A Political Text-Book for 1860 by Horace Greeley
Author: Unknown
Date: 0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

Making of America Books Basic | Boolean | Proximity |

Bibliographic | Search History UMDL Texts home U of M login View bookbag your bookbag has 0 items

Home Search BrowseHelp

list of all pages | add to bookbag

Title:A political text-book for 1860: comprising a brief view of presidential nominations and elections including all the national platforms ever yet adopted: also a history of the struggle respecting slavery in the territories, and of the action of Congress as to the freedom of the public lands, with the most notable speeches and letters of Messrs. Lincoln, Douglas, Bell, Cass, Seward, Everett, Breckinridge, H. V. Johnson, etc ., etc., touching the questions of the day; and returns of all presidential elections since 1836. Compiled by Horace Greeley and John F. Cleveland.

Author:Greeley, Horace, 1811-1872. comp.

Availability:These pages may freely searched and displayed.

Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact umdl-info@umich.edu for more information.

Print Source:A political text-book for 1860: comprising a brief view of presidential nominations and elections including all the national platforms ever yet adopted: also a history of the struggle respecting slavery in the territories, and of the action of Congress as to the freedom of the public lands, with the most notable speeches and letters of Messrs. Lincoln, Douglas, Bell, Cass, Seward, Everett, Breckinridge, H. V. Johnson, etc ., etc., touching the questions of the day; and returns of all presidential elections since 1836. Compiled by Horace Greeley and John F. Cleveland.

Greeley, Horace, 1811-1872. comp.

x, [9]-248 p. 23 cm.

New York,

Tribune association,

1860.

Page i view page image

A :0POLITICAL TEXT-BOOI FO8 60-O: COMPRISING A BRIEF VIEW OF PRESIDENTIAL

NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS: ALL:TIlE: NATIONAL PLATFORMS EVER YET ADOPTED: ALSON A tIISTORY OF THiE STRUGGLE RESPECTING IN THE TERRITORIES, AND OF

TH: ACTION OF CONGRESS AS TO THIE FREEDOM OF THE WITH THE 3lOST NOTABLE

SPEECHES AND LETTERS MESSRS. LINCOLN, DOUGLAS, BELL, CASS, SEWARD, EVERETT, BRECKINRIDGE, H. V. JOHNSON, ETC., ETC., TOUCIIING THE QUESTIONS

OF THE DAY; AND RETURiNS OF ALL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS SINCE 1836.

COMPILED BY HORACE GREELEY AND JOHN F. CLEVELAND. NEW-YORK: PUBLISHED BY

TIHE TRIBUNE ASSOCIATION, 154 NASSAU-STREET. 1860. ^ l: f DA:: , *; i….

W CS t.t,8.,. * i 4 , F OR INC.LUJDIN(t SLAVERY PUBLIC LANDS, OF l 1

Page ii view page image

ENTEaND according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860, by THE TRIBUNI ASSOCIATION, In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the rnlted States for the Southern District of New York. ~) W. IL TIxso;, Stereotyper. 1. 0 I

Page iii view page image

A D v E R T I S E M E NT. THEL single end of this book is the presentation, in a compact and convenient form, of the more important facts, votes, resolves, letters, speeches, reports and other documents, which elucidate the political contest now agitating this country. It has been our aim to let every candidate and other important personage speak for himself, make his own platform, and vindicate (if he may) his own consistency and the soundness of his views on the great questions which underlie our current politics. Of course, such a work can have but a comparative merit. Makle it ever so large, and still many things must be omitted that the compiler would wish to insert; and every critic will plausibly ask, “Why insert this and omit that? Why give so much of A. and so little of B.?” Beside, it is not always possible to remember, or, if remembered, to find, all that would be valued in a work like this. We can only say that we have done our best: let him do better who can. Inaccuracy of citation is one of the chief vices of our political discussions. You can hardly listen to a set speech, even from a well-informed and truthful canvasser, which is not marred by some misapprehension or unconscious misstatement of the position and-views of this or that prominent statesman. Documents, heedlessly read and long since lost or mislaid, are quoted from with fluency and confidence, as though with indubitable accuracy, when the citations so made do gross injustice to their author, and tend to mislead the hearer. We believe the documents collected in this work are so printed that their general accuracy may be safely relied on.

By canvassers of all parties, we trust our Text-Book will be found convenient, not to say indispensable. But those who only listen, and read, and reflect, will also find it a manifest help to a clear understanding of the issues and contentions of the day. They will be interested in comparing the actual positions taken by Mr. Lincoln, or Mr. Douglas, or Gen. Cass, or Mr. Everett, as faithfully set forth in this work, with those confidently attributed to that statesman in the fluent harangue of some political opponent, who is intent on blazoning his inconsistency or proving his insincerity. To verify and correct li i I1 “ah I

Page iv view page image

ADVERTISEMENT. the citations of a frothy declaimer is sometimes the easiest and most convincing refutation of his speech. If a trace of partisan bias is betrayed in the thread of narrative which partially unites the successive reports, bills, votes, etc., presented in this work, the error is unintentional and regretted. Our purpose was to compile a record acceptable and convenient to men of all parties, and which might be consulted and trusted by all. Whatever is original herein is regarded as of no use or merit, save as a necessary elucidation of the residue.

Without apology, therefore, or further explanation, the Text-Book is commended to the favor of the American public. NEW-YORK, August 18t, 1860

hI IT t i

Page v view page image

CONTENTS. ABOLITION CONY. at Warsaw, N. Y., 1839. ABOLITIONISTS

(Garrisonians) for Disunion. 1 ACCEPTANCE of Presidential candidates…. 1

ADAMS, CHARLES FRANCIS, of Massachusetts, President Buffalo Convention, 1848; Nominee of do. for VicePresident……………………… ATDAMS, GOVE RNOR, of S outh Carolina, re commends in a Message the reopening of the Afri can SlaveTrade………………………….. ADAMS, JOTHN, of Massachusetts, chosen President 1796-7: Reelection defeated 1800-1….

ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY, of Massachusetts, elected President 1824; defeated candidate for do. 1828………………………………… ALLEN, CHARLES, of Massachusetts, offers R esolv e in Whig N ational Convention, 1848……. AMERICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION, 1856…. AMERICAN NATIONAL

COUNCIL, 1856…… ANTI-MASONIC NATIONAL CONVENTIONS of 1830 and 1831……………………………. ANTI-SLAVERY ORDINANCE of 17

84…… ANTI-SLAVERY ORDINANCE Of 1787……. ASHMUN, GEORGE, of Massachusetts, Presi dent Republican National Convention, 1860…….

ATCHISON, DAVID R., of Missouri, beaten for VicePresident in Democratic Convention, 1852 BANKS, NATHANIEL P., of MassachUsetts, defeated for VicePresident in Rep. Conv., 1856… Supported for VicePresident in Republican Na tional Convention, 1860………………… BATES, EDWARD, of Missouri, President Whig National Convention, 1856……………..

Candidate for President before Republican Con vention, 1860…………………………. Letter to the Missouri delegates to the Republi can Convention………………………. His letter in support of Lincoln and HaImlin.. BARBOUR, PHILIP P., of Virginia, b.eaten for VicePresident………………………… BARBOUR, JAMES, of Virginia, President first National Republican Convention………..

President Whig National Convention, 1839….. BARNBURNERS of NewYork retire from De mocratic National Convention………………. Nominate Van Buren and Dodge for President and

VicePresident…………………….. BARTLETT, G. B., of Kentucky, President American National Council, 1856……………. BAYARD, JAMES

A., of Delaware, defeated for VicePresident in Democratic Convention, 1856 Presides over Seceders’ Convention at Charles ton…………………………………. PAGli BELL, JOHN, of Tennessee, nominee of the Union party for President, 1860………………29 His Compromise Proposition………………. 75

His letter accepting the nomination for Presi dent………………………………… 28 BENJAMIN, JUDAH P., of Louisiana, on Pop ular Sovereignty………………………….194 His opinion of Douglas………………….. 196 BIRNEY, JAMES G., of Michigan, Abolition candidate for President in lS1840……………… 12

Liberty Party candidate for President in 1844.. 14 BONHAM, MILLIDGE L., of South Carolina, for Dissolution……………………………. 172

BOYD, LINN, of Kentucky, defeated for VicePresident by Democratic Convention, 1856.. 24 BRECKINRIDGE, JOHN C., of Kentucky, nominated VicePresident by Democratic Con vention, 1856…………………………….. 24 Elected VicePresident 1856………………. 22 Speech on General Politics at Frankfort Ky., in 1859………………………………. 149 Gives casting vote against Free Homestead bill 187 Accepts nomination for Presidency………… 211

BRONSON, Judge GREENE C., on Slavery, letter affirming Slavery to exist only by positive law…………………………………….. 20e BROWN, AARON V., of Tennessee, de feated for VicePresident in Democratic Conven tion 1856………………………………….24 BUCHANAN, JAMES, of Pennsylvania, beaten for President in Democratic Convention, 1844…. 13 Beaten for President in Democratic Conven tion, 1843…………………………. 16 Nominated for President by Democratic Con vention, 1856…………………………. 24 Elected President of the United States, 1856…. 22 Message on Lecompton………………….. 118 Special message orn do…………………… 117 Veto of Homestead bill…………………. 191 BURR, AARON, chosen VicePresident, 101………………………………….. 9 BUTLER, WILLIAM 0., of Kentuckliy, Demo cratic nominee and defeated candidate for Vice President, 1848…………………………. 16 Defeated for President and VicePresident in Democratic National Convention, 1852…… 20 CALHOUN, JOHN C., of South Carolina, elected VicePresident in 1824, and reelected in 1828……………………………………. o10 CAMBRELENG, C. C., of N.Y. on Slavery… 204 CAMERON, Gen. SIMON, of Pennsylvania, candidate for President before Republican Na tional Convention, 1860…………………. 27 CAMPBELL, LEWIS D., of Ohio, offers a re solve in Whig National Convention, 1-S……. 15 v I 0 0 a GE 12 73 10 IT

208 9 10 15 23 23 10 51 52 26 20 22 28 25 2T 198 199 10 11 12 16 1T, 23 24

41

Page vi view page image

CONTENTS Fourth Democratic National Conven tion, 1844.. Fifth Democratic National Convention, 1848…. Sixth Democratic National Convention, 1852…. Seventh Democratic National Converntion, 1856. Eighth Democratic National Convention, 1860 Mr. Avery’s (N. C.) Majority Rlieport, from Com miittee on Platform; Mr. H. B. P yne’s Mi nority Report from Committee on Platform Senator Win. Bigler’s Compromise proposition Mr. Avery’s amended Majority Report; Mr. Avery’s remarks in favor of same; Mr. H. B. Payne of Ohio in reply…………………. His extracts from Breckirnidge, Orr, and Ste phens; Mr. Samuels’s (of Iowa) Minority Re port………………………………………. Minority Report adopted, 165 to 138; Alabama protests and withdraws………………….

Mississippi withdraws……………………. South Carolina, Florida, and Texas withdraws… Arkansas retires…………………………

Georgia retires…………………………. Louisiana withdraws; Speech of Wm. B. Gaulden of Georgia in favor of the SlaveTrade……. Fruitless ballots (57) for President; Adjournment to Baltimore; The Seceders at Charleston; Se nator Bayard, of Delaware, Chairman; They adopt the Avery Platform…………….. They adjourn to Richmond; They meet at Rich mond June 11; They finally adopt Breckin ridge and Lane; The adjourned Convention at timore-Gen. Cushing’s opening Speech…… Mr. Hloward, of Te nnessee, moves admission of original Delegates; Mr. Kavanagh, of Minne sota, moves to lay on table; Previous question defeated……………………………… Proposition of Mr. S. E.

Church, of NewYork; Report of Committee on Credentials……… Minority Report of do.; Admission of Douglas Delegatea from Louisiana and Alabama…… Virginia, Worth Carolina, Tennessee, Maryland and California withdraw………………… Delaware, and part of Kentucky, and Missouri withdraw; Gen. Cushing resigns the Chair; Gen. Butler, of Massachusetts, offers a pro test………………………………… DEMOCRATIC

PLATFOR, (Davis’s Resolu tions), adopted by the United States Senate, affirm ing the duty of Congress to establish a Slave Code in the Territories………………………….. DICKINSON, DANIEL S., of NewYork, sup ported for President in Democratic National Con veC Ition, 1860……………………………. PDix, Gen. JOIIN A., advocates Freedom for the Territories in the United States………… DISUNION

AVOWED by Southern Statesmen in the event of the electiq’ of a Republican Presi dent……………………………………. DOBBIN, JAMES C., of North Carolina, beaten for VicePresident in Democratic National Conven tion, 1856………………………………… DODGE, Gen. Henry, of Wisconsin, nomi nated for VicePresident by NewYork Radicals in 1848, but declined…………………………. DONELSON, ANDREW J., of Tennessee, nomi nated for VicePresident by American Convention. Indorsed by Whig National Convention, 1856… DOUGLAS, STEPIHEN A., of Illinois, beaten for President in Democratic Convention, 1852… Beaten for President in Democratic Conven tion, 1856…………………………… Nominated at Baltinore in 1860…………. Proposes to extend the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific…………………………… Mr. Douglas’ reply to Lincoln at Freeport….. Mr. Douglas’ “~ ilarper ” Essay on Popular So vereignty in the Territories…………….. Speech at Springfield. Ill., June 12, 18571……. Speech on the John Brown raid, July 16,1860, proposing a Sedition Law………………. He tells what Popular Sovereignty has done for Slavery………………………….. Accepts Nomination for Presidency-……….. Extract from Speech in favor of Missouri Com promise….. e -……… 21 CARROLL, Gov. WILLIAM, of Tentnessee, President of the third Democratic National Con vention, 1840……………………………. CAss, Gen. LRwls, of eictuican, beaten for President in Democratic Con vention, 1844……. Democratic no dineee for President, 1848; beaten for President, 1848………………e Be aten for President in Democratic Conven tion, 1852…………………………… Beaten for President iin Democratic Conven tion, 18a56………………………….. Ni cholson Lette or On Popular Sovereignty…… CHAPMAN, Gen. JOHN G., of Marvainid, President, Whig National Convention, 185…… CIIASRE, S ALMON P., of Ohio, candidate for P resident before Republica n Natiopal Conven tion, 1860……………………………….. Proposes to Allow People of Kansas to prohibit Slavery……………………………… CLAY, CASSIUS M., of Kenituceky, supported for VicePresident in Republican National Con vention, 1860…………………………… CLAY, HENRY, of Kentucky, beaten for President, 1882……………………………

Defeated for President in Whig Convention at Harrisburg, 1839. Defeated for President in 1844……………………………….. Defeated for President in Whig Convention, 1848…………………………………

CLINCGMA.N, THOMAS L., of North Carolina, for Dissolution…………………………… CLINTON, DE WITT, defeated for President CLINTON, GEORGE, chosen VicePresident, 1804…………………………………… COCHRANE, JOHN, of NewYork, presents Anti-Slavery Resolves to Mass Meetings………

CONSTITUTIONAL UNION CONVENTION, 1860 CRAWFORD, MARTIN J., for Dissolution CRAWFORD, WILLIAM H., of Georgia, beaten in Democratic Caucus for President in 1816; Democratic Caucus candidate for President, 1824 Beaten for President 1824………………… CURRY, J. L. M., of Alabama, for Dissolu tion…………………………………….. CUSHING, Gen.

CALEB, of Massachusetts, President of Democratic National Convention, 1860……………………………………. Retires from the chair at Baltimore……….. Presides over the Seceders’ Convention at Bal timore……………………………… DALLAS, GEORGE M., of Pennsylvania, nomi nated for and elected VicePresident, 1844……..

DAVIS, GARRETT, of Kentucky, defeated for President in the American National Convention… DAVIS JEFFERSON, of Mississippi, supported, 1860, for President in National Democratic Con vention…………………………….. His resolutions as they passed the Senate……. DAVIS, JOHN, of Massachusetts, defeated for VicePresident in Whig National Convention, 1844. DAVIS, JOHN W., of Indiana, President De mocratic National Convention, 1852…………..

DAYTON, WILLIAM L., of NewJersey, Re publican nominee for VicePresident, 1856; de feated therefor……………………………. DEJARNETTE, DANIEL C., of Virginia, for Dis
solution…………………………………. DELAWARE Declares for Free Territories through Legislative resolves in 1820………….. Also in 1849…………………………… DEMtOCRACY oF MIAINE for the Wilmot Pro viso……………………………………. DEMOCRATIC

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS. First at Baltimore in 1532……………………….. Second at Baltimore in 1885…………….. Third Democratic National Conventionl, 1840-…. ri PAGN PAGM 13 16 20 t4 29 12 13 16 20 24 179 is so 31 82 38 84 86 s 89 27

81 28 11 4( 13 115 172 9 9 42 3 44 45 46 20T 29 172 LT 9 10 172 194 41 29

4T 48 13 23 207 ITO 24 41 194 13 20 IT 23 25 210 24 4$ 74 180 132 154 153

1.59 211 215 22 172 62 201 201 10 11 12

Page vii view page image

CONTENTS. I Whig nominee for VicePresident, 1848……. Elected Vice-PrIesident, 1848……………… Defeated for President in Whig National Con vention, 1852………………………… American nominee for President in S1856……. Indorsed by Whig National Convention in 1856. His views on Slavery-Buffalo Letter of 1838, and Albany Speech of 1856…………….. His Letter to NewYork Union Meeting, 1860..

FITZPATRICK, BENJAMIN, of Alabama, beaten for VicePresident in Democratic Convention of 1856………………………………….. Nominated by Democratic Convention, 1860… Declines the Nomination………………..

FLOURNOY, FRANCIS B, of Arkansas, tem porary Chairman of Democratic National Con vention, 1860…………………………….. FLOYD, JOHN, of Virginia, supported by South Carolina for President, 1832…………..

FREE HOMESTEADS Action of Congress on granting free Homesteads to actual settlers….. Mr. Grow’s Ten-Year proposition defeated in the House…………………………… Mr. Grow introduces another bill which is passed in the House……………………. The Senate refused to act upon it………….. Mr. Grow introduces another in 1860, which passes the House……………………… Rejected by the Senate…………………… A compromise bill agreed upon……………. Vetoed by the President…………………. Veto sustained by the Senate…………….. FRELINGIIUYSEN, THEODORE, of NewJersey, Nominated and defeated for VicePresident in 1844…………………………………… FREMONT, Col. JOHN C., of California, Re publican nominee for President, 1856………… Defeated for President, 1856………………. Declines a renomination, 1S60…………….. GARTRELL, LUCIUS J., of Georgia, for dis solution…………………………………. GEORGIA LEGISLATURE
censures Senator Berrien for voting to confirm Mr. Everett as Min ister to England………………………….. GRAHAM, WILLTAM A., of North Carolina, Whig nominee for Vice-P,i’esident, 1852………. Defeated for VicePresident, 1852………….. GRANGER, FRANCIS, of New York, Presi dent Anti-Masonic National Convention……… Beaten for VicePresident, 1836…………… GUTHRIE, JAMES, of Kentucky, supported for President in National Democratic Conven
tion……………………………………. HALE, JOHN P., of New-EHamnpshire, Free Democratic nominee for President, 1852………

HAMLIN, HANNIBAL, of Maine, nomirnated for VicePresident by Republican National Con vention, 1860…………………………….. Renounces the Democratic party in the U. S. Senate……………………………

Accepts nomination for VicePresident……… HARRISON, Gent. WILLIAM H., of Ohlio, nom inated and defeated for President in 1836……. Nominated for President at Harrisburg, Decem ber, 1839; elected President in 1840……… HICKMAN, JOHN, of Pennsylvania, support ed for VicePresident in Republican Convention, 1860……………………………………. HOUSTON, Gen. SAM, of Texas, supported for President in Union Convention, 1860……….

IHUNTER, ROHERT M. T., of Virginia, sup ported for President by Democratic National Con vention, 1860…………………………….. ILLINOIS

IDECLAIRES FOR FREE TERRITORIES through Legislative Resolves2………………… JACKSON, Gen. ANDREW, of Tenisessee, beaten for President in 1824 and elected in 1828… Reelected President in 1832-………………. DowNs, SOLOMON’ U., of Louisiana, beaten for VicePresident in Democratic Convention, 1852………………………………….. EVERETT, EDWARD, of Massachusetts, Union candidate for VicePresident in 1860…………. His views on Slavery-His ” Knapsack ” Speech in Congress-Replies of Messrs.

Mitchell, Ran dolph and Ca,mib.-eleng-Mr. Everett on Geo graphical Parties-Late r Views o n Slavery, in Letters of 1837
and‘39……………… His Acceptanc e of the Nomination for Vice President of the United States………….. His vi ews on the Sumner Outrage…………. ELLMAKEP, AMOS, of Pennsylvania, Anti Masonic candidate for VicePresident, 1832….. ELECTION RETURNS IN DETAIL, of all the Presidential Elections since 1836……………. Aggregate vote by States, for President, from 1824 to 1856………………………….

Alabama vote for President……………… ” ” Governor, Congress, etc.

1859 Arkansas vote for P,esident…………….. ” ” Congr ess, 1858………….ot California vote for President……………. ” “

Governor, 1859………… Connecticut vote for President…………… “

” Governor, 1S60………. Delaware vote for President……………… “

” Governor, 1858…………. Florida vote for President……………….. ” ” Cnrgress, 1858……………. Georgia vote for President……………….. ” ” Congress, 1859……………

Illinois vote for President………………… ” Congress, 1858……………. ” ” Legislature, 1858………….. Indiana vote for P.-esident……………. ” ” Congress, 1858………….. Iowa vote for President…………………. ” ” Governor, 1859…………….

Kentucky vote for P, esident……………… ~ ” ” Congress, 1859…………. Louisiana vote for President…………….. ” “

Congress, 1859………….. Maine vote for President………………..

” ” Governor, 1859……………. Maryland vote for President……………… ” ” Congress, 1858………….. Massachusetts vote for President………….. ‘ ” Governor, lS59……… Mich-gan vote for President………………. ” Chief Justice, 1859………. Minnesota vote for Go ver-nor, 1859………… Missouri vote for President………………. ” ” Congress, 1858………….. Mississippi vote for President…………….. ” ” Governor, Congress, etc., 1859

NewHampshire vote for P,‘esident………… ” ” Governor, 1859…….

NewJersey vote for President……………. ” ” Governor, 1859……….. NewYork vote for President……………… ” Sec.

State, Controller, etc., 1859………………… North Carolina vote for President…………. “, ” Congress, 1859…….. Ohio vote for President………………….. ” “Governor, 1859…………….. Oregon vote for Congress, 1S59…………… Pennsylvania vote for President………….. i’ ” Congress, 185S……… Rhode Island vote for President…………. ” ” Governor, 1860……… South Carolina chooses Electors and Governor by Legislature………………………..

Tennessee vote for President…………….. ” ” Congress, 1859………… Texas vote for President…………………. ” 11

Congress, IS59…………….. Vermont vote for President………………. “; ” Governor, 1859………….. Virginia vote for President………………. s’ Governor, 1859…………..

Wisconsin vote for President……………………… ” ” Governor, 1859………… FILLMORE, MILLARD, of NewYork, defeated fer V~icePresident in W~hig Convention, 1844….. I vil PA G P. I 5 16 18 23

2,5 202 203 2 2 204 214 215 24 4,11 213 1 29 11 182 184 185 187 iss 189

190 191. 193 216 239 228 248 234 248 237 248 223 240 224 240 238 248 225

243 220 246 24T 22’-), 246 237 24T 233 244 232 243 216 240 2-24 241 21T

24(:l 221 246 24S 235 245 229 248 216 240 217 241 219 240 2:,‘O 242 218

245 247 223 241 216 240 248 231 244 238 243 217 240 226 241 237 24T 13 13

22 23 28 172 215 18 22 10 12 41 21 23 20 9 211 12 12 2S 29 41 208 10 11

Page viii view page image

CONTENTS. AGE PAGB MARSH, EPIIRAIM, of NewJersey, President 41 American National Convention……………… 23 MASON, JOHN Y., of Virginia, beaten for VicePresident in Dem. Nat. Con., 1848……. 16 24

MASSACHUSETTS DECLARES FOR FREEDOM 48 through Legislative Resolves; Whigs of Massa168 chusetts for freedom……………………….202 McLEAN, Judge JOHN, of Ohio, defeated for President in Republican Convention, 1856……. 22 Also, in Republican Nat. Convention of 1860… 27 169

MCKAY, JAMES J., of North Carolina, beat en for VicePresident in Dem.

Convention 1848… 16 12 MCREA, JOIIN J., of Mississippi, for Dissolu12 12
tion…………………………………….. 172 MISSOURI COMPIrOMISE, Adopted……… 64 18 The Compromise Repealed……………….. 87

MITCHELL, JAMES C., of Tennessee, nagainst se Sla very…………………………………204 1 S l a v e r y ~~~~~~~~~204 ” MONROE DOCTRINE.”-Extract from the 21 Message of James Monroe on the influence of European Powers on this Continent…………..

21 92 MONROE, JAMES, of Virginia, elected Presi dent in 1816 and reelected in 1820…………… 9 23 MOORE, SUYDENHAM, of Alabania, for Disso 23
lation……………………………………17 l u t i o n 172 13

MORGAN, WILLIAM, revealer of Masonic Se crets……………………………………. 10 10 MOREHEAD, JOHN M., of North Carolina, 16 President Whig National Convention, 1848……. 15

20 MORRIS, THOMAS, of Ohio, Liberty Party 22 nominee for President in 1854………………. 14 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN (CLAY) CONVEN22 tions, at Baltimore, 1831; at Washington, 1832… 11 NEW-IHAMPSIlIRE DECLARES FOR

THE WILMOT Proviso through Legislative Resolves…………. 2(8 20

NEW-JERSEY LEGISLATURE FOR FREE TER- - 48
ritory………………………………61 212 NEW-YORK FOR

FREEDOM.-Resolutions of the Legislature against Slavery in the Territo23
ries in 1820,…………60 Ditto in

1847-8-92t6………………………… Gen. John A. Dix presents resolutions to United 15 States Senate………………………… 207

The Whigs in State Convention declare for Free17… 2 dom. Address reported by James Brooks… 2!7 Free Democracy of New York for Freedom, Resolutions presented by John Cochrane….. 207 11 ORDINANCE of 1784

(Jefferson’s) against Slavery in Territories………………………..

- 5s 12 ORDINANCE of 1787 (Dane’s) prohibiting Slavery in Northwest Territory…..-………….. - 52 172 O’CONOR, CHARLES, NewYork, defends Slavery as intrinsically just in a speech at Union 13 Meeting, NewYork, 1859………………………1 164 His letter to Committee of Merchants…….. 167 22 OHIO DECLARES FOR FREEDOM through Legis lative Resolves………………………….. 208 28 PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE

FOR FREE 127 Territory………………………………… 61 129 144

PIERCE, FRANKLIN, of New-Halmpshire, nominated for President in Democratic Conven tion, 1852………………………………… 20 206 Elected President,………………………. 22 210 Defeated for President in National Con., 1856.. 24 Receives one vote for President in National Con vention, 1860………………………. PILLOW, Gen.W GIDON J., of Tenne ssee, beaten for Pice-President in Democratic Conven tion, 1852………………… 2(. PINCKNEY, CHARLES C., of Soulth Carolina, 21
beaten for VicePresident, 1800;- also for President in 1804 and 1808…………………..,… 9 12 POLITICAL NATIONAL PLATFORMS. - None adopted bay first Democratic Convention;* Nab,ion 20 al Republican Platform…………………………….. 1 i JOHNSON, ANDREW, of Tennessee, supported for President in National Democratic Convention: OHINSON, HERSCHER V., of Georgia, beaten for VicePresident in Democratic National Conven tion in 1856……………………………… Nominated for VicePresident by Democratic National Committee, 1860………………. Speech on Slavery in the T erritories i n 1848…

Holds that capital should own the laborer, in a speech at Philadelphia in L1856. His Report affirmingthe absolute right of holding slaves in the Territories…………………….. JOHNSON, RICHARD M., of Kentucky, beaten in Convention for VicePresident, 1882………. Nominated and elected VicePresident in 1836.. Beaten for VicePresident in 1840………… Beaten for President in Democratic Convention, 1844………………………………… JOHNSON, WILLIAM COST, of Maryland, Pre s ident of Young Men’s Nati onal Convention….. JULIAN, GEORGE W., of Indiana, Free De. mocratic candidate for VicePresident, 1852…… KANSAS OUTRAGES, Report of Howard and Sherman thereon…………………………. KILLINGER, JOHN W., of Pennsylvania, offers an Anti-Slavery resolve in the American Convention, 1856…………………………. KING, LEICESTER, of Ohio, President of Lib erty Party National Convention, 1843………… KING, WILLIAM E.., of Alabama, beaten for VicePresident in Democratic Convention of 1848……………………………………. Democratic nominee for VicePresident in 1852. Elected VicePresident in 1852……………..

AN:, Col. HENRY S., of Indiana, Presi dent of the Republican National Convention, 1856. kNE, Gen. JOSEPH, of Oregon, beaten for President in Democratic National Convention, 1852…………………………….

Nominated for VicePresident by Seceders at Baltimore in 1860……………………… Accepts nomination……………………… LAw, GEORGE, of NewYork, defeated for President in American National Convention, 1856. LAWRENCE, ABBOTT, of Massachusetts, de feated for VicePresident in Whig Convention, 1848.

LEAKUE, SHELTON F., of Virginia, for Disso lution……………………………………. LEE, Hl:NRY, of Massachusetts, supported by South Carolina for VicePresident, 1832…….

LE,MOYNE, FRANCIS J., of Pennsylvania, Abolition candidate for Vice-Piesident, 1840…… LE,TCBER, JOHN (Governor of Virginia), for Dissolution……………………………. LIBERTY PARTY NATIONAL

CONVENTION held at Buffalo in 143…………………………. LINCOLN, ABRAHAM, of Illinois, defeated for VicePresident in Republican Convention, 1856… Nominated for President by Republican Conven tion, 186!)……………………………. Speech at Springfield, Ill., June 17,1858…… Discussion with Mr. Douglas at Freeport, Ill…. Speech at Cooper Institute, NewYork, 1860… Letter to Boston Committee on the Jefferson Birthday Festival; Letter to Dr. Canisius on Naturalization………………………… Accepts nomination for Presidency………… LUCAS, Gen. ROBERT, President first Demo cratic National Convention…………………. MADISON, JAMES, of Virginia, elected Presi dent 1808, and reelected in 112……………. MAINE

D)EMOCRACY FORW TIlE WILM[OT PRO
viso……………………………….. ]FINGUM, WILLIE P., of North Carolina, sup ported by South-Carolina for Presidenlt in 1886… MARCY, WILLIAMf L., of New York, beaten for President in Dem. National Convention, 1852. … VIII p

Page ix view page image

CONTENTS. No Platform adopted by second Democratic Convention; no Platform adopted by Whig Convention at Harrisburg, 1839; First Demo cratic National Platform, 1840…………. 12 Whig National Platform, 1844…………….2 of. 18 Democratic National Platform, 1844……….

2 SlvrRetc 13 L iberty P arty Platform, 1844……………Y. 14 No Platform adopted openly by Whig Con vention, 1848………………………… 15 LDemnocratic National Platform, 1848………… 16 Bufalo Free Soil Platform, 1848…………… 17 pidg National Platform, 1852……………..1 R erus cc c 18is Democratic National Platform, 1852……….. 20 Free Democratic Platform, 1852…………… 21 Republican National Platform, 1856……….. 22

America n Nati onal Platform, 1856………… 23 Democratic National Platform, 1856…………t 24 Whig National Platform, 1856……………………… 25 Republican National Platform, 1860……….. 26 Constitutional Union Party Platform, 1860….. 29

DeUnocratic (Douglas) Platform of 1860……. 82 Addition there to by Baltimore Convent ion…..t 48 Seceders’ Platform a dopted at Ch arleston……… 41 The same readopted by the 1eceders’ (Breckin ridge) Convention at Baltimore…………….. 48 POLE, JAMES K., of Tennessee, nominated for and elected President,

1844…………………………….. 13 POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY IN THE

TERRITORIES, inv ented by Genr. Lewis Cass, in his Nicholson letter…………………………………. Slvr xlddfr Oeo en179

PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY IN THE TERRIITO ries: Letter of Martin Van Buren thereon…….. 181 PUGH, JAmES L., of Alabama, for Dissolu tion……………………………………. 172 QUITMAN, Gen. JOH N

A., of Mississippi, beaten for VicePresiden t in Democratic Conven tion, 148……………………………….. Smout’ 16 Beaten for VicePreside nt in Democratic Con ventiorl, 1856……………1 irl Ms……………. 24 ANDOLPH, JOHtN, of Virg inia, on Everett, 204 RAYNOR

KENNETH, of North Carolina, de feated for President in American Convention, 1856……………………………………. 23 REPUBLICAN

NATIONAL CON VENTION, 1856 Blirni-eyTemisdet22 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL

CONVENTION, 1860 psdisprlbil;heKn26 REVOLUTION PROPOSED by William L. Yan cey…………………………………….. 173 RIVES, WO. C., of Virgi nia, defeated for VicePresident in Democratic National Convernt tion…………………………………….. 12 RUSH, RICHARD, beaten for VicePresident in 1828……….,…………………………. 10

RtrsK, Gen. THOMAS J., of Texas, beaten for VicePresident in Democratic National Con vention, 1852…………………………….. 20 SCOTT, Gen. WINFIELD, of NewYork, de feated for President at Harrisburg, 1839……… 12 Defeated for President in Whig C onvention, 1848……………………………….Ti.. 15 Nominated for President, 1852……………. 18 Letter accepting nomination for President, 1852………………………………… 19 Defeated for President, 1852……………… 22 SECEDERS’ CONVENTION at Charleston, and Platform………………………………… 41 SECEDERS’ CONVENTION at Baltimore nomi nates John C. Breckinridge for President, and Gen. Joseph Lane for VicePresident………… 48 SEWAIZ), W.Nf. H., of NewYork, candidate for P. csident before National Republican Conven tion, 1+;0……………………… 27 His -‘Irrepressible Conflict ” Speech at Roches ter…………………………………… 160 Sr,RGE.x.~T, JOHN, Of Pennsylvania, beaten for VicePresident in 1882……………………………. 11 Defeated for VicePresident in Whig National Convention, 1844…………………………………. 1S

SINGLE.TON, OTHV Rl, of Mississippi, for Dis S1t~iO~uXio…

s…..-…….-………………e*v 179 IF PAG SLAVERY EXTENSION or RESTRICTION, jiS tory of the struggle for………………….. 49 Origin and Progress of Slavery in America…. 49 British Decisions affecting Slavery in the Colo nies,………………………………… 50

Slavery under the Confederation…………..51 Jefferson’s Ordinance of 1TS4, providing for the Government of the Territories and the exclu sion of Slavery therefro m………………. 51 Yeas and Nays thereon in Continental Congress 52 Ordinance of 1787, prohibiting Slavery in the Northwest Territory…………………… 52 The Federal Constitution on Slavery……….52 Constitutional Amendments affecting Slavery; Cessions of Territory by Slave States; Early attempts to override the Ordinance of‘87… 53 Reports of John Randolph of Va., and Franklin of N.

C., in opposition thereto; The first Mis sourli Struggle……………………….. 54 Slavery Restriction proposed by Gen. James Tallmadge of N. Y.; Proposition sustained by the House; Remarks thereon by Mr. T. Fuller of Ma ss……………………………… 55

Remarks of Gen. Tallmadge of N. Y……….. 56 Reply of Mr. Scott of Mo………………… 57 Restriction negatived in the Senate…. 58

House refuses to conlcur; Second Missouri Struggle; Mr. John W. Taylor of N. Y. moves a Committee; Memorial of Daniel Webster in favor of Slavery Restriction…………….. 59 Resolves of Legislature of N. Y., in favor of Slavery Restriction……………………. 60 Resolves of N. J. and P
a…………………. 61 Resolves of Delaware; Counter Resolves of Kentucky Legislature; Compromise proposed by the Senate………………………… 62 Adopted in the Senate, and Bill passed; House refuses to concu……………………..63 Senate asks a Confer ence………………… 64 Compromise finally carried in the House by 90 Yeas (14 only from Free States) to 87 Nays (all from Free States)…………………. 64 The third Missouri Struggle; Enlargement of Missouri in 1836; Annexation of Texas…… 65 Address of Johln Q.

Adams and other Whig members against such Annexation……… 66 Mr.

Calhoun’s dispatch to Mr. King; Mr. John P. Hale proposes a division of Texas……. 69 Annexation project of Milton Brown of Tenn.; Adopted, Yeas 118, Nays 101; Proposition of Mr. Foster of Tenn……………………

70 Annexation carried in Senate, 26 to 25; The Wilmot Proviso……………………… 71 The Clayton Compromise; Mr. J. H.

Root’s Re solve for Slavery Restriction; Proposition of Isaac P. Walker of Wisconsin………….. 72 Proposition of Mr. Richard W. Thompson, of Ind.; Slavery excluded from Oregon Terri tory…………………………………. 73 Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, proposes to extend the Missouri line of restriction to the Pacific….. 74

Senate agrees, but House refuses; The Compro mise of 1850; Gen. Taylor’s recommenda tions; Gen. Sam tIouston’s proposition; Hlen ry Clay’s plan of Compromise; John Bell’s proposition………………………….. 75

Objections to Mr. Clay’s scheme by Foote of Miss. and Mason, of Va………………… 76 Ditto by Jefferson Davis of Miss.; Mr. Clay in reply; Messrs. Downs of La., King of Ala., and Butler of S. C., in further opposition to Mr. Clay…………………………….. 77 Mr. Foote of Miss. moves a Committee of Thir teen; Mr. Clay reports from said Committee; Mr. Jefferson Davis’s Amendment………..78 Mr. Chase of Ohio moves a prohibition of Sla very; The Omnibus defeated as a whole, but passed in separate bills; The KansasNebraska Struggle……………………………… 79 Mr. Atchison’s remarks thereon; President Pierce protests against the renewal of agita tion-Mr.

Douglas’s first Nebraska Report… 80 He amends his bill-Mr. Chase proposes to au thorize the people of Kansas to prohibit Sla very therein; Opposed by Messrs. Bell, Doug las, etc., and defeated………….. 81 Mr.

Clayton’s “sAmerican” amendment;* Mr. Chase moves that the people of the Territory be authorized to elect their own Governor; Defeated by 80 to 10; Mr. Seward’s speech against the bill…………………….. 2 The Kansas-Nebaraska bill prasses the Senate,… -~ I I ix PAGE

Page x view page image

CONTENTS. TYLER, JOHN, of Virginia, nominated and defeated for VicePresident, 18835-6………….. Nominated for VicePresident, at Harrisburg, 1839, and elected in 1840……………….. TwOTHIRDS RULE
adopted by first Denio cratic Convention, 1882…………………….

TOUCEY. ISAAC, of Connecticut, supported for President by Democratic National Convention. VAN BUREN, MARTIN, of NewYork, nomi nated for VicePresident……………………. Nominated for President in 1.3a5, and elected in 1886………………………………… Nominated for reolection as President, 1840…. Defeated for President in 1840……………. Defeated in Democratic National Convention, 1844……………………………….. Nominated for President by Buffalo Convention, 184S………………………………… On Slavery in the Territories, letter to Water bury and others………………………. VOTE IN WHIG NATIONAL CONVENTI’ION, 1852, on Resolve approving Compromise Measures of 1850………………………………. WARD, JOHN E., of Georgia, Piresident of thle Democratic National Convention, 1856…….. WEBSTER, DANIEL, of M assaclhiiusetts, stip ported by Massachusetts for President, 1836…… Defeated for President in Whig Convention, 1848 Beaten for President in Whig Convention, 1852.. ClMemorial to Congress for Slavery Restriction… MHis view on the powers of Supreme Court…… Speech against Slavery Extension…………. WELLER, Col. JOHN B., of Cailifoirnia beaten for VicePresident in Democratic National Convention, 1852…………………………. WHIG NATIONAL CONVENTIONS, held at Hlar risburg, Penn., 1889………………………. Hleld at Baltimore, Md., 1844……………… Held at Phila delphia, Penn., 1848…………… leld at Baltimore, Md. 1852……………… RIeld at Baltimor e, Md., 1a56……………… WHITE, HUGH L., of Tenniessee, unsuccess ful candidate for President…………………. WILMOT, DAVID, of Pennsylvania, de feated for VicePresident in Republican Convention, 1856 Temporary Chairman of RelRublican National Convention, 1860………………………. WILSON, Gen. HENRY, of.Massachusetts, President of Free Democratic National Conven tion, 1852……………………………….. WIRT, WVILL1AM, of Maryland, AnLti-Mla sonic candidate for President, 1832…………. \VILKINS, WILLIAM, of Pennsylvania, siup ported by Pennsylvania for VicePresident, 1832.. WISCONSIN declares for Free Territory, through Legislative Resolves………………… WOODBURY, LEVI, of New-Hamipshire, beaten for President in Democratic Convention, 1848… WRIGHT, SILAS, of NewYork- nominated for VicePresident by Democratic National Con vention of 1844, but declined……………….. YANCr:Y, WILLIAM L., of Alabama, offers a ” noninterference ” resolve in Democratic Con vention, 1848……………………………. He advocates Revolution in the South………. YOUNG, Col. SAMUEL, of NewYork, Presi dent of the Barnburners’ Convention at Utica in

1848……………………………………. Offers Anti-Slavery Resolves in Senate of New { ark……………………………*…..

PAGE The KansasNebraska bill passes the House….. 85 Yeas 113, Nays, 10:i, thereon……………. 86 The clause of said bill repealing the Missouri Compromise; President Pierce on Kansas Af fairs in‘55-‘6; Mir.

Douglas’s Report on do., March 12,‘56……………………. S7 Minority Report of Mr. Collamer of Vermont… &9 House orders an investigation of Kansas frauds; Report of Messrs. Howard and Sherman there on………………………………….. 92 House votes to admit Kansas as a Free State… 107 Mr. Douglas reports a bill to pacify Kansas…..

1l,VA UE,MRI,o w7 Mr. Trumbull’s amendments thereto; Do. Messrs. Foster’s, Wilson’s and Seward’s; Passage of Douglas’s bill………………………. 1COS Mr. Geo. G. Dunn’s bill to reorganize Kansas.. 109 President Pierce’s last Message on Kansas……

110 Remarks of MAlessrs. Hale, Seward, Mason, Wil son and Pugh thereon…………………. 112 President Buchanan on the Lecompton Constitu tion…………………………………. 113 Mr. Douglas’s speech against Lecompton……. 114 Action on Lecompton in Kansas…………… 116 Mr. Buchanan’s special Lecompton Message…. 117

Provisions of Lecompton Constitution respecting Slavery………………………………. 120 The Lecompton bill; Passed in the Senate, but defeated in the House; The Crittenden-Mont gomery substitute……………………… 121 Yeas and Nays on adopting substitute………. 122 Senate refuses to concur; MAr. English moves a Conference Committee; Carried by the Speak er’s cast ing vote; The English Compromise bill……………………………….. 123 Carried through both I-ouses; The oVyandot Convention and Const titution…………….

125 Mr. Grow proposes, and the House votes to ad mit Kansas under the Wyandot Constitution; Senate refuses to act on the bill…………….

126 SLAVETRADE ADVOCATED in Democratic N ational Convention by AIr.

Gaulden, of Georgia. 89 Also by Governor Adams, of S. C., in Message to Legislature…………………………… 208 SPENCER, A NBROSE, of NewYork, Presi dent Wh ig National Convention, 1844……..1…. 13 SP

ENCER, JOHN C, of New-Yor k, Presi dent Anti-oAoasonic National Convention………. 10 STEVENSON, ANDREW, of Virginia, Presi dent Second Democratic National Convention…………………………… 12 Ditto, President National Democra tic Conven tion, 1S48………………………………….. 16 SrRANGE, R OB ER T, of North Carolina, beaten for VicePresident in Democratic Convention, 1852……………………………………. 20 SUM.NER, aCHARLES, of Massachusetts, de feated for VicePresident in Republican National Convention, 1856………………………….. 22 SUPREME COURT, POWER

AND DUTIES OF Opin ions of Thomas Jefferson……………………….

174 Opinions of John Taylor of Caroline, Va., John Randolph of Roanoke, Nathaniel Macon of N. C., and John Bacon, of Massachusetts i….. 175

Opinions of John J. Crittenden, Nathaniel Macon, James Barbour, Supreme Court of Georgia Legislature of Georgia, Su preme Court of Penn sylvania, and Court of Appeals of Virginia….. 176 Opinions of Mahlon Dickerson, Richard M. John son, Gen. Andrew Jackson, and Daniel Web ster…………………………………. 177 TAYLOR RATIFICATION

MEETING at Phila delphia, 1848, and Resolves………………… 15

TAYLOR, ZACHARY, of Louisiana, Whig nominee for President, 1848………………… 15 Elected President in 1848…………………. 16 }‘LDEN, DANIEL R., of Ohio, proposes IVavery Restriction in Whig Convention, 1848…. 15 I I x PAGN 12 12 10 4t 10 12

13 13 13 17 181 19 24 12 15 18 59 177 202 20 12 13 15 is 2.5 12 22 26 21

10 11 201 1.6 13 17 173 17 206

Page 9 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. NATIONAL CAUCYOUSES, CONVENTIONS, AND

PLATFORMS. a potent influence over such questions, being, on this occasion unable to a gree as to which on her favored sons should have the preference. Nitiety-fouir of the 136 Republican members of Congress attende d this calucus, and declared their preference of Mr. Mad i s o n, who received 83 votes, the remaining 11 being divided between Mr. Monroe and George Clinton. The Opposition supported Mr. Pinckney; but Mr. Madison was elected by a large majority. Toward the close of Mr. Madison’s earlier term, he was nominated for reelection by a Congressional Caucus held at Washington, in May, 181I2. Il September of the same year, a convention of the Opposition, representing eleven States, was held in the city of NewYork, which nominated De Witt Clinton, of NTew-York, for President. He was also put in nomination by the Republican Legislature of NewYork. Tile ernsuing canvass resulted in the reflection of Mr. Madison, who received 128 electoral votes to 89 for De Witt Clinlton. Il 1816, the Republican Congressional Caucus nominated Jamties Monroe, who received, in the caucus, 65 votes to 54: for Wm. H. Crawford, of Georgia. The Opposition, or Federalists, named Rufus Kinz,, of NewYork, who received only 34
electoral votes out of 217. There was no opposition, to the reelection of Mr. Monroe in 1820, a single (Republican) vote being cast against him, and for John Quincy Adams. In 18.24, the Respublicani party could not be induced to tt)ide by the decision of a Conigressioijal Caucus. A ilarge majority of the Republican members formally refused to participate inl stuch a gathering, or be governed bv its deoision; still, a Carcus was called and attended by the friends of Mr. Crawford alone. Of the 261
members of Coiigress at this timee, 216 were Democrats or Republicans, yet only 66 respoiided to their names at roll-call, 64 of’ whom voted for MIr.

Cratfword as the Republican inominee for President. This inominafition was verty extensively repudiated throughout the cotutry, and three competing Republican candidates NATIONAL Conventions for the nomination of candidates are of comparatively recent origin. In the earlier political history of the United States, under the Federal Constitution, candidates for President and Vice-Presidenit were nominated by congressional and legislative caucuses. Washington was elected as first President uinder the Constitution, and reelected for a second term by a unanimous, or nearly unanimous, concurrence of the American peop le; but an opposition party gradually grew ip) iii Congress, which became formidable during his second term, and which ultimately crvstalized into what was then called the Repubtlicin an party. Johnr Adams, of Massachusetts, pwas prominent among the leading Federalists, while Thomas Jeffersoti, of Virginia, was preetninently the author and oracle of the Republican party, and, by common consent, they were the opposing candidates for the Presidency, o i l Washington’s retirement in 1796-7. Mr. Adams was then chosen President, while Mr. Jefferson, having the largest electoral vote next to Mr. A., became Vice-Presideut. The first Congressional Caucus to nominate candidates for President and VicePresident, is said to have been held in Philadelphia i,l the year 180)0, and to have nominated Mr. Jefferson for the first office, and Aaron Burr for the second. These candidates were elected after a desperate struggle, beating John Adams and Charles C.

Pi,ickney, of South Carolina. InI 1804, Mr. Jefferson was reelected President, with George Clinton, of NewYork, for Vice, encountering but slight opposition: Messrs. Charles C. Pinckney and Rufus Kin-, the opposing candidates, receiving only 14 out of 176 Electoral Votes. We have been unable to find any record as to the manner of their -inorii mination.

In January, 1808, when Mr. Jeffersoiin’s second termi was about to close, a Republican Congressional Caucus was held at Wasitirtrorn to decide as to the relative claims of Madison and Motiroe for the succession, the Legislature of Virginia, which had been said to exert 4* I

Page 10 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. NewYork, presided over the deliberations of the Convention, and the nominees received each 108 votes. The candidates accepted the nomi nation and received the electoral vote of Ver mont only. The Convention did not enunciate any distinct platform of principles, but ap pointed a committee to issue an Address to the people.

In due time, the address was published. It is quite as prolix and verbose as modern po, litical addresses; and, after stating at great * length the necessary qualifications for the ‘ Chief of a great and free people, and presentt ing a searching criticism on the institution of - free-masonry in its moral and political bearings, gsomewhat intensified from the excitement l caused by the (then recent) alleged murder of l William Morgan, for having revealed the secrets - of the Masonic Order, the Address comes to the , conclusion that, since the institution had be come a political engine, political agencies must - be used to avert its baneful effects-in other . words, “that an enlightened exercise of the s right of suffrage is the constitutional and s equitable mode adopted by the Anti-Masons is a necessary to remove the evil they suffer, and e produce the reforms they seek.” wer e brought i nto the field through legislative and other machinery-viz., Andrew Jackson, H senry Clay, and John Quincy Adams. The result of this famous “scrub race” for the Preside nc y wa s, that no one w as elected by the people, Gen. Jackson receiving 99
electoral votes, Mr. Adams &4, Mr. Crawford 41, and Mr. Clay 87. The election then devolved on the House of Representatives, where Mr. Adams was chosen, receiving the votes of 13 States, against 7 for Gen. Jackson, and 4 for Mr. Crawford. This was the end of ” R King Caucus.” Gen. Jackson was immediately thereafter put in nomination for the ensuing term by the Legislature of Tennessee, having only Mr. Adams for an opponent in 1828, when he was elected by a decided majority, receiving 178 Electoral Votes to 83 for Mr. Adams. Mr. John C. Cal houn, who had at first aspired to the Presidency, in 1824, withdrew at an early stage from the canvass, and was thereupon chosen VicePresi dent by a very large electoral majority-Mr Albert Gallatin, of Pennsylvania, (the caucus candidate on the Crawford ticket,) being his only serious competitor. In 1828, Mr. Calhoun was the candidate for VicePresident on the Jackson ticket, and of course reelected. I was curtently stated that the concentration of the Crawford and Calhoun strength on this ticket was mainly effected by Messrs. Martir Van Buren and Churchill C.Cambreleng, of New York, during a southern tour made by them ix 1827. In 1828, Richard Rush, of Pennsylvania was the candidate for VicePresident on the Adams ticket. DEMOCRATIC OR JACKSON

NATIONAL CONVENTION-1832. There was no open opposition in the Democratic party to the nomination of Gen. Jackson for a second term; but the party were not so well satisfied with Mr. Calhoun, the VicePresident; so a Convention was called to meet at Baltimore in May, 1832, to nominate a candidate for the second office. Delegates appeared and took their seats from the States of Maine, NewHampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, NewYork, NewJersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carol in a, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ten - nessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. Gen. Robert Lucas, of Ohio, presided, and the regular proceedings were commenced by the passage of the following resolution: Resolved, That each Stat e be entitled, in th e nomina. tion to be made for the VicePresidency, to a number of votes equal to the number to which they will be entitled in the electoral colleges, under the new apportionment, in voting for P r esiden t and VicePresident; and that twothirds of the whole number of the votes in t he Con. vention shall be necessary to constitute a choice. This seems to have been the origin of the famous ” twothirds ” rule which has prevailed of late in Democratic National Conventions. The Convention proceeded to ballot for a candidate for Vice-Presidenlt, with the following result: For Martin Van Biiien: Connecticut, 8; Illinois, 2; Ohio, 21; Tennessee, 1*5; North Carolina, 9; Georgia, 11; Louisiana, 5; Pennsylvania, 80; Maryland, 7; NewJersey, 8; Mississippi, 4; RIhode Island, 4; Maine, 10; Massachusetts, 14; Delaware, 8; NewHampshire, 7New-York, 42; Vermont, 7; Alabama, 1-Total, 208. For Richard M. Johnson: Illinois, 2; Indiana, 9; Kentucky, 15-Total, 26. For Philip P. Barbour: North Carolina, 6; Virginia, 23; Maryland, 3; South Carolina, 11; Alabama, 6Total, 49. Mr. Van Buren, having received more than twothirds of all the votes cast, was declared U. S. ANTI-MASONIC

CONVENTION-1830. The first political National Convention in this country of which we have any record was held at Philadelphia in September, 1830, styled the United States Anti-Masonic Convention. It was composed of 96
delegates, representing the States of NewYork, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, NewJersey, Delaware, Ohio, Maryland and the Territory of Michigan. Francis Granger of NewYork presided; but no business was transacted beyond the adoption of the following resolution: Besovedcl, That it is recommended to the people of the United States, opposed to secret societies, to meet in convention on Monday the 26th day of September, 1831, at the city of Baltimore, by delegates equal in number to their representatives in both houses of Congress, to mnake nominations of suitable candidates for the office of President and VicePresident, to be supported at the next election, and for the transaction of such other business as the cause of Anti-Masonry may require. In compliance with the foregoing call, a National Anti-Masonic Convention was held at Baltimore, in Septemnber, 1831, which nominated William Wirt, of Maryland, for President, and Amios Ellmaker, of Pennsvlvania, for VicePresident. The convention was attended by 112
delegates froinm the States of Maine, NewHampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, NewYork, NewJersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Delaware and Maryland -only Massachusetts, NewYork and Pennsylvania being fully represented. John C. Spencer, of I re 10 ic

Page 11 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFORMS. duly nominated as the candidate of the party for VicePresident. The Convention passed a resolution cordially concurring in the repeated nominiations which Gen. Jackson had received in various parts of the country for reelection as President. Mr. Archer, of Virginia, fronm the committee appointed to prepare an address to the people, reported that diate predecessor (J. Q. Adams) by Gen. Jack. son in his Inaugural Address, and adds: The indecorum of this denunciation was hardly less glaring than its essential injustice, and can only be paralleled by that of the subsequent denunciation of the same Administration, on the same authority, to a foreign government. Exception is taken to the indiscriminate re moval of all officers within the reach of the Pre. sident, who were not attached to his person or party. As illustrative of the extent to which this political proscription was carried, it is stated that, within a month after the inauguration of General Jackson, more persons were removed from office thani during the whole 40 years that had previously elapsed since the adoption of the Constitution. Fault is also found with the Ad ministration in its conduct of our foreign affairs. Again the Address says: On the great subjects of internal policy, the course of the President has been so inconsistent and vacillating, that it is impossible for any party to place confidence in his character, or to consider him as a true and effective friend. By avowinghis approbation of a judicious tariff, at the same time recommending to Congress precisely the same policy which had been adopted as the best plan of attack by the opponents of that measure; by admitting th e constitutiona itty and expedienc y of Internal Improve ments o f a Nation al character, and at the same moment negativing the most important bill s of this description which were presented to him by Congre ss, the President has shown that he is either a secret enemy to the system, or that he is willing to sacrifice the most im portant na tional objects in a vain attempt to conciliate the conflict ing interests, or rather adv erse party feeling and opinions of different sections of the country. Objec tion is t ake n to Gen. Jacksont’s war on the Unite d States Ban k, and t he necessity and usefulness ofthat institu t ion are argued at con siderable l eng th. Th e o utrageous and inhuman t reatment o f the Cherokee Indians by the State of G eo r gia, and the f ailur e of the National Ad ministration to protect them in their rights, acquire d by treaty with the U nited States, is a lso the subject of animadversion in the the Add ress. A resolve was adopted, recommending to the young men of the National Republican Party to hold a (convention in the city of Washingtoni on the following Mav. Such a Convention was accordinglv held at the Capital on the 11th of May, 1832, over which William Cost Johnson, of Maryland, presided, and at which the following, among other resolves, were adopted: Resolved, That an adequate Protection to American Industry is indispensable to the prosperity of the country; and that an abandonment of the policy at this period would be attended with consequences ruinous to the best interests of the Nation. Resolved, That a uniform system of Internal Improvements, sustained and supported by the General Government, is calculated to secure, in the highest degree, the harmony, the strength and the permanency of the Republic. Resolved, That the indiscriminate removal of public officers, for a mere difference of political opinion, is a gross abuse of power; and that the doctrine lately boldly preached in the United States Senate, that ” to the victors belong the spoils of the vanquished,” is detrimental to the interest, corrupting to the morals, and dangerous to the liberties, of the people of this country. The committee, having interchanged opinions on the subject submitted to them, and agreeing fully in the principles and sentiments which they believe ought to be embodied in an address of this description, if such an address were to be made, nevertheless deem it advisable under existing circumstances, to recommend the adoption of the following resolution: Resolve,Il That it be recommended to the several delegations in this Convention, in place of a General Address from this body to the people of the United States, to make such explanations by address, report, or otherwise, to their respective constituents, of the object, proceedings and result of the meeting, as they may deem expedient. The result of this election was the choice of General Jackson, who received the electoral vote of th e following States: Maine. 10; NewHampshire, 7; NewYork, 42; NewJersey, 8; Pennsylvania, 30; Maryland, 8; Virginia, 23; North Carolina, 15; Georgia, 11; Tennessee, 15; Ohio, 21; Louisiana, 5; Mississippi, 4; Indiana, 9; Illinois, 5; Alabama, 7; Missouri, 4-Total, 219. For Mr. Clay: Massachusetts, 14; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 8; Delaware, 3; Maryland, 5; Kentucky, 15-Total, 49. For John Floyd, of Virginia: South Carolina, 11. For William Wirt, of Maryland: Vermont, 7. Mr. Van Buren received only 189 votes for VicePresident, Pennsylvaiia, which cast her vote for Jackson, having voted for William Wilkins of that State for VicePresident. John Sergeant, for VicePresident, received the same vote as Mr. Clay for President. South Carolina voted for Henry Lee of Massachusetts, for VicePresident. NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONVENTION 1831.

