Speech of Hon. I. Washburn, Jr., of Maine: On the Compromise as a National Party Test

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

1

^B

1

OS S2sxi a,a

1

ttarvaro CoUefle atibrar?

FEOM

1

1

^^1

^1

1

HH

H

* '■< "" « "P

SPEECH

S^i-

HON. I. WASHBURN, JR., OF MAINE,

THE COMPROMISE AS A NATIONAL PARTY TEST.

m THE nOUSE op RBFBEBENTATIVEB, MAY W, IBOS.

WASHINGTON:

PRINTED AT THE CONGRSSSIOHAL GLOBR OmCI.
1852. " .

^c^^

7 U^L^i^

'^ '/^ ^*^<^^x^

THE COMPROMISE MEASURES, &c.

The H<mse b«in;in the Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, (Mr. Sbtmour, of Gonnecticat, in the
chair,) on the MH making appropriations for the payment of
Pensions--^ •> >

Mr, WASHBURN said:

Mr. Chairman: Thata question of vital interest
to the Whig party is now claiming the consider-
ation of its members, and will, not improbably, be
pressed to a decision in its ^eat National council,
soon to be held at Baltimore, it would be of little use
to blink or den;^. It is a question, compared with
which all questions of party policy are of subor-
dinate importance, and whicti it behooves us to
consider calmly, intelligently, and in that spirit of
patriotism, and with that purpose of earnest and
unprejudiced inquiry, which shall direct to a con-
clusion that no trfte Whi^ can gainsay or regret.
However h may he put, in whatever form, or with
whatever' circumlocution, its true and ultimate
statement is this — whether the Whig party shall
continue to be, as, by the unanimous consent of
its members, it has been since the day of its or-
g^anization, a party founded upon principles na-
tional in their character and relations, and re-
quiring as its test in reference to measures the ad-
vocacy of such only as, being consistent with its
principles, are connected with the interests, and
promotive of the welfare of all secdons of the' coun-
try — or whether all the principles and measures
which, for a quarter of a century t have, in their
substance and spirit, constitutea the distinctive
doctrines of the party, arid given it vitality and
power, are to be, in some of the most important
specifications, abandoned and repudiated as false
and mischievous, and in all others subordinated to
a test not merely new in reference to our national
organization, but Rowing out of a question here-
tofore e:^cluded, m all its forms and shapes,
from our party jurisdiction, and with special care
and vigilance by that quarter of the country which
now seems most anxious for its adoption. The
demand is for a party test which shajl make the
reclamation of fugitive slaves, in aoarticular mait-
nisr, and 6y apartieviarlaw, the leading idea of its
organization, and giving to such reclamation guar-

anties wl^ich can be yielded only by the surrender
• of what has ever been r^;arded as cardinal Whig
doctrine. No one can be so blind as not to see
that the introduction of this new article into oar
creed involves an essential change of platform-^
one that would make it a substantially different
party from what it has ever been before. The
new party may be a necessary party, a wise and
patriotic party, for all I care to say. now, and it
may be called the Whi^ party, but it cannot be
that party whose work it ignores, whose mission
it denies, and whose informing soul it expels^

Mr. Chairman, I come from an extreme North-
em State, but I believe I hold no extreme opinions
on the disturbing questions of the day. The State
which I in part represent here, is free from
such opinions as any State in the Union. Her
people are not easily swayed by excitement or
fanaticism. Their education and occupations, their
habits of thought and life, make them not more
earnest and sincere in opinion than they are stable
and practical in conduct; and nowhere will you
find a people more loyal to the Constitution, than
the people of Maine. In her ffreat extent of sea-
coast, in her character of the iar^t ship-builder
and ship-owner in the country, in her maritime
and commercial connections and dependencies,
she is under bonds to the Constitution. In the
large emigration of her sons to almost every State
she has given pledges of her fidelity to the Union.
But all such guaranties are weak and frail, com-
pared with the obligations which are imposed by
the patriotism, and acknowledged by the intelli-
gence of ber citizens. And, sir, when a few weeks
ago, the distinguished Senator from North Caro-
lina, [Mr. MANGtTM] — a gentleman whose presence
amongst us gives assurance that if the afi;e of
chivalry is past, there yet remain men worthy of
that age— stood up in the Senate of the United
Statues, erect and towering as one of our Northenf
pines, and with the bearing of a statesman, and
in the true spirit of a patriotic Whig, denounced
the attempt to interpolate new and sectional tests
into the Whig creed as uncalled for and mischiev-
ous, he expressed a sentiment which found no

readier response than it received from the Whi^s
of Maine. Their attachment to the Union, their
desire for harmony and good neighborhood, their
faith in the power and value of Whi^ principles,
and the beneficent operation of Whig measures,
place them in the attitude of resolute and infiexi-
ole opposition to any and all attempts, from what-
ever quarter, or with whatever pretexts, or under
whatever disguises they may come, to destroy the
nationality of the party to which they belong.

The character of the institution which seeKs to
appropriate to its own use, first, midst, and last,
this Whig party organization, and the relations of
that institution to the country, are such that no
questions in reference to it except those of consti-
tutional right on the one hand, and obligation on
the other, can form any part of the fundamental,
organic doctrines of a national party. You may,
undoubtedly — indeed, you must, make fidelity to
the Constitution a party doctrine, and in respect
to the reclamation of fugitive slaves it may well be
alleged that a denial of the constitutional right of
the slave States to a law for that purpose, would
be clearly inconsistent with the principles upon
which a national party could claim to be founded.
But this right is nowhere denied by the Whigs;
and besides, gentlemen of the new school would
not' be satisfied with a declaration of its existence.
They demand that the Whig party, composed of
men living in all the States of tne Union, slave and
free, established for national purposes, standing
on a platform broad enough to hold all the vast
and various interests of the country, shall declare
the recogmtion of the /tigilive slave law as a perpetu-
ity t to be the great purpose of its existence. Sir,
tne idea of finality, in regard to detail, of any law,
IB ridiculous. We cannot by resolutions, pledges,
or compromises, by caucuses or conventions, or
by legislative declarations, make that final which
in its nature is changeable, ns all executory
enactments necessarily are^ The caucus which
ELing Canute held upon the sea-shore, and the
resolutions there passed, were no more impotent
and vain than would be those which gentlemen
propose to submit to the National Convention, if
adopted. Resolutions cannot make public senti-
ment, or stop its progress, and are worse than idle
when not its necessary and legitimate expression.
To fortify the position which gentlemen have
taken, as to the necessity of making the finality of
the compromise a cardinal Whig doctrine, they as-
sume what is not true in point of fact. They as-
sert that Northern Whigs deny the constitutional
right of the South to a return of fugitive slaves,
and they assume, further, that the existing law, in
its length and breadth, its principles and details,
is the Constitution — or, in other words, is the only
law that can by possibility be made, which will
answer all its requirements. Sir, I am astonished
to hear gentlemen, who are usually well informed,
declare that the Whigs of the North deny the ob-
ligations of the Constitution in this regard, and
denounce them as its enemies. No charge can be
more unjust. Northern Whigs and Northern men
generally, are friends of the Constitution, as true
and, good as can be found anywhere; and who-
ever of them comes here, and endeavors, by ex-
aggerated statement, or wanton misrepresentation,
to maJke it appear otherwise, does them gross and
inexcusable injustice.
Sir, the people of the North acknowledge the

