    and   good    men  ? 

While  I  had  no  right  to  hope  that  I  might  be 

igi 


jftemorable  American  M>pmfyz$ 

honored  as  they  had  been  under  abolition  aus- 
pices, have  I  not  a  right  to  be  proud  of  the 
distinction  and  the  association  ?  Mr.  Pres- 
ident, I  regret  these  digressions.  I  have  not 
been  able  to  follow  the  line  of  argument  which 
I  had  marked  out  for  myself  because  of  the 
many  interruptions.  I  do  not  complain  of 
them.  It  is  fair  that  gentlemen  should  make 
them,  inasmuch  as  they  have  not  the  opportu- 
nity of  replying;  hence  I  have  yielded  the 
floor,  and  propose  to  do  so  cheerfully  when- 
ever any  senator  intimates  that  justice  to  him 
or  his  position  requires  him  to  say  anything  in 
reply. 

Returning  to  the  point  from  which  I  was 
diverted. 

I  think  I  have  shown,  that  if  the  act  of 
1820,  called  the  Missouri  Compromise,  was  a 
compact,  it  was  violated  and  repudiated  by  a 
solemn  vote  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
in  1 82 1,  within  eleven  months  after  it  was 
adopted.  It  was  repudiated  by  the  North  by 
a  majority  vote ;  and  that  repudiation  was  so 
complete  and  successful  as  to  compel  Missouri 
to  make  a  new  compromise,  and  she  was 
brought  into  the  Union  under  the  new  com- 
promise of  1 82 1,  and  not  under  the  act  of 
1820.  This  reminds  me  of  another  point 
made  in  nearly  all  the  speeches  against  this 
bill,  and  if  I  recollect  right,  was  alluded  to  in 
the  abolition  manifesto  ;  to  which,  I  regret  to 
say,  I  have  had  occasion  to  refer  so  often.  I 
192 


£>tzpfym  &rnoifc  SDouglag 

refer  to  the  significant  hint  that  Mr.  Clay  was 
dead  before  any  one  dared  to  bring  forward  a 
proposition  to  undo  the  greatest  work  of  his 
hands.  The  senator  from  New  York  [Mr. 
Seward]  has  seized  upon  this  insinuation,  and 
elaborated,  perhaps,  more  fully  than  his  com- 
peers ;  and  now  the  abolition  press  suddenly, 
and  as  if  by  miraculous  conversion,  teems 
with  eulogies  upon  Mr.  Clay  and  his  Missouri 
Compromise  of  1 820. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  does  not  each  of  these 
senators  know  that  Mr.  Clay  was  not  the 
author  of  the  act  of  1820  ?  Do  they  not  know 
that  he  disclaimed  it  in  1850,  in  this  body? 
Do  they  not  know  that  the  Missouri  restriction 
did  not  originate  in  the  House,  of  which  he 
was  a  member  ?  Do  they  not  know  that  Mr. 
Clay  never  came  into  the  Missouri  controversy 
as  a  compromiser  until  after  the  compromise 
of  1820  was  repudiated,  and  it  became  neces- 
sary to  make  another  ?  I  dislike  to  be  com- 
pelled to  repeat  what  I  have  conclusively 
proven,  that  the  compromise  which  Mr.  Clay 
effected  was  the  act  of  182 1,  under  which 
Missouri  came  into  the  Union,  and  not  the  act 
of  1820.  Mr.  Clay  made  that  compromise 
after  you  had  repudiated  the  first  one.  How, 
then,  dare  you  call  upon  the  spirit  of  that  great 
and  gallant  statesman  to  sanction  your  charge 
of  bad  faith  against  the  South  on  this  question  ? 

Now,  Mr.  President,  as  I  have  been  doing 
justice  to  Mr.  Clay  on  this  question,  perhaps  I 
193 


^lemorable  American  £>ptttfye$ 

may  as  well  do  justice  to  another  great  man, 
who  was  associated  with  him  in  carrying 
through  the  great  measures  of  1850,  which 
mortified  the  senator  from  New  York  so  much, 
because  they  defeated  his  purpose  of  carrying 
on  the  agitation.  I  allude  to  Mr.  Webster. 
The  authority  of  his  great  name  has  been 
quoted  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  he 
regarded  the  Missouri  act  as  a  compact,  an 
irrepealable  compact.  Evidently  the  distin- 
guished senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
Everett]  supposed  he  was  doing  Mr.  Webster 
entire  justice  when  he  quoted  the  passage  which 
he  read  from  Mr.  Webster's  speech,  on  the  7th 
of  March,  1850,  when  he  said  that  he  stood 
upon  the  position  that  every  part  of  the  Amer- 
ican continent  was  fixed  for  freedom  or  for 
slavery  by  irrepealable  law.  The  senator  says 
that  by  the  expression  "irrepealable  law,"  Mr. 
Webster  meant  to  include  the  compromise  of 
1820.  Now,  I  will  show  that  that  was  not  Mr. 
Webster's  meaning;  that  he  was  never  guilty 
of  the  mistake  of  saying  that  the  Missouri  act 
of  1820  was  an  irrepealable  law.  Mr.  Web- 
ster said,  in  that  speech,  that  every  foot  of 
territory  in  the  United  States  was  fixed  as  to 
its  character  for  freedom  or  slavery  by  an  irre- 
pealable law.  He  then  inquired  if  it  was  not 
so  in  regard  to  Texas  ?  He  went  on  to  prove 
that  it  was  ;  because,  he  said,  there  was  a  com- 
pact in  express  terms  between  Texas  and  the 
United  States.  He  said  the  parties  were  capa- 
194 


Mtpfytn  &rnofti  £Dougia£ 

ble  of  contracting,  and  thai  there  was  a  valu- 
able consideration ;  and  hence,  he  contended 
that  in  that  case  there  was  a  contract  binding 
honor,  and  morals,  and  law;  and  that  was  irre- 
pealable  without  a  breach  of  faith, 
He  went  on  to  say: 

"Now,  as  to  California  and  New  Mexico,  I  hold 
slavery  to  be  excluded  from  those  territories  by  a 
law  even  superior  to  that  which  admits  and  sanctions 
it  in  Texas;  I  mean  the  law  of  nature,  of  physical 
geography,  the  law  and  formation  of  the  earth." 

That  was  the  irrepealable  law  which  he  said 
prohibited  slavery  in  the  territories  of  Utah 
and  New  Mexico.  He  next  went  on  to  speak 
of  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  Oregon,  and  he 
said  it  was  an  "entirely  useless,  and  in  that 
connection  senseless,  proviso." 

He  went  further,  and  said: 

"That  the  whole  territory  of  the  states  in  the 
United  States,  or  in  the  newly  acquired  territory  of 
the  United  States,  has  a  fixed  and  settled  character, 
now  fixed  and  settled  by  law,  which  cannot  be 
repealed  in  the  case  of  Texas  without  a  violation  of 
public  faith,  and  cannot  be  repealed  by  any  human 
power  in  regard  to  California  or  New  Mexico;  that, 
under  one  or  other  of  these  laws,  every  foot  of  territory 
in  the  states,  or  in  the  territories,  has  now  received 
a  fixed  and  decided  character." 

What  irrepealable  laws?  "One  or  the 
other"  of  those  which  he  had  stated.  One 
was  the  Texas  compact;  the  other,  the  law  of 
nature  and  physical  geography;  and  he  con- 
tended that  one  or  the  other  fixed  the  character 
J95 


jHemoratile  American  g>pttttit$ 

of  the  whole  American  continent  for  freedom 
or  slavery.  He  never  alluded  to  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  unless  it  was  by  the  allusion  to 
the  Wilmot  proviso  in  the  Oregon  bill;  and 
there  he  said  it  was  a  useless,  and  in  that 
connection  senseless,  thing.  Why  was  it  use- 
less and  a  senseless  thing  ?  Because  it  was 
re-enacting  the  law  of  God;  because  slavery 
had  already  been  prohibited  by  physical  geog- 
raphy. Sir,  that  was  the  meaning  of  Mr. 
Webster's  speech.  My  distinguished  friend 
from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Everett],  when  he 
reads  the  speech  again,  will  be  utterly  amazed 
to  see  how  he  fell  into  such  an  egregious 
error  as  to  suppose  that  Mr.  Webster  had  so 
far  fallen  from  his  high  position  as  to  say  that 
the  Missouri  act  of  1 820  was  an  irrepealable 
law. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  sorry  that  I  have  taken 
up  so  much  time;  but  I  must  notice  one  or 
two  points  more.  So  much  has  been  said 
about  the  Missouri  Compromise  act,  and  about 
a  faithful  compliance  with  it  by  the  North, 
that  I  must  follow  the  matter  a  little  further. 
The  senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Wade]  has  re- 
ferred to-night  to  the  fact  that  I  went  for  carry- 
ing out  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  the  Texas 
resolutions  in  1845  and  in  1 848,  on  several 
occasions;  and  he  actually  proved  that  I  never 
abandoned  it  until  1 850.  He  need  not  have 
taken  the  pains  to  prove  that  fact;  for  he  got 
196 


g>ttpfycn  &ntoi&  SDouglag 

all  his  information  on  the  subject  from  my 
opening  speech  upon  this  bill.  I  told  you 
then  that  I  was  willing,  as  a  northern  man, 
in  1845,  when  the  Texas  question  arose,  to 
carry  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  through 
that  state,  and  in  1848  I  offered  it  as  an 
amendment  to  the  Oregon  bill.  Although  I 
did  not  like  the  principle  involved  in  that  act, 
yet  I  was  willing,  for  the  sake  of  harmony,  to 
extend  to  the  Pacific,  and  abide  by  it  in  good 
faith,  in  order  to  avoid  the  slavery  agitation. 
The  Missouri  Compromise  was  defeated  then 
by  the  same  class  of  politicians  who  are  now 
combined  in  opposition  to  the  Nebraska  bill. 
It  was  because  we  were  unable  to  carry  out 
that  compromise  that  a  necessity  existed  for 
making  a  new  one  in  1850.  And  then  we 
established  this  great  principle  of  self-govern- 
ment which  lies  at  the  foundation  of  all  our 
institutions.  What  does  his  charge  amount 
to  ?  He  charges  it,  as  a  matter  of  offense, 
that  I  struggled  in  1845  an<3  in  1 848  to  observe 
good  faith;  and  he  and  his  associates  defeated 
my  purpose,  and  deprived  me  of  the  ability  to 
carry  out  what  he  now  says  is  the  plighted 
faith  of  the  nation. 

Sir,  as  I  have  said,  the  South  were  willing 
to  agree  to  the  Missouri  Compromise  in  1848. 
When  it  was  proposed  by  me  to  the  Oregon 
bill,  as  an  amendment,  to  extend  that  line  to 
the  Pacific,  the  South  agreed  to  it.  The  Sen- 
ate adopted  that  proposition,  and  the  House 
197 


jftemoraWe  American  j&pmfyz$ 

voted  it  down.  In  1850,  after  the  omnibus  bill 
had  broken  down,  and  we  proceeded  to  pass 
the  compromise  measures  separately,  I  pro- 
posed, when  the  Utah  bill  was  under  discussion, 
to  make  a  slight  variation  of  the  boundary  of 
that  territory,  so  as  to  include  the  Mormon 
settlements,  and  not  with  reference  to  any  other 
question ;  and  it  was  suggested  that  we  should 
take  the  line  of  360  30'.  That  would  have 
accomplished  the  local  objects  of  the  amend- 
ment very  well.  But  when  I  proposed  it,  what 
did  these  Free-Soilers  say  ?  What  did  the 
senator  from  New  Hampshire  [Mr.  Hale],  who 
was  then  their  leader  in  this  body,  say  ?  Here 
are  his  words: 

"Mr.  Hale:  I  wish  to  say  a  word  as  a  reason 
why  I  shall  vote  against  the  amendment.  I  shall 
vote  against  360  30' ,  because  I  think  there  is  an  impli- 
cation in  it.  I  will  vote  for  370  or  360  either,  just 
as  it  is  convenient;  but  it  is  idle  to  shut  our  eyes  to 
the  fact  that  here  is  an  attempt  in  this  bill  —  I  will  not 
say  it  is  the  intention  of  the  mover — -to  pledge  this 
Senate  and  Congress  to  the  imaginary  line  of  36°30' , 
because  there  are  some  historical  recollections  con- 
nected with  it  in  regard  to  this  controversy  about 
slavery.  I  will  content  myself  with  saying  that  I 
never  will,  by  vote  or  speech,  admit  or  submit  to 
anything  that  may  bind  the  action  of  our  legislation 
here  to  make  the  parallel  360  30'  the  boundary 
line  between  slave  and  free  territory.  And  when  I 
say  that,  I  explain  the  reason  why  I  go  against 
the  amendment." 

These  remarks  of  Mr.  Hale  were  not  made 
on  a  proposition  to  extend  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise line  to  the  Pacific,  but  on  a  proposition 
198 


to  fix  3 6°  30'  as  the  southern  boundary  line  of 
Utah,  for  local  reasons.  He  was  against  it 
because  there  might  be,  as  he  said,  an  impli- 
cation growing  out  of  historical  recollections 
in  favor  of  an  imaginary  line  between  slavery 
and  freedom.  Does  that  look  as  if  his  object 
was  to  get  an  implication  in  favor  of  preserv- 
ing sacred  this  line,  in  regard  to  which  gentle- 
men now  say  there  was  a  solemn  compact  ? 
That  proposition  may  illustrate  what  I  wish  to 
say  in  this  connection  upon  a  point  which  has 
been  made  by  the  opponents  of  this  bill  as  to 
the  effect  of  an  amendment  inserted  on  the 
motion  of  the  senator  from  Virginia  [Mr. 
Mason]  into  the  Texas  boundary  bill.  The 
opponents  of  this  measure  rely  upon  that 
amendment  to  show  that  the  Texas  compact 
was  preserved  by  the  acts  of  1850.  I  have 
already  shown,  in  my  former  speech,  that  the 
object  of  amendment  was  to  guaranty  to  the 
state  of  Texas,  with  her  circumscribed  boun- 
daries, the  same  number  of  states  which  she 
would  have  had  under  her  larger  boundaries, 
and  with  the  same  right  to  come  in  with  or 
without  slavery,  as  they  pleased.  We  have 
been  told,  over  and  over  again,  that  there  was 
no  such  thing  intimated  in  debate  as  that  the 
country  cut  off  from  Texas  was  to  be  relieved 
from  the  stipulations  of  that  compromise. 
This  has  been  asserted  boldly  and  uncondition- 
ally, as  if  there  could  be  no  doubt  about  it. 
The  senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  Toombs],  in 
199 


0ittnatab\t  American  ^peccfjeg 

his  speech,  showed  that  in  his  address  to  his 
constituents  of  that  state,  he  had  proclaimed 
to  the  world  that  the  object  was  to  establish  a 
principle  which  would  allow  the  people  to  de- 
cide the  question  of  slavery  for  themselves, 
north  as  well  as  south  of  360  30'.  The  line 
of  3  6°  30'  was  voted  down  as  the  boundary  of 
Utah,  so  that  there  should  not  be  even  an 
implication  in  favor  of  an  imaginary  line  to 
divide  freedom  and  slavery.  Subsequently, 
when  the  Texas  boundary  bill  was  under  con- 
sideration, on  the  next  day  after  the  amend- 
ment of  the  senator  from  Virginia  had  been 
adopted,  the  record  says : 

"  Mr.  Sebastian  moved  to  add  to  the  second  ar- 
ticle the  following: 

"  '  On  the  condition  that  the  territory  hereby 
ceded  may  be,  at  the  proper  time,  formed  into  a 
state  and  admitted  into  the  Union,  with  a  constitu- 
tion with  or  without  the  prohibition  of  slavery  there- 
in, as  the  people  of  the  said  territory  may  at  the 
time  determine.'  " 

Then  the  senator  from  Arkansas  did  pro- 
pose that  the  territory  cut  off  should  be  re- 
lieved from  that  restriction  in  express  terms, 
and  allowed  to  come  in  according  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  this  bill.  What  was  done?  The 
debate  continued  : 

"  Mr.  Foote:  Will  my  friend  allow  me  to  appeal 
to  him  to  move  this  amendment  when  the  territorial 
bill  for  New  Mexico  shall  be  up  for  consideration  ? 
It  will  certainly  be  a  part  of  that  bill,  and  I  shall 
then  vote  for  it  with  pleasure.  Now  it  will  only  em- 
barrass our  action." 

200 


£tcpfjen  &rnoI&  2Dougia£ 

Let  it  be  remarked,  that  no  one  denied  the 
propriety  of  the  provision.  All  seemed  to 
acquiesce  in  the  principle;  but  it  was  thought 
better  to  insert  it  in  the  territorial  bills,  as  we 
are  now  doing,  instead  of  adding  it  to  the 
Texas  boundary  bill.     The  debate  proceeded: 

"Mr.  Sebastian:  My  only  object  in  offering  the 
amendment  is  to  secure  the  assertion  of  this  principle 
beyond  a  doubt.  The  principle  was  acquiesced  in 
without  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  territorial  govern- 
ment established  for  Utah,  a  part  of  this  acquired 
territory,  and  it  is  proper,  in  my  opinion,  that  it 
should  be  incorporated  in  this  bill. 

"Messrs.  Cass,  Foote,  and  others:  Oh,  with- 
draw it. 

"Mr.  Sebastian:  I  think  this  is  the  proper  place 
for  it.  It  is  uncertain  whether  it  will  be  incorporated 
in  me  other  bill  referred  to,  and  the  bill  itself  may 
not  pass." 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  debate  goes  upon 
the  supposition  that  the  effect  was  to  release 
the  country  north  of  360  30'  from  the  obliga- 
tion of  the  prohibition;  and  the  only  question 
was,  whether  the  declaration  that  it  should  be 
received  into  the  Union  "with  or  without 
slavery  "  should  be  inserted  in  the  Texas  bill 
or  the  territorial  bill. 

The  debate  was  continued,  and  I  will  read 
one  or  two  other  passages: 

"Mr.  Foote:  I  wish  to  state  to  the  senator  a  fact 
of  which,  I  think,  he  is  not  observant  at  this  moment; 
and  that  is,  that  the  senator  from  Virginia  has  intro- 
duced an  amendment,  which  is  now  a  part  of  the  bill, 
which  recognizes  the  Texas  compact  of  annexation 
in  every  respect. 

201 


jftemoraMe  American  J>peect)eg 

"Mr.  Sebastian:  I  was  aware  of  the  effect  of  the 
amendment  of  the  senator  from  Virginia.  It  is  in 
regard  to  the  number  of  states  to  be  formed  out  of 
Texas,  and  is  referred  to  only  in  general  terms." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  senator  from 
Arkansas  then  explained  the  amendment  of 
the  senator  from  Virginia,  which  has  been 
adopted,  in  precisely  the  same  way  in  which  I 
explained  it  in  my  opening  speech.  The  sen- 
ator from  Arkansas  continued: 

"  If  this  amendment  be  the  same  as  that  offered 
by  the  senator  from  Virginia,  there  can  certainly 
be  no  harm  in  reaffirming  it  in  this  bill,  to  which  I 
think  it  properly  belongs." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  nobody  disputed 
that  the  restriction  was  to  be  removed;  and 
the  only  question  was  as  to  the  bill  in  which 
that  declaration  should  be  put.  It  seems, 
from  the  record,  that  I  took  part  in  the  debate, 
and  said: 

"Mr.  Douglas:  This  boundary,  as  now  fixed, 
would  leave  New  Mexico  bounded  on  the  east  by  the 
1030  of  longtitude  up  to  360  30',  and  then  east  to 
100°;  and  it  leaves  a  narrow  neck  of  land  between 
36°30'  and  the  old  boundary  of  Texas,  that  would 
not  naturally  and  properly  go  to  New  Mexico  when 
it  should  become  a  state.  This  amendment  would 
compel  us  to  include  it  in  New  Mexico,  or  to  form  it 
into  another  state.  When  the  principle  shall  come 
up  in  the  bill  for  the  organization  of  a  territorial 
government  for  New  Mexico,  no  doubt  the  same  vote 
which  inserted  it  in  the  omnibus  bill,  and  the  Utah 
bill,  will  insert  it  there. 

"Several  senators:  No  doubt  of  it." 

Upon  that  debate  the  amendment    of  the 
202 


J>tqjf)en  &tnolD  2Douglag 

senator  from  Arkansas  was  voted  down,  be- 
cause it  was  avowed  and  distinctly  understood 
that  the  amendment  of  the  senator  from  Vir- 
ginia, taken  in  connection  with  the  remainder 
of  the  bill,  did  release  the  country  ceded  by 
Texas  north  of  360  30'  from  the  restriction; 
and  it  was  agreed  that  if  we  did  not  put  it 
into  the  Texas  boundary  bill  it  should  go  into 
the  territorial  bill.  I  stated,  as  a  reason  why 
it  should  not  go  into  the  Texas  boundary  bill, 
that  if  it  did  it  would  be  a  compact,  and  would 
compel  us  to  put  the  whole  ceded  country 
into  one  state,  when  it  might  be  more  con- 
venient and  natural  to  make  a  different  boun- 
dary. I  pledged  myself  then  that  it  should  be 
put  into  the  territorial  bill;  and  when  we  con- 
sidered the  territorial  bill  for  New  Mexico  we 
put  in  the  same  clause,  so  far  as  the  country 
ceded  by  Texas  was  embraced  within  that 
territory,  and  it  passed  in  that  shape.  When 
it  went  into  the  House,  they  united  the  two 
bills  together,  and  thus  this  clause  passed  in 
the  same  bill,  as  the  senator  from  Arkansas 
desired. 

Now,  sir,  have  I  not  shown  conclusively 
that  it  was  the  understanding  in  that  debate 
that  the  effect  was  to  release  the  country  north 
of  360  30'  which  formerly  belonged  to  Texas 
from  the  operation  of  that  restriction,  and  to 
provide  that  it  should  come  into  the  Union 
with  or  without  slavery,  as  its  people  should 
see  proper?  That  being  the  case,  I  ask  the 
203 


Memorable  American  <&pcccl)eg 

senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Chase]  if  he  ought 
not  to  have  been  cautious  when  he  charged 
over  and  over  again  that  there  was  not  a  word 
or  a  syllable  uttered  in  debate  to  that  effect? 
Should  he  not  have  been  cautious  when  he 
said  that  it  was  a  mere  afterthought  on  my 
part?  Should  he  not  have  been  cautious  when 
he  said  that  even  I  never  dreamed  of  it  up  to 
the  4th  of  January  of  this  year?  Whereas  the 
record  shows  that  I  made  a  speech  to  that 
effect  during  the  pendency  of  the  bills  of  1 850. 
The  same  statement  was  repeated  by  nearly 
every  senator  who  followed  him  in  debate  in 
opposition  to  this  bill;  and  it  is  now  being 
circulated  over  the  country,  published  in  every 
abolition  paper,  read  on  every  stump  by  every 
abolition  orator,  in  order  to  get  up  a  predju- 
dice  against  me  and  the  measure  I  have  in- 
troduced. Those  gentlemen  should  not  have 
dared  to  utter  the  statement  without  knowing 
whether  it  was  correct  or  not.  These  records 
are  troublesome  things  sometimes.  It  is  not 
proper  for  a  man  to  charge  another  with  a 
mere  afterthought  because  he  did  not  know 
that  he  had  advocated  the  same  principles 
before.  Because  he  did  not  know  it,  he  should 
not  take  it  for  granted  that  nobody  else  did. 
Let  me  tell  the  senators  that  this  is  a  very 
unsafe  rule  for  them  to  rely  upon.  They  ought 
to  have  had  sufficient  respect  for  a  brother 
senator  to  have  believed,  when  he  came  for- 
ward with  an  important  proposition,  that  he 
204 


Mtptytn  &tnol&  2Dougla£ 

had  investigated  it.  They  ought  to  have  had 
sufficient  respect  for  a  committee  of  this  body- 
to  have  assumed  that  they  meant  what  they 
said. 

When  I  see  such  a  system  of  misinterpreta- 
tion and  misrepresentation  of  views,  of  laws, 
of  records,  of  debates,  all  tending  to  mislead 
the  public,  to  excite  prejudice,  and  to  propa- 
gate error,  have  I  not  a  right  to  expose  it  in 
very  plain  terms,  without  being  arraigned  for 
violating  the  courtesies  of  the  Senate? 

Mr.  President,  frequent  reference  has  been 
made  in  debate  to  the  admission  of  Arkansas 
as  a  slave-holding  state,  as  furnishing  evidence 
that  the  abolitionists  and  Free-Soilers,  who  have 
recently  become  so  much  enamored  with  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  have  always  been  faith- 
ful to  its  stipulations  and  implications.  I  will 
show  that  the  reference  is  unfortunate  for 
them.  When  Arkansas  applied  for  admission 
in  1836,  objection  was  made  in  consequence 
of  the  provisions  in  her  constitution  in  respect 
to  slavery.  When  the  abolitionists  and  Free- 
Soilers  of  that  day  were  arraigned  for  making 
that  objection,  upon  the  ground  that  Arkansas 
was  south  of  36°30',  they  replied  that  the  act 
of  1820  was  never  a  compromise,  much  less 
a  compact,  imposing  any  obligation  upon  the 
successors  of  those  who  passed  the  act  to  pay 
any  more  respect  to  its  provisions  than  to  any 
other  enactment  of  ordinary  legislation.  I 
have  the  debates  before  me,  but  will  occupy 
205 


ffiLtmox&blz  American  JbpeecJje£ 

the  attention  of  the  Senate  only  to  read  one 
or  two  paragraphs.  Mr.  Hand,  of  New  York, 
in  opposition  to  the  admission  of  Arkansas  as 
a  slave-holding  state,  said: 

"  I  am  aware  it  will  be,  as  it  has  already  been,  con- 
tended that  by  the  Missouri  Compromise,  as  it  has 
been  preposterously  termed,  Congress  has  parted 
with  its  right  to  prohibit  the  introduction  of  slavery 
into  the  territory  south  of  360  30'  north  latitude." 

