Speech of Hon. S. A. Douglas, of Illinois, on the state of the Union : delivered in the Senate, January 3, 1861

s

pH8^

SPEECH

HON. S. A. DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS,

THE STATE OF THE UNION

(DKLrVSRED IN THE SENATE, JANUARY 3, liffiJ-

WASHIISGTON:

"WftBfci lii^' ■^■**'^' ^*'-

SPEECH.

The Senate having under consideration the following resolution reported by the select
committee of thirteen, appointed to consider the agitated and distracted condition of the
country —

Resolved, That the committee have not been able to agree upon any general plan of adjust-
ment, and report that fact to the Senate, together with the journal of the committee.

Mr. DOUGLAS said:

Mr. Pkesident: No act of my public life has ever caused me so
much regret as the necessity of voting in the special committee of
thirteen for the resolution reporting to the Senate our inability to
agree upon any general plan of adjustment, which would restore peace
to the country and insure the integrity of the Union. If we wish to
understand the reqil causes which have produced such wide-spread and
deep-seated discontent in the slaveholding States, we must go back
beyond the recent presidential election, and trace the origin and his-
tory of the slavery agitation from the period when it first became an
active element in Federal politics. Without fatiguing the Senate with
tedious details, I may be permitted to assume, without the fear of suc-
cessful contradiction, that whenever the Federal Grovernment has at-
tempted to decide and control the slavery question in the newly
acquired Territories, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitant,
alienation of feeling, sectional strife, and discord have ensued; and
whenever Congress has refrained from such interference, harmony and
fraternal feeling have been restored. The whole volume of our
nation's history may be confidently appealed to in support of this pro-
position. The most memorable instances are the fearful sectional
controversies which brought thd Union to the verge of disruption in
1820, and again in 1850. It was the territorial question in each case
which presented the chief points of difficulty, because it involved the
irritating question of 'the relative political power of the two sections.
All the other questions, which entered into and served to increase the
slavery agitation, were deemed of secondary importance, and dwindled
into insignificance so soon as the territorial question was definitely
settled.

From the period of the organization of the Federal Government,
under the Constitution, in 1789, down to 1820, all the territorial gov-
ernments had been organized upon the basis of non-interference by
Congress with the domestic institutions of the people. During that
period several new Territories were organized, including Tennessee,
Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, and Alabama. In no one of these
Territories did Congress attempt to interfere with the question of
slavery, either to introduce or exclude, protect or prohibit it. During
the whole of this period there was peace and good-will between the
people of all parte of the Union so far as the questioii of slavery was
concerned.

SPEECH OF HON. S. A. DOUGLAS,

But the first time Congress ever attempted to interfere with and
control that question, regardless of the wishes of the people interested
in it, the Union was put in jeopardy, and was only saved from disso-
lution by the adoption of the compromise of 1820. In the famous
Missouri controversy, the majority of the North demanded that Con-
gress should prohibit slavery forever in all the territory acquired from
France, extending from the State of Lousiana to the British possess-
ions on the north, and from the Mississippi to the Rocky Mountains.
The South and the conservative minority of the North, on the con-
trary, stood firmly upon the ground of non-intervention, denying the
right of Congress to touch the subject. They did not ask Congress
to interfere for protection nor for any purpose, while they opposed the
right and justice of exclusion. Thus, each party^ with their respect-
ive positions distinctly defined — the one for and the other against
congressional intervention — maintained its position with desperate
persistency until disunion seemed inevitable, when a compromise was
effected by an equitable partition of the territory between the two
sections on the line of 36° 30', prohibiting slavery on the one side and
permitting it on the other.

In the adoption of this compromise, each party yielded one-half of
its claim for the sake of the Union. It was designed to form the
basis of perpetual peace on the slavery question by establishing a rule
in accordance with which all future controversy would be avoided.
The line of partition was distinctly marked so far as our territory
might extend; and, by irresistible inference, the spirit of the com-
promise required the extension of the line on the same parallel when-
ever we should extend our territorial limits. The North and the
South — although each was dissatisfied with the terms of the settle-
ment, each having surrendered one-half of its claim — by common con-
sent agreed to acquiesce in it, and abide by it as a permanent basis of
peace upon the slavery question. It is true, that there were a few
discontented spirits in both secti )n8 who attempted to renew the con-
troversy irom time to time ; but the deep Union feeling prevailed,
and the masses of the people were disposed to stand by the settlement
as the surest means of averting future difficulties.

Peace was restored, fraternal feeling returned, and we were a happy
and united people so long as we adhered to and carried out, in good
faith, the Missouri com])romise according to its spirit, as well as its
letter. In 1845, when Texas was annexed to the Union, the policy
of an equitable partition on the line of 36° 30' was adhered to and
carried into effect by the extension of the line as far westward as the
new acquisition might reach. It is true, there was much diversity of
opinion as to the propriety and wisdom of annexing Texas. In the
North the measure was opposed by large numbers upon the distinct
ground that it was enlarging the area of slave territory within the
Union ; and in the South it probably received much additional sup-
port for the same reason ; but, while it may have been opposed and
supported, in some degree. North and South, from these considera-
tions, no considerable number in either section objected to it upon the
ground that it extended and carried out the policy of the Missouri

ox THE STATE OF THE UNION.

compromise. The objection was solely to the acquisition of thecountry,
and not to the application of the Missouri compromise to it, if acquired.
No fair-minded man could deny that every reason which induced the
adoption of the line in 1820 demanded its extension through Texas,
and every new acquisition, whenever we enlarged our territorial pos-
sessions in that direction. No man would have been deemed faithful
to the obligations of the Missouri compromise at that day, who was
opposed to its application to future acquisitions.

The record shows that Texas was annexed to the Union upon the
express condition that the Missouri compromise should be extended
and made applicable to the country, so far as our new boundaries
might reach. The history of that acquisition will show that I not
only supported the annexation of Texas, but that I urged the neces-
sity of applying the Missouri compromise to it, for the purpose of ex-
tending it through New Mexico and California to the Pacific ocean,
whenever we should acquire those Territories, as a means of putting
an end to the slavery agitation forever.

The annexation of Texas drew after it the war with Mexico, and
the treaty of peace left us in possession of California and New Mexico.
This large acquisition of new territory was made the occasion for re-
newing the Missouri controversy. The agitation of 1849-'50 was
a second edition of that of 1819-'20, It was stimulated by the same
motives, aiming at the same ends, and enforced by the same argu-
ments. The northern majority invoked the intervention of Congress
to prohibit slavery everywhere in the Territories of the United
States — both sides of the Missouri line — south as well as north of
06° 30'. The South, together with a conservative minority in the
North, stood firmly upon the ground of non-intervention, denying
the right of Congress to interfere with the subject, but avowing a
willingness, in the spirit of concession for the sake of peace and the
Union, to adhere to and carry out the policy of an equitable parti-
tion on the line of 86° 30' to the Pacific ocean, in the same sense in
which it was adopted in 1820, and according to the understanding
when Texas was annexed in 1845. Every argument and reason,
every consideration of patriotism and duty, which induced the adop-
tion of the policy in 1820, and its application to Texas in 1845, de-
manded its application to California and New Mexico in 1848. The
peace of the country, the fraternal feeling of all its parts, the safety
of the Union, all were involved.

Under these circumstances, as chairman of the Committee on Terri-
tories, I introduced into the Senate the following proposition, which
was adopted by a vote of 33 to 21 in the Senate, but rejected in the
House of Representatives. I read from the Journal, August 10, 1848,
page 563 :

"On motion by Mr. Douulas to amend tlie bill, section fourteen, line one, by inserting
after the word ' enacted ':

" That t!ie liiie of 3G° 30' of north latitude, known as the Missouri compromise line, as
defined by the eighth section of an act entitled ' An act to authorize the people of the
Missouri Territory to form a constitution and State frovernment, and for the admission of
8uch State into the Union on an equal fooling with the original States, and to prohibit slavery
in ^certain Territories, api)roved March G, 1620,' be, and the same is hereby, declared to
extend to the Pacific ocean; and the eaid eighth section, together with the compromise therein

SPEECH OF HON. S. A. DOUGLAS,

effected, is'hereby revived, and declared to be in full force and bindings, for the future organi-
zation of the Territories of tiie United States, in tlie same sense, and with the same under-
standing, with which it was originally adopted;

♦' it was determined in the afhrniative — yeas 33, nays 21.

" On motion by Mr. Baldwin, tlie yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the senators
present, those who voted in the affirmative are:

" Messrs. Atcliison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Bright, Butler, Calhoun,
Cameron, Davis, of Mississii)pi, Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Fitzgerald, Foote, Hannegan,
Houston, Hunter, Johnson, of Maryland, Johnson, of Louisiana, Johnson, of Georgia,
King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, xMetcalf, Pearce, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney,
Underwood.

" Those who voted in the negative are:

" Messrs. Allen, Atherton, Baldwin, Bradbury, Breese, Clark, Corwin, Davis, of Massa-
chusetts, Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Green, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Niles, Phelps, Upham,
Walker, Webster.

"So the proposed amendment was agreed to."