binding obligation of the Constitution in all its
parts and provisions, and the obligation of all laws
which it requires or authorizes. So far as I know^
they understand that instrument to have left the
institution of slavery to the sole and exclusive care
of the States in which it exists — and that neither
the General Government, nor the free States, have
anything to do with it therein. They also un-
derstand that the Constitution makes provision for
the extradition of fugitive slaves; and, although
they may regret that it does so, they nevertheless
know that such is the fact, and that they are bound
by it. And they are not ignorant that the Su-
preme court has decided, that this provision must
Ibe executed, through a law of Congress; and how-
ever, if it were a new question, they might doubt
as to the construction, they bow to the decision-
of the court, and the more readily, when they re-
member that it is in accordance with the construc-
tion given by Congress soon after the Constitu-
tion was adopted. So far as I can judge, they
acknowledge, without difficulty or hesitation, the
duty of Congress, whenever reauired by the slave
States, to pass a law on this suoject — not a sham
law, a mere make-believe of a law — but a fair,
just, and proper law — one that can be executed,
and so as to er^fbrce and protect the rights of arU
concerned.

I affirm, sir, that I do not know^and never have
heard of, half a dozen men in my State who deny
this. But it is undoubtedly true, that there are
many men there who believe that the present law
is not the only law that coufd have been passed
in the premises, and that a somewhat different laWr
such, for instance, as that drawn by the illus-
trious Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. Clay,] or
that prepared by thedistinguislied gentleman who
now occupies the position of Secretary of State^
or yet some other law, would have been of more
practical service to the South, more satisfactory
to the North, and a better compliance with the
constitutional requirements. And if, for thus think-
ing, they are to be regarded as enemies to the Con-
stitution, they will have, at least, the consolation
to be derived from the character of the company
in which they are found.

Mr. ChairmEm, your law may be constitutional,
but another mi^ht be quite as clearly so. Your
law may be elective, another might be as efi^ect-
ive, ana at .the same time less objectionable to
the people among whom it is to be executed,, and
therefore, to be preferred by all good citizens.
There is no doubt that the present law is exceed-
ingly stringent and severe. It is said that it was
intentionally made so, and believed by its author
to be so harsh and ugly in its features that it could
not pass Congress. It is not to be wondered at
that Northern men should dislike it. Southern
men, I think, can have but little respect for North-
ern men who like it or pretend to tike it in all its
details. They may behave, misled by the repre-
sentations of flunkies and doughfaces, that it is a
necessary law just as it stands, and therefore insist
upon its remsuning untouched. I have no quar-
rel with them for this; but I do complain that they
are unwilling to permit us to differ from them as
to whkt would be the practical working of a laWr
equally constitutional and effective, as We believe,
as the present law, but soflened in its features,
and made less obnoxious to the section of country
in which it is tp operate; and that for this differ^

€nce, (a difference involving no denial of right,
theoretical or practical,) we are to be cast out of
the Whig party, and g:ibbeted as enemies to the
Constitution and the Union. The charge of infi-
delity to the Constitution for such cause is too
transparently unjust to give offense, and would
cause no uneasiness, but for the evidence it affords
of unfriendly feeling on the part of those with
whom we have long acted, and for whom we have
cherished sentiments of profound regard/ Let us
hope that the winter of alienation is passing away,
to DC succeeded by the glorious summer of mutual
confidence and respect.

Sir, a law was passed, in 1793, for the extradi-
tion of fugitive slaves, which remained on the stat-
ute book unaltered for some sixty years. When-
ever I have heard objections to the new law urged
in the presence of those whose compromise ortho-
doxy would stand the test which the honorable
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Stephens] would
Bet up, they have uniformly replied that it was no
harsher or more stringent than the old law of 1793;
and, it would seem, the friends of the compromise
themselves being judges, that the only platform
upon which a national party can be maintained in
this country of twenty millions of freemen, is, not
Trterely one which has regard to a law for the re-
turn of a few slaves annually, but on€ which is
begun and completed in the difference between the
laws of 1793 and 1850, on that subject. This is
the bark, flower, and nutmeg of the whole ques-
tion. Sir, was it not a remarkable discovery, that
henceforward there can be no national party in
this country, no party that can carry on admmis-
tration, except upon the leading, controlling idea
of the abnegation of right (on the part of one
'section of the country, at least) to change, alter,
or modify the law relative to the rendition of fugi-
tive slaves! Suppose the gentleman from Georgia
should succeed in destroymg the old party organ-
izations, and forming a new party on tne capacious
platform of the difference between the law of 1793
and any other, wh^re would he find himself and
party on all the great practical questions of the
day? Would the memoers of such party act to-
gether on questions of protection, currency, inter-
nal improvement, public lands? Would agree-
ment as to returning negroes make the members a
unit on appropriation bills, deficiency bills, and
the like? Would a party, circling round Jhis single
idea, feel no centrifugal forces scattering them here
and there on the practical questions of administra-
tion? Could such a party carry on the Govern-
ment for a single week? Let us look at it for a
moment.

The gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,]
inspired with the new conception, makes war upon
the old, effete factions, called, by courtesy, the
Whig and Democratic parties, and routing them,
as he unquestionably will, succeeds in forming a
new party, a ^reat national party, composed of
strict constructionists and latituainarians, free-
trad ers and protectionists, river and harbor men , and
** noise and confusion'*men, economists and prodi-

fals, all united upon the single question, it may
e, whether the flees of commissioners under the
fugitive law shall be fixed or sliding, but differing
upon every other political question under heaven;
an^his is to be, 1 think — lucttsanon lucendo — the
C/nton party — the live, practical party, which alone
can carry on the Government 1

Mr. Chairman, let me repeat, for I do not mean '
that the true question shall be dodged or mystified,
the important question now before us, is not
whether the Constitution, and the whole Constitu-
tion, is binding upon the people of all sections of
the country. This, as I have said, is no question
with Northern Whigs. They not only acknowl-
edge its obligation, but they insist upon it, now as
always, as the foundation on which they build.
It is not whether the fugitive slave law is in ac-
cordance with the Constitution; for though there
are some persons who find it diflicult to reconcile
it, in all its provisions, with what seems to them
to be the spirit, if not the letter, of that instrument,
they neither counsel nor meditate any opposition
to Its enforcement, and are willing to leave the
question of its constitutionality to the decision of
the courts. Nor is the question, whether the law
is wise and just, the real one before us. Men will
differ widely on that subject, and yet be very good
friends of the Union, firm supporters of the Con-
stitution, and excellent Whiffs. Thdse who d^m
it unwise, will leave its wisdom and expediency
to the verdict of a candid and tempered public
opinion, to be made up by the aid of experience
and friendly discussion, and rendered wnen the
excitement of the hour shall have passed away.

