Negro equality--the right of one man to hold property in another--the Democratic party a disunion party--the success of the Republican party the only salvation for the country : speech of Hon. Benjamin Stanton, of Ohio ; delivered in the House of Representatives, May 3, 1860

HEGEft EaUALITY-THE RIGHT OP OlfE MAJT TO HOLD PROPERTY
IN ANOTHER -THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY A DISUNION PARTY-
THE SUCCESS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THE ONLY SALVATION
FOR THE COUNTRY.

SPEECH

OP

■ HON. BENJAMIN STANTON, OF OHIO.

Delivered in the House of Representatives, May 3, 1860.

Mr. Chairman : I have no prepared speech for
this occasion, arid it is the first time I have at-
tempted to address the House or the Committee
for four years, except upon some question imme-
diately pending for action. Four years ago I
discussed the question of the power of Congress
over slavery in the Territories ; and with the
argument I made on that subject I am still satis-
fied. I have not seen any satisfactory answer to
it, and I do not propose to reargue the question.

Let me say one word or two, preliminary, in re-
gard to the tone and temper of the discussions
which have prevailed in this Hall during the
present session. It seems to me that they have
indicated a great lack of statesmanship and dig-
nity, and of that parliamentary courtesy indis-
pensable to the careful consideration of grave
national questions.

Gentlemen seem to forget that we are a people
covering twenty-five parallels of latitude and
forty degrees of longitude, embracing every varie-
ty of soil and climate, and every variety of pro-
duction, of character, and of social institutions.
It seems to be imagined that we must all think
alike, reason alike, come to the same conclusions ;
or that our differences of opinion shall be causes
of bitterness and discord aod strife. I appre-
hend, if I had been born and educated at Norfolk,
I should probably have entertained opinions very
similar to those entertained by my friend from
Virginia, [Mr. Millson ;] and if he had been born
and educated upon the banks of the Ohio, he
would probably have entertained opinions very
similar to mine. If I had been born and educa-
ted in Turkey, I would probably have been a
Mussulman; but, sir, born and educated in a
Christian country, I entertain the tenets of
the Christian faith. What allowances are or
have been made for the difference of soil and
climate, education and habits? It seems to me
that there ought to be a little charity extended
for different opinions, diff"erent feelings, and dif-
ferent prejudices. Entering upon this discussion

with that feeling, if I should say anything that
grates harshly upon any gentlemen's prejudices,
it will be unintentional, and not designed.

Mr. Chairman, before proceeding to the dis-
cussion of the main question I desire to consider,
I wish to address a lemark or two to the speech
of the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. English.]
Yesterday that gentleman spent a solid hour iu
attempting to demonstrate that the Republican
party was in favor of negro equality ; in attempt-
ing to show that the Republican party was in
favor of social and political equality between the
negro and white man — yes, sir, a solid hour.
In the State of Ohio, and in all of the Northwest,
if the gentleman will poll the Republican party,
he will not find one in every thousand who is in
favor of extending equal social and political priV- "
ileges to the negroes. In the Constitutional Con-
vention of his own State, and in the Constitutional
Convention of my State, the question of extend-
ing equal political privileges to the blacks was
presented, discussed, and decided, and in neither
of them did it find advocates worthy of the name,
and was rejected by almost a unanimous vote.
It is true, that the Democracy of the Northwest
are very hard pressed. The gentleman from In-
diana will not undertake to argue in favor of the
principles of the Democratic party, and say that
the Constitution carries slavery into all of the
Territories. He will argue in favor of no such
thing, here or anywhere else, when he can possi-
bly avoid it.

What, then, is to be done? Capital must be
got up for the campaign in Indiana and the
Northwest, and the only capital upon which they
can go to the people, and hope for success, is by
appealing to the popular prejudice against ne-
groes. That is the whole story, all there is ofit,
or about it. There is no paan, to my knowledge,
in the Republican party, in either State, who is
in favor of the extension of equal* political and
social privileges to negroes. The gentleman
however, to insist upon it, that because

2

the Constitution of the State of Indiana his not
only disfranchised negroes, but esciudes them
from the State, and dej^rived them of the means
of subsistence, that every iiian who stops short
of that limit is in favor of negro equality. Now,
while I do not approve of the doctrine of negro
equality, I am not one who believes that negroes
are beasts, or men who ought to be considered
as outlaws in every country. I believe a negro
is entitled to live upon the soil where he was
born. I believe he has a right to the proceeds
of his labor, to his earnings, and to his liberty.
That is my opinion ; but I do not choose to make
him my equal socially and politically because I
do 80 believe. And 1 cannot very well compre-
hend the feelings which prompt men to wage a
war upon a poor, down-trodden, helpless portion
of the community.

There seems to be some terrible apprehension,
that if mere political rights, or any rights what-
ever, are extended to negroes, they may come
into competition with the whites. Is the gentle-
man from Indiana [Mr, English] distressed with
the apprehension that some negro may be a can-
didate for Congress in the New Albany district,
and run in opposition to him ? I ask the gentle-
man why this incessant warfare is waged upon
negroes; why they are treated as outlaws, un-
less it is that some portion of the population is
jealous that negroes may wage successful com-
petition with them ; may usurp their places, and
occupy positions which they like to enjoy them-
selves ? Now, as I do not Jaelieve there is the
least danger of any black or mulatto superseding
me in my position here, or of obtaining any office
in the district I represent ; as I have no appre-
hension whatever of anything of that kind, I
entertain no jealousy of them, and no hatred
towards them. All this talk is an appeal to
that low, vulgar, popular prejudice which wages
war against the negroes, because the lowest man
in society is himself always anxious to find some
one lower than himself, upon whom he can look
down and domineer over and treat as an inferior.
That is the prejudice appealed to, and it consti-
tutes the stock in trade of the Democrats of the
Northwest.