He  acknowedged  that  by  the  Missouri  Com- 
promise, as  he  said  it  was  preposterously 
termed,  the  North  was  estopped  from  denying 
the  right  to  hold  slaves  south  of  that  line;  but 
he  added: 

"  There  are,  to  my  mind,  insuperable  objections 
to  the  soundness  of  that  proposition." 

Here  they  are: 

"  In  the  first  place,  there  was  no  compromise  or 
compact  whereby  Congress  surrendered  any  power, 
or  yielded  any  jurisdiction;  and  in  the  second  place, 
if  it  had  done  so,  it  was  a  mere  legislative  act,  that 
could  not  bind  their  successors;  it  would  be  subject 
to  a  repeal  at  the  will  of  any  succeeding  Congress." 

I  give  these  passages  as  specimens  of  the 
various  speeches  made  in  opposition  to  the 
admission  of  Arkansas  by  the  same  class  of 
politicians  who  now  oppose  the  Nebraska  bill, 
upon  the  ground  that  it  violates  a  solemn  com- 
pact. So  much  for  the  speeches.  Now  for 
the  vote.  The  Journal,  which  I  hold  in  my 
hand,  shows  that  forty-nine  northern  votes 
were  recorded  against  the  admission  of  Ar- 
kansas. 

206 


g>tt#$cn  &rnol&  SDouglag 

Yet,  sirs,  in  utter  disregard — and  charity- 
leads  me  to  hope  in  profound  ignorance  —  of 
all  these  facts,  gentlemen  are  boasting  that  the 
North  always  observed  the  contract,  never  de- 
nied its  validity,  never  wished  to  violate  it;  and 
they  have  even  referred  to  the  cases  of  the 
admission  of  Missouri  and  Arkansas  as  in- 
stances of  their  good  faith. 

Now,  is  it  impossible  that  gentlemen  could 
suppose  these  things  could  be  said  and  dis- 
tributed in  their  speeches  without  exposure? 
Did  they  presume  that,  inasmuch  as  their  lives 
were  devoted  to  slavery  agitation,  whatever 
they  did  not  know  about  the  history  of  that 
question  did  not  exist  ?  I  am  willing  to  believe, 
I  hope  it  may  be  the  fact,  that  they  were  pro- 
foundly ignorant  of  all  these  records,  all  these 
debates,  all  these  facts,  which  overthrow  every 
position  they  have  assumed.  I  wish  the  sena- 
tor from  Maine  [Mr.  Fessenden],  who  deliv- 
ered his  maiden  speech  here  to-night,  and  who 
made  a  great  many  sly  stabs  at  me,  had  in- 
formed himself  upon  the  subject  before  he 
repeated  all  these  groundless  assertions.  I 
can  excuse  him  for  the  reason  that  he  has  been 
here  but  a  few  days,  and  having  enlisted  under 
the  banner  of  the  abolition  confederates,  was 
unwise  and  simple  enough  to  believe  that  what 
they  had  published  could  be  relied  upon  as 
stubborn  facts.  He  may  be  an  innocent  vic- 
tim. I  hope  he  can  have  the  excuse  of  not 
having  investigated  the  subject.  I  am  willing 
207 


jttemoraMe  American  &#tzt$t$ 

to  excuse  him  on  the  ground  that  he  did  not 
know  what  he  was  talking  about,  and  it  is  the 
only  excuse  which  I  can  make  for  him.  I 
will  say,  however,  that  I  do  not  think  he  was 
required,  by  his  loyalty  to  the  abolitionists,  to 
repeat  every  disreputable  insinuation  which 
they  made.  Why  did  he  throw  into  his 
speech  that  foul  innuendo  about  "  a  northern 
man  with  southern  principles,"  and  then 
quote  the  senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
Sumner]  as  his  authority  ?  Ay,  sir,  I  say  the 
foul  insinuation.  Did  not  the  senator  from 
Massachusetts,  who  first  dragged  it  into  this 
debate,  wish  to  have  the  public  understand 
that  I  was  known  as  a  northern  man  with 
southern  principles?  Was  not  that  the  allu- 
sion ?  If  it  was,  he  availed  himself  of  a  cant 
phrase  in  the  public  mind,  in  violation  of  the 
truth  of  history.  I  know  of  but  one  man  in 
this  country  who  ever  made  it  a  boast  that  he 
was  "a  northern  man  with  southern  princi- 
ples," and  he  [turning  to  Mr.  Sumner]  was  your 
candidate  for  the  presidency  in  1848. 

If  his  sarcasm  was  intended  for  Martin  Van 
Buren,  it  involves  a  family  quarrel,  with  which 
I  have  no  disposition  to  interfere.  I  will  only 
add  that  I  have  been  able  to  discover  nothing 
in  the  present  position  or  recent  history  of 
that  distinguished  statesman  which  would  lead 
me  to  covet  the  sobriquet  by  which  he  is  known, 
— "a  northern  man  with  southern  principles." 

Mr.  President,  the  senators  from  Ohio  and 
208 


Massachusetts  [Mr.  Chase  and  Mr.  Sumner] 
have  taken  the  liberty  to  impeach  my  motives 
in  bringing  forward  this  measure.  I  desire  to 
know  by  what  right  they  arraign  me,  or  by 
what  authority  they  impute  to  me  other  and 
different  motives  than  those  which  I  have  as- 
signed. I  have  shown  from  the  record  that  I 
advocated  and  voted  for  the  same  principles 
and  provisions  in  the  compromise  acts  of  1 850 
which  are  embraced  in  this  bill.  I  have  prov- 
en that  I  put  the  same  construction  upon  those 
measures  immediately  after  their  adoption 
that  is  given  in  the  report  which  I  submitted 
this  session  from  the  Committee  on  Territo- 
ries. I  have  shown  that  the  legislature  of 
Illinois,  at  its  first  session,  after  those  measures 
were  enacted,  passed  resolutions  approving 
them,  and  declaring  that  the  same  great  prin- 
ciple of  self-government  should  be  incorpo- 
rated into  all  territorial  organizations.  Yet, 
sir,  in  the  face  of  these  facts,  these  senators 
have  the  hardihood  to  declare  that  this  was  all 
an  "afterthought"  on  my  part,  conceived  for 
the  first  time  during  the  present  session ;  and 
that  the  measure  is  offered  as  a  bid  for  presi- 
dential votes!  Are  they  incapable  of  conceiv- 
ing that  an  honest  man  can  do  a  right  thing 
from  worthy  motives  ?  I  must  be  permitted  to 
tell  those  senators  that  their  experience  in 
seeking  political  preferment  does  not  furnish 
a  safe  rule  by  which  to  judge  the  character  and 
principles  of  other  senators!  I  must  be  per- 
209 


jftcmorafcie  American  Jbpcztfye$ 

mitted  to  tell  the  senator  from  Ohio  that  I  did 
not  obtain  my  seat  in  this  body  either  by  a 
corrupt  bargain  or  a  dishonorable  coalition! 
I  must  be  permitted  to  remind  the  senator 
from  Massachusetts  that  I  did  not  enter  into 
any  combinations  or  arrangements  by  which  my 
character,  my  principles,  and  my  honor  were 
set  up  at  public  auction  or  private  sale  in  order 
to  procure  a  seat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States!  I  did  not  come  into  the  Senate  by 
any  such  means  ! 

Mr.  President,  I  have  done  with  these  per- 
sonal matters.  I  regret  the  necessity  which 
compelled  me  to  devote  so  much  time  to  them. 
All  I  have  done  and  said  has  been  in  the  way 
of  self-defense,  as  the  Senate  can  bear  me 
witness. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  also  occupied  a  good 
deal  of  time  in  exposing  the  cant  of  these 
gentlemen  about  the  sanctity  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  and  the  dishonor  attached  to  the 
violation  of  plighted  faith.  I  have  exposed 
these  matters  in  order  to  show  that  the  object 
of  these  men  is  to  withdraw  from  public  atten- 
tion the  real  principle  involved  in  the  bill. 
They  well  know  that  the  abrogation  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise  is  the  incident,  and  not 
the  principle,  of  the  bill.  They  well  understand 
that  the  report  of  the  committee  and  the  bill 
propose  to  establish  the  principle  in  all  terri- 
torial organizations,  that  the  question  of  slav- 
ery shall  be  referred  to  the  people  to  regulate 
210 


M>tc#tycn  &rnoi&  2Dou£la£ 

for  themselves,  and  that  such  legislation  should 
be  had  as  was  necessary  to  remove  all  legal 
obstructions  to  the  free  exercise  of  this  right 
by  the  people. 

The  eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act, 
standing  in  the  way  of  this  great  principle, 
must  be  rendered  inoperative  and  void,  whether 
expressly  repealed  or  not,  in  order  to  give  the 
people  the  power  of  regulating  their  own 
domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject 
only  to  the  Constitution. 

Now,  sir,  if  these  gentlemen  have  entire 
confidence  in  the  correctness  of  their  own  posi- 
tion, why  do  they  not  meet  the  issue  boldly 
and  fairly,  and  controvert  the  soundness  of 
this  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  in 
obedience  to  the  Constitution?  They  know 
full  well  that  this  was  the  principle  upon  which 
the  colonies  separated  from  the  crown  of  Great 
Britain,  the  principle  upon  which  the  battles 
of  the  Revolution  were  fought,  and  the  princi- 
ple upon  which  our  republican  system  was 
founded.  They  cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  fact 
that  the  Revolution  grew  out  of  the  assertion 
of  the  right  on  the  part  of  the  imperial  govern- 
ment to  interfere  with  the  internal  affairs  and 
domestic  concerns  of  the  colonies.  In  this 
connection  I  will  invite  attention  to  a  few 
extracts  from  the  instructions  of  the  different 
colonies  to  their  delegates  in  the  Continental 
Congress,  with  a  view  of  forming  such  a  union 
as  would  enable  them  to  make  successful  re- 


f&cmntefflz  American  £>pcctfyc$ 

sistance  to  the  efforts  of  the  crown  to  destroy 
the  fundamental  principle  of  all  free  govern- 
ment by  interfering  with  the  domestic  affairs 
of  the  colonies. 

I  will  begin  with  Pennsylvania,  whose  devo- 
tion, to  the  principles  of  human  liberty,  and  the 
obligations  of  the  Constitution,  has  acquired 
for  her  the  proud  title  of  the  Keystone  in  the 
arch  of  republican  states.  In  her  instructions 
is  contained  the  following  reservation : 

"  Reserving  to  the  people  of  this  colony  the  sole 
and  exclusive  right  of  regulating  the  internal  govern- 
ment and  police  of  the  same." 

And,  in  a  subsequent  instruction  in  refer- 
ence to  suppressing  the  British  authority  in 
the  colonies,  Pennsylvania  uses  the  following 
emphatic  language: 

"Unanimously  declare  our  willingness  to  concur  in 
a  vote  of  the  Congress  declaring  the  united  colonies 
free  and  independent  states,  provided  the  forming 
the  government,  and  regulation  of  the  internal  po- 
lice of  this  colony  be  always  reserved  to  the  people 
of  the  said  colony." 

Connecticut,  in  authorizing  her  delegates  to 
vote  for  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  at- 
tached to  it  the  following  condition: 

"Saving  that  the  administration  of  government, 
and  the  power  of  forming  governments  for  and  the 
regulation  of  the  internal  concerns  and  police  of  each 
colony,  ought  to  be  left  and  remain  to  the  respective 
colonial  legislatures." 

New  Hampshire  annexed  this  proviso  to  her 
212 


Mtpfycn  &rooI&  2DougIa£ 

instructions  to  her  delegates  to  vote  for  in- 
dependence. 

"Provided  the  regulation  of  our  internal  police 
be  under  the  direction  of  our  own  assembly." 

New  Jersey  imposed  the  following  condi- 
tion: 

"  Always  observing  that,  whatever  plan  of  con- 
federacy you  enter  into,  the  regulating  the  internal 
police  of  this  province  is  to  be  reserved  to  the  colo- 
nial legislature." 

Maryland  gave  her  consent  to  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  upon  the  condition  con- 
tained in  this  proviso  : 

"And  that  said  colony  will  hold  itself  bound  by 
the  resolutions  of  a  majority  of  the  united  colonies  in 
the  premises,  provided  the  sole  and  exclusive  right 
of  regulating  the  internal  government  and  police  of 
that  colony  be  reserved  to  the  people  thereof." 

Virginia  annexed  the  following  condition  to 
her  instructions  to  vote  for  the  Declaration  of 
Independence : 

"  Provided  that  the  power  of  forming  government 
for  and  the  regulations  of  the  internal  concerns  of 
the  colony  be  left  to  the  respective  colonial  legis- 
latures." 

I  will  not  weary  the  Senate  in  multiplying 
evidences  upon  this  point.  It  is  apparent 
that  the  Declaration  of  Independence  had  its 
origin  in  the  violation  of  that  great  fundamen- 
tal principle  which  secured  to  the  people  of  the 
colonies  the  right  to  regulate  their  own  domes- 
tic affairs  in  their  own  way;  and  that  the 
Revolution  resulted  in  the  triumph  of  that 
213 


Memorable  &metican  ^peecfje^ 

principle,  and  the  recognition  of  the  right 
asserted  by  it.  Abolitionism  proposes  to  de- 
stroy the  right,  and  extinguish  the  principle  for 
which  our  forefathers  waged  a  seven-years' 
bloody  war,  and  upon  which  our  whole  system 
of  free  government  is  founded.  They  not 
only  deny  the  application  of  this  principle  to 
the  territories,  but  insist  upon  fastening  the 
prohibition  upon  all  the  states  to  be  formed 
out  of  those  territories.  Therefore,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  abolitionists — the  doctrine  of  the 
opponents  of  the  Nebraska  and  Kansas  bill, 
and  of  the  advocates  of  the  Missouri  restric- 
tion— demand  congressional  interference  with 
slavery,  not  only  in  the  territories,  but  in  all 
the  new  states  to  be  formed  therefrom.  It  is 
the  same  doctrine,  when  applied  to  the  terri- 
tories and  new  states  of  this  Union,  which  the 
British  government  attempted  to  enforce  by 
the  sword  upon  the  American  colonies.  It  is 
this  fundamental  principle  of  self-government 
which  constitutes  the  distinguishing  feature 
of  the  Nebraska  bill.  The  opponents  of  the 
principle  are  consistent  in  opposing  the  bill. 
I  do  not  blame  them  for  their  opposition.  I 
only  ask  them  to  meet  the  issue  fairly  and 
openly,  by  acknowledging  that  they  are  op- 
posed to  the  principle  which  it  is  the  object 
of  the  bill  to  carry  into  operation.  It  seems 
that  there  is  no  power  on  earth,  no  intellectual 
power,  no  mechanical  power,  that  can  bring 
them  to  a  fair  discussion  of  the  true  issue.  If 
214 


Mtptytn  &rnolti  2Dougia£ 

they  hope  to  delude  the  people,  and  escape 
detection  for  any  considerable  length  of  time 
under  the  catchwords  "Missouri  Compromise," 
and  "faith  of  compacts,"  they  will  find  that  the 
people  of  this  country  have  more  penetration 
and  intelligence  than  they  have  given  them 
credit  for. 

Mr.  President,  there  is  an  important  fact 
connected  with  this  slavery  regulation  which 
should  never  be  lost  sight  of.  It  has  always 
arisen  from  one  and  the  same  cause.  When- 
ever that  cause  has  been  removed,  the  agitation 
has  ceased;  and  whenever  the  cause  has  been 
renewed,  the  agitation  has  sprung  into  exist- 
ence. That  cause  is,  and  ever  has  been,  the 
attempt  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  interfere 
with  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  territories 
and  new  states  formed  therefrom.  Is  it  not 
wise,  then,  to  confine  our  action  within  the 
sphere  of  our  legitimate  duties,  and  leave  this 
vexed  question  to  take  care  of  itself  in  each 
state  and  territory,  according  to  the  wishes 
of  the  people  thereof,  in  conformity  to  the 
forms  and  in  subjection  to  the  provisions  of 
the  Constitution? 

The  opponents  of  the  bill  tell  us  that  agita- 
tion is  no  part  of  their  policy;  that  their  great 
desire  is  peace  and  harmony;  and  they  com- 
plain bitterly  that  I  should  have  disturbed  the 
repose  of  the  country  by  the  introduction  of 
this  measure!  Let  me  ask  these  professed 
friends  of  peace,  and  avowed  enemies  of  agi- 
215 


jftemotaBIe  American  §>ptcd)z$ 

tation,  how  the  issue  could  have  been  avoided  ? 
They  tell  me  that  I  should  have  let  the  ques- 
tion alone  ;  that  is,  that  I  should  have  left 
Nebraska  unorganized,  the  people  unprotected, 
and  the  Indian  barrier  in  existence,  until  the 
swelling  tide  of  emigration  should  burst 
through,  and  accomplish  by  violence  what  it  is 
the  part  of  wisdom  and  statesmanship  to  direct 
and  regulate  by  law.  How  long  could  you 
have  postponed  action  with  safety  ?  How  long 
could  you  maintain  that  Indian  barrier,  and  re- 
strain the  onward  march  of  civilization,  Chris- 
tianity, and  free  government  by  a  barbarian 
wall  ?  Do  you  suppose  that  you  could  keep 
that  vast  country  a  howling  wilderness  in  all 
time  to  come,  roamed  over  by  hostile  savages, 
cutting  off  all  safe  communication  between  our 
Atlantic  and  Pacific  possessions  ?  I  tell  you  that 
the  time  for  action  has  come,  and  cannot  be 
postponed.  It  is  a  case  in  which  "let-alone" 
policy  would  precipitate  a  crisis  which  must 
inevitably  result  in  violence,  anarchy,  and  strife. 
You  cannot  fix  bounds  to  the  onward  march 
of  this  great  and  growing  country.  You  can- 
not fetter  the  limbs  of  the  young  giant.  He 
will  burst  all  your  chains.  He  will  expand, 
and  grow,  and  increase,  and  extend  civilization, 
Christianity,  and  liberal  principles.  Then,  sir,  if 
you  cannot  check  the  growth  of  the  country  in 
that  direction,  is  it  not  the  part  of  wisdom  to 
look  the  danger  in  the  face,  and  provide  for  an 
event  which  you  cannot  avoid  ?  I  tell  you  sir, 
216 


g>ttptym  &rnoiti  2Dougla£ 

you  must  provide  for  continuous  lines  of  settle- 
ment from  the  Mississippi  Valley  to  the  Pacific 
Ocean.  And  in  making  this  provision,  you 
must  decide  upon  what  principles  the  terri- 
tories shall  be  organized;  in  other  words, 
whether  the  people  shall  be  allowed  to  regulate 
their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way, 
according  to  the  provisions  of  this  bill,  or 
whether  the  opposite  doctrine  of  congressional 
interference  is  to  prevail.  Postpone  it  if  you 
will ;  but  whenever  you  do  act,  this  question 
must  be  met  and  decided. 

The  Missouri  Compromise  was  interference; 
the  compromise  of  1 850  was  non-interference, 
leaving  the  people  to  exercise  their  rights  under 
the  Constitution.  The  Committee  on  Terri- 
tories were  compelled  to  act  on  this  subject. 
I,  as  their  chairman,  was  bound  to  meet  the 
question.  I  chose  to  take  the  responsibility, 
regardless  of  consequences  personal  to  myself. 
I  should  have  done  the  same  thing  last  year, 
if  there  had  been  time;  but  we  know,  consid- 
ering the  late  period  at  which  the  bill  then 
reached  us  from  the  House,  that  there  was  not 
sufficient  time  to  consider  the  question  fully, 
and  to  prepare  a  report  upon  the  subject.  I 
was,  therefore,  persuaded  by  friends  to  allow 
the  bill  to  be  reported  to  the  Senate,  in  order 
that  such  action  might  be  taken  as  should  be 
deemed  wise  and  proper.  The  bill  was  never 
taken  up  for  action,  the  last  night  of  the  session 
having  been  exhausted  in  debate  on  a  motion 
217 


Jttemorafele  American  £peecJ)e£ 

to  take  up  the  bill.  This  session,  the  measure 
was  introduced  by  my  friend  from  Iowa  [Mr. 
Dodge],  and  referred  to  the  Territorial  Com- 
mittee during  the  first  week  of  the  session. 
We  have  abundance  of  time  to  consider  the 
subject;  it  was  a  matter  of  pressing  necessity, 
and  there  was  no  excuse  for  not  meeting  it 
directly  and  fairly.  We  were  compelled  to 
take  our  position  upon  the  doctrine  either  of 
intervention  or  non-intervention.  We  chose 
the  latter  for  two  reasons:  first,  because  we 
believed  that  the  principle  was  right;  and 
second,  because  it  was  the  principle  adopted 
in  1850,  to  which  the  two  great  political  par- 
ties of  the  country  were  solemnly  pledged. 

There  is  another  reason  why  I  desire  to  see 
this  principle  recognized  as  a  rule  of  action  in 
all  time  to  come.  It  will  have  the  effect  to  de- 
stroy all  sectional  parties  and  sectional  agita- 
tions. If,  in  the  language  of  the  report  of  the 
committee,  you  withdraw  the  slavery  question 
from  the  halls  of  Congress  and  the  political 
arena,  and  commit  it  to  the  arbitrament  of  those 
who  are  immediately  interested  in  and  alone 
responsible  for  its  consequences,  there  is  noth- 
ing left  out  of  which  sectional  parties  can  be 
organized.  It  never  was  done,  and  never  can 
be  done,  on  the  bank,  tariff,  distribution,  or 
any  other  party  issue  which  has  existed,  or 
may  exist,  after  this  slavery  question  is  with- 
drawn from  politics.  On  every  other  political 
question  these  have  always  supporters  and 
218 


Mtptyn  &rnolii  Douglas 

opponents  in  every  portion  of  the  Union, — in 
each  state,  county,  village,  and  neighborhood, 
— residing  together  in  harmony  and  good- 
fellowship,  and  combating  each  other's  opin- 
ions and  correcting  each  other's  errors  in 
a  spirit  of  kindness  and  friendship.  These 
differences  of  opinion  between  neighbors  and 
friends,  and  the  discussions  that  grow  out  of 
them,  and  the  sympathy  which  each  feels  with 
the  advocates  of  his  own  opinions  in  every 
other  portion  of  this  wide-spread  republic, 
adds  an  overwhelming  and  irresistible  moral 
weight  to  the  strength  of  the  confederacy. 
Affection  for  the  Union  can  never  be  alienat- 
ed or  diminished  by  any  other  party  issues 
than  those  which  are  joined  upon  sectional  or 
geographical  lines.  When  the  people  of  the 
North  shall  all  be  rallied  under  one  banner, 
and  the  whole  South  marshaled  under  another 
banner,  and  each  section  excited  to  frenzy  and 
madness  by  hostility  to  the  institutions  of  the 
other,  then  the  patriot  may  well  tremble  for 
the  perpetuity  of  the  Union.  Withdraw  the 
slavery  question  from  the  political  arena,  and 
remove  it  to  the  states  and  territories,  each 
to  decide  for  itself,  such  a  catastrophe  can 
never  happen.  Then  you  will  never  be  able  to 
tell,  by  any  senator's  vote  for  or  against  any 
measure,  from  what  state  or  section  of  the 
Union  he  comes. 

Why,  then,  can  we  not  withdraw  this  vexed 
question   from   politics?      Why   can   we   not 

2I9 


ffiltmomMt  American  M>ptttfyc$ 

adopt  the  principle  of  this  bill  as  a  rule  of 
action  in  all  new  territorial  organizations? 
Why  can  we  not  deprive  these  agitators  of 
their  vocation,  and  render  it  impossible  for 
senators  to  come  here  upon  bargains  on  the 
slavery  question?  I  believe  that  the  peace, 
the  harmony,  and  perpetuity  of  the  Union  re- 
quire us  to  go  back  to  the  doctrines  of  the 
Revolution,  to  the  principles  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, to  the  principles  of  the  compromise  of 
1850,  and  leave  the  people,  under  the  Consti- 
tution, to  do  as  they  may  see  proper  in  respect 
to  their  own  internal  affairs. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  not  brought  this 
question  forward  as  a  northern  man  or  as  a 
southern  man.  I  am  unwilling  to  recognize 
such  divisions  and  distinctions.  I  have  brought 
it  forward  as  an  American  senator,  representing 
a  state  which  is  true  to  this  principle,  and 
which  has  approved  of  my  action  in  respect  to 
the  Nebraska -bill.  I  have  brought  it  forward 
not  as  an  act  of  justice  to  the  South  more  than 
to  the  North.  I  have  presented  it  especially 
as  an  act  of  justice  to  the  people  of  those  terri- 
tories, and  of  the  states  to  be  formed  there- 
from, now  and  in  all  time  to  come.  I  have 
nothing  to  say  about  northern  rights  or  south- 
ern rights.  I  know  of  no  such  divisions  or  dis- 
tinctions under  the  Constitution.  The  bill  does 
equal  and  exact  justice  to  the  whole  Union,  and 
every  part  of  it;  it  violates  the  rights  of  no 
state  or  territory;  but  places  each  on  a  per- 
220 


&tt#fyzn  &rnofti  2DougIa£ 

feet  equality,  and  leaves  the  people  thereof  to 
the  free  enjoyment  of  all  their  rights  under 
the  Constitution. 