The National Republicans met in convention at Baltimore, Dec. 12, 1831.

Seventeen States and the District of Colunmbia were represented by 157
delegates, who cast a unanimous vote for Henry Clay, of Kentucky, for President, and John Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, for VicePresident. James Barbour, of Virginia, presided, and the States represented were: Maine, NewHampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Consiecticut, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana and Indiana. The Conventioni adopted no formal platform of principles, but issued an Address, mainly devoted to a criticism on the Administration of Gen.

Jackson, assertiig,o amongo other things, that The political history of the Union for the last three years exhibits a series of measures plainly dictated in all their principal features by blind cupidity or vindictive party spirit marked throughout by a disregard of good policy, justice, and every high and generous sentiment, and, terminating in a dissolution of the Cabinet under circumstances more discreditable than any of the kind to be met with in the annals of the civilized world. IThe address alludes t o the charge of incapacity and corruption leveled atgairnst his imme In May, 1835, a National Convention representing twentyone States, assembled at Balti 11 0 DE)IOCRATIC NATIOAL CO.,‘IVENTION, 1835.

Page 12 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. more to nominate candidates for President and Vice-Presidenit. The Hon. Andrew Stevenson, of Virginia, was chosen president, with half a dozen vice-presidents and four secretaries. A rule was adopted that twothirds of the whole number of votes should be necessary to make a nomination or to decide any question connected therewith. Onl the first ballot for President, Mr. Van Buren was nominated unanimously, receiving 265 votes. For VicePresident, Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, received 178, and William C. Rives, of Virginia, 87. Mr.

Johnson, having received more than twothirds of all the votes cast, was declared duly nominated as the candidate for VicePresident. This Convenitioil adopted no platform. result was the triumphant election of Harrison atnd Tyler, Van Buiren receiving the electoral vote of only seven States; viz: NewHampshi-e, T; Virginia, 28; South Carolina, 11; Illinoisa, 5; Alabama, 7; Missouri, 4; and Arkansas, 8Total, 60. South Carolina refused to vote for Richard Al. Johnson for Vie c-Presi(dent, throwing away her 11 votes on Littletol W. Tazewell, of Virg,inia.

Harrison and Tyler received the votes of the following States: Maine, 10; Massachusetts, 14; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 8; Ver-m,ion,t, 7; NewYork 42; NewJersey, 8: Pennsylvania, 30; Delaware, 3; Maryland, 10; North Carolina, 15; Georgia, 11; Kentucky, 15; Tennessee, 15; Ohio, 21; Louisiana, 5; blississippi,4; Indiana,9; Michigan, 8-Total, 234. THE

OPPOSITION IN 1836. In 1835, Gen. Wm. H. Harrison, of Ohio, was nominated for President, with Francis Granger, for Vice-Presidenit, by a Whig State Convention at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and also by a Democratic Anti-Masonic Convention held at the same place. A Whig State Convention in Maryland also nominated Gen. Harrison for President, with John Tyler, of Virginia, for Vice. Gen. H. also received nominations in New York, Ohio and other States. Hugh L. White, of Tennessee was nominated by the Legislatures of Tennessee and Alabama, as the Opposition or Anti-Jackson candidate; while Mr. Webster was the favorite of the Opposition in Massachusetts, and Willie P. Mangum, of N. C. received the vote of S. C., 11. The result of the contest of 1836 was the election of Mr. Van Buren, who received the electoral votes of the States of Maine, 10; NewHampshire, 7; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, S; New York, 42; Pennsylvania, 80; Virginia, 28; North Carolina, 15; Louisiana, 5; Mississippi, 4; Illinois, 5; Alalarna, 7; Missouri,4; Arkansas,3; Michigan, 3-Total 170. Gen. Harrison received the votes of Vermont, T; NewJersey, 8; Delaware, 3; Maryland, 10; Kentucky, 15; Ohio, 21; and Indiana, 9-Total, 73. Hutgh L. White received the vote of Georgia, 11, and Tennessee, 15: total, 26. Mr. Webster received the vote of Massachusetts, 14. A Convention of Abolitionists was held at Warsaw, N. Y., on the 13th of November, 1839, which adopted the following Resolved, That, in our judgment, every consideration of duty and expediency which ought to control the action of Christian freemen, requires of the Abolitionists of the U. S. to organize a distinct and independent political party, embracing all the necessary means for nominating-candidates for office and sustaining them by public suffrage. The Convention then nominated for President James G. Birnev, of New York, and for VicePresident Francis J.

Lemoyne, of Pennsylvania. These gentlemen subsequently declined the nomination. Nevertheless they received a total of 7,609 votes in various Free States. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION, 1840. A Democratic National Convention met at Baltimore, May.5th, 1840, to nominate candidates for President and VicePresident. Delegates were present from the States of Maine, NewHampshire,Verimiont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, NewYork, NewJersey, Pennsylvania, Marvland, North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Tenilessee,Ohio, Alabaina,Mississippi, Louisiana, Indiana, Missouri, Michi,an, and Arkansas. Gov. William Carroll, of Tennessee, presided, and the Convention, before proceeding to the nomination of candidates, adopted the following platformn-viz.: 1. Resolved, Tha t the Federal Government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the Constitution, and the grants of power shown therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government, and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers. 2. p?esoIved, That the Constitution does not confer upon the General Government the power to commence or carry on a general system of internal improvement. 3.

Resolved, That the Constitution does not confer authority upon the Federal Government, directly or indirectly, to assume the debts of the several States, contracted for local internal improvements or other State purposes; nor would such assumption be just or expedient. 4. Resolved, That justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the interest of o ne portion to the injury of another portion of our common country-that every citizen and every section of the country has a right to demand and insist upon an equality of rights and privileges, and to complete and ample protection of persons and property from domestic violence or foreign aggression. A Whig National Convention representing twentyone States met at Harrisburg, Pa., Dec. 4, ] 839. James Barbour, of Virginia, presided, and the result of the first ballot was the nomination of Gen. William H. Harrison, of Ohio, who received 148 * votes to 90 for Henry Clay, and 16 for Gei. Winfield Scott. John Tyler, of Virginia, was unanimously nominated as the Whig candidate for VicePresident. The Convention adopted no platform of p rinciples; but the party in conducting the memorable canmpa i gn of 1840, assailed the Administrati on of Mr. Van Buren for its g eneral mismanagement of public affairs and its profligacy, and the IBaIlots were repeate,dly taken in committee throughout tw,o or three da)ys; bult as Fno candidate received a majority, it was only repoited to the convention that the committee had not been able to ag’ree o e a candidate to be presented to the con,vention. Fi”ally, the delegates from NewYork and other States which bad supported (;,n. Scott, generally went over to Gem. Harrison, who thus eceive d a majority, when the result was declared, as above. 12 ABOLITION CO.LNVENTION,-1839. WHIG NATIONAL

CONVENTION, 1839.

Page 13 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFORMS. 5. Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the government to enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and that no - more revenue ought to be raised than is required to de-fray the necessary expenses of the government. 6. Resolved, That Congress has no power to charter a 1 United States Bank, that we believe such an institution 1 one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the i liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people. T. IResolved, That Congress has no power, under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States; and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything pertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts, by abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any fviend to our Political Institutions. 8. Resolved, That the separation of the moneys of the government from banking institutions is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the government and the rights of the people. 9. Resolved, That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned in the Constitution, which makes ours the land of liberty and the asylum of the oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the Democratic faith: and every attempt to abridge the present privilege of becoming citizens, and the owners of soil among us, ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept the Alien and Sedition Laws from our statute book. The Convention then unanimously nominated Mr. Van Buren for reelection as President; but, there being much diversity of opinion as to the proper mtan for VicePresident, the followiing preamble and resolution were adopted: Whereas, Several of the States which have nominated Martin Van Buren as a candidate for the Presidency, have put in nomination different individuals as candidates for VicePresident, thus indicating a diversity of opinion as to the person best entitled to the nomination; and whereas some of the said States are not represented in this Convention, therefore, `Resolved, That the Convention deem it expedient at the present time not to choose between the individuals in nomination, but to leave the decision to their Republican fellow-citizens in the several States, trusting that before the election shall take place, their opinions will become so concentrated as to secure the choice of a VicePresident by the Electoral College. Government, and discriminating with special refer ence to the Protection of the Domnestic Labor of the country -the Distribution ef the proceeds from the sales of the Public Lands-a single term for the Presidlency-a reform of executive usurpations-and generally such an administration of the affairs of the country, as shall impart to every branch of the public service the greatest practicable efficiency, controlled by a well-regulated and wise economy. The contest resulted in the choice of the Democratic candidates (Polk and Dallas,) who received 170 electoral votes as follows: Maine, 9; NewHampshire, 6;,NewYork, 36; Pennsylvania, 26 Virginia, 17; South Ca rolinia, 9; Georgia, 10; Alabama, 9; Mississippi, 6; Louisiana, 6; Indiana, 12; Illinois, 9; Missouri, 7; Arkansas, 3; Michigan, 5-170. For Clav and Frelinghuysen: Veriiloiit, 6; Massachusetts, 12; Rhode Island, 4; Connlecticut, 6; NewJersey, 7; Delaware, 3; Mairyland, 8; North Carolina, 11; Tennessee, 13; Kentucky, 12; Ohio, 23-105. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL

CONVENTION, 1844. A Democratic National Convention assembled at Baltimore on the 27th May, 1844, ad(o)pted the twothird rule and, after a stormed session, of three days, James K. Polk, of Tennessee, Anas nominated for President, and Silas Wriiglt, of New York, for VicePresident. Mr. Wligli tdeclined the nomination, and George MI. Dallas, of Peninsylvania, was subsequently selected to fill the second place on the ticket. The ballotings for President were as follows: BALLOTS. lst. 2d. 3,rd. 4th.

5th. 6th. 7thl. 8th,. 9(lh. M. Van Buren…. 146 127 121 1il 103 101 99

104 2 Lewis Cass…….. 83 94 92 105 107 116 123 114 29 R. M. Johnson….

29 33 8 82 26 25 21 - - James Buchanan.. 4 9 11 17 29 23 22 2 - J. a.

Calhoun…… - 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 - Levi Woodbury… - - 2 Com. Stewart….. -

I… - James K. Polk…. - - - 44 233 Mr. Van. Buren’s name was withdrawn after the Sth ballot. The platformn adopted by the Convention was the same as that of 1840, with the following additions: Resolved, That the proceeds of the Public Lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects specified in the Constitution, and that we are opposed to the laws lately adopted, and to any law for the Distribution of such proceeds among the States, as alike inexpedient in policy and repugnant to the Constitution.

Resolved, That we are decidedly opposed to taking from the President the qualified veto power by which he is enabled, under restrictions and responsibilities amply sufficient to guard the public interest, to suspend the passage of a bill, whose merits cannot secure the approval of twothirds of the Senate and Hotise of Representatives, until the judgment of the people can be obtained thereon, and which has thrice saved the American People from the corrupt and tyrannical domination of the Bank of the United States. Resolved, That our title to the whole of the Territory of Oregon is clear and unquestionable; that no portion of the same ought to be ceded to England or any other power; and that the reoccupation of Oregon and the reannexation of Texas at the earliest practicable period are great American measures, which this Convention recommends to the cordial support of the Democracy of the Union. 1 st.? d. 3rd. T.

Frelinghuysen, N..,….. 101 118 155 John Davis, Mass.,………. 83 74

79 Millard Fillmore, N.Y.,…… 53 51 40 John Sergea.‘lt, Pa.,………..

38 82 withdrawn. Total……………. 275 275 274 The printeiples of the party were briefly stittined up in the following resolve, which was adopted by the Conventioti: Resolved, That these principles may be summed as comprising a well regulated National currency-a Tariff for revenae to defray the necessary expenses of the I I i I t e I e d i f d t Is t 11 a n h r. a i I d 5 7 13 WHIG NATIONAL CONVENTION, 1844. A Whig National Convention assembled in Baltimore, on the Ist of Mav, 1844, in which every State in the Uiiion was represented. Ambro,e Spencer, of NewYork, presided, and Mr. Clay was nominated for President by aqclamation. For VicePresident, there was some diversity of preference, and Mr.

Freliii,huysen, of N. J., was nominated on the third ballot as fol. lows: BALLOTS. LIBERTY PARTY NATIONVL CO\TVFN TION, 1843. The LibertyPartyNational Conventioii n)et at Buffalo, on the I.lD of Au-ust.

Leicester

Page 14 view page image

14 A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. King, of Ohio, presided, and James G.

Birney, of Florida, or on the high seas, are unconstitutional, and all Michi gan, was unanimously nomin ated for P re-attempts to hold men as property within the limits of ex si den~t, y wtThmsMri,oOh, friclusive national jurisdiction, ought to be prohibitedby law. sident, with Thomas Morris, of Ohio, for Vice-I Resolved, That the provision of the Constitution of the President. Among the resolves adopted were United States, which confers extraordinary political the following * I powers on the owners of slaves, and thereby constitut ing the two hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders in Resolved, That human brotherhood is a cardinal prin-the Slave States a privileged aristocracy; and the pro ciple of true Democracy, as well as of pure Christianity, vision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves from service, which spurns all inconsistent limitations; and neither are Anti-Republican in their character, dangerous to the the political party which repudiates it, nor the political liberties of the people, and ought to be abrogated. system which is not based upon it, can be truly Demo-Resolved, That the practical operation of the second cratic or permanent. of these provisions, is seen in the enactment of the act Resolved, That the Liberty Party, placing itself upon of Congress respecting persons escaping from their mas this broad principle, will demand the absolute and un-ters, which act, if the construction given to it by the qualified divorce of the General Government from Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Prigg slavery, and also the restoration of equality of rights, vs8. Pennsylvania be correct, nullifies the habeas corpus among men, in every State where the party exists, or acts of all the States, takes away the whole legal security may exist. of personal freedom, and ought therefore to be immedi lResolved, That the Liberty Party has not been organ-ately repealed. ized for any temporary purpose by interested politicians, Resolved, That the peculiar patronage and support but has arisen from among the people in consequence of hitherto extended to Slavery and Slaveholding, by the a conviction, hourly gaining ground, that no other party General Government, ought to be immediately with in the countryrepresents the true principlesof American drawn, and the example and influence of National liberty, or the true spirit of the Constitution of the authority ought to be arrayed on the side of Liberty and United States. Free Labor. Resolved, That the Liberty Party has not been organ-Resolved, That the practice of the General Govern ized merely for the overthrow of slavery; its first de-ment, which prevails in the Slave States, of employing cided effort must, indeed, be directed against slavehold-Slaves upon the public works, instead of free laborers, ing as the grossest.u,dr rU vQi, Vv pg manifestation of and paying aristocratic masters, with a view to secure or ge~sotbut it will also carry out the principle of reward political services, is utterly indefensible and equal rights into all its practical consequences and ap-ought to be abandoned. plications, and support every just measure conducive to Resolved, That freedom of speech, and of the press, individual and social freedom. and the right of petition, and the right of trial by jury, Resolved, That the Liberty Party is not a sectional are sacred and inviolable; and that all rules, regula/Lparty but a national party; was not originated in a de-tions and laws, in derogation of either are oppressive, un sire to accomplish a single object, but in a comprehen-constitutional, and not to be endured by free people. sive regard to the great interests of the whole country; Resolved, That we regard voting in an eminent de is not a new party, nor a third party, but is the party gree, as a moral and religious duty, which, when exer of 1776, reviving the principles of that memorable era, cised, should be by voting for those who will do all in and striving to carry them into practical application.

their power for Immediate Emancipation. Resolved, That it was understood in the times of the Resolved, That this Convention recommend to the Declaration and the Constitution, that the existence of friends of Liberty in all those Free States where any in slavery in some of the States, was in derogation of the equality of rights and privileges exists on account of principles of American Liberty, and a deep stain upon color, to employ their utmost energies to remove all such the character of the country, and the implied faith of the remnants anid effects of the Slave system. States and the Nation was pledged, that slavery should Whereas, The Constitution of these United States is never be extended beyond its then existing limits, but a series of agreements, covenants, or contracts between should be gradually, and yet, at no distant day, wholly the people of the United States, each with all and all abolished by State authority. with each; and Resolved, That the faith of the States and the Nation Whereas, It is a principle of universal morality, that thus pledged, was most nobly redeemed by the voluntary the moral laws of the Creator are paramount to all Abolition of Slavery in several of the States, and by the human laws; or, in the language of an Apostle, that adoption of the Ordinance of 178T, for the government “we ought to obey God rather than men;” and, of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio, then the only Whereas, The principle of common law-that any Territory in the United States, and consequently the only contract, covenant, or agreement, to do an act deroga territory subject in this respect to the control of Congress tory to natural right, is vitiated and annulled by its in by which Ordinance Slavery was forever excluded from herent immorality-has been recognized by one of the the vast regions which now compose the States of Ohio, justices of the Supreme Court of thile United States, who Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and the Territory of WViscon-in a recent case expressly holds that “any contract sin, and an incapacity to bear up any other than freemen, that rests upon such a basis is void;” and was impressed on the soil itself. Whereas, The third clause of the second section of Resolved, That the faith of the States and Nation the fourth article of the Constitution of the United thus pledged, has been shamefully violated by the omis-States, when construed as providing for the surrender of sion on the part of many of the States, to take any a Fugitive Slave, does ” rest upon such a basis,” in that measures whatever for the Abolition of Slavery within it is a contract to rob a man of a natural right-namely, their respective limits; by the continuance of Slavery his natural right to his own liberty; and is, therefore, in the District of Columbia, and in the Territories of absolutely void. Therefore, Louisiana and Florida; by the Legislation of Congress; Resolved, That we hereby give it to be distinctly by the protection afforded by national legislation and understood by this nation and the world, that, as aboli negotiation to slaveholding in American vessels, on the tionists, considering that the strength of our cause lies high seas, employed in the coastwise Slave Traffic; and in its righteousness, and our hope for it in our conformity by the extension of slavery far beyond its original to the laws of God, and our respect for the RIGHTS OF limits, by acts of Congress, admitting new Slave States MAN, we owe it to the Sovereign Ruler of the universe, as into the Union. a proof of our allegiance to hlim, in all our civil relations Resolved, That the fundamental truthsoftheDeclara-and offices, whether as private citizens or as public tion of Independence, that all men are endowed by their functionaries sworn to support the Constitution of the Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are United States, to regard anid to treat the third clause of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, was made the the fourth article of that instrument, whenever applied fundamental law of our National Government, by that to the case of a fugitive slave, as utterly null and void, amendment of the Constitution which declares that no and consequently as forming no part of the Constitution person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, of the United States; whenever we are called upon oz without due process of law.

sworn to support it. Resolved, That we recognize as sound, the doctrine Resolved, That the power given to Congress by the maintained by slaveholding jurists, that slavery is Constitution, to provide for calling out the militia to against natural rights, and strictly local, and that its ex-suppress insurrection, does not make it the duty of the istence and continuance rests on no other support than Government to maintain Slavery by military force, much State Legislation, and not on any authority of Congress. less does it make it the duty of the citizens to form a R~esolved, That the General Government has, under part of such military force. When freemen unsheath the the Constitution, no power to establish or continue sword it should be to strike for Liberty, not for Despot Slavery anywhere, and therefore that all treaties and iam. acts of Congress establishing, continuing or favoring Resolved, That to preserve the peace of the citizens, and Slavery in the District of Columbia, in the Territory of secure the blessings of freedom, the Legislature of each ui’

Page 15 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFORMS. the Free States ought to keep in force suitable statutes rendering it penal for any of its inhabitants to transport, . or aid in transporting from such State, any person sought, to be thus transported, merely because subject to the slave laws of any other State; this remnant of independence being accorded to the Free States, by the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Prigg va. the State of Pennsyivania. proposition. This appeal was also laid on the table. After Gen. Taylor had been nominated, Mr. Charles Allen, of Massachusetts, offered the following: Resolved, That the Whig Party, through its representatives here, agrees to abide by the nomination of Gen. Zachary Taylor, on condition that he will accept the nomination as the candidate of the Whig Party, and adhere to its great fundamental principles-no extension of slave territory-no acquisition of foreign terrntory by conquest-protection to American industry, and opposition to Executive usurpation. The president immediately decided the resolution out of order, and no further notice was taken of it After the nomination for VicePresident had been made, Mr. McCullough, of NewJersey, offered the following: Resolved, That Gen. Zachary Taylor, of Louisiana, and Millard Fillmore, of NewYork, be, and they are hereby unanimously nominated as the Whig candidates for President and VicePresident of the United States.

Mr. D. R. Tilde’s, of Ohlio, proposed the following, expressilig the opinion that some such declaration by the Convention would be necessary, in order to secure the vote of Ohio for the nominee: .Resolved, That while all power is denied to Congress, under the Constitution, to control, or in any way interfere with the institution of Slavery within the several States of this Union, it nevertheless has the power and..J it is the duty of Congress to prohibit the introduction or existence of Slavery in any territory now possessed, or which may hereafter be acquired,by the United States. This resolution, like all others affirming Whigor Anti-Slavery principles, was ruled out of order, and laid on the table. A motion was_
made to divide Mr. McCullough’s resolve, so that the vote could be taken separately on President and on VicePresident, when, after discussion, the resolve was withdrawn. Mr. Hilliard, of Alabama, offered a resolve indorsing Gen. Taylor’s letter to Captain Allison, which, meeting opposition, was withdrawn; so the Convention adjourned without passing any resolves having reference to Whig principles, the issues before the country, or of concurrence in the nominations. WIHIG NATIONAL CONVENTION, 1848. A Whig National Convention met at Philadelphia, on the 7th of June, 1848, over which John M. Morehead, of North Carolina, presided. After a rather stormy session of three days, Gen. Zachary Taylor, of Louisiana, was nominated for President, and Millard Fillmore, of NewYork, for VicePresident. Gen. Taylor was nominated on the fourth ballot, as follows: BALLOTINGS. 1st. 2d. Taylor…………… 111 118

Clay……………. 9T 86 Scott……………..43 49

Webster…………. 22 22 Clayton………….. 4 4 McLean…………..

2 1 Total…….. 279 280 Mr. Fillmore was nominated dent on the second ballot, by vote: ]st. 2d. M. Fillmore……………………..115 T173t Abbott Lawrence…………………109 83

Scattering……………………… 50 4

Total……………………….. 274 260 Of the scattering vote cast on the first ballot, George Evans, of Maine, received 6; T. iM. T. McKennen, of Pa., 13; Andrew Stewart, of Pa., 14; and John Sergeant, of Pa., 6. T he C onventio n adopted no Platform of Principles. After it had been organized, and a resolu tion offered to go i nto a ballot for candidates for President and VicePresiden t, a Mr. Lewi s D. Campbell, of Ohio, moved to amend as follows: Re~solved, That no candidate shall be entitled to receive the nomination of this Convention for President or VicePresident, unless he has given assurances that he will abide by and support the nomination; that if nominated he will accept the nomination; that he will consider himself the candidate of the Whigs, and use all proper influence to bring into practical operation the principles and measures of the Whig Party. This resolution met with decided oppos ition, and the president ruled it out of order, from w hich dec ision M r. Cam pbell appealed, and in a speech contended that it was strictly in order to define what sort of candidate should be voted for, and to declare that none but sound Whigs should receive important nominations at the hands of a Whig National Convention. The appeal was tabled. Mr. Fuller, of New York, offered the followin,: Resolved, That as the first duty of the representatives of the Whig Party is to preserve the principles and integrity of the party, the claims of no candidate can be considered by this Convention unless such candidate stands pledged to support, in good faith, the nominees and to be the exponent of Whig Principles. The president ruled this resolution out of order, and Mr. Fuller appealed, insisting that no true Whig could reasonably object to his On the evening of the last day of the session (9th June), a ratification meeting was held at Philadelphia, at which Gov. Wm. F. Johnston, of Pa., presided, and at which speeches were delivered by Governor Morehead, Gen. Leslie Coombs, of Ky., and several others, and at which the following resolves, reported by W. S. Price, of Pennsylvania, were adopted: 1. Resolved, That the Whigs of the United States, here assembled by their Representatives, heartily ratify the nominations of Gen. Zachary Taylor as President, and Millard Fillmore as VicePresident of the United States, and pledge themselves to their support. 2. Resolved, That in the choice of Gen. Taylor as the Whig Candidate for President, we are glad to discover sympathy with a great popular sentiment throughout the nationa sentiment which, having its origin in admiration of great military success, has been strengthenedby the development, in every action and every word, of sound conservative opinions, and of true fidelity to the great example of former days, and to the principles of the Constitution as administered by its ounders. - 3.

Resolved, That Gen. Taylor, in saying that, had he voted in 1844, he would have voted the Whig ticket, I i in ‘3d. 4th. 133 171 74 8?I 54 63 1 T 13 1

- 2T9 2T9 for VicePresi.. BALLOTINGS. RATIFICATION MEETING AT PHILA DELPHIA.

Page 16 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. gives us the assurance-and no better is needed from a consistent and truth-speaking man  that his heart was with us at the crisis of our political dest,iny, when Henry Clay was our candidate and when not only Whig prin-I oiples were well defined and clearly asserted, but Whig I measures depended on success. The heart th at w as with us then is with us now, and we have a soldier’s word of honor, and a life of public and private virtue, as the security. 4. Resolved, That we look on Gen. Taylor’s administration of the Government as one conducive of Peace Prosperity and Union. Of Peace-because no one better knows, or has greater reason to deplore, what he has seen sadly on the field of victory, the horrors of war, and especially of a foreign and aggressive war. O f Prosperity-now more than ever needed to relieve the nation from a burden of debt, and restore industryagricultural, manufacturing and commercial -to its accustomed and peaceful functions and influences. Of Union-because we have a candidate whose very position as a Southwestern man, reared on the banks of the great stream whose tributaries, natural and artificial, embrace the whole Union, renders the protection of the interests of the whole country his first trust, and whose varied duties in past life have been rendered, not on the soil, o’

under the flag of any State or section, but over the wide frontier, and under the broad banner of the Nation. 5. Pesolved, That standing, as the Whig Party does, on the broad and firm platform of the Constitution, braced up by all its inviolable and sacred guarantees and compromises, and cherished in the affections because protective of the interests of the people, we are proud to have, as the exponent of our opinions, one who is pledged to construe it by the wise and generous rules which Washington applied to it, and who has said, (and no Whig desires any other assurance) that he will make Washington’s Administration the model of his own. 6.

Resolved, That as Whigs and Americans, we are proud to acknowledge our gratitude for the great m ilitary services which, beginning at Palo Alto, and ending at Buena Vista, first awakened the American people to a just estimate of him who is now our Whig Candidate. In the discharge of a painful duty-for his march into th e enemy’s countr y w as a reluctant one; in the command of regulars at one time, and volunteers at another, and of b oth combined; in the decisive though punctual disciplin e of h is camp, where all respec ted and beloved himi; in the negoti ation of terms f o r a dejected and desperate enemy; in the exigency of actual conflict, when the balance was perilously doubtful-we ha ve found him the same-brave, distinguished and considerate, no heartless spectator of bloodshed, no trifler with hutnan life or human happiness; and we de not know which to, admire most, his heroism in withstanding the assaults of the enemy in the most hopeless fields of Buena Vista-mourning in generous sorrow over the graves of Ringgold, of Clay, or of Halrdin-or in giving in the heat of battle terms of merciful capitulation to a vanquished foe at Monxterey, and not being ashamed to avow that he did it to spare women and children, helpless infancy, and more helpless age, against whom no American soldier ever wars. Such a military man, whose triumphs are neither remote nor doubtful, whose virtues these trials have tested, we are proud to make our Candidate. 7. lleeoolved, That iD. support of such a nomination we ask our Whig friends throughout the nation to unite, to cooperate zealously, resolutely, with earnestness in behalf of our Candidate, whom calumny cannot reach, and with respectful demeanor to our adversaries, whose Candidates have yet to prove their claims on the gratitude of the nation. This election resulted in the choice of the Wlhig Caiididates, as follows: Taylor and Fillmore-Vermont, 6; Massachusetts, 12; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 6; NewYork, 86; NewJersey, 7; Pennsylvania, 26; Delaware, 8; Maryland, 8; North Carolina, 11; Georgia, 10; Lousiana, 6; Tennessee, 13; Kentucky, 12; Florida, 3-163. Cuss and Butler-Maine, 9-New-Hampshire, 6-Virginia, 17-South Carolina, 9-Alabama, 9-Mississippi, 6; Ohlio, 28; Indiana, 12, Illinois, 9; Missouri, 7; Arkansas, 8; Michigan, 5; Texas, 4; Iowa, 4: Wisconsin, 4-127. I st.

2,. Ild. 4th Cass…………….. 125 133 156 179 Woodburty of Ni.

f…5W. 56 53 88 Buchanan……….i.. 55 54 40 83 Calhoun…….. J u….

9 - — Dallas…………… 8 8 Worth…………… 6 5 5 1 Butler of Ky……… - - 3 The first ballot for VicePresident resulted as follows: William O. Butler…… 114 William R. King……. 29 John A.

Quitman…… 74 James J. McKay…… 13 John Y. Mason…….. 24

Jefferson Davis…….. 1 No choice. Gen. Butler was un animously nominat ed o n t the third ballot. The Convention adopted the fo llowing platforl: 1. Resolved, That the American Democracy place thei;r t rus t in e ntinc t he intelligence, the p atriotism, and the d iscriminating justice of the American p eople. 2. Ilesolved, That we regard thi s a s a distinctive feature of our political creed, which we are proud to maintain before the world, as the great moral element in a for m of government springing from and upheld by the popular will: and we c ontrast it with the creed and practice of fed eralism, under whatever name or form, which seeks to palsy the will of the consti tuent, and which conceives no imposture too monstrous for the popular credulity. 3. oloesolved, Therefore, that, entertaining these views the Democratic party of this Union, th rough the d e lega tes assembled in gene ral con ventio n of the Statesd, coming together in a spirit o f concord, o f devotio n to the doct.ines and faith of a free rep rese ntative government a nd appealing to t he ir fellow-citizens f or the rectitude of their intentions, renew and reassert before the Ameri can people, the declaration of principles avowed by the m, on a former occasion, when in general convention, they presented their candidates for th e popular suftfrage. Then follow resolutions 1, 2, 3, 4, of P latforms of 1840 and‘44. The 5th resolution is that o f 1840 with an addition about providing for war debts, an d as amended, reads as f ollows: DReONoved, That it is the dut y of every branch of the government to enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting o ur publ ic affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised th an is required to defray the necess a ry exp enses of the governme nt, an d fo r the gradual but certain extinction of the debt created by the prosecution of a just and necessary war, after peaceful relations shall have been restored. The next (Aniti-Natioiial Bank and pro-SubTreasury) was amended by the addition of the following: And that the results of Democratic Legislation, in this and all other financial measures upon which issues have been made between the two political parties of the coun. try, have demonstrated to candid and practical men of all parties, their soundness, safety and utility in all business pursuits. Here follow resolutions 7, 8, 9, of the platformii of 1840, which we omit. R?esolved, That the proceeds of the Public Lands ought to be sacredly applied to the National objects specified in the Constitution; and that we are opposed to any law for the distribution of such proceeds among the States as alike inexpedient in policy and repugnant to the Constitution. Resolved, That we are decidedly opposed to taking from the President the qualified veto power, by which he is enabled, under restrictions and responsibilities amply sufficient to guard the public interests, to suspend the passage of a bill whose merits cannot secure the ap b II d (i t a B i II t 16 II t DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, 1848. The Democratic N,-ttion-,il Convention for 1848, assembled in Battinioi-e oil the 22d of’

Page 17 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFORMS. proval of twothirds of the Senate and House of Repre sentatives until the judgment of the people can be obtained thereon, and which has saved the American people from the corrupt and tyrannical domination of the bank of the United States, and from a corrupting system of general internal improvements. Resolved, that the war with Mexico, provoked on her pa:t, by years of insult and injury, was commenced by her a,my crossing the Rio Grande, attacking the Ameri can troops and invading our sister State of Texas, and that upon all the principles of patriotism and the Lvaws of Nations, it is a just and necessary war on our part in which every American citizen should have shown himiiself on the side of his Country, and neither morally nor physically, by word or by deed, have given “aid and comnfort to the enemy.” Re8olved, That we would be rejoiced at the assurance of a peace with Mexico, founded on the just principles of indemnity for the past and security for the future; but that while the ratification of the liberal treaty offered to Mexico remains in doubt, it is the duty of the country to sustain the administration and to sustain the country in every measure necessary to provide for the vigorous prosecution of the war, should that treaty be rejected. Resolved, That the officers and soldiers who have carried the arms of their country into Mexico, have crowned it with imperishable glory. Their unconquer able courage, their daring enterprise, their unfaltering perseverance and fortitude when assailed on all sides by .i,umerable foes and that more formidable enemy-the diseases of the climate-exalt their devoted patriotism into the highest heroism, and give them a right to the profound gratitude of their country, and the admiration of the world. Resolved, That the Democratic National Convention of 30 States composing the American Republic tender their fraternal congratulations to the National Conven t on of the Republic of France, now assembled as the free-suffrage Representatives of the Sovereignty of thirty five millions of Republicans to establish government on thiose eternal principles of equal rights for which their Lafayette and our Washington fought side by side in the struggle for our National Independence; and we would especially convey to them and to the whole peo pile of France, our earnest wishes for the consolidation of their liberties, through the wisdom that shall guide their councils, on the basis of a Democratic Constitution, not derived from the grants or concessions of kings or dynasties, but originating from the only true source of political power recognized in the States of this Union; the inherent and inalienable right of the people, in their sovereign capacity, to make and to amend their forms of government in such manner as the welfare of the community may require. Resolved, That the recent development of this grand political truth, of the sovereignty of the people and their capacity and power for self-government, which is prostrating thrones and erecting Republics on the ruins of despotism in the old world, we feel that a high and sacred duty is devolved, with increased responsibility, upon the Democratic party of this country, as the party of the people, to sustain and advance among us Constitutional Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, by continuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation for’the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, and by a vigilant and constant adherence to those principles and compromises of the Constitution which are broad enough and strong enough to embrace and uphold the Union as it was, the Union as it is, and the Union as it shall be in the full expansion of the energies and capacity of this g:eat and progressive people. Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded through the American Minister at Paris, to the National Convention of the Republic of France. Resolved, That the fruits of the great political triumph of 1844, which elected James K. Polk and George M. Dallas President and VicePresident of the United States, have fulfilled the hopes of the Democracy of the Union in defeating the declared purposes of their opponents in c.‘eating a National Bank, in preventing the corrupt and unconstitutional distribution of the Land Proceeds from the common treasury of the Union for local purposes, in protecting the Currency and Labor of the country from ruinous fluctuations; and guarding the money of the country for the use of the people by the establishment of the Constitutional treasury; in the noble impulse given to the cause of Free Trade by the repeal of the tariff of 42, and the creation of the more equal, honest, and productive tariff of 1846; and that, in our opinion, it would be a fatal error to weaken the bands of a politi r cal organization by which these great reforms have been achieved, and risk them in the hands of their nown adversaries, with whatever delusive appeals they may solicit our surrender of that vigilance which is the only safeguard of liberty. Resolve,d, That the co nfidence of the Democracy of the Union, in the principle s, capacit y, firamnes s a nd integrity of James H. Polk, man ifested by h is nomination and election in 1844, has been signally justified by the strictness of his adherence to sound Democratic doctrines, by the purity of purpose, the ene.‘gy and ability which have characterized his administration in all our affairs at home and abroad; that we tender to him our cordial congratulations upon the brilliant success which has hitherto crowned his patriotic efforts, and assure him in advance, that at the expiration of his Presidential term he will carry with him to his retirement, the esteem, respect, and admiration of a grateful country. e,8esolved, That this Convention hereby present to the people of the United States, Lewis Cass, of Michigan, as the candidate of the Democratic party for the office of President, and William 0. Butler of Ky, for VicePresident of the U. S. The following resolution was offered by Mr. Yanev, of Ala. Resolved, That the doctrine of noninterference with the rights of property of any portion of the people of this Confederacy, be it in the States or Territories thereof, by any other than the parties interested in them, is the true Republican doctrine recognized by this body. This resolution was rejected: Yeas, 86; nays, 216-the yeas being: Georgia, 9; South Carolina, 9; Alabamiia, 9; Arkansas, 3; Florida, 3; Maryland, 1; Kentucky, 1. THE BU FFALO PLATFORM.

Whereas, We have assembled in Convention, as a union of freemen, for the sake of freedom, W.etting all past jpljiil, Iiffe,nes in a coImmlonI reso-i”to ffiaihtain the rights of free labor against the aggressions of the Slave Power, and to secure free soil to a free people. Andt Whereas, The political Conventions recently assem.bled at Baltimore and Philadelphia, the one stifling the voice of a great constituency, entitled to be heard in its deliberations, and the other abandoning its distinctive principles for mere availability, have dissolved the National party organizations heretofore existing, by nominating for the Chief Magistracy of the United States, under tile slaveholding dictation, candidates, neither of whoi-can be supported by the opponents of Slavery Extension without a sacrifice of consistency, duty and selfrespect; And, whereas, These nominations so made, furnish the occasion ani demonstrate the necessity of the union of the people under the banner of Free Demo:racy, in a sol 17 FREE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, 1848. The Barnburners of New York, who were disgusted with the proceedings of the National Convention which had uominated Cass an d Butler for President and Viee-President, met in Convention at Utica, oli the 22d of June, 1848. Delegates were also present from Ohio, Wiscoiisin and Massachusetts. Col. Samuel Young presided over the deliberations of this Convention and Martin Van Buren was nominated for Pres,,,dent, with Henry Dod,e, of Wisconsin, for VicePresident. Gen. Dodge subsequently declined. On the 9th of August following, a Conventioii was held at Buffalo, which was attended by delegates from the States of Maine, NewHampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, NewYork, NewJersey, Pennsylvaiiia, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa, and the District of Columbia. Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, presided, and the Convention nominated Messrs. Va;n Buren and Adams as candidates for President and VicePresident, and adopted the followin  Resolves, since known as

Page 18 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. with foreign nations, or among the several States, are objects of national concern, and that it is the duty of Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to provide therefor. Resolved, That the free grant to actual settlers, in con sideration of the expenses they incur in making settle-4. ments in the wilderness, which are usually fully e qua l to their actual cost, and of the public benefits resulting therefrom, of reasonable portions of the public lands, under suitable limitations, is a wise and just measure of public policy, which will promote in various ways the interests of all the States of this Union; and we therefore recommend it to the favorable consideration of the American people. Resolved, That the obligations of honor and patriotism require the earliest practicable payment of the Dational debt, and we are therefore in favor of such a taoiff j. of duties as will raise revenue adequate to defray the necessary expenses of the Federal Government, and to pay annual instalaieits of our debt, and the interest thereon .Resolvecd, That we inscribe on our own banner, ” Free Soil, Free Speech, Free l,abor, and Fr,ee Alenl,” and under it we will fight on, and figh,yt ever, until a tr-ia.gant victory shall reward our exertions. v,R atoll formal declaration of their independence of the sli,,t power, and of their fixed determination to rescue the Fedleral Government from its control; Resol;ed, therefore, That we, the people here assem bled, resienberisig the example of our fathers, in the days of the first Decla,-atiofi of Independence, putting our trust i, God for the triumph of our cause, and invoking his . guidance il our endeavors to advance it, do now plant ou rselves upon the National platform of Freedom in oppo sili c a to tle sectional platform of Slavery. Resolved, iThat Slavery in the several States of this Union which recognize its existence, depends upon State laws alone, which cannot be repealed or modified by the Federal Government, and for which laws that govern rnent is not responsible. We therefore propose no inter ference by Congress with Slavery within the limits of any State. Resolved, That the Proviso of Jefferson, to prohibit the existence of Slavery after 1800, in all theTerritories of the United States, Southern and Northern; the votes of six States and sixteen delegates, in the Congress of 1784, for the Proviso, to three States and seven delegates against it; the actual exclusion of Slavery from the Northwest era Territory, by the Ordinance of 171T, unanimously adopted by the SLates in Congress; and the entire history of that period, clearly show that it was the settled policy of the Nation not to extend, nationalize or encourage, but to limit, localize and discourage Slavery; and to this pol icy, which should never have been departed from, the Government ought to return. Resolved, That our fathers ordained the Constitution of the Usited States, in order, among other great national objects, to establish justice, promote the general welfare, .and.secure the blessings of liberty; but expressly denie d to tihe Federal Government, which they created, all con.stitutional power to deprive any person of life, liberty, ,or property, without due legal process. Resozved, That in the judgment of this Convention, ,Congtess has no more power to make a Slave than to make X Kiig; no more power to institute or establish Slavery than to institute or establish a Monarchy: no such power can be foun d amongthose specifically conferred by the Conlstitutiont or derived by just implication from them. Re,o/v.a,d, That it is the duty of the Federal Govern ment to relieve itself from all responsibility for the exist ence or continuance of slavery wihei ever the government possesses co.stitutional authority to legislate on that subjet, and it is thus responsible for its existence. .Resolved, Tiiat the true, and in the judgment of this Cuosventioll, the only safe means of preventinig the ex tension of Slavery into Territory now Friee, is to prohibit its extension in all such Territory by an act of Congress.

tesobvefd, That we accept the issue which the Slave power ials forced upon us; and to their and nd fo r more blave States, and mlnore Slave Territory, our calm but final anwver is, no ore lave States and no more Slave Ter ritory. Let the so l of our extensive domains be kept frte for the hardy pioneers of our own l1t8d, and the op pressed and banished of other land1, seeking hom1es of comfort anti fields of enterprise in the new wvorld. Resolved, Ti’at tle bill lately reported by the committee of eght in the eate of the United States, was rno com prosutse, but an absolute surrender of the rights of the Noru-Saveiholde.‘s of,ali the States, and while we rejoice to know that, a measure which, while operning the door for the int r oduction of Slavery into Territories now free, would alIso have opened the door to litigation aald strife along tile futur-e inlhabitants thereof, to the ruin of their peace asid pr osper ity, was defeated in the House of Repre senti,atives, its passage, in hot, ha ste, by a majority, eumbrac ilg everal -enators wh o vo ted in open violationt of the knlowvnt will of their constituents, should warn the people to see to it, that their representatives be not suffered to betray.v Th ere lut be n o more Compro mises with Stavery;, if tade they miust be repealed. Resolved, Th,at we demand freedom and established is~lltutrious for our brethren in Orego%r, niow exposed to thar,lsiips, peril and massacre by the rei kless hostili ty of tle Slave Power to thle establishmeent of Free Governpment for Free Territormes; and not only for thems, but for our new vbretihren in California and NewMexico. Reaolveed, It is due not only to this occasion, but tothe ivitole people of the Usnited States, that we should also declare ourselves on certain other questions of National Policy: therefore, , Res.olved, Thlat we demand Cheap Postage for the Peo ple; a retretlttstent of the expenses and patronage of tie Federal Government; the abo li tion of all unneces sary offices andi salaries; and the election by the people of all civil officers in the service of the government, so far ois t il e sa re anay be practicable. lResotvecl,’tmt River andi Harbor improvements, when demandledi by tile safety and convenience of commerce WHIG NATIONAL

CONVENTION, 1852. This body assembled at Baltimore on the 16th of June, and chose Gen. John G. Chapman, of Md., a s presiding officer, and, after an exciting session of six days, nominated Gen. Winfield Scott as President, on the 53d ballot, as follows: 1. 131 183 29 28. 134 128 80 2.

133 131 29 29. 134 128 30 8. 130 1831 29 80. 134 128 29 4. 134 180 29 81.

134 128 20 5. 130 138 80 832. 184 128 80 6. 183 131 29 33. 134 128 29 T7.

1381 18 28 34. 134 126 2S 8. 133 131 28 35. 184 128 28 9. 183 133 29 86.

136 127 28 10. 135 130 29 87. 183 12S 28 11. 134 131 23 38. 136 127 29 12.

184 130 28 39. 184 128 80 18. 134 130 2S 40. 132 129 82 14. 138 130 29 41.

132 129 82 15. 133 130 29 42. 134 128 80 16. 185 129 28 48. 184 128 80 17.

132 181 29 44. 133 129 80 18. 182 181 28 45. 138 127 82 19. 132 131 29 46.

134 127 81 20. 182 131 29 47. 185 129 29 21. 133 181 28 48. 187 124 80 22.

182 130 80 49. 139 122 80 28. 132 180 30 50. 142 122 28 24. 133 129 80 51.

142 1.20 29 25. 133 128 8 1 52. 146 119 27 26. 134 128 80 53. 159 1.12 21

2T. 134 128 80 Necessary to choose-147. William A. Graham, of North Carolina, was nominated for VicePresident on the second ballot. The Convention adopted the following PLATFORM; The Whigs of the United States, in Convention assembled, adhering to the great conservative principles by which they are controled and gove:‘ned, and now as eve~ relying upon the intelligence of the American people, with an abiding confidence in their capacity for self-government, and their devotion to the Constitution and the Union, do proclaim the following as the political sentiments and determination for the establishment an,d miaintenanlce of which their national organization as a party was effected. .First. The government of the United States is of a limited character, and it is confined to the exercise of powers expressly granted by the Constitution, and such as may be necessary and propei for carrying the granted powers into full execution, and that powers not granted or necessarily implied are reserved to the States respectively and to the p eop l e. Second. The State Governments r,hould be held secure I I I I 18

Page 19 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFORMS. to their reserved rights, and the General Government sustained on its constitutional powers, and that the linion should be revered and watched over as the palladium of our liberties. T/ierd. That while struggling freedom everywhere enlists the warmest sympathy of the Whig party, we still a,ihere to the doctrines of the Father of his Country, as announced in his Farewell Address, of keeping ourselves f,‘ee fi om all entangling alliances with foreign countries, and of never quitting our own to stand upon foreign g,-ound; that our mission as a republic is not to propagate our opinions, or impose on ether countries our forms of government, by artifice or force; but to teach by example, and show by our success, moderation and justice, the blessings of self-government, and the advantage of free-institutions.

f)‘irt/. That, as the people make and control the Government, they should obey its constitution, laws and treaties as they would retain their selfrespect, and the respect which they claim and will enforce from foreign powers. FAd/,d. Government should be conducted on principles of the strictest economy; and revenue sufficient for the expenses thereof, in time, ought to be derived mainly fi’om a duty on imports, and not from direct taxes; and on laying such duties sound policy requires a just discrimination, and, when practicable, by specific duties, whereby suitable encouragement may be afforded to Americ an industry, equally to all classes and to all portions of the country; an economical administration of the Government, in time of peace, ought to be derived from duties on imports, and not from direct taxation; and in laying such d!tties, sound policy requires a just discrimination, whereby suitable encouragement may be afforded to American industry, equally to all classes, and to all parts of the country. Sixt,’/. The Constitution vests in Congress the power to open and repair harbors, and remove obstructions from navigable rivers, whenever such improvements are necessary for the com.mon defense, and for the protect.ion and facility of commerce with foreign nations, or among the States-said improvements being in every instance national and general in their character. Sevewtt. lThe Federal and State Governments are parts of one system, alike necessary for the common prosperity, peace and security, and ought to be regarded alike with a cordial, habitual and immovable attachment. Respect for the authority of each, and acquiescence in the just constitutional measures of each, are duties requ’iired by the plainest considerations of National, Statte’an individual welfare. Eightlh. That the series of acts of the 32d Congress, the Act known as the Fugitive Slave law included, are received and acquiesced in by the WAhig party of the United States as a settlement in principle and substanct of the dangerous and exciting questions which they embrace; and, so -far as they are concerned, we will main,itain them, and insist upon their strict enforcement, until time and experience shall demonstrate the necesity of further legislation to guard against the evasion of the laws on the one hand and the abuse of their powers oni the other-not irnpair:ng,, their present efficiency; and we deprecate all further agitation of the question thus settled, as dange:ous to our peace, and will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation, whenever, wherever, or however the attempt may be made; and we will maintain this system as essential to the nationality of the Wh;g party, and the integrity of the Union. NAYs-Maine, 4; Connecticut, 1; NewYork, 22; Pennsylvania, 6; Ohio, 15; Wisconsin, 1; Indiana, 6; Illinois, 5; Michigan, 6; California, 4-70. WASHINGTON, Junfje <4th, 1852. SIR: I have had the honor to receive from your hliands the official notice of my unanimous nomination as the Whig candidate for the office of President of the United States, together with a copy of the resolutions passed by the Convention, expressing their opinions upon some of the most prominent questions of national policy. This great distinction, conferred by a numerous, intelli gent and patriotic body, representing millions of my countrymen, sinks deep into my heart; and remembering the very eminent names which were before the Convwn tion in amicable competition with my own, I am maide to feel, oppressively, the weight of responsibility belonging to my new position. Not having written a word to pro cure this distinction, I lost not a moment after it hadl been conferred in addressing a letter to one of your mem bers, to signify what would be, at the proper time, the substance of my reply to the Convention: and I now have the honor to repeat in a more formal manner, as the occa sion justly demands, that I accept the nomination with the resolut ions annexed. The political principles andi meas ures laid down in those resolutions are so broad that but little is left for me to add. I therefore barely suggest in this place that should I, by the partiality of tmy countrymen, be elevated to the Chief Magistracy of the Union, I shall be ready, in my connection with Congress, to re comnmend or approve of measures in regard to the nman agement of the p ublic domain, so as to secure an early settlement of the same, favorable to actual settlers, but c onsistent, nevertheless, with a due regard to the equal rights of the whole American people in that vast national inheritance and also to recommend or approve of a single alteration in our naturalization laws, suggested by my military experience, viz: Giving to all foreigners the r ight of citizenship, who shall faithfully serve, in time of war, one year on board of our public ships, or in our land forces, regular or volunteer, on their receicing an honorable discharge from the service. In regard to the general policy of the administration, if elected, I should, of course, look among those who may approve that policy for the agents to carry it into execution; and I should seek to cultivate harmony and fraternal sentiments thr oughout the Whig party, without attempting to reduce its members, by proscription, to exact uniformity to y own views. But I should at the same time be rigorous in regard to oualifications for office, retaining and appointing no one rither deficient in capacity or integrity, or in devotion to i erty, to the Constitution and the Union. Convinced hat hairmony or good will between the different quarters of our broad country is essential to the present and the f uture interests of the Republic, and with a devotion to those interests that can know no South and no North, I should neither countenance nor tolerate any sedition, disorder, faction or resistance to the law or the Union on any pretext, in any part of the land, and I should carry into the civil administration this one principle of imilitary conduct-obedience to the legislative and judicial departments of government, each in its constitutional sphere, saving only in respect to the Legislature, the pos sible resort to the veto power, always to be most cautiously exercised, and under the strictest restraints and necessities.

Fitnally, for my strict adherence to the principles of the Whig party, as expressed in the resolutions pf the Convention, and herein suggested, with a sincere and earnest purpose to advance the greatness and happiness of the Republic, and thus to cherish and encourage the cause of constitutional liberty throughout the world, avoiding every act and thought that might involve our country in an unjust or unnecessary war, or impair the faitht of treaties, and discountenancing all political agitations injurious to the interests of society and dangerous to the Union, I can offer no other pledge or guarantee than the known incidents of a long public life, now undergoing the severest examination Feeling myself highly fortunate in my associate on the ticket, and with a lively sense of my obligations to the Convention, and to your personal courtesies, I have the honor to remain, sir. with great esteem, your most obed ient servant, WINFIELD 15COTT. To HON.e J. (O. C:lA~.zAx Presiderig of the B7id 2ga. tio~aa Corfvfoenio YF.xs faine, 4; NewHampsh-,re, 5; Vermont, 5; Mlassachusetts, 3; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 4; New-Yolk, 11; NewJersey,7; Pennsylvania,, 21; Delaware, 3; Maryland, 8; Virginia, 14; North Carolina, 19; South Carolina, 8; Georgia, 10; Alabama, 9; Mississ-ppi, 7; Louisiana, 6; Ohio, 8; Kentucky, 12; Tennessee, 12; Indiana, 7; Illinois, 6; Missouri, 9; Arkansas, 4; Florida, 3; Iowa, 4; Wisconsin, 4 Texas, 4 212. 19 GEN. SCOTT’S ACCFPTANCF,. Gen. Scott accepted the nomination and Plat. form in the followin,, letter. The above propositions were unanimously adopted with the exception of the last, which was carried by a vote of 212 to 70: the delegates who voted a-ainst it being supporters of Scott as against Fillmore and Webster, in the balloting above given. The vote by States, on this (Compromise) resolution, was as follows:

Page 20 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and that above the laws and the will of the people; and that the results of Democratic legislation, in this and all other financial measures, upon which issues have been made between the two political parties of the country have demonstrated to candid and practical men of all, parties, their soundness, safety, and utility, in all business pursuits. Resolved, That the separation of the moneys of the Government from Banking Institutions, is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the Government, and the rights of the people. Rersolved, That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned in the Constitution, which makes ours the land of liberty, and the asylum 6f the oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the Democratic faith; and every attempt to abridge the privilege of becoming citizens and the owners of soil among us, ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute b ook. Resoled, That Congress has no power under the Constitution to interfere with, or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertainiig to their own affairs, and prohibited by the Constitutionthat all efforts of the Abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of Slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, an endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, an ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our poli cal institutions. 68esolved, That the foregoing proposition covers, and is intended to embrace, the whole subject of Slavery agitation in Congress; and therefore, the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this National Platform, will abide by, and adhere to, a faithful execution of the acts known as the Compromise measures settled by the last Congress -the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor included; which act, being designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot with fidelity thereto be repealed, nor so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency. Resolved, That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing in Congress, or out of it, the agitation of the Slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made. DE.OCR&TIC CONVENTIONN-1852. This C(,:.-vention assembled at Baltimore on tiie 1st of June, John W. Davis, of Indiana, presided, and the twothirds rule was adopted. Gen. Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, was nominated for President on the 49th ballot, as follows: 8 13 3 13 3 13F; 3 18 3 13 3 13 8 18 8 13 3-18 3-18 - 13 - 14 18 _ 18 -

13 13 18 18 13 13  13 - 13 - 18 - 18 - 13 13 -18 — 18 - 13 13 - 13 -13

[Here follow the Resolutions of 1848, against the distribution of the proceeds of the Public Land Sales, and against the abridgment of the veto power of the President.] Resolved, That the Democratic party will faithfully abide by and uphold the principles laid down in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1792 and 1798, and in the report of Mr.

Madison to the Virginia Legislature in 1799; that it adopts those principles as constituting one of the main foundations of its political creed, and is resolved to carry them out in their obvious meaning and import. Resolved, That the war with Mexico, upon all the principles of patriotism and the law of nations, was a just and necessary war on our part, in which no Ameri.can citizen should have shown himself opposed to his country, and neither morally nor physically, by word or deed, given aid and comfort to the enemy. .Resolved, That we rejoice at the restoration of friendly relations with our sister Republic of Mexico, and earnest ly desire for her all the blessings and prosperity whici we enjoy under Republican Institutions, and we congratulate the American people on the results of that *ar which have so manifestly justified the policy and conduct of the Democratic party, and insured to the United States indemnity for the past, and security for the future. Resolved, That, in view of the condition of popular institutions in thle old world, a high and sacred duty is devolved with increased responsibility upon the Democracy of this country, as the party of the people, to uphold and maintain the rights of every State, and thereby the Union of States, and to sustain and advance among them constitutional liberty, by continuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation lor the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, and by a vigilant and constant adherence to those principles and compromises of the CONSTITUTION, which are broad enough and strong enough to embrace and uphold the Union as it is, and the Union as it should be, in the full expansion of the energies and capacity of this great and progressive people. The first vote for VicePresident was as followss: Wm. R. King, of Ala… 126 Wm. O. Butler, of Ky… 27 G.