The bill, as amended, was then ordered to be engrossed for a third
reading, by a vote of 38 to 22, and was read the third time, and passed
on the same day. By the classification of the votes for my proposition
to carry out the Missouri compromise, it will be seen that all the
southern Senators, twenty-six in number, including Mr. Galhoun, vo-
ted in the affirmative ; and of the northern Senators, seven voted in
the affirmative and twenty-one in the negative. The proposition was
rejected in the House of Representatives by almost a sectional, vote,
the whole South voting for it, and a large majority !of the -North
againsb it. '

It was the rejection of that proposition — the repudiation of the pol-
icy of an equitable partition of the territory between the two sections,
on the line of 36° 30' — which reopened the floodgates of slavery agi-
tation and deluged the v^hole country with sectional strife and bitter-
ness, until the Union was again brought to the verge of disruption,
before the swelling tide of bitter waters could be turned back, and
passion and prejudice could be made to give place to reason and pa-
triotism. .

Had the Senate's proposition been concurred in by the House of Rep-
resentatives ; had the policy of an equitable partition been adhered to ;
had the Missouri compromise been carrie'd but in good faith, through
our newly acquired territory, to the Pacific ocean, there would have
been an end to the slavery agitation forever. For, the line of parti-
tion between free and slave territory being once firmly established
and distinctly defined from the Atlantic to the Pacific, all new ac-
quisitions, whether on the North or the South, would have con-
formed to that adjustment, without exciting the passions, or wound-
ing the sensibilities, or disturbing the harmony of our people. I do
not think it would have made any material difFeren(3e in respect to
the condition of the new States to be formed out of such territory,
for I have always believed, and often said, that the existence or non-
existence of African slavery depends more upon the necessities of
climate, health, and productions, than upon congressional and ter-
ritorial enactments. It was in reference to this great truth that Mr.
Webster said that the condition of all the territory acquired from
Mexico, 80 far as the question of slavery was concerned, was irrevo-
cably fixed and settled by an irrypealable law — the law of climate,
and of physical geography, and of the formation of the earth. You

ON THE STATE OF THE UNION.

might as well attempt by act of Congress to compel cotton to grow
upon the tops of the Rocky Mountains and rice upon the summits of
the Sierra Nevada, as to compel shivery to exist, by congressional
enactment, where neither climate, nor health, nor productions, will
render it necessary and self-sustaining. Yet the desire, on the one
hand, for the extension of slavery into regions where it is physically
impossible to sustain it, and, on the other hand, to abolish and exclude
it from those countries where the white man cannot endure the climate
and cultivate the soil, threatens to keep the agitation of this question
perpetually in Congress, until the passions of the people shall become
so inflamed that civil war and disunion shall become inevitable. It
is the territorial question — whether slavery shall exist in those vast
regions, in utter disregard of the wishes and necessities of the people
inhabiting them — that is convulsing and dissolving the Republic; a
question in which we have no direct interest, about which we have
very little knowledge, and which the people of those territories must
and will eventually decide for themselves and to suit themselves, no
matter what Congress may do. But for this territorial question there
would be very little difficulty in settling the other matters in contro-
versy. The abolitionists could never endanger the peace of the
country or the existence of the Union by the agitation of the 'slavery
question in the District of Columbia by itself, or in the dock-yards,
forts, and arsenals in the slaveholdiug States, or upon the fugitive
slave law, or upon any minor issue, or upon them all together, if the
territorial question could be finally and irrevocably settled.

I repeat, it was the repudiation of the policy of the Missouri com-
promise, the refusal to apply it to the territory acquired from Mexffco,
when offered by me, and supported by the whole ^outh, in August,
1848, which reopened the agitation and revived the Missouri contro-
versy. The compromise of 1820 once repudiated, the policy of an
equitable parti-tion of the territory abandoned, the proposition to
extend it to the Pacific being rejected, and the original controversy
reopened with increased bitterness, each party threw itself back on
its original extreme position — the one demanding its exclusion every-
where, and the other insisting upon its right to go everywhere in the
territories, regardless of the wishes of the people inhabiting them.
All the arguments, pro and con., used in 1819-20 were repeated in
1849-50. The question was the same, and the relative position of
the two sections the same.

Such was the condition of things at the opening of the session of
1849-'50, when Mr. Clay resumed his seat in this body.

The purest patriots in the land had become alarmed for the fate of
the Republic. The immortal Clay,-v/hose life had been devoted to the
rights, interests, and glory of his country, had retired to the shades
of Ashland to prepare for another and a better world. When, in his
retirement, hearing the harsh and discordant notes of sectional strife
and disunion, he consented, at the earnest solicitation of his country-
men, to resume his seat in the Senate, the theatre of his great deeds,
to see if, by his experience, his wisdom, the renown of his great name,
and his strong hold upon the confidence and affections of the American

SPEECH OF HON. S. A. DOUGLAS,

people, he could not do somethinjij to restore peace to a distracted
country. From the moment of his arrival among us he became, by
common consent, and as a matter of course, the leader of the Union
men. His first idea was to revive and extend to the Pacific ocean the
Missouri compromise line, with the same understanding and legal
effect in which it had been adopted in 1820, and continued througii
Texas in 1845. I was one of his humble followers and trusted friends
in endeavoring to carry out that policy, and in connexion with others,
at his special request, carefully canvassed both liouses of Congress to
ascertain whether it was possible to obtain a majority vote in each
House for the measure. We found no difficulty with the southern
Senators and Representatives, and could secure the co-operation of a
minority from the North; but not enough to give us a majority iu
both Houses. Hence the Missouri compromise was abandoned by its
friends, ngt from choice, but from inability to carry it irdo effect in
good faith. It was with extreme reluctance that Mr. Clay, and those
of us who acted with him and shared his confidence, were brought to
the conclusion that we must abandon, from inability to carry out, the
line of policy which had saved the Union in 18 iO, and given peace to
the country for many happy years.

Finding ourselves unable to maintain that policy, we yield to a
stern necessity, and turned our attention to ttie discoveiy of some
other plan by which the existing difficulties could be settled, and fu-
ture troubles avoided. I need not detail the circumstances under
which Mr. Clay brought forward his plan of adjustment, which re-
ceived the sanction of the tv/o Houses of Congress and the approbation
of f he American people, and is familiarly known as the compromise
measures of 1850. These measures were designed to accomplish the
same results as the act of 1820, but in a different mode. The leading
feature and chief merit of each was to \)anish the slavery agitation
from the Halls of Congress and the arena of Federal politics. The
act of 1820 was intended to attain this end by an equitable partition
of the Territories between the contending sections. The acts of 1850
were designed to attain the same end by remitting the whole question
of slavery to the decision of the people of the Territories, subj«ct to
the limitations of the Constitution, and let the Federal ci-urts deter-
mine the validity and cr nstitutionality of the territorial enactments
from time to time, as cases should arise and appeals be taken to the
Supreme Court of the United States. The one, proposed to settle the
question by a geographical line and an equitable partition ; and the
other by the principles of po])ular sovereignty in accordance with the
Constitution. The object of both being the same, I supported each in
turn as a means of attaining a desirable end.

After the compromise measures of 1850 had become the law of the
land, those who had opposed their enactment appealed to their con-
stituents to sustain them in their opposition, and implored them not
to acquiesce in the ])rinciple8 upon which they were founded, and
never to cease to war upon them until they should be annulled and
effaced from the statute book. The contest before the people was
fierce and bitter, accompanied sometimes with acts of violence and in-

ON THE STATE OP THE UNION.

timidatiou ; but fortunately, Mr. Clay lived long enough to feel and
know that his last great efforts for the peace of the country and the
perpetuity of the Union — the crowning acts of a brilliant and glorious
career in the public service — had met the approval and received the
almost unanimous indorsement of his grateful countrymen. The re-
pose which the country was permitted to enjoy for a brief period
proved to be a temporary truce in the sectional conflict, and not a
permanent peace upon the slavery question. The purpose of reopen-
ing the agitation for a congressional prohibition of slavery in all the
Territories whenever an opportunity or excuse could be had, seems
never to have been abandoned by those who originated the scheme for
partisan purposes in 1819, and were baffled in their designs by the
adoption of the Missouri compromise in 1820 ; and who renewed the
attempt in 1848, but were again doomed to suffer a mortifying defeat
iu the adoption of the compromise measures of 1850. The opportunity
and pretext for renewing the agitation v/as discovered by those who
had never abandoned the design, when it became necessary, in 1854,
to pass the necessary laws for the organization of the Territories of
Kansas and Nebraska. The necessity for the organization of these
Territories, in order to open and protect the routes of emigration and
travel to California and Oiegon could not be denied. The measure
could not be postponed longer without endangering the peace of the
frontier settlements, and incurring the hazards of an Indian war, grow-
ing out of the constant collisions between the emigrants and the In-
dian tribes through whose country they were compelled to pass.

_ Early in December, 1853, Senator Dodge, of Iowa, introduced a
bill for the organization of the Territory of Nebraska, which was
referred to the Committee on Territories, of which I was chairman.
The committee did not volunteer their services on the occasion. The
bill vvas referred to us by the vote of the Senate, and our action v/,j*8.
in discharge of a plain duty imposed upon us by an express command,
of the body.

The first question which addressed itself to the calm and deliberate
consideration of the committee was : upon what basis shall the organi-
zation of the Territory be formed? Whether upon the theory of a
geographical line and an equitable partition of the territory in accor-
dance with the compromise of 1820, which had been abandoned by its
supporters, not from choice, but from our inability to carry it out; or
upon the principle of non-intervention and popular sovereignty, ac-
cording to the compromise measures of 1850, which had taken the
place of the Missouri compromise?