Now,  sir,  I  wish  to  say  to  our  southern 
friends,  that  if  they  desire  to  see  this  great 
principle  carried  out,  now  is  their  time  to  rally 
around  it,  to  cherish  it,  to  preserve  it,  make  it 
the  rule  of  action  in  all  future  time.  If  they 
fail  to  do  it  now,  and  thereby  allow  the  doctrine 
of  interference  to  prevail,  upon  their  heads 
the  consequences  of  that  interference  must 
rest.  To  our  northern  friends,  on  the  other 
hand,  I  desire  to  say,  that  from  this  day  hence- 
forward, they  must  rebuke  the  slander  which 
has  been  uttered  against  the  South,  that  they 
desire  to  legislate  slavery  into  the  territories. 
The  South  has  vindicated  her  sincerity,  her 
honor,  on  that  point,  by  bringing  forward  a  pro- 
vision negativing,  in  express  terms,  any  such 
effect  as  a  result  of  this  bill.  I  am  rejoiced  to 
know  that  while  the  proposition  to  abrogate  the 
eighth  section  of  the  Missouri  act  comes  from 
a  free  state,  the  proposition  to  negative  the 
conclusion  that  slavery  is  thereby  introduced 
comes  from  a  slave-holding  state.  Thus  both 
sides  furnish  conclusive  evidence  that  they  go 
for  the  principle,  and  the  principle  only,  and 
desire  to  take  no  advantage  of  any  possible 
misconstruction. 

Mr.  President,  I  feel  that  I  owe  an  apology 
to  the  Senate  for  having  occupied  their  atten- 
tion so  long,  and  a  still  greater  apology  for 


ffilzmoxaUz  American  £>#tc?bt$ 

having  discussed  the  question  in  such  an 
incoherent  and  desultory  manner.  But  I  could 
not  forbear  to  claim  the  right  of  closing  this 
debate.  I  thought  gentlemen  would  recog- 
nize its  propriety  when  they  saw  the  manner  in 
which  I  was  assailed  and  misrepresented  in  the 
course  of  this  discussion,  and  especially  by 
assaults  still  more  disreputable  in  some  por- 
tions of  the  country.  These  assaults  have  had 
no  other  effect  upon  me  than  to  give  me  cour- 
age and  energy  for  a  still  more  resolute  dis- 
charge of  duty.  I  say  frankly  that,  in  my  opin- 
ion, this  measure  will  be  as  popular  at  the  North 
as  at  the  South  when  its  provisions  and  prin- 
ciples shall  have  been  fully  developed  and 
become  well  understood.  The  people  at  the 
North  are  attached  to  the  principles  of  self- 
government;  and  you  cannot  convince  them 
that  that  is  self-government  which  deprives  a 
people  of  the  right  of  legislating  for  them- 
selves, and  compels  them  to  receive  laws  which 
are  forced  upon  them  by  a  legislature  in 
which  they  are  not  represented.  We  are  will- 
ing to  stand  upon  this  great  principle  of  self- 
government  everywhere ;  and  it  is  to  us  a 
proud  reflection  that,  in  this  whole  discussion, 
no  friend  of  the  bill  has  urged  an  argument  in 
its  favor  which  could  not  be  used  with  the 
same  propriety  in  a  free  state  as  in  a  slave 
state,  and  vice  versa.  No  enemy  of  the  bill 
has  used  an  argument  which  would  bear  repeti- 
tion one  mile  across  Mason  and  Dixon's  line. 


Our  opponents  have  dealt  entirely  in  sectional 
appeals.  The  friends  of  the  bill  have  dis- 
cussed a  great  principle  of  universal  appli- 
cation, which  can  be  sustained  by  the  same 
reasons  and  the  same  arguments  in  every  time 
and  in  every  corner  of  the  Union. 


223 


(1811-1874) 

THE    CRIME    AGAINST    KANSAS 
[Delivered  May  19  and  20,  1856,  in  the  Senate.] 


Mr.  President: 

YOU  are  now  called  to  redress  a  great 
transgression.  Seldom  in  the  history 
of  nations  has  such  a  question  been 
presented.  Tariffs,  army  bills,  navy  bills,  land 
bills,  are  important,  and  justly  occupy  your 
care  ;  but  these  all  belong  to  the  course  of 
ordinary  legislation.  As  means  and  instru- 
ments only,  they  are  necessarily  subordinate 
to  the  conservation  of  government  itself. 
Grant  them  or  deny  them,  in  greater  or  less 
degree,  and  you  will  inflict  no  shock.  The 
machinery  of  government  will  continue  to 
move.  The  state  will  not  cease  to  exist. 
Far  otherwise  is  it  with  the  eminent  question 
now  before  you,  involving,  as  it  does,  liberty 
in  a  broad  territory,  and  also  involving  the 
peace  of  the  whole  country,  with  our  good 
name  in  history  forevermore. 

Take  down  your  map,  sir,  and  you  will  find 

that  the  territory  of  Kansas,  more  than  any 

other   region,    occupies    the    middle   spot   of 

North     America,    equally    distant    from    the 

225 


j&emoraWe  American  g>pmfye$ 

Atlantic  on  the  east  and  the  Pacific  on  the 
west;  from  the  frozen  waters  of  Hudson's 
Bay  on  the  north  and  the  tepid  Gulf  Stream 
on  the  south,  constituting  the  precise  terri- 
torial center  of  the  vast  whole  continent.  To 
such  advantages  of  situation,  on  the  very  high- 
way between  two  oceans,  are  added  a  soil  of 
unsurpassed  richness,  and  a  fascinating,  undu- 
lating beauty  of  surface,  with  a  health-giving 
climate,  calculated  to  nurture  a  powerful  and 
generous  people,  worthy  to  be  a  central  pivot 
of  American  institutions.  A  few  short  months 
only  have  passed  since  this  spacious  mediter- 
ranean country  was  opened  only  to  the  savage, 
who  ran  wild  in  its  woods  and  prairies;  and 
now  it  has  already  drawn  to  its  bosom  a 
population  of  freemen  larger  than  Athens 
crowded  within  her  historic  gates,  when  her 
sons,  under  Miltiades,  won  liberty  for  man- 
kind on  the  field  of  Marathon;  more  than 
Sparta  contained  when  she  ruled  Greece, 
and  sent  forth  her  devoted  children,  quickened 
by  a  mother's  benediction,  to  return  with  their 
shields  or  on  them;  more  than  Rome  gathered 
on  her  seven  hills  when,  under  her  kings,  she 
commenced  that  sovereign  sway  which  after- 
wards embraced  the  whole  earth;  more  than 
London  held  when,  on  the  fields  of  Crecy  and 
Agincourt,  the  English  banner  was  carried 
victoriously  over  the  chivalrous  hosts  of 
France. 

Against    this    territory,    thus   fortunate   in 
226 


€()arie£  Sumner 


position  and  population,  a  crime  has  been 
committed,  which  is  without  example  in 
the  records  of  the  past.  Not  in  plundered 
provinces,  or  in  the  cruelties  of  selfish  gover- 
nors, will  you  find  its  parallel;  and  yet  there 
is  an  ancient  instance,  which  may  show,  at 
least,  the  path  of  justice.  In  the  terrible 
impeachment  by  which  the  great  Roman 
orator  has  blasted,  through  all  time,  the  name 
of  Verres,  amidst  charges  of  robbery  and 
sacrilege,  the  enormity  which  most  aroused  the 
indignant  voice  of  his  accuser,  and  which  still 
stands  forth  with  strongest  distinctness,  ar- 
resting the  sympathetic  indignation  of  all  who 
read  the  story,  is,  that,  away  in  Sicily,  he  had 
scourged  a  citizen  of  Rome, —  that  the  cry,  "I 
am  a  Roman  citizen,"  had  been  interposed  in 
vain  against  the  lash  of  the  tyrant  governor. 
Other  charges  were,  that  he  had  carried  away 
productions  of  art,  and  that  he  had  violated 
the  sacred  shrines.  It  was  in  the  presence  of 
the  Roman  senate  that  this  arraignment  pro- 
ceeded; in  a  temple  of  the  Forum;  amidst 
crowds,  such  as  no  orator  had  ever  before 
drawn  together,  thronging  the  porticoes  and 
colonnades,  even  clinging  to  the  housetops  and 
neighboring  slopes,  and  under  the  anxious 
gaze  of  witnesses  summoned  from  the  scene 
of  crime.  But  an  audience  grander  far,  of 
higher  dignity,  of  more  various  people  and 
of  wider  intelligence,  —  the  countless  multi- 
tude of  succeeding  generations,  in  every  land 
227 


jftemoraMe  American  £>#tttfyt$ 

where  eloquence  has  been  studied,  or  where 
the  Roman  name  has  been  recognized, — has 
listened  to  the  accusation,  and  throbbed  with 
condemnation  of  the  criminal.  Sir,  speaking 
in  an  age  of  light  and  in  a  land  of  constitu- 
tional liberty,  where  the  safeguards  of  elec- 
tions are  justly  placed  among  the  highest 
triumphs  of  civilization,  I  fearlessly  assert 
that  the  wrongs  of  much-abused  Sicily,  thus 
memorable  in  history,  were  small  by  the  side 
of  the  wrongs  of  Kansas,  where  the  very 
shrines  of  popular  institutions,  more  sacred 
than  any  heathen  altar,  have  been  desecrated; 
where  the  ballot-box,  more  precious  than  any 
work  in  ivory  or  marble  from  the  cunning 
hand  of  art,  has  been  plundered ;  and  where 
the  cry,  "I  am  an  American  citizen,"  has 
been  interposed  in  vain  against  outrage  of 
every  kind,  even  upon  life  itself.  Are  you 
against  sacrilege  ?  I  present  it  for  your  ex- 
ecration. Are  you  against  robbery?  I  hold 
it  up  for  your  scorn.  Are  you  for  the  pro- 
tection of  American  citizens  ?  I  show  you 
how  their  dearest  rights  have  been  cloven 
down,  while  a  tyrannical  usurpation  has  sought 
to  install  itself  on  their  very  necks ! 

But  the  wickedness  which  I  now  begin  to 
expose  is  immeasurably  aggravated  by  the  mo- 
tive which  prompted  it.  Not  in  any  common 
lust  for  power  did  this  uncommon  tragedy 
have  its  origin.  It  is  the  rape  of  a  virgin  ter- 
ritory, compelling  it  to  the  hateful  embrace  of 
228 


€f)arie£  Sumner 


slavery  ;  and  it  may  be  clearly  traced  to  a 
depraved  longing  for  a  new  slave  state,  the 
hideous  offspring  of  such  a  crime,  in  the  hope 
of  adding  to  the  power  of  slavery  in  the  na- 
tional government.  Yes,  sir,  when  the  whole 
world,  alike  Christian  and  Turk,  is  rising  up  to 
condemn  this  wrong,  and  to  make  it  a  hissing 
to  the  nations,  here  in  our  republic,  force  — 
ay,  sir,  force  —  has  been  openly  employed 
in  compelling  Kansas  to  this  pollution,  and  all 
for  the  sake  of  political  power.  There  is  the 
simple  fact,  which  you  will  vainly  attempt  to 
deny,  but  which  in  itself  presents  an  essential 
wickedness  that  makes  other  public  crimes 
seem  like  public  virtues. 

But  this  enormity,  vast  beyond  comparison, 
swells  to  dimensions  of  wickedness  which  the 
imagination  toils  in  vain  to  grasp,  when  it  is 
understood  that  for  this  purpose  are  hazarded 
the  horrors  of  intestine  feud,  not  only  in  this 
distant  territory,  but  everywhere  throughout 
the  country.  Already  the  muster  has  begun. 
The  strife  is  no  longer  local,  but  national. 
Even  now,  while  I  speak,  portents  hang  on  all 
the  arches  of  the  horizon,  threatening  to  darken 
the  broad  land,  which  already  yawns  with  the 
mutterings  of  civil  war.  The  fury  of  the 
propagandists  of  slavery,  and  the  calm  deter- 
mination of  their  opponents,  are  now  diffused 
from  the  distant  territory  over  widespread 
communities,  and  the  whole  country,  in  all 
its  extent,  marshaling  hostile  divisions,  and 
229 


Jttemotafcie  American  £peecf)e£ 

foreshadowing  a  strife  which,  unless  happily 
averted  by  the  triumph  of  freedom,  will  be- 
come war,  —  fratricidal,  parricidal  war,  —  with 
an  accumulated  wickedness  beyond  the  wick- 
edness of  any  war  in  human  annals;  justly 
provoking  the  avenging  judgment  of  Provi- 
dence and  the  avenging  pen  of  history,  and 
constituting  a  strife,  in  the  language  of  the 
ancient  writer,  more  than  foreign,  more  than 
social,  more  than  civil;  but  something  com- 
pounded of  all  these  strifes,  and  in  itself  more 
than  war, — sed  potius  commune  quoddam  ex 
omnibus,  et  plusquam  bellum. 

Such  is  the  crime  which  you  are  to  judge. 
But  the  criminal  also  must  be  dragged  into  day, 
that  you  may  see  and  measure  the  power  by 
which  all  this  wrong  is  sustained.  From  no 
common  source  could  it  proceed.  In  its  per- 
petration was  needed  a  spirit  of  vaulting  am- 
bition which  would  hesitate  at  nothing;  a 
hardihood  of  purpose  which  was  insensible  to 
the  judgment  of  mankind ;  a  madness  for 
slavery,  which  should  disregard  the  Constitu- 
tion, the  laws,  and  all  the  great  examples  of 
our  history ;  also  a  consciousness  of  power 
such  as  comes  from  the  habit  of  power;  a 
combination  of  energies  found  only  in  a  hun- 
dred arms  directed  by  a  hundred  eyes;  a 
control  of  public  opinion,  through  venal  pens 
and  a  prostituted  press;  an  ability  to  subsidize 
crowds  in  every  vocation  of  life, —  the  politi- 
cian with  his  local  importance,  the  lawyer  with 
230 


€&arie£  Sumner 


his  subtle  tongue,  and  even  the  authority  of 
the  judge  on  the  bench;  and  a  familiar  use  of 
men  in  places  high  and  low,  so  that  none,  from 
the  President  to  the  lowest  border  postmaster, 
should  decline  to  be  its  tool; — all  these  things 
and  more  were  needed;  and  they  were  found 
in  the  slave  power  of  our  republic.  There, 
sir,  stands  the  criminal,  —  all  unmasked  before 
you, — heartless,  grasping,  and  tyrannical, 
with  an  audacity  beyond  that  of  Verres,  a 
subtlety  beyond  that  of  Machiavel,  a  meanness 
beyond  that  of  Bacon,  and  an  ability  beyond 
that  of  Hastings.  Justice  to  Kansas  can  be 
secured  only  by  the  prostration  of  this  influ- 
ence; for  this  is  the  power  behind — greater 
than  any  President  —  which  succors  and  sus- 
tains the  crime.  Nay,  the  proceedings  I  now 
arraign  derive  their  fearful  consequence  only 
from  this  connection. 

In  now  opening  this  great  matter,  I  am  not 
insensible  to  the  austere  demands  of  the  occa- 
sion; but  the  dependence  of  the  crime  against 
Kansas  upon  the  slave  power  is  so  peculiar 
and  important,  that  I  trust  to  be  pardoned 
while  I  impress  it  by  an  illustration  which  to 
some  may  seem  trivial.  It  is  related  in  north- 
ern mythology,  that  the  god  of  force,  visiting 
an  enchanted  region,  was  challenged  by  his 
royal  entertainer  to  what  seemed  a  humble  feat 
of  strength, —  merely,  sir,  to  lift  a  cat  from  the 
ground.  The  god  smiled  at  the  challenge,  and, 
calmly  placing  his  hand  under  the  belly  of 
231 


Memorable  American  £>ptttfyt$ 

the  animal,  with  superhuman  strength,  strove, 
while  the  back  of  the  feline  monster  arched 
far  upwards,  even  beyond  reach,  and  one  paw 
actually  forsook  the  earth,  until  at  last  the 
discomfited  divinity  desisted ;  but  he  was  little 
surprised  at  his  defeat  when  he  learned  that  this 
creature,  which  seemed  to  be  a  cat,  and  nothing 
more,  was  not  merely  a  cat,  but  that  it  belonged 
to  and  was  a  part  of  the  great  Terrestrial 
Serpent  which,  in  its  innumerable  folds,  encir- 
cled the  whole  globe.  Even  so  the  creature 
whose  paws  are  now  fastened  upon  Kansas, 
whatever  it  may  seem  to  be,  constitutes  in 
reality  a  part  of  the  slave  power  which,  with 
loathsome  folds,  is  now  coiled  about  the  whole 
land.  Thus  do  I  expose  the  extent  of  the  pres- 
ent contest,  where  we  encounter  not  merely 
local  resistance,  but  also  the  unconquered  sus- 
taining arm  behind.  But  out  of  the  vastness 
of  the  crime  attempted,  with  all  its  woe  and 
shame,  I  derive  a  well-founded  assurance  of  a 
commensurate  vastness  of  effort  against  it, 
by  the  aroused  masses  of  the  country,  deter- 
mined not  only  to  vindicate  right  against 
wrong,  but  to  redeem  the  republic  from  the 
thraldom  of  that  oligarchy  which  prompts, 
directs,  and  concentrates  the  distant  wrong. 

Such  is  the  crime,  and  such  the  criminal, 
which  it  is  my  duty  in  this  debate  to  expose; 
and,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  this  duty  shall  be 
done  completely  to  the  end. 


232 


€fyat\z$  Sumner 


It  belongs  to  me,  in  the  first  place,  to  expose 
the  crime  against  Kansas,  in  its  origin  and 
extent.  Logically,  this  is  the  beginning  of 
the  argument.  I  say  crime,  and  deliberately 
adopt  this  strongest  term,  as  better  than  any 
other  denoting  the  consummate  transgression. 
I  would  go  further  if  language  could  further 
go.  It  is  the  crime  of  crimes,  surpassing  far 
the  old  crimen  majestatis,  pursued  with  ven- 
geance by  the  laws  of  Rome,  and  containing 
all  other  crimes,  as  the  greater  contains  the 
less.  I  do  not  go  too  far  when  I  call  it  the 
crime  against  nature,  from  which  the  soul 
recoils,  and  which  language  refuses  to  de- 
scribe. To  lay  bare  this  enormity,  I  now  pro- 
ceed. The  whole  subject  has  already  become 
a  twice-told  tale,  and  its  renewed  recital  will 
be  a  renewal  of  its  sorrow  and  shame;  but 
I  shall  not  hesitate  to  enter  upon  it.  The 
occasion  requires  it  from  the  beginning. 

It  has  been  well  remarked  by  a  distin- 
guished historian  of  our  country,  that  at  the 
Ithuriel  touch  of  the  Missouri  discussion  the 
slave  interest,  hitherto  harldy  recognized  as  a 
distinct  element  in  our  system,  started  up  por- 
tentous and  dilated,  with  threats  and  assump- 
tions, which  are  the  origin  of  our  existing 
national  politics.  This  was  in  1820.  The 
discussion  ended  with  the  admission  of 
Missouri  as  a  slave-holding  state,  and  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  in  all  the  remaining 
territory  west  of  the  Mississippi,  and  north 
233 


jltcmoraWe  American  s&peecJjeg 

of  3 6°  30',  leaving  the  condition  of  other 
territory  south  of  this  line,  or  subsequently 
acquired,  untouched  by  the  arrangement. 
Here  was  a  solemn  act  of  legislation,  called  at 
the  time  a  compromise,  a  covenant,  a  compact, 
first  brought  forward  in  this  body  by  a  slave- 
holder, vindicated  by  slave-holders  in  debate, 
finally  sanctioned  by  slave-holding  votes,  also 
upheld  at  the  time  by  the  essential  approba- 
tion of  a  slave-holding  President,  James  Mon- 
roe, and  his  Cabinet,  of  whom  a  majority 
were  slave-holders,  including  Mr.  Calhoun 
himself;  and  this  compromise  was  made  the 
condition  of  the  admission  of  Missouri,  with- 
out which  that  state  could  not  have  been 
received  into  the  Union.  The  bargain  was 
simple,  and  was  applicable,  of  course,  only  to 
the  territory  named.  Leaving  all  other  terri- 
tory to  await  the  judgment  of  another  genera- 
tion, the  South  said  to  the  North,  conquer 
your  prejudices  so  far  as  to  admit  Missouri 
as  a  slave  state,  and,  in  consideration  of  this 
much  coveted  boon,  slavery  shall  be  prohib- 
ited forever  in  all  the  remaining  Louisiana 
territory  above  360  30';  and  the  North 
yielded. 

In  total  disregard  of  history,  the  President, 
in  his  annual  message,  has  told  us  that  this 
compromise  "was  reluctantly  acquiesced  in  by 
the  southern  States."  Just  the  contrary  is 
true.  It  was  the  work  of  slave-holders,  and 
was  crowded  by  their  concurring  votes  upon  a 
234 


€&ade£  Sumner . 


reluctant  North.  At  the  time  it  was  hailed 
by  slave-holders  as  a  victory.  Charles  Pinck- 
ney  of  South  Carolina,  in  an  oft-quoted 
letter,  written  at  three  o'clock  on  the  night  of 
its  passage,  says,  "  It  is  considered  here  by  the 
slave-holding  states  as  a  great  triumph."  At 
the  North  it  was  accepted  as  a  defeat,  and  the 
friends  of  freedom  everywhere  throughout  the 
country  bowed  their  heads  with  mortification. 
But  little  did  they  know  the  completeness  of 
their  disaster.  Little  did  they  dream  that  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  in  the  territory,  which 
was  stipulated  as  the  price  of  their  fatal  capit- 
ulation, would  also  at  the  very  moment  of  its 
maturity  be  wrested  from  them. 

Time  passed,  and  it  became  necessary  to 
provide  for  this  territory  an  organized  govern- 
ment. Suddenly,  without  notice  in  the  public 
press  or  the  prayer  of  a  single  petition,  or  one 
word  of  open  recommendation  from  the  Pres- 
ident; after  an  acquiescence  of  thirty- three 
years,  and  the  irreclaimable  possession  by  the 
South  of  its  special  share  under  this  compro- 
mise ;  in  violation  of  every  obligation  of  honor, 
compact,  and  good  neighborhood;  and  in  con- 
temptuous disregard  of  the  out-gushing  senti- 
ments of  an  aroused  North, — this  time-honored 
prohibition,  in  itself  a  landmark  of  freedom, 
was  overturned,  and  the  vast  region  now  known 
as  Kansas  and  Nebraska  was  opened  to  slav- 
ery. It  was  natural  that  a  measure  thus 
repugnant  in  character  should  be  pressed  by 
235 


jftemorafcle  American  J&#zztfyt$ 

arguments  mutually  repugnant.  It  was  urged 
on  two  principal  reasons,  so  opposite  and 
inconsistent  as  to  slap  each  other  in  the  face; 
one  being  that,  by  the  repeal  of  the  prohibition, 
the  territory  would  be  left  open  to  the  entry 
of  slave-holders  with  their  slaves,  without  hin- 
drance; and  the  other  being,  that  the  people 
would  be  left  absolutely  free  to  determine  the 
question  for  themselves,  and  to  prohibit  the 
entry  of  slave-holders  with  their  slaves,  if  they 
should  think  best.  With  some,  the  apology 
was  the  alleged  rights  of  slave-holders;  with 
others,  it  was  the  alleged  rights  of  the  people. 
With  some,  it  was  openly  the  extension  of 
slavery;  and  with  others,  it  was  openly  the 
establishment  of  freedom,  under  the  guise  of 
popular  sovereignty.  Of  course  the  measure, 
thus  upheld  in  defiance  of  reason,  was  carried 
through  Congress  in  defiance  of  all  the  securi- 
ties of  legislation;  and  I  mention  these  things 
that  you  may  see  in  what  foulness  the  present 
crime  was  engendered. 

It  was  carried,  first,  by  whipping  in  to  its 
support,  through  executive  influence  and  pa- 
tronage, men  who  acted  against  their  own 
declared  judgment,  and  the  known  will  of 
their  constituents;  secondly,  by  foisting  out  of 
place,  both  in  the  Senate  and  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, important  business,  long  pending, 
and  usurping  its  room;  thirdly,  by  trampling 
under  foot  the  rules  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, always  before  the  safeguard  of  the 
236 


€fjarle£  Sumner 


minority;  and  fourthly,  by  driving  it  to  a 
close  during  the  very  session  in  which  it  origi- 
nated, so  that  it  might  not  be  arrested  by  the 
indignant  voice  of  the  people.  Such  are  some 
of  the  means  by  which  this  snap  judgment  was 
obtained.  If  the  clear  will  of  the  people  had 
not  been  disregarded  it  could  not  have  passed. 
If  the  government  had  not  nefariously  inter- 
posed its  influence  it  could  not  have  passed. 
If  it  had  been  left  to  its  natural  place  in  the 
order  of  business  it  could  not  have  passed.  If 
the  rules  of  the  House  and  the  rights  of  the 
minority  had  not  been  violated  it  could  not 
have  passed.  If  it  had  been  allowed  to  go 
over  to  another  Congress,  when  the  people 
might  be  heard,  it  would  have  been  ended;  and 
then  the  crime  we  now  deplore  would  have 
been  without  its  first  seminal  life. 