J. Pillow, of Te,n…. 25 Robt. Strange, ofN. C… 23 D. R. Atchison, of Mo.. 25 S. U. Downs, of La…. 80 T. J. Rusk, of Texas,.. 12 J. B. Weller, of Cal…. 28 Jeff. Davis, of Miss….. 2 Howell Cobb, of Ga…. 2 Win. R.

Ki ng, of Alabama, was unanimously nominated on the second ballot. THE

PLATFORM. The Platform was made up of resolves. Here follow 1, 2, and 3, of that of 1848, with 1, 2, 3, and 4 of that of 1840, (see them heretofore), to which Were added the following: ResoIveed, That it is the duty of every branch of the Government to enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and that no niore revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the Government, and for the gradual but certain extinction of the public debt. Resolved, That Congress has no power to charter a National Bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties 20 9 5 1 4 93 95 94 89 88 8i S8 88 ST 86 87 88 88 ST ST 87 87 85

85 92 I,)2 104 103 103 101 101 98 96 93 91 79 74 72 49 89 28 28 28 23 2T

2T 2T 2T 27 27 28 28 28 li I A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 4 20 23 21 31 34

34 .i4 34 39 40 bf) 51 I.)l 51 51 50 63 64 64 77 78 so 81 80 85 88 91 92

92 so 60 53 52 4.3 37 83 33 33 33 33 33 33 82 32 33 83 2 li 2 1 8 6 7 7 8

8 9 9 8 8 8 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 10 10 9 9 11 9 9 10 9 11 12 12 10 8 6 5 5

5 5 5 5 5 5 .5 5 5 5 5 5 6 ;A I P-1 27 2T 26 25 26 26 26 26 2T 2T 2T 2T 26

26 26 26 26 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 25 23 44 To 84 85

85 85 91 91 91 97 9T 95 90 -e LI .2 P. 16 30 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 44

49 .55 282 B.Il.t 1. 2. S. 4. 5. 6. T. S. 9. 10. ii. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17. is. 19. 20. 21. 22. 2.3. 24. 25 26. 27. 2S. 29. 30. .81. 82. 83. 84.

3.5, 86. 37. 88. 89. 4i). 4t. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 4S. 49. 116 118 119

115 114 114 113 113 112 ill 101 98 98 99 99 99 99 96 89 81 60 53 3T 8.63

34 33 ‘32 2-.3 2T 83 64 98 123 130 131 122 12f) 10T 106 lij6 10T 101 lot 101 96 78 75 73 2 I ‘a I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 15 19 23

24 24 24 25 25 20 16 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ZI.

Page 21 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFORMS. 10. That no permanent settlement of the Slavery question can be looked for except in the practical re cognition of the truth that Slavery is sectional and Free dom national; by the total separation of the General Government from Flavery, and the exercise of its legiti mate and constitutional influence on the side of Free dom; and by leaving to the States the whole subject of Slavery and the extradition of fugitives from service. 11. That all men have a natural right to a portion of the soil; and that as the use of the soil is indispensable to life, the right of all men to the soil is as sacred as their right to life itself. 12. That the Public Lands of the United States belong to the People, and should not be sold to individuals nor granted to corporations, but should be held as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people, and should be granted in limited quantities, free of cost, to landless settlers. 1l. That a due regard for the Federal Constitution, a sound administrative policy, demand that the funds of the General Government be kept separate from Bank ing institutions; that inland and ocean postage should be reduced to the lowest possible point; that no more revenue should be raised than is required to defray the strictly necessary expenses of the public service, and to pay off the public Debt; and that the power,nd patronage of the Government should be diminished, by the abolition of all unnecessary offices, salaries, and privileges, and by the election, by the people, of all civil officers in the service of the United States, so far as may be consistent with the prompt and efficient transaction of the public busi ness. 14. That River and Harbor Improvements, when neces sary to the safety and convenience of commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States, are objects of national concern; and it is the duty of Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to provide for the same. 15. That emigrants and exiles from the old world should find a cordial welcome to homes of comfort and fields of enterprise in the new; and every attempt tc abridge their privilege of becoming citizens and owners of the soil among us, ought to be resisted with inflexible determination.’ 16. That every nation has a clear right to alter or change its own government, and to administer its own concerns in such manner as may best secure the rights and promote the happiness of the people; and foreign interference with that right is a dangerous violation of the law of nations, against which all independent governments should protest, and endeavor by all proper means to prevent; and especially is it the duty of the American Government, representing the Chief Republic of the world, to protest against, and by all proper means to prevent the intervent ion of kings and emperors against Nations seeking to establish for themselves Republicans or constitutional governments. 17.

That the Independence of Hayti ought to be recognized by our Government, and our commercial relations with it placed on the footing of the most favored nations. 18. That as by the Constitution, “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States,” the practice of imprisoning colored seamen of other States, while the vessels to which they belong lie in port, and refusing the exercise of the right to bring such cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, to test the legality of such proceedings, is a flagrant violation of the Constitution, and an invasion of the rights of the citizens of other States utterly inconsistent with the professions made by the slaveholders, that they wish the provisions of the Constitution faithfully observed by every State in the Union. 19. That we recommend the introduction into all treaties hereafter to be negotiated between the United States and foreign nations, of some provision for the amicable settlement of difficulties by a resort to decisive arbitrations.

20. That the Free Democratic Party is not organized to aid either the Whig or Democratic wing of the great Slave Compromise party of the nation, but to defeat them both; and that repudiating and renouncing both, as hopelessly co l’rupt, and utterl y unworthy of confidence, the purpose of tihe Free Democracy is to take possession of the Federal Government, and administer it for the better protection of th~e rights and interests of the whole people. 21. That wve inscribe on our banner, Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labo,’ and Free,Men, and under it will fight on and figh~t ever until a triumphant victory shall reward our exer’tions. 22. That upon~ this Platform the Convention presents to the Americanl peop~‘eas8

Ca~~ndidate for the office of FREE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION-1852. TIle Free-Soil Democracy held a National Convention at Pittsl)urgh, on the 11th August, 1852, Henry Wilson, of Mass., presiding. All the Free States were represented, together with Delaware, Virginia, Kentucky and Maryland. John P. Hliale, of N. IH., was nominated for President, with Geo. W. Julian, of Indiana, for VicePresident. The Convention adopted the following: PLATFORM: Having assembled in National Convention as the De mocracy of the United States, united by a common resolve to main tain right agains t wrong, and Freedom against S lavery: c o nfiding in the intelligence, patriot ism, and discriminating justice of the American peo ple, putting our trust in God for the triumph of our cause, and invoking his guidance in our endeavors to advan ce it, we now submit to the candid judgment of all men the following declaration of principles and measures: 1. That governments, deriving their just powers from the consent of the gove rned, areo instituted among men to secure to all those ia enalenable rights of life, liberty, and the p ursu it of happ iness with which they are endowed by their Creator, and of which none can be depriv ed by valid legis lation, except for crime. 2. That the true mission of American Democracy is to maintain the Liberties ofte ope the People, the Sovereignty of the States, and the perpetuity of the Union, by the im p aro alictioal apu plicafr thos ction to public affairs, without sectional discriminations of the fundamental principles of hu man rights, stric t jus tic e and an e conom ic al administra tion. 3. That the Feder a l Government is one of linbited powers, der ived s olely from the Constttitution, and the grants of pow er therein ought to be strictly construed by all the d epar t ments and agent s of the Government, and it is i nexped ient and dan ger ous to exer cise d oubtful con stitutional powe’s. 4. Tha t the Constitution of the Unit ed State s ordained to form a more perfect Union, to establish Justice and lsecure the blessings of Liberty, expressly denies to the tGeneral Government all power to deprive any person of life, liberty or pr operty witho ut d ue p rocess of law; and, the refor e, th e G over nm ent having no more power to Inake a silav e th an to make a king, and no more pow er imp establish Slavery than to establish a Monarchy, should at once proceed to relieve itself from all responsibility f or the exi stence of Slavery, wherever it possesses con stitutional power to legislate for its extinction. 5. That, to the persevering and importunate demands of the Slave power for more Slave States, new Slave Territories and the nationalization of Slavery, our dis tinct and final answer is-no more Slave States, no Slave Territory, no nationalized Slavery, and no national Legislation for the extradition of Slaves. 6. ]‘Y[lst Slave,y is a sill against God. and a crime against man, whicli n6 human enacmnor usage can make right; and that Christianity, humanity, and patriotism alike demand its abolition. 7. That the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, is repugnant to the Constitution, to the principles of the common law, to the spirit of Christianity, and to the sentiments of the civilized world. We therefore deny its binding force upon the American people, and demand its immediate and total repeal. 8. That the doctrine that any human law is a finality, and not subject to modification or repeal, is not in accordance with the creed of the founders of our Government. and is dangerous to the liberties of the people. 9. rhat the Acts of Congress, known as the Compromise Measures of 1850, by making the admission of a sovereign State contingent upon the adoption of other measures demanded by the special interest of Slavery; by their omission to gua antee freedom in the free Territories; by their attempt to impose unconstitutional limitations on the power of Congress and the people-to admit new States; by their provisions for the assumption of five millions of the State debt of Texas, and for the payment of five millions more, and the cession of a large territory to the same State under menace, as an i,,ducement to the relinquishment of a groundless claim, and by their invasion of the sovereignty of the States and the liberties of the people through the enactment of an unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Law, are proved to be inconsistent with all the principles and maxiams of Democracy, and wholly inadequate to the settlement of the questions of which they are claimed to be an adjustment. 21

Page 22 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. President of the United States, JOHN P.

HALE,, of New-Hampshlie, and as a candidate for the office of Vice-I President of the United States, GEORGE W. JULIAN, of Indiana, and earnestly commend them to the support of all Freemen and all parties. Tile result of this contest was an overwhelmiug trititttph of the regular Democracy: Pierce and King carrying every State except Massachusetts, Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, which cast their votes for Gen. Scott.

The Free Den i hocratic vote in several States would have given those States to Scott, had it been cast for hine. person should be dexrived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it f or t he purpose of establishing Slavery in any territory of the United States, by positive legislation prohibiting its existence or extension the:rein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, of any individual or association of individuals, to give le ga l existence to Slavery in any territory of the United S
tates, while the present Constitution shall be maintained. plesol ved, Tha t th e C onstitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the territories of the United States for their government, and that in the exeicise of this p ower i t is both the right and the duty of Con gress to prohibit in the territoriestos t hose twin re lics of bar bari sm -Pol yg amy and Slavery. Resolved, That while the Constituti on of the Unitetd States wa s o rdain ed and e stabl ish ed by the people in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, and secure the blessings of liberty, and contains ample provisions for the protection of the life, liberty and property of every citizen, the dearest constitutional rights of the people of K ans a s have been fraudulently and violently taken fr om themthe ir t erritory has been invaded by an armed force-spur-ious and pretended legislative, judicial an d execut ive officers have been se t over them, by whos e usurped aut hority, sustained by the military power of the Gover nment, tyra nnical and unconstititutional laws have been enacted and enforcedthe rights of the people to kee p and be ar arms h ave been infringed-t est oaths of an extrao r dinar y and e ntangling nature have been imposed, as a cond ition of exercising the right of suffrage and holding office-the right of an accused per son to a speedy and pubthc trial by a n im partial jury has been den ied-the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects again st unreasonable sear ches and seizures ha s be en vi olat ed-they have be en depri ved of life libeenty and property without due process of law-tha t the freedom of speech and of the press has been abri d ge d-the rig ht to choose their represent atives has been made of no effect-murders, robberie s an d arsons have been instigat ed and encouraged, and the offenders have been allowed to go unpunishe d -tha t all thes e things have been done with the knowled ge, san ction and procurement of the present Administratio n, and that for this high crime against the C on sti tution, the Union and Hu - manity, we arraign the Administration, the President, his advis ersn 9orte, agents, supporters, apologist s and accessories, either before or a f ter the fact s, before th e countr y a nd befo re the world, and that it is our fixed purpose to bring the actual perpetrators of these atrocious outrages, nte anm les t a re nd their accomplices, to a sure and condign punishmesnt hereafter. .Resolved, That Kansas should be immediately admitted as a State of the Union, with her present free Constitution, as at once the most effectu al w ay of sec urin g to her citizens th e enjoyment of the rights a nd privileges to which they are entitled; and of ending the civil strife now raging in her territory.

Resolved, That the highwayman’s pl ea, that “might makes light,” embodied in the Osten d Circular, was i n every respect unworthy of American diplomacy, and would bring shame and dishonor upon any government or people that gave it their sanction. .Resolved, That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean, by the most central and practicable route, is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country, and t ha t the Federal Govelnment ought to render imme diat e and efficient aid in its construction; and, as an auxiliary thereto, the immediate construction of an emigrant route on the line of the railroad. PResolxved, That appropriations by Congress for the improvement of rivers and harbors, of a national character, required for the accommodation and security of our existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligation of government to protect the lives and property of its citizens. This contest resulted in the election of the Demlocraltic nominlees, Buchanan and Breckiridge, who received the electoral votes of NewJersey, 7; Pennsylvania, 27; Delaware, 8- irglnia, 15; North Carolina, 10; South Carolina, 8; Georgia, 10; Alabama, 9-Mississippi, 7; Louisiana, 6Tennessee, 12; Kentuckry, 12* Indiana, 13* Illinois, 11; Mlissouri, 9; Arkansas, 4; Florida, 3; Texas, 4; Callfor- nia, 4. 174.

For Fremont and Dayton: Maine, 8; New-tt;ampshire, 5, eamont, 5; Massachulsetts, i8; Rhode Islankd, 4, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION

1856. Col. John C. Fremont was thereupon unanimously nominated. William L.

Dayton was nominated for VicePresident, receiving, on the informal ballot, 259 votes to 43 for David Wilmot; 11() for Abraham Lincoln; 7 for Thomas Ford; 35 for Charles Sumner; 4 for Cassius M. Clay; 15 for Jacob Collamer; 2 for J. R. Giddings; 2 for W. F. Johnston; 46 for N. P. Banks; 1 for A.

C. M. Pennington; 5 for Henry Wilson; 9 for John A. King; 3 for Henry C.

Carey; and 8 for Gen. S. C. Pomeroy of Kansas. A formal ballot was then taken, when Mr. Dayton was nominated unanimously. The Convention adopted the following This Convention of Delegates, assembled in pursuance of a call addressed to the people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions, who are opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, to the policy of the present Administration, to the extension of Slavery into Free Territory; in favor of admitting Kansas as a Free State, of restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson, and who purpose to unite in presenting candidates for the offices, of President and VicePresident, do resolve as follows: Resolved, That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution is essential t o the preservation of our Republican Institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the Union of-the States, shall be preserved. Resolved, That with our republican fathers we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior designs of our Federal Government were, to secure these rights to all persons within its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our republican fathers, when they had abolished ,lavery in all our national territory, ordained that no I i I ‘i2 This Convention met at Philadelphia on the 17th of June, and chose Col. Henry S. Lane, of Indiana, as Presiding officer. An informal ballot for President resulted as follows: St.tes. Indiapa……… 18

Illinois………. 14 Michigan…….. IS Wisconsin…….. 15

Iowa………… 12 Minnesota……. - Kansas………. 9 Nebraska……..

- Kentucky……. 5 California……. 12 359 Maine……….. 13 11

New-Hampsbire.. 15 - Vermont…….. 15 - ‘Nlassachusetts…. 39 - Rhode Island… 12 - Connecticut….. IS - NewYork…….. 93 3

New-Je.-sey…… T 14 ,Pennsylvania…. 10 Tl Delawa.-e…….. - 9

Maryland……. 4 8 Ohio…………. 30 39 NewYork also gave ,ind one for Seward. St.tes. Indiana……… 18 21 Illinois………. 14 19

Michigan…….. IS - Wisconsin…….. 15 Iowa………… 12

Minnesota……. - Kansas………. 9 Nebraska…….. - 3 Kentucky…….

5 - California……. 12 - 359 196 two votes for Sumner PLATFORM:

Page 23 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFORMS. Connecticut, 6; NewYork, 85; Ohio, 23; Michigan, 6; Iowa, 4; Wisconsin, 5 -114. Fillmore and Donelson, Maryland, 8. viency to the stronger, and an insolent and cowardly bravado toward the weaker powers; as shown in re opening sectional agitation, by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; as shown in granting to unnaturalized for eigners the right of suffrage in Kansas and Nebraska; as shown in its vacillating course on the Kansas and Ne braska question; as shown in the corruptions which per vade some of the Departments of the Government; as shown in disgracing meritorious naval officers through prejudice or caprice: and as shown in the blundering mismanagement of our foreign relations. 14. Therefore, to remedy existing evils, and prevent the disastrous consequences otherwise resulting there from, we would build up the ” American Party ” upon the principles herein before stated. 15.

That each State Council shall have authority to amend their several constitutions, so as to abolish the several degrees and substitute a pledge of honor, instead of other obligations, for fellowship and admission into the party. 16. A free and open discussion of all political prince’ ples embraced in our Platform. On the following day (Feb. 22,) the America: National Nominating Convention, composer most ly of t he same gentlemen who had deliber ated as the National Council, organized at Phila del phia, with 227 delegates in attendance, Mairle, Vermont, Georgia, and South Carolina, being the only States not represented. Ephraim Marsh, of NewJersey, was chosen to preside, and the Convention remained in session till the 25th, and, after disposing of several cases of contested seats, discussed at considerable lengtb, and with great warmth, the question of the power of the National Council to establish a Pla t fo rm for the Conventi on, which should be of binding f or ce upon t hat body. Finallv, Mr. Killinger, of Pennsylvania, proposed tth e fol lowirl$: Re s olved, That the Nation al Co uncil has no authority to prescribe a Platforas of.principles for this Nomin at in g Convention, atoafylit we will nominate for President an d VicePresident no ma n wh o is not in favor of inter dicting the introduction of Slavery into Territory north 86’ 30’ by congressional action. A motion to la y this re so lution on the table was a do pte d, 141 to 59. A motion ass th en made to proceed to the nomination of a candidate for President, which was carried, 151 to 51, the Anti-Slavery delegates, or North Americans, as they were called, voting in the negative, and desiting-, to postpone the nomination. But being beaten at all points, they (to the number of about 50) either withdrew or refused to take any further part in the proceedings of the Convention, and many of them’ subsequently supported Col. Fremont for President. An informal ballot was then taken for President, which resulted as follows: M.

Fillmore, of N. Y….. 71 John Bell, Tennessee… 5 George Law, N.

Y……. 2T Kenneth Itayhor, N. C.. 2 Garrett Davis, Ky…….1. Erastus Brooks, N. Y…. 2 John McLean, Ohio..7 Lewis D. Campbell, Ohio. I R. F.

Stockton, N. J….* 8 John M. Clayton, Del…. 1 Sam. Houston, Texas… 6

A formal ballot was then taken, when Mr. Fillmore was nominated as follows: Fillmore, 179; Law, 24; Raynor, 14; McLean, 18; Davis, 10; Houston, 3. Necessary to a choice, 122. Millard Fillmore was then declared to be the nominee. A ballot wvas then taken for ~icePresident, and Andrew Jacekson Donoelsonl, of Tennessee, was nomninalted as follows: Ai. J.

Donolson, Ten., 181; Percy Walker, Ala.,t 8 Henry J. Gardner, Mass., 8; Kenneth Raynor, N. C:., $~ Mr. Donelsonl was then denclared1 to he unlani_

Tile Amnerican National Council met in Phila d-lplsia February 19, 1856.

All the States ex cept four or five were represented. E. B. Bartlett, of Ky., President of the National Coun cil presided, and, after a rather stormy session of three days, devoted mainly to the discussion of -t Party Platform, the following, on the 21st, was adopted: AMERICAN PLATFORM. 1.

An humnble acknowledgment to the Supreme Being, for his protecting care vouchsafed to our fathers in their successful Revolutionary struggle, and hitherto mani fested to us, their descendants, in the preservation of the liberties, the independence, and the un ion of these States. 2. The perpetuation of the Federal Union and Consti tution, as the palladium of our civil and religious liber ties, and the only sure bulwarks of American Indepen dence. 3. Americans nu?sut rule America; and to this end native-bo rn citizens should be selected for all State, Federal and municipal offices of government employ ment, in preference to all others.

Yevertlteless, 4. Persons born of American parents residing tempo rarily abroad, should be entitled to all the rights of native-bo n citizens. 5.

No person should be selected for political station (whether of native or foreign birth), who recognizes any allegiance or obligation of any description to any foreign prince, potentate or powe;’, or who refuses to recognize the Federal and State Constitutions (each within its sphere) as paramount to all other laws, as rules of polit ical action. 6. The unqualified recognition and maintenance of the rese rved rights of the several States, and the cultivation of harmony and fraternal good will between the citizens of tle several States, and to this end, noninterference ify Congress with questions appertaining solely to the individual States and nonintervention by each State with the affairs of any other State. T. The recognition of the right of native-born and naturalized citizens of the United States, permanently residing in any territory the eof, to frame their constitution and laws, and to regulate their domestic and social affairs in their own mode, subject only to the provisions of the Federal Constitution, with the privilege of admission into the Union whenever they have the requisite population for one Representative in Congress: P t rovided, alwecays, that none but those who are cizens of the United States, under the Constitution and laws thereof, and who have a fixed residence in any such Territory, ought to participate in the fgrmation of the Constitution, or in the enactment of laws for said Territory or State. 8. An enforcement of the principles that no State or Territory ought to admit others than citizens to the right of suffrage, or of holding political offices of the United States. 9. A change in the laws of naturalization, making a continued residence of twentv-one yes, of all not heretofore provided for, an indispensa ble requisite for citizenship hereafter, and excluding all paupers, and persons convicted of crime from landing upon our shores; but no interference with the vested rights of foreigners. 10. Opposition to any union between Church and State; no interference with religious faith or worship, and no test oaths for office. 11. Free and thorough investigation into any and all alleged abuses of public functionaries, and a strict econonmy in public expenditures. 12 The maintenance and enforcement of all laws constitutionally enacted until said laws shall be repealed, or shall be declared null and void by competent judicial authority. 13. Opposition to the reckless and unwise policy of the prese ntAdminist’ation in the general management of our national affairs, and more especially as shown in removing ” Americans ” {by designation) and Conservatiees in principle, from office, and placing foreigners and Ut4rai’st in their places; as shown in a truckling subsert I I I 23 A.IIERICAN NATIONAL CONVENTIONT

18,56.

Page 24 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. niously nominated, and the Convention adjourned. and ample protection of persons and property from domestic violence and foreign aggression. 5. That it is the duty of every branch of the Govern ment to enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public aai.rs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the government, and gradual but certain extinction of the public debt. 6. That the proceeds of the public lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects specified ill tlhe Constitution, and that we are opposed to arty law for the distribution of such proceeds among the States, as alike inexpedient in policy, and repugnant to the Con,stitutio,. 7. That Congress has no power to charter a Nationsal Bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of this country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power and above the laws and will of the people; and the results of the Democratic legislation in this and all other financial measures upon which issues have been made between the two political parties of the country, have demonstrated to candid and practical men of all parties their soundness, safety and utility in all business pursuits.

8. That the separation of the moneys of the Government from banking institutions is indispensable to the safety of the funds of the Government and the rights of the people. 9. That we are decidedly opposed to taking from the President the qualified Veto power, by which he is enabled, under restrictions and responsibilities amply sufficient to guard the public interests, to suspend the passage of a bill whose merits cannot secure the approval of twothirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, until the judgment of the people can be obtained thereon, and which has saved the American people from the corrupt and tyrannical dominion of the Bank of the Unitedi States, and fro m a corrupting systemof gen e r al interna l improvements. 10. That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson In the Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned in the Constitution, which makes ours the land of liberty and the asylu/m of the oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the Democratic faith; and every attempt to abridge the privilege of becoming citizens and the owners of soil among us oughlt to be resisted with the sane spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute books. And whereas, Since the ffor egoing declaration was uniformly adopted by our piedecesso-s in National Convention, an adverse political and religious test has been secretly organized by a party claiming to be exclusively American, and it is proper that the American Democracy should clearly define its relations thereto; and declare its determined opposition to all secret political societies, by whatever name they may be called. Res8olved, That the foundation of this Union of States having been laid in, and its prosperity, expansion, and preeminent example of free government, built upon eutire freedom in matters of religious concernment, and no respect of persons in regard to rank, or place of birth, no party can justly be deemed national, constitutional, or in accordance with American principles, which bases its exclusive organization upon religious o pinions and accidental birth-place. And hence a po liti cal crusade i n the nineteenth centur y, and in the Unit ed States of America, against Catholics and forei gn-born, is neither justified by the past history nor future pros pects o f the country, nor in unison with the spirit of toleration, and e nlighte ened freedom which p eculiarly distinguishes th e Angeri n system of popular governmeint. .esolved, That we reit erate with renewed energy of 7rpose the well considered declarations of former conventions upon the sectional issue of domestic slavery, and conc erning the re s erve d right s of the States 1. That Congress has no power under the Cons titution to interfere with or co n trol the domestic institutions of the several States, and that all such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the Abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of Slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarmning and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, andl ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political instirutionls~ 2. Tle~t the foregoing proposition covers and was intended to embrace the whole subject of Slavery agitation in Congress, and therefore the D~emocratic party of the This Convention met at Cincinnati on the 2d of June, and chose John E.

Ward, of Georgia, to preside, and nominated James Buchanan on the lath ballot, as follows: Ballots. Buchanan. Pierce. Douglas. Cass. 1. 135 1+22

88 5 2. 189 11g9 831 6 $. 139} 119 82 5 T 4. 1418i 119 380 5 5. 14O) 119+

1 5+ 6. 15+5 1175 28 b p 7. 1431 89 58 b 8. 147i 87 56 55 9. 146 87 56 I 10. 15B)y 8V!8 59B A i 11. 147-SO 68 51 12. 148 79 63B {i 18. 150 771 63
o5 14. 152+ 75 - 6 51 15. 1681 8 i 1181 e 4i 16. 168 - 121 6 17. 296 - _

Mr. Buchana n having be e n unanimously nominated for Preside nt, the Convention procee ded to ballot for a candidate for VicePresident, th e first ballot resulting as follows: J. A. Quitman, Miss,.. 59 J. C.

Breclinridge, K y.,. 55 Linn Boyd, Ky.,…… 83 B. Fitzpatrick, Ala.,……. 11 A. V. Brown enn,2 V onsn, Tenn.,… 29. V. Johnson, Ga.,…. 31 J. A. Bayard, Del.,….tr 81 Tr usten Polk, Mo,……‘n 5 T.

J. Ruslk, Texas,…… 2 J. C. Dobbin, N. C.,……. 13 On the second ballot, the name of Gen. Quitman was wi thdraw n, as were also those of other leading candidates, and Mr. Breckinridge was unanim ous ly nom inated. The Convention a dopted the following PLATFORM: s Re,solved, That the Ame ric an Democracy place their trust in the intelligence, the pa tr iotism, and the discriminating justice o f the American people. Re,solved, That we regard this as a distinctive feature of our political creed, which we are proud to maintain before the world as a great mora l element in a form of government springing from and upheld by the popular will; and we contrast iwit with the ceedand prac tice of Federalism, under whatever name or form, which seeks to palsy e the will of the Co bsstituent, and which concei ve s no imposture too monstrous for the popular credulity.

Resol/ved, therefore, That entertaining these views, the Democratic party of t his U nion, th rough their delegates, assemble d in gen eral Convent ion, coiing together in a spirit of concord, of devotion to the doctrines and faith of a f ree represeo oerentative government, and appealing t o their fellow-citizens for the rectitude of their intentions, renew and reassert before the American people, the declarations of principles avowed by them, when, on former occasions, in general Convention, they have presented their candidates for the popular suffrage. 1. That the Federal Government is one of limited power, derived solely from the Constitution, and the grants of power made therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the Government, and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers. 2. That the Constitution does not confer upon the General Government the power to commence and carry on a general system of internal improvements. 8. That the Constitution does not confer authority upon the Federal Government, directly or indirectly, to assume the debts of the several States, contracted for local and internal improvements, or other State purposes, nor would such assumption be just or expedient. 4. That justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the interests of one portion of out-common country; that every citizen and every section of the country hias a right to demand and insist ,.upon an equality of rights and privileges, and a complete 24 DEMOCRATI(I NATIONAL CONVENTIO.NT 1856. 4

Page 25 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENT ON’- AND PLATFORMS. Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known a.s the Coml,rom,ise Measures, settledl by the Congress ot 1850: the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor” iticluded; which act, being designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, with fidelity ther eto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.. i 8. Ttlat the Democratic Par_ty will resi all att_.na3 ak.renewi’,n B r oft o fA, the a’ ~ ol the Save qll: under whatever shape or color the btt te’nPL“‘aV be made.  “_ 4. That ery w l athDcratc Party will faithfully abide y and uphold the principles laid down in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1797 and 1798, and in the report of Al-. Madison to the Virginia Legislature in 1799 -that it adopts these principles as constituting one of the main foundations of its political creed, and is re solved to carry them out in their obvious meaning and import. And that we may more distinctly meet the issue on which a sectional party, subsisting exclusively on Slavery agitation, now relies to test the fidelity of the people, North and South, to the Constitution and the Union 1. Resolved, That claiming fellowship with and desir ing the cooperation of all who regard the preservation of the Union under the Constitution as the paramount issue, and repudiating all sectional parties and platforms concerning domestic Slavery, which seek to embroil the States and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the Territories, and whose avowed purpose, if con summated, must end in civil war and, disunion, the American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the Slavery question, upon which the g’eat national idea of the people of this whole coun try can repose in its determined conservatio n of the Union, and noninterference of Congress with Slavery in the Territories or in the District of Columbia. 2. That this was the basis of the compromises of 1850, confirmed by both the Democratic and Whig parties in National Conventions, ratified by the people in the elec tion of 1852, and rightly applied to the organization of the Territories in 18So5. 3. That by the uniform application of the Democratic principle to the organization of Territories, and the ad mission of new States with or without domestic Slavery, as they may elect, the equal rights of all the States will be preserved intact, the original compacts of the Consti tution maintained inviolate, and’the perpetuity and expansion of the Union insured to its utmost capacity of embracing, in peace and harmony, every future American State that may be constituted or annexed with a republican form of government. Resolved, That we recognize the right of the people of all the Territories including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of the majority of the actual residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a Constitution, with or without domestic Slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States.

Resolved,.f/aally, That in view of the condition of popular institutions in the Old World (and the dangerous tendencies of sectional agitation, combined with the attempt to enforce civil and religious disabilities against the rights of acquiring and enjoying citizenship in our own land), a high and sacred duty is involved with increased responsibility upon the Democratic Party of this country, as the par’ty of the Union, to uphold and maintain the rights of every State and thereby the Union of the States-and to sustain and advance among us constitutional liberty, by continuing to resist all monopolies and exclusive legislation for the be nef it of t he few at the expense of the many, and by a vigilant and constant adherence to those principles and compromises of the Constitution - which ar e broad enough and strong enough to embrace and uphold the Union as it was, the Union as it is, and the Union as it shall be-in the full expression of the energies and capacity of this great and prog’essive people. 1. Resolv:ed, That there are questions connected with the foreigrn policy of this country which are inferior to no domest c question whatever. The time has come for the people of the United States to declare themselves in favor of fl’ee seas, and prcgressive free trade throughout the world, and, by solemr. manifestations, to place their moral influence at thle side of their successful example. a. Re.sol,ved-That our geographical and political position with reference to the other states of this continent, no less than the interest of our commerce and the devol opment of our growing power, requires that we should hold sacred the principles involved in the MON’ROE doctrine. Their bearin g and import adm it of no misconstruction, and should be a pplied wit h unben din g rigidit y. 8. Resolved, That the great highway, which nature as well as the assent of States most immediately interested n its maintenance has marked out for free communica ion between the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, con titutes one of the most important achievements realized by the spirit of modern times, in the unconquerable nergy of our people; and that result would be secured by a timely and efficient exertion of the control which we have the right to claim over it; and no power on earth should be suffered to impede or clog its progress by any interference with relations that it may suit our policy to establish between our Government and the government of the States within whose dominions it lies; we can under no circumstance surrender our preponderance in the adjustment of all questions arising out of it. 4. Resol/ved, That, in view of so commanding an interest, the people of the United States cannot but sympathize with the efforts which are being made by the people of Central America to regenerate that portion of the continent which covers the passage across the interoceanic isthmus. 5. Resolved, That the Democratic Party will expect of the next Administration that every proper effort be made to insure our ascendency in the Gulf of Mexico, and to maintain permanent protection to the great outlets through which are emptied into its waters the products raised out of the soil and the commodities created by the industry of the people of our western valleys and of the Union at large.

.Resolved, That the Administration of FRANKLIN PIERCE has been true to Democratic principles, and therefore true to the great interests of the country; in the face of violent opposition, he has maintained the laws at home, and vindicated the rights of American citizens abroad; and therefore we proclaim our unqualified admiration of his measures and policy. WHIG

CONVENTION-1856. A Whig National Convention met at Baltimore on the 17th of Sept., 1856-Edward Bates, of Missouri, presiding. The nominations of Millard Fillmtore for President, and Andrew J. Donelson for VicePresident, were un animo usly concurred in. The Convention adopted the following. PLA.TFORM’: Resolved, That the Whigs of the Unite(d States, now here assembled, hereby declare their reverence for the Constitution of the United States, their unalterable at tachment to the National Union, and a fixed determination to do all in their power to preserve them for themselves and their posterity. They have no new principles to announce; no new platform to establish; but are content to broadly rese”-XEre6 their fathers restedupon the Constitution of the United States, wishing no safer guide, no higher law. eResolved, That we regard with the deepest interest and anxiety the present disordered condition of our national affairs-a portion of the country ravaged by civil war, large sections of our population embittered by mutual recriminations; and we distinctly trace these calamities to the culpable neglect of duty by the present national administration. Resolved, That the Government of the United States was formed by the conjunction in political unity of wide spread geographical sections materially differing, not only in climate and products, but in social and domestic institutions; and that any cause that shall permanently array the different sections of the Union in political hostility and organized parties founded only on geographical distinctions must inevitably prove fatal to a continuance of the National Union.

oResolved, That the Whigs of the United States declare, as a fundamental article of political faith, an absolute necessity for avoiding geographical parties. The danger, so clearly discerned by the Father of his Country, has now become fearfully apparent in the agitation now convulsing the nation, and must be arrested at once if we would preserve our Constitution and our Union from dismemberment, and the name of America fromu being blotted out f, om the anily of civilized nations. I 25

Page 26 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. Resolved, That all who revere the Constitution and the Union, must look with alarm at the parties in the field in the present Pr,esidential campaign-one claiming only to represent sixteen Northern States, and the other appealing mainly to the passions and prejudices of the, Southern States; that the success of either faction must add fuel to the flame which now threatens to wrap our de arest interests in a common ruin. ~IResolved, That the only remedy for an evil so appall ng is to support a candidate pledged to neither of the g,eogr,aphical sections now arrayed i n political antagoni t o, but holding both in a just and equal regard. We congratulate the friends of the Union that such a candidatte exists in Millard Fillmore. Resolved, That, without adopting or referring to the peculiar doctrines of the party which has already selected Mr. Fillmore as a candidate, we look to him as a well-tried and faithful friend of the Constitution and the Union, eminent alike for his wisdom and firmn ess-for his justice and moderation in our foreign relations-for his calm and pacific temperament, so well becoming the head of a great nation-for his devotion to the Constitution in its true spirit-his inflexibility in executing the laws; but, beyond all these attributes, in possessing the one transcendent merit of being a representative of neither of the two sectional parties now struggling for political supremacy. Resolved, That, in the present exigency of political affairs, we are not called upon to discuss the subordinate questions of administration in the exercising of the Constitutional powers of the Government. It is enough to know that civil war is raging, and that the Union is in peril; and we proclaim the conviction that the restoration of Mr. Fillmore to the Presidency will furnish the best if not the only means of restoring peace. In the election which ensued, Mr. Fillmore receive d the vote o f Maryland only, while Mr. Buchanan obtained those of te the 14
other Slave States, andof Ne\wJersey, Pennsylvaniia, Indiana, Illinois and California, making 172 in all. Col. Fremont received the votes of the eleven other Free States, making 114 in all. Pennsylvania and Illinois, had they voted for Col. Fremont, would have given him the election.

PLATFORM OF 1860. .Resoalved, That we, the delegated representatives of the Republican electors of the United Statts, in Convention assembled, in discharge of the duty we owe to our constituents and our country, unite in the following declarations: 1. That the history of the nation, during the last foul years, has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republi-ian party, and that the causes w’ich called it into existence are permanent in their nature, and new, more than ever before, demand its peaceful and constitutional triumph. 2. T’hat the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, “That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted atnong men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constittition, the Rights of the States, and the Union of the States, must and shall be preserved. 8. That to the Union of the States this nation owes its unprecedent ed i n cre ase in population, its surprising development of material resources, its rapid augmentation of wealth, its happiness at home and its honor abroad; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for Disunion, come from whatever source they may: And we congratulate the country that no Republican member of Congress has uttered or coun tenanced the threats of Disunion so often made by Democratic members, without rebuke and with applause fiom their political associates; and we denounce those threats of disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendency, as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated ti ea son, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant Peo ple sternly to rebuke and forever silence. 4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially thle right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our politi cal fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. 5. That the present Democratic Adm inistration has far exceeded our worst apprehensions, in its measureless sub. serviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as es.pecially evinced in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton Constitution uponI the protesting people of Kansas; in construing the personal relation between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons; in its attempted enforcement, everywhere, on land ansl sea, thli ougl the intervention of CongDess and of the Federal Courts of the extreme preteisions of a purely local interest; and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power intrustedl to it by a confiding people. 6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans; while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded. T. T’hat the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, ca rries Slavery into any or all of the Territo. ries of tole United States, i s a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with cotempolaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country. 8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom: That as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our national territory, ordained that “nro person shlouldl be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to inaintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Co, gress, of a territorial legJ~, REPUBLICAN CONVENTION-1860. A Republican National Convention assembled at Clhictago, Illinois, on Wednesday, May 16th, 1860, delegate s b eing in attendance from all the Free States, as also from Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Texas,* the Territories of Kansas and Nebr aska, an d the )iss triet of Columbia. Gov.

Mor gan, of New-Y ork, as Chairman of t he Na tional Executive Committee, nominated David Wilnmot a s temporary Chairman, and he was chosen. The usual Committee s on permanent organization, credenti als, etc., w e re appointed, a nd th e Conve ntion was permanently o rganizof b the selection of George Ashnun, of Massachusetts, as President, with a VicePresident and a Secretary from each State and Territorv represented. A Committee, of one from each State and Territory, was appointed to draft suitable resolutions, or in other words a Platform, and the Convention adjourned. On the following day an interesting deb arose on a proposition to require a vote equa to a majority of full delegations from all the!E

States to nominate candidates for President and VicePresident; which, with the delegates actuallv in attendance, would have been about equivalent to a twothird rule. This proposition was voted down, and the Convention decided, by a vote of 331 to 130, that only a majority of *

Thel delegatio n from Tsas has sinc been provedd fraudulent, having beea got up in Michigan to effect a personal end. 2,5

Page 27 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFORMS. lature, or of any individuals, to g’ve legal existence to Slavery in any ITerrito,ry of the United States. 9.

TIat we b rand the recent reopening of the African slavetrade, under the covet of our national flag, iaid,d by perver-sions of judlicial power, as a crime against hu Inanity anil a burning shame to ou’ country and age; andl we ca:l upon Cotngress to take prompt and efficientt Ise sues for the total and final suppressi on of that exe cri.b e traffic. 1n ). That in the recent vetoes, by their Federal Govel 5 nors. of the acts of tlre Legislatures of Kansas andl N, o.raska, prohibiting Slavery in those Territories, we find a practical illustration of the b masted Demociatic princi ipe of Non Intervention and Popular Sovereignty embo died in t he PKansa.s-Neblanka bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein. 11. That Kansas should, of right, be immediately ad mitted as a St,te under the Constitution recently fortneiV anid adopted by her people, and accepted by the liouse of Repr esentatives. 12. That, wh’le providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjust.ment of these imposts as to eni courage the development of the industrial interests of the whole *ount. y: and we cotmend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture lretunerating prices, to mechanics inl anufa(turers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterpr ise, and to the nation commercial pros perity and indepien(Ience. 18. That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the Public Lands held by actual settlers, and asainst any view of the Homestead p,licy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty; aid we demand the passage by Congress of the complete antid satisfactoiy Homestead measure which has already passed t,le House. 14. Ih!at the Republican Party is opposed to any change in itur Natualization Laws or any State legislation by which the r ignts of citizenship hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lan ds shall be abridlged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rightis )f all (lasses of citizens, whether native or naur-alized, both at oe.nd abroad. 15. Th it ai)pt opriations by Congress for River and Harbor improvements of a National character, required for the accommodation and security of an existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligations t,f Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens. 16i. That a Railroad to the Pacific Ocean is imperatively denianded by the interests of the whole country;that the Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficien t aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily Overland Mail should be promptly established. 17. Finally, having thus set forth our distinctive principles and views, we invite the cooperation of all citisens, however (differing on other questions, who substantially agree with us in their affilr-mance and support. On the following day, Friday, May 18th, the Chair having announced that the naming of candidates for President was in order, Wm. M. Evarts, of NewYork, named William IJ.

Seward. Mr. JTtdd of Illinois, named Abraham Lincoln. Mt. Dudley, of NewJersey, nominated Wm. L. Dayton. Gov. Reeder, of Pennsvlvavania, nominated Simon Canieron. Mr. Cartter, of Ohio, nominated Salmon P. Chase.

Francis P. Blair, of Maryland, nominated Edward Battes, of Missouri.

Indiana seconded the nomination of Abraham Lincoln. Mr. Austin Blair, of Michigan, seconded the nomination of Mr. Seward; so also did Carl Schtirz, of Wisconsin, Mr. Worth, of Minnesota, .aud Mr. Wilder, of Kansas. Mir.

C:orwin, of Ohio, nominated Judge 3Mc Mr. Delanose in, of tow,seconded the nomination of Mr. Lincoln, as did also one’of the delegates from Iowa. .

The balloting then proceeded, with the following result: Maine………10

6 NewHampshir e 1 7 1h – 1Vermont yn….- - - - - 10 assachusetts..21 4

- - - - - - - - - RhodeIsland…- — - 1 1 1 - - - - onnecticut….- 2 1 -

7 - - 2 - - - - NewYork……70 - - - - - - - - - - - New-Jer sey…. - -

14 Pennsylvania.. 11 4 - 4T!,, - - — - - Maryland…… 3 8

Delaware…… -. 6 - Virginia…….. 8 14 — 1 Kentucky…… 5 6 2 - -

1. - 8 Ohio……….. - 8 - - - 4 - 84 Indiana…… 26 - - - - - - - - -

- Missouri……. - - - - IS - - - - - - — Michigan…… 12 -. …

…Illinois…….. - 22 - - - - - - Texas………. 4 - - - 2 -.. W
isconsin…… 10 - - - - - - Iowa………. 2 2 - I I 1I- -

California…… 8 - - - - - - - - Minnesota….. 8 - - Oregon…….- 5 -

— fiTredlitor ies. Kansas……6 - - - - - - - Nebraska…… 2 1 - — 2

Dis. of Columbia 2 - - -.-.-. Total…. 173i102 8 501 48 12 1 49 14 1 1 10

Whole number of votes, 465. Necessary to a choice, 233. The second ballot was then taken. Mr. Cameron’s name was withdrawn. Q 2 li - -2 8 4 - 2- - -

- lo - I 2i, — 8 States. Maine…………….. 10 NewHampshire”…….

1 Vermont… - Massachusetts………22 Rhode Island……….. - Connec ticut……….. - NewYork………….. TO NewJersey………… 4

Pennsylvania………. 21 Maryland………….. 3 Delaware…………..

Virginia…………… 8 Kentucky………….. 7 Ohio……………….

— Indiana…………… Missouri…………… Michigan…………. 12

Illinois…………….Texas……………. 6 Wisconsin…………. 10

Iowa……………… 2 California…………. 8 Minnesota………….

8 Oregon…………… Tee rito~ ies. Kansas……………. 6

Nebraska….. 3 District of Columbia… 2 _ 1 6_ - 3 29 - 18 _

_ i i_ 5 — Total……… 1844 181 85 2 8 42+ 10 2 The third ballot was taken amid excitement, and cries for “the ballot.” Intense feeling existed during the votinig, each vote being awaited in breathless silence and expectancy. The progress of the ballot was watched with most intense interest, especially toward the last, the crowd becoming silent as the contest farroweddo wn. Tho States, as called, voted as follows: I 27 FIRST

BALLOT. SECOND BALLOT. - - - - - - - 1 - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - *

Prcylously withdrawn.

Page 28 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. THIRD BALLOT. -C 1 M - H 2 m 1 2 11 7 1 1

9 2 8 1 3 Stat,4.V Maine…………NewHampshire…Vermont………… -

Massachusetts…. - Rhode Island….. - Connecticut……. 2

NewYork………… 9 NewJersey…….. 1 Pennsylvania….. 4

Maryland……… 2 Delaware……… 3 Virginia………. 23

Kentucky……… 23 Ohio…………. - Indiana………. 18

Missouri……….Michigan……… 4 Illinois……….. 2

Texas…………Wisconsin…….. 5

Iowa………….California……..Minnesota…….. 1 Oregon………..

Terristories. Kansas………..Nebraska……… 1 Dist. of Columbia.. 2 -

~ 2 2 5 lo 6 9 10 8 5 4 8 52 9 6 14 18 29 26 22 51 4 1 2311 Maine………

10 NewHampshire. 1 Vermont……..- - Massachusetts….18 - Rhode Island…. 1 Connecticut….. 1 4 NewYork…….70 - NewJersey……- 5

Pennsylvania…. - Maryland……4. 2 Delaware…….Virginia……… 8

Kentucky……. 6 Ohio.;………. - Indiana……… - Missou i…….- -

8 Michigan……. 12 - Illinois………. - Texas……….. 6 -

Wisconsin……. 10 Iowa………… 2California……. - Minnesota…….

8 Oregon……. 1 - Territories. Kansas……… 6Nebraska…… 3 Dist.

of Columbia 2 - 180 22 - - 6 - - - - - _ - - 5 - Total……..loll 88 1,l58 194 1 8 3 6 Total 461. Necessary to a choice, 232. .This gave Lincoln 231~ votes, or within 2~ of a nomination. Before the result was announced, Mr. Cartter, of Ohio, said-I rise, Mr. Chairman, to announce the change of four votes from Ohio, from Mr. Chase to Abraham Lincoln.

This announcement, giving Mr. Lincoln a majority, was greeted by the audience with the most enthusiastic and thundering applause. Mr.

McCrillis, of Maine, making himself heard, said that the young giant of the West is now of age. Maine casts for him herr/6 votes. Mr. Andrew, of Massachusetts, changed the vote of that State, giving 18 to Mr. Lincoln and 8 to Mr. Seward. Mr. B. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, desired to change the 18 votes of Missouri to the gallant son of the West, Abraham Lincoln.

Iowa, Connecticut, Kentucky, and Minnesota also changed their votes. The result of the third ballot was announced: Whole n umbe r of votes cast……. 466 Necessary to a choice………..2. 234 Abraham Lincoln had received 354, and was declared duly nominated. On motion of Wmi. M.

Evarts, of NewYork, seconded by Mr. Andrew, of Massachusetts, the nomination was then made unanimous. On motion of Mr. Evarts, of NewYork, the Convention now took a recess till 5 o’clock, to afford time for consultation as to VicePresident. At 5 o’clock the Convention reassembled, listened to nominations, and then proceeded to ballot. The following is a record of the ballotings for VicePresident: states.

Himing. Clay. Iiclamonl. Maine…………………….6 -16 NewHampshir e……………10 Vermont…………………..10 - -

Massachusetts……………..6 - - RhVde Island……………… -

Connect icut..n……………..10 - 2 NewYork…………………. 70 -

- NewJersey………………..14 — Pennsylvania………………54

Maryland…………………..10 1 Delaware…………………. 6

Virginia…………………… - 23 Kentucky…………………. 28

Ohio………………………46 - Indiana…………………..12 14 -

Missouri…………………..13 5 Michigan…………………… 8 4

Ill inois…………………… 20 2 Texas………………… 6

Wisconsin…………………. 5Iowa……………………..

3California…………………, 7 1 Minnesota 7 1

Oregon…………………… 3 - 2 Territories Kansas…………………… 2 1 8 Nebraska…………………. - - 6

Dis trict of Col umbi a………… 2 - - Total………………. 367 86

13 Massachusetts withdrew the name of Mr. Banks, and ca st 26 votes for Mr. Hamlin. Pennsylvania withdrew the name of Gov. Reeder, and cast 54
votes for Mr. Hamlin. On motion of Mr. Blakev, of Kentucky, the nomination was made unanimous. Mr. J. R. Giddings, of Ohio, offered and the Convention adopted the following: Resolved, That we deeply sympathize with those men who have been driven, some from their native States and others from the States of their adoption, and are now exiled from their homes on account of their opinions; and we hold the Democratic party responsible for the gr-oss violations of that clause of the Constitution which declares that citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.

[NOTE.-Col.Fremo nt had sent a letter by one of the delegates from California, withdrawing his name from the list of candidates for Presidenit. This letter was published before the meeting of the Convention.] I I 28 FIRST BALLOT. 1. gi 8 1; .2 9 1 1 6 1 .0 u 1 2 4 15 I 2 24-i li 16 10 10 1 8 5 85 6 11 8 2 ,i1 .I:1 t?. p 3 -6 .; 9, .w” .4 1 m 201 1 42 -7 2i 24 9 -16 11 1 1 P4 1 48 8 8 2 5 6 6 1 THE SECOND BALLOT.

Page 29 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFORMS. Resolved, That it is both the part of patriotism and of duty to recognize no political principle other than ToIe CONSTITUTION T Uio OF THE COUTRY, TE UNI ON OF TH STA E,S AND TIlE

ENFORCE,MENT OF THlE LAWS, and that, as representatives of the Constitutional Union men of the country in National Convention assembled, wo hereby pledge ourselves to m aintain, protect and defeud, separately and unitedly, these great principles of p ubli c liberty and national safety, against all enemies at home and abroad, believing that thereby peace may once more be restored to the country, the rights of the People and of the States reestablished and the Government again placed in that condition, of justice, firaternity and equality, which, under the example and Constitution of ourt fathers, has solemly bound every citizen of the United States to maintain a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Mr. Ashmun made a brief speech, and the Convention adjourned sine die, with nine hearty cheers for the ticket. NATIONAL REPUBLICAN

COMMITTEE. The Convention previous to its adjournment made choice of the following gentlemen as the National Committee for the next four years: Jfaine-CHARLES J. GILMAN, Brunswick. New-e(trpgBAEire GEORGE G. FOGG, C
oncord. FeronTl-LAWRENCE BRAINARD, St. Albans. ea8sacusetts-JOHIN Z.

GOODRICH, StockbridgCe. h/ode 1slanTd-TOMAE s G. TURNER, Providence.

Co,)ectict GIDEON WELLES, Hartford. New-Yorc-EDWIN N D. MORGAN, Albany.

NewJersey-DENNING DUER, N. Y. City. Penn8eylvania-EDWARD MCPHERSON, Gettysburg .Delaware-NATHANIEL B. SMITHERS, Dover. 3Iqryland -JAe Es F.

WAGNER, Balti m ore. Virgiynia-ALFRED CALDWELL, Whe eling. Ohio-THOMAS

SPOONER, Reading, Hamilton Co. Indiaa-SOLOMON MEREDITH, Centerville.

Illinois-NORMAN B. JUrDD, Chicago. 2]lchigan. AUSTIN BLAIR, Jackson.

Wisconsin-CARL SCHtURZ, Milwaukee. Iowa-ANDREW J. STEVENS, Des Moines.

.J[irnnesota-JOouN McKuSICK, Stillwater. .i88ssowri AsA S. JONES, St.

Louis. .Kentacky-CASSIUS M. CLA.Y, Whitehall California-D. W. CHEESMAN, Oroville. Oregon W. FRANK JOHNSON, Oregon City. K anSas-8-VILLIAM A.

PHILLIPS, Lawrence. .Alebraska-O. H. IRISH, Nebraska City. Diut. of Columbia, JOSEPH GERHARDT, Washington. At a meeting held in Chicago, May 18th, 1860, the Committee organized by choosing the He,a. E. D. Morgan, of NewYork, Chairman, and George G. Fog,, of NewHampshire, Secretary.

Subsequently, the following persons were constituted the Executive Committee: E. D. MORGAN, of NewYork. GIDEON WELLES, of Connecticut. N. B.

JUDD, of Illinois. CARL SCHURZ, of Wisconsin. JOHN Z. GOODRICH, of Massachusetts. DENNING DUER, of NewJersey. GEo. G. FOGG, of NewHampshire. DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION-1860. A Democratic National Convention assembled at Charleston, S. C., on the 23d of April, 1860, with full delegations present froni every State in the Union, and double delegations from Illinois and NewYork. One of the NewYork delegations was elected by the State Nominating Convention which met at Syracuse the preced ing autumn; while its rival was elected by districts, and led by Fernando Wood, Mayor of the commercial emporium. From Illinois, one of the delegations was favorable to Senator DouglMas. and the other opposed to that gentle man.‘rickets of admission were given by the National Committee to the former or “Soft” Delegation from New York, thus deciding, so far as their power extended, against the Wood or‘1 Hard” contestants, who were understood to be opposed to the nomination of Douglas. Francis B.

Flournoy, of Arkansas, was chosen temporary chairman, and the Convention opened with an angry and stormy debate on the question of the disputed seats. Mr. Fisher, of Va., presented a protest from Mayor Wood, on behalf of his delegation, against their exclusion from the Hall. The reading of the protest was ruled out of order, and, after a wrangling debate, committees were appointed on Permanent Organization and Credentials, and the communication of Mayor Wood was referred without readinga to t h e latter. On the following day, the Committee on Organization reported t he name of Caleb Cushing, of Mass., for President, with one VicePresident an d one Secre tary from each State, which report was adopted. They also reported a rule ” that in any State in which it has not ” been provided or directed by its State CoIi” vention how its vote may be given, the “

Convention will recognize the right of each ‘I delegate to cast his individual vote.” Which was also adopted. A Comxittee on Resoluti ons and Plat form was now appointed; and it was voted that no ballot for President and VicePresident should be taken till afte r the adoption of a Platform.

Adjourned. On the following day, the only progress made by the Convention was the settlement of the question of contested seats, by confirming the sitting delegates; that is, the ” Softs ” from NewYork, and the Douglas men from Illinois. On the 26th, no progress was made, though there was much angry debate and many threats CONSTITUTIONAL UNION CONVENTION 1860. A Convention of Delegates, coming, from twenty States, and claimiing to represent the “Constitutional Union Party,” met at Baltimore on the 9th of May, and nominated for President John Bell, of Tennessee, and for VicePresident Edward Everett, of Massachusetts. The ballotings for President resulted as follows: 1st. 2d. 1st. 2d. John Bell,…….. 68i 188 Edward Everett,.. 25 ra Sam. Houston,…. 57 69 Wm. L. Goggin,… 3 -

John M. Botts,…. 9+ 7 Wm. A. Graham,.. 22 I18 John McLean,… 21 1 Wm.

L. Sharkey,.. 7 va J. J. Crittenden,.. 28 1 Wm. C. Rives,… 13 -

Necessary to a choice, 1st ballot, 128; second ballot, 127. The nomination of Mr. Bell was the reupo n made unanimous. Mr. Everett was unanimously nominated for VicePresident. The Convention adopted the following as their PLATFORMF. Tnest eas, Experience has demonstrated that Platforms adopted by the partisan Conveations of the country have had the effe ct to mislea andand deceive the people, and at the same time to widen the political divisions of the country, by the creation and encouragemenL of geographical and sectional parties; therefore, I 29

Page 30 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. of bolting on the part of delegates fi’omn the Cotton States, unless their views iii regard to Platform should be adopted. Oni the 2 ti, the Platform Committee, failing to agree pyresetited an assortment of Platforms, h froi cl-ii tie Couvenution was expected to nmake its el(.ction. Thie majority report, preFeiited( bI r.

Avery, of N. C., was as follovwS: Resolvel, That the Platform adopted at Cincinnati be affirmed, with the following resolution: That the National Democracy of the Urited States hold these caidinal principles on the subject of Slavery in the Te-‘ritories: First, that Congress has no power to abolish Slavery i n the Terri tories; second, that the Territorial Le,islaituie has no power to abolish Slavery in the Territories, nor to prohibit the introduction of slaves therein, nor any power to destroy or impair the right of property in slaves by any legislation whatever.

J,esolved, That the enactments of State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effects.