But the true question presented to the Whig
party by our new-light friends, is, as has been al-
ready stated in substance, whether the law is so
wise and necessary, and so fully and exclusively
constitutional, that no other as wise, expedient, or
constitutional, can be passed, and therefore should
be perpetual and unchangeable — binding, through
all time, upon the whole country, (unless, indeed,
the South should choose to alter it,) and that this
idea of permanence and " finality" shall be made
a national party idea — nay, shall be declared, and
declared again, in the most solemn manner, and
with the strongest sanctions, to be the prominent
doctrine of the party creed — the sine qua non of
Whiggism. This is the question. It is sufliciently
answered in most minds, whenever it is stated.

As a Whig, as one who has never been any-
thing, politically, but a Whig, I desire to enter my
humble protest against this movement, and to give
dome of the reasons why, in my judgment, it
should be resisted by every true and loyal Whig
in the country. I do not believe that the old Whig
party of the Union (which has fought so long and
nobly for its time-honored principles, and in the
dark hours of disaster and defeat through which
it has passed, has bated nothing of heart or hope,
and wnich, thus far, has maintained its integrity
against the assaults of enemies from without and
traitors from within) intends at this time to capit-
ulate to a few schismatics and bolters, valiant as
they may be. I have no apprehension that nine-
teen twentieths of the party will permit themselves
to be surrounded by the remaining squad, how-
ever ably they may be Marshalled. Sir, to change
the figure, should it be the fate of our gallant ship to .
part her Cable, and be swung fromlier Moorings^
it will not be to be driven hither and thither, with-
out compass or chart, upon the maddening billows
of faction, or to go down amid the breakers of
sectionalism. Oh ! no, sir; but to stand out upon
the broad, deep waters of the Union, holding her
course steadily and bravely on, guided at all times,
** in the twilight and in the storm," by the pole-
star of the Constitution.

^

1?

6

*< Gallant bark ! thy pomp and beauty
^ Storm or battle ne 'er shall blast,

Whilst our tars in pride and duty
Nail thy colors to the mast."

And here, Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn
aside for a moment, to inquire who they are that
have assumed the authority, or had it given to
them, to un-Whigmen in this wholesale and sum-
mary manner, the old and young, the long-tried
and ever faithful. I should like to look at their
credentials, and see if there is no jfiaw in the

Eapers, and whether they emanate from those who
ave rightful jurisdiction in the premises. I do
not find that any special power has been delegated
to them, or that they possess any that is not de-
rived from their position as Whigs — and what is
that? One gentleman, as I understand, hsis acted
with the party but a few years, and yet, because
he is unable to persuade its members to give up
their practical, catholic, and well-approved doc-
trines for those which are non-practicc^, narrow,
and sectional, he denounces their company as
un6t for Whigs to keep, although they may nave
drawn the line of primitive Whiggery from early
life to the present hour, and never departed from
it the nineteenth part of a hair. Another gentle-
man aided two years ago in defeating the Whig
candidate for Speaker of the House of Represent-
tives, the Hon. Robert C. Winthrop, as good
a Whig as ever stepped, within its bar, thereby
giving the organization of the House to the Dem-
ocrats at the moment that a Whig Administration
was coming into power, and when the possession
of the House, ana its committees, was matter of
the highest importance — a gentleman who cam^
here at thepresent session expecting to act, as he
has himselr declared, with the Democratic party,
. and to vote for its candidate for Speaker. Another
gentleman prominently connected with this move-
ment actually did vote for the present Speaker of
the House, [Mr. Boyd,] and m a speech deliv-
ered upon this floor, declared that if the Whig
party should nominate as its candidate for Pres-
ident, a gentleman whose whole life has been
spent in the service of bis country, the native of
one section and resident of another; who has
given such pledges of his patriotism as it is per-
mitted to but few men to give; whose attachment
to the Constitution is unquestioned, and whose
principles, the gentleman admits, are sound — he
will not support him, unless he shall come out,
and distinctly place that support upon the doctrine
of the finality of the compromise as a party test.
This gentleman, in the speech to which I have
' referrM, spoke in terms of merited eulogy of the
military genius and services of that renowned cap-
tain; and especially of his services in the war in
which he earned the appellation of the Conqueror
of Mexico; and yet, when it was proposed in the
last Congress to confer upon him the rank of
Lieu tenant-General, as' a token of the national
appreciation of those services, the gentleman,
with but one or two Whig associates on any
division, voted to defeat the resolution.

Mr. MARSHALL, of Kentucky. I would ask
the gentleman to whom he alludes ?

Mr. WASHBURN. To the gentleman from
'I'g n n ess ee

Mr. GENTRY. That is wide. Do you mean
me?
Mr. WASHBURN. No, certainly not.
Such, sir, are the gentlemen who set themselves

up to establish tests of orthodoxy, and to decide
who is and who is not a Whig. I do not know,
Mr. Chairman, but I have a strong suspicion, that
the Whig party is not quite prepared to recognize
the authority they have assumed. If new tests
are to be imposed, or excommunications made, ita
members may possibly have a prejudice in favor of
these things oeing done by faithful and consistent
members of the party; or, if by others, npt until
they have qualified themselves for the service, by
bringing to it the moral power which follows re-
pentance, or that is wrought through the intervenr
tion of some purgatorial flame in which political
sinners bleach like linen.

Looking at the antecedents of gentlemen, and
not overlooking their course at the present time, I
fear they mean no good to the party; and that
some of them, at least, would not be indisposed
to see it broken up, and a new one established
upon its ruins. I do not make this charg^e. I
have no right to make it. But this I may be al-
lowed to say, that whenever my mind hi directed
to the course of these gentlemen, a story which I
have read in one of our magazines is not far off.
The editor of the " Knickerbocker," in his inim-
itable ** gossip," relates a conversation which took
place in a tavern in one of the interior counties of
New York. An old fellow was drinking his toddy
one day, when he was accosted by a by-stander
with tKe question, whether he was in New York
when the British evacuated that city? He said
he wasn't exactly there. The fact was, his father
fought at Bunker Hill; and when he died, he lefl
him his sword, which he determined should never
be dishonored. ** So, hearing that the British

* wos continuin'to stick in * York,' " said he, ** I
<put a hoss-pistol in my pocket, buckled my

* father's sword on to my side, and put for the

* city. [ got there in the morning, but the British

* had left ! Fact. They'd cleared out, every one

* on 'em ! Now, I don *t say that they knew that I

* was on the way, and leA because I was coming;

* but I do say that it looked confoundedly like it,**
[Laughter. J I do not assert that any honorable
member wishes to see the Whig party divided or
broken down, but I do say that modern history
records some things which look remarkably like
it. But, sir, all these appearances may be as fal-
lacious as undoubtedly were those relied upon in
the story which I have quoted.