The committee, upon mature deliberation, and with great unanimity,
decided that all future territorial organizations should be formed upon
the principles and model of the compromise measures of 1850, inas-
much as in the recent presidential election (1852) both of the great
I)olitical parties of the country, (Whig and Democratic,) of which
the Senate was composed, stood pledged to those measures as a sub-
stitute for the act of 1820; and the committee instructed me, as their
organ, to prepare a report and draft a substitute for Mr. Dodge's bill
in accordance with these views. I will now read from the record, at,

10 SPEECH OF HON. S. A. DOUGLAS,

the hazard of heing somewhat tedious, in order that the Senate and
the country may judge ^ith what fidelity I performed this duty:

"January 4tli, 1854, Mr. Douolas made the following report : 'Tlic Committee on Ter-
ritories, to which was referred a bill for an act to establish the Territory of Nebraska, have
given the yame that serious and deliberate consideration which its great importance de-
mands, and beg leave to report it back to the Senate, with various amondmants, in the
form of a substitute for the bill.

•"The principal amendmonis which your committee deem it their duty to commeod to
the favorable action of the Senate, in a special report, are those in which the principles
established by the compromise measures of 1850, so far as they are applicable to territorial
organizations, are proposed to be affirmed and carried into practical operation within the
limits of the new Territory.

" 'The wisdom of those measures is attested, not less by their salutary and beneficial
effects in allaying sectional agitation and restoring peace and harmony to an irritated and
distracted people, than by the cordial and almost universal approbation with which they
have been received and sanctioned by the whole country. In the judgment of your com-
mittee, those measures were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than tlie mere
adjustment of the difficulties arising out of the receiit aquisition of 3L^-Acan territory. They werb

DESIGNED TO KSTABI/ISH CERTAIN GREAT PRINCIPLES, WUICU WOULD NOT ONLY FURNISH ADEQUATE
REMEDIES FOR E.XISTING EVILS, liUT IN ALL TIME TO COME AVOID THE PERILS OF A SIMILAR AGITA-
TION, BY WITHDRAWING THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY FROM THE HaLI^ OF CONGRESS AND THE POLITI-
CAL ARENA, AND COMMITTING IT TO THE ARBITRAMENT OF THOSE WHO WERE IMMEDIADELT INTER-
ESTED IN, AND ALONE RFSPONsiuLB FOR, ITS CONSEQUENCES. With the vlcw of Conforming their
action to what they regard the settled policy of the govennnent, sanctioned by the ap-
proving voice of the Ameiican people, your committee have deen:ied it their duty to incor-
porate and perpetuate in their territorial bills the principles and spirit of those measures ' "

After reviewing the provisions of the legislation of 1850, the com-
mittee conclude as follows :

" From these provisions it is apparent that the compromise nioa.sures of 1850 affirm and
rest upon the following propositions :

" First. That all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in the new
States to be formed therefrom, arc to ho left to the decision of the people residing therein,
by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for thiit purpose.

"Second. That ' all cases involving title to slaves,' and 'questions of personal freedom,'
ar€ referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the riglit of appeal to the
tJupiienie Court of the United States.

'■'' Third. That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States in respect to
fugitiv€o from service is to be carried into faithful execution in all ' the organized Terri-
tories' tiiG same as in the States.

" The f>ub>ititut<; for the bill which your committee have prepared, and which is com-
mendod to the favoiablc action of the Senate, proposes to earn/ those propositions and principk-s
into pradical operation in the precise language of the compromise measu Era op 1830."

No sooner was this report and bill printed and laid upon the tables
of Senators f.han an address was prepared and is.sued, over the sign-a-
tures of those party leaders who liad always denounced " the Missouri
compromise as a crime against freedom and a compact with infamy,"
in which the bill was "arraigned as a gross violation of a sacred
pledge;" "as a criminal betrayal of precious rights;" and the report
denounced as "a mere invention, designed to cover up from public
reprehension metlitated bad faith."

The Missouri compromise was "infamous," in tlieir estimation, so
long as it remained upon the statute book and was carried out iu good
faith, as a means of preserving the peace of the country and prevent-
ing the slavery agitation in Congress. But it .suddenly became a
*'sacre<l pledge," a "solemn compact for the preservation of precious
rights," the moment they had succeeded in preventing its faithful
execution and in causin^j it to be abandoned when it ceased to be an

ON THE STATE OF THE UNION. 11

impregnable barrier against slavery agitation and sectional strife.
The bill against which the hue and cry was raised, and the crusade
preached, did not contain a word about the Missouri compromise, nor
in any manner refer toat. It simply allowed the people of the Ter-
ritory to legislate for thqmselves on all rightful subjects of legislation,
and left them free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in
their own way, subject only to the Constitution. So far as the Mis-
souri act, or any otlier statute, might be supposed to conflict with
this right of self-government in the Territories, it was, by inference^ «
rendered null and void to that extent, and for no other purpose.
Several weeks afterwards, when a doubt was suggested whether, under
the bill as it stood, the people of the Territory would be authorized
to exercise this right of self-government upon the slavery question
during the existence of the territorial government, an amendment was
adopted, on my motion, for the sole and avowed purpose of reihoving
that doubt and securing that right in accordance with the compro-
mise measures of 1850, as stated by me and reported in the debates
at the time. The amendment will be found in the fourteenth section
of the act, and is as follows :

" That the Coastitution and all laws of the United States which are not locallj' inappli-
cable, fchall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Nebraska as else- - '
where within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the
admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, u-hich, hehiy inconiistent
, wnh the principle of iwn-intervention hi/ Cbnyress with daveri/ in the Slates and Territories, as recog-
nized BY THE LEGISLATION OF 1850, commonly called the compromise measure, is hereby
declared inoperative and void ; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to leg-
islate slavery into any Territory o^ State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people
thereof jJerfedly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only
to the Constitution of the United States."

In my opinion this amendment did not change the legal effect of
the bill as reported by the committee. Its object was to render its
meaning, certain, by removing all doubts in regard to the right of the
people to exercise the privileges of self-government on the slavery
question., as well as all others consistent with the Constitution, during
their territorial oondition, as well as when they should become a
State. Frpm that day to this there has been a fierce and desperate
struggle betv/eeu the supporters and opponents of the territorial pol-
icy inaugurated under the atispices of Mr. Clay in 1850, and affirmed
in the Kansas-Nebraska act in 1854 — the one to maintain, and the
other to overthrow, the principle of non-intervention and popular sov-
ereignty, as the settled policy of the government in reference to the
organization, of Territories^ and the admission of new States. This
sketch of the origin and progress of the slavery agitation as an ele-
ment of political power and partisan warfare, covers the entire period
from the organization of the Federal Grovernment under the Consti-
tution, in 1789, to the,, present, and is naturally divided into three

First. From 1789, when the Constitu^n went into operation, to
18l9-'-20, when the Missouri controvers^^ose, the Territories were
all organized upon the basis of non-intervention by Congres with the
domestic affairs of the people, and especially upon the question of

12 SPEECH OF HON S. A. DOUGLAS,

African slavery. During the whole of this period domestic tranquil-
lity and fraternal feeling prevailed.

Second. From 1820, when the Missouri compromise was adopted, to
1848 and 1850, when it was repudiated and finally abandoned, all- the
Territories were organized with reference to the policy of an equitable
partition between the two sections upon the line of 3G° 30'. During
this period there was no serious difficulty upon the territorial question,
80 long as the Missouri compromise was adhered to, and carried out
in good faith.

Third. From 1850, when the original doctrine of non-intervention,
as it prevailed during the first thirty years, was re-established as the
policy of the Government in the organization of Territories, and the
admission of new States, to the present time, there has been a constant
struggle, except for a short interval, to overthrow and repudiate the
policy and principles of the compromise measures of 1850, for the pur-
pose of returning to the old doctrine of congressional intervention for
the prohibition of slavery in all the Territories, south as well as north
of the Missouri line, regardless of the wishes and condition of the peo-
ple inhabiting the country.

In view of these facts, I feel authorized to reaffirm the proposition
with which I commenced my remarks, that, whenever the Federal
Government has attempted to control the slavery question in our
newly-acquired Territories, alienation of feeling, discord, and sectional
strife, have ensued; and whenever Congress has refrained from such
interlerence, peace, harmony, and good will, have returned. The
conclusion I draw from tliesc premises is, that the slavery question
should be banished forever from the Halls of Congress and the arena
•of Federal politics by an irrepealable constitutional provision. I have
•deemed this exposition of the origin and progress of the slavery agi-
.taiion essential to a full comprehension of the difficulties with wliich
we are surrounded^ and the remedies for the evils which threaten the
disLuption of the Ixepublic. The immediate causes which have pre-
oijj'itated the southern country into revolution, although inseparably
connected with, and fiowing from, the slavery agitation, whose history
T have portrayed, are to be ibund in the result of the rc«ent presiden-
tial election. I hold that the election of any man, tio matter who, by
the American people, according to the Constitution, furnishes no cause,
no justification, for the dissolution of the Union, But we cannot close
our eyes to the fact that the southern people have received the result
of that election as lurnishing conclusive evidence that the dominant
party of the North, which is soon to take possession of the Federal
Government ,under that election, are determined to invade and destroy
their constituti )nal rights. Believing that their domestic institutions,
their hearth-stones, and their family altars, are all to be assailed, at
.least by indirect means, and that the Federal Government is to be used
for the inauguration of a line of policy which shall have for its object
the ultimate extinction of slavery in all the States, old as well as new.
South as well as JN^orth, the southern people are prepared to rush
wildly, madly, as I think, into revolution, disunion, war, and defy
.the consequences, whatever they may be, rather thfin to wait for the.