PResolved, That it is the duty of the Federal Government to piotect the rights of person and property on the high seas, in the Territohies, or wherever else its jurisdiction extends. .Resolved, That it is the duty of the Government of the United States to afford protection to naturalized citizens from foreign countries. I,‘esolved, That it is the duty of the Government of the United States to acquire Cuba at the earliest prac ticable momnent. nent to protect the rights of persons or pro. petry on iai the high seas, in th e Te rritories, or whe reve r else i ts c onstitutional autho rit y e x-g tenids. The fourth that, when the settler s in a Terri - torv have adequa te popula tion to form a State Constitution, the right of Sovereigntv co o - meLes, and, being consummated bv their a(lmTission into the Union, they standv upon -it equal teooting with the citizens of other State., and that a State thus organized is to be admitted into the Union, Slavery or noi Sltve rf. The day was spent in fiere de bate, witho ut coining to a vote on an y of th ese v ari ous proposition]s. Oil the 28th, Senator Wm. Bigler, of Pennlsylvania, moved that th e majority and mi a.oritv reports be recommitted to the Conventi o n, i til instructions to report in an hour, the followiia resolu ti ons: Resolved, That the Platform adopted by the Demccratic party at Cincinnati be affirmed, with the followings explanatory resolution: Resolved, That the Government of a Territory, organized by an act of Congress, is provisional and temporary, and, during its existence, all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle in the Territory, without their rights, either of person or property, be.ng destroyed or impaired by Congressional or T:er,itorial Legislation. -Re8olved, That the Democratic party stands pledged to the doctrine that it is the duty of Government to maintain all the constitutional rights of property, of whatever kind, in the Territories, and to enforce all the decisions of the Supreme Court in reference thereto 8eol~ved, That it is the duty of the United States to afford ample and complete protection to all its cit,izens,, whether at home or abroad, and whether native or foreign. _lleolved, That one of the necessities of the age, in a military, commercial and postal point of view, is sl)oew!y communication between the Atlantic and Pacific States; and the Democratic Party pledge such Constitutional Government aid as will insure the construction of a railroad to the Pacific coast at the earliest practical period. Resolved, That the Democratic Party are in favor of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba, on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves and just to Spain. .Resolved, That the enactments of State Legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the ConstitutioIl, and revolutionary in their effect. Mr. Bigler moved the previous question. Mr.

W. Montgomery (}I. C.), of’ Peninisvlvania, moved to lay Mr. Biglet’s motion on thie table. He did not regard as a compromise a prmoposition for a Congressional Slave C(ode and the reopening of the African Slave Triade; but, learning that the adoption of his motion would have the effect of tabling the whole subject, he withdrew it. A division of the question was called for, and the vote was first talkeni on the motion to recommit, which was carried, 152 to 151; but the proposition to instruct the conimittee was laid on the table, 24‘21 to 56~, as follows: YEAs. Iaine, 8; New-Ilampshire, 5; Vermont, 5; Massachusetts, 12i; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 5; NewYork, 85; Pennsylvania, 8; Delaware, 3; Maryland, 5~; Virgi~nia, 15; North Carolina, 10;* South Ca. olina, 8, Georgia, 10; Florida, 8; Alabama, 9; Louisiana, 6-Mississippi, 7; Texas, 4, Arkansas, 4; Missouri, 4-Kentucky, 5-Ohio, 23; Indiana, IS-Illinois, 11Mlichigan, 6; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 4; California, 3a_ 242-. NAYs. Massachusetts, i~; Connecticut, 1; NewJersey, 7-Pennlsylvania, 15; Marylanld, 2&; Missouri, 9; bennessee, 11-Kentucky, 7; Indian%X 6; Wisconsin, 5; California, i; Oregon, 8 56~. Subsequenltly, onl the same day, Mir. Avery, Thes I)riricip,tl minority report, which was preseil ed bv Ml. enrr B. Payne, of Ohio, and s gn,,d bv the members of the committee fitomtl Miiie.

New-Hamnpshire, Vermont, Rhode Islii}nd, Connecticut, NewJersey, Ohio, Indiana, illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, NewYork, and Pennsylvania, (all the Free Sta,tes excmpt California, Oregon, and Massachiisetts), reaffirmned the Cincinnati Platform; d eclaie(il that all rights of property are judicial in their ch raceter, and that the Democracy pledge thlemselves to defer to the decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject; ample protectioni to citizens, native or naturalized, at home or abroad; aid to ” a Pacific Railroad;” the acquisitiotn of Cuba, anrid that all State resistance to the Fugitive Slave Law is revolutionary and subversive of the Constitution. Geri. Beij.

F. Blutler, of Massachtusetts, presented another mninority report, reaffirming tl-he Cincinnati Platform, anid declaring Democra.tic principles unchangeable in their nature when e applied to the same subject matte-, a nd only recorimending, in addition to the Cinciinnati Platform, a resolu tion for the protection of all citizens, whether native or natui-alized. Mr. Payne stated that his report, although a minority one, represented one hundred and sevenrty-two electoral votes, while the mnajority report represented onlyv one hundred and i twenty-seven electoral votes. IMr. James A. Bayard (U. S. Senator), of Del foware, presented another series of resolutions, as follows: The first affirmed the Cincinnati Platform. The second declared that Territorial GovernmIents ire provisional and temporary, and that during their existence all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle in the Territoiies without their rights of either per son or property beinig destroyed or imnipaired by Colngressiotial or Territorial’egislation. The third. that it is the duty of the Govern-‘ I I I I 80

Page 31 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFORMS. trict of Columbia. Now, we maintain that Congress has no right to prohibit or abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia. Why? Because it is an existing institution. I t becomes the duty of Congress under the Constitution to protect and cherish the right of property in slaves in that District, because the Constitution does not give them the power to prohibit or establish Slavery. Every session of Congress, Northern men, Southern men, men of all par ties, are legislating to protect, cherish and uphold the insti tution of Slavery in the District of Columbia. It is said that the Cincinnati platform is ambiguous, and that we must explain it. At the South, we have main tained that it had no ambiguity; that it did not mean Popular Sovereignty; but our Northern friends say that it does mean Popular Sovereignty. Now, if we arc going to explain it and to decla re its principles, I sly let us either declare them openly, boldly, squarely, or let us leave it as it is in the Cincinnati Platform. I want, and we of the South want, no more doubtful plat forms upon this or any other question. We desire that this Convention should take a bold, square stand. What do the minority of the committee propose? Their solution is to leave the question to the decision of the Supreme Court, and agree to abide by any decision that may be made by that tribunal between the citizens of a Territory upon the subject. Why, gentlemen of the minority, you cannot help yourselves. That is no concession to us. There is no necessity for putting that in the platform, be cause I take it for granted that you are all lawabiding citizens.

Every gentleman here fron a nonslaveholding State is a lawabiding citizen; and if he be so, why we know that when there is a decision of the Supreme Court, even adverse to his views, he will submit to it….. You say that this is a judicial question. We say that it i s not. But if it be a judicial question, it is immaterial to you how the platform is iade because all you will have to say is, “this is a judicial question; the majority of the Con vention were of one opinion; I may entertioin my own opin ion upon the question* let the Supreme Court settle it. “. Let us make a platform about which there can be no doubt, so that every man, North and South, may stand side by side on all issues connected with Slavery, and ad vocate the same principles That is all we ask. All we demand at your h ands is, that there shall be no equivoca tion and no doubt in the popular mind as to what our principles are. Mr. H. B. Payne, of Ohio, replied at length, and, in the course of h,is ar-gumiienit, said: The question of Slavery had distracted the Courts and the party since 1820, and we hoped by the Compromise measures of lS50, the Kans as law of S1854, and the Platform of 1852 and 1856, that the policy of the Democratic party was a united and settled policy in respect to African slavery….n. The Democracy of the North have, throughout, stood by the South in vindication of their constitutional rights. For this they claim no credit. They have silcply disch trged their constitutional duty; and, though some Southern Senators may rise in their places and s tigmatize us as unsound and rotten, we say we have done it in good faith, and we chiallege contradiction. We ha ve supposed that this doctrine of Popular Sovere ignty was a fitel settlement of the Slavery difficulty. You s o understood it in the South. We are not claiming a nything inll our Platform but what the Cincinnati Platform was admitted to have cstabl!ished….. What was the doctrine of 1,56? Nonintervention by Congress with the question of Slavery, and the submission of the question of Slavery in the Territories, under the Constitution, to the People. It is said that one construction has been given to the Platform at the S outh and another at the North. He could prove from the Congressional debates that from 1850lSO to 1S856 there was not a dissenting opinion expressed in Congress on this sulject. To show that Sqti.itter Sovereignty had been generally accepted as the true Democratic doctrine, Mr. Pasyie quoted from emirnent Southern “I stand upon a principle. I hold that the will of the majority of the people of Kansas should decide this question, and I say here to-night, before th’s people and before this country, that I, for one, shall abide the decisio n of the people the: e I hold to the right of the People w to self-governent. I am willing for them to decide this question.” PROM T’HE SAME. “I would not plant Slavery upon the soil of any portion of God’s earth against the will of the people. The from the majority of the Committee on Platform, reported the following: Resolved, That the platform adopted by the Democratic party at Cincinnati be afirrmed, with the following explanatory Resolutions: First. That the government of a Territory organized by an act of Congress, is provisional and temporary; and, during its existence, all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territory without their rights, either of person or property, being destroyed or impaired by congressional or territorial legislation. aeconjd. That it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all its departments, to protect, when necessary, the rights of persons and property in the Territories, and wherever else its constitutional authority extends. Tl,iid. That when the settlers in a Territory having and adequate population form a State Constitution, the right of sovereignty commences, and, being consummated by admission into the Union, they stand on an equal footing with the people of other States; and the State thu organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union whether its constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of Slavery. Fourth. That the Demacratis Dart-ar in favor of thq acquisition o e s and of Cuba on such terms as shall] bue ri nm-kd/
ourselves and jus~ to 6palfn, at thy earliest -‘ iy, Thiat hfie’enactments of State legislatures to de feat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revoluti o n ary in their effect. Sixtr. That the Democracy of the Un ited Stat es recog niz e it as the imperative duty of this Government to pro tect the naturalized citizen in all his rights, whether at home or in foreign lands, to the same extent as its native born citizens. Whereas, one of the t h greatest necessities of the age, in a political, commercial, postal and military point of view, is a speedy commu nication b etween the Pacific and Atl an tic coasts: Therefore be it Re solved, Tha t t he Democratic party do hereby pledge themselves to use every means in their power to secure the passage of some bill, t o the e xtent of the constitutional authority of Congress, for the cn trfonstruction of a Pacific Railroad, from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, at the earliest practicable moment. Mr. Avery took the floor, and spoke at length in favor of his report, and in the course of his remarks said: I have stated that we demand at the hands of our Northern brethren upon this floor that the great principle which we cherish should be recognized, and in that view I speak the common sentiments of our constituents at home; and I intend no reflection upon those who entertain a different opinion, when I say that the results and ultimate conlsequences to the Southern States of this confederacy, if the Popular Sovereignty doctrine be adopted as the doctrine of the Democratic party, would be as dangerous and subversive of their rights as the adoption of the principle of Congressional intervention or prohibition. We say that, in a contest for the occupation of the Territories of the United States, the Southern men encumbered with slaves cannot compete with the Emigrant Aid Society at the North. We say that the Emigrant Aid Society can send a voter to one of the Territories of the United States, to determine a question relating to slavery, for the sum of $200, while it would cost the Southern man the sum of $1500. We say, then, that wherever there is competition between the South and North, that the North can and will, at less expense and difficulty, secure power, control and dominion over the Territcries of the Federal Government; and if, then, y.ou establish the doctrine that a Territorial Legislature which may be established by Congress in any Territory has the right, directly or indirectly, to affect the institution of Slavery, then you can see that the Legislature by its action, either directly or indirectly, may finally exclude every man from the slavehol(ling States as effectually as if you had adopted the Wilmot Proviso out and out….. But we are told tiat, in advocating the doctrine we now do, we are violating the principles of the Cincinnati platform.

They say that the Cincinnati platform is a Popular Sovereignty platform; that it was intended to present and practically enforce that great principle. Now, we who made this report deny that this is the true construction of the Cincinnati platform. We of the South say that when we voted for the Cincinnati platform we understood, from the fact that the Territories stand in the same position as the District of Columbia, that noninterference and noniniterivention in the Territories was that same sort of noninterference and n(onintervention forbidden in the Dis ractloabl” molheat. I 31

Page 32 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. Government of the United States should not force the then acting as Chairman of his Delegation, and nowpre.

institution of Slavery upon the people either of the i senting the majority report announced: ‘ Territories,’ or of the States against the will of the peo- | “North Carolina gives ten votes for the Platform, and pie, though my voice could bring about that result.” swill give ten thousand majority in November.” l In his lettel of acceptance, Mr.

Buchanan, in an em FROM A SPERIPCH OF VICV-PRESIDCNT BRECKINRIDG.S |
phatic and clear mainer, thus expressed his views of “But those who hold that the Territorial Legislature this 1Platform: cannot pass a law prohibiting Slavery, admit that, unless “The r ecent legislation of Congress respecting domesthe Territorial Legislature pass laws for its protection, tic Slavery, derived, as it has been, from the original Slavery will not go there. Therefore, practically, a and pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will majority of the people represented in the Territorial of the majority, promises, ere long, to allay the dangerLegislature decides the question. Whether they decide ous excitement. This legislation is founded on priuciit by prohibiting it, according to the one doct ine, or by ples as ancient as Fr ee goveDrnment itself, and in accordrefusing to pass laws to protect it, as contended for by ance with them has simply declared that the people of at the other party, is immaterial The majority of the peo-ers itosy, like those of a State, 8shetll deceidejfr then&ple, by the action of the Territorial Legislature, will selues, wAether Slaeveiy ha1ll or s8hall iot ewoist withi decide the question, and all must abide the decision when their limits.” made.” Mr. Payne had extracts yet behind of speeches from FROM

THE SAME. Stephens, of Georgia, one of the most distinguished States men of the South-from Mr. Benjamin, of Louisiana “But if nonintervention by Congress be the principle Mason, of Virginia-more qualified, he admitted, but that underlies the Compromise of 1850, then the prohibi-still emphatic. The Senator from Delaware, too, Mr. tion of 1820, being inconsistent with that principle, should Bayard, had fully indorsed the doctrine of Popular be removed, and perfect nonintervention thus be estab-Sovereignty. lished by law. So had MAr. Badger, of North Carolina, and Judge “Among many misrepresentations sent to the country Butler of South Carolina. Mr. Hunter of Virginia, cerby some of the enemies of this bill, perhaps none is more tainly one of the wisest and purest statesmen which the flagrant, than the charge that it proposes to legislate Democracy now numbers amongst her leaders in the Slavery into Nebraska and Kansas. Sir, if the bill con-land-he, also, says that the people shall have the right tained such a feature it would not receive my vote. The to decide on all questions relating to their domestic right to establish involves the correlative right to prohi-institutions. In his speech, he used these words, almost bit, and, denying both, I would vote for neither.” identical with the Platform of the minority: ” The bill provides that the Legislatures of these Ter FRO3M THE SAME. ritories shall have power to legislate over all rightful ” Upon the distracting question of domestic Slavery subjects of legislation consistently with the Constitution. their position is clear. The whole power of the Demo-And, if they should assume powers which are thought to cratic organization is pledged to the following proposi-be inconsistent with the Constitution, the Courts will de, tions: That Congress shall not inter pose upon this sub-cide that question whenever it may be ra’sed. There is ject in the States, in the Territoi es, or in the District of a difference of opinion among the friends of this measure Columbia; that the people of each Territory shall deter-as to the extent of the limits which the Constitution insmine the question for themselves, and be admitted into poses upon the Territorial Legislatures. This bill p-othe Union upon a footing of perfect equality with the poses to leave these differences to the decision of the original States, without discrimination on account of the Courts. To that tribunal I am willing to leave this decialloswance or prohibition of Slavery.” sion, as it was once before proposed to be left by the celebrated Compromise of the Senator from Delaware.” FROM A SPEECH

BY HON. JAMES L. OR, OF S. C. lie also read an extract of a similar character fron a “Now, I admit that there is a difference of opinion speech by Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, one of the boldest I,nmongst Democrats as to whether this feature of Squat  nien on the floor of the American Senate, taking ground ier Sovereignty be in the bill or not. But the gr eat point in favor of nonintervention by Congress. upon which the Democratic party at Cincinnati rested Need he accumulate these extracts to show that not a was, that thle government of the Terr itories had been s’ngle statesmran who has figured in Congress, of late transferred from Congress, and, carrying out the spirit years, but has taken this high ground? and genius of our institutions, had b een given to the r. Samuels of Iowa presented the followpeople of the Territories.”.” * o people of the Territng report on behalf of the illnority of the FROM A SPEECH BY

HON. A. H. STEPHENS, OS’ OseC{IA Pafr otiite FROM A SPEECH BY HON. A. H.

STEPHENS, OF GEOIIIGIA. “The whole question of Slavery or No Slavery was to be left to the people of the Territories, wheth er North or South of 36~ 30, or any other line. The qtliestion was to be taken out of Congress, where it had Cionen improperly thrust from the beginning, and to ibe left to t he people concerned in the matter t o decide fin tiheittselves. This, I say, was the position originally he ldtiy the South when the Missouri Restriction was at first pr-opiosed. Tlh e principle upon which that position rests, li es at the very found ation of all our Republican institutions: it is that the citizens of every distinct and separate community or State should have the right to govern themselves in their domestic matters as they please, and that they should be free froml intermeddling restriction and a bitrary dictation on such matters, from any other Power or Government, in hich they have no voice.” Mir. Payne continued. But for consuming tinme, he could read for half an hour, to show that every eminent Southern man had held the same opinion on the doctr in e of popular sovereignty. Mi. Payne would read from the Cincinnati Platform to show what it laid down. All should be fanmiliar with it: “The American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws, establishing the Te,‘ritories of Kansas and Nebraska as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the’ Slavery Question’ upon which the great National idea of the People of this whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union-non-interference by Congress with Slavery in State and Territory, or in the District of Columbia.” They nominated Mr. Buchanan on that Platform, agreed on by the representatives of every State in the Union, as the official record would show. There was not one dissenting voice in the whole list of States. In casting the vote of North Carolina, his friend, Mr. Avery, 82

Page 33 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFORMS. of the original resolution proposed by the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. Butler’s Platform affirmns the Cincinnati Platform, and adds a resolution for the protec tion of citizens abroad. The vote was then taken by States on Mr. Butler’s amendment, with the following result; yeas 105, nays 198: Yeas-Maine, 3; Massachusetts, 8; Connecticut, 21; NewJersey, 5; Pennsylvania, 16+; Delaware, 3; Mary land, 5+; Virginia, 123; North Carolina, 10; Georgia, 10; Missouri, 41-; Tennessee, 11; Kentucky, 9; Minnesota, Ill-; Oregon, 8-105. dNays-Maine, 5; NewHampshire, 5; Vermont, 5; Massachusetts, 5; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 3i; NewYork, 85; NewJersey, 2; Pennsylvania, 10+; Mary land, 2’; Virginia, 2+; South Carolina, 8; Florida, 8; Alabama, 9; Louisiana, 6; Mississippi, 7; Texas, 4; Arkansas, 4; Missouri, 4+; Tennessee, 1; Kentucky, 3; Ohio, 23; Indiana, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wiscon sin, 5; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 21; California, 4-198. So the amendment was rejected. The minority report (that of Mr. Samuels) was then read, and, after ineffectual attempts to table the subject and proceed to a nomina tion, the vote was taken and the minority report w-as adopted as an amendment or substi tute, as follows: aYeas-Maine, 8; NewHampshire, 5; Vermont, 5;, Massachusetts, 7; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 6; New York, 35; New-Jersev, 5; Pennsylvania, 12; Maryland, 3+; Virginia, 1; Missouri, 4; Tennessee, 1; Kentucky, 2i, Ohio, 23; Indiana, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wisconsin, 5; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 4-165. wNays-Massachusetts, 6; NewJersey, 2; Pennsyl vania, 15; Delaware, 3; Maryland, 4+* Virginia, 14; North Carolina, 10; South Carolina, 8 Georgia, 10; Florida, 3; Alabama, 9; Louisiana, 6; Mississippi, 7; Texas, 4; Arkansas, 4; Missouri, 5; Tennessee, 11; Ken tucky, 9i; California, 4; Oregon, 8-138. The question was then taken on the adoption of the report as amended, the vote being taken on each re s o lu tion separately, and with the ex ception of the one p ledg ing th e Democratic party to ab ide by the de cisions o f the Supr eme Court on the subject of Slavery in the Territo rieswhich was rejected-they were ado pte d by a vo te which was ne arly unanim ous. The delegation f ro m Alab ama, by its Chairman, then pres ented a written protest, signed bv all its members, announcing the ir purpose t o withdraw f rom the Conventi on. The y were followe d b y th e dele gations from Mississippi, Florida, Texas, all the Louisiana delegation except two, all the South Carol ina delegation except three, three of the Ar kansas del egat ion, two of the Delaware delegati on (including S en a tor B ayard) and on e from Nor th C arolina. The order of their withdrawal was as follows: ALABAMA PROTESTS AND WITHDRAWS. Mr. Walker, of Alabama.-Mr.

President, I am instructed by the Alabama delegation to submit to this Convention a communication, and, with your permission, I will read it. To THE Hoit. CALEB CUSHING, President of the, Democratic Vational Conves tion, sow in 8ession in the City of Charleston, Sout/ Caroliia The undersigned delegates, representing the State of Alabama in this Convention, respectfully beg leave to lay before your honorable body the following statements of facts: On the eleventh day of January, 1860, the Democratic party of the State of Alabama met in Convention, in the city of Montgomery, and adopted, with singular usai miry, a series of resolutions herewith submitted: 1. Resolved by the Democracy of the State of Alabama in Convention assembled, That holding all issues and principles upon which they have heretofore affiliated and acted wrih the National D~emocratic Party to be inferior in digni(~ and importanee to the great question of Slavery, they content themselves (as a minority) the Cincinnati Platform without alteration. It was evident, even before the report of the majority was presented, that it would lnot be sustained bv the Convention, though the Flee-State majority evinced not. onlv willing l-ess but anxiety t o concilia te their Southern brethren at anly s acrific e n ot absolutely ruinous. Thi e majority of the Conve ntion, confident of their power to reject the majority report, were ~anxious for a vote; but the minority seemed determined to stave off definite action for that :,day, and carried their point by a system curi rently ternmed ” filibustering,” which would have alone no discredit to the House of Representatives at Washington. The confusion and hubbub which prevailed may be comprehended perhaps, by the following extract from the official report of the proceedings: Mr. Bigler obtained the floor, and desired to suggest to the Convention that, by common consent, and without any further struggle, they should adjourn.

(Cries of ” I object!”” I object!”) Mr. Hunter, of Louisiana.-I appeal to my Democratic friends of the South and my Democratie friends from all parts of the Union (Cries of ” order!” ” order!” and tne greatest disorder prevailing in the Hall.) The President-The Chair begs leave, once for all, to state and the Chair entreats the Convention to listen to this declaration-that it is physically impossible for the Chair to go on in a contest with six hundred men as to irho shall cry out loudest; and unless the Convention will come to order, and gentlemen take their places and proceed in order, the Chair will feel bound in duty to the Convention as well as to himself, to leave the chair. (Applause ) The Chair will wait to see whether it is possible to have order in the House. Mir. Samuels, of Iowa, appealed to the Convention to I sten to a proposition of Mr. Hunter of Louisiana. The President.-Th e Chair will entertain no motion until the Convention is restored to order, and when that is done, the Chair desires to make another suggestion to the Convention. The Chair has already stated that it is physically impossible for him to go on with the business of the Convention, so long as onehalf of the members are upon their feet and engaged in clamor of one sort or :nother. The Chair begs leave to repeat that he knows ut one remedy for such disorder, and that is for your residing officer to leave the chair. He, of course, gould deeply regret that painful necessity; but it would e a less evil than that this incessant confusion and disorder, presenting such a spectacle to the people of South Carolina, should continue to prevail in this most honorable body of so many respectable gentlemen of the highest standing in the community, engaged in debate’and deliberation upon the dearest interests of the country. ‘Applause.) It was finally aAreed that the vote should be aken the next day-or rath er the following t TIonday, and the Convention adjourned. On Moi ldav the n 30th, the President stated the question as follows: The Cnonvention wby remember that, in the first place, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Avery) reported the resolutions of the major ity of the committee. Thereupon the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Samuels) moved an amendment to these resol u tions, by st riking out all after the word ” resolved,” and to insert the resolutions proposed by him, in behalf of a portion of minority of the committee.

After which, the gentleman f,rom Massachusetts (Mr. Butler) moved, in behalf of anoutlher portion of the minority committee, to amend the amendment, by striking out all after the word ” resolved,” and inserting the proposition proposed by him ,tl behalf of that minority. The first question will be, therefore, upon the amendment moved by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Butler). If that amendnment falls, the Convention will then come to a vote upon the amendment moved by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Samuels). If, however, the amendment of Mr. Butler prevails, then that amendment will have taken the place of the amendment moved by Mr. Samuels, and the next question will be upon substituting it in the place 3 33 , i

Page 34 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. spects subject to criticism, we should not have felt ourselves in duty bound to withhold our acquiescence. But it has been the pleasure of this Convention by an I almost exclusive sectional vote, not representing a ma[ jority of the Democratic electoral vote, to adopt a platform which does not, in our opinion, nor in the opinion of those who urge it, embody in substance tihe principles of tle Alabama resolutions. That Platform is as follows: [Here follow Mr. Samuels’

resolutions as adop ted. See Platform.] The points of difference between the Northern an,] Southern Democracy aree; 1st. As regards the statu8 of Slavery as a political institution in the Territories whilst they remain Territories, and the power of the people of a Territory to exclude it by unfriendly legislation; and 2d. As regards the duty of the Federal Government to protect the owner of slaves in the enjoyment of his pro per,y in the Territories so long as they remain such. This Convention las refused, by the Platform adopted, to settle either of these pr opositions in favor of the South. We deny to the people of a Ter ritory any power to legis late against the institution of Slavery; and we assert that it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all its departments, to protect the owner of slaves in the enjoy ment of his propert y in the Territories.

These princi ples, as we state them, are embodied in the Alabama Platform.

Here, then, is a plain, explicit and direct issue between this Convention and the coitstituercy whichli we have the honor to represent in this body.

Instructed as we ate, not to waive this issue, the con i tingency, therefore, has arisen, when, in our opinion, it becomes our duty to withdraw from this Convention. We beg, sir, to communicate this fact through you, and to assure the Convention that we do so in no spirit of anger, but under a sense of iperative obligation, pro perly appreciating its responsibilities and cheerfully sub mitting to its conse quences. L.

P. WALKER, Chairman. O. O. HARPER, J. S. LYON, LEwIss H. CATO, JOHN A.

WINSTON, JNO. W. PORTIS, ROBERT G. SCOTT, F. (.NOiRMAN, A. B. MEEK, W. C.

GUILD, J. R. BEARvIt, JULIUfS C. B. MITCHELL, H. D. SMITH, W. C. SHERRIOd, JAS. IRWIN, G. G. GRIFFIN, W. L. YANCEY, J. 1’. BRADF(I]D, D. W. BAINE, T.

J. BURNETT, N. H. R. DAWSON, A. G. HENRY, R. MI. PATTON, WAS. M. BROOKS, W. C. MCIVER, R. CHAPMAN. Mr. Walker also presented a resolution to the effect that no other person than the retiring dele gates had any authority to represent Alabama in the Convention. The Alabama delegation then withdrew from the hall. wi.h a general re-affirmak~e of the Cincinnati platform as to ste h issues, and also iidorse said plasorm as to blavery together,ith the following resolutions: 2. Reshred further, That we reaffirm so much of the first resolio of he pltform adopted in the CooteAtions by the ) iDemocracy of this State, on the 8th of January, 1856, as relates to the subject of Slavery, to-wit: ” The unqualified right ofhat the people of the Slaveholding States to the protection of their propert y in thie States, in the Territories, and in the wilderness, in which Territorial Governmen ts are as yet unorganized.” . Rbtesolvedi fu rthe r, T hat i n ord er to meet and clear away all obstacles to a full-enjoyment of this right in the Territories, we reaffirm the principle of the 9th resolution of the Platform adopted in C onven t ion b y the Democracy of thi s State, on the 14th of February, 18-18,to wit: “‘That it is the duty of the General Governmnt, by all proper legislation, to secure an entry into those Territories to all the citizens of the United States, toge ther with their property of every description, and that the same should be pro te cted by the United States while the Territories a re unde r it s authority.” 4. Resolved further, That t he Con stitution of th e Unite d St ates is a compact between sovereign and coequal States, united upon the basis of p erfect equality of rights a nd privileges. 5. Resolved further, That the Territories of the U nited States are common property, in which the States have equal rights, and to which the citizens of. every State may rightfully emigrate, with their slaves or other property recognized as such in any of the St ates ofn the Uni on, or by the Constitution of the United States. 6. Resolved further, That the Congress of the United States has no powe r to a bolish Sla ver y in the Terri tories, or to prohibit its introdution into any of them. 7.

Resolted f r mther, T hat t he Terri torial Leg islatures, created by the legislation of Congress, have no power to abolish S lav ery, or to prohibit the introduction of the rosame, or to impair by unfriendly legislation the security and full enjoyment of the s ame within theTerritories; and s uch constitutional powver cer tainly do es no t bel ong to the pe ople of the Territories in any capacity, before, in the exercise of a lawful authority. they form a Const itution p reparatory to admission a s a State in to the Union; and their action, in th e exercise of such lawful authority, certainly canno t operate or take effect before their actu al admission as a S tate into the Union. 8. Resolved further, That the pcrinciples enunc iated by Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, deny to the Territorial Legislature the power to destroy or impair, by an y legislation whatever, the right of property in slaves, and maintain it to beth the duty of the Federa l Government, in 11
o f it s departments, t o pr otect the rights of the owner of such property in the Territories and the eprinciples so declared are hereby asserted to be the rights of the South, and the Soutl should maintain them. 9. Resolved further, That we hold all of the foregoing propor;ilions to contain cardinal prticiples-true in themselves-and just and proper, and necessary for the safety of all that is tear to us; and we do hereby instruct ouir d&eegates to the lharleston Convention to present them for the calm consider,tion and approval of that body-from whose justice and patriotism we anticipate their adoption. 10. Resolve d fu,ther, That our delegates to the Charleston Convention are hereby expressly instructed to insist that said Convention shall adopt a platform of principles, recognizing distinctly the rights of the South, as asserted in the foregoing resolutions; and if the said National Convention shall refuse to adopt, in su,bstan1ce, the propositions embraced in the preceding resolutions, prior to nominating candidates, our delegates to said Convention are hereby positively instructed to withdraw therefrom. 11.

fResol,:e,.th’t,,er, That our delegates to the Charleston Convention shall cast the vote of Alabama as a unit, and a majority of or d;-Itgates shall determine how the vote.of this :State shall be given. ‘. Resolced fratther, That an Executive Committee, to con siqt of on,e from,, each Congressional District, be appointed, who.,tulv it sI,;ll lIe, in the event that our delegates with,Iaw fron{ lhe Ct h (.s on (,onyvhtion, in obedience to the 10th r solmin, to.all a t ouvention of the Democracy of Alabama to ml at al, early da,Iy to consider what is best to be done.

Under these resolutions, the undersigned received their appoiintmen~t, and participated in the action of this Con vention. By the resolution of instruction, the tenth in the series, we were directed to insist that the platform adopted by th~is Convention should embody, “1 in whole,” the proposi tions embraced in the preceding resolutions, prior to nominating candidates. Anxious, if possible, to continue our relations with this Convention, and thus to maintain the nationality of the Democratic party, we agreed to accept, as the substance of the Alabama platform, either of the two reports sub nritted to this*Convention by the majority of the Committee on Resolutions-tlhis majority representing not only a, majority of the States of the Union, but also the only States at; all likely to be carried by the Democratic party in the Presidential election. We beg to make these re ports a part of this communication. [See heretofore the twio sets of resolutions re ported by Mr. Avery.] These reports receivedl the indorsement in the Com mittee on Resolutions of eve,‘y Southern State, and, had ~ either of thueml been adloptedl as the plattfor m of principles .of the Demlocratic party, although possibly in some re Mr. Barry, of Mississippi.-I am instructed by the Mississippi delegation to state that they retire from the Convention with the delegation from Alabama.

(Cheers.) The y have prepared a protest, which they desire to subrnit, but by accident it is not now here. I desire also to state that they have adopted unanimously a resolution that they are the only delegates-which is uncontestedand that no one is or shall be authorized to represent them in their absence upon the floor of the Convention. (Cheers.-) Mr.i Mouton, of Louisiana. Mr. President, I have but a short communication to make to the Convention. I do not do it as an individual. I am authorized to say by the delegates representing Louisiana in this Convention, that they will not participate any longer in the proceediings of this Convention. (Chee rs.) { eretofore we have been in the habi t of saying that the Democra cy of the country was harmoni ous. (Laughter.) Can we say so to-day with any truth? Are we not divided, and divided in such a manner that we can never be reconciled, because we are divided upon principle? Can we agree to the Platform adopted by the majority of the Convention, and then go hoie to our constituents andl put one construct,ion on it, while Northern Democrats put another? No, Mr. President, I think I speak the sentiment of my State when I say that she will never play such a part. (Cheers ) If we are to fight the Black Republicans togetter, let us do it with a bold front, let us use the same arms; let us sustain the same principles. I was willing, I I ‘I 4 MISSISSIPPI WITIIDRAWS.

Page 35 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFORMS. this morning, in order to do away with the necessity of I ,ill these votes, and to ascertain if there was a majority here ready to impose upon us such a PlatformI was willing, myself, that the majority of thie Convention should i retire and prepare such a Platform as suited them, and to take a vote upon it, and if that Platform did not give is those guarantees which we are entitle d t o under the Constitution, then we woul d have been ready to do what we are,’ now doing. The Platform which the majority of this Convention las a(lopted does not give us those guarantees wiiicl we are entitled to for the protection of our property in the Territories. We wish to wear no two faces in this contest. We wisls toy meet the B’ack Rpucans with their,I)o iinable doctrines boldly e,n”a it our friends, the Democrats from the Free States, cannot join us and fight with s, we ust fight our own battle. We are ready to meet the issue made by the Black Republicans like niet, bit we shall battle for what we conceive to be the truth, and not f’)r profit.

For these reasons, I am authorizetl by my delegation to announce that ttey withdlraw from the Convention. At the same time, I should state the fact that two of the delegation do not join us in this itovement. (Loud cheers.) At the same time, I should state that those who sent us here instructed us to vote as a unit, and we contend, therefore, that we are entitled to give the whole vote of the State, and that no one else is entitled to give it or to divide it. Mr. Mouton made some additional remarks, but owin’, to the confusion which prevailed in the hall, the reporter was unable to hear them. Mr. Glenn, of Mlississippi.-,NMr.

President and gentlemen of this Convention: F or the first time, for the only time, for the last time, in t he n am e of the State that I have the honor in part to represent here, I desire to say but a few words to this Convention. I hold in my handi the solemn act of her delegation upon this floor, and I say to you, gentlemen, that it is not a hast y action; that it is not one conceived in passi on, or car ried out in caprice or isalippointtment. It is t he firm resolve of the lvgreat body of the people whom we represent, which was expressed in the Convention that sent us here, and that resolve, that people, and we, their tepre s entatives, will maintain at all cost at aa all hazards. (Loutl cheers.) We came here not to dictate to the wrepresentatives of other soveeign State. Sinc e we have been here, ouin-interollrse has been corteous s o faoe as personalities are concerned. We of ave.I sounght, and I be lieve hav e all bt ee able, to conlt oselves as gentlemen. But we di d whtt coie here to ex rise the courtesies of life alone. We c,ln to settle the pr incipl es u p on which our bpar ty must ret and ull st (tInd We caie here, gentlemen of the Northl, not to ask youl to ado pt a principle which you could say w,,s opposed to your consciences and to your p,‘inciplles. We didl not be,lieve it to be so. We came as equal mne,n,b,ers of a common confederacy, simply to ask you to ackn owledge out-equal rights within that confederacy. (Citeors.) Sit, at Cincinnati we adopted a Platf,-tin on which we all agrieedl. New answer me, ye men of the North, of the E,tst, of the South, and of the West, what was the construction lfed upon that Platform in differlent sections of the U,.i,on? You at the West said it meant one tling we of the South said it meant another. Either we were right or you were right; we were wrong or you were wr-oneg. We came here to ask y,u which was right and whichr ws wron g. You have maintained your position. You say that you cannot give us an acknowledg,ment of theat right,which I tell you here now, in coming time will be your only safety in your contests with the Black Republicans of Ohio and of the North.

(Cheers.)’.. -.- -. Wly, sir, turn back to the history of your own leading men. There sits, distinguished gentleman, (Hon. Charles W. Stuart, of AMichigan,) once a representative of one of the sovereign States of the Union in the Senate, who then voted that Congress had the constitutional power to pass the Wilm,rt Proviso, and to exclude Slavery from the Territories; and now, when the Supreme Court has said tllat, it. has not tilat power, he comes forward and tells Mlississippiais that that same Congress is impotent to protect that sam,e species of property. There sits my dist irguishedl friend. the Senator fr om Ohio, (Mir. Pugh,) wvho, lut a few nights since, told us from that stand that i f a Tlerrlitorlial G,,gver nmlent totally misused their powers or abulsedi ttleml, Congrless could wipe out that Territorial Gove}rnmlent altogether. And yet. when we come here aInd axsk h-itn to) give us pr oteetirm in case that Territorial G,ove,‘nmllent r.bs its of our pro~per ty and strikes the star wvh~,.h ansqwer s to} the name of Mississippi from the flagf of }le U,,i,,,,| so far ax the{ Constitultion gives her protection, !ex delis USA with his hand uprsm hlis healrt as Gov. Payne, of Ohio, flail ef,,re done-thigh they will part with their lives before te i they will ack nowledge the p rinciple which we contend for. Gentlemen, in such a si tuation of th ings in the Conven tion of our great party, it is tig’ht that we should part Go your way, and we will go ours. The South leaves you -not like a lagar, d t-iven into the wild erness, friendless and alone-but I tell Southern amet here, and for the m, I tell the North, that, in l ess t,an sixtv day>, you vrill find a unit ed South standing Aide by side with us. (Prolonged and enthusiastic cheering.) We stand firm and immovable, and while eve respect you, we must respect ourselves. And, gtsentleen, let ne say to you of the North now, that thle time nmay come when yo u will n eed us more than we need youi. I speak to those wh o represent ” the green hills of Nesw England;” I speak to the m im per ial c enter “of the Uni on. There slumbers in your midst a l atent s park-not of politich sectionalism, but of social discord which may yet require th e con serva tive piinciples of the Sauth to save. your re gion of country from anar chy and confusion. We ne ed not your protection. The po wer of the Blac k Republicans is nothing to us. We are safe in our own strength and s ecurity, so long as we maintain o uv rig hts. Gentlemen, I have detaine d you too long. I ask, i n c onclusion, th at the few words wh ich are here w gittenwords of courtesy, but words of truth so far as ny glorious State is concewned-may be r ead in your hearring. Mr. Mathews, of Mississippi, then read the fo ll owing doctrtent. pb the President of the Democra tic Convention: SIR: As Chairman of the delegation, which ha s thehonor to repres en t the State of Mis sissippi upon this floor, I desir e t6 be heard by yoo an d by the Con vention. In co mmon consultation we have me t here, the representatives of sistel States, to r e solve th e princ iple s of a great party. While maintaining principles, we profess o spirit save that of harmony, conciliation, the succes s of our part y, and the safety of our organization. But to the for mer the l atter must yield-fo r no organization is valuable without it, and no success is honorable which does not crown it. We ca me here simply asking a re cogn ition of the e qual rights of our State under the laws and Constitution of our common Government; t h at our right to property should be asserted, an d the protecti o n of that property, wilen necessary, should be yielded by the Government which claims our allegiance. We had regarded governnment and protection as correlat ive ideas, and that so lon g as the one was maintained the other still endured. After a deliberation of many days, it has been announced to us by a controlling majority of Rep resentatives of nearly onehalf the States of thi s Un ion, an d tha t too, in the most solemn and impressive manner, that our demand cannot be met and our rights cannot be recognized. While it is granted that the capacity of the Federal Government is ample to protect all other properety within its jurisdiction, it is claimed to be imrpotent when called upon to act in favor of a species of property recognized in fifteen sovereign States.

Within those States, even Black Republicans admit it to be guaranteed lby the Constitution, and to be only assailed by a!iigher Law; without them, they claim the power to prohibit or destroy it, The controling majority of Northern representatives on this floor, while they deny all power to destroy, equally deny all power to protect; and this, they assure us, is, and must, and shall be the condition of our cooperation in the next Presidential election. In this state of affairs, our duty is plain and obvious. The State which sent us here, announced to us her principles. In common with seventeen of her sister States, she has asked a recognition of her Constitutional rights. These have been plainly and explicitly denied to her. We have offered to yield everything except an abandonment of her rights everything except her honor-and it has availed us nothing. As the Representatives of Mississippi, knowing her wishes as honorable men, regarding her commands-we withdraw from the Convention, and, as far as our action is concerned, absolve her from all connection with this body, and all responsibility for its action To you, sir, as presiding officer of the Convention while it has existed in its integrity, we desire, collectively as a delegation, and individually as men, to tender the highest assur ances of our profound respect and consideration. Signed: D. C. Glen, Chairman of the Mississippi delegation; George HI. Gordon, James Drone, Beverly Mathews, J. T. Simms, Joseph R. Davis, W. S. Wilson, Isaac Enloe, Charles Edward tlocker, W. Ht. H. Tisoni Ethelbert B3arksdlale, W. S.

Barr~y, J. M. Thomlson. Mr. Mathews then annoulnced that a mleetinlg 35

Page 36 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. of all those ovho symiipattlized with them in this ntovenliet,t would be held at 8 o’clock this evening, in St.

Anidrew’s Hall. The Mississippi de legation then withdrew from the Convention. received ariongst you, and which we have returned with the kindest feelings of ouir hear-ts. We part from you without any unkind feeling. We respect you as gentlemen, but differing, as we do, upon principles vital to our most sacred interests, in the same spirit of wisdomn and affection which caused Abraham and Lot to pass on, one in one diretion nd the other in a different one, we bid you a most respectful adieu. (Loud cheers.) One more remark, and I have done. The delegation from the State of Florida has unanimously passed a resolution that no one is authorized, when we shall retire, to represent Florida in th is Conventio n. I confess, in all frankness, that I deem the resolution wholly unnecessary, because I believe there is too high a sense of honor amongst gentlemen here from the North, and the East, and the West, to permit any man to skulk in here to represent Florida. Mcr. Eppes, of Florida, then read the following protestation: TO THE HON. CALEB CUSHING, Presitdlent of the Democratic NSational Contvention: The undersigned, Democratic delegates from the State of Florida, enter this their solemn protest against the action of the Convention in voting down the Platform of the majority. Florida, with her Southern sisters, is entitled to a clear and unambiguous recognition of her rights in the Ternitories, and this being refused by the rejection of the majority report, we protest against receiving the Cincinnati Platform with the interpretation that it favors the doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty in the Territorieswhich doctrine, in the namne of the people represented by us, we repudiate. T.

J. Eppes, B. F. Wardlaw, John Milton, J. B. Owens, C. F. Dyke, delegates from Florida. The delegates from Florida, before retiring, have unanimously adopted the following Resolution: Resolvedl, That no person, not a regularly appointed delegate, has a right to cast the vote of the State ot Florida in this Convention. JOHN MILTON, Chairman of Delegation.

SOUTH CAROLINA;WITHDRAWS. The tI,,n. James Simons, of South Carolina.-Mr.

President, I am directed by the delegation from South Carolina respe ctf ully to pres ent th e fo llowing do cument. TO THE HON. CALEB CUSHING, President of the Charleston Conzvention: We, the undersigned Delegates appointed by the Democratic State Convention of South Carolina, beg leave respectfully to state that, according to the principles enunciated in their Platform at Columbia, the power, either of the Federal Government or of its agent, the Territorial Government, to abolish or legislate against property in slaves, by either direct or indirect legislation, is especially denied; and as the Platf orm ad opt ed by the C onvention palpably and intentionally prevents any expression affirming the incapacity of the Territorial Government so to legislate, that they would not be acting in good faith to their principles, or in accordance with the wishes of their constituents, to longer remain in this Convention, and they hereby respectfully announce their withdrawal therefrom. JAMES

SIMONS, THOS. Y. SIMONS, S. McGOWAN, JAS. PATTERSON, B. H. WILSON, B. H.

BROWN, R. B. BOYLSTON, J. A. METTS, JAS. H. WITHERSPOON, JOHN S. PRESTON.

E. W. CHARLES, FRANKLAND GAILLARD. G. N. REYNOLDS, Jr. The reading of this paper was greeted with frequ(enit bursts of most enthusiastic cheering on the floor and in the galleries. I am further instructed to say, that the communication is signed by all the delegation but three members. The South Carolin a delegation then withdrew from the Convention amidst loud cheering. Mr. Bryan, of Texas, who was received with loud cheers, said: Mr. President and gentlemen of the ConventionTexas, through her delegates on this floor, on the land of Calhoun, where “truth, justice and the Constitution” was proclaimed to tie South, says to the South-this day you stand erect. (Loud cheers,) Whilst we deprecate the necessity which calls for our parting with the delegates from the other States of this Confederacy, yet it is an event that we, personally, have long looked to.

Educated in a Northern College, I there first learned that there was a North and a South; there were two literary Societies, one Northern and the other Southern. In the Churches, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, the Presbyterian Church, are North and South. Gentlemen of the North and Northwest, God grant that there may be but one Democratic party! It depends upon your action, when you leave here, whether it shall be so.

Give not aid and comfort to the Black Republican hosts; but say to the South, ” You are our equals in this Confederacy, and your lives, your persons and property, equally with those of the Northern States, are protected by the Constitution of the Federal Union.” What is it that we, the Southlern Democrats, are asking you to acknowledge? Analyze it and see the meaning; and it is this-that ve will not ask quite as much of you as the Black Republicans, and if you only grant what we ask, we can fight them. We blame you not if you really hold these opinions, but declare them openly, and let us separate, as did Abraham and Lot. I have been requested to read this protest on the part of the delegates from Texas, and to ask the courtesy of the Convention that it be spread upon the minutes of its proceedings. FLORIDA RETIRES. Mr. Milton, of Florida.-Mr. President: Representing the State of Florida, it is with feelings of sadness that I present myself before you to bid adieu to the men of talent and men of high and noble feelings firom the North and West, who have met us here upon this occasion. But differences have arisen between us which, as honorable men, we cannot adjust. It has been asked, time and again, why we should invite gentlemen from the Northwest, tie North and the East, to come and occupy higher ground than we did when we stood together and triurmphed on the Cincinnati Platform? Since that time, gentlemien, according to your own report, a mighty’ power has arisen in your midst, deriving much of its strength and support from the Democrats of the N
orth. I allude to the Black Republican party-a party which promulgates to the country that they have a higher law, a law known only to themselves-I hope not known to you-but superior to the Constitution. And, gentlemen, let me tell you that we came here expecting to be met hand in hand, and heart in heart, and to have formed a line shoulder to shoulder with you to drive back this swelling tide of fanaticism. But, gentlemen, how have we been met by you? I am proud to say that we have been met with high-toned generosity by Oregon and California. (Cheers.) I am proud to say that support ers of our claim for equal rights have boldly presented th emselves from the good old State of Pennsylvania. (Cheers.) While we have entertained great respect for your talent anti integrity, yet we bid adieu to you of the Northwest without so much feeling of regret, as you have hardened your hearts and stiffened your necks against the rights of the South. (Cheers and laughter.) But, we say to you, gentlemen from Oregon and California, and Pennsylvania and other States, who have come forward with the hand of fellowship, that we part from you with feelings of heartfelt sorrow. Mr. ltandall, of Pennsylvania.-And NewJersey. Mr.

M:.lton.-I did not forget NewJersey, nor could I forget Massachusetts. My remark was general. Whereever and whenever a gentlemen from the North, the East or the West, has had the manliness to rise up and vindicate our rights, our hearts have been at his commrand. (Cheers.) We thank you, gentlemen, for the courtesies we have HON. CALEB CUSH9ING, President of the Demnocratic 2Vational Convesrtion: The undersigned, delegates from the State of Texas, would respectfully protest against the late action of this Convention, in refusing to adopt the report of the majority of the Committee on Resolutions, which operates as the virtual adoption of principles affirming doctrines in opposition to the decision of the Supreme Court in the lDred Scott case, and in conflict with the Federal Constitution, and especially opposed to the platform of the Democratic party o f Texas, wh ich declares: Ist. That the Democratic party of the State of Texas reaffirm and concur in the principles contained in the platform of the National Democratic Convention, held at Cincinnati in June, 1856, as a true expression of political faith and Orl’:ioi, atn4d herewith reassert and set forth the I i I 36 TEXAS WITHDRAWP.

Page 37 view page image

NATIONAL CONYVE?-T.ONS AND PLATFORMS. principles therein cot tainej, as embracing the only doc-‘I trifle which can preserve the integrity of the Union and i ttie equal rights of the States, “expressly rejecting any f interpret tion thereof favoring the doctrine known as Squatter Sovereignty,” and that we will continue to adhere to and abide by the principles and doctrines of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798
and 1799 and t Mr. Madison’s report relative thereto. 2d. That it is the right of every citizen to take his property, of any kind, including slaves, into the common territory belonging equally to all the States of the Confederacy, and to have it protected there under the Federal Constitution. Neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislattre, nor any human power, has any authority, either directly or indirectly, to impair these sacred rights; and they having been affirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court in tile Dred Sco tt case, we declare that it is the duty of the Federal Government, the common agent of all the States, to establish such government, and enact such laws for the Territories, and so change the same, from time to time, as may be niecessary to insure the protection and preservation of these rights, and prevent every infringement of the same. The affirmation of this principle of the duty of Congress to simply protect the rights of property, is nowise in conflict with the heretofore established and well-organized principles of the Democratic party, that Congress does not possess the power to legislate Slavery into the Territories, or to exclude it therefrom. Recognizing these declarations of principles as instructions to us for our government in the National Convention, and believing that a repudiation of them by all the Northern St tes, except the noble States of Oregon and California, the whole vote of which is more than doubtful in the ensuing Presidential election, demand from us our unqualified disapproval. ‘the undersigned do not deem this the place or time to discuss the practical illustrattion that has been given of the irrepressible conflict between the Northern and Southern States, that has prevailed in this Convention for the last week. It is sufficient to say that, if the principles of the Norther n Democracy are properly represented by the opinion and action of the majority of the delegates from that section on this floor, we do not hesitate to declare thatr t heir princi ples are not only not ours but, if adhered to and enforced by them, will destroy this Union. Inl consideration of the f orego ing facts, w e cannot remain i b i the Convention. W e c o nsequently respectfully withdraw, leaving no one authorized to cast the vote of the State of Texas. Guy M. Bryan, Chairman; F. R. Lubbock, F. S.

Stockdale, E. Greet, tI. R. Runnells, Wm. B. Ochiltree, M. W. Covey, Win.

II. Parsons, R. Ward, J. F. Crosby. AIRAINS xS RETIRES. Mr. Burrow, of Arkansas, read the following protest. HON. CALEB CUSIHING, Pr e,,iderit of Charleston Convention: The undersigned, delegates accredited by the Democracy of Arkansas to represent said Democracy in the Convention of the Democracy of the United States, assembled on the 23d April, 1860, beg leave to submit the following protest, against certain actions of this Convention, and statement of the causes which, in their opinion, require them to retire from tiis Convention: 1st. The Convention of the Democracy of the State of Arkansas, convened at Little Rock on the 2d day of April, 1860, passed amtonlg other things, the following resolutions, viz.: 1st.

ResoW, ea, re the Democracy of Arkansas, throuigh our representatives in Convention assembled, proclam our confidence in the virtue and intelligence of the people, and un.abated faith in the principles of the Democracy. 2do. We re-aflh’m the p,litical principl,, enunciated in the Cincinnati platforn by the Democracy of the UnIited States In June, 1l:56, and assert as illtstrative thereof, that neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature, whether by direcf legislation or by legislation of an indirect and un,friendly character, possesses the poorer to annll or impair the constitiltional rights of aly citizen of the United States to take his slave pro perty into the commonl Territories, and there hold and en lov hMne samne, and that if experienlce should at any time prove ]h’~e Juic,liiary and executive power do not possess’the means to insulre pr otection to conlstitutional right,s ill a Territory and~ if the Territorial Govermlnent should fail or refulse] to provide the necess~.ry reme lies for that purpose, it will b~e the duty of Congress to supply the deficiency. 3d. That the representatives of the D~emocracy of Arkanls.ss in the Chlarlestonl Convention be instructed to insist ulpon he reconllioal by said Convention of the purpose he:reinbefore declared, p~rior tee balloting Ior ally candidate for the Presidency;* an t if s ai l Conalventio3n refuse to recognize t he rigrhts of the South in the Territories of the United State~, the repro In a ccordance with the instructions contained in resolu tion 3d above, one of the undersigned had the honor, on the second day of t he se ssion o f this Convention, to offer to the consideration of teeis Convention the following reso lutioni, viz.: ‘ a measolveda, Tahat the C.o rt eoe will not proceed to nomi nate a e.nndicatly fotr th oresi acr hy unytil the Platform shall l,,e been mad,e ” Which said resolution was as passed by the Conventio n wi th great unanimity. Subsequently, the Committe e o n Re;so lutions and Platform, appointed by the Co n ve ntion, in a c cordance with the usages a nd custom s of the Democra t ic party of the United States, greed upon and reported to this Convention a platfom of principles,, recognizinrg the principle contained in th e res oluti ons of the Democracy of Arkansas, above recited, and full y asserting the e qua l rights of the Southern States i n the o.ommi on Tlerritories of the United States, and the duty of the Federal Govern ment to protect those rights when necessary, according to the usages and customsr of the Democrac y of the United States, as developed by the practice of said Democracy as sembled in Convention on former occasions, and in strict accordan ce, a s is believed by the undersigned, with the compact an d agreement ma de by and between the Dem ocrats of the several States, upon which t he Con ventions of the Democracy of the United States were agreed first to be founded, a nd assented to by the several Southern States. The r epo rt a nd determination of th ee Committee on Platform became and was hencefor ward the platfo rm of the De mocr acy of th e United States, and this Convention had no duty to perform in re lation thereto but to receive, confirm and publish the same, an d c aus e it to be carried into effect whe rever in the respective States the De mocracy were able to enforce their decrees at the ballot box. The undersigned are confir me d in this opinion by r freference not only to the his t ory of the past, which shows th at in all instances the sovere ignty of thle States, and not the electo ral vote s of the States, has uniformly been represented in the Committee on Platforms, an d that the re port of the Co mmittee has invariably been registered as the supreme law of the Democrati c party by u nanimous consent of the entire Convention, without changing or in any manne r altering any part or portion thereof. It is asserted, as a part of our traditional policy, and confidently believed, that the Democracy of the Unit ed States, by a peculiar system of che cks and balances, formed aftero of the fashion of the Federal Govern me nt, were contracted and bo und themselves to fully recognize the sovereignty of the States in making the platform, and the population or masse s o f the States in naming the c and idat e to be pla ced on the platform. Th at many States have been u niformly allowe d to vote the full st rength o f their electoral college in thes e C onventions when it was well known that said States never heretofore, and pro ba bly would never hereafter give a singl le elec toral vote at the polls t o the candidate which they had so large a share in nominating, cannot be ac counted for o n any other principle than that it was intended only as a recognition of the sovereignty and equali t y of said States. Would it be right at this time for the numerical ma jo rity to de prive all the Black Republi can S tates repre sented on this floor of their repr esen tation, wh ich by custom they have so long enjoyed, simply because it is now evident that they are or will be unable to vote the Democratic ticket in the next Presidential election? By common consent we say that a reckless numerical majority should not be thus allowed to tread under foot the vested righits of those States and well established usages and customs of the party. If thus it be wrong for the numerical majority to deprive the Black Republican States of this long vested right, how much more unjust is it for the numerical majority to deprive all the States of their vested right to make and declare the platform in the usual and customary manner? and when we call to mind that the numerical majority resides chiefly in the Black Republi can States, to whom the South has uniformly accorded so large a privilege, in naning candidates who were alone to be elected by Southern votes, we have much reason to believe that he to whom you gave an inch seems embo(Iened the.el)y to demand an ell.

The undlersignled be; leave to state that many patr’iotic XStates’ flight D~emocrats ill the South, have long contended that these Convenations of the Democracy, repre 37

Page 38 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK EOPR 1860. senting in fact the whole consolidated strength of the Union, acting through party sympathy upon the individual nmem.bers of society, would ultimate in a despotic, colossal centralism, possessed of power to override and destr oy at its will and pleasure the constitutions and reserved rights of any and all the States. The South, however, has heretofore felt safe because of tile checks and balances imposed upon the machinery of the Conventiois. The South felt that where she retained an equal powipr to write the creed of fai*, she could trust her Northern sisters, with their immense populations, to name the candidate; and all would alike support the creed and the candidate. The undersigned, well knowing the hostility of the Northern masses toward the “peculiar institutions” of the South, and calling to mind the relative numbers of the Northern and Southern States, assert with confidence that no Southern State in the Union would ever have consented to surrender, so abjectly and hopelessly, all their fortunes to the numerical majority who have just now voted to set aside the Platform, unless upon the full assurance that the States were entitled by agreement to make and establish the creed of faith and prescribe the rule of action. This violation of plighted faith on the part of the numerical majoity-this violation of the well established usage and custom of the party-d-drive us to the conclusion that we cannot longer safely trust the fortunes of Slaveholding States to the chances of the numerical majority in a Convention, where all the Black Republicans of the Union, the immense populations of Massachusetts, NewYork, Pennsylvania and Ohio, and other Northern States, are fully represented, on the one side against the small populations firom the slave States on the other. Had these populations adhered strictly to the usages and customs of the party, longer association might have been practicable; but annihilation is staring us in the face, and we are admonished of our duty to stand upon our reserved rights. WNe declare, therefore, that we believe our mission to this Convention at an end: lst.