But let that pass. Mr. Chairman, I rose mainly
for the purpose of replying to an argument deliv-
ered early in the session by the gentleman from
Alabama, [Mr. Curry,] who, I am sorry to see,
is not present. He presented the question before
the people in a statesmanlike manner ; and the
argument, therefore, demands a careful and
courteous reply. The gentleman from Alabama
Bets out with the allegation that the great ques-
tion which underlies the party politics of the
present day is the question of the right of man
to hold property in man, he affirming that prop-
osition. I understood him to state it as a gen-
eral proposition, in philosophy and in morals,
not connected with existing institutions, but as
a thing which exists in the nature of things,
apart from the existence of slavery in any State,
or of a6y provision of the Federal Constitution.
I understand him to hold that it is legitimate,
that it is sound philosophy, for one man to hold
property in another j not a question of color or

condition, not a question whether a wnite man
may hold property in a negro; but a question
whether, in the nature of things, and consistently
with the rights of man, one mau can make a
chattel of another. He held the affirmative of
that proposition, while I hold the negative ; and
that is the proposition I propose to discuss.

Now, let it be remembered that this is entirely
outside of, and independent of, any question
arising out of the existing institution of slavery
in the States. That is a question I do not pro-
pose to interfere with, and with the origin of
which I have no concern. I do not propose to
disturb it, and therefore it is not my purpose to i
inquire whether its origin is right or not. I am
to consider what is the proper relation between
man and man, as an original question in the
original institution and construction of society —
whether Robinson Crosoe might lawfully make '
a chattel of his man Friday. Now, the first diffi-
culty you encounter in the advocacy of such a
principle as that, is as to who shall be the master
and who shall be the slave. If Robinson may
lawfully enslave his man Friday, may not Friday
lawfully enslave Robinson ? I can see no difi"er-
ence. And so it must of necessity resolve itself
into a question of physical power. If one man
has the right to enslave another, it is because
he is wiser or stronger, and by the aid of his in-
tellectual or physical power, in some form or
another, to subjugate another man to his will.
That is the. only philosophy there is in it. The
strong man may enslave the weak. If that be
so, if Napoleon or Nicholas may, through the in-
strumentality of superior wisdom, or by combi-
nation of numbers, constitute themselves despots
over millions, the existence of the power estab-
lishes the right. It is precisely the same ques-
tion, whether applicable to one man ruling the
million, or whether it is applicable to one man
ruling his fellow. If might gives the right, if
strength is a warrant which will authorize one
man to subjugate another man to his will, tuen
it is just as applicable to despots subjugating
millions, as it is to the individual.

You are therefore cut lo(\se from all moral ob-
ligations or moral restraint, and you resolve the
whole government of mankind into the sheer
question, of brute force. It is said the white
man may enslave the negro because he is his su-
perior, physically and intellectually. But it will
be remembered, if mere superiority gives the
title, then it is not simply that a white man may
enslave the negro because he is inferior, but that
he may enslave another white man who is his
inferior. It is the inferiority of the slave and
the superiority of the master upon which the
right rests. It is not, therefore, a question of
race or complexion. Now, that is not the Re-
publican doctrine ; it is not the Republican phi-
losophy,

I do not hold that superior strength or supe-
rior intellectual power gives to one man aay
right to enslave, or subjugate, or control another.
I hold, and I believe the Republican party of the
country holds, to the doctrine of the natural
equality of man — that is, an equality of rights.
I do not mean to be misunderstood, when I speak

of the e^ality of men, that they are equal in
strength, intelligence, social position, or political
rights. I mean that every man has' certain
natural, inherent, and inalienable rights. All
have them equally alike, and to the protec-
tion of those rights they are all entitled. The
right to live, the right to the enjoyment of a
man's own earnings, the right of locomotion, to
go from place to place, are rights which all men
have, without regard to their intellect, whether
it be inferior or superior.

Mr. Chairman, this thing is obscured, and a
mist is thrown over it, by bringing the two races
in juxtaposition, and claiming that the black race
may legally be subjected to the white race. But,
sir, it is not a question of race ; it is a question
of the essential manhood of the party sought to
be subjugated. What is the negro? I make no
question about his equality. What is he? Where
does he belong in the scale of creation? Is he a
rational, accountable being, the proper subject
of civil and moral government, or is he a beast ?
That is all the question. How do your laws treat
him in Virginia ? If a slave knock out his mas-
ter's brains, you arraign him in your courts, you
indict him and try him and hang him for mur-
der. If a horse kicks out his owner's brains, you
do not indict the horse for murder, do you ? Why
not? Why do you make the distinction? Be-
cause the one is a rational and accountable be-
ing, the proper subject of civil and moral gov-
ernment, and the other is not. There is, then,
a difference between a man and a horse — a dif-
ference as the subject of property and as the
subject of government. Now, that being so, the
accountability and rationality of the negro being
recognised, it carries with it certain other con-
sequences. According to my understanding of
moral philosophy, there is no other mode recog-
nised among men whereby the human race may
be perpetuated, except through the instrumen-
tality of the famih relations — husband and wife,
parent and child. Whatever institution, there-
fore, utterly destroys and prostrates these rela-
tions, brutalizes the man, and is at war with the
essential attributes of humanity. The chattel-
izing of men, of necessity, cuts up all these do-
mestic relations. There can be no such thing
as a marriag^betWeen slaves, because that is a
permanent, life-long union between the sexes.
The relation of parent and child is also one
which is guarantied by the laws of nature ; and
that system of social organization which utterly
disregards it and tramples it under foot, is a sys-
tem which cannot be reconciled with the rights
of man.

Now, sir, these remarks bring me to the con-
clusion that one man may not legally hold prop-
erty in another, as an original abstract question.
I say he may not, because you cannot distinguish
who shall be the master and who the slave, ex-
cept by giving the mastery to the strongest. I say
he may not, because it is utterly inconsistent with
the essential attributes of humanity, and with the
fundamental laws that have been established by
the Almighty for the government of the world in
all nations and in all ages. There is no country,
there never was any country known in any age,

whfere the family relation was not recognised." *
You cannot abolish it, you cannot destroy it,
without brutalizing that community. I hold,
therefore, that that system which is said to be
right, which the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Curry] maintains is the highest type of civiliza-
tion, is essentially at war with the very first prin-
ciples on which social organization can be sus-
tained.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alabama is
right in another thing. He says that that is the
proposition which underlies all this controversy ;
and it is, for this plain reason : if this institution
of slavery be the preferable form of civilization,
if one man may legally chattelize another, and
make him his property, then it is proper that you
should propagate that relation and that institu-
tion in all the unsettled Territories. That is the
form of civilization wh?ch you should adopt and
establish in all your unsettled domain. If it be
not, then I hold you ought not to propagate it,
and ought not to establish it. It is therefore for
that reason and in that connection that it be-
comes the duty of Congress to inquire into the
inherent character of the institution itself —
whether it be right, or whether it be wrong;
whether it be the proper form of civilization or
not.