ON THE STATE OF THE UNION. 13

development of events, or submit tamely to what they think is a fatal
blow impending over them and over all they hold dear on earth. It
matters not, so far as we and the peace of the country and the fate of
the Union are concerned, whether these apprehensions of the southern
, people are real or imaginary, whether they are well founded or wholly
without foundation, so long as they believe them%nd are determined
to act upon them. The Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Wade,] whose speech
was received with so much favor by his political friends the other day,
referred to these serious apprehensions, and acknowledged his belief
that the southern people were laboring under the conviction that they
were well founded. He was kind enough to add that he did not blame
the southern people much for what they were doing under this fatal
misapprehension; but cast the whole blame upon the northern De-
mocracy; and referred especially to his colleague and myself, for having
misrepresented and falsified the purposes and policy of tlie Republican
party, and for having made the southern people believe our misrepre-
sentations ! He does not blame the southern people for acting on
their honest convictions in resorting to revolution to avert an impend-
ing but imaginary calamity. No; he does not blame them, because
they believe in the existence of the danger; yet he will do no act to
undeceive them; will take no step to relieve their painful apprehen-
sions; and will furnish no guarantees, no security against the dangers
which they believe to exist, and the existence of which he denies; but,
on the contrary, he demands unconditional submission, threatens war,
and talks about armies, navies, and military force, for the purpose ol
preserving the Union and enforcing the laws ! I submit whether this
mode of treating the question is not calculated to confirm the worst
apprehensions of the southern people, and force them into the most
extreme measures of resistance ?

I regret that the Senator from Ohio, or any other Senator, should
have deemed it consistent with his duty, under present circumstances,
to introduce partisan politics, and attempt to manufacture partisan
capital out of a question involving the peace and safety of the country.
I repeat what I have said on another occasion, that, if I know myself,
ray action will be influenced by no partisan considerations, until we
shall have rescued the country from the perils which environ it. ^ But
since the Senator has attempted to throw the whole responsibility of
the present difficulties upon the northern Democracy, and has charged
us with misrepresenting and falsifying the purposes and policy of the
Republican party, and thereby deceiving the southern people, I feel
called up to repel the charge, and show that it is without a shadow of
foundation. No man living would rejoice more than myself in the
conviction, if I could only be convinced of the fact, that I have mis-
understood, and consequently misrepresented, the policy and designs
of the Republican party. Produce the evidence and convince me of
my error, and I will take more pleasure in making the correction and
repairing the injustice than I ever have taken in denouncing what I
believed to be an unjust and ruinous policy.

With the view of ascertaining whether I have misapprehended or mis-
represented the policy and purposes of the Republican party^ I will now
inquire of the Senator, and yield the floor for an answer :

14 SPEECH OF HON. S. A. DOUGLAS,

Whether it is not the policy of his party to confine slavery within
its present limits by the action of the Federal Government?

Whether they do not intend to abolish and prohibit slavery by act
of Congress, notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court to the
contrary, in all jhe Territories we now possess or may hereafter
acquire?

Whether he and his party are in favor of returning to their master
the fugitive slaves that may escape? In short, I will give the Senator
an opportunity now to say

Mr. WADE. Mr. President

Mr. DOUGLAS. One other question, and I will give way.

Mr. WADE. Very well.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will give the Senator an opportunity of saying'
now whether it is not the policy of his party to exert all the powers ol
the Federal Government under the Constitution, according to their
interpretation of the instrument, to restrain and cripple the institution
of slavery, with a view to its ultimate extinction in all the States, old
as well as new, south as well as north.

Are nob these the views and purposes of the party, as proclaimed by
their leaders, and understood by the people, in speeches, addresses,
sermons, newspapers, and public meetings? Now, I will hear his
answer.

Mr. WADE. Mr. President, all these questions are most perti-
nently answered in the speech the Senator is professing to answer.
I have nothing to add to it. If he will read my speech, he will find
my sentiments upon all those questions.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I did not expect an unequivocal
answer. I know too well that the Senator will not deny that each of
these interrogatories do express his individual policy and the policy of
the Piepublican party as he understands it. I should not have pro-
pounded the interrogatories to him if he had not accused me and the
northern Democracy of having misrepresented the policy of the Piepub-
lican party, and with having deceived the southern people by such
misrepresentation. The most obnoxious sentiments I ever attributed
to the Ptepublican party, and that not in the South, but in northern
Illinois and in the strongholds of Abolitionism, was that they intended
to exercise the powers of the Federal Government with a view to the
ultimate extinction of slavery in the southern States. I have expressed
my belief, and would be glad to be corrected if I am in error, that it is
the policy of that party to exclude slavery from all the Territories we
now possess or may acquire, with a view of surrounding the slave
States with a cordon of abolition States, and thus confine the institu-
tion within such narrow limits that, when the number increases beyond
the capacity of the soil to raise food for their subsistence, the institu-
tion must end in starvation, colonization, or servile insurrection. I
have often exposed the enormities of this policy, and appealed to the
people of Illinois to know whether this mode of getting rid of the evils
of slavery could be justified in,the name of civilization, humanity, and
Christianity ? I have often used these arguments in the strongest
abolition portions (^f the North; but never in the South. The truth
is, I have always been very mild and gentle upon the Republicans

ON THE STATE OF THE UNION. 15

when addressing a southern audience; for it seemed ungenerous to say
• hehind their backs, and where they dare not go to reply to me, those
things which I was in the habit of saying to their faces, and in the
presence of their leaders, where they were in the majority.

But inasmuch as I do not get a direct answer from the Senator who
makes this charge against the northern Democracy, as to the purposes
of that party to use the power of the Federal Government under their
construction of the Constitution^ with a view to the ultimate extinc-
tion of slavery in the States, I will turn to the record of their Presi-
dent elect, and see what he says on that subject. The Kepublicans
have gone to the trouble to collect and publish in pamphlet form, under
the sanction of Mr. Lincoln, the debates which took place between him
and myself in the senatorial canvass of 1858. It may not be improper
here to remark that this publication is unfair towards me, for the rea-
son that Mr. Lincoln personally revised and corrected his own speeches,
without giving me an opportunity to correct the numerous errors in
mine. Inasmuch as the publication is made, under the sanction of
Mr. Lincoln himself, accompanied by a letter from him that he has re-
vised the speeches by verbal corrections^ and thereby approved them,
it becomes important to show what his views are, since he is in the
daily habit of referring to those speeches for his present opinions.

Mr. Lincoln was nominated for United States Senator by a Republi-
can State convention at Springfield in June, 1858. Anticipating the
nomination, he had carefully prepared a written speech, which he de-
livered on the occasion, and which, by order of the convention, was
published among the proceedings as containing the platform of princi-
ples upon which the canvass was to be conducted. More importance
is due to this speech than to those delivered under the excitement of
debate in joint discussions influenced by the exigencies of the contest.
The first few paragraphs which I will now read, may be taken as a fair
statement of his opinions and feelings upon the slavery question. Mr.
Lincoln said :

'^ Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention, if v/e could first know where we are
and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it. We are
now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and con-
fident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy,
that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion,
it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. A house divided
against itself cannot stand ! I believe this Government cannot endure permanently half
slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house
•to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all
the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place
it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinc-
tion, or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall alike become lawful in all the States,
old as well as new, Ncjrth as well as South. ' '

There you are told by the President elect that this Union cannot
permanently endure divided into free and slave States ; that these
States must all become free or all slave, all become one thing or all
become the other ; that this agitation will never cease until the oppo-
nents of slavery have restrained its expansion, and have placed it
where the public mind will be satisfied that it will be in the course of
ultimate extinction. Mark the language :

*' Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it?"

1() SPEECH OF HON. S. A. DOUGLAS,

We are now told that the ohject of the Republican party is to pre-
vent the extension of slavery. What did Mr. Lincoln say ? That
the opponents of slavery must first prevent the further spread of it.
But that is not all. What else must they do?

" And place it where the public mind can rest in the belief that it is in the course of
ultimate extinction."

The ultimate extinction of slavery, of which Mr. Lincoln was then
speaking, related to the States of this Union. He had reference to
the soutliern States of this Confederacy ; for, in the next sentence, he
says that the States must all become one thing or all the other — "old
as well as new, north as well as south" — showing that he meant
that the policy of the Republican party was to keep up this agitation
in the Federal Government until slavery in the States was placed in
the process of ultimate extinction. Now, sir, when the Republican
committee have published an edition of Mr. Lincoln's speeches, con-
taining sentiments like these, and circulated it as a campaign docu-
ment, is it surprising that the people of the South should suppose that
he was in earnest, and intended to carry out the policy which he had
announced?

I regret the necessity which has made it my duty to reproduce these
dangerous and revolutionary opinions of the President elect. No con-
sidtration could have induced me to have done so but the attempt of
his friends to denounce the policy which Mr. Lincoln has boldly advo-
cated as gross calumnies upon the Republican party, and as base in-
ventions by the northern Democracy to excite rebellion in the southern
country. I should like to find one Senator on that side of the Chana-
ber, in the confidence of the President elect, who will have the hardi-
hood to deny that Mr. Lincoln stands pledged by his public speeches,
to which he now refers constantly as containing his present opinions,
to carry out the policy indicated in the speech from which I have read.
I take great pleasure in saying, however, that I do not believe the
rights of the South will materially suff"er under the administration of
Mr. Lincoln. I repeat what I have said on another occasion, that
neither he nor his party will have the power to do any act prejudicial
to Southern rights and interest, if the Union shall be preserved and
the southern States shall retain a full delegation in both Houses of
Congress. With a majority against them in this body and in the
House of Representatives, they can do no act, except to enforce th«
laws, without the consent of those to whom the South has confided
her interests, and even his appointments for that purpose are subject
to our advice and confirmation. Besides, I still indulge the hope that
when Mr. Lincoln shall assume the high responsibilities which will
goon devolve upon him, he will be fully impressed with the necessity
of sinking the politician in the statesman, the partisan in the patriot,
and regard the obligations which he owes to his country as paramount
to those of his party. In view of these considerations, I had indulged
the fond hope that the people of the southern States would have been
content to remain in the Union and defend their rights under the Con-

ON THE STATE OF THE UNION. 17

stitution, instead of rushing madly into revolution and disunion, as a
refuge from apprehended dangers which may not exist.