Because the numerical majority have usurped the prerogatives of the States in setting aside the Platform made by the States, and have thus unsettled the basis of this Convention, and thereby permanently dis orga nized its con st itution. Its decrees, therefore, become null and void. 2d. Because we w ere positively instructed by the Democracy of Arkansas to insist on the recognition of the equal rights of the Souat h ino th e co mmon Territories, and protection to those rights by the Fe de ral Government, prior to any nomination of a candidate; and as this Convention has refused to recognize the principle required by the State of Arkansas, in her popular Convention first, and twic e subsequently re-asseted by Arkansas, together w ith all her Southern sisters, in the repor t of a Platform to this Convention; and as we c annot serve two masters, we are determined first to serve the L ord our G o d. We cannot ballot for any candidate whatsoever. bd. In retiring, we deny to a ny person, or persons, any right whatever to cast hereafter, in th is Convention, either our vote or the vote of Arkansas on any proposition which may, or can, possibly come up for consideration. The Delegates of Arkansas cannot take any part in placing a sound candidate on an unsound platform, because it would disgrace any sound Southern man who would consent to stand on such a platform; and, as a Squatter Sovereignty Platform has been adopted, we believe good faith and honor requires that the Chief of Squatter Sovereignty should be placed on it. W4,e wish no part or lot in such misfortune, nor do we believe that we can safely linger under the shade of the upas tree, this day planted certainly. by the Democratic party as a unit. (Cheers.) He wished to consult with other Southern men as to the best course to be pursued-(cheers)-reserving to himself the right to decide the question, which he would do in a few hours. His heart and all the feelings of his nature were with those Southern men who had seen proper to leave the Convention; but, at the same time, he hesitated between his personal feelings and his duty to his own people. If he could get a good sound Southern man for President, he would be willing to take him on this platform. (Cheers.) The Georgia delegation asked leave to retire for consultation, which was granted. Messrs. Bayard and Whiteley, two of the six delegates fromn Delaware, retired from the Con.vention and joined the seceders. Mr. Sa,ulsburv, (U. S. Senator,) of Delaware, stated his reason for not retiring with his colleagues, and the Convention adjourned. Onl Tuesday, May 1st, the P’resident stated the regular order of business to be the notions to reconsider, and the motions to lay the rmotions to reconsider oil the table, by which the various resolutions constituting the Platform were adopted. Pending the determination of these questions, yesterday evening, the chairman of several of the delegations rose to questions of privileg,e, under which their delegations retired from the hall. When the Convention adjourned the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Merrick) was upon the floor. GEORGIA RETIRES. Mr. Benning of Georgia.-Mr. President: On yesterday afternoon the delegation from Georgia obtained the leave of the Convention to retire for the purpose of consulting as to the course they would pursue in consequence of the action taken by the Convention in the previous part of the day. They retired, and they have since been engaged in consultation. They have considered the questions involved, with as much maturity and care as they could bestow upon them, and they have come to a conclusion as to the course they ought to pursue. That conclusion is contained in two resolutions which I hold in my lalnd, and which I will now read to the Convention. Resolved. That, upon the opening of the Convention this morning, our Chairman be requested to state to the President that the Georgia delegation, after mature deliberation, have flt it be their duty, under existing circumstances, not to participate further in the deliberations of the Convention, and that, therefore, the delegation withdraw. Redolved, GThat all who acquiesce in the foregoing resolutirn sign the same, and request the Convention to enter it on their records. (Signed,) JUIIIUS WINGFIELD, HIENRY L.

BENNINVq” }tENRY R. JACKSON, P. TRACY, J. M. CLARK, JEFFERSON N. LAMAR, WM. M{. SLAUGHTER, EDMOND J. MCGEBER, JOHN A. JONES, GEO. HILI,YER, I)AVID

C. BIARROW, IVARK JOINSTON, JAS. J. DIAMAN, EDWARD R. HARDEN, A. FRANKLIN

}fILL, JOH, 1H. LUmiPKIN, ED. L. STROIIECKER, G. G. FAILS, 0. C. GIBSON, JAMES HOGE, HIENILY O. THOMAS, W. J. JoHnsoN. The undersigned, delegates from Georgia, having voted in the meeting of the delegation against withldrawing from the Convention yet, believe, under the instructions contained in the resolution of the Georgia Convention, that the vole of the majority should control our motion, and we therefore with draw with the majority. J. T. IRVIN, JULIAN I{ARTRIDGE, W. H. HULL, B. H. DitiSCOE.

This paper is signed by twenty-six out of the thirty-three or thirty-four delegates in that Convention from the State of Georgia. I have now, Mr.

President, discharged the duty which has been intrusted to me by my delegation. The majority of the Georgia delegation then retired from the hall. Mr. Johnson, of Arkansas.-I do not desire to detain this Conven tion for a momnent. On yesterday evening I stated to the Convention that I should come here this morning and tell them what was my conclusion, and what was the conclusion of the portion of the delegation from the State of Arkansas which then thought proper to remain in the Convention. We are now ready to take that step which our judgment dictates to be right. In accor’ance with our duty here, we,vanted time to pause and P. JOIRDAN, B.

BURROIW, VAN H. MANNING. Mr. Burrow stated, after reading the paper, that the gentlemen who ha d sig ned reprosen ted both wines of the State-all its public iren., its hopes, it character, and its fortunes. Mr. Johnson, of Arkansas, as Chairman of the Arkansas delegation, desired to say a single word to go along with the paper which had been read. It was his desire that that portion of the Arkansas delegation who had concluded to leave the Convention should have paused until the delegati(k could have had a consultation. Why did he hesitate? It vas because he conceived that the stability of the Union its,,If was involved in the action taken here by the i%,~i~ ern representatives. i, d lee. n tauight from childhood to believe that if 11he iiion wts to be preserved at all, it was to be preserved 38

Page 39 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFORMS. ories, by inaction, unfriendly legislation or otherwise, should endanger the tenure of such property, or discriminate against t by withholding that protection given to other species of property in the Territories, it is the duty of the G(eneral Governoment t interpose, by the active exertion of its constitutional ower, to secure the rights of the slaveholder. The principles enunciated in the foregoing resolution are guaranteed to us by the Constitution of the Unfted States, and their unequivocal recognition by the IDemocracy of the Union we regard as essential, not only to the integr ity of the lIrty, but to the safety of the States whose interests are directly involved.

They have been embodied in both of the series of resolutions presented to the Convention by a majority of the States of the Union, and have been rejected by a numerical vote of the delegates. The Convention has, by this vote, refused to recognize the fundamental principles of the Democracy of the State we have the honor to represent, and we feel constrained, in obedience to a high sense of duty, to withdraw from its deliberations, and unanimously to enter our solemn protest against its action. We ask that the communication may be spread upon the minutes of the Convention, and beg leave to express o ur appreciation of,the justice and dignity which have characterized your action as its presiding officer. [Signed,] A.

MOUTON, E. LAWRSNCE, JOHN TARLETON, A. TALBOT, RICHARD TAYLOR, B. W.

PEARCE, EMILE LAS:RE, R. A. HUNTER, F. H. HATCH, D. D. WITHERS. The undersigned, in explanation of their position, beg leave to annex the following statement, viz.: Whilst we took the same view with our colleagues, that the platform of principles, as adopted by this Convention, was not what was expected by Louisiana, and desired by ourselves, as sufficient to guard the rights of that State, and of the whole South, under the Constitution, are now unwilling precipitately to retire from the Convention, until all hope of accommodation shall have been exhausted, and until the last moment had arrived, at which, in justice to our own honor, and the interest and dignity of our own State,we would be forced to retire. We, therefore, were opposed to the retirement of the delegation at the time it was made; but believing that the other members of the delegation were actuated by the same high motives which governed our own opinions, and desiring our State to present a firm, undivided front, we being in the minority of the delegation, were willing to yield, and did yield, our opinions to the judgment of the majority. I I f I t e r s s ~t e [r re t,S [I t, FIRANCIS TERRY, VicePresident. J. P.

JOHNSON, Ch’n of Delegation. F. W. HOADLEY, Secretary. CHARLESTON, lf(ty 1st, 1860. Thie Tennessee Delegation asked and obtained leave to retire for consultation. The Delegation fromii Virginia, and portions of the Delegations froum Keituickiy, North Carolitia and Mary3lanid, h(ad leave to retire for consultation. Mr. Flournoy, of Arkansas.-May I be indulged in one remark? My voice is “Never give up the ship”-(applause)-tiough the fearful storm rages around usthough she may have lost some spars and masts-though she may have some cracked ribs. Sir, for myself, I will be one of that gallant crew who, though the storm rages, though the spars and masts are gone, though ribs be broken -I will, until the noble vessel be swallowed up by the devouring waves, continue to unite with them in the reiterated cry of ” Live, live the Republic!” (Great applause.) Mr.

President, I am a Southern man. Yes, sir, I have been reared amidst the institution. All I have is the product of slave labor. I believe the institution a patriarchal one, and beneficial alike to master and slave.

The bread which supports mny own wife and tender babe is the product of slave labor. I trust, then, that, like Ciesar’s wife, I am “above suspicion.” J. A. McHATTON, CHARLES JONES, CHARLEISTON, S. C,, Ma y 1, 1860. A VOICE FRO.M1 GEORGIA. Mr. Gafi lden, of Georg ia, addr essed the Convention, giving his rea.Isolis for not retiring with his colleagues, as follows: MR. PRESIDENT, AND FELLOW DEMOCRATS: As I stated to yo u a few moment s ago, I have been confine d to my room by severe indisposition, but, lea rn ing of the commotion and the intense excitement which were existing upon the question s before this body, I felt it to b e my duty, feeble as I was, to drag m yse lf out to the meetin g of my delegation, a nd whe n there I was su rprise d to find a l a rge ma jority of t ha t delegation voting to secede at once from this body. I disagre e wit h those gentlem e n. I regret to di sagree with my b ret hren from the South upon any of the great questions which interest our common country. I am a Southern States’ Rights man; I am an African Slavetrader. I am one of th o se Souther n men who believe that Slaveryis right, morally, religiously, socially, and politically. (Applause.) I believe that the institution of Slavery has done mor-e for this country, more for civilization, than all other interests put together. I believe if it were in the power of this country to strike down the institution of Slavery, it would put civilization back 200 years. Holding, then, this position, that Slavery is right in the point of view I have stated, I would demand of the General Government our whole rights in this regard. I believe that the General Government by the Constitution never had any right to legislate upon this subject. I believe that our Governm,ient was a confederation of States for certain specified objects with limited powers; that the domestic relations of each State are to be and should be left to themselves; that this eternal Slavery question has been the bone of contention between the North and South, which if kept in the halls of Congress must break up this Government. I am onhe of those who believe in nonintervention, either in the States or the Territories. vLOai ISIAN.t WITHDRAWS. TO THE I IOn.

CALEB CUSHING, President of thie Democratic Convention: SIR: The undersigned delegates from the State of Louisiana, in withdrawing from.

the Convention, beg leave to make the following statement of facts: On the 5th day of March, 1860, the Democracy of Louisiana assembled in State Convention at Baton Rouge, and unanimously adopted the following declaration of their principles: Resolv;ed, Th1tthe Therrories of the United States belong to the several States as their commonl property, and not to indivi lIal citizens thereof, that thesis leral Constitution recognizes property in slaves; and as..;v,h, the owner thereof is entitled to c~trrv his,aves into any Territory in the United States; to hold them there as property; and in case the people of tho Terri 39 PI t t t i

Page 40 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. buy better negroes for $50 apiece. (Great laughter.) Now, unquestionably, it is to the interest of Virginia to break down the African slavetrade when she can sell her negroes at $2,000. She knows that the African slave trade would break up her; monopoly, and hence her ob jection to it. If any of you -Northern Democrats-for I have more faith in you than I have in the Carpet-Knight Democracy of the South-will go home withi mne’ to my plantation in Georgia, but a little way from here, I will show you some darkies that I bought in Maryland, somle that I bought in Virginia, some in Delaware, some in Florida, some in North Carolina, and I will also show you the pure African, the noblest Roman of them all. (Great laughter.) Now, Fellow-Dem,ocrats, my feeble health and failing voice, admon-sh me to bring the few remarks I have to make to a close. (Cries of ” (i on, go on.”) I am only sorry that I am not in a better con dition than I am to vindicate before you to-day the words of truth, of honesty, and of light, and to show you the gross inconsistencies of the South in this rega d. I came from the First Congressional District of the State of Georgia. I represent the Af’ican lavetrade inter ests of that section. (Applause.) I amn plroud of the position I occupy in that respect. I believe that the African slavetrader is a true missionary, and a true Christian (applause), and I have pleaded with my dele gation from Georgia to put this issue squarely to the Northern Democracy, and say to them, Are you pre pared to go back to first principles, tnd take off your unconstitutional restrictions. and leave this question to be settled by each State? Now do this, fellow-citizens, and you will have peace in the country. But so long as your Federal Legislature takes jurisdiction of this ques tion, so long will there be war, so long will there be ill blood, so long will there be strife, until this glorious Union of ours shall be disrupted and go out in blood and night forever. I advocate the repeal of the laws prohibiting the African Slavetrade, because I believe it to be the true Union movement. I do not believe that sections whose interests are so d ifferent as the Southern and Northern States can ever stand the shocks of fanati cism, unless they be equally balanced. I believe by re opening this trade, and giving us negroes to populate the Territories, that the equilibrium of the two sections will be maintained.

But if the South lies supinely by, and allows the people of the North to people all the Terni tories, until we come to be a hopeless fraction in the Government, then that gallant band of Democrats North may in vain attempt to stay the torrent that will roll down upon us. It will not be in your power to do it. It should be the object of the South now to say to the North: Let us have all our rights in this matter; let us take off these restrictions against the African Slavetrade, and leave it to each State to settle for itself. Then we would want no protection, and then I would be willing to let you have as much Squatter Sovereignty as you wish.

Give us an equal clance, and c-tell you the institution of Slavery will take care of itself. We will give you all the Squatter Sovereignty that the North can desire, Mr. Douglas, or anybody else, if you will take off the unconstitutional restrictions on the Slavetrade and let the negroes come. Then, gentlemen, we should proceed harmoniously, go on to prosper and prospering, until the last trump of God should sound; until time was merged in the ocean of eternity. (Applause.) I say, Fellow-Democrats, that I remained here because I have great faith in the Northern Democracy. If I am forced to part with you, it will be with a bleeding heart. I know not exactly what position I occupy here (laughter), for the majority of mny d elegatio n have voted to secede. We came he r e i nstr ucted t o vote as a unit. Whet e ther m oy oud h the minority are bound to go out with the majority is a question which I have not yet fully determined in my own mind, but at any rate, I told them this morning, and I tell them now, I will not go out yet * I intend to stay here; I intend to hold on to the great Democratic Party of the Union so long as I can consistently with honor and propriety, for I believe that if we break up in a row here, and the Democratic Party of the country is destroyed, this Union falls as certainly as the sun rises and sets. I warn you, seceders, if your action here to-day should have the effect of dismembering and destroying the great Democratic Party of the North, that you destroy this Government beyond all question (applause); and the Union falls, and falls forever!

Now, I am not a disunionist. I love this Union for the mem~ories of the past and for the hopes of the future. (Applause.) The blood of my ancestors was poured out alround this city and thr oughout the South to rear aloft thle proud banner of our glorious Union. I, as an humble descendant of theirs, feel bound to maintain this Union and the Constitution 80 long, and no longer than I can do it honorably and justly to myself and my country. But I do not yet despair of the Republic. El}

(,tipplause.) I am not in favor of breaking up this Gov erl-m~ent upon an impracticable issue, upon a mere teonry I believe that this doctrine of protection to Il,very in the Teiritories is a mere theory, a mere ab St action. (Applause.) Practically, it can be of no con sequence to the South, for the reason that the infant has been strangled before it was born. (Laughter.) You have cut off the supply of Slaves; you have crippled the institution of Slavery in the States by your unjust laws, and it is mne;re folly and madness now to ask for pr-otec tion for a nonentity, for a thing which is not there. eVe have no slaves to carry to these Territories. We can never make another Slave State with our present supply of slaves. But if we could, it would not be wise, for the reasou, that if you make another Slave State from our new Tleriitories with the present supply of slaves, you will be obligeda to giv e up another State, itheher Maryland, D elawar e, or Virginia, to Fre e Soil upon the North. Now, I would deal with this question, fellow-Democrats, as a practical one. When I can see no possible practical g ood to result to the couimtry from demanding legislation upon this theory, I am n ot pr earepared to disintegrate and dismember the gr eat Democratic party of this Union. I believe that th e hopes of t htis country depend upo n the mai nt enan ce of the great Democratic party North. It is no troubl e fo r a man t o be a saint in Heaven. “Wrem n the devil w v.s sick, The devil a. monk would be The,evil rot well, But devi l a morik wa s he.” (Great laughter.) Wee, the D emocracy of the South, are m e re arhet as l I;th is no troubl e fmor u Iocra pause nd laughter.) When I look to the Northern Democrats, I see them standing up there and breasting the tide of fanaticism, oppression, wrong, and slander, with which they have to contend. I view in these men types of the old ancient Romans; I view in them all that i s patriotic and noble; and, for one, I am not willing to cut loose from them. (Grea t cheering.) I say, then, t hat I will h ol d on to my Democrati friends of the North to the last day of the week-late in the evening. (Great laughter.) I am not willing to present to them a half issue of this sort.

I am not willing to disintegrate, dismember, and turn them over to the ruthless hands of the thieving Black Republicans of the North. I would ask my friends of the South to come up in a proper spirit, ask our Northern friends to give us all our rights, and take off the ruthless restrictions which cut off the supply of slaves from foreign lands. As a matter of right and justice to the South, I would ask the Democracy of the North to grant us this thing, and I believe they have the patriotism and honesty to do it, because it is right in itself. I tell you, fellow-Democrats, that the African Slavetrader is the true Union man (Cheers and laughter.) I tell you that the Slave-t-ading of Virginia is more immoral, more unchristian in every possible point of view, than that African Slavetrade which goes to Aftfica and brings a heathen and worthless man here, makes him a useful man, Christianizes him, and sends him and his posterity down the stream of time to join in the blessings of civilization. (Cheers and laughter.) Now, fellow-Democrats, so far as any public expression of the State of Virginia-the great Slavetr-ading State of Virginia-has been given, they are all opposed to the Af ican Slavetrade. Dr. Reed of Indiana. I am from Indiana, and I am in favor of it. Mr. Gaulden-Now, gentlemen, we are told, upon high authority, that there is a certain class of nmen who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Now, Virginia, which authorizes the buying of Christian men, separating them f,‘om their wives and children, from all the relations and associations amid whom they have lived for years, rolls up her eyes in holy horror when I would go to Africa, buy a savage, and introduce him to the blessings of civilization and Christianity. (Cheers and laughter.) Mr. Rynders of N. Y.-You can get one or two recruits from NewYork to join with you. The President.-The time of the gentleman has expired. (Cries of ” Go on! Go on!”) The President-stated that if it was the unanimous wish of the Convention, the gentleman could proceed. Mr. Gaullden. Now, Fellow-Democrats, the slaveSrade in Virginia forms a mighty and powerful reason for its opposition to the African slavetrade, and in this remark I do not intend any disrespect to my friends from Virginia. Virginia, the Mother of States arch of 6tatesmene, the M~othser of Presidents, I apprehend may err as well as other mortals. I am afraid that her eri’or in this regard lies in tile promptings of the ahnighty dollar. It has been my fortune to go into that noble old State to buy a few darkies, and I have head to pay from $i,0030 to $2,000 a head, when I could go to Africa stud 4,) I

Page 41 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTiONS AND PLATFORMS. tertaining, as I do, such profound respect, nay, almost On the 3d of May, and the 10th day of the veneration for the justice of the Democracy of the sesion Mr North, I will yet stand by you for a time. I will do all. Russell, of Virginia, offered the that in me lies to heal these differences. I trust that the tollowillg: result of our deliberations will be the nomination of esovd Th,t when this Convention adjourns to-day, such a man as will give peace to the country and suce-it ju to at Bwltimore, Md., on Monday, cess to the great Democratic National Party of the he it th lay f June, and that it e respectfully recom Union. (Great applause.) ~~the lSth day of June, arid that it be respectfully recom Union. (Great applause.) mended to the Democratic party of the several States to ‘I’he Convention having decided to proceed to ittake provision for supplying all vacancies in their reballot for President, at 4 P.M., Wm. Howard, spective delegations to this Convention when it shall reof Tennessee, moved that twothirds (202) of a assemble (Applause.) full Conveittion (303) be required to nominate.

After the failure of attemnpts to change the which, after omuch discussion and confusion, was place of mneeting to NewYork, Philadelphia, adopted-141 to 112-as follows: etc., and also to change the time to a later pe YasS:-M,ine,3;Massachusetts, 8; Connecticut,2i; riod,the resolve was adopted-195 to 55-as NewYork,:85; New Jersey 5+; Pennsylvania, 17; Dela-follows waie,2; Mtlzyland, 6; Virginia, 15; Nortil Caolina 1; South Carolina, 1; Missouri, 4-; Tennessee, 11; Kn-YEAS:-Maine, 5; NewHampshire, 5; Vermont, 5; tucky, 11; Minnesota, 1i; California, 4; Oregon, -141. Massachusetts,10; Rhode Island, 4; Cotnnecticut,6; New Nay:-Maine, 5; NewHampshire, 5; Vermtont, 5-York, 85; NewJersey,2; Pennsylvania,23+; Maryland, Massachu-e ts, 4i; RIthode Island, 4; Connecticut, 3o, 5; Virginia, 14+; Arkansas,1; Missouri, 6; Tlennessee, New-Jei-sey, 1i; Pennsylvania, 9+; Maryland, 2; Ar-7; Ohio, 23; Indiana, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wiskansas, 1; Nl,ssouri, 4+ *‘Tennessee, 1I Kentucky, 1-consin, 5; Iowa 4, Minnesota, 4; California 3-195. Ohio, 23; Indiana, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wis-NAYS:-Maine, 8; Connecticut, 3; NewJersey, 5; consin, 5; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 2+-112. Pennsylvania, 83; Maryland, 3; Virginia, +; North-Caro Candidates were put in nominatioi, and the lina, 14, Missouri, 8; Tlennessee, 5; Kentucky, 2-55. Convention proceeded to ballot, as follows: Gen. Cushing. the President, made a brief SECEDERS. The retiring delegates met at St. Andrew’s Hall, and were waited on with nianifestations of sympathy by a portion of the Wood Delegation, from NewYork, who,- however, were not invited or admitted to seats The seceders organized bv the appointment of Senator Jamnes ….- 1)+ 330’ 4t+

41 11 1+ — opointmou A. Bavard,of Delaware, as Chairman, and, after nmuclh ailitnated discussion, adopted the followintg Platform: Resolved, That the Platform adopted by the Democl-atic party at Cincinnati be affirmted, with the following explanatory Resolutions: -First, That the Government of a Territory organized by an act of Congress, is provisional and temlporary; aid, during its existence, all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territory without their rights, either of person or property, being destroyed or impaired by Congressional or Territorial Legislation. Secoend, That it is the duty of the Federal Government, in aIt its departments, to protect when necessary the rights of piersons and propeltyin the Territories, and wherever else its Constitutional authority extends. T/ltrd, Thiat when thIe settlers in a Territory having an adequate population form a State Constitution in pursuance of law, the right of sovereignty comences, 3and, being consummated by admission ilt.o the Union, they stand on an equal footing with the people of other St.ates; and the State thus ooganized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union, wether it s Constit ution prohibits or recognizes the institution of Slavery. Fourth, That the Deinoct atic party are in favor of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba, on such term s as shall be honorable to ourselves and just to Spain, at the earliest practicable moment. Fiftl, That the enactments of State Legislatures to lefeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect. 6 Stxtl, That the Demnocracy of the United States recogrize it as the imperative duty of this Governmient to protect the naturalized citizen in all his rights, whether at home or in foreign lands, to the same extent as its native-borea citizens. W/hereas, one of the greatest necessities of the age, in a Political, Commercial, Postal cld Military point of view, is a speedy communication between the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Therefore, be it Resolved,‘lihat the De moratic partydo hereby pledge them+selves to use every iteais in their power to secure tIe passage of some bill to thle extent of thle Constitutional atthority of Corigress for the construction of a Pacific Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, at the earliest practicable tmoment. 1st Ballot 2……… 3…….. 4……… 5…….. 6………

7……… 9……… 9……… 10……… 11……… 12………

14……… 15……… i6…….. 17……… 18……… 19………

21……… 21……… 22……… 23……… 24…….. 25……..

26…….. 27……. 23……… 29……… 80……… 81………

32……… 83……… 84……… 35……. 86……… 3T………

4O…… “29……… 40……. 41…;.’….. 42……… 44……..

45……… 46…….. 47………. 48……… 49……… 50……..

51……… 52.. 59……… 54……… “55……… 56………

b6………. I 41 li I 12 12 12 12 1 -Z 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1

2 1 2 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 12 12 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1

12 12 1 .i: p 9 ij 1 1 1 1 li I -E .2 1 p 7 6i 61. 5 5 3 4 4-1 1 4 4 4 1 i i i i 1 1 1 i i I ii if 12 12 12,i 13 13 3 3 3 5 41 41 51, .51 5 , 51. .,i 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 21 1 21 145i 147 148i 149 1491 149i 150

1.50 1,51’) 15 ) 1.5 o 152 151 15 152 1,52’ 1.52 1,511 151 151i 151i 1511

151 -L 151 151 1.51 1511 1 51 85 861 371 891 3,Sf 41 891 39i 39i 89i 41

411 42 42 411 411 4 411 41i 41 i 411 414 41i 421 4-,’ 4 ) 44 7 471 471 471

471 48 641 66 661 661 661 66i 6 -) 1, 6,5 6.5 -,X 6,51 6.51 6,5i 6,i 65

6,5 6,+ 6.5i 61 651 6;-5 1 6,- i 42 41 36 411 4t 41 4 1 4(1-, 391 39 88 3s 28i 2 7 26i 2(,i 2 6 26 26 2 (, 26 26 2,5 2,5 2,1 25 25 25 25 25 321 221

22i 221 22 22 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 21”11 1 6 1 6 16 6 6

6 6 6 7 6 6 6 51 6+ 6 2) 21)1 21 + 20i 20i 201 21)1 2(li 20i 20119i 19i 191 9 74 .) i 14+ 12i 1 1 12+ 1 3 12’, 12i 12i 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4

1 4 1 4 1 4 1 6 14 14 14 1 ii it ii if if 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Page 42 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. business, as they now come up for consideration-before you. Prior to the adjournment of the Convention, two princi pal suljects of action were before it. O.,e, the adoption of the docto inal resolutions corstitutileg the platform of ‘the Conventior.; the other, vo ting upon the question of the nomination of a candidate for the Presi(lenlcy. In the cours e of the discussion on the adoption of a platform, the Convention adopted a vote, tite effect of which was to amend the report of the d majotity of the Comm ittee on P latfor m by substituti ng the rt pot of the e minonity of that Committee; and after the adopti on of that motion, and the substitution of the minorit y for t he major ity report, a d ivisio n w as called for pon the several resolutions constituting that p latform, being five in number. The 1st, 8d, 4th anti 5th of those resolutions were adopted by the Convention, ofd the 2(1 was rejected. After the vote on the adoption of the 1st, 8d, 4th and 5th of those resolutions, a motion was made in e ach case t o reconsider the vote, and to lay that motion of reconsid eration upon the table. But neither of those motions to reconsider or t o lay on the table rwas put, the putting of those motions having been prevented by the intervention of questions of privilege, and the ultima te vote competen t in such case, to w it, on the adoption of the minport o f the majority as amended by h ep o the rleport of the min ority, had not been acted upon by the Copivention.

So that at th e time when t he Co nvention adjourned there remaine d pending before it these rotions, to wit; lTo reconsider the res olutions constituting the plat fo rm, and the ulterior questio n of a d o pt ing the majority as mended by the subst tti n tuetion of the minority rept.

Those questions, an d those only, as the Chair undestood the 2t e motions before the Convention, were no t acted upon prior to the adjourn ment.

After the disposition of the intervening questions of privilege, a motion was m ade by Mr. McCook, of Ohio, to proceed to vote for candidates for President and Vice President. Upa,n that motion, the Convention instructed the Chai r (not, as has been er roneous ly sup po sed, in the recess of the Conetionvention, the Cieir determining for the Convention, but the Convention instructing the Chair) to make no decl arat io n of a nomin ati on except upon a vot e equivalent to twothirds in the Electoral College of the United States, and upon that balloting, no suhl vote t be ing given, that order was, upon the motion of the gentle man from Virginia (Mr. Russell), laid on th~e table, for the purpose of enabling him to prol)ose a motion, which he subsequently did, that the Conventiorn adjourtn from the city ot Charleston to the city of Baltinm,rte, and with a provision concerning the filling of vacancies emlbraced in the same resolution, which resolution the Secretary will please read. The Secretary read the resolution as follows: ” RetlIved, That when this Convention adjourns to-day, it adjourn to reassemble at Baltimore, Mld., on lMonday, the l1th day of June, and that it be respectfully recommended to the Democratic party of the several States, to make provision for supplying all vacancies in their respective delegates to this C onvention when it shall reassemble.” The President.-The Convention will thus perceive that the order adopted by it provided, ainolig other things, that it is respectfully recommended to the Democratic party of the several States to make provisions for sup plying all vacancies in their respectives delegation to this Convention when it shall reasseomble. What is the con st ruction of that resolution?-what is the scope of its ap plication?-is a question not for the Chair to determine or to suggest to the Convention, but for’be Convention itself to determine. However that may be, in the preparatory arrangements for the pr esent assembl ing of this Convention, there were addressed to the Chair the clelentials of members elected, or purporting to be elected, affirmed and confirmed by the original Conventions and accredited to this Convention. Ili three of t ho se cases, or perhaps four, the credentials were authentic and conmplete, )resenting no question of controverting delegates. In four other.s, to wit-the States of Georgia, Alabamiia, Louisiana and Deleware-there were contesting atiplications. Upon those applications the Chair was called to determine whether it possessed any power to determine primna facie membershlip of this Convention. That que,stion was presented :n its most absolute and complete form in the case or Mississippi, where there was no contest either through irregularity of form or of competing delegations, and so also in the cases of Florida, Texas andl Arkansas. In those four States, there being an apparent autfhenticity of commission, the Chair was called upon to determine the naked, abstract question whether he had power, peremptorfly tne Dem icar ily, to deter m ine t heprirrlafaei membership of alleged members of this Conventicy.. The Chair would gladly hare satisfied himself that he ha,d this power? blut upon examining the source of his power, to After talking for four davs, the Seceders’ Con-a venition adjourned to meet in Richmond, Vir  ginia, on the second Monday in June. Delegates were present from the following States: Alabtnma, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Mi?ssissippi, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware. According to adjournment, the Seceding delegates met at Richmond, Va., on the 11th June. Delegates were present from Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, 2d Congressional Dis trict of Tennessee, and the 7th Electoral District of Virginia. The Hon. John Erwin, of Alabama, was chosen President, with several VicePresi dents and Secretaries. The Convention adopted the following resolutions, and on the 12th, at 12
o’clock, adjourned: Resolved, That as the delegation from States repre sented in this Convention are assembled upon the basis of the platform recommended by a majority of the States at Charleston, which we indorse, we deem it unnecessary to take any further action on the subject at the present time. Resolved, That. when this Convention adjourn it adjourn to meet in this city on Thursday, the 21st inst.provided that the President of this Convention may call it together at an earlier or a later day, if it be deemed necessary. The Convention reassembled on the 21st; but, without doing any business, adjourned to the following day, and so continued to meet and adjourn, awaiting the action of the Convention at Baltimore, till after the nomination of Breckinridge and Lane; when such of the Delegates as had not joined the Seceders in Baltimore, adopted the candidates and platform of the Breckinridge party, and adjourned sine die.

THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC CONVEN TION AT BALTIMORE. In accordance with the adjournm en t at Charleston, the Natio nal Democ rati c Convention re a ssembled at Baltimore, on Mond ay, the 18th June, and held th ei r sessions in the Front street theatre. At eleven o’clock, P r esident Cushing, who appea red on the platform but did not take the chair, directed the Secretary to cala the roll of States in order t o ascertain if the delegates were present. On the calling of the roll, the following States were found to be fully represented: Maine, NewHampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New-Yolk, NewJersey, Mf aryland, Virginia, North Car olina, Missouri, Ohio Indian a, Illinois, M ic higan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Califoonia, Oregon. Connecticut was represented in part, there being some misunderstanding as to the hour of meeting, which had been fixed at 10 o’clock. Two delegates were present from Delaware. When the State of South Carolina was called, the Chair directed that only those States be called which were present at the adjournment of the Convention at Charleston, consequently South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas find Texas, were not called. In consequence of a misapprehension as to the time, the President delayed calling the Convention to order till 12 o’clock, when he took thle Chair and said: GENTLEMIb.:; OF THE CONVENTION: Permit me, in the first place, to congratulate you upon your being reassembled here for the discharge of your imnportant duties in the interests of the Democratic party of the United States; and I beg le,ve, in the second place, to communicate to the Convention the state of the various branches of its II II I 42 THE

SECEDERS AT RICHMOND. I

Page 43 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFOR.IS. wit-the rules of the House of Representatives-he was unable to discern that he had any authority, even prima facie, to scrutinize and canvass credentials, although they were such as, upon their face, were free fromt contest or controversy either of form or Of substance, andI therefloe he deemted it is duty to reserve the deter - minatiu,n of that question to be submiitted to the Convention. And in due titme the Cl-hair will present that question as one of privilege to this body. ~Gentlemen, the Convention is now in order for the transaction of business. The Address of the President was delivered in a clear, loud voice, with much emphasis, and was listened to with close attention. The statement of the position in which the business was left at the time of the adjournment at Charleston, created an evident sensation, inasmuch as it indicated that, according to the opinion of the Chair, the platform question, as well as the resolution declaring that a vote equal to twothirds of the full electoral college to be necessary to the n omina tion of a candida te for the Presidency we re each in a posi tion to be again brought up for the action of t he Convention. ADMISSION OF

DELEGATES. Mr. Howard, of Tenne ssee, offered the followi ng resolution: Resolved, that the President of this Convention direct the Sergeant-at-Arms to is sue tickets of admiss ion t o th e delegates of the Convention as originally constituted and o w teganized at Charleston. Mr.

Cavanaugh, of Minnesota, m ove d to la y the resolution Te tlean uo ta mon the table, and upon that motion called for a vote by States; but by request withdrew his motion to permit Mr. Sanford E. Church, of N. Y., to offer the following, which was read for the information of the Convention and created much excitement: Resiolved, That the credentials of all persons claiming seats in this Convention made vacant by the secession of delegates at Charleston be referred to the Committee on Credentials, and said Committee is hereby instructed, as soon as practicable, to examine the same and report the names of persons entitled to such seats, with the district-understanding, however, that every person accepting a seat in this Convention is bound in honor and good faith to abide by the action of this Convention and support its nominations. After a running debate on questions of order, in which Messrs. Cochrane, of N. Y., Saulsbury, of Del., Clark, of Mo., Montgomery, of Pa., Cavanaugh, of Min., and the Chair participated. Mr. Church moved his resolution as an amendment to that offered by Mr. Howard, and upon that he called for the previous question.

Messrs. Gilmor and Randall rose to debate the question, but the Chair ruled debate not in order. Mr. Aver-y, of North Carolina.-I call for a division of th-question, so that the first question shall be upon referring those credentials to the Committee, and the second question upon the proposition to initiate testoaths in the Democratic Convention.

[Applause.] The Chair could not entertain such a proposition at that time, as the previous question had been demanded. The question was-Would the Convention second the demand fo’ the previous question? Mr. Russell, of Va.-I ask that this Convention will allow me to make a f.‘iendly, candid and sincere appeal to the gentleman who made the call for the previous question (MNr. Church, of NewYork) to withdraw his call. The President.-The Chair has no authority over that question. Mr. Russell.-I ask the Chair to appeal to the gentle man to allow fair play in this Convention. Mr Stuart, of Mich.-I insist that the Chair preserve order.

Tche President. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Russell) is not ill order. AMr. Russell.-If wve are to be constrained to silence, ] beg gentlemen to consider the silence of Virginia as somewhat ominous.

(Applause and hisses.) The qul stion was stated to lie upon seconding the demand for the previous question. Being taken Bike. ‘lihe Presi.dent stated that the noes appeared to have it Mr. Richardson, of Ill., doubted the announcement, and asked that th e vo te be taken by States, which was ordered. Mr. Brodhead, of Pa., stated tha t Mr. Churc h was willing to withdraw his call for the previous question. The Chair decided th at it was too l ate. Air. Saulsburycea ae, of Delaware, move d a reess to 4

Pr.M. Lost: 783 to 1783. Mr. Iloward, of Tennessee.-I hold in my hand a respect ful communication from one o f the States of this Union, Mississippi, not now re presented upo n th is floor, addressed to the Presi dent of t his Con venti on. I desire that it be read for the information of the Convention. The President.-It can only be done by common consent, as the seconding the demand for the previous question is now pen d in g. Cries of ” object, ” i 1 object,” f rom v ariou s quarters. The President-Objection bei n g made to reading this communication, the Se cretary will proceed to call the roll of Stat es upon the seco nding the d emand fo r the previous question. The question being then taken by States upon second ing the demand f or the previous question, it was not agreed to. YEAsS.-Maine, 6; New-tampshire, 5; Vermont, 4b; Mas sachuse tts, 4; Connecticut, 3f; NewJersey, 2; PCenn sylvania, 9C; Maryland, 2; Mis s ouri, 2t; Tennes see, 3; Kentucky, o -; Ohio, 23; Ind iana, 183 Illin ois, 11; Mich i gan, 6; Wisconsin, 5; Iowa, 4; Minlnesota, 2-108io. NAYS. Maine, 2; Vermont, i; Ma ssa chusetts, 8o; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 2-one a bs ent; NewYork, 85; New-Je rsey, 4; Pennsylvania, 11; Delaware, 2 Maryland, 6o Virginia, 15b Nor th Carolin a, 10 Arlkansas of~~~~ Dl,. Clr, of Mo, Mngmr, o Pa, stt to th,ovninta eha apao niad I; Missouri, 6a; Te nnes see, 8; Kent ucky, 10c 7m Min ne sota, 13; California, 4; Oregon, 8-140”. On calling t ro the roll the Ne w-Yo rk dele gati on ask ed per m ission to r etire f,r consultation, and during the interim th ere was an entire cessation of business. The vote of the State as a unit was finally rendered against the call for the previous question. The question was then stated to be upon the amendm ent to the amendment. Mr. Gilmor, of Pennsylvania, offered the fo llowing amendment to Mr. Church’s resolution: Resolved, That the President of the Convent ion be di rected to issue tickets of a dmi ssion to seat s in the Conven tion, to the delegates fro m th e States o f Texas, Florida, aMis sissippi, a nd Arkansas, in which Stat es there are no contesting delegations. Without taking a vote on Mr. Gilmor’s resolution, the Convention, on moton n o f Mr. Rand all ofof Pa., took atre cess till 5 P.m. When the Convention reassembled, the President s aid: Mr. Randall, of Pennsylvania, has th e floor upo n a n amendment moved by Mr. Gilmor, of Pennsylvania. Before proceeding in the debate, the Cha ir begs leave to state to t e Convention that he has ha d placed in his hands the credentials of gentlemen claiming seats in the Conven tion, from the States of D elawa re, Geo rgia, Alabama, Flo - rida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas, includ ing in that enumneration the letter prese nt ed to the C on vention, in his place, by Mr. Iloward, of Tennessee, in be half of the gentlemen claiming seats from the State o f AMississippi, and in addition to that, there has been adf dressed to the Chair, a communication from Mr. Clhaffee, claiming a seat from the State of Massachusetts. The Chair Tdeems it his duty to communicate the fact to the Conven - - t ion t hat thos e several documents have been placed in his hands, to be presented at the proper t ime to t he consideraT t’ tion of the Convention. Mr. Gilmor, of Pennsylvania.-I have made a small ad dition to the amendment I offered this morning to the amendment of the gentleman from NewYork (Ml-. Church), l for the purpose of covering the cases mentioned by the Chair just now. s The amendment, a modified, was read as followvs: .Resolved, That the Piesident of the Convention be au thorized to issue tickets of admission to seats in this Cont vention, to the delegates from the States of Arkansas, Texas, Florida, and Mississippi, in which States there are -no contesting delegations, and that in those States, to wit: Delaware, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana, where there e are contoasting delegations, a Committee on Credentials shall be appointed, by the several delegations, to report upon said States. After discussing points of order, MrI. Clark, of Missouri, I offered a substitute for Mr. G’lmlor’s amendmllent, which s wvas read for the’mformllttion of the Convention, as fol lows:e Str ike out the proviso in the amendment of Mir. Church, itof NewYork, and add the following: Boesomved, That the citizens of the severaIl Staties of the i. Unlionl have an equal right to settle and remalcin in the Tern 43

Page 44 view page image

44 A POLITIDAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. ritories of the United States, and to hold therein, unmo-Md.; E. W. Hubbard, Va.; R. R. Bridges, N. C.; B. F.

lested by any legislation whatever, their slave and other Perry, S. C.; James B. Steadman, Ohio; W. H. Carrol, property; and that this Convention recognizes the opinion Tenn.; S. A. Hall, Ind.; W. J. Allen, Ill.; John M.

of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Krum, Mo.- Benj.

Foilet, Mich.; D. O. Finch, Iowa; Scott case, as a true exposition of the Constitution in re-P. H. Smith, Wis.; H. H. Sibley, Minn.; J. }I.

Beverly, gard to the rights of the citizens of the several States and Del.; Isaac J. Stevens, Oregon; G. H. Moriow, Ken Territories of the UTJnited States, upon all subjects concern-tucky; D. S. Gregory, Cal. Ing which it treats; and that the members of this Conven-A paper was presented from Mr. O’Fallon, of Missouri, tion pledge themselves, and require all others who may be who had acted at Charleston in the place of one of the authorized as delegates to make the same pledge, to sup-regularly appointed delegates from that State, but had port the Democratic candidates, fairly and in good faith, been refused a ticket in Baltimore, asking admission.nominated by this Convention according to the usages of His case was referred to the Committee on Credentials. the National Democratic Party. The memorial of the contesting delegates from Arkan Mr.

Randall then took the floor and opposed the amend-sas was also presented, and was handed to the Commtitment of Mr. Church, and favored that of Mr.

Gilmor. tee on Credentials. And the Committee took a recess The amendment of the gentleman from New York im-till 5 P.m., at which time it reassembled, but, the Composes a condition upon the returning members of the mittee on Credentials not being ready to report, the several States that seceded at Charleston. I deny the Convention, without transacting any business, adjourned power of the Convention to impose any such condition.

to 10 o’clock the following day, 20th. The right of their constituents is unqualified and The Convention met at the usual hour l beyond the power of this Convention,‘to send their representatives to this body without condition and without Wednesday, the 20th, but, in consequence of the limitation. (Applause and hisses). It is an interference delay of the Committee oin Credentials in report with the right of the constituents of seven seceding ing no business was transacted States to impose any qualification upon their representatives in this body. I deny its equity or its justice. We who sit herethe honorable gentleman who moved the REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON CREDENTIALS. amendment, the President, the VicePresidents of this On Thursday the p1st the Committee on body-all who sit here, are unfettered by any such redentials h r rather relimitation or condition. (Applause.) What justice in presented eir repor,o imposing upon others the condition that they shall come ports, for there were three; the majority report in here as slaves, with the bands and the iron fetters being presented by Mr. Krum, of Missouri, as about them, with no right to exercise their judgment or foll their patriotism, except as the majority of this body follows may choose to indicate? I deny the power or the right. 1st. Resolved, That George H. Gordon, E. Barksdale, The proposition has been put in the least offensive W. F. Barry, H. C. Chambers, Jos. R.

Davis, Beverly Matshape. thew, Charles Clarke, W. L. Featherston, P. F.

Slidell, It is said in the amendment that it is “understood.” C. G.

Armistead, W. F. Avaunt, and T. J. Hucston, are Understood! an apology for the broad declaration of a entitled to seats in this Convention as delegates from the naked invasion of the rights of freemen. Not that the State of Mississippi. members of this body thus admitted have denied the 2d. Resolved, That Pierre Soul6, F. Cotterman, R. C. right, but 1’ is understood that they are pledged to do Wickliffe, Michael Ryan, Maunsell White, Charles Bienwhat other members are not pledged to do-to conform venala, Gustav Lenroy, J. C. Morse, A. S. lieron, N. D. to the decision of the majority. Mr. President and gen-Colburn, J. N. T. Richardson and J.

L.Walker are entitled tlemen, I invoke you to look at the injustice of every to seats in this Convention as delegates from the State of such qualification-a qualification which no honorable Louisiana. man, except under very peculiar circumstances, could 3d. I?esolZved, That R. W.

Johnson, T. C. IIindman, J. ever submit to; a qualification which it is known that P. Johnson, Henry Carroll, J. Gould, and John A. Jorthe representatives of these seven seceding States will dan, be entitled to seats as Delegates f’om the State of never submit to. (Applause and hisses.) But, Mr. Pre-Arkansas, with power to cast two votes, and that Thomas sident and brethren of the great Democratic family, H. Bradley, M.

Hooper, and D. C. Cross be also admitted who are now contending for the success of the Demo-to seats as delegates from the same State, with power to cratic cause, I ask you to halt, not simply upon the cast one vote; and, in case either portion of said deleground of right and justice, but of policy. Not a mem-gates shall refuse or neglect to take their said seats and ber of this body but knows that the representatives of to cast their said votes, the other portion of said delethose States will not give any such pledge (applause gates taking seats in this Convention shall be entitled to and hisses); that it is tantamount to a declaration of cast the entire three votes of said State. secession from the body. (Applause and hisses.) 4th. Resolved, That J. M. Bryan, F. R. Lubbock, F. S. The debate was continued by Messrs. Richardson, of Stockdale, E. Green, H. R.

Runnels, Wm. B. Ochiltree, Ill., Cochrane, of N. Y., Montgomery, of Pa., Merrick, M. W. Carey, Wm. If. Parrows, R. Ward, J. F. Crosby, B. of Ill., King, of Mo., and West of Ct., against MIr. Gil-Burrows, and V. H.

Manning are entitled to seats from mor’s amendmnent, and by Messrs.

Russell, of Va., Texas. Ewing, of lenn, Loring, of Mass., Hunter, of Mo., 5th. Resolved, That James A. Bayard and William G. Avery, of N. C., and Atkins, of Tenn., in favor. At last, Whiteley are entitled to seats from the county of NewMr. Atkins moved the previous question, which was sus-Castle, Del. tained, 233 to 1S-, and the Convention adjourned till 6th.

Resolvecd, That K. S. Chaffee, who was duly admitTuesday morning. ted at Charleston as a delegate from the fifth congress On the reassembling of the Convention, Mr. Church ional district of Massachusetts, is still entitled to saidseat asked and obtained unanimous consent to make a pro-in this Convention, and that B. F. Hallett, who has asposition which he thought would produce harmony. He sumed said seat is not entitled thereto.

said: 7th. I’esolved, That John O’Fallon, who was duly ad Upon consultation with the gentleman (Mr. Gilmor, mitted at Charleston as a delegate from the eighth elector who moved that amendment to my amendment, we ral district of Missouri, is still entitled to said seat in tiis have agreed, if it meets the approbation of this Conven-Convention, and that Johnson B. Gardy, who has tstion, for the purpose of harmonizing the action of this sumed said seat is not entitled thereto. Convention, to an arrangement alike honorable to both Sth. R]esolved, That R. A. Baker, D.

C. lumphliey, sides, and which, if carried out, will terminate the con-John Forsyth, Wm. Jewett, I. I. Seibles, S. C.I Posey, troversy as to pending questions. The proposition which L. E. Parsons, Joseph C.

Bradley,‘Ihonias B. Coopei, has been made and accepted is simply this: The gentle-James Williams, C. H. Brynan, Daniel W. Weakley, marl f-om Pennsylvania (Mr. Gilmor) is to withdraw his L. M. B. Martyr, John V.

Howard, W. R. R. Wyatt, B. amendment to my amendment, and then I am to with-Hanson, Thos. M. Matthews, andNorber t M. Lord are endrave the latter part of my resolutions, leaving only a titled to seats in the Convention as delegates flora the simple resolution of reference to the Committee on Cre-State of Alabama. dentials. (Applause). * 9th, Resolved, That the delegation from the State of This proposition was accepted, and the resolution, as Georgia, of which H. L. Benning is chairman, be adthus amended, was adopted without a division. Vacan. mitred to seats in the Conventioii, with power to cast onecies in the Comoittee on Credentials were filled, and the half of the vote of said State, and that the delegation committee, as now constituted, consisted of the following from said State, of which Col. Gardner is chairimian, be gentlemen: also admitted to the Convention, with powerto cast one~ C. D. Jameson, Me.; A.

P. IIughes, N.H.; Stephen half of the vote of said State; and if either of said deleThomas, Vt.; Oliver Stevens, Mass.; George It. Brown, gations refuse or neglect to cast the vote as above ind.H. I.; James Gallagher, Conn.; Delos De Wolfe, N. Y.; cated, that in said case the delegates present in tile ConA. it. Spear, N. J.; IL M. forth, Pa.; W. S. Gittings, vention be authorized to cast the fall vote of said State.

Page 45 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFORMS. sylvania, 17; Delaware, 2; Maryland, 5+; Virginia, 14; North Carolina, 9; Arkansas, i; Missouri, 5; Tennessee, It); Kentucky, 10; Mihnesota, 12; California, 4; Oregon, 3-100o.

NAYs-Maine, 5+, New-Hampshii e, 4+; Vermont, 831; Massachusetts, 5-Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 81; NewYork, 85; New-Je-sey, 3; Pennsylvania, 10; Mary land, 2; Virginia, 1; North Carolina, 1; Arkansas, +; lissouoni, 4; Ten nessee, 1; Kentucky, 2; Ohio, 23; In diana, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wisconsin, 5; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 2} 150. Mar yland, i vote not voted; Ten nessee, 1 vote not cast. The question then r ecurred on adol)tirg the majority report. A division being called for, the vote was taken on the first resolution, admitting the original delegates from Mississip ti, which was adopted almost unanimously, 250 to 2i. The vote was then taken on the sec ond resolution, admittin g th e Soule (Douglas) D elegates from Louisiana, which resulted-Ays, 153; Nays, 98-a s follows: YEAs-Maine, 5t}; NewHampshire, 4d,; Vermont, 41 Massachusetts, 5; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 3-; NewYork, 35; NewJersey, 2i; Pennsylvania, 10; Mary land, 2r; Virginia, I; North Carolina, 2; Arkansas, i; Missouri, 4; Tennessee, 2; Kentucky, 2; Ohio, 23; In diana, 18; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wisconsin, 5; Iowa, 4; M inne sota, 2}-158. NAYS-Maine, 2T-; NewHampshire,; Vermont,;i Massachusetts, 8; Connecticut, 2b; N ewJersey, 4w; Pennsylvania, IT; Delaware, 2; Maryland, 5}; V urginia, 1M; North Carolina, 8; Arkansas, -p; Missouri, 5; Ten nessee, 10; Kent ucky, 10; Minnesota, 1I; California, 4; Oregon,8-98. So the secon d resolution was adop ted. The question was then taken on the third resolution, -ad mitt ing Col. Hindman and his colleagues (the original dele gates) with power to cast two votes, and M r. Hooper and his colleagues (the con te stants) wit h po wer to cast one vote; and providing that, if ei the r set of delegate s refuse to t ake seats, the othe r shall be entit led to cast the whole vote of the Sta te, (Arkansas). A division of the question be ing called for, the President decided that the resolution was divisible.

The question was taken on the three several propositions, viz.:-lst. The admission of the Hindman delegat e s, which was adopted, 182 to 69. 2d.

The admission of the Hooper delegates, which was adopted, 150 to 100I. 8d.

On the giving power to one set to cast the whole vote if the other se t withdre w, which was adopt ed witho ut a d ivision. A vote was then taken o n the fourth resolution of the maj ority report, a dmitting the original delegation from the State of Texas, which was adopted almost unani mously.

A vote was next taken on the fifth resolution, admitting Baya rd and Whiteley from D elaware. Adopted without di. vis ion. The sixth resolution, giving R. L. Chaffee the seat in the Massachusetts delegation contested by Mr. ttallett, was then adopted-yeas, 13‘8, nays, l iIJ. Mr.

Stuart, of Michigan, at this point, made motions to re consider each vote taken, and to lay the same on the ta ble, it being understood that the motions were not to be put till votes on all the propositions had been taken. The seventh resolution, declaring J. O’Fallon entitled to the seat in the Missouri delegation claimed by John B. Gardy, was then adopted-yeas, 138I, nays, 112. The eighth resolution, admitting the contesting delegates from Alabama, was next adopted. Yeas, 148’; Nays, 101i. The question then being on the ninth and last resolution of the majority report, admitting both delegations from Georgia, and dividing the vote of the State between them, with the provision that, if either refused to take seats, the remaining delegates cast the vote of the State. Before the vote was taken, Mr. Seward, of Georgia, presented a communication from Col. Gardner, Chairman of the contesting delegates from Georgia, withdrawing from the contest, and the resolution was lost-106. to 145. The original (seceding) delegation from Georgia, headed by H. L. Benning, was subsequently admitted. The President stated the next question to be upon laying upon the table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the Convention refused to substitute the resolutions reported by the minority of the Committee on Credentials for those reported by the majority of said Committee. The question being then taken by States, the motion to lay on the table was not agreed to yeas, 113~; Nays, 1‘28}  as follows: YEAs Maine, 5A-New-Hampshire, 8; Vermont, 4}; Massachulsetts, 5; Rhode Island, 4; Connmecticut, 3~}; New Mr. Stevens, of Oregon.-I rise, Mr.

President, to pre-I sent the repoit of a minority of the Commnittee on cre dentials, and I will proceed to read it; MINORITY REPORT. To the President of the Democratic National Conven tion: Sir: We, the undersigned, members of the Committee on Credentials, feel constrained to dissent from many of the views and a large portion of the action of the iiajor itv of the Committee in respect to the rights of delegates to seats referred to them by the Convention, and to re spectfully recommend the adoption of the following r eso lutions: 1. Resolved, That B. F. Hallett is entitled to a seat in this Convention, as a delegate from the 5th Congression al district of the State of Massachusetts. 2. Resolved, That Johnson B. Gardy is entitled to a seat in this Convention as a delegate from the 8th Con gressional district of the State of Missouri. 8.

Resolved, That James A. Bayard and William G. Whiteley are entited to seats in this Convention as dele gates from the State of Delaware. 4.

Resolved, That the delegation headed by R. W. Johnson are entitled to seats in this Convention as dele gates from the State of Arkansas. 5.

Resolved, That the delegation of which George W. Biryan is chairman are entitled to seats in this Conven tion from the State of Texas. 6.

Resolved, That the delegation of which John Tarle ton is chairman are entitled to seats in this convention as delegates from the State of Louisiana. 7. Resolved, That the delegation of which L. P. Walker is chairman are entitled to seats in this Convention as delegates from the State of Alabama. 8. Tha t the delegation of which poenry L. Benning is chairman are entitled to seats in this Convention as dele ga tes f rom the State of Georgia. 9. Resolved, That te etn the delegation from the State of Florida accred ited to t he Charleston Convention are in vited to take seats in this Convention and cast the vote of the State of Florida. Ti Ae N Committee presented an elaborately argued report to sustain their resolutions, which was signed by I. I. STEVENS, Oregon, E. I. HUBBARD, Va., A. R. SPEER, N. J., R. R. BRIDGERS, N. C., H. MN. NORTH, P enn., IV.

Hi. CdARROLL, Tenn., JOHN H EW E e l o H. MBEWREY, KDel., GEOs H. MORROWa my D. S. GREGORY, Cal. In the poin t s of d ifference between the majority and minorit y report s of the Comm ittee on C redentials, I concur in the conclusions of the minority report in the cases of Georgia, Alabama, Mqissouri and Massachusetts. AARON V. HItIHES, New-Hanmpshire. Mr.