But, Mr. Chairman, I am going into this dis-
cussion without any arrangement of thought,
and perhaps I may be a little desultory. I wish
to call the attention of the Committee to another
proposition. We are now, probably for the first
time in our history, entering a new aspect of na-
tional politics. The safety of our institutions has
heretofore rested in the unquestionable loyalty of
the whole people, from one end of the Confed-
eracy to the other ; in their unquestioned submis-
sion to the great verdict of the people, pronoun-
ced at the ballot-box in a constitutional manner.
You have now, sir, for the first time in the his-
tory of the country, a political party organized
on the express doctrine, and with the avowed
purpose, of overthrowing the Government, in the
event of their being unable to control it through
the ballot-box. It is asserted here by gentlemen
on the other side — by one portion of them — that
if a Republican President shall be elected, they
will resist his inauguration forcibly. That is one
proposition made on the other side of the House *
by the Democratic party.

I take it for granted there can be no contro-
versy about what that resistance amounts to. It
can only be done by levying war against the
United States. The thing threatened is treason
against the United States. There can be no
controversy about that.

Another portion say that, if a Republican Pres-
ident is elected, they will secede from the Con-
federacy, and organize a separate and independ-
ent confederacy of their own. Whether that
constitutes treason or not, is a matter of opin-
ion, and may be a matter of controversy ; but it
is, nevertheless, equally fatal to the perpetuity of
the existing Government and the existing insti-
tutions of the country.

Mr. Chairman, let us look this proposition
straight in the face. Here is a political party for

eight years in possession of the Government,
wielding its patronage, amounting to some eighty
milJiioJi dollars a year. The expiration of their
lease of power approaches ; and the question is
made, as to whether they shall be continued
longer in power. They say to the people, " Gen-
tlemen, we are willing to take charge of this
Government for four years longer, pretty much
on the same terms. We would like to do it, for
it is rather agreeable than otherwise. If you do
not choose 'to intrust us with this power, then we
will resist any other man who may be placed in
the Presidential chair. We will rule this country,
or we will ruin it. We will overturn this Gov-
ernment if we are not allowed to administer it
ourselves." That is the naked, undisguised prop-
osition of the Democratic party in the year of
grace 1860. I say it here in the hearing of gen-
tlemen who have advocated these doctrines; and
I do not know that any gentleman upon that side
of the House has disclaimed that as being the
settled purpose of the party.

Mr. NIBLACK. As the gentleman from Ohio
seems to take it for granted as a fair thing, when
a statement is made, apd nobody gets up to con-
tradict it, that all the members of the House are
to be held bound by it, 1 would ask him why he
and others did not get up and disclaim the doc-
trines enunciated by the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Lovbjoy] and others, with which I am sure
he does not coincide? Is he to be considered as
endorsing those doctrines, because he did not get
up and disclaim them?

Mr. STANTON. Gentlemen of the other side
of the House, of all shades of opinions and from
all sections of the Confederacy, have exercised
the liberty of speech here pretty extensively.
There has been no gag upon them ; and, sir, I do
not now remember a single gentleman of them all,
who, in discussing this subject of the Presiden-
tial election, has disclaimed it to be the purpose
of his party to revolutionize and overthrow this
Gpvernment, in the event of a defeat at the bal-
lot-box.

Mr. NIBLACK. This thing, then, Mr. Chair-
man, amounts to this : If we do not, when these
charges are made against us, get up and make a
speech defining our positions, we are to be held
as endorsing those who do speak. It is a con-
clusion I repudiate. As the gentleman from Ohio
has made certain charges against this side of the
House, and as I am one of the members included,
I beg to say to him that I disclaim being bound
by anything that has been said by any member
of this or the other side. When the proper time
arrives to give the House my opinions on these
subjects, I will do so ; but at this time I deny the
authority of any man upon this side of the House
by his speech to bind me to any position which
my judgment disapproves of. I believe that to
be the position of the majority of the members
on this side of the House.

Mr. STANTON. I think that the majority
have made speeches the other way.

Mr. NIBLACK. The majority of this side of the
House have not yet spoken, and they will not
probably for some time to come.

Jg. STANTdN. Mr. Chairman, I know no other

mode of ascertaining the opinions and purposes
of a party, except by taking the publicly-expressed
opinions of the great mass of its leading men,
its representative men, its men who are intrusted
with power, and who enjoy the confidence of the
people they represent; and when they come here,
without contradiction, by an unbroken current
of speeches and declarations upon that side of
the House, and announce that it is their purpose
to overturn this Government or to rule it, 1 think
surely there can be no further doubt on that
head.

Mr. NIBLACK. I wish to say a word here for
the benefit of the gentleman from Ohio, and for
the benefit of other gentlemen who may deem
that he is correct in the position he assumes.
Any gentleman, of any party, who will take the
position in my district, or in any other district
of the Northwest — it is certainly so in Indiana —
that he will revolutionize this Government in
the event of any result of any election, wonld
not get five hundred votes, whatever might be
his personal popularity. There is no difference
of opinion in the Northwest on the question at
all, if there be in reality in any section of the
Union. While tnat is our position, I do not
deem that it is necessary always to get up and
disclaim the charge when the contrary is alleged.
The position I have stated is, so far as I know,
that of all those around me who come from the
same section of the country that I do.

Mr. STANTON. I know that it is not necessary
for a gentleman to get up and disclaim every
expression of sentiment which may be made by
others, and in which he cannot agree ; but it
would seem, Mr. Chairman, that this is a matter
of such great magnitude as to call for an ex-
pression of opinion all around. If the repre-
sentative men of the party — not one, not two,
but more than twenty — have declared, in our
hearing, that it is their purpose, and the pur-
pose of the party to which they belong, to revo-
lutionize this Government, it is about time that
some of those who assume the contrary position
began to speak.