Mr.  President,  I  mean  to  keep  absolutely 
within  the  limits  of  parliamentary  propriety. 
I  make  no  personal  imputations;  but  only  with 
frankness,  such  as  belongs  to  the  occasion  and 
my  own  character,  describe  a  great  historical 
act,  which  is  now  enrolled  in  the  capitol.  Sir, 
the  Nebraska  bill  was  in  every  respect  a  swin- 
dle. It  was  a  swindle  by  the  South  of  the 
North.  It  was,  on  the  part  of  those  who  had 
already  completely  enjoyed  their  share  of  the 
Missouri  Compromise,  a  swindle  of  those 
whose  share  was  yet  absolutely  untouched;  and 
the  plea  of  unconstitutionality  set  up,  like  the 
plea  of  usury  after  the  borrowed  money  has 
237 


jftemoraMe  American  M>$zctfyc$ 

been  enjoyed,  did  not  make  it  less  a  swindle. 
Urged  as  a  bill  of  peace,  it  was  a  swindle  of 
the  whole  country.  Urged  as  opening  the 
doors  to  slave-masters  with  their  slaves,  it  was 
a  swindle  of  the  asserted  doctrine  of  popular 
sovereignty.  Urged  as  sanctioning  popular 
sovereignty,  it  was  a  swindle  of  the  asserted 
rights  of  slave-masters.  It  was  a  swindle  of 
a  broad  territory,  thus  cheated  of  protection 
against  slavery.  It  was  a  swindle  of  a  great 
cause,  early  espoused  by  Washington,  Franklin, 
and  Jefferson,  surrounded  by  the  best  fathers 
of  the  republic.  Sir,  it  was  a  swindle  of 
God-given  inalienable  rights.  Turn  it  over, 
look  at  it  on  all  sides,  and  it  is  everywhere  a 
swindle;  and  if  the  word  I  now  employ  has 
not  the  authority  of  classical  usage,  it  has,  on 
this  occasion,  the  indubitable  authority  of  fit- 
ness. No  other  word  will  adequately  express 
the  mingled  meanness  and  wickedness  of  the 
cheat. 

Its  character  was  still  further  apparent  in 
the  general  structure  of  the  bill.  Amidst 
overflowing  professions  of  regard  for  the 
sovereignty  of  the  people  in  the  territory, 
they  were  despoiled  of  every  essential  privilege 
of  sovereignty.  They  were  not  allowed  to 
choose  their  governor,  secretary,  chief  justice, 
associate  justices,  attorney,  or  marshal,  —  all 
of  whom  are  sent  from  Washington;  nor  were 
they  allowed  to  regulate  the  salaries  of  any 
of  these  functionaries,  or  the  daily  allowance 
238 


€J>arle£  Sumner 


of  the  legislative  body,  or  even  the  pay  of 
the  clerks  and  doorkeepers;  but  they  were 
left  free  to  adopt  slavery.  And  this  was 
called  popular  sovereignty!  Time  does  not 
allow,  nor  does  the  occasion  require,  that 
I  should  stop  to  dwell  on  this  transparent 
device  to  cover  a  transcendent  wrong.  Suf- 
fice it  to  say,  that  slavery  is  in  itself  an  arn> 
gant  denial  of  human  rights,  and  by  no 
human  reason  can  the  power  to  establish  such 
a  wrong  be  placed  among  the  attributes  of 
any  just  sovereignty.  In  refusing  it  such  a 
place,  I  do  not  deny  popular  rights,  but  uphold 
them;  I  do  not  restrain  popular  rights,  but 
extend  them.  And,  sir,  to  this  conclusion  you 
must  yet  come,  unless  deaf,  not  only  to  the 
admonitions  of  political  justice,  but  also  to 
the  genius  of  our  own  Constitution,  under 
which,  when  properly  interpreted,  no  valid 
claim  for  slavery  can  be  set  up  anywhere 
in  the  national  territory.  The  senator  from 
Michigan  [Mr.  Cass]  may  say,  in  response 
to  the  senator  from  Mississippi  [Mr.  Brown], 
that  slavery  cannot  go  into  the  territory, 
under  the  Constitution,  without  legislative 
introduction;  and  permit  me  to  add,  in 
response  to  both,  that  slavery  cannot  go 
there  at  all.  Nothing  ca?i  come  out  of  noth- 
ing; and  there  is  absolutely  nothing  in  the 
Constitution  out  of  which  slavery  can  be  de- 
rived, while  there  are  provisions  which,  when 
properly  interpreted,  make  its  existence  any- 

239 


JftemoraWe  American  Jbpzztfytg 

where  within  the  exclusive  national  jurisdic- 
tion impossible. 

The  offensive  provision  in  the  bill  was  in 
its  form  a  legislative  anomaly,  utterly  wanting 
the  natural  directness  and  simplicity  of  an 
honest  transaction.  It  did  not  undertake 
openly  to  repeal  the  old  prohibition  of 
slavery,  but  seemed  to  mince  the  matter,  as 
if  conscious  of  the  swindle.  It  is  said  that 
this  prohibition,  "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." 
Thus,  with  insidious  ostentation,  was  it  pre- 
tended that  an  act  violating  the  greatest  com- 
promise of  our  legislative  history,  and  setting 
loose  the  foundations  of  all  compromise, 
was  derived  out  of  a  compromise.  Then 
followed  in  the  bill  the  further  declaration, 
which  is  entirely  without  precedent,  and 
which  has  been  aptly  called  "a  stump  speech 
in  its  belly,"  namely,  "it  being  the  true  intent 
and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to  legislate  slavery 
into  any  territory  or  state,  nor  to  exclude  it 
therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  per- 
fectly free  to  form  and  regulate  their  domestic 
institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."  Here 
were  smooth  words,  such  as  belong  to  a  cun- 
ning tongue,  enlisted  in  a  bad  cause.  But, 
240 


CJjarleg  Sumner 


whatever  may  have  been  their  various  hidden 
meanings,  this  at  least  was  evident,  that,  by 
their  effect  the  congressional  prohibition  of 
slavery,  which  had  always  been  regarded  as  a 
sevenfold  shield  covering  the  whole  Louisiana 
territory  north  of  360  30',  was  now  removed, 
while  a  principle  was  declared  which  would 
render  the  supplementary  prohibition  of  slavery 
in  Minnesota,  Oregon,  and  Washington,  "inop- 
erative and  void,"  and  thus  open  to  slavery  all 
these  vast  regions,  now  the  rude  cradles  of 
mighty  states.  Here  you  see  the  magnitude 
of  the  mischief  contemplated.  But  my  pur- 
pose now  is  with  the  crime  against  Kansas,  and 
I  shall  not  stop  to  expose  the  conspiracy 
beyond. 

Mr.  President,  men  are  wisely  presumed  to 
intend  the  natural  consequences  of  their  con- 
duct, and  to  seek  what  their  acts  seem  to 
promote.  Now,  the  Nebraska  Bill,  on  its  very 
face,  openly  cleared  the  way  for  slavery,  and 
it  is  not  wrong  to  presume  that  its  origi- 
nators intended  the  natural  consequences  of 
such  an  act,  and  sought  in  this  way  to  extend 
slavery.  Of  course  they  did.  And  this  is 
the  first  stage  in  the  crime  against  Kansas. 
But  this  was  speedily  followed  by  other  devel- 
opments. The  barefaced  scheme  was  soon 
whispered,  that  Kansas  must  be  a  slave  state. 
In  conformity  wkh  this  idea  was  the  govern- 
ment of  this  unhappy  territory  organized  in 
all  its  departments;  and  thus  did  the  President, 
241 


Memorable  American  £>peufyt$ 

by  whose  complicity  the  prohibition  of  slavery 
had  been  overthrown,  lend  himself  to  a  new 
complicity,  giving  to  the  conspirators  a  lease 
of  connivance  amounting  even  to  copartner- 
ship. The  governor,  secretary,  chief  justice, 
associate  justices,  attorney,  and  marshal,  with 
a  whole  caucus  of  other  stipendiaries,  nomi- 
nated by  the  President  and  confirmed  by  the 
Senate,  were  all  commended  as  friendly  to 
slavery.  No  man  with  the  sentiments  of 
Washington  or  Jefferson  or  Franklin  found  any 
favor;  nor  is  it  too  much  to  say  that,  had  these 
great  patriots  once  more  come  among  us,  not 
one  of  them,  with  his  recorded,  unretracted 
opinions  on  slavery,  could  have  been  nominated 
by  the  President  or  confirmed  by  the  Senate 
for  any  post  in  that  territory.  With  such 
auspices  the  conspiracy  proceeded.  Even  in 
advance  of  the  Nebraska  bill  secret  societies 
were  organized  in  Missouri,  ostensibly  to  pro- 
tect her  institutions;  and  afterwards,  under  the 
name  of  "Self-Defensive  Associations,"  and 
of  "Blue  Lodges,"  these  were  multiplied 
throughout  the  western  counties  of  that  state, 
before  any  counter-movement  from  the  North. 
It  was  confidently  anticipated  that,  by  the  ac- 
tivity of  these  societies,  and  the  interest  of 
slaveholders  everywhere,  with  the  advantage 
derived  from  the  neighborhood  of  Missouri,  and 
the  influence  of  territorial  government,  slavery 
might  be  introduced  into  Kansas,  quietly  but 
surely,  without  arousing  a  conflict;  that  the 
242 


£fyeitU$  Sumner 


crocodile  egg  might  be  stealthily  dropped  in 
the  sunburnt  soil,  there  to  be  hatched  unob- 
served until  it  sent  forth  its  reptile  monster. 

But  the  conspiracy  was  unexpectedly  balked. 
The  debate,  which  convulsed  Congress,  had 
stirred  the  whole  country.  Attention  from  all 
sides  was  directed  upon  Kansas,  which  at  once 
became  the  favorite  goal  of  emigration.  The 
bill  had  loudly  declared  that  its  object  was 
"to  leave  the  people  perfectly  free  to  form 
and  regulate  their  domestic  institution  in  their 
own  way";  and  its  supporters  everywhere 
challenged  the  determination  of  the  question 
between  freedom  and  slavery  by  a  competition 
of  emigration.  Thus,  while  opening  the  ter- 
ritory to  slavery,  the  bill  also  opened  it  to 
emigrants  from  every  quarter,  who  might  by 
their  votes  redress  the  wrong.  The  populous 
North,  stung  by  a  sharp  sense  of  outrage,  and 
inspired  by  a  noble  cause,  poured  into  the 
debatable  land,  and  promised  soon  to  establish 
a  supremacy  of  numbers  there,  involving,  of 
course,  a  just  supremacy  of  freedom.  Then 
was  conceived  the  consummation  of  the  crime 
against  Kansas.  What  could  not  be  accom- 
plished peaceably  was  to  be  accomplished  forci- 
bly. The  reptile  monster  that  could  not  be 
quietly  and  securely  hatched  there  was  to  be 
pushed  full-grown  into  the  territory.  All 
efforts  were  now  given  to  the  dismal  work  of 
forcing  slavery  on  free  soil.  In  flagrant  dero- 
gation of  the  very  popular  sovereignty  whose 
243 


jftemoraMe  American  g>#ztt\)z$ 

name  helped  to  impose  this  bill  upon  the 
country,  the  atrocious  object  was  now  dis- 
tinctly avowed.  And  the  avowal  has  been 
followed  by  the  act.  Slavery  has  been  forci- 
bly introduced  into  Kansas,  and  placed  under 
the  formal  safeguards  of  pretended  law. 
How  this  was  done  belongs  to  the  argument. 
In  depicting  this  consummation,  the  simplest 
outline,  without  one  word  of  color,  will  be 
best.  Whether  regarded  in  its  mass  or  its 
details,  in  its  origin  or  its  result,  it  is  all 
blackness,  illumined  by  nothing  from  itself, 
but  only  by  the  heroism  of  the  undaunted 
men  and  women  whom  it  environed.  A  plain 
statement  of  facts  will  be  a  picture  of  fearful 
truth,  which  faithful  history  will  preserve  in 
its  darkest  gallery.  In  the  foreground  all 
will  recognize  a  familiar  character,  in  himself 
a  connecting  link  between  the  President  and 
the  border  ruffian, — less  conspicuous  for  ability 
than  for  the  exalted  place  he  has  occupied, — 
who  once  sat  in  the  seat  where  you  now  sit,  sir; 
where  once  sat  John  Adams  and  Thomas 
Jefferson;  also,  where  once  sat  Aaron  Burr. 
I  need  not  add  the  name  of  David  R.  Atchison. 
You  have  not  forgotten  that,  at  the  ses- 
sion of  Congress  immediately  succeeding  the 
Nebraska  bill,  he  came  tardily  to  his  duty 
here,  and  then,  after  a  short  time,  disappeared. 
The  secret  has  been  long  since  disclosed. 
Like  Catiline,  he  stalked  into  this  chamber, 
reeking  with  conspiracy,  immo  in  Senatum 
244 


Cj)ade£  Sumner 


venit — and  then,  like  Catiline,  he  skulked  away, 
— abiit,  excessit,  evasit,  crupit, — to  join  and 
provoke  the  conspirators,  who  at  a  distance 
awaited  their  congenial  chief.  Under  the 
influence  of  his  malign  presence  the  crime 
ripened  to  its  fatal  fruits,  while  the  similitude 
with  Catiline  was  again  renewed  in  the  sympa- 
thy, not  even  concealed,  which  he  found  in  the 
very  Senate  itself,  where,  beyond  even  the 
Roman  example,  a  senator  has  not  hesitated 
to  appear  as  his  open  compurgator. 

And  now,  as  I  proceed  to  show  the  way  in 
which  this  territory  was  overrun  and  finally 
subjugated  to  slavery,  I  desire  to  remove  in 
advance  all  question  with  regard  to  the  author- 
ity on  which  I  rely.  The  evidence  is  second- 
ary; but  it  is  the  best  which,  in  the  nature  of 
the  case,  can  be  had,  and  it  is  not  less  clear, 
direct,  and  peremptory  than  any  by  which  we 
are  assured  of  the  campaigns  in  the  Crimea 
or  the  fall  of  Sevastopol.  In  its  manifold 
mass,  I  confidently  assert  that  it  is  such  a  body 
of  evidence  as  the  human  mind  is  not  able  to 
resist.  It  is  found  in  the  concurring  reports 
of  the  public  press;  in  the  letters  of  corre- 
spondents; in  the  testimony  of  travelers;  and 
in  the  unaffected  story  to  which  I  have  listened 
from  leading  citizens,  who,  during  this  winter, 
have  "come  flocking"  here  from  that  distant 
territory.  It  breaks  forth  in  the  irrepressible 
outcry  reaching  us  from  Kansas,  in  truthful 
tones,  which  leave  no  ground  of  mistake.  It 
245 


^emorafcie  American  £>$cctfyt$ 

addresses  us  in  formal  complaints,  instinct  with 
the  indignation  of  a  people  determined  to  be 
free,  and  unimpeachable  as  the  declarations  of 
a  murdered  man  on  his  dying  bed  against  his 
murderer.  And  let  me  add,  that  all  this  testi- 
mony finds  an  echo  in  the  very  statute  book  of 
the  conspirators,  and  also  in  language  dropped 
from  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

I  begin  with  an  admission  from  the  Presi- 
dent himself,  in  whose  sight  the  people  of 
Kansas  have  little  favor.  And  yet,  after 
arraigning  the  innocent  emigrants  from  the 
North,  he  was  constrained  to  declare  that  their 
conduct  was  "far  from  justifying  the  illegal 
and  reprehensible  counter-movement  which 
ensued."  Then,  by  the  reluctant  admission  of 
the  chief  magistrate,  there  was  a  counter- 
movement,  at  once  illegal  and  reprehensible. 
I  thank  thee,  President,  for  teaching  me  these 
words;  and  I  now  put  them  in  the  front  of  this 
exposition,  as  in  themselves  a  confession.  Sir, 
this  "illegal  and  reprehensible  counter-move- 
ment" is  none  other  than  the  dreadful  crime — 
under  an  apologetic  alias  —  by  which,  through 
successive  invasions,  slavery  has  been  forcibly 
planted  in  this  territory. 

Next  to  this  Presidential  admission  must  be 
placed  the  details  of  the  invasions  which  I  now 
present  as  not  only  "  illegal  and  reprehensible," 
but  also  unquestionable  evidence  of  the  result- 
ing crime. 

The  violence,  for  some  time  threatened, 
246 


£fyat\t$  Sumner 


broke  forth  on  the  29th  November,  1854,  at 
the  first  election  of  a  delegate  to  Congress, 
when  companies  from  Missouri,  amounting  to 
upwards  of  one  thousand,  crossed  into  Kansas, 
and,  with  force  and  arms,  proceeded  to  vote 
for  Mr.  Whitfield,  the  candidate  of  slavery. 
An  eye-witness,  General  Pomeroy,  of  superior 
intelligence  and  perfect  integrity,  thus  describes 
this  scene : 

"  The  first  ballot-box  that  was  opened  upon  our 
virgin  soil  was  closed  to  us  by  overpowering  numbers 
and  impending  force.  So  bold  and  reckless  were 
our  invaders,  that  they  cared  not  to  conceal  their 
attack.  They  came  upon  us,  not  in  the  guise  of  voters, 
to  steal  away  our  franchise,  but  boldly  and  openly, 
to  snatch  it  with  a  strong  hand.  They  came  directly 
from  their  own  homes,  and  in  compact  and  organized 
bands,  with  arms  in  hand,  and  provisions  for  the 
expedition,  marched  to  our  polls,  and  when  their 
work  was  done,  returned  whence  they  came." 

Here  was  an  outrage  at  which  the  coolest 
blood  of  patriotism  boils.  Though,  for  vari- 
ous reasons  unnecessary  to  develop,  the  busy 
settlers  allowed  the  election  to  pass  uncon- 
tested, still  the  means  employed  were  none  the 
less  "illegal  and  reprehensible." 

This  infliction  was  a  significant  prelude  to 
the  grand  invasion  of  the  30th  March,  1855, 
at  the  election  of  the  first  territorial  legis- 
lature under  the  organic  law,  when  an  armed 
multitude  from  Missouri  entered  the  territory, 
in  larger  numbers  than  General  Taylor  com- 
manded at  Buena  Vista,  or  than  General  Jack- 
247 


jftemorafcle  American  M>#zttfyc$ 

son  had  within  his  lines  at  New  Orleans;  larger 
far  than  our  fathers  rallied  on  Bunker  Hill. 
On  they  came,  as  an  "army  with  banners," 
organized  in  companies,  with  officers,  muni- 
tions, tents,  and  provisions,  as  though  marching 
upon  a  foreign  foe,  and  breathing  loud- 
mouthed threats  that  they  would  carry  their 
purpose,  if  need  be,-  by  the  bowie-knife  and 
revolver.  Among  them,  according  to  his  own 
confession,  was  David  R.  Atchison,  belted 
with  the  vulgar  arms  of  his  vulgar  comrades. 
Arrived  at  their  several  destinations  on  the 
night  before  the  election,  the  invaders  pitched 
their  tents,  placed  their  sentries,  and  waited 
for  the  coming  day.  The  same  trustworthy 
eye-witness  whom  I  have  already  quoted  says 
of  one  locality : 

"Baggage-wagons  were  there,  with  arms  and  am- 
munition enough  for  a  protracted  fight,  and  among 
them  two  brass  field-pieces,  ready  charged.  They 
came  with  drums  beating  and  flags  flying,  and  their 
leaders  were  of  the  most  prominent  and  conspicuous 
men  of  their  state." 

Of  another  locality  he  says: 

"The  invaders  came  together  in  one  armed  and 
organized  body,  with  trains  of  fifty  wagons,  besides 
horsemen,  and  the  night  before  election  pitched 
their  camp  in  the  vicinity  of  the  polls;  and  having 
appointed  their  own  judges  in  place  of  those  who, 
from  intimidation  or  otherwise,  failed  to  attend,  they 
voted  without  any  proof  of  residence." 

With  force  they  were  able,  on  the  succeed- 
ing  day,  in   some    places,   to    intimidate   the 
248 


Cjjarle^  Sumner 


judges  of  elections;  in  others,  to  substitute 
judges  of  their  own  appointment;  in  others, 
to  wrest  the  ballot-boxes  from  their  rightful 
possessors,  and  everywhere  to  exercise  a  com- 
plete control  of  the  election,  and  thus,  by  a 
preternatural  audacity  of  usurpation,  impose 
a  legislature  upon  the  free  people  of  Kansas. 
Thus  was  conquered  the  Sevastopol  of  that 
territory!  But  it  was  not  enough  to  se- 
cure the  legislature.  The  election  of  a 
member  of  Congress  recurred  on  the  2d 
October,  1855,  and  the  same  foreigners,  who 
had  learned  their  strength,  again  manifested 
it.  Another  invasion,  in  controlling  num- 
bers, came  from  Missouri,  and  once  more 
forcibly  exercised  the  electoral  franchise  in 
Kansas. 

At  last,  in  the  latter  days  of  November,  1855, 
a  storm,  long  brewing,  burst  upon  the  heads 
of  the  devoted  people.  The  ballot-boxes  had 
been  violated,  and  a  legislature  installed  which 
had  proceeded  to  cany  out  the  conspiracy 
of  the  invaders;  but  the  good  people  of  the 
territory,  born  to  freedom  and  educated  as 
American  citizens,  showed  no  signs  of  sub- 
mission. Slavery,  though  recognized  by  pre- 
tended law,  was  in  many  places  practically  an 
outlaw.  To  the  lawless  borderers  this  was 
hard  to  bear  ;  and,  like  the  heathen  of  old,  they 
raged,  particularly  against  the  town  of  Law- 
rence, already  known,  by  the  firmness  of  its 
principles  and  the  character  of  its  citizens,  as 
249 


0ltmotaftU  American  M>$zetfyz$ 

the  citadel  of  the  good  cause.  On  this  account 
they  threatened,  in  their  peculiar  language,  to 
"wipe  it  out."  Soon  the  hostile  power  was 
gathered  for  this  purpose.  The  wickedness 
of  this  invasion  was  enhanced  by  the  way  in 
which  it  began.  A  citizen  of  Kansas,  by  the 
name  of  Dow,  was  murdered  by  one  of  the 
partisans  of  slavery,  under  the  name  of  "law 
and  order."  Such  an  outrage  naturally  aroused 
indignation  and  provoked  threats.  The  pro- 
fessors of  "law  and  order"  allowed  the  mur- 
derer to  escape ;  and,  still  further  to  illustrate 
the  irony  of  the  name  they  assumed,  seized  the 
friend  of  the  murdered  man,  whose  few  neigh- 
bors soon  rallied  for  his  rescue.  This  trans- 
action, though  totally  disregarded  in  its  chief 
front  of  wickedness,  became  the  excuse  for 
unprecedented  excitement.  The  weak  gover- 
nor, with  no  faculty  higher  than  servility  to 
slavery, — whom  the  President,  in  his  official 
delinquency,  had  appointed  to  a  trust  worthy 
only  of  a  well-balanced  character, — was  fright- 
ened from  his  propriety.  By  proclamation 
he  invoked  the  territory.  By  telegraph  he 
invoked  the  President.  The  territory  would 
not  respond  to  his  senseless  appeal.  The 
President  was  dumb;  but  the  proclamation  was 
circulated  throughout  the  border  counties  of 
Missouri;  and  Platte,  Clay,  Carlisle,  Sabine, 
Howard,  and  Jefferson,  eachof  them  contrib- 
uted a  volunteer  company,  recruited  from  the 
roadsides,  and  armed  with  weapons  which 
250 


ۤaz\t$  Sumner 


chance  afforded, — known  as  the  "shot-gun 
militia," — with  a  Missouri  officer  as  commis- 
sary-general, dispensing  rations,  and  another 
Missouri  officer  as  general-in-chief;  with  two 
wagon-loads  of  rifles,  belonging  to  Missouri, 
drawn  by  six  mules  from  its  arsenal  at  Jefferson 
City;  with  seven  pieces  of  cannon,  belonging  to 
the  United  States,  from  its  arsenal  at  Liberty; 
and  this  formidable  force,  amounting  to  at  least 
eighteen  hundred  men,  terrible  with  threats, 
with  oath,  and  with  whisky,  crossed  the  borders, 
and  encamped  in  larger  part  at  Wacherusa,  over 
against  the  doomed  town  of  Lawrence,  which 
was  now  threatened  with  destruction.  With 
these  invaders  was  the  governor,  who  by  this 
act  levied  war  upon  the  people  he  was  sent  to 
protect.  In  camp  with  him  was  the  original 
Catiline  of  the  conspiracy,  while  by  his  side 
was  the  docile  chief  justice  and  the  docile 
judges.  But  this  is  not  the  first  instance  in 
which  an  unjust  governor  has  found  tools 
where  he  ought  to  have  found  justice.  In  the 
great  impeachment  of  Warren  Hastings,  the 
British  orator  by  whom  it  was  conducted, 
exclaims,  in  words  strictly  applicable  to  the 
misdeed  I  now  arraign,  "Had  he  not  the  chief 
justice,  the  tamed  and  domesticated  chief 
justice,  who  waited  on  him  like  a  famil- 
iar spirit?"  Thus  was  this  invasion  counte- 
nanced by  those  who  should  have  stood  in 
the  breach  against  it.  For  more  than  a  week 
it  continued,  while  deadly  conflict  seemed  im- 
251 


jftemotable  American  J>peccJje£ 

minent.  I  do  not  dwell  on  the  heroism  by 
which  it  was  encountered,  or  the  mean  re- 
treat to  which  it  was  compelled;  for  that  is 
not  necessary  to  exhibit  the  crime  which  you 
are  to  judge. 