Gittings, of Maryland, presented still another report, concluding with the fbllowing resolutions: R?esolved, That so much of the majority report of the Committee on Credentials as relates to Massachusetts, Missouri, Delaware, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas, be adopted. Resolved, That the delegation of which L. P. Walker is chairman, be, and they are hereby, declared the only regularly authorized representatives of the State of Alabama, and as such are entitled to seats in the National Democratic Convention. Mr. Stevens demanded the previous question, which was sustained by the Convention, and the main question was ordered, but, without taking the vote, the Convention adjourned. When the Convention assembled on the 22d, Mr. Gittings.withdrew his report, which brought the mnirority report proper that of Mir. Stevenls, of Oregon first in order, and the question being puxt ons the substitution of the whole mliotioiry}

report for the report of the majority, lit tle,noOio wa’.s lost, 10()2 to 15a/, as follows: Y:.As Maine, 2~z; NewHampshire, ; Vermont, 1; lassachusetts, 8; Connecticut, ii; NewJersey, 4; Penn.. I I 45

Page 46 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOKI FOR 1860. maintained and supported the Northern Democracy for tlio reason that they are willing to attribute to us in the South equality in the Union. The vote to-day has satisfied the majority of the North Carolina delegates that, that being refused by our brethren of the Northern Democracy, North Carolina-Rip Van Winkle, as you may call her-can no longer remain in this Convention. The rights of sovereign States and of gentlemen of the South have been denied by a majority of this body. We cannot act, as we conceive, in view of this wrong. I use the word “wrong ” wtlh no intention to reflect upon those gentlemen of the Nortlh Carolina delegation who differ with me or with the majority of the delegation. For these r easons, without assigtnis any more, as I have no idea of inflicting a speech upon this Convention, who are in no s tate of preparation to receive it, I ann ounce that eight out of ten of the votes of North Carolin a ask t o retire. Wv’ITHDRAWAL OF TENNESSEE. Ar. Ewing, of Tennessee.-Mr. President, in behalf o f the delegation from Tennessee, I beg leave to address this Convention upon this occasion, so important, a nd, to us, so solemn in its consequences. The delegation from Ten nessee have exhibited, so far as they knew how, every dis position to harmonize this Convention, and to bring its labors to a happy result. They were the first, when the majority platform was not adopted, to seek for some proposition for compromise-something that would enable eis to harmonize.

They have a candidate who was dear to them. They cast away his prospect for the sake of harmony They have yielded all that they can. They have endeavored, with all their power, to accomplish the result they came here for; but they fear that the result is not to be accomplished in a manner that can render a just and proper account to their constituents. We have consulted together, and, after anxious and long deliberation, without knowing exactly what phase this matter might finally pre sent, we have not adopted any decisive rule for our action; but a large majority of our delegatesome twenty to four -have decided that, upon the result now obtained, we shall ask leave of this Convention to retire, that we may consult and announce our final action. We shall take no further part in the deliberations *f this Convention, unless our minds should change; and of that I can offer you no reasonable hope. A PORTION OF MARYLAND

WVITHDRAWS. Mr. Johnson, of Maryland.-Mr. President, I amn authorized by my colleagues to report the state of facts in regard to a portion of the Maryland delegation. Representing, in part, a district in Maryland upon which the first blood of the irrepressible conflict was shed, a district which sent fifteen men in midwinter to the rescue of Philadelphia and NewJersey, we are obliged now to take a step which dissolves our connection with you, and to bid you a final adieu. We have made all sacrifices for the grand old Democratic party, whose mission it has been to preserve the Constitution and to care for the Republic for more than sixty years, until it now seems as if you were going to substitute a man in the place of principle. (Calls to order.) I desire to be respectful. I desire to say that the action of the majority of the late Convention-a majority created by the operation of a technical unit rule imposel upon the Convention contrary to Democratic precedent and usage-States have been disfranchised, and districts deprived of their rights, until, in our opinion, it is no longer consistent with our honor or our rights, or the rights of our constituents, to remain here. Cherishing deeply and warmly the remembrance of the many gallant deeds you have done for us in times past, hoping that hereafter no occasion may ever occur to weaken this feeling, I now, on behalf of the representatives of Maryland, tell you that in all future time, and in all future contests, our lot is cast with the people of the South. Their God shall be our God, and their country our country. (Applause.) Mr. Glass, of Virginia, declined any further participation in the proceedings of the Coonven tion, but did not indorse the action of hIis col. leagues in withdrawing. Mr. Watterson, of Tennessee, declined to withdraw. CALIFORNIA WITHDRAWS_ AN E:XCITEMENiT.

tMr. Smith, of California, said: While I cannot say with the S enofethe South aenhere e wrp ove sd the T eir a t mi,y Democracy dates back to that time of which S,have no re collection, yet I can say that it is unspotted .s the vault of heaven. California is here with mlelaifcht}y~f face 

Call ornxia is here with a lacerated hen or, },leelthgt anat wveepinxg ovter the downfall and the destruct ion of thle Do Tersey, 8; Pen nsylvania, 10; M,aryland, 2; North Carolina, 1; Arkansas, i1; Missouri, 4}; Kentucky, 2;, O hio, 2; Indiana ll i, 13; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wisconsin, 5; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 22,-113-. NAYS-Maine, 2i; NewHampshire, 2; Vermont, 4; Massachusetts, 8; Connecticut, 21; NewYork, 35; NewJersey, 32; Pennsylvania, 1T; Delaware, 2; Maryland, 6; Virginia t hi, 9; North Caroliana, 9; Arka nsa s, e Missouri, I; Tennessee, 12; Kentucky, 10; MIinnesota, 1 +; C alifornia, 4; Oregon, 3 1388. When New-Yor k wa s called, her delegates asked time to consult, bu t finally gave her thirty-five votes a gainst the motion to lay upon the t ab le, which, had i t pr evailed, would have precluded all furthe r recon side ratio n of the subject. The question recurred uon n the motion to reconsider the vote rejecting the minority resolutions. Mr. Cessna, of Pa., move d the previou s quesoion, which was sustained, and the question bein g take n by States, t he m otion to reconsider was rejected-103 to 149-as foll ows: YEs s-Mainsi re, 2 NewHampshire, 2; V ermont, 1; Massachusetts, 8; Connecticut, 21; NewJersey, 4’- Pennsylv ania er, 17; Delaw are, 2; Maryla n, 6; Virginia, 15; North Carolina, 9; Arkansas,; Missouri, 4i; Tennessee, 10; Kentucky, 10; Minnesota, 1,; California, 4; Oregon, 3103.

Nays Maine, 5A; New-Ilampshire, 8; Vermont, 4’ -Massachusetts, 5; Rhode Island, 4; Connecticut, 8’, -‘NewYork, 35; NewJersey, 21; Pennsylvania, 10; Maryland, 2; North Carolina, l; Arkansas, i; Missouri, 4i; Tennessee, 2; Kentucky, 2; Ohio, 23; Indiana, 18; Illinois, 11; Michigan, 6; Wisconsin, 5; Iowa, 4; Minnesota, 2i149. The several motions to lay on the table the question of reconsidering the votes by which each of the resolutions of the majority had been adopted, were then put and carried in the affirmative, and the several delegates who had been voted in were then admitted to seats. VIRGINIA WITHDRAWS. Mr. Russell, of Virginia.-If it be the pleasure of yourself, All. President and the Convention, I will now make the brief announcement of which I made mention this morning. I will detain the Convention but a very brief time. I understand that the action of this Convention upon the various questions arising out of the reports from the Committee on Credentials has become final, complete and irrevocable. And it has become my duty now, by direc’tion of a large majority of the delegation from Virginia, respectfully to inform this body that it is inconsistent with their convictions of duty to participate longer in its deliberations. (Loud applause in the Convention and in the galleries, with loud clries from the galleries.) The disorder continued for some minutes, after which Mr. Russell resumed-The delegates from Virginia, who participate in this movement, have come to the con clusion which I have announced, after long, mature and anxious deliberation, and after, in their judgment, havinig exhausted all honorable efforts to obviate this necessity. In addition to the facts which appear upon your record, I desire the attention of this body long enough only to state that it is ascertained that the delegations to which you, sir, under the order of this Convention, have just directed tickets to be issued-some of them at least and all of them whom we regard as the representatives of the Democracy of their States-will decline to join here in the deliberations of this body. For the rest, the reasons which impel us to take this important step will be lendered to those to whom only we are responsi ble, the Democracy of the Old Dominion. To you, si-, and to the body over which you preside, I have only to say in addition that we bid you a respectful adieu. The portion of the delegation fr oi Virginia which retired then left their seats and proceeded out of the Hall, shaking hands with members of various delegations as they passed along. Mr. loffatt, of Virginia-made a speech in defense of his course, and that of his colleagues wlio remained in the Convention. WITHDRAWAL OF NORTHI CAROLINA. Mr. Lander, of North Carolina.-Mr. President, painful as the duty is, it is, nevertheless, my duty to announce here, as a representative of the delegates from North Carolina, that a very large majority of them are compelled to retire permanently from this Convention on account of the unjust action, as we conceive, that has this day been per petrated upon some of our soverelign States and fellow citizens of the South. We of the South have heretofore 46

Page 47 view page image

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PLATFORMS. mocrstic party. (Applause and laughter.) Yes, sir, the destruction of the Democratic party, consummated by assassins now grinning upon this floor. (Loud cries of “order,” “
order,” “put him out,” and great confusion.) DELAWARE WITHDRAWS. Mr.

Saulsbury did not desire to occupy the attention of the Convention but for a moment. The delegates from hlis State had done all in their power to promote the harmony and unity of this Convention, and it was their purpose to continue to do so. I aim, however, instructed by tlie delegation to announce that they desire to be excused from voting on any further ballots or votes, unless circumstances should alter this determination. It is our desire to be left free to act or not act, their desire being to leave the question open for the consideration of their constituents after their return home. Mr. Steele, of North Carolina, briefly addressed the Convention, stating that he, for the present, at least, should not retire.

After explanations and debate, the motion “Shall the main question be now put,” (to go into nomination of candidates for President alldVice-President) was carried, aind the Convention adjourned. KENTUCKY

WITHDRAWS IN PART. On Saturday (23d), Mr. Caldwell, of Kentucky, in behalf of the delegation from that State, said: The circumstances in which we (the Kentucky Delegation) are placed are exceedingly embarrassing, arJd we have not therefore been enabled to come to an entirely harmonious conclusion. The result is, ho w ever, thaty r;te of the delegates of Kentucky remain in the Convention. (applause.) There are ten delegates wh o withdraw from the Convention. The exact character of their withdrawal is set forth in a single par graph, with their names appended, which 1I desire the Secretary to read before I sit down. There are five othiers-completing the delegation-who desire for the present to suspend their connection with the action of this Convention. I will aIdd here, that there mav be no nisundlerstanding, that I myself am one of those five, and we have also signed a shot t paper, which I shall also ,sk the Secretary to r.ad to the Convention. I am requested by those who withdraw from the Convention, andl by those wh}o suspend their action for the present with the C, iventiott, to say that it is their wish that their seats in this Convention shall not be filled or occupied by any others; and that no one shall claipn the right to cast their votes. The right of those remaining in the Convrtition to cast th eir individual v ote, is n o t ly us questionted in any degree. B ut we en t er our protest against any one casting,ur vote. I will ask the Secretary to read the papers I have in(Iifcated, and also one whichl a gentleman of our delegation has handedl me, which hle desires to be read. I ask that the three papers be read. The first paper read was signed James G. Leach, the writer of which animadverted in rather strong terms upon the action of the Convention, in the matter of the admission and rejection of delegates from certain States. The communication was regarded as disrespectful to the Convention, and, on motion of Mr. Payne, of Ohio, it was returned to the writer. The Secretary then read the other two communications from the Kentucky delegation as follows: To tile IIon. Caleb Citshing, President of thee National .Democraitic Convention, assembled in the, city of Baltimore: The Demoscratic Convention for the State of Kentucky, held in thle city of Frankfort, on the 9th day of January, 1860, amo,,g )tle s, adopted the following resolution: Resolved, That we pledge the Democracy of Kentucky to an honest and industrious support of the nominee of the Charleston Conventioit. Since the adoption,,f this resolution, and the assembling of this Convention, events have transpired not then contemplate d, notwithstanding which we have labored diligently to preseive tite harmony and unity of said Convention, but d iscord and disintegration have prevailed to such an extent that we feel that our efforts cannot acc omplish this end. Thlerefore, without intending to vacate our seats, or to Join or participate in alny othser Convention or organization in this city, and with the intention of again cooperating * ith this Convention, should its unlity and harmony be restored by-any future evenst, we now 0,e clare that we will not participate in the meantime in the deliberations of this Convention, nor hold ourselves or constituents bound by its action, but leave both at fall liberty to act as futu’e circumstances may dictate. N. W. WILLIAMSON, W. BRADLEY G. A. CALDWELL, SAMUEL B. FI:LD, THOS. J. YOUNG. Besolted, That the Chairman of our delegation be instructed to inform the Convention in our behalf that, in the present condition of that body, we deem it inconsistent with our duty to ourselves and our constituents to participate further in its deliberations. Our reasons for so doing will be given to the Democracy of Kentucky. JNo. DISHMAN, L. GREEN, J. S. KENDALL, I t. M JOIINSON, Jos. B.

BECK, CAL. BUTLER, D. W. QUARLES, R.. NICKK:z, COLBERT CO-CIL, JAMES G.

LEACH. Mr. Reed, of Ky., spoke briefly in defense o! the course of the nine delegaites from that State, who remained with the CoInvenitioni.

MISSOURI DEFINES HER POSITION. Mr. Clark, of Missouri, announced as the result of a consultation of a portion of the Missouri delegation, that two of that delegation had decided to withdraw fi’om the Convention. Mir.

Hill, of N. C., who had refused to retire with his colleagues on the previous day, now announced his intention of aswithidrawinig. Mr. Cessna, of Penntisylvania, called for the vote upon his resolution to proceed to nomyiinate cani’idates for President and Vice-Piesidenit. MR. CUSIHING

RESIGNS TlII CHAIR. Mr. Cushing resigned his post as presiding officer, in a brief speech, aind left. the chair. Gov. Tod, of Ohlio, itmmitediately asstumed the chair, and was greeted with enttlusiastic and heartv cheers.

After oeder was restored, he said: As the present presiding officer of this Convention by common consent of my brother VicePresi(lents, with great diffidence I assume the chair. W hen I announce to you that for thirty-four years I have stood up in that district so long misrepresented by Joshua R. Giddings with the Democratic banner in q my hand (applau se), I know that I shall receive tile grood wishes of this Convention, at least, for the disc!ose ge of the duties of the chair. If there are no privileged questions intervening, the ~ecretary will proceed with the call of the States. MASSACHIUSETT”S DESIRIE,S A HEARING. M’. Butler, of Mass., address ed the chair, and desired to present a protest Objectio n was made by Mr. Cavaaugh, of Minnesota, and the States were cal led on the question of proceedin g to a vote for P esident. Whe n Ma ssachusetts was a called, Mr. Bu tler s aid: Mr. President, I have the ilistruction of a majorit y of th e delegation from Mtass a chn u setts to present a writte n protest.

I will send i t to the Chair to have it read. (Calls to orde.) And further, w it h your l eave, I desire to say what I think will be pleasant to this Convention. First, that, while a majority of the delegation from Massachusetts do not purpose fuirlther to partic pate in the doings of this Convention, we desite to panit, if we may, t o me et you as friends and I)emocwats nagain. IVe desire t o part in the same spirit of manyi courtesy with which we came together. Therefore, if you will allow me, instead of reading to you a long document, I will state, within parliamentary usage, exactly the reasons why we take the step we do.

Thanking the Convention for their courtesy, allow me to say that though we have protested against the action of this body excluding the delegates, although we are not satisfied with that action We have not discussed the question, Mlr President, whether the action of the Convenition,. in excluding certain delegates, could be any i eason for withdrawal. We now put our withdrawal before you, upon the simple ground, among others, that the;re has been a withdrawal in part of a majority of the States, and further (and that, perlhaps, more personal to iiyseTf), upon the ground that I will not sit in a Convention where the Af,,ican slave 47

Page 48 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. trade-which is piracy by the laws of my country-is approvingly advocated. (Great sensation.) A portion of the Massachusetts delegatio n her e retired. Mr. Stevens, of Massachusetts, said-I am not ready at this moment to cast the vote of lassauchusetts, the delegation being in consultation as to their rights. The call proceeded, the chairman of each Covveintion making a speech on delivering the vote ot his State; and AMr. Stevens finally stated that, although a portion of the Massachusetts delegationi had withdrawn, he was instructed by his remaining colleagues to cast the entire vote of the State. Mr. Russell, of New York, withdrew the name of Horatio Seymour as a candidate. The following is the result of the ballotiiigs for President: FIRST BALLOT.

SECOND BALLOT. tion of the Cincinnati Platform, that, during the existence of the Territorial Governments, the measure of restriction, whatever it may be, imposed by the Federal Consti tution on the power of the Territorial Legislature over the subject of the domestic relations, as the same has been, or shall hereafter be, finally determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, should be respected by all good citizens, and enforced with promptness and fidelity by every branch of the General Government. Mr. Payne, of Ohio, moved the previous question, and this resolution was adopted, with only two dissenting votes. TIIE SECEDERS’

CONVENTION. The delegates who had withdrawn fiom the Corivention at the Front-Street Theater, together with the delegations from Louisiana and Alabama, who were refused admission to that Convention, met at the Maryland Institute on Saturday the 28th of June., Twentyone States were represented either by full or partial delegations. The States not represented at all were Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, NewHampshire, NewJersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. The Hon. Caleb Cushing, of Massachusetts, was chosen to preside, assisted by vice-presidents and secretaries. The Conventioni adopted a rule requiring a vote of twothirds of all the delegates present to nominate candidates for President and Vice President; also that each delegate cast the vote to which he is entitled, and that each State cast only the number of votes to which it is entitled by its actual representation in the Conve ntion. The delegates from South Carolina and Florida accredited to the Richmond Conveni tion, were invited to take seats in this. A committee of five, of which Mr. Caleb Cushiing was chairman, was appointed to ad dress the Democracy of the,Uniion upon the principles which have governed the Coiivenitioii in making the nominations, and in vindication of the principles of the party. The Convention also decided that the next Democratic National Convention be held at Philadelphia. Mr. Avery, of N. C., chairman of Committee on Resolutions, reported, with the unanimous salnction of the Comnlttee, the Platifori re. ported by the Imajority of the Platformt CoinT h rittee at Charleston, and rejec ted by the Colveletio., (see page 30) wahichk was unaoina n iously adopted. The (convention adopted a resolution in structinig the National Committee nlot to issue tickets of admiiissiorn to their next,Nationial Coin erlton in anv cease whe er there is a bona.fide contestant. The Convention then proceeded to ballot for a candidate for P’residenlt; and John C. Blewckiii ridge, of Ky,., received the unanimous vote ot the delegates prteseiit as follows: Vermont…… i Florida…….. 8 Tennessee….. 9i Massachusetts. 8 Alabama…… 9

Kentucky…..4i NewYork…. 2 Louisiana….. 6 Minnesota….. 1

Pennsylvania…… 4 r Mississippi…….. 7 California……. 4

Maryland…….. Texas…………… 4 Oregon……… 3

Virginia……111-f Arkansas…….. 4 North Carolina. 8t Missouri……………. I 105 Georgia……1010 For Vice-Pr esident Gen..Joseph Lanle, of Oregonil recei ved the unlanimnous vote of the Con1VeltioL1 (105}), 011 the first ballot. Anld then, after listenling to a speech flown oh. YaLIcy, the Convenltionl adjourned sine die.’ STATES.

c’ V s a as a o e’ Maine………… - -.Ro -7 New-Halmplshiii. -…. 5 -

-. Vermont…….. -… 5 — -5 Massachusetts….10 - -….o 10 - - Rhode Island…. 4…. 4 - -. Connecticut…… Si a…. 8 qi - NewYork……..

35 - - -8 New-Jer-sey……2i….- 2 - — Pennsylvania…10 3 3….1 7 2i Maryland…….. 2. - - s th Virginia…….. ..-….. 3 - — No-th Carolina….1 -. —.. 1 - - Alabama…….. - - 9. - Louisiana…….. 6 -

-t 6l - - Arkansas…….. 1 v -f P 1 - - o n!ssouri……….4 1….Ta 4S

- - 1a ‘1 elnessee…… 8 - -. - lKentucky…….- - 4j. - II eois…….h…..23 - -….2-s - - lndtlana………13 — -.. 13 — -
lcimo is………..11 - ti. an 11 - Msichilgan…….. 6; — -…- /d- —
aiscon sin……N c enve - -… 5 -r -n Iowa…………. 4 - 4 —

Minnesota……... - i 1 4 Total…….1T3i 5 l- - - - 0 bit On the first ballot, Henry A. Wise, of Virginia, received a vote from Maryland; nBocock, of Va., recei ved 1 v ote from Virgin ia; Daniel S. Dickinson, a - vote frot,u Virginia;o an d H ora ti o Seymour 1 vote from Pennsylvania.

On the announcemen t of the first ballot, Mr. Church, of NewYork, offe red the following: Resolved unanigznous8y, That Stephen A. Douglas, of the State of Illinois, having now received two-thir8s of all the votes give n i n this ets Convention, is hereby declared, in accordance with the rules governing this b ody, an d in accordance with the uniform customs and rule s of former iDe V aocratic National Conventions, th e regular eno minee of the Democratic party of the United States, for the office of President of the United States. Mr. Jones, of Pennsylvania, raised the point of order that the resolution pr opos ed p ractically to r escind a rul e of the Convention (requiring twothirds of a full Convention, 202 votes, to nominate), and could not, under the rules, be adopted without one day’s notice. The Chair ruled that the resolution was in order, and after a lengthy and animated debate it was withdrawn till after another ballot should be taken. When the result of the second ballot had been announced, Mr. Church’s resolution was called up again and passed. Beiij.

Fitzpatrick, of Alabama, was nominated for VicePresident, receiving 1981
votes, and Mr. William C. Alexander, of N. J., 1. [Mr. Fitzpatrick declined the nomination two days afterward, and the National Commiittee supplied the vacancy, by the nomination of Herschlel V. Johnson, of Georgia]. Gov. Wickliffe, of Louisiana, offered the following resole tion as an addition to the Platform adopted at Charleston Resolved, That in its accordance with the interpreta I 48

Page 49 view page image

A HISTORY OF THE STRUGGLE FOR SLAVERY EXTENSION OR RESTRICTION. MAINLY BY

DOCUMENTS. and the whole continent, North and South of the tropics, became a Slave-mart before the close of the sixteenth century. Holland, a comparatively new and Protestant State, unable to shelter itself from the reproaches of conscience and humanity behind a Papal bull, entered upon the ne w tra ffic more tardily; but its profis poh soon overbore all scruples, and British merchants were no t pr oof against the glittering e vidences of thei r s uccess. But the first slave ship that ever en tered a North American port for the sale of its humaan me rchandis e, wa s a Dutch trading-vessel which landed twenty negro bondmen at Jamestown, the nucleus of Virginia, almost simultaneously with the landing of the Pilgrims of the Mayflower on Plymouth Rock, December 22d, 1620. The Dutch slaver had chosen his market with sagacity. Virginia was settled by CAVALIERSgentlemen-adventurers aspiring to live by their own wits and other men’s labor-with the necessary complement of followers and servitors. Few of her pioneers cherished any earnest liking for downright, persistent, muscular exertion; yet some exertion was urgently required to clear away the heavy forest which all but covered the soil of the infant colony, and grow the tobacco which early became its staple export, by means of which nearly everything required by its people but food was to be paid for in England. The slaves, therefore, found ready purchasers at satisfactory prices, and the success of the first venture induced others; until not only Virginia but every part of British America was supplied with African slaves. This traffic, with the bondage it involved, had no justification in British nor ill the early colonial laws; but it proceeded, nevertheless, much as an importation of dromedaries to replace with presumed economy our horses and oxen might now do. Georgia was the first among the colonies to resist and condemn it in her original charter under the lead of her noble founder-governor, General Oglethorpe; but the evil was too formidable and inveterate for local extirpation, and a few years saw it established, even in Georgia; first evading or defying, and at length molding and transforming the law. SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES. LUST
of gold and power was the main impulse of Spanish migration to the regions beyond the Atlantic. And the soft and timid Aborigines of tropical America, especially of its islands, were first compelled to surrender whatever they possessed of the precious metals to the imperious and grasping strangers; next forced to disclose to those strangers the sources whence they were most readily obtained; and finally driven to toil and delve for more, wherever power and greed supposed they might most readily be obtained. From this point, the transition to general enslavement was ready and rapid. The gentle and indolent natives, unaccutstomed to rugged, persistent toil, and revolting at the harsh and brutal severity of their Christian masters, had but one unfailing resource-death. Through privation, hardship, exposure, fatigue and despair, they drooped and died, until millions were reduced to a few miserable thousands within the first century of Spanish rule in America. A humane and observant priest (Las Casas,) witnessing these cruelties and sufferings, was moved by pity to devise a plan for their termination. He suggested and urged the policy of substituting for these feeble and perishing “Indians” the hardier natives of Western Africa, whom their eternal wars and marauding invasions were constantly exposing to captivity and sale as prisoners of war, and who, as a race, tnight be said to be inured to the hardships and degradations of Slavery by an immemorial experience. The suggestion was unhappily approved, and the woes and miseries of the few remaining Aborigines of the islands known to us as “West Indies,” were inconsiderably prolonged by exposing the whole continent for unnumbered generations to the evils and horrors of African Slavery. The author lived to perceive and deplore the consequences of his expedient. The sanction of the Pope having been obtained for the African Slavetrade by representations which invested it with a look of philanthropy, Spanish and Portuguese mercantile avarice was readily enlisted in its prosecution, ~~~~~ 4 4.9

Page 50 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. It is very common at this day to speak of our tions on emancipation: Maryland adopted both revolutionary struggle as commenced and hur-of these in 1783. North-Carolina, in 1786, deried forward by a union of Free and Slave clared the introduction of slaves into that State colonies; but such is not the fact. However “of evil consequence, and highly impolitic,” slender and dubious its legal basis, Slavery ex-and imposed a duty of ~5 per head thereon. isted in each and all of the colonies that united NewYork and NewJersey followed the example to declare and maintain their independence. of Virginia and Maryland, including the domesSlaves were proportionately more numerous in tic in the same interdict with the foreign slavecertain portions of the South; but they were trade. Neither of these States, however, deheld with impunity throughout the North, ad-dclared a general’emancipation until many years vertised like dogs or horses, and sold at auction, thereafter, and Slavery did not wholly cease in or otherwise, as chattels. Vermont, then a ter-New-York until about 1830, nor in NewJersey ritor-in dispute between NewHampshire and till a much later date. The distinction of Free NewYork, iiand with very few civilized inhabi-and Slave States, with the kindred assumption tants, mainly on its Southern and Eastern bor-of a natural antagonism between the North and ders, is probably the only portion of the revolu-South, was utterly unknown to the men of the tionary confederation never polluted by the Revolution. tread of a slave.

Before the Declaration of Independence, but The spirit of liberty, aroused or intensified during the intense ferment which preceded it, by the protracted struggle of the colonists and distracted public attention from everything against usurped and abused power in the else, Lord Mansfield had renderedhis judgmeint mother country, sooni found itself engaged in from the King’s Bench, which expelled Slavery natural antagoilisli a.gainst the current form of from England, and ought to have destroyed it domestic despotism. ” How shall we complain in the colonies as well. The plaintiff in this of arbitrary or unlinited power exerted over us, famous case was James Somerset, a native of while we exert a still more despotic and inex-Africa, carried to Virginia as a slave, taken cusable power over a dependent and benighted thence by his master to England, and there inrace?” was very fairly asked. Several suits cited to resist the claim of his master to his were brought in Massachusetts-where the fires services, and assert his right to liberty. In the of liberty burnt earliest and brightest-to test first recorded case, involving the legality of the legal right of slaveholding; and the lead-modern Slavery in England, it was held (1677) ing Whigs gave their money and their legal that negroes, “being usually bought and sold services to support these actions, which were among merchants as merchandise, and also generally, on one groutd or another success-beirng idels, there mighht be a property in them ful.

Efforts for aln express law of emancipation sufficient to maintain trover.” But this was however, failed even in Massachusetts; the overruled bv Clhief Justice’Holt from the Kiing’s Legislature, doubtless, apprehending that such Benlch (1697,) ruling that “so soon as a negro a measure, by alienating the slaveholders, would lands in England, he is free;” and again, (1702) increase the number and power of the Tories; that ” there is no suchl thing as a slave by the but in 1777, a privateer having brought a lot of law of’ England.” This judgment proving excaptured slaves into Janmaica, and advertised ceedingly troublesome to planters and merthem for sale, the General Court, as the Legis-chants from slaveholding colonies visiting the lative Assembly was called, interfered and had mother countrywith their servants,the merchlants them set at liberty. The first Continental Con-concerned in the American trade, in 1729, progress which resolved to resist the usurpations cured from Yorke and Talbot, the Attorney and oppressions of Great Britain by force, had General and Solicitor General of the Crown, a alroady declared that our struggle would be written opinion that lnegroes, legally enslaved “for the rights of human nature,” which the elsewhere, nmight be held as slaves in England, Congress of 1776, under the lead of Thomas and that even baptism was no bar to the mas Jefferson, expanded into the nobt)le affirmation ter’s claim. This opinion was, in 1749, held to of the right of “all men to life, liberty and the be sound law by Yorke (now Lord Hardwicke,) pursuit of llappiniess,” conltained in the imiiiior-sitting as judge, on the ground that, if the con tal preamble to the Declaration of’Ildependelce. trary ruling of Lord Holt were upheld, it would A like avermernt that “all leni are born free abolish Slavery in Jamaica or Virginia as well and equal,” was in 178) iiserted in the Massa-as in England; British law being paramount in chusetts Bill of Rights; and the Supreme each. Teus the law stood until Lord Manasfield, Court of’ that State, in 1S83, oil anl indictment in Somerset’s case, reversed it with evident re of a master for assault and )battery, held this luctance, and after lhaving vainly endeavoredto declaration a bar to slaveholding henceforth in bring about ali accomnmodation between the the State.

parties. Wheni delay would serve no longer, A similar clause in the second Constitution of and a judgment miust be rendered, Mansfield New-Hlampshlire was held by the courts of that declared it in these mienmorable words: State to secure Freedom to every childl, born State t secur Freedo to e ei’ chid born cannot di:‘ect the law: the law must direct ais. therein after its adoption Peinnsylvania, in..The state of Slavery is of such a nature that it is 1780, passed an act prohib.inii the further in-incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or troduction of slaves, and securing reedioni to political, but only by positive law, which preserves its all persons born in that Stave thereafter. Conl I force long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself all persons born i that State ther e a fter.. o n whence it was creates, is erased froni the memoeVy. It is iectleitt anid RhodeIsland passed similar acts so odious that nothing can be sufficient to support it but in 1784. Virgiiiia, in 1778, oil motion of Mr. positive law. Whatever inconveniencea, therefore, nay follow finin the decision, I cannol say that ihis case is Jefferson, prohibited the further importation ofoslow orpr b the law of ial, at thie e slaves; and in 1782, removed all legal restric-fore the black must be ci.acharged.” 60 4

Page 51 view page image

THE STRUGGLE FOR SLAVERY RESTRICTION. Thle report of the committee was in the following words: The natural, if not necessary. effect of this decision on Slavery in these colonries had their connection with the mnother country been continued, is sufficiently obvious. ‘ THE

JEFFERSONIAN ORDINANCE, 1784. PResolved, That the territory ceded, or to be cededl by individual States to the United States, whensoever the same shall have been purchased of the Indian inhabitants and offered for sale by the United States, shall be formed into additional States, bounded in tire following manner, as nearly as such cessions will admit: that is to say, northwardly and southwardly by parallels of latitude, so that each State shall comprehend from south to north, two degrees of latitude, beginning to count from the completion of thirtyone degrees no; th of the equat or; lthe then southern boundary of the U. S.] but any territory northwardly of the forty-seventh degree shall make palrt of the State next below. And east wardly and westwardly they shall be bounded, those on the Mississippi, by that river on one side, and thle meri dian of the lowest point of the rapids of the Ohio on the othe,:; and those adjoining on the east, by the same meridian on their western side, and on their eastern by the meridian of the western cape of the mouth of the Great Kanawha. And the territory eastward of this last meridian, between the Ohio, Lake Erie, and Pennsyl voania, shlall be one State. That the settlers within the territory so to be plr chased and offered for sale shall, either on their own petition or on the order of Congress, receive authoritey fr om them, with appointments of time and place, for their free males of full age to meet together for the pur pose of establishing a temporary government, to adopt the constitution and laws o f any on e of these States, sam that such laws nevertheless shall be subject to altera tion by their ordinary Legislature, and to erect, subject to a like alteration, counties or townships for the elec tion of member s for theirLegislature. That suchl temp orary government shall only continue i) force in any State ntil it shall have acquiaied twenty thou sand free inllabitants, wher, giving due proof t hereo f to Congress, they shall receive from them authority, with apl)oitmenets of time and place, to call a convention of representatives to estabish a permanent consotitutiof! and gove nment for themselves: Isrovided, esl(ait bot-L tlle tdraoraupy aTh(o peJeinaerso,t goved met of ents be eastuab lisheelt on t,/ese ptiociple s as their babsis: 1. That they shal l forever remain a par t o f tlch Unite d Stat es of Am erica.

2. That in their persons, property, and territory, they shall be subject to the Goveirnme nt of th e United States in Congress assembled, and to the Articles of Confederation in alltos ces those cases in which the original States sahall be so subject 3. Thatt tiaey shall be s ubject t o pay a par t of the Federal debts, contracted or to be contracted, to be appo tioned on them by Cong, ess, a ccordin g to the same common rule and neasure by whlich apportion ments thereof shall be m ade on the ot her States. 4. Tha t their res pect ive governments shall be in republican formms, and(i shall admit no person to be a citizen who holds a hereditary t tle. 5. Tlat after the ye(at, 1S!)O o/ the Cl.ri.,tiat era, tfwei’e shItall be iieitlie, slazvei’y ior involutar~y serqi’tde in any (~f the said. Statfes, otlher-wise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally guilty. That whenever any of the said States shall have, of free inhabitants, as many as shall then be in any one of the least nume,-ous of the thirteen original States, such State shall be admitted, by its Delegates, into the Con gdress of the United States, on an equal footing with the said original States; after which the assent of twothirds of the United States, in Congress assembled, shall be requisite in all those cases whe, ei, by the Confederation, the assent of nine States is now required, provided the consent of nine States to such admission may be obtained according to the eleventh of the Articles of Confederation. Until such admission by their Delegates into Congress. any of the said States, after the estabteshment of their temporary government, shall lhave authority to keep a sitting member in Cong, ess, with a light of debating, but not of voting. That the territory northward of the forty-fifth degree, that is to say, of the completion of forty-five deg ees from the equator, and extending to the Lake of the Woods, shall lbe called Sylvan,ia; that of the territory under the forty-fifth and fo;‘ty-four-th degress, that which lies westward of Lakce MSichiganl, shall lee cailled JSichi? ffantia; and treat which is eastward thereof, within the perninsults for med by the Iclaes and waters of Michigan, Huron, St Clair, and L~ie, shall be called Chersoli,esu.% .rand shall include ugly parlt of the peninsula which ralay SLAVERY UNDER TfHE CONFEDERATION. The disposition or management of unpeopled’ territories, pertaining to the thirteen recent colonies now confederated as independent States, earls became a subject of solicitude t ttiad of bickering among those States, and in Coingress. By the terms of their charters, some of the colonies had an indefinite extension westowardly, and were onlv limited by the pow er of the gralntor. Many of these lcharters onl flirteid wvth each other-the same territory being included within the limits of two or m ore totally distinct colonies. As the expenses of the Revolltionary struggle begasi to bear heavily on the resources of the States, it was keenly felt by some that their share in the advantages of the expected triumph woul(i be les-than that of others.

Massachusetts, Con neetilut, New-Yorlk, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia, laid claim to spacious dominiions outside of their proper boundaries; while New Ilatupshitre (save in Vermont), Rhode Island, NewJersey, MIaryland, Delaware, anid South Carolina, possessed no such boasted resources to mieet the war-debts constantly augnientin. Th ey urged, therefore, with obvious justice, that these uniequal advantages ought to b e surrendered, ntid all the lantids included within the territorial limits of the Union, but outside of the proper and natural boundaries of the several States, respectively, should be ceded to, and held by, Congress, in trust for the common benefit of all the States, and their proceeds eti, plosed il satisfaction of the debts and liabilities of the Confederation. This reasonable reqtlisitioli was ultimiately, but with some reservations, responded to. The lXthl Continental Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, assembled at Phiiladelphit, Nov. 3, 17:83, but adjourned next day to Annapolis, Md. The House was soorl left without a quorumi, and so continued most of the timeof course, doing no business-till the 1st of Marchi, 1784, whenl the delegates from ViroginiCa, in pursuaice of instructions from thse Legis g eli-e ture of that State, signed the cosditioi al deed of cession to the Confederation of her claims to territory northwest of the Ohio River. NewYork, Connecticut and Massachusetts had already made similar concessions to the Conifederation of their respective claims to territory westward of their present limits. Cornigress. hereupon appointed Messrs. Jefferson of Virlgiiia, Ch ase of ri hryland, and Howell of sRhod e Island, a Select Committee to report a Plan ot’ Government for the Western Territory. This plan, drawn up by Thomas Jefrersoji, provided for the government of all the Western territory, including that portion which had not yet been, but which, it was reasonably expected, would be, surrendered to the Confederation by the States of North Carolina and Georgia (and which nlow torms the States of’ Tennlessee, Alabama and Mi~ssi.ssippi), as well as that which had ah’eady been conceded by the more northern States. I t f s e I s [,I

Page 52 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. extend above the forty-fifth degree. Of the territory under the forty-third and forty-second degrees, that to the westward, through which the Assenisipi or Rock River runs, shall be called A8,,enisipia; a nd that to the eastward, in which are the fountains of the Muskingum, the tw o Miami es of the Ohio, the Wabash, the Illinois, of the Miami ofn the Lake, and the Sandusky rivers, shall be c alled lietropotamia. Of th e territory whic h lies under the forty-fist a nd f ortieth degrees, the w es tern. through which the river Illinoi s runs, shal l b e called Illii,oia; t hat next adjoining to the eastward, S a ratoga; and that between this last and Pennsylvania, and extending from the Ohio to Lake Eiie, s hal l be called c ptasohing ton. Of the territory which lies under the thirty-ninth and thirty -eighth degrees, to whic h shall be add ed s o much of the point of land with in or the fork of the Ohio and rpississippi as l ie s unde r the thirty-seventh degree; that to the w e stward, within and adjac ent to wiich aie the confluences of the rivers Wabash, Shawanee, Tanilee, Ohio, Illinois, Mississippi, and Missouri, shall be called Polypotamia; and that to the eastward, furlther up the Ohio, otherwise called the Pelisipi, shall be called Pelisipia.

Tadt all tie p,eceding article s shalT be formed in t o a charter of compact, shall be duly executed by the President of the United States, in Congress assembled, under his hand and the seal of the United States, shall be promulgated, and sh7all stand asfundac mental condittios between t the tirteen original States and those newly described, utnalterable but by the joint conse nt of the Un ited Stat es, i n Congress assembled, and of the particular State within which such alteration is proposed to be made. April 19, this reported plan came up for consideration in Congress.

Mr. Spaight of N. C. ml oved that the 5to f proposition (prohibiting Slav er y a fter the year 1800) be stricken out of the plan of ordinance, and Mr. Re ad of S. C. secoiLde( - th e I-otion. The question was put in this formn: ” Shall the words moved to be strikenE out stand y” and on this question the Ayes and Noes were taken, and resulted as follows: N.

HAMPSHIRE…… Mr. Foster…………. ay Ay. Mir. Blanchard,…….ay ay MAssACHEtSETTS…. Mr. Gerry,…………ay a ty Mr. Partridge,…….. ay Ay. RHODE ISLAND……Mr. Ellery………….. A Mr.

}lowell,…………ay CON.NECTICUT…… Mr. Sherman,……….ay AD’

iMr. Wadsworth….. ayy NE-Wv-YORK…….. Mr. De Wilt,……….. ay IAy.

Mr. Paine,…………. ay NEW-JI:RSEY…… Mr. Dick…………… ay *

PENSYLVANIA….M r. Mifflin,………… ay ) Mir. Montgomery,…… ay XAy. Mr. Hand,…………. ay IAlRYLA.ND……… AIr.

Mcl~enry,………. no (. Mr. Stone,………… no ‘VIRGINIA……….

Air. Jefferson,……….ay Mr. Hardy,……….. no 2,o. Mr.

Mercer,…………no N. CAROLINA…… Mr. Williamson,…….. y Divide ?Mr. Spaight,…………no S. CAROLINA…… Mr. Read,…………. no 2Vo. Mr. Beresford,……… no taining his views of “.nonintervention by Congress.” The Ordinance, thus depleted, after undergoI ing some fiurther amendments, was finally approved April 23d-all the delegates, but those from South Carolina, voting in the affirmative. In 1787, the last Continental Congress, sitting in NewYork simultaneously with the Convention at Philadelphia which framed our Federal Constitution, took up the subject of the government of the Western Territ ory, raising a Comnittee thereon, of which Nathan an Dan e, of Massachusetts, was Chairman. That Committee report ed (July 11th), “An Ordinance fo r the government of the Territories of the Uni ted States, Northwest of the Ohio”-the larger area contemplated by Mr. Jefferson’s bill not having been ceded by the Southern States claiming dominion over it. This bill embodied many of the provisions originally drafted and reported by Mr. Jefferson, but with some modifications, and concludes with six unalterable articles of perpetual compact, the last of them as follows: “There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude, in the said Territory, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall be duly convicted.” To this was added, prior to its passage, the stipulation for the delivery of fugitives from labor or service, soon after embodied in the Federal Constitution; and in this shape, the entire ordinance was adopted (July 13th) by a unanimous vote, Georgia and the Carolinas concurring. UNDER

THIE CONSTITUTION. The old Articles of Confederation having proved inadequate to the creation atnd mainteaii,,ce of a capable and efficient national or central authority, a Convention of Delegates front the several States, was legally assembled in Philadelphia, in 1787-George Washington, President; and the result of its labors was our present Federal Constitution, though some amendments mainly of the nature of restrictiorns on Federal power, were proposed by the several State Conventions assembled to pass upon that Constitution, and adopted. The following are all the provisions of that instrument, which are presumed to bear upon the subject of Slavery: (Preamble): We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Art. I. 1. All legislative powers herein granted, shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Itepresentatives. 2….. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined, by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. ~ 9. The migration or impor tation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year ISOS; but a tax or duty may be imposed, not exceeding ten dollars on each person.

The privilege of the writ of Itabeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto laws shall be pcxassd. Here we find the votes sixteen. in favor of Alr. Jefferson’s restriction to barely seven against it, and the States divided six in favor to three against it.

But the Articles of Confederation (Art. IX.) required an affirmative vote of a majority of all the States-that is, a vote of seven States-to carry a proposition; so this clause was defeated through the absence of one delegate from NewJersey, in spite of a vote of mnore than two to one in its favor. Had the NewJersey delegation been full, it must, to a moral certainty, have prevailed; had Delaware then been represented, it would probably have been carried, even without NewJersey. Yet, it is this voie, so given and recorded, that Mr. Douglas in his “Harper” essay claims as susr Art. II.~ i3. Treason against the United States I I I I 152 * No quorum.

Page 53 view page image

THE STRUGGLE FOR SLAVERY RESTRICTION. shall consist only in levying war against them, or in ad-I hering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Art. IV. 2. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges of citizens, in the several States. No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States: and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular State. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive when the legislature cannot be convened, against domestic violence. Art. VI. This Constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. The above are all-and perhaps more than all the clauses of the Constitution, that have been quoted on one side or the other as bearingf upon the subject of Slavery. It will be noted that the word “slave” or “slavery “
does not appear therein. Mr. Madison, who was a leading and observant member of the Convention, and who took notes of its daily proceedings, affirms that this silence was designed-the Convention being unwilling that the Constitution of the United States should recognize property in human beings. In passages where slaves are presumed to be contemplated, they are uniformly designated as “persons,” never as propertv. Contemporary history proves th at it was the belief of at least a larg e portion of the delegates that Slavery could not long survive the final stoppage of the slavetrade, which was expected to (and did) occur in 1808. And, were Slavery this day banished forever from the country, there might, indeed, be some superfluous stipulations in the Federal compact or charter; but there are none which need be repealed, or essentially imiodified. A direct provision for the restoration of fugitive slaves to their masters was, at least once, voted down by the Convention. Finally, the clause respecting persons “held to service or labor,” was proposed by Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, and adopted with little or no opposition. The following, among the amendments to the Constitution, proposed by the ratifying conventions of one or more States, and adopted, are supposed by some to bear on the questions ilow agitated relative to Slavery: Art. I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the Press, or of the rights of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Art. II. A well-regfulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, thle right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. V. No persons shall be…. deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’

nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensatioa. The State of Kentuckv was set off from the State of Virginia in 1790, by mutual agreement, and admitted into the Union by act of Congress, passed February 4th, 1791; to t a ke effect June 1st, 1792. It wa s nev er a territory of the United States, nor under Federal jurisdiction, except as a State, an d inherited Slaver y fr om the ” Ol d Dominion.” The State of North Carolina, like sever al others, claimed, during and after the Revolhition, that her territor y extended westward to the Mississippi. On the 22d of December, 1799-one month after the ra tification of the Federa l Co nstitution -North Carolina passed an act, ceding, on certain conditions, all her territory wes t of her prevent limits to the United States. A mong the conditions exacted by her, and agreed to by Congress (Act approved April 2nd, 1790) is the following: Pauovided alw”a ys, that no regulations made, or to be made, by Congress shall tend to emanc ipate slaves. Were it not then conceded that Congress had the power to make regulations for the territories which would ” tend to emancipate slaves,” this prov iso would be utterly meaningless.

Georgia, in like manner, ceded (April 2nd, 1802) the territories lying west of her present limits, now forming the States of Alabaona a nd Mississippi. Among the condit ion s e xacted by her, and accepted by the United States, is the following:~ Fifthly. That the territory thus ceded shall become a State, and be admitted into the Union as soon as it shall contain sixty thousand free inhabitants, or, at an earlier period, if Congress shall think it expedient, on the same conditions and restrictions, with the same privileges, and in the same manner, as is provided in the ordinance of Congress of the 13th day of July, 1787, for the government of the Western territory of the United States; which ordinance shall, in all its parts, extend to the territory contained in the present act of cession, the article only excepted which forbids slavery. EARLY ATTEMPTS TO OVERRIDE THE ORDINANCE. When Ohio (1802-3) was made a State, the residue of the vast regions originally conveyed by the ordinance of‘87 was continued under Federal pupilage, bv the name of “Indiana Territory,” whereof Wm. Hetiry Harrison (since President) was appointed Governor. It was quite commonly argued that, though Slavery was injurious in the long run, yet, as an expedienit while clearing away the heavy forests, opening settlements in the wilderness, and surmounting the inevitable hardships and privatioIis of border life, it might be tolerated, and even regarded with favor. Accorditingly, the new Teritory of Indiana made repeated efforts to procure a relaxation in her favor of the restrictive clause of the Ordinance of‘87, one of theIn through the instrumentality of a Cotivention assembled in 1802-3, and presided over by the Territorial Governor; so he, with the great body of his fellow-delegates, memorialized Congr es s, among other things, to suspend temporarily the operation of the sixth article of the Ordinance aforesaid This memorial was reiferred itn the House to a select committee of three, two of them fronm Slave States, with the since celebrated John Rtatidolph as chairman. 63 CESSIONS OF SOUTHERN TERRITORY.

Page 54 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. On the 2nd of Marc], 1803, Mr. Randolph made what appeals to have been a unanimous report from this Committee, of which we give so much its relates to Slavery-as follows: The rapid population of the State of Ohio sufficiently evinces, in the opinion of your Committee, that the labor of slaves is not necessary to promote the growth and settlement of colonies in that region; that this labordemonstr ably the dearest of any-can only be employed in the cultivation of products more valuable than any known to that quarte r of the United States; that t he Committee deem it highly dangerous and inexpedient to impair a provision wisely calculated to promote the happiness and prosperit of the northwestern country, and to give strength and security to that extensive frontier. In the salutary operation of this sagacious and benevolent restraint, it is believed that the inhabitants of Indiana will, at no very distant day, find ample remuieratioii for a temporary privation of labor, and of emigration. The Commiittee proceed to discuss other subjects set forth in the prayer of the memorial, anid coinclude with eight resolves, whereof the only one relating to Slavery is as follows: Pesolved, That it is inexpedient to suspend, for a limited time, the operation of the sixth article of th e compact between the original States and the people and States west of the river Ohio. This Report having been made at the close of the Session, was referred at the next to a new Contitittee, whereof Caesar Rodney, a new Represenitative from Delaware, was Chairman. Mr. Rodney, fromn this Committee, repotted (February 17th, 1804), That, taking into their consideration the facts stated in the said memorial and petition, they are induced to believe that a qualified suspension, for a limited time, of the sixth article of compact between the original States and the people and States west o f th e river Ohio, might be productive of benefit and advantage to said Territory. The Report goes ont to discuss the other topics embraced in the Indiana memnorial, and concludes with eight resolves, of which the first (and only one relative to Slavery) is as follows: I,,solved, That the sixth article of the Ordinance of 17S, wlhich prohibited Slavery within the said Territory, be suspended in a qualified manner, for ten years, so as to permit the introduction of slaves, born within tie United States, from any of the individual States-provied, that such individual State does not permit the importation of slaves from foreign countr ies: and p vvovceded, fartier, that the descendants of all such slaves shall, if males, be free at the age of twentyfive y e ars, and, if females, at the age of twentyone years. qThe House took no action on this Report. The original memorial from Indiana, with several additional mnemorials of like purport, was again, ii 1805-6, referred by the HIouse to a select committee, whereof Mr. Garnett of Virginia was chairman, who, oni the 14th of Febriiary, 1806, made a report in favor of the prayoer of the petitioners-as follows: That, having attentively considered the facts stated in the said petitions and memorials, they are of opinion that a qualified suspension, for a limited time, of the sixth article of the compact between the original States, and the people and States west of the river Ohio, would be beneficial to the people of the Indiana Territory.

The suspension of this article is an object almost univer6ally desired in that Territory. After discussingff other subjects embodied in the Indiana isteinorial, the Coimimittee close with a series of Resolves, which they conmend to the adoption of the‘1ouse. The first and only one gerlilaile to otir subject is as follows: ~esolved, That the sixth article of the Ordinance of .7ST,, lhlic prohibits Slavery within the Iniliana Ternitor, be auspended for ten years, so as to permit the introduc ion of slaves, born within the United States, from any oP the individual States. This report and resolve were committey and made a specialo order on the Monday following, but were never taken into consideration. At the nex t session, a fre s h letter fiwoa Gov. Willi am Henray Hlar rison, inclosing resolves of the Legislative Co unci l and louse of’ Represeintatives in ftavor of slulspeeding, f or a limited period, the sixth article of compact aforesaid, was received (Jan. 21st, 1807)O nd r eferred to a Select Commlittee, w hereof Mr. B. Parke, deleSate from sa i d TeIrritory, was made Chairman. The entire Committee (Mr. Naathaniel Maco le, of N. C., being now Speaker,) consi sted of AtrssRs. ALScON, of N. C. RHEA, of Te nn. MASTERS, of N. Y. SA.DFORD, of Ky. MiOaROW, of Ohio. TRIGG, Of Va.

1’ARKE, of Ind. Mr. Parke, fromn this Committee, made (Feb. 12th,) t third Report to the House in favor of granting the prayer of tihe iiiemliorialists. This report, with its predecessors, was committed, and made a special order, but never taken into consideration. The same letter of Gen. Harrison, and resolves of the Indiana Legislature, were submitted to the Senate, Jan. 2]st, 1807. They were laid on the table ” for consideration,” and do not appear to have even been referred at that session; but at the next, or first session of the fourth Congress, which convented Oct. 26th, 1807, the President (Nov. 7th) submitted a letter from Gen. Harrison and his Legislature-whether a new or old one does not appear-and it was now referred to a Select Committee, consisting of Messrs. J. Franklin, of N. C., Kitchel, of N. J., and Titfi, of Ohio. Nov.

13th, Mr. Franklin, from said committee, reported as follows: The Legislat ive Council and Ilouse of Representa,tlves, in their resolutions, express their sense of the propriety of introducin,g Slavery into their Territory, and solicit the Congress of the United States to suspend, for a given number of years, the sixth article of com,lpact, in the ordinance for the government of the Territory n,ortLhwest of the Ohio, passed on the 13rh (lay of July, 1787. That article declares: “‘lThere shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude within the said Territory.” The citizens of Clark County, in their remonstrance, express their sense of the im,,propriety ef the mleasure, and solicit thle Congress of tile Uilitedl States not to act on the subject, so as to permit the introduction of slaves into the Territory; at, least, until their population shall entitle them to formh a Con,stitutioni and State Gove~rn eiI t. Your Committee, after dluily considering the matter, respectfully suii)m.,it tile following resolution: RPesolvecd, That it is not expedient at this time to suspendl the sixth article of compact for the governml-en,t of the Territory of the United St ates northwest of the river Ohio. And here ended, so far as we have been able to discover, the eflort, so long and earnestly persisted in, to procure a suspension of the restriction in the Ordinanciiee of 1787, so as to admnit Slavery, for a limited term, into the Territory lying between the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, nlowi forming th e States of Ohio, Inldiana, Illinois, MNichigan, arid Wisconsin. 54

TIIE FIRST MISSOURI STRUGGLE. The vast and indefinite Territory known as Louisiana, was,eded by France to the United State” in the year 1803, for the suni of,$15,000,000, of which $3,750,000 was devoted to the

Page 55 view page image

THE STRUGGLE FOR SLAVERY RESTRICTIOX. payment of Anmerican claims on France. This territory had just before been ceded by Spain to France without pecuiiiarv consideration. Slaveholdiinr had long been allowed therein, alike I under Spanish anid French rule, and the Treaty of Cedssio ontained the following stipulation: Alrt. III. The inhabitants of the ceded Territory shall b)e inec popatled into the Union of the iUnited States, and adm.it red as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to tie enjoyment of all ti,e ciglts, alva,,tages and immunities of citizens of tile Un.ited( States; and in the meantime they shall be inalintained ail(i p, otectei in the free enjoylentt of their l iberty, iiop eily, and the religion wiicli tihe y profess. The State of Lon’isiana, emilbodyin the s outheir portion of this acquired t e rritory, was r ecoM nized I)v Colgress in 1811, and fully admi tted in 181t’, wito a State Constitution. Thos e wh o hose to dwell among the oimht)itants of the residue of the Louisianla purchase, heiieforth c;e Nlirsoi-i Terr itory, continu ed to hold sves i i ts s,trse arid soll but ino ereasiog setthe 1h elts, svaaletiumy in its southeastern qeaIrter, aeiyd a [)ro-Silaivery Cosrvit-perhaps any Court -would( ui,doutedlv have pronounced Slavery legal ollVW-‘i’e lt its vast expanse, fromn the Mississil)pi to tile atrestsof the Rockv Mountains, it’ not beyond themr, and from the Red River of Louisiana to th-,e Lalke of the Woods. The XVth Congress assembled at Washington, on Mloniday, Dec. 1st, 1817. Henry Clay was chosen Speaker of the House. Mr. John Scott appeared on the 8thi, as delegate froin Missouri Territory, and was admitted to a seat as such. On the 16tlh of Marchl following, he presented petitions of sundry inhabitants of Missouri, in addition to similar petitions already presented by him, praying for the admission of Missouri into the Union as a State, which were, on motion, referred to a Select Comnmittee, consisting of Messrs. Scott, of M.o.; Poindexter, of Miss.; Robertson, of Ky.; Ilendriicks, of Ind.; Livermore, of N. H. Mills, of Mass.; Baldwvin, of Pa. April 3d, Mir. Scott, filom this Committee, reported a bill to authorize the people of Missouiri Territorv to form a Constitution and State Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on anl equal footing with the original States; which bill was read the first and second time, and sent to the Comnmittee of the Whole, where it slept for the remainder of the session. That Congress convened at Washington for its second session, on the 16th of November, 1818. Feb. 13th, the HIouse went into Committee of the Whole Gen. Smith, of Aid., in the Chairs and took up the Missouri bill aforesaid, which was considered through that sitting, as also that of the I5th, whien several amendments were adopted, the most important of which was the following, moved in Committee by Geri.

James Talliiiadge, of Ducthess county, NewYork, (lately deceased): tnd pgrodided also, That the further introduction of Slavery or involuntary servitude bo prohibited, except for the punwishmnent ofP crimes, whereof the party shall be duly convicted: arnd that all children of slaves, born within the said State, after the admission ther eof into the Union, shall be fr-ee, but may be held to service until the age of twentyfive years.