Mr. Chairman, I object to the introduction of
this ** compromise" article into our creed for these
reasons, among others:

1. Its effect will be, if it has that which is de-
sired and expected, to place one law of Congress
— passed as other laws are, and in no way differ-
ing from them in whatever gives vigor and force
to law — apart from all other enactments, and to
give to it more than the stability and sacredness
of even constitutional provisions; for, so far, any
number of people have been permitted to ask for,
and agitate for, such change in the Constitution as
they desired to see made; but here is a simple law
of Congress which not only is not to be altered, but
its alteration is not to be spoken of as a thing de-
sirable, without subjecting men to the loss of polit-
ical standing. It imposes a restriction on future
legislation which is wrong in principle, and will
be of most dangerous example. Mr. Webstq^^ in
a speech on the tariff compromise act of 1833, 8aid»
(I quote from the Annual Register:)

" There are principles in it to which I cannot, at present,
conceive how I can ever concur. If I understand the plan,
tile result of it will be a well understood surrender of the
power of discrimination, or a stipulation not to use that
power in the laying duties on imports, after the eight or
Bine years have ej(pired. Tiiis appears to me to be matter
of great moment I hesitate to be a party to any such stip-
ulation. The honorable member admittf that though there
vUl be no positive sturrender of the fower^ there mil be a
MfulaHon n^ to exercUe it; a treaty of peace and afiufy,
as he saySf iohich no Jimeriean statesman can stand up to
violate. For one^ sir, I am not ready to enter into the
treaty. Ipropose, so far as it depends on me, to leave all
«ttr successors in Congress as free to act as we are owr-
sehfes.^*

Mr. Webster thought such a treaty for the re-
striction of legislation would be unauthorized by,
and subversiye of, the Constitution. In a later
speech on the same bill, he remarked that —

'''He believed his coostitiientB would excuse him for sur-
rendering their interests, but thet would not foroive

HIM FOR A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION."

And, sir, this was in a case where there was no
attempt to make the compromise a party test, and

five to it the sanction of party resolutions. The
nalitv of the tarifi* compromise was never in-
truded upon our national conventions.

2. I oppose it as beinc inconsistent with one of
the best considered ana most firmly established
principles of the Whig party. If there be any
Whig principle that may be considered as more
genereJly acknowledged than any other, it is that
which has relation to the exercise of the veto
power. In the days of Jackson and of Tyler it was
affirmed again and again. It has been recognized
by National, State, and county conventions in re-
peated instances. Mr. Webster has argued it —
Mr. Clay included it in his celebrated platform
resolutions, and in ^many speeches, in Congress
and out, has laid it down as one of the main tim-
bers of the Whig platform. General Taylor so
understood it in liis Allison letter, and the entire
Whig party of the country have hitherto stood up
to it. indeed, Mr. Clay at one time was desirous
that it should be made a constitutional provision.
Now, we are asked to do that which will operate
an unqualified repeal of this article of faith, and
incorporate in its place not merely the ordinary
veto doctrine, which is bad enougn, but the prin-
ciple of Executive and party vetoes in advance of
the action of^Congress. Sir, it is the worst doc-
trine that ever was broached by any school of
Soliticians, Hitherto, the Democrats, as a party,
ave not gone so far as this, and but one Dem-
ocratic President, [Mr. Van Buren, in reference
to the abolition of slavery in this District.] Gen-
tlemen have not forgotten with what effect ^his
indiscretion, to call it by the mildest name, was
used against Mr. Van Buren at the succeeding
election, when he was defeated.

What is meant by a compromise resolution at
Baltimore, is a test which will commit the party to
the doctrines it may contain, and which wUl bind
the nominee of the convention, if elected, to veto any
law of Congress inconsistent with such doctrines. No
friend of the compromise will deny that this is his
understanding of the effect of such a resolution. I
I ask if this be not so ? If there be one gentleman
who would not so regard it, let me hear from him.
In the sense in which it is intended, and in the
light in which it would be viewed, such a resolu-
tion of the National Convention as is demanded,
would infer a pledge to veto any modification of the
fugitive slave law. It would be ui effect a veto in

advance. This new doctrine takes the oonserv'-
ative power of the veto from the President, and
gives it to the party caucus. Instead of being a
power to be used but seldom, as in oases of pal-
pable infraction of the Constitution, or encroach-
ment upon the Executive, its exercise would be of
common occurrence under the rules prescribed by
the party in power. Mr. Chairman, this doctrine
introduced and carried out, would revolutionize the
Government, and place the conventions in the same
relation to Congress that the clubs of Paris, in the
time of the French revolution, held to the National
Assembly. It would require a change of the
President's inaugural oath, so that it would read,
*< I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully exe^

* cute the office of President of the United Statefl,

* and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, pro-

* tect, and defend the Constitution of the United

* States, asinterpretedhy the Baltimore Conaoentien.**

3. There is no mutuality in the resolution, for,
after all, the North only are to be bound by it. Il
is not understood that tne South may not demand
a change in any of these measures whenever it
pleases. That is the Southern compromise doe*
trine. An honorable gentleman from Tennessee,
[Mr. Polk,] in a speech delivered in the House of
Representatives a few weeks ago, used the follow-
ing remarkable language:

" I feel authorized to pledge any nominee of the next
Democratic Convention for the Presidency, to give a like
pledge as to a repeal or modification of the fugitive law,
unless, indeed, such modification (not at all Hkehf to kap-
pen) should prove necessary to Us more effectual execution,

AND BB GENERALLY BEHANDED BY THE SOUTH ITSELP*. Ift

shoit, ahy Democratic nominee will unhesitatingly pledge
himself to discountenance, and, if necessary, veto, any at-
tempt to modify the Aigitive slave law in accordance with
the views and demand of those who are aiming to effect
that end, "

It would seem from this, not only that the right
to disturb the compromise is reserved to the South,
but that the Democratic party is about to adopt the
doctrine of prospective vetoes. I am not sure,
upon reflection, but that doctrine was recognized
by President Polk,