Mr. NIBLACK. It was manifest that the gen-
tlemen who spoke in the manner referred to by
the gentleman only spoke for the section which
they represented. If they had attempted to have
spoken for my section, then would have been
the time for us to have made the disclaimer; but
they have not done so ; they spoke for them-
selves, and themselves alone.

Mr. STANTON. I am sorry, but it is the fact,
that there are not many members of the Demo-
cratic party outside of that section. [Laughter.]

Mr. Chairman, there is- another thing. It is
not merely confined to declarations in this House,
Who has forgotten that, during the present ses-
sion, on the nomination of a minister to France,
when a proposition was made in the Senate to
inquire whether he entertained those opinions,
it was answered by gentlemen of the other side,
that no inquiry need be made on the subject, be-
cause there was no doubt he entertained those
opinions, and that they concurred with him ?

The proposition, I submit to you, Mr. Chair-
man, end to the American people, is, that a party

that in advance avows a treasonoble purpose,
acd has declared its disloyalty to the Constitu-
tion and the Union, is not entitled to the public
confidence, and ought not to be intrusted with
the Government. When I talk about a treason-
able purpose, I do not mean there is necessarily
anything disreputable in it. I remember that
Washington was a traitor to the British Govern-
ment. It may be that the oppression may be
unendurable, and that they may have arrived at
a point which changes the quality of treason ;
but, nevertheless, that is the constitutional defi-
nition of the offence.

Mr. ENGLISH. Will the gentleman allow me
to say a word ?

Mr. STANTON. Certainly.

Mr. ENGLISH. I claim only to be an humble
member of the Democratic party ; but I think
that it will be remembered that 1 announced dis-
tinctly, upan this floor, in a speech which 1 had
the honor to make at an early period of the ses-
sion, that I did not believe a corporal's guard of
the Democratic party of the North would be wil-
ling to go out of the Union, or make any effort
in that direction, because of the mere election of
an objectionable man to the Presidency.

Mr. STANTON. They recognise political fel-
lowship with a party, all of whom upon this floor,
from the other section of the Union, so far as I
know, do avow this doctrine. They are main-
taining and strengthening that political sentiment
and that political party which avows this trea-
sonable purpose. There is no controversy about
that. Tbey are endeavoring to build up a sym-
pathizing party in the free States, and to give
them their aid in obtaining the control of the
Government.

I hold, sir, as an intelligent American citizen,
looking to the perpetuity of our institutions and
to their welfare, that it is my first duty to see to
it that no enemy of our Government, no enemy
to the institutions of our country, shall be in-
trusted with the power and patronage of that
Government. I will not inquire what his opin-
ions may be on the subject of slavery ; whether
he is for its extension into the Territories or
otherwise. If he has avowed that he cares more
for his party than he does for his country, if he
has avowed that his party purpose and his revo-
lutionary purpose are stronger than his patriot-
ism, is not that a sufficient reason why I should
exclude him from any place of honor or trust?

Mr. MILLSON. I cannot say that I regard the
course of the gentleman from Ohio as fair. There
are at this time not half a dozen members of the
Democratic party present ; and yet the gentle-
man is speaking in the hope that he shall be able
to take advantage of the silence of members as
evidence of assent.

Now, £ir, I say, for one, that I have not, in
any remarks I have ever submitted to the House,
addressed myself at any time to the question the
gentleman is now considering, and I do not mean
to be drawn into any untimely or unnecessary
expression of my own position ; but I take leave
to suggest to the gentleman, that he is altogether
in error in supposing that a solitary member of
the Democratic party, North or South, has ever

declared that it wag the purpose of that party to
destroy the Union in the event of the election of
an Opposition candidate for the Presidency.

Mr. STANTON. My sense of bearing has de-
ceived me terribly if that be not so. If the gentle-
man will have the goodness to go over the speech
made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr.
McPherson,] and look at the extracts therein
contained from the speeches made upon the
other side of. the House, he will find that there
were more than twenty speeches made upon this
floor, in which it was distinctly avowed that the
election of a Republican President — Governor
Seward was frequently named — or any other
man represeriting his views upon what they de-
nominated a sectional platform, would, of itself,
be a sufficient cause for a dissolution of the
Union. Does the gentleman from Virginia ques-
tion that?

Mr. MILLSON. No, sir, I do not question it.
That is what I affirm ; but the gentleman stated
that it bad been said repeatedly upon this floor
that it was the purpose of the Democratic party- —
that members had declared that it was the pur-
pose of the Democratic party — to dissolve the
Union ; whereas, all that was said at any time, by
any gentleman, was, that in the opinion of that
gentleman, or in the opinion of that gentleman's
constituents, the election of such an individual
would furnish a just occasion for a dissolution of
the Union.

Mr. STANTON. It may be true I have not put
it technically in the form I should have placed
it. I did not mean to be understood as saying
that they had avowed it as the purpose of the
Democratic party, as a party organization ; but
what I did mean to be understood as saying
was, that the leading influential representative
men of the party here, who are the authorized
exponents of the opinions, principles, and pur-
poses, of the party, had each severally for them-
selves expressed that purpose. And I take the
uniform expression of opinion of men occupying
that representative position, uncontradicted, as
the expression of the opinions and purposes of
the party. That is all. I do not think they will
put it in the platform at Charleston, nor, per-
haps, will they at Baltimore.

But this is the purpose avowed by men who
lead and control that party, and it will not be
disclaimed now. The gentleman from Virginia,
while disclaiming it as having been avowed as
a party purpose, does not disclaim that it is his
opinion that it ought not to be done. The gen-
tleman does not disclaim that in his own judg-
ment and in his opinion it would be a sufficient
cause for the dissolution of the Union.

Mr. MILLSON. It is evident that the gentle-
man desires an expression of my personal opin-
ion. I do not concede the right of the gentle-
man to require it, I have the right to express or
withhold my opinions until my own selected time, and I did
not mean that the gentleman should infer that I occupied one
position or the other upon that subject ; least of all did I de-
sign that the gentleman should draw the inference he seems
desirous to draw.