On comings out of Committee, the Yeas and Says were called on thue question of agreeing Ato this amendment, which was sustaine d by the following vote: [taken first on agreeing to so much of it as precedes and includes the word “convicted.”] Yeas For the J estrictioib: NewHampshire……… 4 NewYork………….. 23 ‘I assachiisetts……….. 15New-Jexrsey………… 5 Rhode Island……….. 1 Pennsylvania………. 20 Connecticut………..7

Ohio……………… 5 Vermont…………………….5 I….l Delaware………. 1 Total Yeas 87-only one (Delaware) from a Slave Statte. .Yays Against the Restriction: Massachusetts………. 3, Virginia………….. 18 NewYork…………… 3 North Carolina………13 NewJersey……….. 1 Soutli Carolina……… 6

New-Hampshlire……… 1 Georgia……………. 4

Ohio………………. 1Knuk………….. 9 ted iii 181”situ’ State Collnsttton Iiose Kentucky………….. Illin……………. 1

Tennessee…………. 4 De laware…………… 1

Mississippi………….. 1 Maryland………….. 9

Louisiana………….. 1 To tal Nays, 76-10 from Free States, 66 fiom Slave States. The House now proceeded to vote on the residue of the reported amendment (from the word ” convicted” above), which was likewise sustained.-Yeas, 82; Nays, 78. So the whole amendment-as moved by Gen.

Tallinadge in Committee of the Whole, and there carried was sustained when reported to the House. Mr. Storrs, of New York (opposed to the Re striction), now moved the striking out of so much of the bill as provides that the new State shall be admitted into the Union ” on aii equal footing with the originial States “-which, he contended, was nullified by the votes just taken. The House negatived the motion. Messrs. Desha, of Ky., Cobb, of Ga., and Rhea, of Tenn., declared against the bill as amended.

Messrs. Scott, of Mo., and Anderson, of Ky., preferred the bill as amended, to none. The House ordered the bill, as amended, to a third reading; Yeas, 98; Nays, 56. The bill thus passed the House next day, and was sent to the Senate. The following sketch of the debate on this question (Feb. 15th) is condensed from that in the Appendix to Yles’s Register, vol. xvi. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEB. 15, 1819. Mr.

Tallmadge, of New York, having moved the following amendment on the Saturday pre ceding “Aned provided that the intro duetion of Slavery. or itevoluntary ser’vilude, be prohibited, exceept bor the punishment of e criines, whereof the parity lbes been duly convicted; and that all children bornt wit,in the lie said State, after the admissiotn thereof into the Uti.ioir, shall be declaredfree at tihe age of/25 years,” Mr.

Fuller, of Massachusetts, argued that, to effect a con cert of interests, it was proper to make concessions.- The States where Slavery existed not only claimed the right to continue it, but it was manifest that a general en)ancipa tion of slaves could not be asked of them. Their political existence would have been in jeopardy; both masters and slaves must have been involved in the most fatal consetquences. f To guard against such intolerable evils, it is provided in the Constitution, “that the migration or importation of such persons, as any of the enlisting States think proper U to admit, shall not be prohibited till 1808.-Art. 1, sec. 9. And it is provided elsewhere, that persons held to service l by the laws of any State, shall be given up by other States, to which they may have escaped, etc.-Art. 4, sec. 2. N These provisions effectually recognizteed the right in the 55 0

Page 56 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. States, which, at the time of framing the Constitution, held Congress will not contribute to discountenance and ren the blacks in Slavery, to continuee so to hold them until der abortive the generous and philanthropic views of they should think proper to meliorate their condition. this most worthy and laudable society. The Constitution is a compact among all the States thenallmad of N existing, by which certain principles of government are, w York, followdestablished for the whole, and for each individual State. Sir said he, it has been my desire and my intention to The predominant principle in both respects is, that avoid any debate on the present painful and unpleasant ALL MEN ARE FREE, and have an EQUAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY, subject. When I had the honor to submit to this House and all other privileges; or, in other words, the pre-the amendment now under consideration, I accompanied dominant principle is REPUBLICANISM, in its largest sense. it with a declaration that it was intended to confine its But, then, the same compact contains certain excep-operation to the newly acquired Territory across the tions.

The States then holding slaves are permitted, Mississippi; and I then expressly declared that I would from the necessity of the case, and for the sake of union, in no manner intermeddle with the slaveholding States, to exclude the republican principle so far, and only nor attempt manumission in any one of the original States so far, as to retain their slaves in servitude, and also their in the Union. Sir, I even went further, and stated that progeny, as had been the usage, until they should think it I was aware of the delicacy of the subject-and, that I proper or safe to conform to the pure principle, by abolish-had learned from Southern gentlemen the difficulties ilg Slavery. The compact contains on its face the and the dangers of having free blacks intermingling general principle and the exceptions. But the attempt with slaves; and, on that account, and with a view to to extend Slavery to the new States, is in direct violation the safety of the white population of the adjoining of the clause which guarantees a republican form of gov-States, I would not even advocate the prohibition of ernment to all the States. This clause, indeed, must be Slavery in the Alabama Territory; because, surrounded construed in connection with the exceptions before men-as it was by slaveholding States, and with only imaginary tioned; but it cannot, without violence, be applied to any lines of division, the intercourse between slaves and other States than those in which Slavery was allowed at free blacks could not be prevented, and a servile war the formation of the Constitution. might be the result. While we deprecate and mourn The Speaker (Clay) cites the first clause in the 2d over the evil of Slavery, humanity and good morals resection of the 4th article-” The citizens of each State quire us to wish its abolition, under circumstances conshall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of sistent with the safety of the white population. Wilcitizens of the several States,” which he thinks would be lingly, therefore, will I submit to an evil which we canviolatedl by the condition proposed in the Constitution of not safely remedy’ I admitted all that had been said of Missouri. To keep slaves-to make one portion of the the danger of having free blacks visible to slaves, and, population the property of another-hardly deserves to be therefore, did not hesitate to pledge myself that I would called a privilege, since what is gained by the masters neither advise nor attempt coercive manumission. But, must be lost by the slaves. But, independently of this sir, all these reasons cease when we cross the banks of consideration, I think the observations already offered to the Mississippi, into a Territory separated by a natural the committee, showing that holding the black population boundary-a newly acquired Territory, never contemin servitude is an exception to the general principles of plated in the formation of our government, not included the Constitution, and cannot be allowed to extend beyond within the Compromise or mutual pledge in the adoption the fair import of the terms by which that exception is of our Constitutiona new Territory acquired by our provided, are a sutficient answer to the objection. The common fund, and which ought justly to be subject to gentleman proceels in the same train of reasoning, and our common legislation. asks, if Congress can require o ne condition, how many Sir, when I submitted the amendment now under contnore can be required, and where these conditions will sideration, accompanied with these explanations, and end? With regard to a republican constitution, Congress with these avowals of my intentions and of my motives ,re obliged to require that condition, and that is enough I did expect that gentlemen who might differ from for the present question; but I contend, further, that me in opinion would appreciate the liberality of my Congress has a right, at their discretion, to require any views, and would meet me with moderation, as upon a other reasonable condition.

Several others were required fair subject for general legislation. I did expect, at of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Mississippi. The State of least, that the frank declaration of my views would proLouisiana, which wvas a part of the territory ceded to us at tect me from harsh expressions, and from the unfriendly the same time with Missouri, was required to provide in imputations which have been cast out on this occasion. her Constitution for trials by jury, the writ of habeas cor-But, sir, such has been the character and the violence of pus, the principles of civil and religious liberty, with this debate, and expressions of so much intemperance, several others, peculiar to that State. These, certainly, and of an aspect so threatening have been used, that are none of them snore indispensable ingredients in a re-continued silence on my part would ill become me, who publican form of government than the equality of privi-had submitt ed to thi s Housethe original proposition. leges of all the population; yet these have not been denied Sir, has it already come to this: that in the Congress of to be reasonable, and warranted by the National Consti-the United States-that, in the Legislative councils ot tution in the admission of new States….. Republican America the subject of Slavery has become One gentleman, however, has contended against the a subject of so muci feeling of such delicacy-of such amendment, because it abridges the rights of the slave-dangei, tha t it cannot safely be discussed? Are mereiholding States to transport their slaves to the new States, bers who venture to express their sentimoents on this for sale or otherwise. This argument is attempted to be subject, to be accused of talking to the galleries, with enforced in various ways, andl particularly by the clause isite,tion to excite a servile war; and of meritlg the in the Constitution last cited. It admits, however, fate of Arbuthnot and Ambrister? Are we to be told o of a very clear answer, by recurring to the 9th sec-tle dissolution of the Union, of civil war and f seas of tion of article lst, which provides that’” the nmigration or blood? Andyet, with suchawful threateni,gs befoe us importation of such persons as any of the States then ex-do gentlemien, in thie same breath, insist upon the encouristing shall admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress till agement of this evil; upon the extension of this monstrous S180S.” This clearly implies that the mnigration and im-scourge of the human race? An evil so faught with portation agity be prohibited after that year. The impor-such dire calamities to us a, iuslividuals, anl to our tation has been prohibited, but the migration has not nation,and thireatening, in its progiress, to overwlelll the hithertobeenrestrained; Congress,however, mayrestrain civil and religious institutions of the country, with the it, when it may be judged expedient. liberties of the nation, ought at o nce to be met, and to be The expediency of this measure is very apparent. The controlled. If its power, its influence, and its impending opening of an extensive sl ave market will tempt the dangers, have alreasly arrived at such a point, that it is cupidity of those who, otherwise, perhaps, might gradu-not safe to discuss it on this floor, and it cannot now ally emancipate their slaves. We have heard much, pass under consideration as a proper subject for general Mr. Chiairman, of the Colonization Society; an institu-legislation, what will be the result when it is spread tion which is the favorite of the humane gentlemen in through your widely-extended domain?

Its present the slaveholding States. They have long been lament-tlreatenisg aspect, ad the vi olence of its supporters, so ing the miseries of Slavery, and earnestly seeking for a far from inducing me to yield to its progress, prompt me remedy compatible with their own safety, and the happi-to resist its march. Now is the tioe. It must now be ness of their slaves. At last, the great desideratum is smet, and the extension of the evil must now be prevented, found-a colony in Africa for the emancipated blacks. or the occasion is irrecoverably lost, asid the evil can How will the generous intentions of these humane per-never be controlled sons be frustrated, if the price of slaves is to be doubled Sir, extend your view across the Mississippi, over your by a new and boundless market! Instead of emancipa-newly-acquired Territory Ma lerritory so tar suorosssiug, tion of the slaves, it is much to be feared that unprinci-in exted, the limits of your present country, that pled wretches will be found kidnapping those who are country which gave birth to your iati’n wlhichl acisievest already free, and transporting and selling the hapless your Revolutioi-coiisolildated yiour Usion foried your victims into hopeless bondage. Sir T really hope that It Constitution, and has subsequently acquired so much 106 0

Page 57 view page image

THE STRUGGLE FOR SLAVERY RESTRICTION. glory, hangs but as an appendage to the extended empire over which your Republican Governmenit is now called to bear sway. Look down the long vista of futurity; see your empire, in extent unequaled, in advantageous situation without a parallel, and occupying all the valuable part of one continent. Behold this extended empire, intlabited by the hardy sons of Ame rican fi eepren, knowing their rights, and iilnheriting the will to protect them-ownels of tle soil on which they live, and interested in the institutions which they labor to defend; wi th two oceans laving your shores, and tributary to your purposes, bearing on their bosom s tle commerce of our 1)COllie; compared to yours, the governmilenits of Europe uwindle into ilsignificance, and the whole world is without a parallel. But, sir, reverse this scene; people this fail-Orasin with the slaves of your planters; extend Sl/avery, this bane of suan, this abomi nation of leaven, over your extended empire, and you preparie its dissolutioi; you turn its accumulated strength into positive weakness; you cherish a canker in your breast; you put poison in yiour bosom; you place a vulture preying onl your heart nay, you whet the dagger and place it in the hands of a portion of your population, stimulated to use it, by every tie, human and divine.

nTh e envious contrast between your happiness and their niiseiy, between your liberty aind their slavery, must constantly prompt themn to accomplish your destruction. Yo ur enemies will learn the source and the cause of your weakness. As often as external dangers shall threaten, o r internal coiIinotions await you, you will then realize that, by your own pr-ocuresmesit, you have placed aimcidst your fhinilies, and il the bosom of your countrly a population producilg at ionce the greatest cause of individual dlanger, and ot national weakness. With this defect, your government Imut cl-uble to pieces, aindi your people become the scoff of the worhtl~. Sir, we have been told, with apparent confidence, that we have no riglht to annex conditions to a State, on its adiissiol into the Union; and it has been urged that the proposed amendment, prohibiting the fur ther introduction of slavery, is unconstitutional. This position, asserted with so much confidence, remains unsupported by any argumosent, or by any authority derived from the Constitution itself. The Constitution strongly indicates an opposite conclusion, and seems to contemplate a difference between the old and the new States. The practice of the government has sanctioned this difference in many respects. Sir, we have been told that th i is a new principle for which we contend, never before adopted, or thought of. So far from this being correct, it is due to the memory of our ancestors to say, it is an old principle, adopted by them, as the policy of our country. Whenever the United States have had the right and the power, they have heretofore prevented the extension of Slavery. The States of Kentucky and Tennessee were taken off from other States, and were admitted into the Usion without condition, because their lands were never owned by the United States. The Territory northwest of the Ohio is all the land which ever belonged to them. Shortly after the cession of those lands to the Union, Congress passed, in 17S87, a compact, which was declared to be unalterable, the sixth article of which provides that, ” there s/tall be neither Slavery nor involuntary setoiteude in thie said Territory, oltier,wise than in tIhe pmcis/cneient for crimes, wltereof t/ce parties s/hcll ihave been duly convicted.” In pursuance of this compact, all the States formed from that Territory have been admitted into the Union upon various conditions, and, amongst which, the sixth article of this compact is included as one. Let gentlemen also advert to the law for the admission of the State of Louisiana into the Union; they will find it filled with conditions. It was required not only to form a Constitution upon the principles of a republican government, but it was required to contain the “fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty.” It was even required, as a condition of its admission, to keep its records, and its judicial and its legislative proceedings, in the English language; and also to secure the trial by jury, and to surrender all claim to unappropriated lands in the Territory, with the prohibition to tax any of the United States’ lands. After this long practice and constant usage to annex conditions to the admission of a State into the Union, will gentlemen yet tell us it is unconstitutional, and talk of our principles being novel and extraordinary e Mir. Scott, of Mfissouri, said: He trusted that his conduct, during the whole of the time in which he had had the honor of a seat in the Mo user had convinced gentlemen of his disposition not to obtrude his sentiments on any other subjects thaon those on which h the iutc’rt:t of his constituents, and of the Territory he re presentd een ed, were immediat e ly conce rned. But when a question such as the amendments p r opose d by the gentlemen from New York (Messrs.

Tallmadge and Taylor), was presented for consideration, involving con stitutiona l principles to a vast amou nt, pregnant with the future fate of the Territory, porten ding destruction to the liberties of that people, dire ctly bearin g on their rights of property, their state rights, their all, he should cons ider it as a dereliction of his duty, as retreating from his post, nay, double criminality, did he not raise his voice against their adoption. Mr. Scott enterta ined the opinion, that, under the Constitution, Congress had not the powe r to impose this, or any o the r restriction, or to require of the people of Mis souri their assent to this condition, as a prerequisite to their admission into the Union. He contended this from the language of the Constitution itself, from the practice in the admission of new States under that instrument, and from the express terms of the treaty of cession. Tile short view he intended to take of those points would, he trusted, be satisfactory to all those wlho were not so anxious to usurp power as to sacrifice to its attainment the principles of our government, or who were not desir Ous of prostrating the rights and independence of a State to chimerical views of policy or expedienicy. The authority to admit new States into the Union was granted in the third section of thle fourth article of the Constitution, which declared that ” new States may be admitted by the Coio gress into the Union.” The only power given to thle Con gress by this section appeared to himi to be, that of pass ing a law for the admission of the new State, leaving it in possession of all the rights, privileges, and immunities, enjoyed by the other States; the most valuable and promi nent of which was that of forming and modifying their own State Constitution, and over which Congress hlad no superintending control, other than that expressly given in the fourth section of the same article, which read, ” The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government.” This end accomplished, the guardianship of the United States over the Constitu tions of the several States was fulfilled; and all restrictions, limitations and conditions beyond this, was so im,uch power unwarrantably assumed. In illustration of this position, he would read an extract from one of the essays written by the late President Madison, contemporaneously witll the Constitution of the United States, and from a very celebrated work: ” In a confederacy founded on republi can principles, and composed of republican members, the superintending government ought clearly to possess au thority to defend the system against aristocratic or monarchical innovations. The more intimate the nature of such an union may be, the greater interest have the members in the political institutions of each other, and the greater right to insist that the forms of government under which the compact was entered into, should be sub stantially maintained. But this authority extends no fur ther than to a guarantee (,f a republican form of gov ernment, which supposes a preexisting government of the form which is to be guaranteed.

As long, therefore, as the existing republican forms are continued by the States, they are guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the Federal guarantee for the latter. The onlyrestriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for anti-republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance.” Mr. Scott believed it to be a just rule of interpretation, that the enumeration of powers delegated to Congress weakened their authority in all cases not enumerated; and that beyond those powers enumerated they had none, except they were essentially necessary to carry into effect those that were given. The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which declared that ” the citi zens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States,” was satisfactory, to his judgment, that it was intended the citi zens of each State, forming a part of one harmonious whole, should have, in all things, equal porivileges; the necessary consequence of which was, that every man, in his own State, should have the same rights, privileges, and powers, that any other citizen of the United States had in his own State-otherwise, discontent and murmurings would prevail against the general government who had deprived him of this equality. For examnple, if thle citizens of Pennsylvania, or,irgrini~t, enljoyedl thle righnt, in their own State, to decide the qutestion wh~ether they wvouhil have Slavery or not, the citizensd of Mlissouri, lo give therms the same privileges, mrust have tile amle r-ight to decide whether they wouhld or would not tolerate Slavery in their State; if it were otherwise, then the citizens of Pennsylvania and il8rirlia would ha~ve more rights, privileges and powers in their 57

Page 58 view page image

1/H W~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l~~stetII}1bils 11is i11s illVs ourst ir oresitrt cu lblU i bllslOU tens DrtsarS 11I] . eisl P held in bonilage, and were not free at a given age, as was begged t]hat gentleman to relieve him from the awful apcontemiplated by the amenldment undercon sideration; nor prehension excitedl by the prospect of this accession of did he doubt but that it was competent for any of those population. Hle hoped the House would excuse him while States admitted in pursuance of thle Ordinance of’ST, to hlie stated, that he did not desire that gentleman, his sons, call a Convenition, and so to alter their Constitution as or his brothers, ini that land of brave, noble, and lodeto atllow the introduction of slaves, if they thought pro-penident freemen. The member says that the latitude is lper to lo so. To thiose gentlemien who,,a(t in their argu-too far North to admit of Slavery there. Would the suent, it suputport of the allendimeals, adverted to the in-gentleman cast his eye on the mtp before him, he would sticte wt*ere Contgress hal, by the law authorizing the there see, that a part of Kentucky, Virginia, and Marylieople of L)uiiatina to fortn a Conslitution and State land, were as ftr North as thle Northern boundary of the Governmrrent, exercised the power of imposing the terms propose,l Sttlte of Missouri. Mr. Scott would thank the and con,litis o which tlhey shloutl be permitted to do gentleman if he wVould condescen d to tell him whiat preso, hlie would aecoiuend t catreful examination and cotn-cise line of latitude suited his conscience, his hlumanity, ia rison (,f those terwith the Constitution of the or his political views, on tlis subject. Could that memUtnited S,ates, when, lie doubted not, they would be con-ber be serious, when he made the parallel of latitude the vinced theft, these restictions were only such as we-e in measure of lis good-will to those unfortunate blacks? express and posit ive ltnguage defi,ted in the 1 itte instru-O r was lie trying how far he could go in fallacious argustrumnent, altt wotild Ilave been equally bindling on the Ient and absurdity, withotit creating one blush even on people of Louisiana latd they not been enuilier-, ted in the his own cheek, for incossistency? What, starve the nelaw giv,ng ttell asutieority to form a Constitutioni for g -oes out, pen tihem up in the swamps and morttsses, contihemselves. fine tlhem to Southe-n latitudes, to long, serclt-cing days MIr. S. satid, lie considlered the contemplated conditions f l.bor and ftigue, until the race becomes extinct, that atndl restrictions, contained in the propsed amendments, the fair land of Missoai iad be tenanted by that gentleto be unconstituiional tnd unwarrantable, f’rom. the pro-main, his brothers, atd so9ns? ie expected from the navisions of the’T’eaty of Cession, by the third article of joeisy of the House a rot,-e liberal policy, and better eviwhich it wv.s stipoulated, that “tle inhabitat, of the denc thattey really were actulated byhumane motives. cededi Terri,tor-y shall, be iucorporated in the Union of the The Houise bill, thus passed, reached tise United States, an(l adlsuitted, as soon as pssdible, accord,ing to the itsriniciples of the Fetleral Constitutios, to the Senate, Februitrs 17 tIh, when it was read twice enjoyment of all tle riglhts, advantiages, a,d iiiunities arid secit to a Select Coummittee already raised of ci tizens of t te Unitetl States, and, in the mean tite, os a like applicatiost from Alabama consistiuw of they shall be maintained and protectel in the fee enj,,ey-i o meat of their lberty, property, and te rel iio n wi h essrs Tait, of Georgia Morrow, of Oio; Williams, of they profes Mississippi; Edwards, of Illinois; Williams, of Tennessee. lThe people were not left to the wayward disc-eti of On the 22id Mr. Tait from this Comisittee, this or any other goverliment, by saying t-at they mait be sincorpor(tet in th e Union. The lasiguage was differ-reported the bill with amendments, striking out ent and imterative “tley s7all be ircorporated.” the Anti-Slavery restrictions inserted by the Mr. siotlt t be y tIce tersi incorporated, tht’ lHouse.

This biil was taken up in Committee of they were to fotm a constituent part of tllis republic;- that tl-hey were to becore jtsilit partriers in the characte-the Whole, on the 27th, when Mr. Wilson of and councils of the couty, and in the national losses NewJersey tmoved its postponemtent to the 5th and. i~ getis; -, a,‘l’e,itiory they were not an es-of March-that is, to the end of the sessionsential part of tlae Government;, they were a mnere pro-neatived vince, stbject to tle a cts and regulations of the General: Yeas 14; Nvs 3 Governm ent in ll cases whatsoever. As aTerritory, tiesy The Senate then proceeded to vote on agreehad nlot.II the rigAlts, asdvantages acnel itmmigttties, of ing to the amendments reported by the Select citizens i o tsf tunihe Utd an Cmmittee vi. S hi,tself furnished an examip’le, ilt, in their present condition,z.: 1 to strle out of the House tile riglts of the o h er citizens of the Union. Had lie a vote bill the following: in ti is Hlouse?

and yet these people wese, duting the war, And that all children of slaves born within the said subject to certain tSaxea i,spo-seid by SCogreis. Had those State, after the admission thereof into tle Union, shall people any voice to give in thie imposition of taxes to be Free, but may be held to service until the age of which ti-ey were sulject, or in the disposition of the twventy-one years. funds of t’e lio, aidt particularly those a.ising firoii the sales of the pub lic l ws, tch t hey alt-eatiy Slad, Which was stricken out hy the following vote and stiil would largely centribute? Itad they a v,ice to YesAyAgainst rhe Pestrictioe -27.

Ya$ys-For give in selectiugtlte officers of thlis Covernmeut%, Or many the Restrc,io-7,

Page 59 view page image

THIlE STRUGGLE FOP SLAVERY RESTRICTION\T. Oni the 14th, MIr. Taylor, of NewYork, moved a Select Commiiittee o’l this subject, whichel was granted; and the mover, with Muessrs. Livermore, of New-Hlamnpshire, Baribouir, (P. P.) of Virginia, LowIIdes, of’ South-Ciroliiiz,, Fuller, of Mlassaclhtusetts, Hardin, of Kenituckly, ad Cuthi beit, of Geotrgia, were appointed sticli cornntittee, A mai,jority of thlis Comnutittee t)einr I’ro-Sltvry, Mr. Taylor co uld (lo n othingt; ari d ooi ti)ed 28toi thie Commiinittee was, oni miotioI, dised from ii the further cornsider.atioin of tlhe s,ulb,,je(tr. (‘fi the sanme day,, MIr. Tatylor imiove(: Tihe Senaite then proceeded to vote osl the residue of thie Hotise Restriction, as follows: A.nd provided also, That tle further introduction1 of Silavey or involuiltary servitude be prohibitedl, exce t, fos tlle punishient of crimes, wlhereof the party shall hlve,ee,n duly convicted. The vote onl this clause was as follows: )eas For striking out the Resttriction-22.

2Vays -A (Jainst stricking out -16. Tlie l)ill thus amended was ordered to be enigrosse(l, and was (MIarch 2nd-last day but one of tlh, Session) read a third time, anid passed witlhout a division. The bill was oni that day returned to the IouLse, and the aienlilen its of the Setitte read: whereupon, Mr. Tallmadge, of Neew-Yorkl, moved that the bill be postponed indefititely. Yeas f69; Nays 74. [The -ecord shows hardly a vote chang’ed f’om Yea, on te origitial iassage of thle Restriction, to Nay now, but toony itemhbers who voted then were now absenit or .*:lent.] The vote was then taken ol concurring in the Seiiate’s amnei(,i(iiients, as aforesaid, and the Ilouse refused to concur; Yeas 76; Nays 78. [H,ar(dly a vote changed; but more menmlers voting th.o on Ihe previous iivieioti, and less than when the lRestriction was catrliedr.] The bill was now returned to the Senate, with a nmessage of’ tioi-concurretice; wlhenl Mr. Tait moved that thle Senate adhere to its amendment, whicih Aas carried without a division. The bill being thus remanided to the Mouse, Mr. Taylor, of \ewYor k, moved that the I-Iotiuse adhere t oo its disagreeenti,t which prevailed. Yeas 78 .Nays 66. So the bill fell between thile two Houses, and was lost. The Southern portion of the then Territory of thissouri (organized b y separation f r om Louisiana in 1812) w as exc luded fi(om th e proposed State of Missouri, and organized as a separate Territo y, entitled Arliaisas. aThe bill being under c onsideration, Mr. Tayps)r, of NewYork, m oved that the forego ing restailetioct be app lied to it also; an d th e clau se proposing that slaves born therein after the passage of this act be free at tweinty-five years of age, was carried (February 17th) by 75 Yeas to 73 Nays; but that providing agtainst the fuitlher introduction of Slaves was lost; Yeas 70; Nays 71. The next day, the clause just adopted was stricken out, and the bill ultimately passed without any allusion to Slavery. Arlkansais of course became a Slave Territory, and ultimiiately (1836) a Slave State. ihlat a a Coleasittee be aplointetd wil ist t,iolS to report a bill proibit ing thle fuitiler odt, ission of s!vei itto the’t’etdtitor,ies of tlae Uaited States nLest of tihe r i-e Mississippi. O01 Imiotioin of )Mr. Stmith, of a r yland, tlxiis resolve was sent to the Com m iittie o f tlle Wlole, and made a special order iobr Januaii.ryi-v 10d;li but it was no t taken up, and appears to have sle )t the sle ep of de a th. ln the Senate, the memorial of the },:Iissouli Ter-ritoriail Legislature, asliii, adlxi,.iona. State, was presented by AMr. Smith, of SoutllCarolina, Deceimiber 29th, and referred to the Judiciary Committee, which consisted of Messrs. Smnith,of South Carolina * LeaLe, of Mississilppi; Burrill, of RIhode Island; Logan, of Kentuckly; tis of AMassachusetts. DANIEL WEBSTElR ON SLAYEPY

EX’TENSION. The foollowinig is extra,i-cted frlom,l thle “5 A”emiorial to tthe Congri,ess of the Un,itled(l Staltes, onl ti,: sil:)jece of restraininiig the inierease of Slvery it New States to be adnitted into the Uiiioj,;’ in pursuance of a’ vote of the inhabitants of Boston anid its vicinity, asseuibled at the Stite Mlouse oon the 3d of December, 1819, whilch was drawn up by Daniel Webster, anid sig,ied by rhimself, George Blalie, Josiah Quincy, James T. Austin, etc. It is iniserted here instead of the resolves of the various New Ernglanid Legislatures, as a fuller and clearer statement of the views of the great body of the people of ti-tit section durit,g the pendency of the Missouri question. To the Senate and liHouse of Iepresentatives of t7he Uitited States, iit Coitgress a8se)z2bled: The undersigned, inhabitants of Boston andl its vicinity, beg leave mlost respectfully and hum,ibly to r-epr-esent: Tllat the question of the introduc tion of Slavery into the new States to be formredl on the west side of tle Mississippi lliver, appears to tthem to be a question of tile last imnporitan.ce to tlhe future welfare of tlle United States. If thie progress of th,lis goeat evil is ever to le arrested, it seelns to tl-he undersigned that this is the time to arrest it. A false. stel take n p ow, cannot be retraced; and it al)peagrs t to us that tle happiness of unborn millions, rests on teise e asue wlicl Con gress on tlis o ccas ion ma y adopt. Consieaisi this a s no loca l qiest, ion, a nor a question to be (lecid(ed bl y a temilpora,ry exlpe(liency, but as involving great interests of the whole United States, and affecting deeply,a,d essentially tlhose ol,jects of comnmon defense, general welfare, a(nd thle perlpetuation of th e blessings of li aety, fo wi the Constitutionl itself was folvr ied, we have, pSresu,meh, in tlois way, to offer our senltimernts and express our wishes to tle National Legislature. And, as various reasons have been suggested against prohibiting Slavery in the new States, it may perimps be permitted to us to state out-reasons, b(oth for believing that Congress possesses the Conistitutionail power to makie such prolhibition. a con.“dition, on the admissioni of t new Slate into the Un.ion, anti tha.t it is just anrd proper tlhat they should exercise tl,at power. ,,And in the first place, as to the Conlzstit,ution)al Iuthority of Congress. The Constitution of the Uniited THE SECOND MISSOURI STRUGGLE. A.

new Congress assembled on the 6th of December, 1819. Mr. Clay was again chosen Speaker. On the 8th, Mr. Scott, delegate from Missouri, moved that the memorial of her Territorial Legislature, as also of several citizens, prayirig her admission into the UtIioin as a State, be referred to a Select Committee; carried, and Messrs. Scott, of Missouri, Robertson, of Kenttucky, Terrell, of Georgia, Strother, of Virgittia, and De Witt, of NewYork, (all but the last from the Slave region,) were appointed said corn inittee. Atr. Strofbll, of NewYork, that day gave notice of a bill “

To prohibit the further extensioni of Slaverv in the United States.” 59 “

MEMOIZIAL

Page 60 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. States has declare,] that “Congress shall have power to any portion of the American Confederacy. The Missouri dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations re-Terri,tory is a new country. If its extensive and fertile specting the Territory or other property belonging to the field shall be opened as a market for slaves, the GovernUnitedl Stites: and nothing in this Constitution shall be neent will seem to become a party to a traffic which, in so construed as to preju(lice th e claims of the United so mniany acts, through so inainy years, it has denouncedl as States or of any particular S ate.” It is very wellknown, impolitic, unchristian, in-umnan. T o enact laws to purthat the saving in this clause of the clains of any pat - isl the t affic, aru, at the same tite, to tempt cupidity ticulai St ite, was designed to apply to clains by the then and avarice by thle allurements of an insatiable market, existing States, of teirritory which was also claimed by is inconsistent and irreconcilable. Government, by such the United States as their own property. It has, there-a course, would( only defeat its own purposes, and rend(er fore, no be-‘ing on the present question. The power, nugatoly its own measures. Nor can the laws derive then, of Congress over its own Territories, is, by the very support from the manners o f the people, if the power of te rms of the Constitution, unlimited. It may make all mor al sentiment be weakened by enjoying, under tihe per needful rules and regulations,” which of course include mission of Government, great facilities to commit ofall such regultions a, its own views of policy or expedi-fenses. The laws of the United States have denounced ency sl front time to time dictate. If, therefore, in heavy penalties against thle traffic in slaves, because such its judigmen,t it be needful fr the benefit of a Tlerritory to traffic is deemed unjust and inhuiman. We appeal to the enact t prohibition of Slavery, it would seem to be as spiritoftheselaws. We appealto thisjusticeandhumanmuch within its power of Legislation as any other act of ity. We ask her whether they ought not to operate, on the local policy. Its sovereignty being comnplete and uni-presentoccasion,withall theirforce? Wehaveastlong versalas to the Territoly, it tay exercise over it the feeling of the injustice of any toleration of Slavery. Cirmost ample ju, isdiction in every respect. It possesses, cutrstances have entailed it on a portion of ourcorM unli - in this view, all the authority which any State Legislaty, which cannot be immediately relieved from it without ture possesses over its own Territory; and if any State consequences mor-e injurious than the suffering of the evil. Legislatuie Ilay, in its discretion, abolish or prohlibit But to permit it in a new country, where yet no hbits are Slavery witlhin its owli limits, in virtue of its gener al forimed which renuer it indispensable, what is it, but to eiLegislat ive authority, for the same reason Congress also courage that rapacity, and fraud and violence, against may exercise thle like authority over its own Territories. which we have so long pointed the denunciatio ns of our And that a Stat e Legislature, unless restrained by so0me penal code? What is it, but to tarnish the proud fame of Constitittioal provision, tlay so do, is unquestionable, the country? W hat is it, but to throw suspicion on its good and has been estiblislhed by general practice…. faith, and to render questionable all its professions of re If tie c onstitutional power of Congress to snake the gard for the rights of humanity and the liberties of manpr oposed pol iiibition be stisfactorily shown, the justice kind?

and policy of such prohibition seem to the undersigned As inhabitants of a free country-as citizens of a to be supported by plain andi strong reasons. The per-great and rising Itepublicas memibers of a Clhristian mission of Slavery its a new State, necessarily draws after community-as liing in a liberal and enlightened age, it an extension f that inequality of representation, and as feeling ourselves called upon by the dictates of rewhich already exists in regard to the original States. ligion and humanity, we have presumed to offer our sentiIt cannot be expected tha t those of the oiginal States, ments to Congress on this question, with a solicitude for the which do not hold slaves, can look on such an extension event far beyond what a common occasion could inspire.” as being politically just. As between the original States the representation rests on compact and plighted faith; Instead of reprinting the Speeches elicited by and your memorialists have no wish that that compact this fruitful theme, which must necessarily, to should be disturbed, or that plighlted faith in the slightest degree violated. But the subject assumes an entirely a great extent, be a mere reproduction of ideas different c haracte-, when a new State proposes to be admitted. With her there is no compact, and no faith expressed in the debate of the last session, plighted;,ld where isthres thestat she could come already given, we here insert the Resolves of into the Urnion withl more than an equal share of political importance and political power? Already the ratio of the Legislatures of NewYork, NewJersey, representation, established by thie Constitution, has given to the States holding slaves twenty memtbers of the louse first of Representatives more than they would have been en-three being unanimous expressions in favor of titlel to, excetpt unider the particular provision of the Constitution. In all proisbility, this nuber will be Slavery Restriction; the fourth, from a Slave doubled in thirty years. Under these circumstances, we deem it not we vtl~reasorlable expe~tatoll that tState, also in favor of such Restriction, though d r at eo isstuable expect ato t ha iato tle Union, ttf siotf propose to come into tle Union, probably not unanimously agreed to by the re nouneing the righlt in question, and establishing a Constitution poitin forever.

Without dwelling on Legislature; the last against Restriction and this topic, we have s till thotugllt it ouas d(ty to present t to tIe const l.ration of Con g r~ess. We present it with a lso (we presume) unanimous.

The Legislatures deep a,Il earnest feeling of1 its importance, and we re-of the Free States were generally unanimous for spectfully solicit for it tie full consideration of the Na-Restriction; those of the Slave States (Dlational legislature. Restriction; those of the Slave States (Dela Your memorialists were not without the hope that the time had at leigi o t he han he ware excepted) against it. It is not deemed t,ime had at le,gth arr~ived wien th~e incon,v,,eniece and the. 1 dainger of tiis tieseiptiol of Potutio ha d )econe appa-necessary to print more than the following: rent in all parts of this countrt y (nl in all parts of the civilized world. It iiglit,have bee oped tlhit the e w States NEW-YORK. themselves would have had suchl a view of their own permaltent pishihit s anti prosperity as woul~l have le~l them State of NewYork, in Assembly, Jan.

17, 1820: malieat interests an~l prosperity as would led them Wterests, The inhibiting the further extension of t o prohibit its extension and increase. the wonderfuli-Whereas, The inhibitin the further extension of c ease ardl pirosper ity of thie States inorlth of the Ohio is un-Slavery these United States is a subject of deep concern questionably to be asci ibed, in a great measure, to the cons among the people of this State; and whereas we consider squesinablyof tohe o ascied, i n 7 a feat e a s u l-e, arte.Slavery as an evil much to be deplored; and that every t sequences of the o0inace of 1787 s and fewe, inileed, a re so constitutional barrier should be interposed to prevent its Cthue loccasiongs, iiit tile biestsity of natiotis, i wicfurther extension; and that the Constitution of the United cain be don e, b y a single ct, for th e benefit o f future States clearly gives Congress the right to require of new ge neration s, a s was d one by that ordinance, anti as may States, not comprised within the original boundaries of now be’ done by the Congress of te Uniitel States.

We appeal to the justice and to the wisdom of tie National these United States, the prohibition of Slavery, as a condoi Councils o p event e futr p grtss of a geat al ion of its admission into the Umion: Therefore, CSounci l s to preven t t he loo furwadther progresosed (if the honorable the Senate anconcur herein), remote concequces fres, anil who cannot That our Senators be instructed, and our Representatives balance a temporary or trifling inconvenience, if there in Congress be requested, to oppose the admission as a were such, against a permanent, growing, aud desolating State into the Union, any territory not comprised as aforeevil. Wve cuonoll~t foba orl~r~ iet~1ossfsaid withou t making the prohibition of Slavery therein an Co esi t ye and decisive wo casruses adopted indispensable condition of admission; therefore, byColgre tl an Che e a r l y for decabolition of the I~esolved, That measures be taken by the clerks of y ave-Irseri, are amoengret po the memolado of our the Senate and Assembly of this State, to transmit copies nation’s glory. That Slavery was ever tolerated in the of the preceding resolutions to each of our Senators and Republic is, as yet, to he attributed to the policy of an-Representatives in Congress. other Goveronent. No imputation, thus far, rests on (Unanimously concurred in by she Senate.) 60

Page 61 view page image

THE STRUGGLE FOR SLAVERY RESTRICTION. the last Congress of the United States, and will probably he as earnestly urged during the existing session of that body, which hias a palpable tendency to impair the political relations of the several States; which is calculated to mar the social happiness of the present and future generations; wlhichl, if adopted, would impede the march of humanity and Freedom. through the world; and would transfer firom a misguided ancestry an odious stain and fix it indelibly upon the present race-a measure, in brief, which proposes to spread the clrimes andl cruelties of Slavery from the banks of the Mississippi to the shores of the Pacific. When a measure of this character is seriously advocated in the republican Congress of America, in the nineteenth century, the several States are invoked by the duty which they owe to the Deity, by the veneration which they entertain for the memory of the founders of the Republic, and by a tender regard for posterity, to protest against its adoption, to refus e to covenant witha cr i me, and to limit the range of an evil that asleady ha ngs w i n awful boding over s o large a portion of thle Union. No r can such a protest be ent ere d by a ny State with greater propriety than by Pennsylvania. This Common wealth has as sacredly respected the rights of other States as it has been careful of its own; it has been the invariable aim of the people of Pennsylvania to extend to the universe, by their example, the UDadulterated blessings of civil and religious freedom; and it is their pride that they have been at all times the practical advocat es of th ose improvements and charities among men which ar e s o well calculated to enable them to answer the purposes of their Creator; and above all, they may boast that they were foremost in removing the pollution of Sla very fi’om among them. If, indeed, the measure, against which Pennsylvania considers it her duty to raise her voice, were calculated to abridge any of the rights guaranteed to the several State s; if, odious as Slavery is, it was proposed to hasten it s extinction by means injurious to the States upon which it was unhappily entailed, Pennsylvania would be among the first to insist. upon a sacred observance of the Consti. tutional compact.

But i t c anno t be pretended that the right s of g of of the States are at all to be affected by refusing to extend the mischiefs of human bondage over thl-e boundless regi on s of the West, a Territory which foed no part of the Union at the adoption of the Constitution; whi ch has been but lately purchased from a European Power by the people of the Union at large; wlici many or may isot be admitted as a State into the Union at the iiscretion of Congress; which nust estab lish a Republican form of Government, and no other; and whose climate,ffords none of the pretexts urged for resorting to the labor of natives of the torrid zone; such a Ternitory has no right, inherent or acquire d, s uch as those States possessed which established the existing Const itut ion. When that Cons ti tution was f rame d in September, 17ST, the conc ession that three-fifths of the s lave s in the States then existing should be represented in Con gtess, could not have been intended to embrace regions at tha t t ime held by a foreig n powe r. On the contrary, s o anxious were the Congress of that day to confin e bu n bondiage within its ancient ho me, that on the 13tn of July,1, 1 t, that body uaieanti t ously declat edy that Slru very or involuntady serlivitude should ot exist in the ex tensive Territories b ou nded by thtle Oh io, the Maississippi, Canada and the Lakes; and M in the ni nth ar ticle of the Constitution itself, the power o f Con gres s to prohibit the emigration of servile persons after 1808, is expressly recognizedf; nor is t here to be found in tle statute-bo ok a single i ns tance of th e a dmiss io n of a Territory to the rank of a State, in which Congress have not adhef red t o the r ight, ve sted in tthem by the Constitution, to stipulate withthe Tertithdcey upon the conditions of the boon. The Senate and House of Representatives of PeT tnsylvania, the refore ca nnot b ut depre cate any departu re from thee uoane and enlightened policy pursued ieot only by the illustriou das Congres s which flamed the Constitution, but by their sueccessors without exception. They are persuaded that, to open the fertile regions of the West to a servile lrace, wouli tend to increase their numbers beyond all past example, would open a new and steady narket for the lawless venders of human flesh, and would render all schemnes for obliterating this most foul blot upon the .

Amlerican character, useless andl unavailing. Un~der these convictions, and in the full persuasion that upon tldzs topic ther e is but one opinion in[ Pennsylvania “Rlesolved by the Senate and ttouse of kejpresentatines of the Commwonwealt/ of’ Pennsylvania, Tha~,t thle Senators of this Stale in the Congress of the Unlitedl States be, and they are hereby instr ucted,t and that thle Representatives of thlis State inl the Co~ngress of the Untited States be, andl they aire hereby requested, to vote against the admission of any Territory as a Statle into the ,Union, unless said Territory shall stipulate anxd agree NEW-JERSEY. HOUSE OF REPRF#ENTATYES, t January 24a, 1820. M1r. Wilson, of N. J., communiuicated the followittg Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of NewJersey, which were read: Wh ereas, A Bill is now depending in the Congress of the United States, on the application of the people in the Territory of Missouri for the admission of that Territory as a State into the Union, not containing provisions against Slavery in such proposed State, and a question is made upon the right and expediency of such provision, The representatives of the people of NewJersey, in Legislative Council and General Assembly of the said State, now in session, deem it a duty they owve to themselves, to their constituents, and posterity, to declare and make known the opinions they hold upon this momentous subject; and, 1. Tley do reso lve and declae, That t he f ur ther admission o f Territories into the Union, without restriction of Sla very, would, in thei r opini on, essentially impair the luight of this and other exis ting States to equal representatio n in Congress (a r igh t at the foundation of the political compact), ina smuch as such newly-admitted slaveholding States would be represented on the basis of th eir slav e p opulat ion; a concession made at th e f ormation of the Constitution in favor of the then existing States, but never stipulated for new States, nor to be infered from anv ar ticle or c laus e in that instrument. 2. Besolted, Tha t to admit the Territory of Missouri as a State int o the Union, wi thout prohibitin g Sla ve ry there, woul d, in the opinion th e he prpe sent a tives of the people of NewJers ey a foresaid, b e no less than to sanction this great political and moral evil, furnish the ready means of peopling a vast Territory with slaves, and perpetuate all the dangers, crimes, ai~d pernicious effects of domestic bondage. 3. Iee0olved, As the opinion of the Representatives aforesaid, That inasmuch as no Territory has a right to I,e admitied into the Union, but on the principles of the Federal Constitution, and oily by a law of Congress, consen,ting thereto on the part of the existing States, Congress m,-ay rightfully, and ought to refuse such law, unless upon th,e reasonable and just condlitions, assented to on the part of the people alpplyin,g to become one of the States. 4. PResolved, In the opinion of the Representatives aforesaid, fTlat the article of the Conlstiitution which rest,‘airs Congress fro,, prohibiting the migration or impoltatiol of slaves, u,til after thle year 1808, does, by necessary im.,plicationi, admit the general power of Congress over tie subject of Slavery, and concedes to them the rig,ht to regulate and restrain such migration and importa,,ion after that time, into the ex st ng, or any newly-tobe-crealed State. 5. Pesolvedl, As the opinion of the Representatives of the people o,f NewJersey aforesaid, That inasmuch as Congress lavVe a cle:,r riighlt to refuse the admission of a Tlerritory into tlhe Un,ion, by the terms of the Constitution, they ou,ght, in thle present case, to exercise that at)soluste discretion in order to preserve the political rights of the sever al existing States, and prevent the great niational disgrace and mIuhiplied mischiefs, which must ensue from coniceainig it, as a matter of right, in thle immense ‘T’erritories yet to claim admission into the Union beyond the Mississippi, that they may tolerate Slavery. 6 Pe8olv,ed, (with the concurrence of Cou,ncil,) That the Govel’-,or of this State be requested to transmit a copy of the fi,,reging resolutions to each of the Senators and Repsresentatives of this State in the Congress of the United Stales.

PENNtSYLVANIA. HOUSE OF REPRFSENTATIVBI, .)ecezmber 11th, 1819. 1 A motion was made by Mr. Duane and Mr. Thackarat, and read as follows: The Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, while they cherish the right of the individual States to express their opinion upon all public m.easulres proposed in the Congress of the Union, are awar,. that its usefulness must in a great degree depend,i upon the discretion with which it is exercised; they believe that the right ought not to be resorted to upon trivial subjects or unimportant occasions; but they are also persuaded that there are moments when the neglect to exercise it would be a dereliction of public duty. Suchl an occasion, as in their judgm,enlt demands the frank expression of the sentiments of Pennsylvania, is ,a,,w presented. A measure was ardently supported in 61

Page 62 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. port and maintain State rights, which it conceives necessa,,y to be supported and maintained, to preserve the liberties of the f,ee people of these United States, it I avows its solemn conviction, that the States already Iconfeyderated unler one conmmon Constitution, have not a light to deprive new States of equal privileges with I themselves. The!efore Iaesoved, by the General Assembly of the Common wealth of Kentucky, That the Senators in Congress from stie Statoe be instructe d, and the Itepresentatives be requested, to use t he ir e fforts to procure the passage of a law to admit the people of Missouri into the Union, as a State, whlether those people will sanction Slavery by their Constitution or not. AIesolved, That the Executive of this Commonwealth be requested to t r ansmit this Resolution to the Senators and Representatives of this State in Congress, that it may be laid before that body for its consideration. The bill authorizing Missouri to form a constituition, etc.. came up in the House as a special order, Jan. 24th.

Mr. Taylor, of N. Y., moved that it be postponed for one week: Lost: Yeas 87; Navs 88. W hereupon the House adjourned. It was considered in comsrittee the next day, as also onl the 28thll and 30th, and tlence debated daily until the 19th of February, when a bill came do’wn from the Senate ” to admit the State of ilITaite into the Union,” butt with a rider authorizing the people of Mlissoiuri to form a State Constitution, etc., without restriction on the subject of Slavery. The House, very early in the session, passed a bill providing for the admission of Mlaise as a State. This bill came to the Senate, and was sent to its Judiciarv Committee aforesaid, which amended it by adding a provision for Missouri as above. After several days’ debate in Senate, Mr. Roberts,, of Pa., moved to recommit, so as to strike out all but the adnissiorn of Maine; which wcos defeated (Jan. 14th, 1820)-Yeas I8; Nays 25. Hereupon Mrir Thomias, of Ill., (who voted with the majority, as uniformly agailnst any restrictionI oti Missouri) gave notice that he should lie had prominently advocated the principle they DELAWARE. Ill Senate of the United States, early in 1820, Mr. Vaii I)yke cotimisnicated the following RHsolutions of the Legislature of the State of licla,warie, which were read: esolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Delaware, in General Assembly met: That it is, in the opinion of this General Assembly, the constitutional right of the United States, in Congress assembled, to enact and establish, as one of the conditons for the admission of a new State into the Union, a provision which shall effectually prevent the further inLtroluction of Slavery into such State; and that a due regard to the true interests of such State, as well as of the other States, lequir-e that the same should be done. Resolved,, That a copy of the above and foregoing resolution be transmitted, by the Speaker of the Senate, to each of the Senators and Representatives from this State in the Congress of the United States. fromthi Stae i theCon r e s s o f he Uite Staes.ask leave to bring a bill to prohibit the introduction of Slavery into the T;erritosies of the Unsnited States KENTUCKY. -Norts] tlid trest of the conitemi)lated State oI i,s Tii Sej-iilte, Janu-,iry 24thi 1820, Mr.

Lo~aii soutri; In i a e.aur‘4 h‘0 Mr oan-which he accordingly did on the 19th; when coliirnnuicaeted the following preamble and Re-it was read and ordered to a th:.rd reading. ?olutiutos of the Legislature of tie State of a So,‘lu~t~iosft Legisl a twere o tread * [NOTF-Great confusion and misconception exists in Nciitiicly, w’ ich r rathe ipublic mind with regard to the “Missouri Restr io Tlthevers, The Constitution of the United States pro-tion,” two totally (d;fferent propositions being called by vides for the admission of new States into the Union, and that name. Tie original lRestriction, which Mr. Clay itis justalld poper thatallsuchStatesshouldbeestab-vehemently oppose,, and Alr. Jefferson in a letter lisle(l upon the footing of original States, with a view characte-izedas a “fire-bellinthe night,” contemplated to the preservation of Sta ve Sovereignty, the prosperity the limitation of Slavery in its exclusion fom the State of such new State, and the good of their citizen s; ad of loissouii. This was ultimately defeated, as we shall thclees s, successful attepts have been heretofore see. The second pr oposed Restriction was that of Mr. made, an are now making, to prevent the People of the Thomas, just cited, vwhlichl proposed the exclusion of ‘Teil-tooy of Missoui firoom beng admitted into the Union laver-v, not from the State of Missouri, but./rogn the as a State, u nless tramimieled by rules and regulations O’er/to e of the United Staite,i North aend IVest ofthat wliclh do not exist in the original States, particularly in ~State. This proposition (ld not emanate from the origii elation to the tole’atlon of Slavery. D al Missouri lRestrictionists, but fromr th eir adv ersaries, V/hete, also, if Co ngress can thus trammel or and was but reluctantly and partially accepted by the control the powers of a Territory in the formation of a forminer.] ;State governmeont, that body maty, on the same principl, The tine adision bill, with the proposed reduce its pooves to little more than those Possessed by the people of the District of Columbia, and whilst amlendi(itetts, waas discussed through several professing to make it a Sovereign State, imay bind it in (avs, iitil, Feb.

16th the question was taken perpetual vassalage, and reduce it to the condition of am d ns p ovince; such State must necessarily become the the u ary ot ttee amendments (ielpendeint of Cong ess, asking such povers, and riot the (a tithorizingt Missouri to formni a State Coiistituindependent State, (ldemanding rights. And qwhereas, it tlii, anid saying nothing of Slavery), which is necessaiy, i. presesrving the State Sovereignties eifollowing vote: (lies piseetit ug ~ wer Sateiiudbeit-opted by the following vote: thei:’ present rights th~at no new State should be sub)jrcted to this reistriction, any more than an old one, and Yeas-Against the Restriction on Missouri, 23. t~i.at there cal be no reason or justice why it should not be etitled to (tie same p rivilege, when it ishboundo tot[2i from Slave States; 3 from Free States.] be entitled to the same privileges, when it is bound to bear ail the burdens and taxes laid upon it by Congress. Lays-For Restriction, 21. In pass n,g the following resolution, the General Lu asoii ti filloin reoluion te Gnerl[ 19 front Free States; 2 from Delaware.] Assemtbly efrains from expressing any opinion either in [9 from Free States; 2 from Delaware.]

favor o0 gagns t the principles of Slavery; but to sup-Mr. Thomas, of Ill., then proposed his amend 62

Page 63 view page image

TIHE STRUGGLE FOR SLAVERY RESTRICTION. niorit, whichl, on the following day, he withdrew and( substituted the following: And be it.ft fel enacted, That in all that Territory ceded by France to the United States under the name of Lotuisiana which lies noith of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes north latitude, excepting only such part thiereof as is included w ithin t 1i-l limits of the State contemplated this act, very and involuntary s ervitude, o therwise than in the punlishnen t f crime wh ereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby forever pr oh bited. P o,- ie, d alwa,ys, that any person escaping into the sname, from where labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the United State s, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid. MIr.

Triible, of Ohio, moved a substitute for thlis, somiewihat alterinig the boundaries of the re(iotis shielded fiom Slavery, which was iejeo ted: Yeas 20 (Northern); Nays 24 (Sothetierin). The question then recurred on Mr. Thomas’s anteoidtietit, which was adopted, as follows: Y:eas-For excludiug Slavery from all the Territory N orth and West of Missour i: effect, though the more determined champions, whe ther of Sl avery Ext ension or Slavery Restriction, did not unit e in it.] The bill, thus amended, was ordered to be engro ssed for a th ird reading by t he following vote: Yeas-For the Missouri Bill: Messrs. Barbour of Va., Lloyd of Md., Brown of La., Logan of Ky., Eaton of Tenn., Parrott of N H., Edwards of ll1., Pinkney of Md., Elliott of Ga., Pleasants of Va., Gaillard of S. C., Stokes of N. C, horsey of Del., T homas of Ill., Hunter of R. I., Van Dyke of Del., Johnson of Ky., Walker of Ala., Johnson of La., Walker of Ga., King of Ala., Williams of Miss., Leake of Miss., Williams of Tenn-24. mays-Aga i nst the B ill: Messrs. Burrill of R. I., Oti s of Mas s., Dana of Conn., Palmer of Vt., Dickerson o N. os of N.J., oberts of Pa., King of N. Y., Ruggles of O hio, Lanman of Conn., Sanfo rd of N. Y., Lowri e of Pa., Smi th of S. C., Macon of N. C., Taylor of Ind, Mellen of Mass., Tichenor of Vt., Morrill of N. H., Trimble of Ohio., Noble of Ind., Wilson of N. J.-20. The bill was thus passed (Feb. 18th) without further division, and sent to the House for concuirrence. In the House, Mr. Thomas’s amendment (as above) was at first rejected by both parties, and defeated by the strong vote of 159 to 18. The Yeas (to adopt) were, Messrs. Baldwin of Pa., feech, of Vt., Bayly of hid., Mercer of Va., Bloomfield of N. J., Quarles of Ky., Cocke of Tenn., R inggold of Md., Crafts of Vt., Shaw of Mass,, Culpepper of N. C., Sloan of Ohio, Ksinsey of N. J., Smith of N. J., Lathrop of Mass., Smith of Md., Little of Md., Tarr of Pa 18. Prior to this vote, the House disagreed to the log-rolling of Maine and Missouri, into one bill by the strong vote of 93 to 72. [We do not give the Yeas and Nays on this decision; but the majority was composed of the representatives of the Free States with only four exceptionis; and Mr. Louis McLane of Delaware, who was constrained by instructions from his legislature. His colleague, Mr. Willard Hall, did not vote.] The members from Free States who voted with the South to keep Maine and Missouri united in one bill were, Messrs. HI. Baldwin of Pa., Henry Meigs of N. Y., Bloomfield of N. J., Henry Shaw of Mass., The House also disagreed to the remaining amendments of the Senate (striking out the restrictioni on Slavery in Missouri) by the strong vote of 102 Yeas to 68

Nays. [Nearly or quite every Representative of a Free State voted in the majority on this division, with the following from Slave States: Louis McLane, Del., Nelson, Md., Alney M~cLean, lKy. Trimble, Ky.] So the House rejected all the Senate’s amendmenlts, and returned the bill with a corresponlding message.e The Senate took up the bill on the 24th, and debated it till the 28th;i when, on a direct vote, it was decided not to recede fromn the attachment of Missouri to the Maine bill: Yeas 21; (19
from Free States and two from Delaware;) Meessrs. Brown of La., Mellen of Mass., Bu rnMill of R. I., Morrill of N. I., Dana of Conn., Otis of Mass., D ickerson of N. J., Palmer of Vt., Eaton of T enn., Parrott of N. IT., EdwSards of Ill., Pink iney of Md., t lotsey of Del., Robe,rts of Pa., Hunter of R. I., Ruggles of Ohio, John son of K y., Sanford of N. Y., Johns o no os of a.. Stokes of N. C., King (Wmn. R.) of Ala., Thomas of Ill., King (adiufuis) of N. Y., Tichenor of Vt., Lanwmo a n of Conn., Trimbl e of Ohio, Lea ibe of Aiss, Van Dyke of Del., Lowrie of Pa., Walker of Ala., Lloyd I wll m of d., Williams of Tenn., Lo gan o isn of Ky., Wilson of N. J.-34. mdates-pAgaienst such Restriction: M essrs. Barbour of Va., Pleasants of Va., Elliott of Ga., Smith (Wm.) o f S. C.. Gaillard of S. aC., Taylor of Ind., Mlacon of N. C., Walker of Ga., No ble of Ind., Williams of Miss.-10. titi t will here be seen th at the Restriction ultima e l tely a dopted-thiat excluding Slave ry from, all territory tlhienI owned by tile United States North and West of the Southwest border of the State of Missouri-was proposed by an early and steadfast opponent of the Restriction originally proposed, relative to Slavery in the contemplated State of Missouri, and was sustained by t he v otes offoanrteen Sena tors from Slave States, including the Senators from Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Louisiana, with one vote each from North Carolina and Mississippi. The current assumption that this Restriction was proposed by Rufus King, of NewYork, and mainly sustained by the antagonists of Slavery Extension, is wholly mistaken. The truth, doubtless, is, that it was suggested by the more moderate opponents of the proposed Restriction on Missouiri-and supported also by Senators fronm Slave States-as a means of overcoming the resistance of the House to Slavery in Missouiri. It was, in effect, an offer from the mnilder opponents of Slavery Restriction to the more moderate and flexible advocates of that Restriction-” Let us have Slavery in Missouri, and we will unite with you in excluding it from all the uninhabited territories North and West of that State.” It was in substance an agreeiient between the North and the South to that I I I 63

Page 64 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. Nays, 23; (20 from Slave States with Messrs. Taylor of Ind., Edwards and Thomas of Ill.) The Senate also voted not to recede from its’ amendment prohibiting Slavery west of Missouri, and north of 36~ 30’, north latitude. (For receding, 9 from Slave States, with Messrs. Noble and Taylor of Ind.: against it, 33-(22 from Slave States, 11 from Free States.) Tlhe remaining amendments of the Senate were then insisted on without division, and the House notified accordingly. The bill was now returned to the House, which, on motion of Mr. John W. Taylor of’ N. Y., voted to insist on its disagreement to all but Sec. 9 of the Senate’s amendments, by Yeas 97 to Nays 76: (all but a purely sectional vote: Hugh Nelson of Va. voting with the North; Baldwin of Pa., Bloomfield of N. J., and Shaw of Mass., voting with the South). Sec. 9, (the Senate’s exclusion of Slavery from the Territory north and west of Missouri) was also rejectedYeas 160; Nays, 14, (much as before). The Senate thereupon (March 2nd) passed the House’s Missouri bill, striking out the restriction of Slavery by Yeas 27 to Nays 15, and adding without a division the exclusion of Slavery from the territory west and north of said State. Mr.