But this apprehension has become wide-spread and deep-seated in
the southern people. It has taken possession of the southern mind,
sunk deep in the southern heart, and filled them with the conviction
that their fire-sides, their family altars, and their domestic institutions,
are to be ruthlessly assailed through the machinery of the Federal
Government. The Senator from Ohio says he does not blame you,
southern Senators, nor the southern people, for believing those things;
and yet, instead of doing those acts which will relieve your apprehen-
sions, and render it impossible that your rights should be invaded by
Federal power under any Administration, he threatens you with war,
armies, military force, under pretext of enforcing the laws and pre-
serving the Union. We are told that the authority of the Government
must be vindicated; that the Union must be preserved; that rebellion
must be put down; that insurrections must be suppressed, and the
laws must be enforced. I agree to all this. I am in favor of doing
all these things according to the Constitution and laws. No man will
go further than I to maintain the just authority of the Government,
to preserve the Union, to put down rebellion, to suppress insurrection,
and to enforce the laws. I would use all the powers conferred by the
Constitution for this purpose. But, in the performance of these im-
portant and delicate duties, it must be borne in mind that those powers
only must be used, and such measures employed, as are authorized by
the Constitution and laws. Things should be called by the right
names; and facts, whose existence can no longer be denied, should be
acknowledged.

Insurrections and rebellions, although unlawful and criminal, fre-
quently become successful revolutions. The strongest governments
and proudest monarchs on earth have often been reduced to the
humiliating necessity of recognizing the existence of governments de
facto, although not de jure, in their revolted States and provinces,
when rebellion has ripened into successful revolution, and the na-
tional authorities have been expelled from their limits. In such cases
the right to regain possession and exact obedience to the laws remains;
but the exercise of that right is war, and must be governed by the
laws of war. Such was the relative condition of Great Britain and
the American colonies for seven years after the declaration of inde-
pendence. The rebellion had progressed and matured into revolution,
with a government de facto, and an army and navy to defend it. Great
Britain, regarding the complaints of the colonies unfounded, refused
to yield to their demands, and proceeded to reduce them to obedience;
not by the enforcement of the laws, but by military force, armies and
navies, according to the rules and laws of war. Captives taken in
hattle with arms in their hands, fighting against Great Britain, were
not executed as traitors, but held as prisoners of war, and exchanged
according to the usages of civilized nations. The laws of nations,
the principles of humanity, of civilization, and Christianity, de-
manded that the government de facto should be acknowledged and
treated as such. While the right to prosecute war for the purpose of

18 SPEECH OF HON. S A. DOUGLAS,

reducing the revolted provinces to obedience still remained, yet it was
a military remedy, and could only be exercised according to the
established principles of war.

It is said that, after one of the earliest engagements, the British
general threatened to execute as traitors all the prisoners he had
taken in battle, and that General Washington replied that he, too,
had taken some prisoners, and would shoot two for one until the
British general should respect the laws of war, and treat his prisoners
accordingly. May divine Providence, in His infinite wisdom and
mercy, save our country from the humiliation and calamities which
now seem almost inevitable. South Carolina has already declared her
independence of the United States; has expelled the federal author-
ities from her limits, and established a government de facto, with a
military force to sustain it. The revolution is complete, there being
no man within her limits who denies the authority of her government
or acknowledges allegiance to that of the United States. There is
every reason to believe that seven other States will soon follow her
example; and much ground to apprehend that the other slaveholding
States will follow them.

How are we going to prevent an alliance between the seceding
States by which they may establish a Federal Government, at least
de facto, for themselves? If they shall do so, and expel the authori-
ties of the United States from their limits, as South Carolina has done,
and others are about to do, so that there shall be no human being
within their boundaries who acknowledges allegiance to the United
States, how are we going to enforce the laws? Armies and navies
can make war, but cannot enforce laws in this country. The laws
can be enforced only by the civil authorities, assisted by the military
as a posse comitatus, when resisted in executing judicial process.
Who is to issue the judicial process in a State where there is no judge,
no court, no judicial functionary? Who is to perform the duties of
marslial in executing the process where no man will or dare accept
office? Who are to serve on juries where every citizen is pariiceps
criminis with the accused ? How are you going to comply with tho
Constitution in respect to a jury trial, where there are no men quali-
fied to serve on the jury? I agree that the laws should be enforced.
I hold that our Government is clothed with the power and duty of using
all the means necessary to the enforcement of the laws, according to
the Constitution and laws. The President is sworn to the faithful
performance of this duty. I do not propose to inquire, at this time,
how far, and with what fidelity, the President has performed that
duty. His conduct and duty in this regard, including acts of com-
mission and omission, while the rebellion was in its incipient stages,
and when confined to a feyv individuals, present a very different ques-
tion from that which we are now discussing — after the revolution has
become complete, and the Federal authorities have been expelled, and
the Government de facto put into practical operation, and in the
unrestrained and unresisted exercise of all the powers and functions
of Government, local and national.

But we are told that secession is wrong, and that South Carolina

0>r THE STATE OF THE UNION. 19

had no right to secede. I agree that it is wrong, unlawful, unconsti-
tutional, criminal. In my opinion, South Carolina had no right to
secede ; hut she has done it. She has declared her independence of us,
effaced the last vestige of our civil authority, established a foreign
Government, and is now engaged in the preliminary steps to open
diplomatic- intercourse with the great Powers of the world. What
next? If her act was illegal, unconstitutional, and wrong, have we
no remedy? Unquestionably we have the right to use all the power
and force necessary to regain possession of that portion of the United
States, in order that we may again enforce our Constitution and laws
upon the inhabitants. We can enforce our laws in those States,
Territories, and places only which are within our possession. It often
happens that the territorial rights of a country extend beyond the
limits of their actual possessions. That is onr case at present in re-
spect to South Carolina. Our right of jurisdiction over that State for
Federal purposes, according to the Constitution, has not been de-
stroyed or impaired by the ordinance of secession, or any act of the
convention, or of the de facto government. The right remains ; but
the possession is lost, for the time being. '' How shall we regain the
possession?" is the pertinent inquiry. It may be done by arms, or
by a peaceable adjustment of the matters in controversy.

Are ive vrcpared for warl I do not mean that kind of preparation
which consists of armies and navies, and supplies, and munitions of
war ; but are we prepared in our hearts for war with our own brethren
and kindred ? I confess I am not. While I affirm that the Constitu-
tion is, and was intended to be, a bond of perpetual Union ; while I
can do no act and utter no word that will acknowledge or countenance
the right of secession ; while I affirm the right and duty of the Federal
Government to use all legitimate means to enforce the laws, put down
rebellion, and suppress insurrection, I will not meditate war, nor
tolerate the idea, until every effort at peaceful adjustment shall have
been exhausted, and the last ray of hope shall have deserted the
patriot's heart. Then, and not till then, will I consider and deter-
mine what course my duty to my country may require me to pursue
in such an emergency. In my opinion, war is disunion, certain,
inevitable, irrevocable. I am for peace to save the Union.

I have said that I cannot recognize nor countenance the right of
secession. Illinois, situated in the interior of the continent, can never
acknowledge the right of the States bordering on the seas to withdraw
from the Union at pleasure, and form alliances among themselves and
with other countries, by which we shall be excluded from all access to
the ocean, from all intercourse and commerce with foreign nations.
We can never consent to be shut up within the circle of .a Chinese
wall, erected and controlled by others without our permission ; or to
any other system of isolation by which we shall be deprived of any
communication with the rest of the civilized world. Those States
which are situated in the interior of the continent can never assent to
any such doctrine. Our rights, our interests, our safety, our existence
as a free people, forbid it ! The northwestern States were ceded to the
United States before the Constitution was made, on condition of per-'

20 SPEECH OF HON. S. A. DOUGLAS,

petiial union with the other States. The Territories were organized,
settlers invited, lands purchased, and homes made, on the pledge of
your plighted faith of perpetual union.