Sir, it is manifest that the peculiar friends of the
compromise in the South do not intend to respeel
any part of it that does not make in their favor.
Among the compromise acts was that which pro-
vided for the admission of California. But if Cal-
ifornia should permit a new State to be carved out
of her territory, and that State should establidi
slavery, she is by no means to be rejected when
ahe asks for admission into the Union, although
the slavery question would be most materially af-
fected by sueh admission, because, forsooth, the
Constitution makes provision for the admission ot
new States, and authorizes Congress to give its
consent to such admission. It also authorizes Con-
gress to pass laws for other purposes. Having
the power, why should it not repeal or modify the
fugitive slave law, if a majority of its members
believe aueh action expedient ? The reason given
is, that it is one of the' measures embraced in the
compromise — that at the last Congress parties came
together and passed certain laws having relation to
the question of slavery by way of compromise,
and to effect a ** final settlement of the dangerous
and exciting subjects which they embraced." If,
then, Congress is restricted by the compromise
from passing an act — clearly within its constitu-
tional power — ^for the modification of the fugitive
law, because mieh act would have a bearing upoft

— — » — «..

mma

8

'the slavery question, it surely cannot be permitted
to pass an act for the admission of a slave State,
organized from the territory of California,Jhe lim-
its and boundaries of which were described in the
law by which she came into the Union, and which
is a part of this unalterable compromise itself —
for such law would have a direct and important
bearing upon the dangerous and exciting subject
of slavery. If it was competent for the authors
of the compromise to bind Congress to pa^s no
law for the disturbance of the fugitive enactment,
it was equally within their power to forbid the
passage of a law giving its consent to the admis-
sion of a slave State formed out of the territory
of California. No proposition can be clearer than
this; and if there be any obligation binding in
good faith to refrain from the exercise of le^sla-
tive power in the one case, there is the same in the
other. Yet those who would hold us with steel
to that part which we dislike, tell us that '< the
spider's most attenuated thread is cord, is cable,
to the slender tie" by which they are bound.

In this connection, I desire to read a short ex-
tract from the debates of the Senate at the present
session. I quote from the Congressional Globe of
December last:

• " Mr. FooTE. Whenever any gentleman introduces a
proposition here to divide California with her consent, by
the line of 36° 30', or SS** 30/, treating her in all these re-
spects as a sovereign State, I shall vote for it, and some of
those who will vote for it in connection with me will vote
in a manner wholly repugnant to their former feelings.

<* Mr. Bdtler. Then the Senator admits that while he
wishes to make the compromise immutable, he is perfectly
willing to change it when it suits him. This is a *■ fixfility
of a totality.'

** Mr. FuoTE. I should vote for that proposition in the
■ame way that I should vote for a proposition to alter the
boundary lines of any other State in the Union at her re
quest. I would not vote for that sooner than a proposition
to divide Texas or New York, if those States desire a new
State to be formed within their limits. While I hold the
compromise to be a definitive settlement, I do not hold it
to be above the -Constitution, and the Constitution ex-

8ressly gives Congress the power of admitting new States.
Fow, perhaps, the gentleman is entitled to the triumph
which he claims.

"Mr. Butler. I claim no triumph. The gentleman's
own explanation shows where he considers the triumph is.
While he insists on these compromise laws being like unto
the Hiws of the Medes and Persians, so perfect as not to be
changed, yet he admits there are contingencies on which
tbey may be changed. That is what I intended to say."

Now, sir, I feel that on this point I am quoting
authority which no man will aispute, no less au-
thority than that of the acknowledged father of
the compromise; and, surely, if he does not know
what it means, we shall seek in vain for instruc-
tion. But other commentators agree with him.
The honorable gentleman from Texas, [Mr. How-
ard,] who may be presumed to understand the
-Southern construction of the compromise, ex-
pressed, in a recent speech, substantially the same
views as those presented by the late Senator from
Mississippi. The Senator held that the compro-
mise was not above the Constitution, and as the
Constitution gives Congress the power of admit-
ting new States, he would vote for the admission
of anew slave State to be formed out of California.
But, although the Constitution is equally full in
the grant to Congress of power to modify the fu-
gitive law, he would not vote for such modifica-
tion, because it would be inconsistent with the
compromise. I beg to know wherein the latter
vote would be more inconsistent with the com-
promise than the former? The law admitting

California and defining her boundaries, was one of
the compromise measures, and the Senator has
always contended that the fugitive law was an-
other. He would, at the instance of a new slave
State, permit the question of slavery to be reopened
by a proposition for the division of California and
the increase of slave representation in Congress.
This, I suppose, would be no disturbance of the
slavery question, as it was settled by the com-
promise ! But, if twenty States should ask, by
all their members in Congress, for some ^hange of
the law providing for the return of fugitive slaves,
he would resist it as a disturbance of the ** adjust-
ment.*'
4. 1 oppose the new test, because its adoption will
increase agitation, and tend to the formation of
sectional parties. I know the avowed object of
this test is to put down agitation. The manner
in which this is to be accoipplished is by telling men
that they must not speak or think on the subject
it refers to; that, if they do, it will be useless, as
all legislation thereon is forbidden. It denies the
rights of free discussion and private judgment,
and imposes restraints on the human mind noore
worthy the times and rank old doctrines of Sir
Ro^bert Filmer, than of this age and land of free-
dom. Freemen cannot be dragooned into silence.
Your convention resolution would have a contrary
effect from that desired. Our Northern people, as
you know, Mr. Chairman, [Mr^ Seymour, of
Connecticut,] have a hlamey rock at Plymouth,
and are about as much inclined to speak their
minds as were their Puritan ancestors who landed
upon it centuries ago. Of one thing be sure — ^you
cannot make them hold their tongues upon com-
pulsion . There is such a thing as pushing matters
so far as to create a reaction. Northern men are
in the habit of thinking that they have gone about
far enough in the direction in which they are now
urged. They have eyes, and they can see —
hearts, and they can feel — memories, and they
can recall what is past — and courage to follow
wherever honor and duty lead.

Mr. Chairman, when, a few years ago, to be
opposed to slavery did not prejudice a man's
standing in his party as a Whig or Democrat;
when there was some toleration in the country,
and men could speak out, here or anywhere, the
feelings which they can never extin^ish, however
they may repress them; when the Wilmot proviso
doctrine was in full vigor — and nobody was afraid
of it, and everybody claimed the invention — when
it was Wilmot *s thunder, and Winthrop's thun-
der^and Webster's thunder — in those days our
Southern friends besought Northern Whigs not
to make this a test. At Philadelphia, in 1848, it
was not forced upon the convention, although, if
ever to be adopted as a party test, that was the
time, when a Southern gentleman, and a large
slaveholder, had been put in nomination for Pres-
ident.