Five  several  times,  and  more,  have  these 
invaders  entered  Kansas  in  armed  array;  and 
thus  five  several  times,  and  more,  have  they 
trampled  upon  the  organic  law  of  the  terri- 
tory. But  these  extraordinary  expeditions 
are  simply  the  extraordinary  witnesses  to  suc- 
cessive uninterrupted  violence.  They  stand 
out  conspicuous,  but  not  alone.  The  spirit 
of  evil,  in  which  they  had  their  origin,  was 
wakeful  and  incessant.  From  the  beginning 
it  hung  upon  the  skirts  of  this  interesting 
territory,  harrowing  its  peace,  disturbing  its 
prosperity,  and  keeping  its  inhabitants  under 
the  painful  alarms  of  war.  Thus  was  all 
security  of  person,  of  property,  and  of  labor 
overthrown.  And  when  I  urge  this  incontro- 
vertible fact,  I  set  forth  a  wrong  which  is 
small  only  by  the  side  of  the  giant  wrong  for 
the  consummation  of  which  all  this  was  done. 
Sir,  what  is  man,  what  is  government,  with- 
out security, —  in  the  absence  of  which,  nor 
man  nor  government  can  proceed  in  devel- 
opment, or  enjoy  the  fruits  of  existence  ? 
Without  security  civilization  is  cramped  and 
dwarfed.  Without  security  there  can  be  no 
true  freedom.  Nor  shall  I  say  too  much  when 
252 


€ljarie£  Sumner 


I  declare  that  security,  guarded,  of  course,  by- 
its  offspring  freedom,  is  the  true  end  and  aim 
of  government.  Of  this  indispensable  boon 
the  people  of  Kansas  have  thus  far  been  de- 
spoiled, absolutely,  totally.  All  this  is  aggra- 
vated by  the  nature  of  their  pursuits,  render- 
ing them  peculiarly  sensitive  to  interruption, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  attesting  their  inno- 
cence. They  are  for  the  most  part  engaged 
in  the  cultivation  of  the  soil,  which  from  time 
immemorial  has  been  the  sweet  employment 
of  undisturbed  industry.  Contented  in  the 
returns  of  bounteous  nature  and  the  shade  of 
his  own  trees,  the  husbandman  is  not  aggres- 
sive; accustomed  to  produce,  and  not  to  de- 
stroy, he  is  essentially  peaceful  unless  his  home 
is  invaded,  when  his  arm  derives  vigor  from 
the  soil  he  treads,  and  his  soul  inspiration 
from  the  heavens  beneath  whose  canopy  he 
daily  toils.  And  such  are  the  people  of  Kan- 
sas, whose  security  has  been  overthrown. 
Scenes  from  which  civilization  averts  her  coun- 
tenance have  been  a  part  of  their  daily  life. 
The  border  incursions,  which,  in  barbarous 
ages  or  barbarous  lands,  have  fretted  and 
"harried"  an  exposed  people,  have  been  here 
renewed,  with  this  peculiarity,  that  our  border 
robbers  do  not  simply  levy  blackmail  and 
drive  off  a  few  cattle,  like  those  who  acted 
under  the  inspiration  of  the  Douglas  of  other 
days;  that  they  do  not  seize  a  few  persons, 
and  sweep  them  away  into  captivity,  like  the 
253 


JStcmoraMe  American  §>pccttyt$ 

African  slave-traders  whom  we  brand  as 
pirates;  but  that  they  commit  a  succession  of 
acts,  in  which  all  border  sorrows  and  all 
African  wrongs  are  revived  together  on  Ameri- 
can soil,  and  which,  for  the  time  being,  annuls 
all  protection  of  all  kinds,  and  enslaves  the 
whole  territory. 

Private  griefs  mingle  their  poignancy  with 
public  wrongs.  I  do  not  dwell  on  the  anxi- 
eties which  families  have  undergone,  exposed 
to  sudden  assault,  and  obliged  to  lie  down  to 
rest  with  the  alarms  of  war  ringing  in  their 
ears,  not  knowing  that  another  day  might 
be  spared  to  them.  Throughout  this  bitter 
winter,  with  the  thermometer  at  thirty  degrees 
below  zero,  the  citizens  of  Lawrence  have 
been  constrained  to  sleep  under  arms,  with 
sentinels  treading  their  constant  watch  against 
surprise.  But  our  souls  are  wrung  by  indi- 
vidual instances.  In  vain  do  we  condemn  the 
cruelties  of  another  age,  the  refinements  of 
torture  to  which  men  have  been  doomed,  the 
rack  and  thumb-screw  of  the  Inquisition,  the 
last  agonies  of  the  regicide  Ravaillac,  "  Luke's 
iron  crown,  and  Damien's  bed  of  steel";  for 
kindred  outrages  have  disgraced  these  borders. 
Murder  has  stalked,  assassination  has  skulked, 
in  the  tall  grass  of  the  prairie,  and  the  vindic- 
tiveness  of  man  has  assumed  unwonted  forms. 
A  preacher  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Saviour  has 
been  ridden  on  a  rail,  and  then  thrown  into 
the  Missouri,  fastened  to  a  log,  and  left  to  drift 
254 


CJjarIe£  Sumner 


down  its  muddy,  tortuous  current.  And 
lately  we  have  had  the  tidings  of  that  enormity 
without  precedent, —  a  deed  without  a  name, 
— where  a  candidate  for  the  legislature  was 
most  brutually  gashed  with  knives  and  hatchets, 
and  then,  after  weltering  in  blood  on  the  snow- 
clad  earth,  was  trundled  along  with  gaping 
wounds  to  fall  dead  in  the  face  of  his  wife.  It 
is  common  to  drop  a  tear  of  sympathy  over  the 
trembling  solicitudes  of  our  early  fathers, 
exposed  to  the  stealthy  assault  of  the  savage 
foe  ;  and  an  eminent  American  artist  has 
pictured  this  scene,  in  a  marble  group  of  rare 
beauty,  on  the  front  of  the  national  capitol, 
where  the  uplifted  tomahawk  is  arrested  by 
the  strong  arm  and  generous  countenance  of 
the  pioneer,  while  his  wife  and  children  find 
shelter  at  his  feet ;  but  now  the  tear  must  be 
dropped  over  the  trembling  solicitudes  of 
fellow-citizens  seeking  to  build  a  new  state 
in  Kansas,  and  exposed  to  the  perpetual 
assault  of  murderous  robbers  from  Missouri. 
Hirelings,  picked  from  the  drunken  spew  and 
vomit  of  an  uneasy  civilization,  in  the  form  of 
men, 

"Ay,  in  the  catalogue  ye  go  for  men; 
As  hounds  and  greyhounds,  mongrels,  spaniels,  curs, 
Shoughs,  water-rugs,  and  demi-wolves,  are  called 
All  by  the  name  of  dogs  "; 

leashed  together  by  secret  signs  and  lodges, 

have  renewed  the  incredible  atrocities  of  the 

assassins  and  of  the  thugs  ;  showing  the  blind 

255 


jHcmorable  American  J>pecrf)e£ 

submission  of  the  assassins  to  the  Old  Man  of 
the  Mountain,  in  robbing  Christians  on  the 
road  to  Jerusalem,  and  showing  the  heartless- 
ness  of  the  thugs,  who,  avowing  that  murder 
was  their  religion,  waylaid  travelers  on  the 
great  road  from  Agra  to  Delhi ;  with  the 
more  deadly  bowie-knife  for  the  dagger  of 
the  assassin,  and  the  more  deadly  revolver 
for  the  noose  of  the  thug. 

In  these  invasions,  attended  by  the  entire 
subversion  of  all  security  in  this  territory, 
with  the  plunder  of  the  ballot-box  and  the 
pollution  of  the  electoral  franchise,  I  show 
simply  the  process  in  unprecedented  crime. 
If  that  be  the  best  government  where  an  inju- 
ry to  a  single  citizen  is  resented  as  an  injury 
to  the  whole  state,  then  must  our  government 
forfeit  all  claim  to  any  such  eminence  while  it 
leaves  its  citizens  thus  exposed.  In  the  out- 
rage upon  the  ballot-box,  even  without  the  illi- 
cit fruits  which  I  shall  soon  exhibit,  there  is 
a  peculiar  crime  of  the  deepest  dye,  though 
subordinate  to  the  final  crime,  which  should 
be  promply  avenged.  In  countries  where  roy- 
alty is  upheld,  it  is  a  special  offense  to  rob  the 
crown  jewels,  which  are  the  emblems  of  that 
sovereignty  before  which  the  loyal  subject 
bows,  and  it  is  treason  to  be  found  in  adultery 
with  the  queen,  for  in  this  way  may  a  false  heir 
be  imposed  upon  the  state;  but  in  our  repub- 
lic the  ballot-box  is  the  single  priceless  jewel 
of  that  sovereignty  which  we  respect,  and  the 
256 


Cfjarleg  Sumner 


electoral  franchise,  out  of  which  are  born  the 
rulers  of  a  free  people,  is  the  queen  whom  we 
are  to  guard  against  pollution.  In  this  plain 
presentment,  whether  as  regards  security,  or 
as  regards  elections,  there  is  enough,  surely, 
without  proceeding  further,  to  justify  the 
intervention  of  Congress,  most  promptly 
and  completely,  to  throw  over  this  oppressed 
people  the  impenetrable  shield  of  the  Con- 
stitution and  laws.  But  the  half  is  not  yet 
told. 

As  every  point  in  a  widespread  horizon 
radiates  from  a  common  center,  so  everything 
said  or  done  in  the  vast  circle  of  crime  radiates 
from  the  one  idea,  that  Kansas,  at  all  hazards, 
must  be  made  a  slave  state.  In  all  the  mani- 
fold wickednesses  that  have  occurred,  and  in 
every  successive  invasion,  this  one  idea,  has 
been  ever  present,  as  the  Satanic  tempter,  the 
motive  power,  the  causing  cause. 

To  accomplish  this  result,  three  things  were 
attempted:  first,  by  outrages  of  all  kinds  to 
drive  the  friends  of  freedom  already  there 
out  of  the  territory;  secondly,  to  deter  others 
from  coming ;  and  thirdly,  to  obtain  the  com- 
plete control  of  the  government.  The  pro- 
cess of  driving  out,  and  also  of  deterring,  has 
failed.  On  the  contrary,  the  friends  of  free- 
dom there  became  more  fixed  in  their  resolves 
to  stay  and  fight  the  battle  which  they  had 
never  sought,  but  from  which  they  disdained 
to  retreat;  while  the  friends  of  freedom  else- 
257 


jttemorafcle  American  <f>peed)c£ 

where  were  more  aroused  to  the  duty  of  timely- 
succors,  by  men  and  munitions  of  just  self- 
defense. 

But  while  defeated  in  the  first  two  processes 
proposed,  the  conspirators  succeeded  in  the 
last.  By  the  violence  already  portrayed  at  the 
election  of  the  30th  March,  when  the  polls 
were  occupied  by  the  armed  hordes  from 
Missouri,  they  imposed  a  legislature  upon  the 
territory,  and  thus,  under  the  iron  mask  of 
law,  established  a  usurpation  not  less  com- 
plete than  any  in  history. 

The  usurping  legislature  assembled  at  the 
appointed  place  in  the  interior,  and  then,  at 
once,  in  opposition  to  the  veto  of  the  gover- 
nor, by  a  majority  of  two  thirds,  removed  to 
the  Shawnee  Mission,  a  place  in  most  conve- 
nient proximity  to  the  Missouri  borderers,  by 
whom  it  had  been  constituted,  and  whose 
tyrannical  agent  it  was.  The  statutes  of 
Missouri,  in  all  their  text,  with  their  divisions 
and  subdivisions,  were  adopted  bodily,  and  with 
such  little  local  adaptation  that  the  word 
"state"  in  the  original  is  not  even  changed  to 
"territory,"  but  is  left  to  be  corrected  by  an 
explanatory  act.  But  all  this  general  legislation 
was  entirely  subordinate  to  the  special  act 
entitled  "An  act  to  punish  offenses  against 
slave  property,"  in  which  the  one  idea  that 
provoked  this  whole  conspiracy  is,  at  last, 
embodied  in  legislative  form,  and  human  slav- 
258 


€j)arie£  ^umnei: 


ery  openly  recognized  on  free  soil  under  the 
sanction  of  pretended  law.  This  act  of  thirteen 
sections  is  in  itself  a  "Dance  of  Death."  But 
its  complex  completeness  of  wickedness,  with- 
out a  parallel,  may  be  partially  conceived  when 
it  is  understood  that  in  three  sections  only  of 
it  is  the  penalty  of  death  denounced  no  less 
than  forty-eight  different  times,  by  as  many 
changes  of  language,  against  the  heinous 
offense,  described  in  forty-eight  different  ways, 
of  interfering  with  what  does  not  exist  in  that 
territory,  and  under  the  Constitution  cannot 
exist  there,  —  I  mean  property  in  human  flesh. 
Thus  is  liberty  sacrificed  to  slavery,  and  death 
summoned  to  sit  at  the  gates  as  guardian  of 
the  wrong. 

But  the  work  of  usurpation  was  not  per- 
fected even  yet.  It  had  already  cost  too 
much  to  be  left  at  any  hazard. 

"  To  be  thus  was  nothing; 
But  to  be  safely  thus!" 
Such  was  the  object.  And  this  could  not  be 
except  by  the  entire  prostration  of  all  the  safe- 
guards of  human  rights.  The  liberty  of  speech, 
which  is  the  very  breath  of  a  republic;  the 
press,  which  is  the  terror  of  wrong-doers ;  the 
bar,  through  which  the  oppressed  beards  the 
arrogance  of  law;  the  jury,  by  which  right  is 
vindicated;  all  these  must  be  struck  down, 
while  officers  are  provided,  in  all  places,  ready 
to  be  the  tools  of  this  tyranny;  and  then,  to 
obtain  final  assurance  that  their  crime  was 
259 


Memorable  American  £>#zcttyz$ 

secure,  the  whole  usurpation,  stretching  over 
the  territory,  must  be  fastened  and  riveted  by- 
legislative  bolts,  spikes,  and  screws,  so  as  to  defy 
all  effort  at  change  through  the  ordinary  forms 
of  law.  To  this  work,  in  its  various  parts, 
were  bent  the  subtlest  energies;  and  never, 
from  Tubal  Cain  to  this  hour,  was  any  fabric 
forged  with  more  desperate  skill  and  complete- 
ness. 

Mark,  sir,  three  different  legislative  enact- 
ments which  constitute  part  of  this  work. 
First,  according  to  one  act,  all  who  deny,  by 
spoken  or  written  word,  "  the  right  of  persons 
to  hold  slaves  in  this  territory,"  are  denounced 
as  felons,  to  be  punished  by  imprisonment  at 
hard  labor,  for  a  term  not  less  than  two  years  ; 
it  may  be  for  life.  And  to  show  the  extrava- 
gance of  this  injustice,  it  has  been  well  put  by 
the  senator  from  Vermont  [Mr.  Collamer], 
that  should  the  senator  from  Michigan  [Mr. 
Cass],  who  believes  that  slavery  cannot  exist 
in  a  territory  unless  introduced  by  express 
legislative  acts,  venture  there  with  his  moder- 
ate opinions,  his  doom  must  be  that  of  a  felon ! 
To  this  extent  are  the  great  liberties  of  speech 
and  of  the  press  subverted.  Secondly,  by 
another  act,  entitled,  "An  Act  concerning  At- 
torneys-at-Law/'  no  person  can  practice  as  an 
attorney  unless  he  shall  obtain  a  license  from 
the  territorial  courts,  which,  of  course,  a  ty- 
rannical discretion  will  be  free  to  deny;  and 
after  obtaining  such  license,  he  is  constrained 
260 


Cfjarle^  Sumner 


to  take  an  oath  not  only  "  to  support  "  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  but  also 
"to  support  and  sustain"  —  mark  here  the  re- 
duplication!—  the  territorial  act  and  the  Fu- 
gitive-Slave bill;  thus  erecting  a  test  for  the 
function  of  the  bar,  calculated  to  exclude  citi- 
zens who  honestly  regard  that  latter  legislative 
enormity  as  unfit  to  be  obeyed.  And  thirdly, 
by  another  act,  entitled,  "An  act  concerning 
jurors,"  all  persons,  "conscientiously  opposed 
to  holding  slaves,"  or  "  not  admitting  the 
right  to  hold  slaves  in  the  territory,  are  ex- 
cluded from  the  jury  on  every  question,  civil 
and  criminal,  arising  out  of  asserted  slave  prop- 
erty; while,  in  all  cases,  the  summoning  of 
the  jury  is  left  without  one  word  of  restraint 
to  "the  marshal,  sheriff,  or  other  officer,"  who 
are  thus  free  to  pack  it  according  to  their 
tyrannical  discretion. 

For  the  ready  enforcement  of  all  statutes 
against  human  freedom,  the  President  had 
already  furnished  a  powerful  quota  of  officers 
in  the  governor,  chief  justice,  judges,  secre- 
tary, attorney,  and  marshal.  The  legislature 
completed  this  part  of  the  work  by  constituting 
in  each  county  a  board  of  commissioners, 
composed  of  two  persons,  associated  with  the 
probate  judge,  whose  duty  it  is  "to  appoint  a 
county  treasurer,  coroner,  justices  of  the  peace, 
constables,  and  all  other  officers  provided  for 
by  law,"  and  then  proceeded  to  the  choice  of 
this  very  board;  thus  delegating  and  diffusing 
261 


^lemorable  American  £>ptztfyt$ 

their  usurped  power,  and  tyrannically  imposing 
upon  the  territory  a  crowd  of  officers  in  whose 
appointment  the  people  have  had  no  voice, 
directly  or  indirectly. 

And  still  the  final  inexorable  work  remained. 
A  legislature,  renovated  in  both  branches, 
could  not  assemble  until  1858,  so  that,  during 
this  long  intermediate  period,  this  whole  system 
must  continue  in  the  likeness  of  law  unless 
overturned  by  the  federal  government,  or,  in 
default  of  such  interposition,  by  a  generous 
uprising  of  an  oppressed  people.  But  it  was 
necessary  to  guard  against  the  possibility  of 
change,  even  tardily,  at  a  future  election;  and 
this  was  done  by  two  different  acts  :  under  the 
first  of  which  all  who  will  not  take  the  oath  to 
support  the  Fugitive-Slave  bill  are  excluded 
from  the  elective  franchise;  and  under  the 
second  of  which,  all  others  are  entitled  to  vote 
who  shall  tender  a  tax  of  one  dollar  to  the 
sheriff  on  the  day  of  election;  thus,  by  pro- 
vision of  territorial  law,  disfranchising  all 
opposed  to  slavery,  and  at  the  same  time 
opening  the  door  to  the  votes  of  the  invaders; 
by  an  unconstitutional  shibboleth  excluding 
from  the  polls  the  mass  of  actual  settlers,  and 
by  making  the  franchise  depend  upon  a  petty 
tax  only,  admitting  to  the  polls  the  mass  of 
borderers  from  Missouri.  Thus,  by  tyran- 
nical forethought,  the  usurpation  not  only 
fortified  all  that  it  did,  but  assumed  a  self- 
perpetuating  energy. 

262 


CJjatleg  Sumner: 


Thus  was  the  crime  consummated.  Slavery 
now  stands  erect,  clanking  its  chains  on  the 
territory  of  Kansas,  surrounded  by  a  code  of 
death,  and  trampling  upon  all  cherished  liber- 
ties, whether  of  speech,  the  press,  the  bar,  the 
trial  by  jury,  or  the  electoral  franchise.  And, 
sir,  all  this  has  been  done,  not  merely  to  intro- 
duce a  wrong  which  in  itself  is  a  denial  of  all 
rights,  and  in  dread  of  which  a  mother  has 
lately  taken  the  life  of  her  offspring;  not  mere- 
ly, as  has  been  sometimes  said,  to  protect  slav- 
ery in  Missouri,  since  it  is  futile  for  this  state 
to  complain  of  freedom  on  the  side  of  Kansas, 
when  freedom  exists  without  complaint  on  the 
side  of  Iowa,  and  also  on  the  side  of  Illinois; 
but  it  has  been  done  for  the  sake  of  political 
power,  in  order  to  bring  two  new  slave-holding 
senators  upon  this  floor,  and  thus  to  fortify  in 
the  national  government  the  desperate  chances 
of  a  waning  oligarchy.  As  the  ship,  voyaging 
on  pleasant  summer  seas,  is  assailed  by  a  pirate 
crew,  and  robbed  for  the  sake  of  its  doub- 
loons and  dollars,  so  is  this  beautiful  territory 
now  assailed  in  its  peace  and  prosperity,  and 
robbed,  in  order  to  wrest  its  political  power  to 
the  side  of  slavery.  Even  now  the  black  flag 
of  the  land-pirates  from  Missouri  waves  at  the 
masthead;  in  their  laws  you  hear  the  pirates 
yell,  and  see  the  flash  of  the  pirate-knife;  while, 
incredible  to  relate!  the  President,  gathering 
the  slave  power  at  his  back,  testifies  a  pirate 
sympathy. 

263 


jftcmoraWe  American  £peecf)e£ 

Sir,  all  this  was  done  in  the  name  of  popular 
sovereignty.  And  this  is  the  close  of  the 
tragedy.  Popular  sovereignty,  which,  when 
truly  understood,  is  a  fountain  of  just  power, 
has  ended  in  popular  slavery;  not  merely  in  the 
subjection  of  the  unhappy  African  race,  but  of 
this  proud  Caucasian  blood,  which  you  boast. 
The  profession  with  which  you  began,  of  All 
by  the  people,  has  been  lost  in  the  wretched 
reality  of  Nothing  for  the  people.  Popular 
sovereignty,  in  whose  deceitful  name  plighted 
faith  was  broken,  and  an  ancient  landmark  of 
freedom  was  overturned,  now  lifts  itself  before 
us,  like  sin,  in  the  terrible  picture  of  Milton, 

"  That  seemed  a  woman  to  the  waist,  and  fair, 
But  ended  foul  in  many  a  scaly  fold 
Voluminous  and  vast,  a  serpent  armed 
With  mortal  sting;  about  her  middle  round 
A  cry  of  hell-hounds  never  ceasing  barked 
With  wide  Cerberean  mouths  full  loud,  and  rung 
A  hideous  peal;  yet,  when  they  list,  would  creep, 
If  aught  disturbed  their  noise,  into  her  womb, 
And  kennel  there,  yet  there  still  barked  and  howled 
Within,  unseen." 

The  image  is  complete  at  all  points;  and,  with 
this  exposure,  I  take  my  leave  of  the  crime 
against  Kansas. 

I  now  pass  to  the  consideration  of  the  vari- 
ous remedies  proposed,  ending  with  the  true 
remedy. 

The  remedy  should  be  coextensive  with  the 
original  wrong;  and  since,  by  the  passage  of 
264 


£fyaz\t$  Sumner: 


the  Nebraska  bill,  not  only  Kansas,  but  also 
Nebraska,  Minnesota,  Washington,  and  even 
Oregon  have  been  opened  to  slavery,  the  origi- 
nal prohibition  should  be  restored  to  its  com- 
plete activity  throughout  these  various  terri- 
tories. By  such  a  happy  restoration,  made  in 
good  faith,  the  whole  country  would  be  repla- 
ced in  the  condition  which  it  enjoyed  before  the 
introduction  of  that  dishonest  measure.  Here 
is  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega  of  our  aim  in  this 
immediate  controversy.  But  no  such  exten- 
sive measure  is  now  in  question.  The  crime 
against  Kansas  has  been  special,  and  all  else  is 
absorbed  in  the  special  remedies  for  it.  Of 
these  I  shall  now  speak. 

There  is  the  remedy  of  tyranny,  which, 
though  espoused  on  this  floor  especially  by  the 
senator  from  Illinois,  proceeds  from  the  Presi- 
dent, and  is  embodied  in  a  special  message. 
It  proposes  to  enforce  obedience  to  the  existing 
laws  of  Kansas,  "whether  federal  or  local," 
when,  in  fact,  Kansas  has  no  "local"  laws 
except  those  imposed  by  the  usurpation  from 
Missouri;  and  it  calls  for  additional  appropri- 
ations to  complete  this  work  of  tyranny. 

I  shall  not  follow  the  President  in  his  elabo- 
rate endeavor  to  prejudge  the  contested  election 
now  pending  in  the  House  of  Representatives; 
for  this  whole  matter  belongs  to  the  privileges 
of  that  body,  and  neither  the  President  nor  the 
Senate  has  a  right  to  intermeddle  therewith. 
265 


Memorable  American  £>pctttyc$ 

I  do  not  touch  it.  But  now,  while  dismissing 
it,  I  should  not  pardon  myself  if  I  failed  to  add, 
that  any  person  who  founds  his  claim  to  a  seat 
in  Congress  on  the  pretended  votes  of  hirelings 
from  another  state,  with  no  home  on  the  soil 
of  Kansas,  plays  the  part  of  Anacharsis  Clootz, 
who,  at  the  bar  of  the  French  Convention, 
undertook  to  represent  nations  that  knew  him 
not,  or,  if  they  knew  him,  scorned  him  ;  with 
this  difference,  that  in  our  American  case  the 
excessive  farce  of  the  transaction  cannot 
cover  its  tragedy.  But  all  this  I  put  aside  to 
deal  only  with  what  is  legitimately  before  the 
Senate. 

I  expose  simply  the  tyranny  which  upholds 
the  existing  usurpation,  and  asks  for  additional 
appropriations.  Let  it  be  judged  by  an  exam- 
ple from  which,  in  this  country,  there  can  be 
no  appeal.  Here  is  the  speech  of  George  III., 
made  from  the  throne  to  Parliament  in  re- 
sponse to  the  complaints  of  the  Province  of 
Massachusetts  Bay,  which,  though  smarting 
under  laws  passed  by  usurped  power,  had  yet 
avoided  all  armed  opposition,  while  Lexington 
and  Bunker  Hill  still  slumbered  in  rural  soli- 
tude, unconscious  of  the  historic  kindred  which 
they  were  soon  to  claim.  Instead  of  Massa- 
chusetts Bay  in  the  royal  speech,  substitute 
Kansas,  and  the  message  of  the  President  will 
be  found  fresh  on  the  lips  of  the  British  King. 
Listen  now  to  the  words  which,  in  opening 
Parliament,  30th  November,  1774,  his  Majesty, 
266 


€fyatlt$  Sumner 


according  to  the  official  report,  was  pleased  to 
speak : 

"My  Lords  and  Gentlemen  : 

"It  gives  me  much  concern  that  I  am  obliged,  at 
the  opening  of  this  Parliament,  to  inform  you  that  a 
most  daring  spirit  of  resistance  and  disobedience  to  the 
law  still  unhappily  prevails  in  the  Province  of  the 
Massachusetts  Bay,  and  has  in  divers  parts  of  it  broke 
forth  in  fresh  violences  of  a  very  criminal  nature. 
These  proceedings  have  been  countenanced  in  other 
of  my  Colonies,  and  unwarrantable  attempts  have 
been  made  to  obstruct  the  Commerce  of  this  Kingdom, 
by  unlawful  combinations.  I  have  taken  such  meas- 
ures and  given  such  orders  as  I  have  judged  most 
proper  and  effectual  for  carrying  into  execution 
the  laws  whick  were  passed  in  the  last  session  of  the 
late  Parliament  for  the  protection  and  security  of 
the  commerce  of  my  subjects,  and  for  the  restoring 
and  preserving  peace,  order,  and  good  government 
in  the  Province  of  the  Massachusetts  Bay."  —  Amer- 
ican Archives,  4th  series,  vol.  I,  p.  1465. 