When there were but two hundred thousand inhabitants scattered
over that vast region, the navigation of the Mississippi was deemed by
Mr. Jefferson so important and essential to their interests and pros-
perity, that he did not hesitate to declare that if Spain or France in-
sisted upon retaining possession of the mouth of that river, it would
become the duty of the United States to take it by arms, if they failed
to acquire it by treaty. If the possession of that river, with jurisdic-
tion over its mouth and channel, was indispensable to the people of
the Northwest when we had two hundred thousand inhabitants, is it
reasonable to suppose that we will voluntarily surrender it now when
we have ten million people ? Louisiana was not purchased for the ex-
clusive benefit of the few Spanish and French residents in the territory,
nor for those who might become residents. These considerations did
not enter into the negotiations and formed no inducement to the ac-
quisition. Louisiana was purchased with the national treasure, for
the common benefit of the whole Union in general, and for the safety,
convenience, and prosperity of the Northwest in particular. We paid
$15,000,000 for the territory. We have expended much more than
that sum in the extinguishment of Indian titles, the removal of
Indians, the survey of lands, the erection of custom-houses, light-
houses, forts, and arsenals. We admitted the inhabitants into the
Islnion on an equal footing with ourselves. Now we are called upon
to acknowledge the moral and constitutional right of those people to
dissolve the tlnion without the consent of the other States ; to seize
the forts, arsenals, and other public property, and appropriate them to
their own use ; to take possession of the Mississippi river, and exercise
jurisdiction over the same, and to reannex herself to France, or remain
an independent nation, or to form alliances with such other foreign
Powers as she, in the plentitude of her sovereign will and pleasure,
may see fit. If this thing is to be done — peaceably, if you can ; and
forcibly, if you must — all I propose to say at this time is, that you
cannot expect us of the Northwest to yield our assent to it, nor to
acknowledge your right to do it, or the propriety and justice of the act.
The respectful attention with which my friend from Florida [Mr.
Yulee] is listening to me, reminds me that his State furnishes an apt
illustration of this modern doctrine of secession. We paid five mil-
lion for the Territory, We expended marvelous sums in subduing
the Indians, extinguishing Indian titles, removal of Indians beyond
her borders, surveying the lands, building light-houses, navy-yards,
forts, and arsenals, with untold millions for the never-ending Florida
claims. I assure my friend that I do not refer to these things in an
offensive sense, for he knows how much respect I have for him, and
has not forgotten my efforts in the House, many years ago, to secure
the admission of his State into the Union, in order that he might
represent her, as he has since done with so much ability and fidelity,
in this body. But I will say that it never occurred to me at that time
that the State whose admission into the Union I was advocating would

ON THE STATE OF THE UNION. 21

be one of the first to join in a scheme to break up the Union. I sub-
mit it to him whether it is not an extraordinary spectacle to see that
State, which has cost us so much blood and treasure, turn her back .
on the Union which has fostered and protected her when she was too
feeble to protect herself, and seize the light-houses, navy-yards, forts,
and arsenals, which, although within her boundaries, were erected
with national funds, for the benefit and defence of the whole Union.
I do not know that I can find a more striking illustration of this
doctrine of secession than was suggested to my mind when reading
the President's last annual message." My attention was first arrested
by the remarkable passage, that, the Federal Government had no
power to Goerce a 8tate back into the Union if she did secede ; and my
admiration was unbounded when I found, a few lines afterwards, a
recommendation to appropriate money to purchase the Island of Cuba.
It occurred to me instantly, what a bTilliaut achievement it would be
to pay Spain $300,000,000 for Cuba, and immediately admit the island
into the Union as a State, and let her secede and reannex herself to
Spain the next day, when the Spanish Queen would be ready to sell
the island again for half price, or double price, according to the gul-
ibility of the purchaser? [Laughter.]

During my service in Congress it was one of my pleasant duties to
take an active part in the annexation of Texas ; and at a subsequent
session to write and introduce the bill which made Texas one of the
States of the Union. Out of that annexation grew the war with
Mexico, in which we expended $100,000,000 ; and were left to mourn
the loss of about ten thousand as gallant men as ever died upon a
battle-field for the honor and glory of their country ! We have since
spent millions of money to protect Texas against her own Indians, tu
establish forts and fortifications to protect her frontier settlements, and
to defend her against the assaults of all enemies until she became
strong enough to protect herself. We are now called upon to acknow-
ledge that Texas has a moral, just, and constitutional right to rescind
the act of admission into the Union ; repudiate her ratification of the
resolutions of annexation ; seize the forts and public buildings which
were constructed with our money ; appropriate the same to her own
use, and leave us to pay $100,000,000 and mourn the death of the
brave men who sacrificed their lives in defending the integrity of her
soil. In the name of Hardin, and Bissell, and Harris, and of the
seven thousand gallant spirits from Illinois, who fought bravely upon
every battle-field of Mexico, I protest against the right of Texas to
separate herself from this Union without our consent.

Mr. HEMPHILL. Mr. President, if the SenaLor from Illinois will
allow me, I will inquire whether there were no other causes assigned
by the United States for the war with Mexico than simply the defence
of Texas ?

Mr. DOUGLAS. I will answer the question. We undoubtedly
did assign other acts as being causes for war, which had existed for
years, if we had chosen to treat them so ; but we did not go to war
for any other cause than the annexation of Texas, as is shown in the
act of Congress recognizing the existence of war with Mexico, in

22 SPEECH OF HON. 8. A. D'OUGLAS,

which it is declared that "war exists tj the act of the Eepublic of
Mexico." The sole cause of grievance which Mexico had against us,
and for which she commenced the war, was our annexation of Texas.
Hence, none can deny' that the Mexican war was solely and exclusively
the result of the annexation of Texas.

Mr. HEMPHILL. I will inquire further, whether the United
States paid anything to Texas for the annexation of her three hun-
dred and seventy thousand square miles of territory, and whetlier the
United States has not got 1500,000,000 by the acquisition of California
through that war with Mexico. •

Mr. DOUGrLAS. Sir^ we did iBt»t pay anything for bringing Texas
into the Union ; for we did not get any of her lands, exoept that we
purchased from her some poor lands afterwards, which slie did not
own, and paid her $10,000,0(10 for them. ■ [Laughter.] But we did
spend blood and treasure in the acquisition and subsequent defence of
Texas. ' • ■'.■ ? - .

Now, sir, I will answer his question in respect to California. 'The
tifeaty of peace brought California and* New Mexico into the Union.
Our people moved there, took possession of the lands, settled up the
country, and erected a State ot which the United States have a right
to be' prmid We have'expended millions upon millions for fortifica-
tions in California, and for navy-yards, and mints, and public build-
ings, and land surveys, and feeding the Indians, and protecting her
people. I believe the public land sales do not amount to more than
dne-tenth of the cost of the surveys, according to the returns that
have been made. It is true that the people of California have dug a
large amount of gold (principally upon the lands belonging to the
United States) and sold it to us ; but I am not aware that we are
under any more obligations to them for selling it to us than they are
to us for buying it of them. The people of Texas, during the same
time, have probably made cotton and agricultural productions to a
much larger value, and sold some oi it to New'England and some to
Old Englahd. I suppose the benefits of the bargain were reciprocal,
and the one was under just as much obligation as the other for the
mutual benefits of the sale and purchase.

Tlie question remains, whether, after paying $15,000,000 for Cali-
fornia— as the senator from Texas has called ray attention to that
State — and perhaps as inuch more in protecting and defending her,
she has any moral, constitutional right to annul the compact between
her and the Union, and form alliances with foreign powers, and leave
us to pay the cost and expenses ? I cannot recognize any such doc-
trine. In my opinion, the Constitution was intended to be a bond of
perpetual Union. It begins with the declaration in the preamble,
that it is made in order, " to form a more perfect Union," and every
section and paragraph in the instrument implies per[)eLuity. It was
intended to last for ever, and was so understood when ratified by the
pfecfple of'the several States. New York and Virginia have been re-
'fette'd to as. having ratified with the reserved right to withdraw or
secede at plqasurd. This is a mistake. The correspondence between
General Hamilton and Mr. Madison, at the time, is conclusive on this

ON THE STATE OP THE UNION. 23

point. After Virginia had ratified the Constitution, General Hamil-
- ton, who was a member o^the New York convention, wrote to Mr.
Madison that New^, York would probahly ratifythe Constitution for a
term of years, and reserve the right to withdraw after that time, if
certain amendments were not sooner adopted ; to which Mr. Madison
replied that such a ratification would not make New York a member of
the Union ; that the ratification must be unconditional, in toio and
forever, or not at all; that the same question was considered at Rich-
mond, and abandoned when Virginia ratified the Constitution. Hence,
the declaration of Virginia and New York, that they had not sur-
rendered the right to resume the delegated powers, must be under-
stood as referring to the right of revolution, which nobody acknow-
ledges more freely than I do, and not to the right of secession.

The Constitution being made as a bond of perpetual- Union, its
framers proceeded to provide against the necessities of revolution, by
prescribing the mode in which-it might be amended, so that if, in the
course of time, the condition of the country should so change as to
require a different fundamental law, amendments might be made
peaceably, in the manner prescribed in the instrument; and thus avoid
the necessity of ever resorting to revolution. Having provided for a
perpetual Union, and for amendments to the Constitution, they next
inserted a clause for admitting new States, but no provision for the
loitlidratval of any of the oiher States. I will not argue the question
of the right of secession any further than to enter my protest against
the whole doctrine. X deny that there is any foundation for it in the
Constitution^ in the nature of the compact, in the principles of the
Government, or in justice, or in good faith.

Nor do I sympathize at all in the apprehensions and misgivings I
hear expressed about coercion. We are told that inasmuch as our
Government is founded upon the will of the people, or the consent of
the governed, therefore coercion is incompatible with republicanism.
Sir, the word^overnment- means coercion. There can be no Govern-
ment without coercion. Coercion is the vital principle upon which all
Governments rest. Withdraw the right of coercion, and you dissolve
your Government. If every man would perform his duty and respect
the rights of his neighbors voluntarily, there would be no necessity
for any Government on earth. The necessity of government is found
to consist in the fact that some men will not do right unless coerced
to do so: The object of all government is to coerce and compel every
man to do his duty, who would not otherwise perform it. Hence I do
not subscribe at all to this doctrine that coercion is not to be used in
a free Government. It must be used in all Governments, no matter
what their form or what their principles.