An honorable gentleman from North Carolina,

[Mr. Stanly,! in a very able speech in the last

Congress, said:

" T will not believe that you will enact the Wilmot pro-
visos-there is no necessity for it. I have too good an opin-
ion of our Northern members to believe it. All admit that
new States, aAer they are admitted, can either tolerate or

f»rohibit slavery. Thenj there is no practical question at
ssue."

A similar appeal, in effect, was made at the same

session by an honorable gentleman from Tonnes-

9

lee, [Mr. GENjay,] in a speech which I have read, I
for Ihe moBt part, with admiration and delight.
He did not want the Wilmot proviso enforced, aa j
it WBB offenaive to the people he represented, and j
Waa, in his opinion, of no practical importance.

Now, air, if these gentlemen and others were so I
anrions that Northern men, at a lime when they .
stood together better than now and had the power, i
should not insist upon an enactment simply be- !
cause it would be offenaive to their people — for '
they confessed it could operate no practical injury '
lo Ihem^may we not believe that they will not be
indifferent to an appeal from the North of.a simi-
lar nature? Will they insist that the North shall
submit to what it will feel to be an indigiiity, and
what can do the South no possible service, and
may lead to consequences which we should all
deplore? There can be no new obligations im-
posed by party reaolutions or pledges. Will any 1
gi>od be secured lo either section, by trying the '
temper of the North upon this subject ? |

Before the people of the North are condemned :
for their repugnance to making the finality of the '
law for the return of fugitive slaves, a test of po- i
litical orthodoxy, it may be profitable to inquire I
whether or not such repugnance is the natural and ,

institutioh of slavery, and also by whose aid and !
teachings they have been led to the formation of l
auch opinions. Seeing how deep is their dislike I
of that institution, and how much of authority I
they have for it from theopinionsof (he wise and '
Epod, in the South as well as in the North, our '
Southern friends should he disposed to be charity- I
ble, and where they cannot approve, at least ex- j
lenuate. Our people have been taught lo regard i
slavery aa a social, moral, and political evil — as an !
institution that ought not lo be extended. Prom '
thesfv opinions in relation to slavery, the views ,
which they entertain, in reference to any law for i
the extradition of slares, are not unnatural or
illc^cal. Let us aeewho have aided in the form-
ation of Northern opinions upon the subject of

The evils of slavery have aeldom, if ever, been
more forcibly presented than by Thomas Jeffer-
■on. I might, ifl had time, quotefromhia "Notes
on Virginia," language which no man would nse
at the present day without being branded as an
"Aboliiionist,"and " Disunloniat." Mr. Jefferson
wrote, in ITTl, to a convention held in Williams-
burg, in Augiiat of that year;

" For me moBI trifling leasons, aDdmneliineKeirnOEOn. i
eetvaMe rsMHi U all, bli Mijeatji hsi rejocted inwa or
■BOit nlaiary tendeiKT- Theiboliih»ordanir~"~ ~'~~
laAegreateitoUenordeilrehii' ~ '

>iBbi|i|p% Introdoced In (heir '- "

and cruelly, andbigUy dsngeAus lo our llbenies, i

the resolutions of Soutbem conventions, and the
writings and speeches of Southern statesmen,
during the last naif of the eighteenth century and
the first quarter of the nineteenth. But I must
forbear, for 1 wish to present some extracts of
recent dale.

Mr. CiAT, it is well known, has always ex-
pressed opinions against Ihe institution of slavery.
In his great speech at Lexington in November,
1847, he said;

'er regarded slavery at

.SX.

™,.i

In thoae eolonlea where

■nftaneMMmentnrilieilSTei

Diighlan

to problblEli

deeply wgonded by Uil

The Repreaentai

in Georgia, passei

which 1 make an e

As late as 1S4S, the gentleman from Geoi^a,
[Mr. Stephemb,] declared that he was no defender
of slavery in the abstract, and that liberty had
charms for him.

Can he not permit it to have charms for his
Northern friends ? Will he not pardon something
to thespiritof liberty northof Mason and Dixon's
line?

Mr, STEPHENS, of Georgia. I wish lo know
if the gentleman from Maine alluded tome?

Mr. WASHBURN. I did.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then I ask the gentleman
to quote mefairly and fully

Mr. WASHBURN. I intended to do so.

Mr. STEPHENS. 1 did slate in the speech lo
which the gentleman alludes, that liberty always
had charms for me, and that 1 was no defender of
slavery in the ahstract.

Mr. WASHBURN. I so stated it.

Mr. STEPHENS. Very well, but why did you
stop there, why did you not go on and stale the
whole of what I said in that connection }

Mr. WASHBURN. I did not recollect it.

Mr. STEPHENS. I was discriminating be-
tween African slavery and slaveryin the abstract,
or the right of one man of the same race to hold
dominion over another. 1 stated in that very
speech madeupon this floor, that the subjection of
the African lo the white man, or African slavery,
bore the impress of the Creator himself, and that
wherever the African and the while races wera
found in the same proportions as they are in Ihe
South, the dependence of the inferior upon the

Sir. WASHBURN. I would like to have the
gentleman make the discrimination. If he is op-
posed to all slavery in the abstract, how can he be
in favor of African slavery in the concrete ?

Mr. STEPHENS. That is another quesiion.
If the geHtleman does nol understand the differ-
ence I make, it is not for me to give him the abil-
ity. All I ask of the gentleman ia to quote me
fairly and fully

10

Mr. WASHBURN. I ir

1 it be wondered at tJinl
it never han been popular in the non-Bl»Teholding
neelion of the country, or that, hitherto, it has
been considered aa furniahing cauee for compli
that Northern men are opposed to it» e-'-"
and in favor of all ptacticuconatitutional
forltareBlriWionf

The preBEnl Chief MagiatrBte of the United
Btaten, it jb well known, v/ea a linn supporter of
the Wilmot proviso; and going further than manj

Constitution, took ground in favor of the abclitjot
nf slavery in the District of Columbia, and of the
slave tradebetween the Slates, and yet 1 have
heard that he was any the worse Whig for I

The gentleman from New York [Mr. Brooks]
attended a Whig Slate Convention in New York
iti 1847, and from a committee appointed for ihi
fnirpose, reported an address to the people, from
M/hich I malif ■ - ■

" DiapiiBe .,..,.

u lophrilnr may nniigle Id da, tbe furUier great trulh can-
mt be Iijddsn, thai Ita mala abject ii ibe conquen of a
markel tbr bIsvpj, and Uiallho fliu our siclDring'--'--

DupiiBe ita Intenli, and purpniea, end ffoniequenem
lophronr may nniigle Id dd, Ibe furlber great trulh can-
be luddsn, thai Ita main abject ii Ibe conquen of a
kel tbr alsvei, and Uial the flu nur viclariaug leglona