The  king  complained  of  a  "daring  spirit  of 
resistance  and  disobedience  to  the  law";  so 
also  does  the  President.  The  king  adds  that 
it  has  "  broke  forth  in  fresh  violences  of  a  very 
criminal  nature";  so  also  does  the  President. 
The  king  declares  that  these  proceedings 
have  been  "  countenanced  and  encouraged  in 
other  of  my  colonies";  even  so  the  President 
declares  that  Kansas  has  found  sympathy  in 
"  remote  states.  "  The  king  inveighs  against 
"  unwarrantable  measures "  and  "  unlawful 
combinations  ";  even  so  inveighs  the  President. 
The  king  proclaims  that  he  has  taken  the  neces- 
sary steps  "  for  carrying  into  execution  the 
267 


j&emorabie  American  £#zctfyt$ 

laws  "  passed  in  defiance  of  the  constitutional 
rights  of  the  colonies ;  even  so  the  President 
proclaims  that  he  shall  "  exert  the  whole  power 
of  the  federal  executive  "  to  support  the  usur- 
pation in  Kansas.  The  parallel  is  complete. 
The  message,  if  not  copied  from  the  speech  of 
the  king,  has  been  fashioned  on  the  same 
original  block,  and  must  be  dismissed  to  the 
same  limbo.  I  dismiss  its  tyrannical  assump- 
tions in  favor  of  the  usurpation.  I  dismiss  also 
its  petition  for  additional  appropriations  in  the 
affected  desire  to  maintain  order  in  Kansas. 
It  is  not  money  or  troops  that  you  need  there, 
but  simply  the  good- will  of  the  President. 
That  is  all,  absolutely.  Let  his  complicity 
with  the  crime  cease,  and  peace  will  be  re- 
stored. For  myself,  I  will  not  consent  to  wad 
the  national  artillery  with  fresh  appropriation 
bills,  when  its  murderous  hail  is  to  be  diverted 
against  the  constitutional  rights  of  my  fellow- 
citizens. 

Next  comes  the  remedy  of  folly,  which,  in- 
deed, is  also  a  remedy  of  tyranny;  but  its 
folly  is  so  surpassing  as  to  eclipse  even  its 
tyranny.  It  does  not  proceed  from  the  Presi- 
dent. With  this  proposition  he  is  not  in  any 
way  chargeable.  It  comes  from  the  senator 
from  South  Carolina,  who,  at  the  close  of  a 
long  speech,  offered  it  as  his  single  contribu- 
tion to  the  adjustment  of  this  question,  and 
who  thus  far  stands  alone  in  its  support.  It 
might,  therefore,  fitly  bear  his  name ;  but  that 
268 


€f>arle£  Sumner 


which    I    now   give  it    is    a    more    suggestive 
synonym. 

This  proposition,  nakedly  expressed,  is  that 
the  people  of  Kansas  should  be  deprived  of 
their  arms.  That  I  may  not  do  the  least 
injustice  to  the  senator,  I  quote  his  precise 
words: 

"The  President  of  the  United  States  is  under  the 
highest  and  most  solemn  obligations  to  interpose; 
and  if  I  were  to  indicate  the  manner  in  which  he 
should  interpose  in  Kansas,  I  would  point  out  the  old 
common-law  process;  I  would  serve  a  warrant  on 
Sharpe's  rifles,  and  if  Sharpe's  rifles  did  not  answer 
the  summons,  and  come  into  court  on  a  day  certain, 
or  if  they  resisted  a  sheriff,  I  would  summon  the 
posse  comitates,  and  would  have  Colonel  Sumner's 
regiment  to  be  a  part  of  that  posse  comitatus." 

Really,  sir,  has  it  come  to  this?  The  rifle 
has  ever  been  the  companion  of  the  pioneer, 
and,  under  God,  his  tutelary  protector  against 
the  red  man  and  the  beast  of  the  forest.  Never 
was  this  efficient  weapon  more  needed  in 
just  self-defense  than  now  in  Kansas,  and  at 
least  one  article  in  our  national  Constitution 
must  be  blotted  out  before  the  complete  right 
to  it  can  in  any  way  be  impeached.  And  yet, 
such  is  the  madness  of  the  hour,  that,  in  defi- 
ance of  the  solemn  guaranty  embodied  in  the 
Amendments  of  the  Constitution,  that  "the 
right  of  the  people  to  keep  and  bear  arms  shall 
not  be  infringed,"  the  people  of  Kansas  have 
been  arraigned  for  keeping  and  bearing  them, 
and  the  senator  from  South  Carolina  has  had 
269 


Memorable  American  ^pcecfjeg 

the  face  to  say  openly,  on  this  floor,  that  they 
should  be  disarmed;  of  course  that  the  fanat- 
ics of  slavery,  his  allies  and  constituents,  may 
meet  no  impediment.  Sir,  the  senator  is  vener- 
able with  years;  he  is  reputed  also  to  have  worn 
at  home,  in  the  state  which  he  represents  judi- 
cial honors ;  and  he  is  placed  here  at  the  head 
of  an  important  committee  occupied  particu- 
larly with  questions  of  law;  but  neither  his 
years  nor  his  position,  past  or  present,  can 
give  respectability  to  the  demand  he  has  made, 
or  save  him  from  indignant  condemnation, 
when,  to  compass  the  wretched  purposes  of  a 
wretched  cause,  he  thus  proposes  to  trample 
on  one  of  the  plainest  provisions  of  consti- 
tutional liberty.  • 

Next  comes  the  remedy  of  injustice  and 
civil  war,  organized  by  act  of  Congress.  This 
proposition,  which  is  also  an  offshoot  of  the 
original  remedy  of  tyranny,  proceeds  from 
the  senator  from  Illinois  [Mr.  Douglas],  with 
the  sanction  of  the  committee  on  territories, 
and  is  embodied  in  the  bill  which  is  now 
pressed  to  a  vote. 

By  this  bill  it  is  proposed  as  follows : 

"  That  whenever  it  shall  appear,  by  a  census  to  be 
taken  under  the  direction  of  the  governor,  by  the 
authority  of  the  legislature,  that  there  shall  be  93,420 
inhabitants  (that  being  the  number  required  by  the 
present  ratio  of  representation  for  a  member  of  Con- 
gress) within  the  limits  hereafter  described  as  the 
territory  of  Kansas,  the  legislature  of  said  territory 
shall  be,  and  is  hereby,  authorized  to  provide  by  law  for 
270 


€fyatlt$  Sumner 


the  election  of  delegates ,  by  the  people  of  said  terri- 
tory, to  assemble  in  convention,  and  form  a  Con- 
stitution and  state  government,  preparatory  to  their 
admission  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with 
the  original  states  in  all  respects  whatsoever,  by  the 
name  of  the  State  of  Kansas." 

Now,  sir,  consider  these  words  carefully, 
and  you  will  see  that,  however  plausible  and 
velvet-pawed  they  may  seem,  yet,  in  reality, 
they  are  most  unjust  and  cruel.  While  affect- 
ing to  initiate  honest  proceedings  for  the  for- 
mation of  a  state,  they  furnish  to  this  territory 
no  redress  for  the  crime  under  which  it  suf- 
fers ;  nay,  they  recognize  the  very  usurpation 
in  which  the  crime  ended,  and  proceed  to 
endow  it  with  new  prerogatives.  It  is  by  the 
authority  of  the  legislature  that  the  census  is 
to  be  taken,  which  is  the  first  step  in  the  work. 
It  is  also  by  the  authority  of  the  legislature 
that  a  convention  is  to  be  called  for  the  for- 
mation of  a  constitution,  which  is  the  second 
step.  But  the  legislature  is  not  obliged  to 
take  either  of  these  steps.  To  its  absolute 
willfulness  is  it  left  to  act  or  not  to  act  in  the 
premises.  And  since,  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  business,  there  can  be  no  action  of  the 
legislature  till  January  of  the  next  year,  all 
these  steps,  which  are  preliminary  in  their 
character,  are  postponed  till  after  that  distant 
day;  thus  keeping  this  great  question  open 
to  distract  and  irritate  the  country.  Clearly 
this  is  not  what  is  required.  The  country 
desires  peace  at  once,  and  is  determined  to 
271 


Memorable  American  g>pzcttyt$ 

have  it.  But  this  objection  is  slight  by  the 
side  of  the  glaring  tyranny  that,  in  recognizing 
the  legislature  and  conferring  upon  it  these 
new  powers,  the  bill  recognizes  the  existing 
usurpation,  not  only  as  the  authentic  govern- 
ment of  the  territory  for  the  time  being,  but 
also  as  possessing  a  creative  power  to  repro- 
duce itself  in  the  new  state.  Pass  this  bill,  and 
you  enlist  Congress  in  the  conspiracy,  not  only 
to  keep  the  people  of  Kansas  in  their  present 
subjugation,  throughout  their  territorial  exist- 
ence, but  also  to  protract  this  subjugation  into 
their  existence  as  a  state,  while  you  legalize 
and  perpetuate  the  very  force  by  which  slavery 
has  been  already  planted  there. 

I  know  that  there  is  another  deceptive 
clause  which  seems  to  throw  certain  safeguards 
around  the  election  of  delegates  to  the  conven- 
tion, when  that  conve7ition  shall  be  ordered  by 
the  legislature ;  but  out  of  this  very  clause  do 
I  draw  a  condemnation  of  the  usurpation  which 
the  bill  recognizes.  It  provides  that  the  tests, 
coupled  with  the  electoral  franchise,  shall  not 
prevail  in  the  election  of  delegates,  and  thus 
impliedly  condemns  them.  But  if  they  are 
not  to  prevail  on  this  occasion,  why  are  they 
permitted  at  the  election  of  the  legislature  ? 
If  they  are  unjust  in  the  one  case,  they  are  un- 
just in  the  other.  If  annulled  at  the  election 
of  delegates,  they  should  be  annulled  at  the 
election  of  the  legislature ;  whereas  the  bill  of 
the  se?iator  leaves  all  these  offensive  tests  in  full 
272 


€J)ade£  Sumner 


activity  at  the  election  of  the  very  legislature 
out  of  which  this  whole  proceeding  is  to  come, 
and  it  leaves  the  polls  at  both  elections  in  the 
control  of  the  officers  appointed  by  the  usur- 
pation. Consider  well  the  facts.  By  an  exist- 
ing statute,  establishing  the  Fugitive-Slave 
bill  as  a  shibboleth,  a  large  portion  of  the 
honest  citizens  are  excluded  from  voting  for 
the  legislature,  while,  by  another  statute,  all 
who  present  themselves  with  a  fee  of  one 
dollar,  whether  from  Missouri  or  not,  and  who 
utter  this  shibboleth,  are  entitled  to  vote.  And 
it  is  a  legislature  thus  chosen,  under  the 
auspices  of  officers  appointed  by  the  usurpa- 
tion, that  you  now  propose  to  invest  with 
parental  powers  to  rear  the  territory  into  a 
state.  You  recognize  and  confirm  the  usur- 
pation which  you  ought  to  annul  without  delay. 
You  put  the  infant  state,  now  preparing  to 
take  a  place  in  our  sisterhood,  to  suckle  with 
the  wolf,  which  you  ought  at  once  to  kill. 
The  improbable  story  of  Baron  Munchausen  is 
verified.  The  bear  which  thrust  itself  into  the 
harness  of  the  horse  it  had  devoured,  and  then 
whirled  the  sledge  according  to  mere  brutal 
bent,  is  recognized  by  this  bill,  and  kept  in  its 
usurped  place,  when  the  safety  of  all  requires 
that  it  should  be  shot. 

In  characterizing  this  bill  as  the  remedy  of 
injustice  and  civil  war,  I  give  it  a  plain,  self- 
evident    title.     It    is    a    continuation    of    the 
crime   against   Kansas,  and  as  such  deserves 
273 


^temoraMe  American  J&#ml}t$ 

the  same  condemnation.  It  can  only  be  de- 
fended by  those  who  defend  the  crime.  Sir, 
you  cannot  expect  that  the  people  of  Kansas 
will  submit  to  the  usurpation  which  this  bill 
sets  up  and  bids  them  bow  before,  as  the 
Austrian  tyrant  set  up  his  cap  in  the  Swiss 
market-place.  If  you  madly  persevere,  Kan- 
sas will  not  be  without  her  William  Tell,  who 
will  refuse,  at  all  hazards,  to  recognize  the  ty- 
rannical edict ;  and  this  will  be  the  beginning 
of  civil  war. 

Next,  and  lastly,  comes  the  remedy  of  jus- 
tice and  peace,  proposed  by  the  senator  from 
New  York  [Mr.  Seward],  and  embodied  in  his 
bill  for  the  immediate  admission  of  Kansas  as 
a  state  of  this  Union,  now  pending  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  the  bill  of  the  senator  from  Illinois. 
This  is  sustained  by  the  prayer  of  the  people 
of  the  territory,  setting  forth  a  constitution 
formed  by  a  spontaneous  movement,  in  which 
all  there  had  opportunity  to  participate,  without 
distinction  of  party.  Rarely  has  any  proposi- 
tion, so  simple  in  character,  so  entirely  practi- 
cable, so  absolutely  within  your  power,  been 
presented,  which  promised  at  once  such  be- 
neficent results.  In  its  adoption,  the  crime 
against  Kansas  will  be  all  happily  absolved, 
the  usurpation  which  it  established  will  be 
peacefully  suppressed,  and  order  will  be  per- 
manently secured.  By  a  joyful  metamorpho- 
sis, this  fair  territory  may  be  saved  from 
outrage. 

274 


C()arieg  Jbumner 


"  '  O,  help,'  she  cries,  'in  this  extremest  need, 
If  you  who  hear  are  Deities  indeed! 
Gape,  earth,  and  make  for  this  dread  foe  a  tomb, 
Or  change  my  form,  whence  all  my  sorrows  come/'  " 

In  offering  this  proposition,  the  senator  from 
New  York  has  entitled  himself  to  the  gratitude 
of  the  country.  He  has,  throughout  a  life  of 
unsurpassed  industry  and  of  eminent  ability, 
done  much  for  freedom,  which  the  world  will 
not  let  die ;  but  he  has  done  nothing  more  op- 
portune than  this,  and  he  has  uttered  no 
words  more  effective  than  the  speech,  so 
masterly  and  ingenious,  by  which  he  has 
vindicated  it. 

Kansas  now  presents  herself  for  admission 
with  a  constitution  republican  in  form.  And, 
independent  of  the  great  necessity  of  the  case, 
three  considerations  of  fact  concur  in  com- 
mending her:  first,  she  thus  testifies  her  will- 
ingness to  relieve  the  federal  government  of 
the  considerable  pecuniary  responsibility  to 
which  it  is  now  exposed  on  account  of  the  pre- 
tended territorial  government;  secondly,  she 
has,  by  her  recent  conduct,  particularly  in 
repelling  the  invasion  of  Wacherusa,  evinced 
an  ability  to  defend  her  government;  and, 
thirdly,  by  the  pecuniary  credit  which  she  now 
enjoys  she  shows  an  undoubted  ability  to  sup- 
port it.     What  now  can  stand  in  her  way? 

The  power  of  Congress  to  admit  Kansas  at 
once  is  explicit.  It  is  found  in  a  single  clause 
of  the  Constitution,  which,  standing  by  itself, 
275 


fllcmotaW  American  £>#tttfyt$ 

without  any  qualification  applicable  to  the 
present  case,  and  without  doubtful  words, 
requires  no  commentary.     Here  it  is : 

"New  states  may  be  admitted  by  Congress  into 
this  Union ;  but  no  new  state  shall  be  formed  or 
erected  within  the  jurisdiction  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  the  Congress." 

New  states  may  be  admitted.  Out  of 
that  little  word  "may"  comes  the  power,  broad- 
ly and  fully, — without  any  limitation  founded 
on  population  or  preliminary  forms, — provided 
the  state  is  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  an- 
other state,  nor  formed  by  the  junction  of  two 
or  more  states  or  parts  of  states,  without  the 
consent  of  the  legislatures  of  the  states. 
Kansas  is  not  within  the  legal  jurisdiction  of 
another  state,  although  the  laws  of  Missouri 
have  been  tyrannically  extended  over  her;  nor 
is  Kansas  formed  by  the  junction  of  two  or 
more  states ;  and  therefore  Kansas  may  be 
admitted  by  Congress  into  the  Union,  without 
regard  to  population  or  preliminary  forms. 
You  cannot  deny  the  power  without  obliter- 
ating this  clause  of  the  Constitution.  The 
senator  from  New  York  was  right  in  rejecting 
all  appeal  to  precedents  as  entirely  irrelevant; 
for  the  power  invoked  is  clear  and  express  in 
the  Constitution,  which  is  above  all  precedent. 
But  since  precedent  has  been  enlisted,  let  us 
look  at  precedent. 

276 


<£fjarieg  Sumner 


It  is  objected  that  the  population  of  Kansas 
is  not  sufficient  for  a  state;  and  this  objection 
is  sustained  by  under-reckoning  the  numbers 
there,  and  exaggerating  the  numbers  required 
by  precedent.  In  the  absence  of  any  recent 
census,  it  is  impossible  to  do  more  than  ap- 
proximate to  the  actual  population;  but  from 
careful  inquiry  of  the  best  sources,  I  am  led  to 
place  it  now  at  fifty  thousand,  though  I  ob- 
serve that  a  prudent  authority,  the  Boston 
Daily  Advertiser,  puts  it  as  high  as  sixty  thou- 
sand; and  while  I  speak,  this  remarkable 
population,  fed  by  fresh  emigration,  is  outstrip- 
ping even  these  calculations.  Nor  can  there 
be  a  doubt  that,  before  the  assent  of  Congress 
can  be  perfected,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  legis- 
lation, this  population  will  swell  to  the  large 
number  of  ninety-three  thousand  four  hundred 
and  twenty  required  in  the  bill  of  the  senator 
from  Illinois.  But  in  making  this  number 
the  condition  of  the  admission  of  Kansas, 
you  set  up  an  extraordinary  standard.  There 
is  nothing  out  of  which  it  can  be  derived,  from 
the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  precedents. 
Going  back  to  the  days  of  the  Continental 
Congress,  you  will  find  that,  in  1784,  it  was 
declared  that  twenty  thousand  freemen  in  a 
territory  might  "establish  a  permanent  con- 
stitution and  government  for  themselves"; 
and1  though  this  number  was  afterwards,  in 
the  Ordinance  of  1787  for  the  Northwestern 
journals  of  Congress,  vol.  4,  p.  379. 
277 


;#temora&le  American  £>#tctfyt$ 

Territory,  raised  to  sixty  thousand,  yet  the 
power  was  left  in  Congress,  and  subsequently 
exercised  in  more  than  one  instance,  to  consti- 
tute a  state  with  a  smaller  number.  Out  of 
all  the  new  states,  only  Maine,  Wisconsin,  and 
Texas  contained,  at  the  time  of  their  admis- 
sion into  the  Union,  so  large  a  population  as  it 
is  proposed  to  require  in  Kansas  ;  while  no 
less  than  fourteen  new  states  have  been  ad- 
mitted with  a  smaller  population. 

But  I  will  not  stake  this  cause  on  any  pre- 
cedent. I  plant  it  firmly  on  the  fundamental 
principle  of  American  institutions,  as  embodied 
in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  by  which 
government  is  recognized  as  deriving  its  just 
powers  only  from  the  consent  of  the  governed, 
who  may  alter  or  abolish  it  when  it  becomes 
destructive  of  their  rights.  In  the  debate  on 
the  Nebraska  bill,  at  the  overthrow  of  the 
prohibition  of  slavery,  the  Declaration  of  In- 
dependence was  denounced  as  a  "  self-evident 
lie."  It  is  only  by  a  similar  audacity  that  the 
fundamental  principle  which  sustains  the  pro- 
ceedings in  Kansas  can  be  assailed. 

Self-defense  is  the  first  law  of  nature ;  and 
unless  this  law  is  temporarily  silenced,  —  as  all 
other  law  has  been  silenced  there,  —  you 
cannot  condemn  the  proceedings  in  Kansas. 
Here,  sir,  is  an  unquestionable  authority,  in 
itself  an  overwhelming  law,  which  belongs  to 
278 


Cljadeg  Sumner 


all  countries  and  times;  which  is  the  same  in 
Kansas  as  at  Athens  and  Rome;  which  is 
now,  and  will  be  hereafter,  as  it  was  in  other 
days;  in  presence  of  which  acts  of  Congress 
and  constitutions  are  powerless  as  the  voice 
of  man  against  the  thunder  which  rolls  through 
the  sky;  which  whispers  itself  coeval  with  life; 
whose  very  breath  is  life  itself;  and  now,  in 
the  last  resort,  do  I  place  all  these  proceed- 
ings under  this  supreme  safeguard,  which  you 
will  assail  in  vain.  Any  opposition  must  be 
founded  on  a  fundamental  perversion  of  facts, 
or  a  perversion  of  fundamental  principles, 
which  no  speeches  can  uphold,  though  sur- 
passing in  numbers  the  nine  hundred  thousand 
piles  driven  into  the  mud  in  order  to  sustain 
the  Dutch  Stadt-house  at  Amsterdam. 

Sir,  the  people  of  Kansas,  bone  of  your 
bone  and  flesh  of  your  flesh,  with  the  educa- 
tion of  freemen  and  the  rights  of  American 
citizens,  now  stand  at  your  door.  Will  you 
send  them  away,  or  bid  them  enter  ?  Will 
you  push  them  back  to  renew  their  struggles 
with  a  deadly  foe,  or  will  you  preserve  them 
in  security  and  peace  ?  Will  you  cast  them 
again  into  the  den  of  tyranny,  or  will  you  help 
their  despairing  efforts  to  escape  ?  These 
questions  I  put  with  no  common  solicitude ; 
for  I  feel  that  on  their  just  determination  de- 
pend all  the  most  precious  interests  of  the 
republic;  and  I  perceive  too  clearly  the  preju- 
279 


JftemoraMe  American  &$mtyt$ 

dices  in  the  way,  and  the  accumulating  bit- 
ternesses against  this  distant  people,  now 
claiming  their  simple  birthright,  while  I  am 
bowed  with  mortification  as  I  recognize  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  who  should 
have  been  a  staff  to  the  weak  and  a  shield  to 
the  innocent,  at  the  head  of  this  strange  op- 
pression. 

At  every  stage  the  similitude  between  the 
wrongs  of  Kansas  and  those  other  wrongs 
against  which  our  fathers  rose  becomes  more 
apparent.  Read  the  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence, and  there  is  hardly  an  accusation  which 
is  there  directed  against  the  British  monarch 
which  may  not  now  be  directed  with  in- 
creased force  against  the  American  President. 
The  parallel  has  a  fearful  particularity.  Our 
fathers  complained  that  the  king  had  "  sent 
hither  swarms  of  officers  to  harass  our  people 
and  eat  out  their  substance";  that  he  "had 
combined  with  others  to  subject  us  to  a  juris- 
diction foreign  to  our  Constitution,^/^  his 
assent  to  their  acts  of  pretended  legislation"  ; 
that  "he  had  abdicated  government  here,  by 
declaring  us  out  of  his  protection,  and  waging 
war  against  us";  that  "he  had  excited  do- 
mestic insurrection  among  us,  and  endeavored 
to  bring  on  the  inhabitants  of  our  frontier  the 
merciless  savages" ;  that  "our  repeated  peti- 
tions have  been  answered  only  by  repeated 
injury."  And  this  arraignment  was  aptly 
followed  by  the  damning  words,  that  "a  prince, 
280 


€Jjade£  Sumner 


whose  character  is  thus  marked  by  every  act 
which  may  define  a  tyrant,  is  unfit  to  be  the 
ruler  of  a  free  people."  And  surely  a  Presi- 
dent who  has  done  all  these  things  cannot  be 
less  unfit  than  a  prince.  At  every  stage  the 
responsibility  is  brought  directly  to  him.  His 
offense  has  been  both  of  commission  and  omis- 
sion. He  has  done  that  which  he  ought  not  to 
have  done,  and  he  has  left  undone  that  which 
he  ought  to  have  done.  By  his  activity  the 
prohibition  of  slavery  was  overturned.  By  his 
failure  to  act,  the  honest  emigrants  in  Kansas 
have  been  left  a  prey  to  wrong  of  all  kinds. 
Nullum  flagitium  extitit,  nisi  per  te  ;  nullum 
flagitium  sine  te.  And  now  he  stands  forth 
the  most  conspicuous  enemy  of  that  unhappy 
territory. 