Sir, the gentleman calls upon me for an expression of my
own opinion, and I will give it to him. What is disunion?
What does disunion mean ? It means battle and murder ; it
meaas widows aud orphans ; it means tears and lameuta-

ticns and anguish ; and if any contingency should ever arise
which, iu my opinion, invoked the decision of so awfu], so
momentous a question, sir, 1 should seek some place of re-
tirement, and there pray that Almighty wisdom would en-
able me to dispose of that issue, too great for the feebleness
of man.

Mr. STANTON. There is no gentleman upon that side of
the House who occupies, and who deservedly occupies, a
more prominent, distinguished, and leading position, than
the gentleman from Virginia. HiS integrity and his sincerity
^r« unquestioned upon cither side of the House; and yet the
gentleman from Virginia does not feel prepared to say now
that he is not in favor of a secession, or dissolution, in the
event of the election of a Kepublican President. But let that
pass. '

Mr. Chairman, hiy own settled conviction is, that the only
mode by which this Union can be perpetuated, and our in-
stitutions maintiiiued, is by the election of a Republican
President. I have no belief that if a Repubhcan President
be constitutionally elected, there will be any difficulty about
his administering the Government.

Mr. HUGl-IES. I desire to ask the gentleman, when the
leading member of the Republican party announces the
proposition that slavery must be abolished, and that you
and I must do it, must he not mean the abolition of slavery
in the States ? And I wish to know from him whether the
election of a President announcing such a sentiment as that,
elected by a sectional vote, elected by a large popular ma-
jority at the North, would not be an aggressive act, through
the ballot-box, upon the South, and whether he supposes the
South would submit to such an act of aggression ?

Mr. STANTON. I regret that my friend from Maryland had
not read the speech from which he quotes, instead of con-
tenting himself with extracts. K he had read the speech, he
would have found that the expression in reference to abol-
ishing slavery, and that " you and I must do it," was ex-
plained by the further declaration, that it must not be done
by any physical force — must not be done by any interfer-
ence with the affairs of the slavehdlding States — but by the
moral f6rce and power of truth, disseminated among the
slaveholding as well as the free States, which would ulti-
mately bring about the abolition of slavery.

Mr.'HUGHES. But the phrase was, " You and I must do
it."

Mr. STANTON. Yes ; accompanied with that explanation j
as to the mode of doing it.

Mr. HUGHES. By getting hold of the power of the Gov-
ernment.

Mr. STANTON. Not at all ; but the mode of doing it was
by enlightening the minds of men hving south of Mason and
Dixon's line.

Mr. HUGHES. Perhaps by changing the character of the
Supreme Court.

Mr. STANTON. I am decidedly of the opinion that the
character of that court might be very essentially improved
by a change.

Mr. HUGHES. Do you advocate a reorganization of that
court ?

Jlr. STANTON. I am in favor of a reorganization of that
court.

I said, Mr. Chairman, that I behoved that was the only
way to perpetuate this Union. I believe it will be found,
belbro the Republican party has been in power six months,
that its purposes are purely national ; that it has no aggres-
sive purpose ; that it will protect all sections of the Confed-
eracy in the enjoyment of their equal, constitutional rights ;
and the country will then become satisfied that all this cry
of " mad dog," raised against the Republican party, is a
delusion.

Now, sir, for eight long weeks, gentlemen here mado
speeches, and incorporated into them the ravings of Wen-
dell Phillips aud Lloyd Garrison, and every extravagant
fanatic in the whole free States of the Confederacy, and dis-
seminated them broadcast, by tens of thousands, through
the slaveholding States, as the opinions and principles of the
Republican party.

Mr. BARR. I ask the gentleman if your party has not
done the same thing with the speeches made on our side ?

Mr. STANTON. We have not circulated anything except
the speeches made by gentlemen on this floor. I have cir-
culated the speech of the distinguished gentleman from Geor-
gia, [Mr. Crawford,] and various speeches of that sort.
Gentlemen have a right to circulate speeches made on this
floor ; but speeches made by Phillips, lectures delivered by
Garrison, and extracts from the Liberator, have been incor-
porated by gentlemen on the other side in their speeches, and
have been disseminated through the South as the opinions of
the Republican party ; and the great mass of the people of the
South entertain the opinion that these are correct expositions
of the purposes of the Repubhcan party. You may madden

them and infuriate them, by the dissemination of that idea,
but when a Republican President has been six months in
power, then it will be demonstrated that that was a delu-
sion, aud that the Republican party is seeking for nothing
that has not been recognised in the first sixty years of the
administration of the Government as purely aud strictly na-
tional. I undertake to say to you, sir, that the Republican
party to-dny holds no principle, advocates no policy, that
has not been recognised by every political party, in its turn,
from the organization of the Government to the present day.
Not one. You cannot name to me a principle recognised by
the Republican party, incorporated into its platform, avowed
by any authorized exponent of its opinions, that 1 cannot '
show you in the principles and platLorms of every pohtical
party, and in the speeches of every public man who has
been on the stage of action during the last sixty years, gince
the organization of the Government, until the last ten or fif-
teen years.

Gentlemen do not really controvert that fact. They say :
" It is very true, there was a strange set of men on the stage
of action at the time of the Revolution. They did not com-
prehend the slavery question very well. They did entertain
some anti-slavery notions, which wo do not approve. They
did not comprehend it. They did not investigate it. We,
on the contrarj', have gone over this whole question. We
have exammed it thoroughly, and have made up our miuda
that they were in error."

Suppose, for the purpose of argument, that that be so. TTith
the opinions which the founders of the Government enter-
tained, they framed a Constitution ; the)'' put a practical con-
struction on it, as Presidents, Senators, Represcntativess in
Congress, and Judges of the courts. What I claim is, that,
whether their opinions are sound or unsound, they are the
opinions incorporated in the Constitution. If they were in
error in that particular, if these gentlemen have discovered
new light, if they find that a different set of political princi-
ples are the true political philosophy of the times, that does
not change the Constitution. The .men who made the Con-
stitution differed with you. You propose a thorough and
complete revolutio^i of the whole Government. You propose
to reverse the principles of the founders of the Constitution,
on the theory that you have investigated the subject more
carefully. That may be a good reason for amending the
Constitution. Call a Convention, gentlemen ; try it in your
several States ; modify the Constitution; but, in God's name,
do not attempt to amend by construction. Do not' under-
take, because you have got wiser than your fathers, to undo
their work, and put a construction on it which they never
contemplated.