But coercion must always be used in the mode prescribed in the
Constitution and laws. I hold that the Federal Government is, and
ought to be, clothed with the power" and duty to use all the means
necessary to coerce obedience to all laws made in pursuance of the
Constitution. But the proposition to subvert the de facto govern-
ment of South Carolina, and to reduce the people of that State into
subjection to our Federal authority, ho longer involves the question

24 SPEECH OF HON. S. A. DOUGLAS,

of enforcing the laws in a country within our possession ; but does
involve the question whether we will ma^e war on a State which has
withdrawn her allegiance and expelled our authorities, with a view
of suhjectini!; her to our possession 'for the purpose of enforcing our
laws within her limits.

We are bound, by the usages of nations, by the laws of civilization,
by the uniform practice of our own Government, to acknowledge the
existence of a Government de facto, so long as it maintains its undi-
vided authority. When Louis Philippe fled from the throne of France,
and Lamartine suddenly one morning found himself the htad of a
provisional Government, I believe it was but three days until the
American minister recognized the Government de facto. Texas was
a Government de facto, not recognized by Mexico, when we annexed
her ;• and Mexico was a Government de facto, not recognized by Spain,
when Texas revolted. The laws of nations recognize Governments
de facto where they exercise and maintain undivided sv/ay, leaving
the question of their authority de jure to be determined by the people
interested in the Government. Now, as a man who loves the Union, and
desires to see it maintained forever, and to see the laws enforced, and
rebellion put down, and insurrection suppressed, and order main-
tained, I desire to know of my Union-loving friends on the Kepublican
side of the Chamber how they intend to enforce the laws in the
seceding States, except by making war, conquering them first, and
administering the laws in them atterwards.

In my opinion, we have reached a point where disunion is inevi-
table, unless some compromise, founded upon mutual concession, can
be made. 1 prefer compromise to war. 1 prefer concession to a dis-
solution of the Union. When I avow myself in favor of compromise,
I do not mean that one side should give up all that it has claimed,
nor that tiie other side should give up everything for which it has
contended. Nor do I ask any man to come to my standard ; but I
simply say that I will meet every one halfway who is willing to pre-
serve the peace of the country, and save the Union from disruption
upon principles of compromise and concession.

In my judgment, no system of compromise can be effectual and
permanent which does not banish the slavery question from the Halls
of Congress and the arena of Federal politics, by irrepealable consti-
tutional provision. We have tried compromises by law, compromises
by act of Congress ; and now we are engaged in the small business of
crimination and recrimination, as to who is responsible for not having
lived up to them in good faith, and for having broken faith. I want
whatever compromise is agreed to placed beyond the reach of party
politics and partisan policy, by being made irrevocalde in the Consti-
tution itself, so that every man that holds office will be bound by hia
oath to support it.

There are several modes in which this irritating question may be
withdrawn from Congress, peace restored, the rights of the States
maintained, and the Union rendered secure. One of them — one to
which I can cordially absent — has been presented by the venerable
Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. CRiTtENDEN.] The journal of the

ON THE STATE OF THE UNION. 25

ocunmittee of thirteen shgwe that I voted for it in committee.
I am prepared to vote for it again. I shall not occupy time now in
discussing the question whether my vote to make a partition between
the two sections, instead of referring the question to the people, will
be consistent with my previous record or not. The country has no
very great interest in my consistency.' The preservation of this
Union, the integrity of this Eepublic, is "of more importance than
party platforms or individual records. Hence I have no hesitation
in saying to Senators on all sides of this Chamber, that I am prei)ared
to act on this question with reference to the present exigencies of the
(^se, as if I had never given a vote, or uttered a word, or had an
opinion upon the subject.

Why cannot you Republicans accede to the re establishment and
estension of the Missouri compromise line? You. have sung peans
enough in its praise, and uttered imprecations and curses enough on
my head for its repeal, one would tiiink, to justify you now in claim-
ing a triumph by its re-establishment. If you are willing to give up
your party feelings — to sink the .partisan in the patriot — and lielp me
to re-establish and extend that line, as a perpetual bond of peace
between the North and the South, I will promise you never to remind
you in the future of your denunciations of the Missouri compromise
so long a< I was supporting it, and of your praises of the same
measure when we removed it from the statute-book, after you had
caused it to be abandoned, by rendering it impossible lor us to carry
it out. I seek no partisan advantage ; I desire no personal triumph,
I am willing to let by-gones be by-gones with every man who, in this
exigency, will show by his vote that he loves his country more than
his party.

I presented to the committee of thirteen, and also introduced into
the Senate, another plan by which the slavery question may be taken
out of Congress, and the peace of the country maintained. It is, that
Congress shall make no law on the subject ot slavery in the Terri-
tories, and that the existing status of each Territory on that subject,
as it now stands by law, shall remain unchanged until it has tifty
thousand inhabitants, when it shall have the right of self-government
as to its domestic policy ; but with only a Delegate in each House of
Congress until it has the population required by the Federal ratio for
a Representative in Congress, when it shall be admitted into the
Union on an equal footing with the original States. I put the num-
ber of inhabitants at fifty thousand before the people of the Territory
shall change the status in respect to slavery as a fair compromise
between the conflicting opinions upon this subject. The two extremes,
North and South, unite in condemning the doctrine of popular
eovereignty in the Territories upon the ground that the first lew
Sittlers ought not to be permitted to decide so important a question
for those who are to come after them. I have never considered that
objection well taken, for the reason that no Territory should be organ-
ized with the right to elect a Legislature, and make its own laws
upon all rightful subjects of legislation, until it contained a sntficient
population to constitute a political community ; and whenever Con-

26 SPEECH OF HON. S. A. DOUGLAS,

gress should decide that there was a suflS^ient population, capable of
self-government, by organizing the Territory, to govern themselves
upon all other subjects, I could never perceive any good reason why
the same political community should not be permitted to decide the
slavery question for themselves.

But_, since wc are now trying to compromise our difficulties upon
the basis of mutual concessions, I propose to meet both extremes half-
way, by fixing the number at fifty thousand. This number certainly
ought to be satisfactory to those States which have been admitted into
the Union with less than fifty thousand inhabitants. Oregon, Flor-
ida, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois,
were each admitted into the Union, I believe, with less than that
number of inhabitants. Surely the Senators and Representatives
from those States do not doubt that fifty thousand people were enough
to constitute a political community capable of deciding the slavery
question for themselves. I now invite attention to the next propo-
sition.

In order to allay all apprehension, North or South, that territory
would be acquired in the future for sectional or partisan purposes, by
adding a large number of free States on the North, or slave States on
the South, with the view of giving the one section or the other a
dangerous political ascendency, I have inserted the provision that
" No more territory shall be acquired by the United States, except by
treaty or the concurrent vote of two-thirds in each House of Congress."
If this provision should be incorporated into the Constitution, it would
be impossible for either section to annex any territory without the
concurrence of a large portion of the other section ; and hence there
need be no apprehension that any territorv would hereafter be acquired
for any other thaa such national -considerations as would commend
the subject to the approbation of both sections.

I have also inserted a provision confining fhe right ofBuflPrage and
of holding office to white men, excluding the African race. I have
also inserted a provision for the colonization of free negroes from such
States as may desire to have them removed, to districts of country to
be acquired in Africa and South America. In addition to these, I
have adopted the various provisions contained in the proposition of
the Senator from Kentucky, in reference to fugitive slaves, the aboli-
tion of slavery in the Ibrts, arsenals, and dock-yards in the slave
States and in the District of Columbia, and the other provisions for
the safety of the South. I believe this to be a fair basis of amicable
adjustment. If you of the Republican side are not willing to accept
this, nor the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. Crit-
tenden,] pray tell us what you are willing to do? I address the
inquiry to the Republicans alone, for the reason that in tlio committee
of thirteen, a few days ago, every member from tlie South, including
those from the cotton States, [Messrs. Toombs and Davis,] expressed
their readiness to accept the proposition of my venerable friend from
Kentucky [Mr. Crittenden] as a final settlement of the controversy,
if teiHered and sustained by the Republican members. Hence, the

ON THE STATE OF THE ,UNION. " 27

sole responsibility of our disagreement, and the only difficulty in the
way of an amicable adjustment, is with the Republican party

At first I thought your reason for declining to adjust this question
amicably was, that the .Constitution, as it stands, was good enough,
and that you' would make no amendment to it. That position has
already been waived. The great leader of the Republican party,
[Mr. Seward,] by the unanimous concurrence of his friends, brought
into the committee of thirteen a proposition to amend the Constitution.
Inasmuch, therefore, as you are willing to amend the instrument, and
to entertain propositions of adjustment, why not go further, and
relieve the apprehensions of the southern people on all points where
you do not intend to operate aggressively ? You offer to amend the
Constitution, by declaring that no future amendments shall be made
which shall empower Congress to interfere with slavery in the States.

Now, if you do not intend to do any other act prejudicial to their
constitutional rights and safety, why not relieve their apprehensions,
by inserting in your own proposed amendment to the Constitution,
such further provisions as will, in like manner render it impossible for
you to do that which they apprehend you intend to do, and which you
have no purpose of doing, if it be true that you have no such purpose?
For the purpose of removing the apprehensions of the southern people,
and for no other purpose^ you propose to amend the Constitution so
as to render it impossible, in all future time, for Congress to interfere
with slavery in the States; where it may exist under the laws thereof.
Why not insert a similar amendment in respect to slavery in the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and in the navy-yards, forts, arsenals, and other
places within the limits of the slaveholding States, over which Con-
gress has exclusive jurisdiction ? Why not insert a similar provision
in respect to the slave trade between the slaveholding States? The
southern people have more serious apprehensions on these points than
they have of your direct interference with slavery in the States.