As  the  tyranny  of  the  British  king  is  all 
renewed  in  the  President,  so  on  this  floor  have 
the  old  indignities  been  renewed  which  embit- 
tered and  fomented  the  troubles  of  our  fathers. 
The  early  petition  of  the  American  Congress 
to  Parliament,  long  before  any  suggestion  of 
independence,  was  opposed,  like  the  petitions 
of  Kansas,  because  that  body  "was  assembled 
without  any  requisition  on  the  part  of  the  su- 
preme power."  Another  petition  from  New 
York,  presented  by  Edmund  Burke,  was  flatly 
rejected,  as  claiming  rights  derogatory  to  Par- 
liament. And  still  another  petition  from  Massa- 
chusetts Bay  was  dismissed  as  "vexatious  and 
scandalous,"  while  the  patriot  philosopher  who 
281 


^emorafcle  American  £>$tttfyt$ 

bore  it  was  exposed  to  peculiar  contumely. 
Throughout  the  debates  our  fathers  were  made 
the  butt  of  sorry  jests  and  supercilious  assump- 
tions. And  now  these  scenes,  with  these 
precise  objections,  have  been  renewed  in 
the  American  Senate. 

With  regret  I  come  again  upon  the  senator 
from  South  Carolina  [Mr.  Butler],  who,  omni- 
present in  this  debate,  overflowed  with  rage  at 
the  simple  suggestion  that  Kansas  had  applied 
for  admission  as  a  state;  and  with  incoherent 
phrases,  discharged  the  loose  expectoration  of 
his  speech,  now  upon  her  representatives,  and 
then  upon  her  people.  There  was  no  extrava- 
gance of  the  ancient  parliamentary  debate 
which  he  did  not  repeat;  nor  was  there  any 
possible  deviation  from  truth  which  he  did  not 
make,  with  so  much  of  passion,  I  am  glad  to 
add,  as  to  save  him  from  the  suspicion  of  inten- 
tional aberration.  But  the  senator  touches 
nothing  that  he  does  not  disfigure,  —  with  error, 
sometimes  of  principle,  sometimes  of  fact.  He 
shows  an  incapacity  of  accuracy,  whether  in 
stating  the  Constitution  or  in  stating  the  law ; 
whether  in  the  details  of  statistics  or  the  diver- 
sions of  scholarship.  He  cannot  open  his  mouth 
but  out  there  flies  a  blunder.  Surely  he  ought 
to  be  familiar  with  the  life  of  Franklin;  and 
yet  he  referred  to  this  household  character, 
while  acting  as  agent  of  our  fathers  in  England, 
as  above  suspicion ;  and  this  was  done  that  he 
might  give  point  to  a  false  contrast  with  the 
282 


Cf)arle£  Sumner 


agent  of  Kansas  ;  not  knowing  that,  however 
they  may  differ  in  genius  and  fame,  in  this 
experience  they  are  alike;  that  Franklin,  when 
intrusted  with  the  petition  of  Massachusetts 
Bay,  was  assaulted  by  a  foul-mouthed  speaker, 
where  he  could  not  be  heard  in  defense,  and 
denounced  as  a  "thief,"  even  as  the  agent  of 
Kansas  has  been  assaulted  on  this  floor,  and 
denounced  as  a  "forger."  And  let  not  the 
vanity  of  the  senator  be  inspired  by  the  parallel 
with  the  British  statesman  of  that  day;  for  it  is 
only  in  hostility  to  freedom  that  any  parallel 
can  be  recognized. 

But  it  is  against  the  people  of  Kansas  that 
the  sensibilities  of  the  senator  are  particularly 
aroused.  Coming,  as  he  announces,  "from  a 
state," — ay,  sir,  from  South  Carolina, —  he 
turns  with  lordly  disgust  from  this  newly 
formed  community,  which  he  will  not  recognize 
even  as  "a  body  politic."  Pray,  sir,  by  what 
title  does  he  indulge  in  this  egotism?  Has  he 
read  the  history  of  "the  state  "  which  he  repre- 
sents ?  He  cannot  surely  have  forgotten  its 
shameful  imbecility  from  slavery,  confessed 
throughout  the  Revolution,  followed  by  its 
more  shameful  assumptions  for  slavery  since. 
He  cannot  have  forgotten  its  wretched  persist- 
ence in  the  slave-trade  as  the  very  apple  of  its 
eye,  and  the  condition  of  its  participation  in 
the  Union.  He  cannot  have  forgotten  its 
constitution,  which  is  republican  only  in  name, 
confirming  power  in  the  hands  of  the  few,  and 
283 


Memorable  American  J>peec|>e£ 

founding  the  qualifications  of  its  legislators  on 
"a  settled  freehold  estate,  or  ten  negroes." 
And  yet  the  senator  to  whom  that  "state" 
has  in  part  committed  the  guardianship  of  its 
good  name,  instead  of  moving  with  backward- 
treading  steps,  to  cover  its  nakedness,  rushes 
forward,  in  the  very  ecstasy  of  madness,  to 
expose  it,  by  provoking  a  comparison  with 
Kansas.  South  Carolina  is  old ;  Kansas  is 
young.  South  Carolina  counts  by  centuries, 
where  Kansas  counts  by  years.  But  a  benefi- 
cent example  may  be  born  in  a  day;  and  I 
venture  to  say  that  against  the  two  centuries  of 
the  older  "state"  may  be  already  set  the  two 
years  of  trial,  evolving  corresponding  virtue,  in 
the  younger  community.  In  the  one  is  the 
long  wail  of  slavery ;  in  the  other  the  hymns 
of  freedom.  And  if  we  glance  at  special 
achievements,  it  will  be  difficult  to  find  any- 
thing in  the  history  of  South  Carolina  which 
presents  so  much  of  heroic  spirit  in  an  heroic 
cause  as  appears  in  that  repulse  of  the  Missouri 
invaders  by  the  beleaguered  town  of  Lawrence, 
where  even  the  women  gave  their  effective 
efforts  to  freedom.  The  matrons  of  Rome 
who  poured  their  jewels  into  the  treasury  for 
the  public  defense ;  the  wives  of  Prussia  who, 
with  delicate  fingers,  clothed  their  defenders 
against  French  invasion;  the  mothers  of  our 
own  Revolution,  who  sent  forth  their  sons 
covered  over  with  prayers  and  blessings  to 
combat  for  human  rights,  —  did  nothing  of 
284 


Cf)arle£  Sumner 


self-sacrifice  truer  than  did  these  women  on  this 
occasion.  Were  the  whole  history  of  South 
Carolina  blotted  out  of  existence,  from  its  very 
beginning  down  to  the  day  of  the  last  election 
of  the  senator  to  his  present  seat  on  this  floor, 
civilization  might  lose — I  do  not  say  how 
little ;  but  surely  less  than  it  has  already 
gained  by  the  example  of  Kansas  in  its  valiant 
struggle  against  oppression,  and  in  the  develop- 
ment of  a  new  science  of  emigration.  Already 
in  Lawrence  alone  there  are  newspapers 
and  schools,  including  a  high  school ;  and 
throughout  this  infant  Territory  there  is 
more  of  mature  scholarship,  in  proportion  to 
its  inhabitants,  than  in  all  South  Carolina. 
Ah,  sir,  I  tell  the  senator  that  Kansas,  wel- 
comed as  a  free  state,  will  be  a  "ministering 
angel"  to  the  republic  when  South  Carolina, 
in  the  cloak  of  darkness  which  she  hugs, 
"lies  howling." 

The  senator  from  Illinois  [Mr.  Douglas] 
naturally  joins  the  senator  from  South  Caro- 
lina in  this  warfare,  and  gives  to  it  the  superior 
intensity  of  his  nature.  He  thinks  that  the 
national  government  has  not  completely  proved 
its  power,  as  it  has  never  hanged  a  traitor;  but 
if  the  occasion  requires,  he  hopes  there  will  be 
no  hesitation;  and  this  threat  is  directed  at 
Kansas,  and  even  at  the  friends  of  Kansas 
throughout  the  country.  Again  occurs  the 
parallel  with  the  struggles  of  our  fathers;  and 
I  borrow  the  language  of  Patrick  Henry,  when, 
285 


Jttemoraffle  American  £peed)e£ 

to  the  cry  from  the  senator  of  "treason," 
"treason,"  I  reply,  "If  this  be  treason,  make 
the  most  of  it."  Sir,  it  is  easy  to  call  names  ; 
but  I  beg  to  tell  the  senator  that  if  the  word 
"  traitor  "  is  in  any  way  applicable  to  those  who 
refuse  submission  to  a  tyrannical  usurpation, 
whether  in  Kansas  or  elsewhere,  then  must 
some  new  word,  of  deeper  color,  be  invented 
to  designate  those  mad  spirits  who  would  en- 
danger and  degrade  the  republic,  while  they 
betray  all  the  cherished  sentiments  of  the 
fathers  and  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  in 
order  to  give  new  spread  to  slavery.  Let  the 
senator  proceed.  It  will  not  be  the  first  time 
in  history  that  a  scaffold  erected  for  punish- 
ment has  become  a  pedestal  of  honor.  Out 
of  death  comes  life  ;  and  the  "traitor,"  whom 
he  blindly  executes,  will  live  immortal  in  the 
cause. 

"For  humanity  sweeps  onward;  where  to-day  the 

martyr  stands, 
On  the  morrow  crouches  Judas,  with  the  silver  in 

his  hands; 
While  the  hooting  mob  of  yesterday  in  silent  awe 

return, 
To  glean  up  the  scattered   ashes  into  History's 

golden  urn." 

Among  these  hostile  senators  there  is  yet 
another,  with  all  the  prejudices  of  the  senator 
from  South  Carolina,  but  without  his  generous 
impulses,  who,  on  account  of  his  character 
before  the  country,  and  the  rancor  of  his  op- 
position, deserves  to  be  named.  I  mean  the 
286 


<*tyarle£  Sumner 


senator  from  Virginia  [Mr.  Mason],  who,  as 
the  author  of  the  Fugitive-Slave  bill,  has  asso- 
ciated himself  with  a  special  act  of  inhumanity 
and  tyranny.  Of  him  I  shall  say  little,  for  he 
has  said  little  in  this  debate,  though  within 
that  little  was  compressed  the  bitterness  of 
a  life  absorbed  in  the  support  of  slavery.  He 
holds  the  commission  of  Virginia ;  but  he  does 
not  represent  that  early  Virginia,  so  dear  to 
our  hearts,  which  gave  to  us  the  pen  of  Jeffer- 
son, by  which  the  equality  of  men  was  de- 
clared, and  the  sword  of  Washington,  by  which 
independence  was  secured;  but  he  represents 
that  other  Virginia,  from  which  Washington 
and  Jefferson  now  avert  their  faces,  where 
human  beings  are  bred  as  cattle  for  the  sham- 
bles, and  where  a  dungeon  rewards  the  pious 
matron  who  teaches  little  children  to  relieve 
their  bondage  by  reading  the  Book  of  Life. 
It  is  proper  that  such  a  senator,  representing 
such  a  state,  should  rail  against  free  Kansas. 
But  this  is  not  all.  The  precedent  is  still 
more  clinching.  Thus  far  I  have  followed 
exclusively  the  public  documents  laid  before 
Congress,  and  illustrated  by  the  debates  of 
that  body;  but  well-authenticated  facts,  not  of 
record  here,  make  the  case  stronger  still.  It 
is  sometimes  said  that  the  proceedings  in  Kan- 
sas are  defective,  because  they  originated  in  a 
party.  This  is  not  true;  but,  even  if  it  were 
true,  then  would  they  still  find  support  in  the 
example  of  Michigan,  where  all  the  proceed- 
287 


jHcmorabie  American  £peccf)e£ 

ings,  stretching  through  successive  years,  be- 
gan and  ended  in  party.  The  proposed  state 
government  was  pressed  by  the  Democrats  as 
a  party  test;  and  all  who  did  not  embark  in  it 
were  denounced.  Of  the  legislative  council 
which  called  the  first  constitutional  conven- 
tion in  1835,  all  were  Democrats;  and  in  the 
convention  itself,  composed  of  eighty-seven 
members,  only  seven  were  Whigs.  The 
convention  of  1836,  which  gave  the  final 
assent,  originated  in  a  Democratic  convention 
on  the  29th  October,  in  the  county  of  Wayne, 
composed  of  one  hundred  and  twenty-four 
delegates,  all  Democrats,  who  proceeded  to 
resolve,  — 

"That  the  delegates  of  the  Democratic  party  of 
Wayne,  solemnly  impressed  with  the  spreading  evils 
and  dangers  which  a  refusal  to  go  into  the  Union  has 
brought  upon  the  people  of  Michigan,  earnestly  rec- 
ommend meetings  to  be  immediately  convened  by 
their  fellow-citizens  in  every  county  of  the  state, 
with  a  view  to  the  expression  of  their  sentiments  in 
favor  of  the  election  and  call  of  another  convention, 
in  time  to  secure  our  admission  into  the  Union  be- 
fore the  first  of  January  next." 

Shortly  afterwards,  a  committee  of  five,  ap- 
pointed by  this  convention,  all  leading  Demo- 
crats, issued  a  circular  "under  the  authority 
of  the  delegates  of  the  county  of  Wayne," 
recommending  that  the  voters  throughout 
Michigan  should  meet  and  elect  delegates  to 
a  convention  to  give  the  necessary  assent  to 
the  act  of  Congress.  In  pursuance  of  this 
288 


Cfjarieg  Sumner 


call,  the  convention  met;  and  as  it  originated 
in  an  exclusively  party  recommendation,  so  it 
was  of  an  exclusively  party  character.  And 
it  was  the  action  of  this  convention  that  was 
submitted  to  Congress,  and  after  discussion  in 
both  bodies,  on  solemn  votes  approved. 

But  the  precedent  of  Michigan  has  another 
feature  which  is  entitled  to  the  gravest  atten- 
tion, especially  at  this  moment,  when  citizens 
engaged  in  the  effort  to  establish  a  state 
government  in  Kansas  are  openly  arrested  on 
the  charge  of  treason,  and  we  are  startled  by 
tidings  of  the  maddest  efforts  to  press  this 
procedure  of  preposterous  tyranny.  No  such 
madness  prevailed  under  Andrew  Jackson; 
although  during  the  long  pendency  of  the 
Michigan  proceedings,  for  more  than  fourteen 
months,  the  territorial  government  was  entire- 
ly ousted,  and  the  state  government  organized 
in  all  its  departments.  One  hundred  and 
thirty  different  legislative  acts  were  passed, 
providing  for  elections,  imposing  taxes,  erect- 
ing corporations,  and  establishing  courts  of 
justice,  including  a  supreme  court  and  a 
court  of  chancery.  All  process  was  issued 
in  the  name  of  the  people  of  the  state  of 
Michigan.  And  yet  no  attempt  was  made  to 
question  the  legal  validity  of  these  proceedings, 
whether  legislative  or  judicial.  Least  of  all 
did  any  menial  governor,  dressed  in  a  little 
brief  authority,  play  the  fantastic  tricks  which 
we  now  witness  in  Kansas ;  nor  did  any  person, 
289 


Memorable  American  g>pcttfyt$ 

wearing  the  robes  of  justice,  shock  high  heaven 
with  the  mockery  of  injustice  now  enacted  by- 
emissaries  of  the  President  in  that  territory. 
No,  sir;  nothing  of  this  kind  then  occurred. 
Andrew  Jackson  was  President. 

Senators  such  as  these  are  the  natural  ene- 
mies of  Kansas;  and  I  introduce  them  with 
reluctance,  simply  that  the  country  may  under- 
stand the  character  of  the  hostility  which  must 
be  overcome.  Arrayed  with  them,  of  course, 
are  all  who  unite,  under  any  pretext  or  apology, 
in  the  propagandism  of  human  slavery.  To 
such,  indeed,  the  time-honored  safeguards  of 
popular  rights  can  be  a  name  only,  and  nothing 
more.  What  are  trial  by  jury,  habeas  corpus, 
the  ballot-box,  the  right  of  petition,  the  liberty 
of  Kansas,  your  liberty,  sir,  or  mine,  to  one 
who  lends  himself  not  merely  to  the  support  at 
home,  but  to  the  propagandism  abroad,  of 
that  preposterous  wrong  which  denies  even 
the  right  of  a  man  to  himself  ?  Such  a  cause 
can  be  maintained  only  by  a  practical  subver- 
sion of  all  rights.  It  is,  therefore,  merely 
according  to  reason  that  its  partisans  should 
uphold  the  usurpation  in  Kansas. 

To  overthrow  this  usurpation  is  now  the 
special,  importunate  duty  of  Congress,  admit- 
ting of  no  hesitation  or  postponement.  To 
this  end,  it  must  lift  itself  from  the  cabals  of 
candidates,  the  machinations  of  party,  and  the 
low  level  of  vulgar  strife.  It  must  turn  from 
that  slave  oligarchy  which  now  controls  the 
2  go 


<£f>ade£  Sumner 


replubic,  and  refuse  to  be  its  tool.  Let  its 
power  be  stretched  forth  towards  this  distant 
territory,  not  to  bind,  but  to  unbind;  not  for 
the  oppression  of  the  weak,  but  for  the  subver-. 
sion  of  the  tyrannical;  not  for  the  prop  and 
maintenance  of  a  revolting  usurpation,  but  for 
the  confirmation  of  liberty. 

"  These  are  imperial  arts,  and  worthy  thee!  " 

Let  it  now  take  its  stand  between  the  living 
and  dead,  and  cause  this  plague  to  be  stayed. 
All  this  it  can  do;  and  if  the  interests  of  slav- 
ery did  not  oppose,  all  this  it  would  do  at  once, 
in  reverent  regard  for  justice,  law,  and  order, 
driving  far  away  all  the  alarms  of  war ;  nor 
would  it  dare  to  brave  the  shame  and  punish- 
ment of  this  great  refusal.  But  the  slave 
power  dares  anything ;  and  it  can  be  conquered 
only  by  the  united  masses  of  the  people. 
From  Congress  to  the  people  I  appeal. 

Already  public  opinion  gathers  unwonted 
forces  to  scourge  the  aggressors.  In  the 
press,  in  daily  conversation  wherever  two  or 
three  are  gathered  together,  there  the  indig- 
nant utterance  finds  vent.  And  trade,  by  un- 
erring indications,  attests  the  growing  energy. 
Public  credit  in  Missouri  droops.  The  six  per 
cents  of  that  state,  which  at  par  should  be  one 
hundred  and  two,  have  sunk  to  eighty-four  and 
one  fourth;  thus  at  once  completing  the  evi- 
dence of  the  crime,  and  attesting  its  punish- 
ment. Business  is  now  turning  from  the 
291 


ffilematahlt  American  J&$ettfyt$ 

assassins  and  thugs  that  infest  the  Missouri 
River  on  the  way  to  Kansas,  to  seek  some 
safer  avenue  And  this,  though  not  important 
in  itself,  is  typical  of  greater  changes.  The 
political  credit  of  the  men  who  uphold  the 
usurpation  droops  even  more  than  the  stocks ; 
and  the  people  are  turning  from  all  those 
through  whom  the  assassins  and  thugs  have 
derived  their  disgraceful  immunity. 

It  was  said  of  old,  "Cursed  be  he  that 
removeth  his  neighbor's  landmark.  And  all 
the  people  shall  say,  Amen."1  Cursed,  it  is 
said,  in  the  city  and  in  the  field ;  cursed  in 
basket  and  store  ;  cursed  when  thou  comest  in, 
and  cursed  when  thou  goest  out.  These  are 
terrible  imprecations ;  but  if  ever  any  land- 
mark was  sacred,  it  was  that  by  which  an 
immense  territory  was  guarded  forever  against 
slavery;  and  if  ever  such  imprecations  could 
justly  descend  upon  any  one,  they  must  descend 
upon  all  who,  not  content  with  the  removal 
of  this  sacred  landmark,  have  since,  with 
criminal  complicity,  fostered  the  incursions 
of  the  great  wrong  against  which  it  was 
intended  to  guard.  But  I  utter  no  impreca- 
tions. These  are  not  my  words ;  nor  is  it  my 
part  to  add  to  or  subtract  from  them.  But, 
thanks  be  to  God!  they  find  a  response  in  the 
hearts  of  an  aroused  people,  making  them 
turn  from  every  man,  whether  President  or 
senator  or  representative,  who  has  been 
1Deut.  xxvii.  17. 
292 


€f)arleg  Sumner 


engaged  in  this  crime,  —  especially  from 
those  who,  cradled  in  free  institutions,  are 
without  the  apology  of  education  or  social 
prejudice, —  until  of  all  such  those  other  words 
of  the  prophet  shall  be  fulfilled:  "I  will 
set  my  face  against  that  man,  and  make  him 
a  sign  and  a  proverb,  and  I  will  cut  him  off 
from  the  midst  of  my  people."  1  Turning 
thus  from  the  authors  of  this  crime,  the 
people  will  unite  once  more  with  the  fathers 
of  the  republic,  in  a  just  condemnation  of 
slavery, —  determined  especially  that  it  shall 
find  no  home  in  the  national  territories,  — 
while  the  slave  power  in  which  the  crime 
had  its  beginning,  and  by  which  it  is  now  sus- 
tained, will  be  swept  into  the  charnel-house 
of  defunct  tyrannies. 

In  this  contest  Kansas  bravely  stands  forth, 
the  stripling  leader,  clad  in  the  panoply  of 
American  institutions.  In  calmly  meeting  and 
adopting  a  frame  of  government,  her  people 
have,  with  intuitive  promptitude,  performed 
the  duties  of  freemen;  and  when  I  consider 
the  difficulties  by  which  she  was  beset,  I  find 
dignity  in  her  attitude.  In  offering  herself 
for  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  free 
state,  she  presents  a  single  issue  for  the 
people  to  decide.  And  since  the  slave  power 
now  stakes  on  this  issue  all  its  ill-gotten 
supremacy,  the  people,  while  vindicating  Kan- 
sas, will  at  the  same  time  overthrow  this 
1  Ezekiel  xiv.  8. 
293 


Jftemorafcle  American  M>#tztfyt$ 

tyranny.  Thus  does  the  contest  which  she 
now  begins  involve  not  only  liberty  for  herself, 
but  for  the  whole  country.  God  be  praised 
that  she  did  not  bend  ignobly  beneath  the 
yoke !  Far  away  on  the  prairies,  she  is  now 
battling  for  the  liberty  of  all,  against  the  Presi- 
dent, who  misrepresents  all.  Everywhere 
among  those  who  are  not  insensible  to  right, 
the  generous  struggle  meets  a  generous  re- 
sponse. From  innumerable  throbbing  hearts 
go  forth  the  very  words  of  encouragement 
which,  in  the  sorrowful  days  of  our  fathers, 
were  sent  by  Virginia,  speaking  by  the  pen  of 
Richard  Henry  Lee,  to  Massachusetts,  in  the 
person  of  her  popular  tribune,  Samuel  Adams  : 

"Chantilly,  Va.,  June  23,  1774. 
"I  hope  the  good  people  of  Boston  will  not  lose 
their  spirits  under  their  present  heavy  oppression,  for 
they  will  certainly  be  supported  by  the  other  Colonies ; 
and  the  cause  for  which  they  suffer  is  so  glorious, 
and  so  deeply  interesting  to  the  present  and  future 
generations,  that  all  America  will  owe,  in  a  great 
measure,  their  political  salvation  to  the  present  virtue 
of  Massachusetts  Bay," — American  Archives,  4th 
series,  vol.  1,  p.  446. 

In  all  this  sympathy  there  is  strength.  But  in 
the  cause  itself  there  is  angelic  power.  Un- 
seen of  men,  the  great  spirits  of  history  com- 
bat by  the  side  of  the  people  of  Kansas, 
breathing  a  divine  courage.  Above  all  towers 
the  majestic  form  of  Washington,  once  more, 
as  on  the  bloody  field,  bidding  them  to  remem- 
ber those  rights  of  human  nature  for  which  the 
294 


Cfjarfe  c&umner 


War  of  Independence  was  waged.     Such  a 
cause,  thus  sustained,  is  invincible. 

The  contest  which,  beginning  in  Kansas, 
has  reached  us  will  soon  be  transferred  to  a 
broader  stage,  where  every  citizen  will  be  not 
only  spectator,  but  actor;  and  to  their  judg- 
ment I  confidently  appeal.  To  the  people, 
now  on  the  eve  of  exercising  the  electoral 
franchise,  in  choosing  a  chief  magistrate  of  the 
republic  I  appeal,  to  vindicate  the  electoral 
franchise  in  Kansas.  Let  the  ballot-box  of 
the  Union,  with  multitudinous  might,  protect 
the  ballot-box  in  that  territory.  Let  the 
voters  everywhere,  while  rejoicing  in  their 
own  rights,  help  to  guard  the  equal  rights  of 
distant  fellow-citizens;  that  the  shrines  of 
popular  institutions,  now  desecrated,  may  be 
sanctified  anew;  that  the  ballot-box,  now 
plundered,  may  be  restored;  and  that  the  cry, 
"I  am  an  American  citizen,"  may  not  be  sent 
forth  in  vain  against  outrage  of  every  kind. 
In  just  regard  for  free  labor  in  that  territory 
which  it  is  sought  to  blast  by  unwelcome 
association  with  slave  labor  ;  in  Christian  sym- 
pathy with  the  slave,  whom  it  is  proposed  to 
task  and  to  sell  there;  in  stern  condemnation 
of  the  crime  which  has  been  consummated  on 
that  beautiful  soil;  in  rescue  of  fellow-citizens, 
now  subjugated  to  a  tyrannical  usurpation;  in 
dutiful  respect  for  the  early  fathers  whose 
aspirations  are  now  ignobly  thwarted;  in  the 
name  of  the  Constitution,  which  has  been  out- 
295 


jftemoraMe  American  «£>peecf)eg 

raged,  of  the  laws  trampled  down,  of  justice 
banished,  of  humanity  degraded,  of  peace 
destroyed,  of  freedom  crushed  to  earth;  and 
in  the  name  of  the  Heavenly  Father,  whose 
service  is  perfect  freedom,  —  I  make  this  last 
appeal. 


296 


Notes 


jljoteg 


Page  13.— William  Pinkney. 