All I ask is, that yon shall take that Constitution, with the
construction put upon it by the- men who framed it, and
carry out the principles which they incorporated into it, and
which they adopted in the practical administration of the
Government. That is precisely what a'Republican Admuiis-
tration will do. I do not care who may be elected the Re-
publican President ; six months of his administration will
satisfy anybody that you are all perfectly safe in his hands.
There will be a Repubhcan organization in every slavehold-
ing State in less than six niontlis ; and I do not believe but
that the custom-houses at Charleston and New Orleans will be
able to find officers without going very far from the place of
the receipt of customs.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if this Democratic party is to suc-
ceed, and if they are to estabUsh, by another Presidential
election, by another popular verdict, that slavery is a na-
tional institution, aud is carried into all the Territories of the
Confederacy by force of the Federal Constitution, why, then,
a collision is to continue between the two sections of the
Confederacy ; for I teU you, that whatever the Supreme
Court may decide, whatever a Democratic Convention may
proclaim, and whatever the people may ratify at the ballot-
box, the sentiment that slavery is local, and frcedoju national,
will be insisted upon as detormiucdiy as it now is, and the
people will be constantly appealed to to maintain that doc-
trine at the ballot-box.

Mr. SINGLETON. I desire to ask the gentleman a ques-
tion ; and I know, from his characteristic candor, that he
will answer me fairly. You say it is not the purpose of the
Republican party to interfere with slavery where it now ex-
ists. Whatj then, is your object in preventing the South
from going into the Territories, if it be not to destroy the
institution by restricting it to its present limits ? I beg to
know, in all" seriousness, whether the great leadmg object
aud purpose of the Republican party in circumscribing us,
and preventing us going into the Territories, is not the con-
sciousness that, if slavery be kept within its present area, it
must perish, in half a century, from plethora? Is not that
your purpose ?

Mr. STANTON. I will answer that very fully, aud I trust
satisfactorily, if my time will permit me.

Mr. SINGIjETON. I want to know, from the gentleman
roui Ohio, whether he does not thiulc it will have liiat qH'ect,
and if that isj not the bolii^f of his party ?

Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman, the Eepuhlican partj"- is
opposed to the extension of slavery into free Territories
mainly — I think I might say solely — because free and slave
labor cannot go there together. The admission of slave
labor is the exclusion of free labor. It is because we will
not permit free labor and the dignity of free mc-u to be de-
graded, from being brought into contact and competition
with slave labor, that we do not want slavery to go into the
Territorie.s., That is the essential reascxi.

Now, Mr. Cliainnan, 1 have no desire, nor is it my purpose,
to embarrass the slaveholdiug States by couhning slavery
witinn its present lunits, if there is any mode of escaping
fi-ora it. If, as the geutiemau from Mississippi seems to sup-
pose, the confining of slavery to its present limits necessarily
brings about its extinction, I pray you, sir, what sort of con-
fession is tliat of tlie character of the institution?

Mr. SINGLETON. There is a very simple reason to be sta-
ted in proof of my remark. The slave population at the
South is increasing very rapidly , much more so, indeed, than
the white population ; and it does not require the gift of
prophecy to foresee the result, imless we are allowed to ex-
pand in some direction. Expansion we must liave, or sla-
very di(nj, and wjlh it the salety and prosperity of the South.
And the gentleman talks about free and slave labor not
being compatible in the same community, and the former
being degraded by the latter. The impression is attempted
to be made, by the gentlemaifs speech, that there is no free
labor in the South. Lea me say, that there are free white
laborers in the State of Mississippi, and throughout the South,
who work side by side with the slave laborers upon the cot-
ton pl-antaliou6, and who do not feel themselves thereby at
all degraded.

Mr. STANTON. I understand that there are free laborers
in the South ; but I a.so understand that a man who is de-
pendent in the South upon his daily toil for his daily bread —
not the owner of a cotton iiiantation, but a man who is de-
pendent upon his toil, com|)elled to support his family by
his labor — must, by contact and association with slave labor,
be a degraded m:.u in a slaveholdiug community.

Mr. SIN(iLETON. The gentleman is utterly mistaken. There
are hundreds and thousands of free while laborers in the
South, who cultivate the soil with their slaves, who would
sc'vn to associate with tlujsc who make ihe charge of deffva/ia-
tion ayainst them.

Mr. STANTON. It is not worth while for us to get in a pas-
sion about it. We may as well keep cool. I know that I
have seen enough of the institution of slavery, with the little
intercourse I have had with it, to know that amongst the
slaves the.iisolves they regard a poor laboring white man
as their equal or inferior. A slave will tell you, when he
looks at a poor white laboring man, that he is white trash —
a sand-hiller.

Mr. SINGLETON. You get your cue from the negroes,
then ?

Mr. STANTON. The gentleman from Mississippi had better
keep his temper, for he will not make anything by scolding ;
he cannot get me in a passion.

Mr. SINGLETON. Then treat the people of my section re-
spectfully.

Ml'. STANTON. I have endeavored to treat gentlemen re-
spectfully. If I have violated the rules of Parliamentary
order or gentlemanly decorum, I would beg the gentleman
to state it.

Jilr. SINGLETON. You have aspersed the laboring men of
my section. You have said that the wliite laborer of the
South was degraded. I regard the white laborers of iny
State as gentlemen. I have associated with them all my
life. I do not know one man who is in the habit of working
side by side on a cotton plantation with his slaves, who feels
that in this there is any degradation. They are gentlemen,
sir, and are not in any way demoralized by this association.
Mr. STANTON. I shouldbe glad to know how the position
I tiike can be conveniently refuted. Take a mechanic from
a free State, and put him into a slaveholdiug State ; let him
be brought into competition with slave labor ; let the value
of his labor be dependent upon that competition ; and what
will be the effect upon him ? I submit the proposition. I go,
if you please, to Kansas or Nebraska, and settle down at
Leavenworth or Omaha City. There goes also a carpenter
from a free State, and settles in the same place, and pursues
his trade. I want a house built, and I ask him for how
much he will do the job. He ciphers the matter out, and he
win tell me, perhaps, that the cost will be $2,600. " Why,
bless you, my good fellow," I may reply, '" I can go to
Westport and buy a carpenter for $1,500 ; and I cannot
afford to pay any such price as $2,500." Your white laborer
is exposed to that sort oi competition. So it is, whatever

employment he may follow. " Working together in the same
held, a white laborer and a slave laborer, there comes along
a sheritt', and he levies upon the slave, takes him oil", and
sells him at auction, as you would a horse. It is this contact
and association that it seems to me cannot fail to have a de-
grading intiuence upon the social position of the white man
who is engaged in the same kind of toil that the slave is.