If their apprehensions on these several points are groundless, is it
not a duty you owe to God and your country to relieve their anxiety
and remove all causes of discontent ? Is there not quite as much rea-
son for relieving their apprehensions upon these points, in regard to
which they are much more sensitive, as in respect to your direct inter-
ference in the States, where they know, and you acknowledge, that you
have no power to interfere as the Constitution now stands? The fact
that you propose to give the assurance on the one point and peremp-
torily refuse to give it on the others, seems to authorize the presump-
tion that you do intend to use the powers of the Federal Government
for the purpose of direct interference with slavery and the slave trade
everywhere else, with the view to its indirect effects upon slavery in
the States ; 6r, in the language of Mr. Lincoln, with the view of its
"ultimate extinction in all the States, old as well as new, north as
well as south."

If you had exhausted your ingenuity in devising a plan for the ex-
press purpose of increasing the apprehensions and inflaming the pas-
sions of the southern people, with the view of driving them into revo-
lution and disunion, none could have been contrived better calculated

28 SPEECH OF HON. S, A. DOUGLAS,

to accomplish the object than the offering of that one amendment to
the Constitution, and rejecting all others which are infinitely more
im})ortant to the safety and domestic tranquillity of the slaveholding
States.

In rny opinion, we have now reached a point where this agitation
must close, and all the matters in controversy be finally determined
by constitutional amendments, or civil war and the disruption of the
Union are inevitable. My friend from Oregon, [Mr. Baker,] who
has addressed the Senate for the last two days, will fail in his avowed
purpose to " evade" the question. He claims to be liberal and con-
servative ; and I must confess that he seems the most liberal of any
gentleman on that side of the Chamber, always excepting the noble
and ])atriotic speech of the iSenator from Connecticut, [Mr. Dixon;]
and the utmost extent to which the Senator from Oregon would con-
aent to go, was to devise a scheme by which the real question at
issue could be evaded.

I regret the determination, to which 1 apprehend the RepublicaTi
Senators have come, to make no adjustment, entertain no proposition,
and listen to no compromise of the matters in controversy.

I fear, from all the indications, that they are disposed to treat the
matter as a party question, to be determined in caucus with reference
to its effects upon the prospects of their party, rather than upon the
peace of the country and the safety of the Union. I invoke their
deliberate judgment whether it is not a dangerous experiment for
any political party to demonstrate to the American people that the
unity of their party is dearer to them than^he Union of these States.
The argument is that the Chicago platform having been ratified by
the people in a majority of the States must be maintained at all
hazards, no matter what the consequences to the country. I insist
that they are mistaken in the fact when they assert that this question
was decided by the American peo})le in the late election. The Ameri-
can ])eople have not decided that they preferred the disruption of this
Government, and civil war with all its horrors and miseries, to sur-
rendering one iota of the Chicago platform. If you believe that tlte
people are with you on this issue, l6t the question be submitted to the
people on the proposition offered by the Senator from Kentucky, or
mine, or any other fair compromise, and I will venture the prediction
that your own people will ratify the proposed amendments to the
Constitution, in order to take this slavery agitation out of Congress,
and restore peace to the country, and insure the perpetuity of the
Union.

Why not give the people a chance? It is an important crisis.
There is now a different issue presented from that in the ])resideiitial
election. I have no doubt that the ])ef>ple of MaSsachfisetts, by an
overwhelming majority, are in favor of a prohibition of slavery in the
Territories by an act of Congress. An overwhelming majority of the
same people were in favor of the instant prohibition of the African
slave trade, on moral and religious grounds, when the Constitution
was made. When they found that the Constitution could not be
adopted and the Union preserved without surrendering their objec-

ON THE STATE OF THE UNION. 29

tions on the slavery question, they, in the s])irit of patriotism and of
Christian feeling, preferred the lesser evil to the greater, and ratified
the Constitution without their favorite provision in regard to slavery.
Give them a chance to decide now between the ratification of these pro-
posed amendments to the Constitution and the consequences which
your policy will inevitably produce.

Why not allow the people to pass on these questions? All we have
to do is to submit them to the States. If the people reject them, theirs
will be the responsibility, and no harm will have been done by the
reference. If they accept them, the country will be safe and at peace.
The political party which shall refuse to allow the people to determine
for themselves at the ballot-box the issue between revolution and war
om the one side, and obstinate adherence to a party platform on the
other, will assume a fearful responsibility. A war upon a political
issue, waged by the people of eighteen States against the people and
domestic institutions of fifteen sister States, is a itarful and revolting
thought. The South will be a unit, and desperate, under the belief
that your object in waging M^ar is their destruction, and not the pre-
servation of the Union ; that you meditate servile insurrection and the
abolition of slavery in the southern States by fire and sword, in the
name and under pretext of enforcing the laws and vindicating the
authority of the Government. You know that such is the prevailing,
and, I may say, unanimous opinion at the South ; and that ten million
people are preparing for the terrible conflict under that conviction.

When there is such an irrepressible discontent pervading ten mil-
lion people, penetrating the bosom of every man, woman, and child,
and, in their estimation, involving everything that is valuable and
dear on earth, is it not time to pause and reflect whether there is not
some cause, real or imaginary, for apprehension? If there be a just
cause for it, in God's name, in the name of humanity and civilization,
let it be removed. Will we not be guilty, in the sight of Heaven and
of posterity, if we do not remove all just cause before proceeding to
estremities? If, on the contrary, there be no real foundation for these
apprehensions ; if it be all a mistake, and yet they, believing it to be
a solemn reality, are determined to act on that belief,jiis it not equally
our duty to remove the misapprehension? Hence the obligation to
remove the causes of discontent, whether real or imaginary, is alike
imperative upon us, if we wish to preserve the peace of the country
and the Union of the States.

It matters not, so far as the peace of the country and the preserva-
tion of the Union are concerned, whether the apprehensions of the
southern people are well founded or not, so long as they believe them,
and are determined to act upon that belief. If war comes, it must
have an end at some time ; and that termination, I apprehend, will
be a final separation. Whether the war last one year, seven years,
or thirty years, the result must be the same — a cessation of hostilities
when the parties become exhausted, and a treaty of peace recognizing
the separate independence of each section. The history of the world
does not furnish an instance, where war has raged for a series of years
between two classes of States, divided by a geographical line under
the Bame national Government, which has ended in reconciliation and

30 SPEECH OF HON, S. A. DOUGLAS.

reunion. Extermination, subjugation, or separation — one of the three
— must be the result of war between the northern and southern States.
Surely, you do not expect to exterminate or subjugate ten million peo-
ple, the entire population of one section, as a means of preserving
amicable relations between the two sections I

I repeat, then, my solemn conviction, that war means disunion —
final, irrevocable' eternal separation. 1 see no alternative, therefore,
but a i'air compromise, founded on the basis of .mutual concessions,
alike honorable, just, and beneficial to all parties, or civil war and
disunion. Is there anything humiliating in a fair compromise of con-
flicting interests, opinions, and theories, for the sake of peace, union,
and safety ? Read the debates of the Federal convention, which formed
our glorious* Constitution, and you will find noble examples, worthy
of imitation; instances where sages and patriots were willing to sur-
render cherished theories and principles of government, believed to be
essential to the best form of society, for the sake of peace and union.

I never understood that wise and good men ever regarded mutual
concessions by such men as Washington, Madison, Franklin, and
Hamilton, as evidences of weakness, cowardice, or want of patriotism.
On the contrary, this spirit of conciliation and compromise has ever been
considered, and will in all time be regarded as the highest evidence
which their great deeds and immortal services ever furnished of their
patriotism, wisdom, foresight, and devotion to their country and their
race. Can we not afford to imitate their example in this momentous
crisis ? Are we to be told that we must not do our duty to our country
lest we injure the party; that no compromise ,can be effected without
violating the party platform upon which we were elected ? Better
that all party platforms be scattered to the winds; better that all
political organizations be broken up; better that every public man and
politician in America be consigned to political martyrdom, than that
the Union be destroyed and the country plunged into civil war.

It stems that party platforms, pride of opinion, personal consistency,
fear of political martyrdom, are the only obstacles to a satisfactory
adjustment. Have we nothing else to live for but political position?
Have we no other inducement, no other incentive to our efforts, our
toils, and our sacrifices? Most of us have children, the objects of
ouf tenderest affections and deepest solicitude, whom we hope to leave
behind us to enjoy the rewards of our labors in a happy, prosperous,
and united country, under the best Government the wisdom of man
ever devised or the sun of Heaven ever shone upon. Can we make
no concessions, no sacrifices, for the sake of our children, that they
may have a country to live in, and a Grovernment to protect them,
when party platforms and political honors shall avail us nothing in
the day of final reckoning ?

In conclusion, I have only to renew the assurance that I am pre-
pared to co-operate cordially with the friends of a fair, just, and lion-
orable compromise, in securing such amendments to the Constitution
as will expel the slavery agitation from Congress and the arena of
Federal politics forever, and restore peace to the country, and preserve
our liberties and Union as the most precious legacy we can transmit
to our posterity.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
0 011 895 774 rIi