Edfrom lIHbDjycbsraeierar Mirlv onj eiwmcijiatJSA

■* We proleAl, loa, in I
of llboHy, wrainn the (a

ejHHi HI, [nanilGDrourAiIheni'reinonalroncea.iie demand
■hall never UighntievtitlnHiloftheNonliPaciRc, Wi
feel Ibat li waiild bs borrlble inockory Tni the cdlOmni o.

iSowB u|»n Itie duE, benti^hU'd nice of Aiiallc deapoIlBin,
tDaroli, aa —

'Westward the atai of eaijiire mkealtiwsy.'"
' ■ • "We will not spend fmm fitlj'lo a hundied

untrymi

purpose, cdn seat to run up an unuild nmjannJ debt, and

^""■"'Bour posleiity with nmd ninagere, (nji brokers, and

,.!., X — J — 1_- ^_ ^_ iqipogf upon every

to Iba I:

Sir, if when the honorable gentleman had re-
aumed his seat, a\\ glowing with these sentiments,
■ome member of thetMinvanlion, gifted with proph-
ecy, had risen and predicted that what we have
aeen and beard should come to pass within five
years— that the gentleman himself should pro-
Scribe men Hs enemies of the country, and unwor-
thy, of the name of Whigs, who should not be so
enraptured with a aeries of measures bjr which a
portion of this very free territory wua given over
to slavery — and by which provision waa made for
Ole reclamation of fugiuve skvee, in terms so harsh
as to lead its author to believe, if not to hope, that
it could never be executed— as to demand that the
immutability of such measureB should be the
touch-slone of Whigism — would he not have cried
Ahnme on the alleged slanderer >

In some remarkB made by Mr. Webster, in
1848, when the Oregon bill was before the Senate,
MO the principle of the Wil-

)t prov

lel w

ivid all commitlaU, all Baps, by

resta, sgainsl all coiubiDSUDDa, ngaiuat all oaarEO-

In B speech mide in Mitasachuselts in the same

platfbnD,

reported as follows:

It Ihal^nll Uie^WhiEa°or die Mlddle'and Nor

mny not ndapl. QcnOemen, It ia well known tbal IherB is

noihtni in thia BuflUo plslfdim wblob, in tieset*!, ioar

1 HppFobUina, and tba entire apprabaliaH, of 111
Iba Wbifi or the Middle and NorihBrn Sibhh. Bum»*
now ibni all of ua wbo are Wtalgi abould co and joui lbs
Pree-Boil party, HdisI would be thj-JwullF Wby, so (kr,

iioWblgpa

ilea dponwbi'ch'ltE'hsve'^rMidjTloo'd.'"' "'° """ *"'""
TheBuHklo pktrorm proclaimed:
"No more alave Suioa nnd no slave Tcrrilnry :
The aboliilod of iliivery eveiy where under the General

The eoniplels divorce of ihe Gpncml Gove rn meat IVom
.11 donneotlDn wilb,or reapooaibllily Rir alsvery."
From this it would seem that Mr. Webster did

psrly. Why should such unity be demanded in
1859?

Mr. Chairman, under such teachinga as 1 have
quoted, men at the North have been educated;
and their own hearts have made them no dull
schokrs. Looking at the past and thepreaent,
seeing what has been Ihe history of the last five
years, you 'may believe that Northern men feel
that in all these controversies, growing out of sla-
very, Ihey have been worsted. Tliey believe that
Qeneral Foote told the truth when he anld, in
December last, that the South in the compromise
had got all it claimed.

In reference to the territorial and TeKas bnnnd-
ihat Senator expressed himself

I tuBfOUfkavt dtcittd againBtt

iad a beta rufmii to lAilMhi'
tlon berc, not I ndl daily, but in
lory; nnd in my npinidn we aelU
vonblBIDIbeSnuIb. Ve«, air.
•nt aiflHAUattd lie jiuitiMD/ilaierv'ln favor oflka SgiiU

And, air, is it not even as General Foote said ?
Howslandatheaceount? California, havingadopl-
ed a constitution which provided for a republican
form ofgoverument, andposaGBsing the requisite

11

population, applied for admission as a State. On
every principle she had a right to be admitted.
This was conceded by Mr. Clay, Mr. Benton, and
Southern men generally. But because her Con-
stitution excluded slavery, she could not come in
without the non-sIaveholding;iection of the coun-
try bein^ required to pay for her admission. An
act of simple right and undoubted justice could
not be done; and the precedent and the policy was
established, so far as such an act could establish
them, that henceforth there shall be no legislation
looking towards freedoifi but there shall go along
with it, pari passu, that which favors slavery.
Here was a concession (or aggression) such as
had never been made before. The South carried
its point here.

There had been no position upon which the
North stood so unitedly as the Wilmot proviso,
as the extracts which I have read , and others which
I might read, embracing resolutions of State Legis-
latures, and State conventions of both parties,
would prove conclusively. Yet this was yielded.
The South carried the day on this question.

No proposition, perhaps, was ever better sus-
tained, by evidence and argument, than that the
line claimed by Texas, as being the boundary be-
tween her and New Mexico, would include a large
territory rightfully belonging to the latter. Sen-
ator Foote in effect admits this. This was free
territory, and Northern men had proclaimed, Not
an inch of free territory for slavery. Yet a bound-
ary line was established, yielding to Texas — a
slaveholding State— a lai^e tract of country be-
longing to New Mexico, and free; and j^lQ,OOOiOOO
was paid to her to take it and be quiet. The
South beat us in this.

There was nothing lost to slavery, as Senator
Foote and other Southern members of Congress
have admitted, by the <act for the abolition of the
slave trade in this District. It simply made the
law in the District to conform to the law in
Maryland, Mississippi, Kentucky, and several
other slave States, and Mr. Clay well said that it
could not be regarded as a " c<mce8sion by either
class of States to the other class.** So the South
yielded nothing in this act.

Then came the fugitive law, more stringent and
less favorable to liberty than that proposed by Mr.
Clay, or the one which Mr. Webster desired to
have enacted — a law about as hard as it cduld
well be made. Sarely the South got all it claimed
in this matter.

This law is submitted to and executed. We
hear of no movements for its repeal or alteration.
But the South, or rather, as 1 think, the enemies
of the South and North both, in both sections of
the country, are not satisfied with this. They
must have agitation. And so they commend
this compromise cup to us again and again, and
tell us that we must like it, and say that we like
it, and that we will continue to drink of it, and
like it so long as we live.