Mr. SINeiLETON. Why, sir, one-half of our cotton planters
go upon their plantations and labor side by side with their
slaves. They have no further association with them than Is
necessary to keep them at their work, and in -their proper
place. IJoes the gentleman suppose that I, who. may be a
cotton planter, would degrade myself by handling my plo\y
in the held where my slaves are at work ? Docs he charge
that ?

Mr. STANTON. Tlie gentleman from Mississippi must have
strangely misunderstood me. I said that the man who is
dcpoudent upon his daily toil for his daily bread, and not the
man who owns a cotton plantation.

Mr. SINGLETON. How can you suppose it will affect the
man who does not own a plantation, any more tiiau it does
the man who docs own one?

Mr. STANTON. The man who owiis the plantation and the
slaves on it, does not work upon the plantation as the equal ,
but as the master, of the slaves. He is no more upon an
equality with them, than he is with his horse.

Mr. SINGLETON. No more are the white laboring men of
the South. They do not associate with the slaves, or treat
them as equals. They have nothing whatever to do witli
them, except that they may work ""in the same held to-
gether.

Mr. STANTON. Mr. Chairman, there are some strange
practical results growing out of tuis institution. If it be not
as I state, will the gentleman tell us how it is, and why it ;s,
that there can be no manufacturers, artisans, and independ-
ent yeomanrj', in a slaveholaing State? Why is thirty i^o
not gentlemen know ? Dogs the gentleman from South Car-
olina sleep upon a bed made in his own btate ?

ilr. ASHMORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. STANTON. Uoes hi; wear a fabric of any description
maiuifactured m his own State ?

iMr. ASILMORE. At homo I often do, but not here.

ilr. STANT(JN. Wliy is it? Because there is no encour-
agement to enterprise, none toinventiou. You must stimu-
late the nuichauic arl.s, ity establislihig a system of labor
which confers its beneiits upon the inventor, the manufac-
turer himself. What does the slave care for manufacturing
fine fabrics ? He does not gain anything by it. What docs
he care about inventing labor-saving machinery ? It saves
him nothing. Hence you find that all the patents come from
Connecticut and the Yankee States, and the other free States.
You liud labor-saving machinery and mechanical operations
are confined princi;j)ally and substantially to the free States.
They arc not in the South, because free labor there has no
encouragement ; and, more than that, free labor must be
intelligent.

You cannot have a free laboring population in a commu-
nity where you have no schools. I do not know of a com-
mon school between the Potomac and the Kio Grande.
There are a few colleges. Of necessity, it must be so as a
general rule. In a free State, where every man is the mas-
ter of his own earnings, the head of his own family, he re-
quires but a small space to occupy and cultivate for their
support. But go into a slaveholdiug State, and the planter,
who has twenty or thirty slaves, and who has half a dozen
families, must have a section or two of laud to support them.
The consequence is, that the white population must be
sparse. You cannot have them compact ; you cannot have
school-houses, and churches in every neighborhood, because
the population cannot sustain them.

But that is not all. The tendency of this dissemination of
education among the laboring population is to extend it to
the slaves ; but you cannot educate the slaves, because
that is the seed of insurrection.

Mr. SINGLETON. I can inform the gentleman why it is
that the South has not been more extensively engaged iu
manufactures and the mechanic arts. It is because it is
more to our interest to engage in the culture of cotton, to
supply the markets of the world with that material. But I
will tell the gentleman that, if the course which has been
pursued by the North is persevered in a little while
longer, and we are compelled to a separate organization, we
will soon improve in our knowledge of arts and manufac-
tures ; and we shall very soon develop a sufficient skill in
those departments among us, to manufacture everything in
the South which is needed by them. We think now it is for
our interest to buy manufactured articles from the North
and to devote our energies to the cultivation of cotton, corn
rice, &c.

Mr. STANTON. If there were anything that would induce

me to desire to perpetuate the present state of things, it |
would be that toe South should introduce manufactures
among themselves, and thereby bring about an interchange j
of commodities.

Before 1 sit down, I have one word in reply to a remark of |
the gentleman from Mississippi a little while ago. It is clauned
that the slaveholding population cannot be confined to their
present geographical limits. If so, it results from one of two
causes : either that the continuance of that policy upon the
same soil must destroy its productive qualities, or because
the increase of the slave population is such as to put the
safety of the community in peril. Hence gentlemen say that
some years hence, slavery must have more room. Now, I
wish to call the attention of gentlemen of the South to this
single proposition : if you must have expansion now, will
you teU me where is to be the ultimate limit of your expan-
sion? You want five more States this year, or fifty years
hence ; then a hundred years hence you wiii want twenty
more. The time must cume when the thing will be broken i
down and destroyed by its own weight, and it is only a ques- |
tion of time. There is a limit to all expansion. There is a |
limit to the continent — to its productive capacity and area ; i
and when that limit is reached, then that calamity which the
gentleman dreads must come, and no expansion can save it. ]
It is only a question of time ; and it is a question, whether i
we should take hold of the thing to-day, and remedy the 1
evil where it exists at present, or whether we will permit it |
to go on and accumulate, until it will be more difficult to |
eradicate^ |

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. The gentleman from Ohio will |
readily see that the argument he addresses to the slave pop- I
ulation will apply equally to the white. When population be- i
comes so dense, whether free or slave, the checks upon pop- i
ulatiou will begin their work. Everybody understands that. |
The very argument of the gentleman, which goes to show j
that, as population increases among the slaves, the difficulty 1
of keeping them in that position increases, also shows that |
that difficulty arises, not from apprehension of revolution, \
but from non-empioyment. But the same argument applies, .
and perhaps m a higher degree, to the white population.
But that is a day which we claim there is no obligation upon !
us to anticipate. We Representatives of the siave States ,
have the right to share in the common Territijries of the
Union. We cannot admit a policy to be wise and just and
humane, which gives all to one section of the Union, against
the common right of the other.