Two  kinds  of  people,  often  not  clearly  distin- 
guished, took  ground  against  slavery:  the  antislavery 
men,  who  wished  at  least  to  prevent  its  extension, 
and  the  abolitionists,  who  wanted  to  destroy  it  where 
it  already  existed.  Among  the  abolitionists  there 
were  three  groups:  western,  middle  states,  and  New 
England:  (1)  The  western  abolition  societies  were 
started  chiefly  by  former  slaveholders,  who  crossed 
the  Ohio  River  to  get  away  from  the  system.  Such 
were  Rev.  John  Rankin  and  James  G.  Birney.  (2) 
The  middle  state  abolitionists  were  strong  in  Phila- 
delphia, New  York  City,  and  central  New  York,  and 
included  men  like  Arthur  and  Louis  Tappan  and 
Gerrit  Smith,  who  had  money  and  freely  gave  it  for 
the  cause.  (3)  The  New  England  group  included 
Wendell  Phillips,  the  abolition  orator;  John  Green- 
leaf  Whittier,  the  abolition  *poet;  Theodore  Parker, 
the  abolition  parson;  and  later  James  Russell  Low- 
ell, the  abolition  satirist.  —  Hart:  Essentials  in 
American  History,  pp.  347,  348. 

Missouri  had  slavery  and  was  determined  to 
keep  it;  and  the  supporters  of  the  slave-interest  in 
Congress  would  not  for  one  moment  consent 
to   a  restriction  which   should   create  bars  to  the 

further  increase  of  slaves  within  her  borders 

Then  began  a  discussion  which  engrossed  the  press 
of  the  country,  and  prompted  many  public  meetings. 
The  legislatures  of  northern  states  adopted  resolu- 
tions protesting  against  the  admission  of  Missouri 
unless  the  further  introduction  of  slavery  should  be 
prohibited 

In  January,  1820,  the  Senate  resumed  the  con- 

299 


sideration  of  the  Missouri  Question,  and  for  the  first 
time  in  the  history  of  the  country  its  proceedings 
awakened  more  interest  than  those  of  the  House. 

In  the  Senate  of  1820,  consisting  of  44  members, 
began  that  series  of  parliamentary  efforts  which  in 
eloquence  have  never  been  surpassed.  The  oration 
of  William  Pinkney,  of  Maryland,  was  the  master- 
piece of  the  session. —  RHODES:  History  of  United 
States,  ch.  I. 

When  Pinkney  took  his  seat  early  in  January, 
1820,  he  was  without  exception  the  finest  orator  the 
House  or  Senate  could  produce.  At  no  time  dur- 
ing that  long  and  exciting  debate  were  the  halls  and 
galleries  of  either  house  without  a  crowd  of  listen- 
ers. But  the  announcement  that  Pinkney  would 
speak  would  fill  the  floor  and  gallery  of  the  Senate 
to  suffocation,  and  pack  the  halls,  the  lobbies,  and 
the  stairways  with  such  a  gathering  as  came  thither 
on  no  other  occasion.  Members  of  the  Cabinet 
would  desert  their  offices.  Foreign  ministers  would 
gladly  make  their  way  through  the  crowded  lobbies 
to  the  places  set  apart  for  them;  and  on  the  day  of 
his  great  speech  the  House  of  Representatives,  it  is 
said,  adjourned  early  that  the  members  might  attend. 
— McMASTER :  History'-oj  the  People  of  the  United 
States,  vol.  4,  p.  588. 

He  often  poured  forth  too  great  a  profusion  of 
rhetorical  imagery  in  extemporaneous  speaking. 
His  style  was  frequently  too  highly  wrought  and 
embellished,  and  his  elocution  too  vehement  and 
declamatory  for  the  ordinary  purposes  of  forensic 
discussion.  But  whoever  has  listened  to  him  even 
upon  a  dry  and  complicated  question  of  mere  tech- 
nical law,  where  there  seemed  to  be  nothing  on  which 
the  mind  delighted  to  fasten,  must  recollect  what  a 
charm  he  diffused  over  the  most  arid  and  intricate 
discussions  by  the  clearness  and  purity  of  his  lan- 
guage, and  the  calm  flow  of  his  graceful  elocution, 
which  seemed  only  to  chafe,  and  swell,  and  overleap 
its  natural  channel  when  encountering  some  might- 
300 


$ote£ 


ier  theme. — Wheaton:  Life  of  William  Pinkney  in 
Library  of  American  Biography,  conducted  by  Jared 
Sparks,  vol.  6,  p.  72. 

At  his  death  he  had  not  quite  completed  his  fifty- 
eighth  year,  an  age  at  which  men  begin  to  regard  the 
termination  of  life  as  an  object  not  very  remote. 
But  his  person  was  yet  robust,  his  complexion  florid, 
and  his  general  appearance  such,  aided  as  it  was  by 
the  studied  carefulness  of  his  toilet,  as  to  give  a 
strong  impression  of  vigorous  health  and  tenacious- 
ness  of  life.  The  force  of  his  faculties,  too,  which 
were  not  only  unimpaired,  but  seemed  only  then  to 
have  attained  full  ripeness ;  the  brilliancy  of  a  career 
in  which,  though  so  long  a  victor,  he  was  every  day 
winning  fresh  laurels  by  fresh  exertions;  the  very 
keenness  of  his  relish  for  those  gathered  fruits  of  his 
fame,  and  for  the  charms  of  a  life  so  eminently  suc- 
cessful; all  these,  as  they  seemed  to  promise  a  long 
postponement  of  the  common  doom,  rendered  it 
more  deeply  affecting  to  the  imagination  when  it  thus 
suddenly  arrived. — Wheaton,  p.  62. 

Page  77-  —  Wendell  Phillips. 

The  abolitionists  had  a  very  affective  method  of 
agitation.  Local  societies  were  federated  in  a  state 
society,  which  held  an  annual  meeting;  and  into  an 
annual  national  convention.  Meetings  and  local 
conventions  were  held  from  time  to  time  to  arouse 
public  sentiment,  and  women  and  negroes  sat  on  the 
stage  and  took  part  in  the  exercises.  The  soci- 
eties prepared  petitions  to  the  state  legislatures,  and 
to  Congress,  and  did  everything  they  could  to  interest 
people  and  to  make  them  abolitionists.  Newspapers 
were  founded,  tracts,  books  and  almanacs  were  pre- 
pared, and  freely  illustrated  with  pictures  of  the 
horrors  of  slavery;  and  one  college,  Oberlin,  admit- 
ted negro  students,  and  became  the  western  center 
of  the  abolition  sentiment. 

Meetings,  societies,  and  publications  all  caused  an 
astonishing  uproar.  In  the  South  practically  nobody 
301 


was  allowed  to  advocate  abolition;  in  the  North  the 
sensitive  population  expressed  its  horror  of  the 
abolitionists  by  riot.  In  1835  an  antislavery  meet- 
ing in  Boston  was  broken  up  by  a  mob,  which  laid 
hold  of  Garrison,  tied  a  rope  about  his  body,  dragged 
him  through  the  streets,  and  tried  to  kill  him.  In 
1837  another  persistent  agitator  and  editor,  Elijah 
Lovejoy,  was  murdered  by  a  mob  in  Alton,  Illinois, 
because  he  persisted  in  publishing  an  antislavery  pa- 
per even  in  a  free  state.  Colored  schools  were 
broken  up,  and  in  New  York  and  Philadelphia  col- 
ored settlements  were  attacked.  Nobody  was  more 
hated  and  despised  than  the  abolitionist.  —  Hart: 
Essentials  in  Atnerican  History,  pp.  348,  349. 

He  was  a  prominent  advocate  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  Garrisonian  abolitionists,  who,  believing  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  to  be  an  immoral 
compact  between  freedom  and  slavery,  refused  it 
support,  abstained  from  voting,  and  labored  for  the 
dissolution  of  the  Union  as  the  best  means  of  free- 
ing the  slaves. — Drake:  Dictionary  of  American 
Biography,  p.  714. 

He  faced  his  audience  with  a  tranquil  mien,  and  a 
beaming  aspect  that  was  never  dimmed.  He  spoke, 
and  in  the  measured  cadence  of  his  quiet  voice  there 
was  an  intense  feeling,  but  no  declamation,  no  pas- 
sionate appeal,  no  superficial  and  feigned  emotion. 
It  was  simple  colloquy, — a  gentleman  conversing. 
Unconsciously  and  surely  the  ear  and  heart  were 
charmed.  How  was  it  done?  Ah!  how  did  Mozart 
do  it?  How,  Raphael?  The  secret  of  the  rose's 
sweetness,  of  the  bird's  ecstasy,  of  the  sunset's 
glory, — that  is  the  secret  of  genius  and  of  eloquence. 
What  was  heard,  what  was  seen  was  the  form  of 
noble  manhood,  the  courteous  and  self-possessed 
tone,  the  flow  of  modulated  speech,  sparkling  with 
matchless  richness  of  illustration,  with  apt  illusion, 
and  happy  anecdote,  and  historic  parallel,  with  wit 
and  pitiless  invective,  with  melodious  pathos,  with 
stinging  satire,  with  crackling  epigram  and  limpid 
302 


humor,  the  bright  ripples  that  play  around  the  sure 
and  steady  prow  of  the  resistless  ship.  Like  an 
illuminated  vase  of  odors,  he  glowed  with  concen- 
trated and  perfumed  fire.  The  divine  energy  of  his 
conviction  utterly  possessed  him,  and  his 

"Pure  and  eloquent  blood 
Spoke  in  his  cheek,  and  so  distinctly  wrought, 
That  one  might  almost  say  his  body  thought." 

Was  it  Pericles  swaying  the  Athenian  multitude  ? 
Was  it  Apollo  breathing  the  music  of  the  morning 
from  his  lips?  No.no!  It  was  an  American  patriot, 
a  modern  son  of  liberty,  with  a  soul  as  firm  and 
as  true  as  was  ever  consecrated  to  unselfish  duty, 
pleading  with  the  American  conscience  for  the 
chained  and  speechless  victims  of  American  inhu- 
manity. Curtis:  Eulogy,  in  A  Memorial  of  Wen- 
dell Phillips  from  the  City  of  Boston,  p.  46. 

He  was  a  great  American  patriot ;  and  no  Amer- 
ican life — no,  not  one — offers  to  future  generations  of 
his  countrymen  a  more  priceless  example  of  inflexi- 
ble fidelity  to  conscience  and  to  public  duty;  and  no 
American  more  truly  than  he  purged  the  national 
name  of  its  shame,  and  made  the  American  flag  the 
flag  of  hope  for  mankind. —  CURTIS:  Eulogy,  p.  64. 

Page  147. —  Stephen  Arnold  Douglas. 

United  States  senator,  1847-61.  As  chairman  of 
the  house  committee  on  territories  he  reported  the 
joint  resolution  declaring  Texas  to  be  one  of  the 
United  States.  In  the  Senate  he  supported  Clay's 
compromise  measures  of  1850,  maintaining  that 
Congress  should  not  interfere  in  relation  to  the  ex- 
tension of  slavery  in  the  territories,  but  that  the 
people  of  each  should  be  permitted  to  decide 
whether  it  should  be  a  free  or  slave  state.  Of  this 
"Popular  Sovereignty"  doctrine,  Douglas  was  the 
reputed  author.  As  chairman  of  the  territorial 
committee  he  reported  in  January,  1854,  the  celebra- 
ted bill  to  organize  the  territories  of  Kansas  and 

303 


$ote£ 

Nebraska,  which  was  passed,  and  by  which  the 
Missouri  Compromise  was  repealed,  political  parties 
revolutionized,  and  intense  excitement  produced  in 
the  free  states.  —  Drake:  Dictionary  of  American 
Biography,  p.  278. 

There  was  no  doubt,  however,  that  the  Charleston 
Courier  faithfully  represented  southern  opinion  when 
it  remarked,  "We  cherish  slavery  as  the  apple  of  our 
eye,  and  are  resolved  to  maintain  it,  peaceably  if  we 
can,  forcibly  if  we  must";  and  it  may  confidently  be 
stated  that  when  the  Kansas-Nebraska  bill  was  un- 
derstood to  be  of  benefit  to  slavery,  southern  senti- 
ment at  that  moment  became  concentrated  in  its 
favor.  "The  South  flies  to  the  bill,"  wrote  Francis 
Lieber  from  South  Carolina,  "as  moths  to  the 
candle." 

The  legislatures  of  the  slave  states  were  slower  to 
act  than  those  of  the  North.  Before  the  bill  passed 
the  Senate  only  Georgia  had  spoken.  Her  House 
unanimously,  and  the  Senate  with  only  three  dissent- 
ing votes,  adopted  resolutions  strongly  in  favor  of 
the  bill,  and  instructed  her  delegation  to  vote  in 
Congress  accordingly.  In  Tennessee  the  Senate  en- 
dorsed the  principles  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act, 
but  the  House  laid  a  similar  resolution  on  the  table. 
Not  until  after  the  bill  had  passed  the  United  States 
Senate  did  the  legislatures  of  Mississippi  and  Louisi- 
ana adopt  resolutions  approving  it. 

And  now  the  day  had  come  when  a  vote  on  the 
bill  was  to  be  taken.  The  Senate  met  on  the  3d  of 
March  at  the  usual  hour,  and  an  animated  discussion 
of  the  measure  consumed  the  afternoon  and  evening. 
The  floor  was  full  and  the  galleries  were  crowded 
when  Douglas  rose,  a  half  an  hour  before  midnight, 
to  close  the  debate.  He  offered  to  waive  his  privi- 
lege in  order  that  they  might  proceed  to  vote;  but 
many  senators  protested  and  begged  him  to  go  on. 
The  importance  of  the  occasion  and  the  influence 
which  this  speech  might  have  on  his  future  career 
might  well  make  even  as  ready  a  speaker  as  Douglas 

3°4 


Jgoteg 

tremble  when  he  thought  what  he  must  confront.  The 
bill  had  passed  to  a  third  reading  the  day  previous 
by  a  vote  of  twenty-nine  to  twelve,  so  that  argument 
in  the  Senate  was  needless;  but  the  people  of  the 
North  were  almost  unanimously  against  the  measure 
and  its  author,  and  it  was  to  them  that  Douglas 
spoke  with  extraordinary  energy  and  ability,  per- 
suading and  imploring  them  to  reverse  their  verdict. 
A  feeling  of  regret  that  he  had  provoked  this  con- 
troversy must  have  mingled  with  the  excitement  of 
the  combatant  in  the  contest;  but  there  was  no 
trace  of  it  in  his  manner  as  he  applied  himself  vigor- 
ously to  the  work  of  justifying  himself,  of  defending 
his  bill,  and  of  hurling  defiance  at  his  opponents. 

The  appearance  of  Douglas  was  striking.  Though 
very  short  in  stature,  he  had  an  enormous  head,  and 
when  he  rose  to  take  arms  against  the  sea  of  trou- 
bles which  opposed  him,  he  was  the  very  picture  of 
intellectual  force.  Always  a  splendid  fighter  he 
seemed  this  night  like  a  gladiator  who  contended 
against  great  odds;  for,  while  he  was  backed  by 
thirty-seven  senators,  among  his  fourteen  opponents 
were  the  ablest  men  of  the  Senate,  and  their  argu- 
ments must  be  answered  if  he  expected  to  ride  out 
the  storm  which  had  been  raised  against  him.  Never 
in  the  United  States,  in  the  arena  of  debate,  had  a 
bad  cause  been  more  splendidly  advocated;  never 
more  effectively  was  the  worse  made  to  appear  the 
better  reason.  Rhodes:  History  of  the  United 
States,  vol.  I,  pp.  469,  47 1. 

The  reception  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  act  at  the 
North  was  such  as  to  make  the  politicians  stand 
aghast.  The  voice  of  the  people  began  to  be 
heard  while  the  measure  was  yet  pending.  It  came 
through  the  press  and  the  pulpit,  and  through  great 
mass  meetings  in  the  large  cities.  A  majority  of  the 
northern  state  legislatures  recorded  their  disap- 
proval. Douglas  was  denounced  on  every  hand  as 
the  betrayer  of  his  country,  the  Judas  Iscariot,  and 
a  society  of  women  in  Ohio  sent  him  thirty  pieces  of 

3°5 


$oteg 


silver.  His  middle  name  "Arnold,"  was  empha- 
sized to  connect  him  with  the  archtraitor  of  the' 
Revolution.  Attempting  to  speak  in  his  own  city  of 
Chicago  he  was  hooted  off  the  stage.  By  his  own 
statement  he  "could  travel  from  Boston  to  Chicago 
by  the  light  of  his  own  effigies." 

Douglas  had  made  a  frightful  blunder.  He  and 
his  followers  had  enacted  into  law  a  measure  of  vast 
moment,  without  having  made  it  an  issue  in  any 
campaign,  without  consulting  their  masters,  the  peo- 
ple. However  popular,  however  powerful  a  politi- 
cal leader  may  be,  if  he  presume  too  far  on  the  rights 
and  the  patience  of  the  multitude  he  will  find  himself 
crushed  by  the  ponderous  weight  of  public  opinion. 
Douglas  was  no  doubt  an  honest  man  at  heart.  But 
in  this  daring  play  in  the  presidential  game  he  had 
failed  to  count  the  cost.  Brilliant,  popular  young 
leader  that  he  was,  he  had  won  the  American  heart 
as  few  had  ever  done;  but  now  he  overstepped  the 
bounds  of  public  forbearance,  and  he  soon  found 
himself  dashed  to  the  ground  like  a  broken  toy,  and 
his  presidential  prospects  forever  blasted. — Elson: 
History  of  the  United  States  of  America,  vol.  4, 
pp.  20,  21. 

Scarcely  with  any  of  our  public  men  can  Douglas 
be  compared.  The  people  like  to  compare  him  to 
Jackson  for  his  energy  and  honesty.  He  was  like 
the  great  triumvirate  —  Clay,  Webster,  and  Calhoun, 
but  "like  in  difference."  Like  them  in  his  gift 
of  political  foresight,  still  he  had  a  power  over 
the  masses  possessed  by  neither.  Like  Clay,  in  his 
charm  to  make  and  hold  friends  and  to  lead 
his  party;  like  Webster,  in  the  massive  substance 
of  his  thought,  clothed  in  apt  political  words;  like 
Calhoun,  in  the  tenacity  of  his  purpose  and  the  sub- 
tlety of  his  dialectics;  he  yet  surpassed  them  all  in 
the  homely  sense,  the  sturdy  strength,  and  indomit- 
able persistence  with  which  he  wielded  the  masses 
and  electrified  the  Senate. — Cox:  Eight  Years  in 
Congress,  p.  21$. 

306 


jfcoteg 

Of  all  American  public  men  Douglas  was  the 
fiercest  debater.  Though  a  short  man  he  had  a  big 
voice  which  poured  forth  anything  that  came  into 
his  mind,  especially  a  coarse  and  effective  personal 
abuse  of  those  who  opposed  him.  He  was  quick, 
forcible,  and  undaunted,  and  never  much  concerned 
himself  about  accuracy  or  consistency.  His  main 
defect  was  that  he  could  not  understand  or  measure 
the  moral  opposition  to  slavery. — Hart:  Essentials 
in  American  History,  p.  386. 

Page  225.— Charles  Sumner. 

The  speeches  of  Charles  Sumner  have  many  titles 
to  endure  in  the  memory  of  mankind.  They  con- 
tain the  reasons  on  which  the  American  people  acted 
in  taking  the  successive  steps  in  the  revolution  which 
overthrew  slavery,  and  made  of  a  race  of  slaves, 
freemen,  citizens,  voters.  They  have  a  high  place 
in  literature.  They  are  not  only  full  of  historical 
learning,  set  forth  in  an  attractive  way,  but  each  of 
the  more  important  of  them  was  itself  an  historical 
event.  They  afford  a  picture  of  a  noble  public  char- 
acter. They  are  an  example  of  the  application  of  the 
loftiest  morality  to  the  conduct  of  the  state.  They 
are  an  arsenal  of  weapons  ready  for  the  friends  of 
freedom  in  all  the  great  battles  when  she  may  be  in 
peril  hereafter.  They  will  not  be  forgotten  unless 
the  world  shall  attain  to  such  height  of  virtue  that  no 
stimulant  to  virtue  shall  be  needed,  or  to  a  depth 
of  baseness  from  which  no  stimulant  can  arouse  it. 
—  Hon.  GEORGE  F.  HOAR,  in  Sumner's  Complete 
Works;  vol.  I,  p.  vii. 

Among  American  statesmen  his  life  especially  il- 
lustrates the  truth  he  early  expressed  that  politics 
is  but  the  application  of  moral  principles  to  public 
affairs.  Throughout  his  public  career  he  was  the 
distinctive  representative  of  the  moral  conviction 
and  political  purpose  of  New  England.  His  ample 
learning  and  various  accomplishments  were  rivaled 
among  American  public  men  only  by  those  of  John 

307 


l^oteg 

Quincy  Adams,  and  during  all  the  fury  of  political 
passion  in  which  he  lived  there  was  never  a  whisper 
or  suspicion  of  his  political  honesty  or  his  personal 
integrity.  He  was  fortunate  in  the  peculiar  adapta- 
tion of  his  qualities  to  his  time.  His  profound  con- 
viction, supreme  conscientiousness,  indomitable  will, 
affluent  resources,  and  inability  to  compromise,  his 
legal  training,  serious  temper,  and  untiring  energy, 
were  indispensable  in  the  final  stages  of  the  slavery 
controversy,  and  he  had  them  all  in  the  highest  de- 
gree.— George  William  Curtis,  in  Appletoris 

Cyclopaedia  of  American  Biography,  vol.  5,  p.  749. 

On  the  17th  of  March,  1856,  Mr.  Douglas  intro- 
duced "A  bill  to  authorize  the  people  of  the  terri- 
tory of  Kansas  to  form  a  constitution  and  state 
government,  preparatory  to  their  admission  into  the 
Union,  when  they  have  the  requisite  population." 
Subsequently,  Mr.  Seward  moved,  by  way  of  substi- 
tute, another  bill,  providing  for  immediate  action, 
and  entitled  "A  bill  for  the  admission  of  the  state 
of  Kansas  into  the  Union."  Debate  ensued,  and 
was  continued  by  adjournment  from  time  to  time. 
In  the  course  of  this  debate,  on  the  19th  and  20th  of 
May,  Mr.  Sumner  made  the  speech  printed  in  the 
foregoing  pages. 

This  speech  found  unexpected  audience  from  an 
incident  which  followed  its  delivery.  It  became  a 
campaign  document  in  the  Presidential  election  then 
at  hand,  and  was  circulated  by  the  hundred  thou- 
sand. Besides  reprint  in  newspapers,  there  were 
large  pamphlet  editions  in  Washington,  New  York, 
Boston,  and  San  Francisco.  Editions  appeared  in 
German  and  Welsh.  It  was  reprinted  in  London, 
in  a  publication  by  Nassau  W.  Senior,  the  eminent 
publicist  and  economist,  entitled  "American  Slav- 
ery: A  Reprint  of  an  Article  on  'Uncle  Tom's  Cabin' 
in  the  'Edinburgh  Review,'  and  of  Mr.  Sumner's 
speech  of  the  19th  and  20th  of  May,  1856." 

At  the  period  of  its  delivery  an  intense  excitement 
prevailed  throughout  the   country.     At  the  North 


,ffiote£ 

there  was  a  deep  sense  of  wrong,  with  indignation  at 
the  pretensions  of  the  Slave  Power,  yearning  for  a 
voice  in  Congress  that  should  speak  out  the  general 
sentiment.  These  influences  reached  Mr.  Sumner 
before  he  spoke,  in  numerous  letters. — Charles 
SUMNER:  Complete  Works,  vol.  5,  p.  127. 

Sumner  knew  not  fear;  and  his  sincerity  was  abso- 
lute. His  speech  was  prepared  with  care.  To  write 
out  such  a  philippic  in  the  cool  seclusion  of  the  study, 
and  deliver  it  without  flinching,  was  emphasizing  to 
the  southerners  that  in  Sumner  they  had  a  persist- 
ent antagonist  whom  the  fury  of  their  threats  could 
not  frighten. 

If  there  had  been  no  more  to  Sumner's  speech  than 
the  invective  against  the  slave  power  he  would  not 
have  been  assaulted  by  Preston  Brooks.  Nor  is  it 
probable  that  the  bitter  attack  which  the  senator 
made  on  South  Carolina  would  have  provoked  the 
violence  had  it  not  been  coupled  with  personal  allu- 
sions to  Senator  Butler,  who  was  a  kinsman  of 
Brooks.  —  RHODES:  History  of  the  United  States, 
vol.  2,  p.  134. 

Two  days  after  making  this  speech,  as  Sumner  sat 
at  his  desk  writing,  after  the  Senate  had  adjourned, 
he  was  assaulted  with  a  cane  by  Preston  Brooks,  a 
member  of  the  House  and  a  relative  of  Senator  But- 
ler. Brooks  rained  blows  on  Sumner's  head  with 
great  ferocity.  Sumner  sat  so  near  his  desk  that  he 
had  no  chance  to  defend  himself;  but  at  length  he 
rose,  wrenching  the  desk  from  its  fastenings.  Brooks 
then  grappled  with  him  and  continued  his  blows  until 
Sumner  fell  bleeding  and  unconscious  to  the  floor. 
ELSON:  History  of  the  United  States  of  America,  vol. 
4,  p.  38. 

Sumner  divided  his  speech  under  three  different 
heads:  "The  Crime  against  Kansas,  in  its  origin 
and  extent;  the  Apologies  for  the  Crime;  the  True 
Remedy."  The  discussion  under  the  second  head 
has  been  omitted.  The  other  omissions  are  com- 
paratively slight. — Editor. 

309 


VLJL0C3-  W  053CC