Sir, I have rehearsed these things not to stir up
strife, nor to incite agitation, but that Southern
gentlemen may understand how they are looked
at in the North, and may judge whether (seeing
that all the compromise measures but one are in
the nature of things executed, and that one prac-
tically submitted to) it is wise io introduce or insist
upon resolutions or declarations which, while they
cannot change the essential facts in relation to

these measures, may lead to a condition of things
which every real friend of the Union would regret?
I would tell gentlemen frankly, and in the kindest
spirit, the truth, and the whole truth, as I be\^ve it
to exist, that it may be understood , and do its per-
fect work. I did not wish to recall these thinca.
I am no ultraist, and would scatter no firebrands.
I know, I can appreciate the position of Southern
men in relation to this institution. I remember
the noble bearing and patriotic conduct of South-
ern Whigs at the time of the Texas annexation;
how they stood up, at risk of personal loss, side
by side with their Northern brethren. Sir, it was
one of the bravest sights the eye of man ever wit-
nessed. God forbid that I should forget it. 7t
was a spectacle of moral sublimity, which shall
not soon fade from the remembrance of men.

Let me invoke now the spirit of patriotic devo-
tion to animate and guide us, which was exhibited
on that memorable occasion.

The Mrth cannot submit to this new test^ and
the South, I think, ought not to. It will do harm,
and nothing but harm, to both North and South.
It will have a surer tendency to create sectional
parties than anything we can do. The gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Stephens] has said, speaking
of the basis of the party organizations:

** If it be true, as some allege, that there is a Iar|^ ma-

iority of the people of the NorUi who are unwilling to stand
vy this coQstitiiUoaal guarantee, I want to know it, and the
country ought to know it."

It is not true, and the gentleman ought to know
that it is not. The ^reat majorit3r of the North—
the whole North, with the exception of a few ex-
treme men who can do no harm-r-are willing to
stand, and mean to stand, by the Constitution, and
all that it guarantees. They will give you a law
for the rendition of your fugitive skives. But be*
cause they do not agree with that gentleman as to
what is the most proper law, they ai*e not, let me
tell him, to be denounced as agitators, enemies of
the Constitution, and Disunionists. No, sir; if
there be any Disunionists in this country, they are
those, and precisely those, who advocate the new
doctrines; they are the men whose course, more
than that of any other men, is calculated to weaken
the bonds of the Union. I can regard no man as
a good unionist who would inculcate the idea that
its stability depends upon the suppression of pri-
vate judgment in reference to the details of a legis-
lative enactment like the fugitive slave law. But,
sir, I have an abiding confidence that neither such
doctrines, with whatever degree of warmth they
may be proclaimed, nor the opposition, however
fanatical,- which they en^enaer, can seriously
threaten its integrity. It is not, thank God, so
weak and frail as to be unable to withstand such
shocks; they are of "the gale, and not the rock."
The people, the people throughout the country,
have an intelligent appreciation of the value and
the blessings of the Union, and a love for it pure,,
fervent, and patriotic.

We have now a country, through the patriotism
and sacrifices, not of one section, but of all sec-
tions, stretching from the Bay of Fundy to the
Gulf of Mexico — ^from Cape May to Oregon — a
country that has every variety of climate and prod-
uct. Her productions ana capabilities are so
varied and diversified as to strengthen the bonds
and intensify the necessities of her Union. The
South can produce cotton enough to supply every

/

12

nation on the globe — she sends us rice, sugar, and
the fruits. The West furnishes the North and South
with breadstuffs, and may easily become the gran-
ary of the world. We of the North, in turn,
can furnish our neighbors, South and West, with
the spoils of our fisheries, whether carried on on
the banks of the near Atlantic, or pushed, more
adventurously, in remote seas, and in regions ^pf
perpetual ice — tour vessels may perform the carry-
ing trade of the nation, and our shops and facto-
ries change the raw materials of every State into
fabrics or substantial value and the cunn ingest de-
vice. No nation beneatn the sun is so favored as
ours in having within its boundaries all the ele-
ments of strength, prosperity and happiness — not
England, nor France, Russia, Austna, Spain —
not one.

Now, sir, what madness, what wickedness, is
it to ask, shall we keep together — shall we go on
as we have gone on, a free, united, prosperous,
people, or shall we be divided, parceled out into
jealous States, giving occasion by rivalries and
conflicting interests to bickerings, reprisals, and
wars ? Look at the prospect which disunion opens,
you who threaten it whenever a vote is lost, and
say if it pleases ! What would you do with our
common nistory, our common biography? And
the star-liffhted banner, what would you do with
that? What colors would float over us in our
border forays across the Potomac — in our incur-
sions upon Kentucky? And under what sign
would her sons descend upon the plaftns of the
Buckeyes? The stars and stripes could be the
standard sheet of no divided empire. Thai flag
represents the whole country; it can stand for
nothing short of the whole; edged by the ocean
on either side, the mid-continent its field, its stars
our mighty lakes, its stripes our magnificent rivers.
Who will dare to cut that flag in twain, or tear it
into rags. Come depression, come misrule, come
war, come an " Iliad of woes," if they must come
— ^let us bear them as we may — we can survive
and outgrow them all. We are still here, here
Americans— citizens of the Great Republic. But

let intestine strife prevail, and sectional jealousies
be aroused till disunion shall come, and no Star of
Hope shall light the prospect that will lie before
us. ** The blasted leaves of autumn may be re-
newed by the returning spring, the cerements of
the grave shall buret, and earth give up her dead;"
but let this Union be once destroyed, there is no
power that can restore it, no heat that can its "light
relume. " NationsJ death is followed by no resur-
rection.

Do not let us cheapen and weaken the Union by
* 'calculations of its value, ** or suggestions of its frail-
ty. Cease to regard it as a fortuitous aggregation of
States, or as a mere association for administra-
tional or governmental convenience, but think of
it, rather, as the expression and result of a deep
necessity, commercial, political, and social; as a
Union Government, hallowed by the past, and
consecrated to the future.

Can there be any question as the policy or duty
of the Whigs in this emergency ? It seems to me
that it should be our aim and purpose to come to-
gether as a national party on national grounds,
with no local Creeds, no sectional issues. Let us
select for our standard-bearer in the campaign upon
which we are entering, a true and tried patriot,
whose services and sacrifices, and life-long devotion
to his country are the best pledges of his fitness and
fidelity. Then, with such a position as 1 have al-
luded to, standing on the old and sufficient plat-
form of the Whig party, and acting in the spirit
of toleration and confidence which once inspired
us, we will restore harmony, and inaugurate Con-
cord in our midst.

" Concord, whose myrtle wand can steep
Even Anger's blood-shot eyes in sleep :
Before whose breathing bosoms' balm,
Rage drops his steel, and storms grow calm ; ^
Her let our sires and matrons hoar
Welcome to this now ravaged shore ;
Our youths enamored of the fair,
Play with die tangles of her hair;
Till in one loud, applauding sound.
The nations shout to her around,
Oh, how supremely art thou blept,
Thou, lady, thou shalt rule the West."

i

f

T

k

}

i

[I

t

■i.-.