Mr. STANTON. It is rather late in the day for the gentle-
man from Virginia to complain that the North is seeking to
monopolize the Territories. There was a line of partition
within which slavery might go, and beyond which it might
not go ; but, by the vote of the gentleman, it was taken
down and disregarded.

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. But the gentleman will remem-
ber, and I beg he will, that, in that respect, the rule was not
even. You professed to prohibit slavery north of 36° 30' ,
and then gave us permission to have slavery south of that
line, should certain circumstances require it. It was imper-
ative uptxi the one side, but not upon the other.

Mr. STANTON. Nobody proposed to force slavery into a
Territory against the wiU of the slaveholders. But protec-
tion was aftbrded to it ; and the South was guarantied the
right to go into the territory south of 36° 30' with their
slaves. But you were not content with that ; you wanted all ;
you inaugurated a struggle, and put on foot a controversy for
the possession of all the Territories ; and if you get the worse
of it, it is DO work of ours.

The gentleman from Virginia says the same cause will
operate to demand the extension of territory for the free
population. There is no trouble, so far as free-labor civil-
ization is concerned, about its being able to maintain itself
upon any reasonable hmit. Free-labor civihzation is not
that helpless bemg that is compelled to change its location on
account of the exhaustion of the soil, or because there is not
enough land for the whole population to cultivate. Free-labor
civihzation establishes a diversity of pursuits ; it builds up
manufacturing towns and villages ; it inaugurates and es-
tablishes new and important improvements in agriculture ;
it preserves the fertility of the soil ; and it has the capacity
to sustain a large population upon a small surface.

Mr. SMITH, of Virginia. The gentleman has not stated my
proposition correctly. I stated that, in the progress of popula-
tion, as it went on increasing, the checks to increase of pop-
ulation would begin to apply , and would apply to the white
papulation as well as to the slave.

Mr. STANTON. I understand the gentleman. It may be
true that, when the whole of this continent is as densely pop-
ulated as Belgium, we will need expansion. 1 have no doubt
of it. But I apprehend that that is a day which it is not the
business of this generation to look forward to, or to seek to
provide against. Providence, in His wisdom, has heretofore
in the history of the world provided some new and improved
means of obtaining subsistence for the human family, or
there have been discovered, from time to time, new conti-
nents for the increased population, so that His creatures ,
have been provided for ; and I entertain no apprehension
but that it will be -so in the future. If man does his own
duty, if he develops the resources of the country — its min-
erals, its water power, its limber — if everything that is prof-
itable and available be turned to account, and made a source
of subsistence for the human family, there is little danger of
the people of this continent, a thousand years hence, starv-
ing for want of bread. In a slaveholding community , it is a
very different thing. You cultivate the soil till its product-
ive quality is destroyed. You multiply your slave popula-
tion, till it becomes a dangerous element in society. You
increase slave labor till its value is diminished ; and, in
every mode, j'ou are constantly depreciating the product-
ive capacity of the country where slavery exists. You are
therefore under the necessity of still cursing new fields with
the institution which, in my judgment, has cursed those
where it already exists.

Mr. HUGHES. I wish to reply to one observation of the
gentleman from Ohio, in regard'to the exhaustion of the soil.
1 venture to assert, in the presence of the Representatives
of the people of the United States, that there has been more
improvement made in agriculture within the last ten years
in the slave States, than in any other portion of the United
States ; and there are now in the South more improved modes
of agriculture, and improvements of soil, than in any section
of the United States. The gentleman will scarcely deny that
there has been more improvement in agriculture in Mary-
land , Delaware, and Virginia, than in any other section of the
Union.

Mr. NTBLACK. Before the gentleman from Ohio takes his
seat, I desire to propound to him one question, if I can get
his attention. In the course of the gentleman's remarks, he
made use of an expression which was rather a remarkable
one for him, or any other gentleman on that side of the
House ; that is, that free labor is not a lingering, helpless
thing, but is able to take care of itself. That I concede ; but
if that be the case, what necessity is there for seizing upon
all the powers of the Government for the purpose of pro-
tecting that kind of labor, to the exclusion of other labor?
Why not leave the Territories free and open to competition
between free and slave labor, and let that which is most
advantageous, most powerful, and strongest, prevail?

Mr. STANTON. One word, Mr. Chairman, in reply to the
gentleman from Indiana. If I understand the doctrine of the
Democratic party, it protects slavery in the Territory until
a State Government is organized. That is not all. When this
incipient State Government is organized as a free State, and
there are a thousand slaves there, you cannot emancipate
them ; you are compelled to buy them out, and they cost
$1,000,000. Now, sir, a free State, with free labor, does not
want to be borne down and crippled, and compelled, on the
organization of its State Government, to buy out the labor-
ing population that belongs to the slaveholders there ; and
they ought not to be.

Further than that : free labor is able to take care of itself ;
but if the Territory is under the government of slavery rule,
then the laboring population must, of necessity, be excluded
from all the advantages that result from free-labor civiliza-
tion, such as the institution of schools, the establishment of
a free press, free spsech, and all the privileges that are en-
joyed in a free State, but which cannot be enjoyed in a slave-
holding State, because they are inconsistent with the insti-
tution of slavery. That is why. I may not express my
opinion on the subject of slavery in a slaveholding State, be-
cause the safety of the institution would be thereby endan-
gered. I may not publish my. opinion on the subject of
slavery in a newspaper, and disseminate it in a slavehold-
ing State. Why not? Because it would have a tendency to
stir up insurrection , and is inconsistent with the nature of
the institution. Hence, I say, free labor does not wish to
be tied down and clogged and crippled by these things,
which of necessity exist in every slaveholding State.

PUBLISHED BY THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. PRICE 50 CENTS PER HUNDRED.

-7/, ,;u>6'?.^SV. ^^V/^7