Trimble again moved the exclusion of Slavery from Arkansas also, but was again voted down, Yeas, 12; Nays, 30. The Senate now asked a conference, which the House granted without a division. The Committee of Conference was composed of Messrs. Thomas of Illinois, Pinkney of Maryland, and Barbour of Va. (all auti-restrictiotiists), on the part of the Senate, and Messrs. Holmes of Mass., Taylor of N. Y., Lowndes of S. C., Parker of Mass, and Kinsey of N. J., on the part of the House. (Such constitution of the Committee of Conference was in effect a surrender of the Restriction on the part of the House.) John Holmes of Mass., from this Comrnittee, in due time (March 2tid), reported that, 1. The Senate should give up the conmbination of Missouri in the same bill with Maine. 2. The House should abandon the attempt to restric t Slaverv in Missouri. 3. Both House s should agree to pass the Senate’s separate Missouri bill, with Mr.

Thomas’s restriction o r compromis i ngt proviso, excluding Slavery from all Territ ory north and west of Missouri. T he report hav i nng b een read, the first and most important ques tion wes put, viz: Will the House concur with the Senate In so much of the said amendments as proposes to strike from the fourth section of the (Missouri) bill the pro vision prohibiting Slavery or involuntary servitude, in the contemplated State, otherwise than in the punishment of orimes? On which question the Yeas and Nays were demanded, and were as follows: YEAs-For giving up -Restrictions on Mis D-IL,WARR. Louis McLane-1. MAIIYLANSD.-Stephenson Archer, Thomas Bayly, Thomas Culbreth, Joseph Kent, Peter Little, Raphael Neale, Samuel Ringgold, Samuel Smith, Henry R. Warfield-9. VIRGINIA.-Mark Alexander, William S. Archer, Philip P. Barbour, William A. Burwell, John Floyd, Robert S. Garnett, James Johnson, James Jones, William McCoy, Charles F.

Merce,’, Hugh Nelson, Thomas Nelson, Severn E. Parke.-, Jas. Pindall, John Randolph, Ballard Smith, Alexander Smyth, George F. Strother, Thomas Van Swearingen, George Tucker, John Tyler, Jared Williams  22. NORTH

CAROLINA.-Hutchins G. Burton, John Culpepper, William Davidson, Weldon N.

Edwards, Charles Fisher, Thomas H. Hall, Charles Hooks, Thomas Settle, Jesse Slocumb, James S. Smith, Felix Walker, Lewis Williams-12. SOUTH

CAROLI.NA.-Josiah Brevard, Elias Earle, James Erwin, William Lowndes, James McCreary, James Overstreet, Charles Pinckney, Eldred Simkins, Sterling Tucker-9. GEORGIA.-Joel A. Abbot, Thomas W. Cobb. Joel Crawford, John A. Cuthbert, Robert R. Reid, William Terrill 6. ALnABAMA.-John Crowell-1. MissISsiPPi.-John Rankin-1. LoUISIANA.-Thomas Butler-1.

KENTUCKY-Ri cha rd C. Anderson, jr., William Brown, Benjamin Har din, Alney McLean, Tho mas Metcalf, Tunstall Quarles, Geo. Robertson, David Trimble . T1agNNESSTe.-Robert Allen, Htenry H. Bryan, Newton Cannon, John Cocke, Francis Jones, John Rhea-5. Total Yeas from Slave States, 76; in all 90. NAYS-Against giving up the -Restriction on Slavery in Missouri: NEw-HAMPSUIRF.-Joseph Buffum, jr., Josiah Butler, Clifton Clagett, Arth ur Livermore, William Plumer, jr. Nathaniel Upham-6. MASSACHUSETTS (including Maine).-Benjamin Adams, Samuel C. Alen, Joshua Cushman, Edward Dowse, Walter Folger, jr., Timothy Fuller, Jo nas Kendall, Martin Kinsley, Samuel Lathrop, Enoch Lincoln, Jla-cus Morton, Jeremiah Nelson, James Parker, Zabdliel Sampson, Nathaniel Silsbee, Ezekie l Whitman-16. RHODE

ISLAND.-Nathaniel Hazard-1. CoNNECTICUT.-Jonathan O. hoseley, Elisha Phelps, John Russ, Gideon Tomlinson-4. VERMONT.-Samuel C. Crafts, Rollin C. MIallary, Ezra Meech, Charles Rich, Mark Richards, William Strong-6.

NEW-Y(-RK.-Nathaniel Allep,c C al eb Bakes, Robert Clark, Jacob H. De Witt, John D. Dickinso n, Joh n Fay, William D. Ford, Ezra C. Gross, James Guyon, jr., A ar on Hackley, jr., George Hall, Joseph S. Lymav, Robert Monell, Nathaniel Pitcher, Jonathan Richmond, Randall S. Street, James Strong, John W. Taylor, Albeit H. Tracy, Solomon Van Rensselear, Peter Il.

WVendover, Silas Wood-22.’ NFw-JERs-.,Y.-Ephraim Bateman, Joh n Linn, Henry Soutlhard-3. PPENNSYLVANIT.-And,-ew Boden, William Darlington, George Denni son, Samue l Edwar ds, Thomas Forrest, Samuel Gross, Joseph Hemphill, Jacob Ilibschman, Joseph Ileister, Jacob IHostette,’, William P.

Mlaclay, David Marchand, Robert MIooi-e, Samuel Moore, John Murray, Thomas Patterson, Robert Philsor, Tlhomas J. Rogers, John Sergeant, Christian Tarr, James M. Wallace-21. OHIO.-Philemon Beecher, Henry Brush, John W.

Campbell, Samuel Herrick, Thomas R. Ross, John Sloane -6. INDIANA.-William Hendricks-1. ILLINOIS.-Daniel P. Cookl1. Total, Nays, $7-all from Free States. (The members apparently absent on this important division, were Henry W. Edwards of Conn., Walter Case and Honorius Peck of N. Y. and John Conldit of N. J., from the Free States; withl Lemuel Sawyer of N. C., and David Walker of lKy., from the Slave States. Mir. Clay of Ky., being Speaker, did not vote.) Thlis defeat broke the back of the Northern resistance to receiving Missouri as a Slave State. Mr. Taylor, of N.YT., now moved an amendenelt, intended to include Arkansas Territory MASSACHUSETTS.-Mark Langdon Hill, John Holmes, Jonathan Mason, Henry Shaw-4. RHODE IsnLAND.-Samuel Eddy-1. ConreaTIOUT.-Samuel A. Foot, James Stephens-2. NEW-YORK.-Henry Meigs, Henry R. Storrs-‘. NEW-JERsaY-Joseph Bloomfield, Charles Kinsey, Bernard Smith-3. PEsrsYYvVrAI.-Henry Baldwin, David Fullerton-l Total from FreeStates 14. 64

Page 65 view page image

THE STRUGGLE FOR SLAVERY RESTRICTION. cnder the proposed Inhibition of Slavery west of Missouri; but this motion was cut off by the Previous Question, (which then cut off amend-mTents more rigorously, according to the rules of the House, than it now does), and the House proceeded to concur with the Senate in inserting the exclusion of Slavery from the territory west and north of Missouri, instead of that just stricken out by, 134 Yeas to 42 Nays, (the Nays being from the South). So the bill was passed ill the form indicated above; and the bill admitting Maine as a State, (relieved, by a confereoce, from the Missouri rider,) passed both Ilouses without a divison, on the following day. Such was the virtual termination of the stru,gle for the restriction of Slavery in Missouri, which was beaten by the plan of proffering instead an exclusion of Slavery from all the then federal territory west and north of that State. It is unquestionable that, without this compromise or equivalent, the Northern votes, which passed thie bill, could not have been obtained for it.

compromise, which were twice voted down by the Northern members, aided by John Randolph nd three others froon the South, who would have Missouri admitted without condition or qualification. At last, Mr. Clay proposed a Joinit Committee on thi s subject, to be chosen by bal oot-which the House a g re ed t o by 101 to 55, and Mr. Clay became its Chairman. By this Committee, it was agreed that a solemn pledge should be required of the Legislature of Missouri that the Constitution of that State should not be construed to authorize the passage of any Act, and that no Act should be passed, “by which any of the citizens of either of the States should be excluded from the enjoyment of the privileges and immunities to which thev are entitled under the Constitution of the United States.” The Joint Resolution, amended by the addition of this proviso, passed the House by 86 Yeas to 82 Nays; the Senate concurred (Feb. 27th, 1821,) by 26 Yeas to 15 Nays-(all Northern but Macon, of N. C.); Missouri complied with the condition, and became an accepted member of the Union. Thus closed the last stage of the fierce Missouri Controversy, which for a time seemed to threaten -as so many other controversies have harmlessly threatened  the existence of the Union. THE THIRD MISSOURI STRUGGLE. Though the acceptance of Missouri as a State, with a Slave Constitution, was forever settled by the votes just recorded, a new excite itent sprang up on her presentinlg herself to Congress (Nov. 16, 1820),) with a State Consti ttution, framed on the 19th of July, containing the following resolutions: The General Assembly shall have no power to pass laws, First, for the emancipation of slaves without the consetnt of their owners, or without paying them, before such emancipation, a full equivalent for such slaves so emancipated; and, Second, to prevent bonoafde emigrants to this State, or actual settlers therein, from bringing from any of the United States, or from any of their Territories, such persons as may there be deemed to be.slaves, so long as any persons of the same description are allowed to be held as slaves by the laws of this State. ~.. It shall be their duty, as soon as may be, to pass such laws as may be necessary, First, to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to, and settling in, this State, under any pretext whatever. The North, still smarting under a sense of its defeat otn the question of excluding Slavery from Missouri, regarded this as needlessly defiant, insulting, and inhuman, and the section last quoted as palpably in violation of that clause of the Federal Constitution which gives to the citizens of each State (which blacks are, in several Free States), the rights of citizens in every State. A determined resistance to any such exclusion was manifested, and a portion of the Northern Members evinced a disposition to renew the struggle against the further introdulction of slaves into Missouri. At the first effort to carry her admission, the House voted it down-Yeas, 79; Nayvs, 93. A second attempt to admit he r, on condition othat she would explu ng,e tl-he obnoxious clause (last quoted) of hier C onstitlltioll, was v ot ed d o w n still more dec(isivelv-Yeas, 6; Nays 146. T,fhe House now rested, until a joint resolve, zifdiiiitting her with but a vague and ineffective q,ualification, came down from the Senate, where it was passed by a vote of 26 to 18-six Senators from Free States in the affirmative.

Mr. Clay, who had resigned in the recess, and been succeeded, as Speaker, by John W. Taylor, of NewYork, now appeared as the leader of the Missouri admissionists, and proposed terms of EXTENSION OF MISSOURI. The State of Missouri, as originally organized, was bounded on the west by a line already specified, which e xclude d a triangle west of said line, and between it and the Missouri, which was found, in time, to be exceedingly fertile and des i rable. It was free soil by the terms of the Missouri compact, an d was also covered by Indian reservations, not to be removed without a concurrence of twothirds of the Senatess. Messrs. Benton and Lirn, Sena.o to r s from Missou ri, under too k the difficult task of engineering through Congress a bill including this triangle (large enough to form s even Counti e s) within the State of Missouri; which they effected, at the long session of 1835-6, so quietly a s hardly to t attract attention. The bill was first sent to the Senate’s Committhe on the Judiciary, where a favorable report was procured from Mr. John M.

Clayton, of Delaware, its Chairman; and then it was floated through both Houses without encountering the perils of a division. The requisite Indian treaties were likewise carried through the Senate; so Missouri became possessed of a large and desirable accession of territory, which has since become one of her most populous and wealthy sections, devoted to tile growing of hemp, tobacco, etc., and cultivated by slaves. This is the most proSlavery section of the State, in which was originated, and was principally sustained, that series of inroads into Kansas, corruptions of her ballotboxes, and outrages upon her people, which earned for their authors the appellation of Border Ruffians. THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. The name of Texas was originally applied to a Spanish possession or province, lying bet we en the Mississippi and the Rio Grande del Norte, buit not extending to either of these great rivers. It was an appendage of the Viceroyalty of 5 I t Is I t e t 65

Page 66 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. Mexico, but had very few civilized inhabitants I other southwestern States, began to concentrate do’vn to the time of the separation of Mexico itself in Texas. The emigrants carried rifles; from Spain. Oli two or three occasions, bands many of them were accompanied by slaves; of French adventurers had landed on its coast, and it was well understood that they did not or entered it fromn the adjoining French colony intend to become Mexicans, much less to relinof Louisiana; but they had uniformly beenI quish their slaves. When Gen. Sam. Houston treated as intruders, anid either destroyed or left Arkansas for Texas, in 1834-5, the Little made prisoners by the Spanish military authori-Rock Journal, which announced his exodus and ties. No line had ever been drawn between destination, significantly added: ” Wge shall, the two colonies; but the traditional line be-doubtless, hear of his raising his flag there tween them, south of the Red River, ran some-shortly.” That was a foregone conclusion. what within the limits of the present State of Of course, the new settlers in Texas did not Louisiana. lack pretexts or provocations for such a step. When Louisiana was transferred by France to Mexico was then much as she is now, misthe United States, without specification of governed, turbulent, anarchical, and despotic. oundaries, collisions of claims on this frontier The overthrow of her Federal Constitution by was apprehended. General Wilkinson, com-Santa Anna was one reason assigned for the irianding the United States troops, moved gra-rebellion against her authority which broke out dually to the west; the Spanish commandant in in Texas. In 1835, her inidependence was Texas likewise drew toward the frontier, until declared; in 1836, at the decisive battle of San they stood opposite each other across what was Jacinto, it was, by the rout and capture of the then tacitly settled as the boundary between thei Mexican dictator, secured. This triumph was the two countries. This was never afterward won by emigrants from this country almost disregarded. exclusively; scarcely half a dozen of the old In 1819, Spain and the United States seemed Mexican inhabitants participating in the revoltion the verge of war. General Jackson had tion. Santa Anna, while a prisoner, under twice invaded Florida, on the assumption of restraint and apprehension, agreed to a peace complicity on the part of her rulers and people on the basis of the independence of Texas-a -first with our British, then with our savage covenant which he had no power, and probably enemiies-and had finally overrun, and, in effect, no desire, to give effect to when restored to annexed it, to the Union. Spain, on the other liberty. The Texans, pursuing their advantage, hand, had preyed upon our commerce during twice or thrice penetrated other Mexican prothe long wars in Europe, and honestly owed our vinces-Tamaulipas, Coahuila, etc.,-and waved merchants large sums for unjustifiable seizures their Lone-Star flag in defiance on the banks and spoliations. A negotiation for the settle-of the Rio Grande del Norte; whiich position, meint of these differences was carried on at however, they were always compelled soon to Washington, between John Quincy Adams, Mr. abandon ouce with severe loss.

Their governMonroe’s Secretary of State, and Don Oliis, the ment, nevertheless, in reiteratinig their declaraSpanish embassador, il the course of which Mr. tion of independence, claimed the Rio Grande as Adams set up a claim, on the part of this their western boundary, from its source to its country, to Texas as a natural geographical mouth, including a large share of Tamaulipas, appendage not of Mexico, but of Louisiana.

Coahuilaa Duranrgo, and by far the more impor This claimi, however, he eventually waived and tant and populous portion of New Mexico. And relinquished, in consideration of a cession of it was with this claim, expressly set forth in the Florida by Spain to this country-our govern-treaty, that President Tyler and his responsible ment agreeing, on its part, to pay the claims of advisers negotiated the first official project of our merchlants for spoliations. Texas remained, annexation, which was submitted to the Senate, therefore, what it always had been-a depart-during the session of 1843-4, and rejected by a meut or province of Mexico, with a formal very decisive vote: only fifteen (niainily South quit-claim thereto on the part of the United eri) senators voting to confirm it. Col. Benton, States. and others, urged this aggressive claim of The natural advantages of this region in boundary, as affording abundant reason for the timeattracted the attention of American adven-rejection of this treaty; but it is not known turers, and a sisall colony of Yankees was set-that the Slavery aspect of the case attracted tied thereon, about 1819-20, by Moses Austin, especial attention in the Senate.

The measure, of Coinnecticut. Other settlements followed. however, had already been publicly eulogized tOrigi,iially, grants of land in Texas’were prayed by Gen. James Hamilton, of S. C., as cal for, and obtained of the Mexican Government, culated to “give a Gibraltar to the South,” and oi the assiumption that the petitioners were had, on that ground, secured a very general Romnan Catholics, persecuted in the United and ardent popularity throughout the South states because of their religion, and anxious to West. And, more than a year previously, seve find a reftuge in some Catholic country. Thus ral northern members of Congress had united in ‘ll the early emigrants to Texas went pro-the following: fessedly as Catholics, no other religion being toleralcd o ~~~~~TO THlE

PEOPLE oF THE FREE STATES OF THE~ tolertted. UiN Slavery was abolished by Mexico soon after UIN Slaer wals abollatisnofhedrby independnce, s n ar We, the undersigned, in closing our duties to our con the onsuiniaion f he indpendnce,whenstitoents and our country as memibere of the 27th Con very few slaves were, or ever had been, in Texas. gress, feel bound to call yor attention, very briefly, t o lBut, about 1834, some years after this event, a the project, long entertained by a po’tion of the people Ntliet, but very generall, iana~d evidently on-tif these United States, still pertinaciously adhered to, qinet, ulai dnly on-and intended soon to be consummated: TSth:ANSIiXATI~,N eerted, emiigrationi, umainly:from Tennessee and or Trex~s To TillS Usm.s. In the press of business inci 86

Page 67 view page image

THE STRUGGLE FOR SLAVERY RESTRICTION. dent to the last days of a session of Congress, we have [ the affections of her people are so closely entwined and so o ntot time, did we deem it necessary, to enter upon a I ploetely eortbred, and whose value is more highly appreciated, than that whicl,. we are now conside,ring. detailed statement of the reasons which force upon our than that which we are now considerg. nin(nis thle conviction that this project is by no means “It may not be improper here to remark that, during the abandoned: thast a large potion of the country, inter-last sessio of Cog, when a Senator from Mississippi proested in the continuance of Domestic Slavery and the I posed the acknowledgment of Texan independence, it was hiave-trade in these United States, have solemnly and I lotund, with a few exceptions, the members of that body were utnalterably determined that it shall be speedily car-iedy toak ie ps t, as ps the suef.t o S.-cnny tied itto eoecstioe, and that, by this admission of new tseefi. ” With all these facts before us, we do not hesitate in beSlave Tei ritoi y and Slave States, tlhee undue aseend-lieving that these feelings influenced the New England Senaerzcy qf the Slaveholding power in the Government tor, but one voting in favor of the measure; and, indeed, MIr. ,h,all be secui’ed and riveted beyond all redemrp-Webster had been bold enough, in a public speech recently 4ion!!

delivered in NewYork, to many thousand citizens, to declare that the reaion that isfluened his opposition was his abhor That it wavs with these views and intentions that set-t n th ent o elements were effected in the province, by citizens of the rence f Slavery the South, and that it might, i t event of it,., recognition, become a slaveholdin g State. He also spoke United States, dificulties fomented with the Mexican of the efforts making in favor of Abolition; andthat,being preGoverinrent, a revolt brought about, and an Indepen-dicated upon and aided by the powerful influence of religious dent Government declared, cas,not now adreit of a feeling, it would become irresistible and overwhelming. doubt; and that, hitherto, all attempts of Mexico to re- ” This language, coming from so distinguished an individual Iuce her l evolted province to obedience have pt oved as Mr. Webster, so familiar with the feelings of the North and s nut toteentertaining so high a respect for public nentirnent in New unsuccessful, is to be attributed to the unlawful aid and England, speaks so plainly the voice of the North as not to be assistance of designing and interested individuals in the misunderstood United States, and the direct and indirect cooperation “We sincerely hope there is enough good sense and genuine of our own Gove wnment, wit/, similar views, is not the love of country among our fellow-countrymen of the Northern less certain and demonstrable. States, to secure us fial justice on this subjet; yet we ca,not The open and repeated enlistment of troops in several The open and repeated enlistment of troops in seve al consider i t s afe or expedient for the people of the South to en t1ate A ~ id. of. tine. Texa..ni tirely disregard the eflforts of the fanatics, and the opinions of States of this Union, in aid of the Texan Rev o ui n the l sxuch men as Webster, and others who countenance such danintrusion of an Ame-ican Army, by order of the Presi-gerous doctrines. dent, far into the territory of the Mexican Government, “The Vorthern States hate no iterestso of their once which 9t a moment critical for the fate of the insurgents, under reqire any special safeguards for thir defense, save only pretense of preventing Mexican soldiers from fomenting their domestic manufactures-and God knows they have Indian disturbances, but in reality in aid of, and acting already received protection from Government o a most in ingu o*neid e w’ te a. th liberal scale; under which encouragement they have imin singular concert and coincidence with, the army of the proved and fourishe d beyond xample.

The South h proved and flourished beyond example. The Sooth has weiy RIevolutionists; the entire neglect of our Government to peculiar interests to preserve; interests already violently asadopt any efficient measures to prevent the most un-sailed and boltly threatened. warrantable aggressions of bodies of our own citizens, ” Your C om mritte e are fullypersuad ed that th i 0 protectione t enlisted, organized and officered w thin our own borders, he eqst iees]tsfilsbe fi b the htef Coerss i o ser, and marched in arms and battle array upon the terri-hich tillfur. k us periueni rntyhopcto ” toty, and against the inhabitants of a friendly government, in aid of f’eeboot,ers and insurgents, and the pre-ofdpiiyadpriytwr ecohamaketh ment, in aid offreebooters and insurgents, and the pro-The speech of Mr. Adams, exposing the whole system mature recognition of the Independence of Texas, by a o matu recognition sfothe Independeince of Texas, by a of duplicity and perfidy toward Mexico, had ma ked the snap vote, at the heel of a session of Conga ess, and that conduct of our Government; and the emphatic expressions too, at the very session when President Jackson had, by of opposition which began to come up from all parties in special esago inist measure would the Free States, however, for a time, nearly silenced the be contrary to the policy invariably observed by the clamors of the South for annexation, and the people of United Sttsnawuld be marsked the North have been lulled into the belief that the prOUnited States in all similar cases;” would be markedjeti eryifntwolabnoe,adta,a with great injustice to -Mexco, and peculiarly liable to je is early, if not wholly abandoned, and tat, at the darkest suspicions, i were least, there is now no serious danger of its consummathe darkest SUSl~icions, in~u;~as t]ie, Y2b,,,ns wver’eti alanost all eeaiear/tts j’o0rnom the Unsated States, AND tion. (SOtGosT allA wiOGNTO O tlEERN)P;ECTte THE Uztdtae,ADBelieving this to be afalse and d7ngerous seciciity; AVOWb:D PURIOSI,’ OF OBTAINING THEIR ANNEXAT’IION TO

THE AVOWo:D PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THEIR E:xAtTiION TO THE that tine project has never been abandoned a moment, ivSTATES.Thsr too well knotwn by its originators and abettors, but that it has been doeand toors nthe memotry ofTeeourec all, to need more ferred for a more favorable moment for its accomplish than a passing notce. These have become matters me nt, we refer to a few evidences of more recent deof history. For further evidence upon all these and volopment upon which tis opinion is founded. thana prssig no: ce Thse h v e bcom matersvelopment upon which this opinion is founded. ofFther eidnpoentat points, we refer to the memorabte The last Election of President of the Republic of Texas, poeoch of Jotnt Qpincy Adams, delivered in the Ilouse of is understood to have turned, mainly, upon the question Representatives during the morning hour in June and of a,eanexatiosn or no annexation, and the candidate pJuly, 1standtoe d i address to rin constituents, de-favorable to that measure was successful by an overJuly, 1838, and to his address to his constituents, de-wetigmjrt.TesvrinSae fAaaa livered at B raintree, l7th September, 1842.Tense,adMsispihaercnladpeReo livered at Braintree, 17th September, 1842. whelming majority. The sovereign States of Alabama, Tihe open avowal of the Texans themselves-the fre-Tennessee, and Mississippi, have recenly adopted Resvquent and anxious negotiations of our own Governiment lotions, tome, if not all of them, unastimousty, in favor q-the raouind f an ious eStateis of othe Union-the:oof annexation, and forwarded them to Congress.

-hreonumeous rtions of umember tts of Congress-the The Hon. Henry A. Wise, a member of Congress from tone of the Soothe b n press-as well as tne direst applis-the District in which our present Chief Magistrate resided tiesn of the Texan Government, miake, it impossible’?or lion of the Texan Government, make?, impossibl1e, for when elected VicePresident, and who is understood to any man to doubl, that ANNEXATtON, and the formation be more intimately acquainted with the views and de of several new Slavoholding States were oriiat’yn the signs of the present administration than any other mempolicy and design of the avhoding States and the ber of Congress, most distinctly avowed his de,ire for, poixecutivyne of the 6aNvhl gSateaion. tand expectation of annexation, at the last session of The same reference will show, very conclusively, that Congress. Among other things, he said, in a speech Executive of the Nation. ~Congress.

Among other things, he said, in a speech The amerefrene wll how,ver cocluivey, hatelivered January 26, 1842: the particular objects of this new acquisition of Slave delivered January 26, 1842: Territory were THE

PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY AND THE ” True, if Iowa be added on the one side, Florida will be CONTiNUsD ASCENDENCY OF THE SLAVE POWFea.R added on the other. But there the equation must stop. Let one more Northern State be admitted, and the equilibrium is The following extracts from a Report on that subject, one-gone forever. The bealde d inants is gone-thei mi adopted by the Legislature of Mississippi. from a mass guro mevr Te tefe of ei onthso gyard of American property-of the American Constitutionof similar evidence which might be adduced, will show of the American Union, vanished into thin air. T7is mU,St be twit/ w/ial views the annexation was then urged: the inevitable result, unley a treaty with Mexico, THE SOUTH

CAN ADD MORE WEIGHT TO HER END OF THE LEVER? L’et thie Btwehasten tosgest the importance of the annexation South stop at the Sabine, (the eastern boundary of Texas,) while f T s to this Republic upon grounds somewhat local in the North may spread unchecked beyond the Rocky Motintheir complexion, but of an import infinitely grave and inter rains AND THE

SOUTHERN SCALE MUST RICK THE BEAM).” esting to the people who inhabit the Southern portion of this, Co eracy, where it is known that a species of domestic i Finding difficulties, perhaps, in the way of a cession by laeyin toieratod and protected by tawv, w-hone existence is prohibited by the legal regulations of other States of this Con-Treaty, in another speec pr,, cy* which system of Slavery is hold by altl who are motion made by Mr. Lin, of NewYork, to strike out the familiarly acquainted with its practical effects, to be of highly salary of the Mlinister to Mexico, on the ground that the beneficial influence to the country within whose imits it is per-design of the EXECUTIVE, in making the appointment, mitte4 to exist. was to accomplish the annexation of Texas, Mr. Wise “The Committee feel authorized to say that this system is. said he earnestly hoped and trusted that the President cher rconstituents as the ee-y petlium of ther was as desirous (of annexation) as he was repr-sented to prospennty and harppness, and whatever ignorant fanaties may elsenwthere conjecture, the Committee are fully assured, upon be. We may well suppose the President to be in favorn of the most diligent observation and reflection on the subject, that it, as every wise statesman must be who is not governed t‘15

SONh doe imt psissswil,ine her limino a blessingy wih Uheih by fanaticism, or local sectional prejudices.” 67

Page 68 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. He said of Texas, that  “While she was, as a State, weak and almost powerless in resisting invasion, she was herself irresistible as an invading and a conquering power. She had but a sparse population, and neither men nor money of her own, to raise and equip an army for her own defense; but let her once raise the iag of foreign conquest-let her once proclaim a crusade against the rich States to the south of her-and in a moment volunteers would flock to her standard in crowds, from all the States ie the great valley of the Mississigppi-men of enterprise and valor, be fore whom no Mexican troops could stand for an hour. They would leave their own towns, arm themselves, and travel on their own cost, and would come up in thousands, to plant the lone star of the Texan banner on the Mexican capitol. They would drive Santa Anna to the South, and in boundless wealth of captured towns, and rifled churches, and a lazy, vicious, and luxurious priesthood, would soon enable Texas, to pay her soldiery, and redeem her State debt, and push her victorious arms to the very shores of the Pacific. And would not all this extend the bounds of Slavery? Yes, the result would be, that, before another quarter of a century, the extension of Slavery would not stop short of the Western Ocean. WVe had blut two alternatives before -s; either to receive Texas into our fraternity of States, and thus make her our own, or to leave her to conquer Mexice, and become our most dangerous and fsrmidable rival. To talk of restraining the people of the great Valley from emigrating to join her armies, was all in vain; and it was equally vain to calculate on their defeat by any Mexican forces, aided by England or not. They had gone once already; it was they that conquered Santa Anna at San Jacinto; and three-fourths of them, after winning that glorious field, had peaceably returned to their homes. But once set before them the conquest of the rich Mexican provinces, and you might as well attempt to stop the wind. This Government might end its troops to the frontier, to turn them back, and they would run over them like a herd of buffalo. “Nothing could keep these booted loafers from rshing on, till they kicked the Spanish priests out of the temples they profaned. ” Mr. Wise proceeded to insist that a majority of the people of the United States were in favor of the annexation; at all events, he would risk it with the Democracy of the North. ” Sir,” said Mr.

Wise, “it is not only the duty of the Government to demand the liquidation of our claims, and the liberation of our citizens, but to go further, and demand the noninvasion of Texas. Shall we sit still while the standard of insurrectio. is raised on our borders, and let a horde of slaves o,n.d I~ans and Mexicans ro. up to the boundary line of Arkinsas and Louisiana?

No. It is our duty at once to say to Mexico,’ If yo. strike Texas, you strike us,’ and if England. standing by, should dare to intermeddle, and ask’Do you n tam fe part ith Teas?I his prompt answer should be,’ Yes, and against yell.’ ‘ Such, he.o,ld let gentlemen k no, was f t he spirit of the whole people of th e gret valley of the Wesot.” Several other members of Congress, i n the same debate, expressed similar views and desires, and they are still more frequently expressed in conversation. The Hon. Thomas W. Gilmer, a member of Congress from Virginia, and formerly a Governor of that State, numbered as one of the “Guard,” and of co urse und erstood to bea in t he counsels of the Cab inet, in a letter bearing date 0te 10th day of January last, originally de signed as a private and confidential letter to a friend, gives it as his deliberate opinion, after much examination and reflection, that TEXAS WILL BE ANNEXED TO THE Ustho; and he enter s into a specious argument, and presents a variety of reasons in favor of the m easure. He says, among other things: “wHaeing acquired Louisiana and Florida, we have an interes, and a frontier on the Gulf of Mexic o, and along our interior to the Pacific, which will not permit us to close our eyes, or foldl our arms, with indifference to the events whic h a few years ay disclose in that quarter. We have already had one question of boundary with Texas; other questions must soon arise, under our revenue laws, and on other points of necess,r-y intercourse, which it will be difficult to adjust. The institatlloh.s of Texas, and her relations with other.overnments, are yet in t7.,mt condition which inclines her people (who are our own c~oulintrymten,) to unite their destinies with ours. T -is aUST BE DONE SOON, OR N1OT AT ALL. There are numerous tribes of Indi(,ns along both frontiers wh ich can easily become the cause or the instrum ent of’ b order wars. ” None can be so blind now, as not to know that the real .design and object of the South is, to ” ADD

NEW WEIGHT TO HER END OF THE LERVER.” It was upon that ground that Mr.

Webster placed his oppoSition, in his speech on that subject in NewYork, in March, 1837. In that speech, after stating that he saw insurmountable objections to the annexation of Texas, that the purchase of Louisiana and Florida furnished no precedent for it, that the cases were not parallel, and that no such policy or necessity as led to that, required the annexation of Texas, he said: ‘“Gentlemen, we all see, that by whomsoever possessed, Texas is likely to be a slaveholding country;* and I frankly a;row my entire uwillingness to do anything wvhich shail extend the Slavery of the African race on this continent, or add other slaveholding States’ to the Unionl. When I say that I Xregard Slavery as in itself a great moral, social, and political evil, I only use languagee which has been adzopted by distinguished men, themselves citizens of Slavehoheling States. I shall do nothing, therefore, to favor or encourage its further extension.”’ In conclusion he said: ” I see, therefore, no political necessity for the annexation of Texas to the Union no advantages to be derived from ith and objections to it of a strong, and, in my judgment, decisive character. ” I believe it to be for the interest and happiness lf the whole Union, to remain as it is, without diminution avd without addition.” To prevent the success of this nefarious project to preserve from such gross violation the Constitution of our country, adopted expressly ” to securre the blessings o. liberty,” and not the perpetuation of Slaveoy -and to prevent the speedy and violent di ssolution of the Union -we invit e y ou to unite, w ithout distinction of party, in an immediate expression of your vi e ws on th is s ubject, irh such manner as you may deem bes t calcul ated th ans wer the end p roposed. JOHN QUINCY

ADAMS, NATHANIEL B. BORDEN, SETH M. GATES, THOMAS C. CItlTTg:.NDEN, WILLIAM SLADE, JOHN MIATT’OCKS, WILLIAM B. CALHOUN, CHRISTOPHER MORGAN, JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS, JOSHUA M. HOWARD, SHE:RLOCK J. ANiiDREWS, VICTORY

BIRDSEYU, HILAND HALL. WASIIJNGTON, Strarch 3rd, 1843. [NOTE.-The above address was drawn up by Hon. Seth M. Gat es, o f Ne w-Yor k, at the suggestion of Joh n Quincy Adams and sent to members of Congress at their residences, aftea the close of the session, for their signatures. Many more that the above pproved heartily of its positions and objects,, and would have signed it, but for its prem ature publica tion, through mistake. Mr. Winthrop, f Mass., was one of thes e, with Gov. Briggs, of course; Mr. Fillmore declined signing it.] The letters of Messrs. Clay a nd Van Buren, taking grou nd against annexation, without the consent of Mexico, as an act of bad faith and aggression, which wo ul d ne cessarily result in war, w hich a ppe ared in t he spring of 1844, make slight allusions, if any, to the Slavery aspect of the case. In a later letter, Mr. Clay declared that he did not oppose annexation on account o f S lav ery, which he re barded as a te mporar y institution, which, therefore, oubght no t to stawld in the way of a permanent a cquisi tion. And, t hough Mr. Clay’s last letter o n the subject, prior to the election of 1844, re i terate d and emphasized all his objectio ns to annexat ion under the existing circumstances, he did not incl ude the e xiste nce of Slavery. The defeat of Mr. Van Buren, at the Baltimore Nominating Convention-Mr. Polk being s e lected in his s tead, by a bod y which had been supposed pledged to renominate t he ex-Presi dent excited considerabl e feeling, especially among the Democrats of NewYork. A numiber of their leaders u ni ted i n a let ter, termed the “Secret Circular,” advising their brethren, while they supported Polk and Dallas, to be careful to vote for candidates for Congress who would set their faces as a flint againist annexa tioni, which was signed by GEORGE P.

BARKER, DAVID DUDLEY FIELD) WILLIAM C. BRYANT, THEODORE SEDGWICK, J. NV.

EDMONDS, TIIOMAS W. TUCKER, ISAAC TOWNSEND. Silas WVright, then a Senator of the United States, and who, as such, had opposed the Tyler Treaty of Annlexation, was nowr run for Governor, as the only man who coulld carry the State of NewYork for Polk and D~allals. On a demnocratic speech at Sksaneateles, N. Y., Mir. Wright had recently declared that he could never consent to Annrexation onl ally terms which would give Slavery anl advanltage, ow~,’ Freedom. This senltimenxt was reiterated awld amplifiedd in a great Convenltionl of thec D)cnIIo 68

Page 69 view page image

THE STRUGGLE FOR SLAVERY RESTRICTION. eracy, which met at Herkimer, in the autumn of t,his vear. The contest proceeded with great earnestness throughout the Free States, the supporters of Polk and of Birney (the Abolition candidate for President), fully agreeing in the assertion that Mr. Clay’s position was equally favorable to Annexation with Mr. Polk’s.

Mr. Birney in a letter published on the eve of the Election, declared that he regarded Mr. Clay’s election as aiore favorable to Annexation than Mr.

Polk’s, because, while equally inclined to fortify and extend Slavery, he possessed more ability to insfluence Congress in its favor. Before this time, but as yet withheld from, and unknown to, the public, Mr. Calhoun, now Presidenit Tyler’s Secretary of State, and an early and powerful advocate of Annexation, had addressed to Hon. Wm. R. King, our Embass,ador at Paris, an official dispatch from wlhich we make the following extracts: in the consummation of this grand scheme, which England hopes to accomplish through Texas, if she can defeat the Annexation, but that her interests, and those of all the Continental powers of Europe are directly and deeply opposed to it. The elec tion of Jam es K. P olk as President, and George M. Dallas as VicePresident, (Nov. 1844) having virtually settled, affirm atively, the question of annexirg Texas, the XXVIIntla Cong ress commenced its s eco nd s ession at Washington, o n the 2d of December, 1844-Mr. John Tyler being still acting Presiden t up to the end of the Congress, M arc h 4th following. Dec. 19.-Mir. Joh n B. Weller, (then member from Ohio) by leave, introduced a joint resolu tion, No. 51, providioptn for the anilnexation of Texas to the United States, which he moved to th e Comnmittee of the Woplle. M r. E. S. Hamlii r, of O hio, moved a ref erence of said resolve to a Committee of pou e Irom each State, with instructi o n s to repo rt Whether the annexat ion of T exas wo uld no t extend and perpetuate Slavery in the Slave States, and also, th e inte rnal Slavetrade; and whether the United States Government has any Constitutional power over Slavery in the States, either to perpetuate it there, o r to do it away. The question on commitme nt was insisted upon, and first taken-Yeas, 109 (Demo crats); Navs, 61 (Whiags); w hereupon i t was held that Mr. Hamliin’s amendment was defeated, and the original proposition alone committed. January 10th, 1845.-Mr. John P.

Hale, of NewHampshire, (then a Democratic ]lep)resen tative, now a Republican Senator) proposed the following as an amendment to any act or resolve contemplating the annexation o’ oTexas to tiis Union: Provided, That immediately after the question of boundary between the United States of Amierica an., Mexico shall Ieave been definitively settled by the too Governments, and before any State formed out of the Territory of Texas shall be admitted into the Union, the said Territory of Texas shall be divided as follows, to wit: beginning at a point (n the Gulf of Mexico, midway between the Northern and Soutlherni boundaries thereof on the coast; and thence by a line running in a,North westerly direction to the extreme boundary thereof, so as to divide the same as nearly as possible into two equal parts, and in that portion of said Territory lying South and West of the lisle to be run as aforesaid, there shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude, other wise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. An4d provided fartler, That this provision shall be considered as a compact between the people of the United States and the people of the said Territory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by the consent of three-fourths of the States of the Union. Mr. Hale asked a suspension of the rules, to enable him to offer it now, and have it printed and committed. Refused-Yeas, 92

(not two thirds); Nay,.s, 81. Yea.s-All the Whigs* and most of the Democrats from the Free States. with Messrs. Dincan L. Clinch arid Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, and George NA. Summers, of’ Virginiia.

Nay,s?tAll the members from Slave States, except the ab)ove, with the followving from Free States: MAINE. Sheppard Cary-1. N.:w-tIIMPSUIE.

Edmund Burke, Moses Norris, jr.-2. N~:w-Yor,:.-.Jalmes (G. Clintoni, Selah B. Strong-2. PENNSYVLVANIA. James Black, Richard Brlodhead, H{. I).

Foster, Josepok R. Inge,,oll, 3Iichael tg. Jezlks . Oal~o.~Joseph J.

lMcl~owell 1. I~DXASA. Wm. J. B~rownv, J. W. Davis, John Pettil . MR.

CALHOUN TO MR. KING. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,, Washington, August 12,1844.

SIR-I have laid your dispatch, No. 1, before the President, who instructs me to make known to you that he has read it with much pleasure, especially the portion which relates to your cordial reception by the King, and his assurance of friendly feelings toward the United States. The President, in particular, highly appreciates the declaration of the King, that in no event, would any steps be taken by his government in the slightest degree hostile, or which would give to the UnitedStatesjust cause of complaint.

It was the more gratifying from the fact, that our previous information was calculated to make the impression that the gove-rrent of France was prepared to unite with Great Bitain in a joint protest against the annexation of Texas, and a joint effort to induce her Gove rnaent to withdraw the proposition to annex, on condition that Mexico should be made to acknowledge lher independence. lie is happy to infer from your dispatch that the information, so far as it relates to France, is in all probability without foundation. You did not go further than you ought, in assuring the King that the object of Annexation would be pursued with unabated vigor, and in giving your opinion that a decided majority of the American people were in its favor, and that it would certainly be annexed at no distant day. I feel confident that your anticipation will be fully realized at no distant perio d. Ever y day will tend t o weaken that combination of political causes which ledo to the opposition of the measure, and to strengthen the conviction that it was not only expedient, but just and necessary. But to descend to p articulars: it is certain that while Englan d, lik e Fra nce, desires t he in dependence of Texas, with the view to commercial connections, it is not l ess so that one of the leading mo tives of England for desiring it, is the hope that, through her diplomacy and influence, Negro Slavery may be abolished t he re, and ultimately, by consequence, in the United States and thr oughout the whole of this continent. That i ts ultim ate aboliti on throughout the e nti re c on t inent is an object a rdently desired by her, we have decisive proofs in the declaration of the Earl of Aberdeen, delivered to this Department, and of w h ich you will find a copy among the documents transmitted to Congress with the Texan treaty. That she desires its abolition in Texas, and has used her influence and diplomacy to effect it there, the same document, with the correspondence of this Department with Mr. Packenham, also to be found among the documents, furnishes proof not less conclusive. That one of the objects of abolishing it there is to facilitate its abolition in the United Ltates, and throughout the continent, is manifest from the declaration of the Abolition party and societies both in this country and in England. In fact, there is good reason to believe that thle scheme of abolishing it in Texas, with a view to its abolition in the United States, and over the continent, orlginated with the prominent members of the party in the United States; and was first broached by them in the (so called) World’s Convention, held in London in the year 1840, and thr outgh its agency brouglht to the notice of the British Government. iNow, I hold, not only that France can have no interest 69 -Except the two here given in lWi,*.

Page 70 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. ILLINOIS.-Orlando B. Ficklin, Joseph P.

Hoge, Robert aforesaid was agreed to-Yeas, 118; Nays, Biiith 3. 1 Total Democrats f.om Free States, 17. 1 -ce)ter 1‘2t/t.-Or. C. J. Ingersoll, of P enn. IB eeas-114 Democrats, and Messrs. Milton l)ecezn1)er 12tlh. Mr.

C. J. Ingersoll, of Penn-B sylvainia, from the Commiittee on Foreign Affairs, Brown, of Tennessee; James Dellet, of Alabama; and Dunca~n L.

Clinch, and Alexatider H. reported a Joinit Resolution for annexing Texas and Dunctn L Clinch, and Alexatder i. to the Uniotn, which was committed and dis-Stephens of Georgia, (4) Southern Whigs. cussed in Committee of the Whole from time to.ays -all the Whigs present from Free States time, througi the next month. with all from Slave States, but the four just titite, througi ~~named; with the following Deitocrats from Jaeutary 7th.-Mr. J. P. Hale presented re-Frede Stfollowing De ocrats fro solves of the Legislature of New-Hatnpshire,ree tates thoroughly in favor of Annexation, and silent MAIN nlap, Hannibal llamlin-2. VERMONT.-Paul Dillingam, jr.-i-1. On the stubject of Slavery, except as follows: NW-HAMPSHIRE.-John P. Hale-1. Resolved, That we agree with Mr. Clay, that the re-CONNECTICUT.-Geoige S Catlin-. annexation of Texas will add more Free than Slave NEW-YORK Joseph H Anderson, Charles S. Benton, States to the Union; atnd that it would be unwise to re-Jeremiah E Carey Amasa ana, Richard D. Davis, fuse a permanent acquisition, which will exist as long as Byram Green P eston King, Smith l. Purdy, George ByamtGren, Orvle onstonKn, Davidh L. Semurd, Lemugel the globe remains, on account of a temporary institution. Rathbuymour, Lemuel Stetson 2 January 1 3t.-Mr.

Cave Johnson, of Ten-OHIO.-Jacob Brinckerhoff, William C. McCauslen, Ilessee, imoved that all further debate on this Joseph Momris, Henry St.

John-4. subject be closed at 2 P.M. on Thursday next MICiIGAN.-James B.

Hunt, Robert McClelland-2. Total Democrats from Free States,……….23.

Cairried-Yeas, 136; Nays, 57; (nearly all the Total Whigs from FreeandSlave States,. Ttals from Slave States.) Na ys from Slave States.) The House then ordered the whole proposi Jlanuarq 25th.-‘-The debate, after an exten Jceeo~y25~.-Tle dbat, afer n eten tioil to a third reading otbrthwith Yeas, 12(‘); Pion of tinte, was at length brought to a clothrd read lithwl Yes, 12(); te Joint Resolution taen ut of Commit SNays, 97

and passed it, Yeas, 120; Nays, 98. anid tihe Joint Resolution taken out of Commit-, i,a~alteDmcasfor lv tts tee and reported to the House in the following Yeas-all the Denocrats frot Slave States tee, l… a,. ~ and all the Democrats from Free States, except form; ( that portion relatitig to Slavery, havin as above; with Messrs. Duncan L. Cliuel, Mibeen ladded in Coitunittec, on motion of Mr. ton Brown, James Dellet, Willoughby Newton, Milton Brown, (Whig) of Tennessee: Mito Bon (hgofTneof Virginia, (who therefrom turned Democrat), Rtesolved, by ts Sena te a en ioe of Repres entaand Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia, (now tive, ie Cogriess assem,blecl, That Congress doth con sent tat the Territory properly included within, and Democrat) from Slave States. rightfully belonging to, the Republic of Texas, may be Nays-all the Whigs from Free States; all erected into a new State, to be called the State of Texas, those from Slave States except as above; with with a epublican form of Government, to be adopted by the people of said Republic, by deputies in Convention 23

Democrats from Free States. assembled, with the consent of the existing Government, So the resolve passed the House, anid was in o.der that the same may be admitted as one of the sent to the Senate for concurrence.

States of this Union. In Senate several 2. AWd be itferther resolved, That the foregoing con-In Senate, several attempts to originate action s ent of Congress is given upon the following conditions, in favor of Annexation were made at this se*and with the following guaranties, to wit: sion but nothing came of them. First. Said State to be formed, subject to the adjust-Fe’ ment by this Government of all questions of boundary rury 24h.-The ont resolution aforethat may arise with other governments; and the Con-said from the House was taken up for colnstituition thereof, with the proper evidence of its adoption sideration by 30 Yeas to 11 Nays (all Northern by the people of said Republic of Texas, shall be trans-Whigs) Ol the 27th Mr Walker of Wiscomitted to the President of the United States, to be laidO before Congress for its final action, on or before the 1st siln, ltoved to and an alternative proposition, day of January, 1846.

contemplating negotiation as the meanis of Second. Said State, when admitted into the Union, effecting tIe meditated end after ceding to the United States all public edifices,forti-e te titend fications, barracks, ports and harbors. navy and navy-Mr. Foster, (Whig) of Tennessee proposed yards, docks, magazines, arms, armaments, and all other That the State of Texas, and such other States as may property and means pertaining to the public defense, be formed out of that portion of the present Territory ot belonging to the said Republic of Texas, shall retain all Texas, lying south of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes the public funds, debts, taxes, and dues of every kind north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Coinwhich may belong to, or be due or owing said Republic; promise line, shall be aditted into the Union with or and shall also retain all the vacant and unappropriated without Slaver y, as the people of each State, so hereafter lands lying within its limits, to be applied to the pay-asking admission, may desire. ment of debts and liabilities of said Republic of Texas and the residue ofsaid lands, after dischargingsaiddebts On which the question was taken. Yeas, (all and liabilities, tobe disposed of assaid State maydirect: Whigs but 3) 18; Navs, 34. but in no event are said debts and liabilities to become Various aniuendments were proposed and voted a charge upon the United States. Third. NewStatesof convenient size,not exceeding do, n Among them Mr Foster, of Tent., four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and moved an express stipulation that Slavery should havingsufficientpopulation,mayhereafter,bytheconsent be tolerated in all States formed out of the of said State, be formed out of the Territory therexas, south of the Misouri ie which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions Territory of Texas, south of the Msour line of the Federal Constitution. And such States as may be of 36~I 30’.

Rejected Yeas, 16 (Southern formed out of that portion of said Territory, lying south Whigs, and Sevier, of Arkansas); Nays, 33. of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes north latitude com monly known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall be Mr. Miller, of N.J., moved that the existence of Slaadmitted into the Union, with, or without Slavery as the very be forever preohibited in the northern and northwestpeople of each State asking admission may desire; and ern part of said Territory, west of the 10oth degree of in such State or States as shall be formed out of said latitude west from Greenwich, so as to divide, as equally Territory, north of said Missouri Compromise line as may be, the whole of the annexed country between Slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall Slaveholding and Non-Slaveholdirig States. be prohibited. Yeas, 11; all Northern Whigs, except Mr. Mr. Cave Johnson, of Tennessee, moved the Crittetideti, Ky. Nays, 33. previous question, which the House seconded-The vote inl the Seatite on the joint resolution Yeas, 113; Nays, 106 and then the ameudinent for Annexation stood, Yeas, 26, all Dent 70

Page 71 view page image

THE STRUGGLE FOR SLAVERY RESTRICTION. crats but 3; N.ayts, 25, (all Whigs). Ili the House, Yeas 134, all Detmocrats but 1: Nays, 77, (all Whigs). And wherea.s, Congress, in the organization of a territorial government, at an early period of our political history, established a principle worthy of imitation in all future time, forbidding the existence of Slavery in free territory; TIherefore, Resolved, That in any Territory, that may be acquired from Mexico, over which shall be established territorial governments, Slavery, or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be forever prohibited; and that in any act or resolution establishing such gov ernments, a fundamental provision ought to be inserted to t hat egect. Mr. R. Brodhead, of Penn., move d that this resolution li e on the ta ble. Carried: Yeas, 105 Nays, 93. Yeas-a ll the members from Slave States, but John W. Hous t on (Whig), of Delaware, with the following firom Free States (all Democrats but Levin): MAiNE.-Asa W.

H. Clapp, Franklin Clark, Jas. S. Wiley, Hezekiah Williams-4. NEW-YoIK.

Ausburn Birdsall, David S. Jackson, Frederick W. Lord, William B.

Maclay-4. PEPNNSYLVANIA.- Richard Brodhead, Charl es Brown, Lewi8 C.

Le/vin, Job Man-4. Oiiio.-William Kennon, jr., John K. Miller, Thomas Richey, Willi am Sawyer-4i. INDIANA. Charles W. Cathcart, Thoma s J.

Henle y, John Pettit, J o hn L. R obinson, Will iam W. Wick-5.

ILLINOIS.-Orlando B. Ficklin, John A. McClernand, William A. Richardson, Robert Smith, Thomas J. Turner 5. tcays-all the Whigs and a large major ity of the Democrats from Free States, with John W. Houston aforesaid.

This vote terminated all direct action in favor of the Wilnot Proviso for that Session. July 18th.-In Senate, Mr. Clayton, of Del., from the Select Committee to which was referred, on the 12th inst., the bi ll providind a territorial government for Oregon, report ed a bill to establish Territorial governments for Oregon, New Mexico, and California, which was read. (It proposed to submit all questions as to the rightful existence or extent of Slavery in the Territories to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.) July, 24th.-Second reading. Mr. Baldwin, of Conn., moved to strike out so much of said bill as relates to California and N’ew Mexico. Rejected: Yeas, 17 (Northern Free Soil men of both parties); Nays, 37. The bill was discussed through several succeedingi days. On the 26th, Mr. Clarke, of R. I., moved to add to the 6th section: Provided, howe/ver, That no law, regulation, or act of the provisional government of said Territory permitting Slavery or involuntary servitude therein shall be valid, until the same shall be approved by Congress.” Rejected: Yeas, 19

[Col. Benton, and 18 Northern Freesoilers of both parties]; Nays, 33. Mr.

Reverdy Johnson, of Md., moved to amend the bill by inserting: Except only, that in all cases of title to slaves, the said writs of error or appeals shall be allowed and decided by the said Supreme Court without regard to the value of the matter, property, or title in controversy; and except, also, that a writ of error or appeal shall also be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States from the decision of the said Supreme Court cleated by this act, or of any judge thlereof, or of the district Courts created by this act, or of any judge upon any writ of habeas corpus involving the question of personal freedom. Carried; Yeas, 31 (all1
sorts); Nays, 19 (aill Southern, bult Bright, Dickinlson, and!tannegan).

Mr. B3aldwin,? of Conntect~icut, mloved an addi-t tional sectiou,X as followvs: TIlE WILMOT PROVISO.’ Texas having been annexed during the sum-

< iner of 1845, in pursruance of the joint resolution of the two Houses of Congress, a portion p of the United States Army, under Gen. Taylor, ]

was, early in the spring of 1846, moved down to the east bank of the Rio Grande del Norte, claimed by Texas as her western boundary, but not so regarded by Mexico. A hostile collision ensued, resulting in war between the United States and Mexico. It was early thereafter deemed advisable that 1 a considerable sutm should be placed by Congress at the President’s disposal to negotiate an advantageous Treaty of Peace and Limits with the Mexican Government. A message to this effect was submitted by President Polk to Con-: gress, August 8th, 1846, and a bill in accordance with its suggestions laid before the House, which proceded to consider the subject in Committee of the Whole. The bill appropriating $30,000 for immediate use in negotiations with Mexico, and placing $2,000,0(0)0 more at the disposal of the President, to be employed in making peace, Mr. David Wilmot, of Pa., after consultation with other Northern Democrats, offered the following Proviso, iii addition to the first section of the bill: Provided, That as an express and fundamental condition to tle acquisition of any territoly from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the nioneys herein appropriated, nithier Slavery nor involuntary ser vitude shall ever exist ill any part of said Territory, except for crime, whereof tile party shall be first duly convicted. This proviso was carried in Committee, by the strong vote of eighty three to sixty-four-onlv three Members (Democrats) from the FreeStates, it was said, opposing it. (No record is made of individual votes in Conmmittee of the Whole.) The bill was then reported to the House, and ilr. Rathbun, of N. Y., moved the previous question on its eiirgossment. Mr. Tibbatts, of Ky., moved that it do lie.on the table.

Defeated-Yeas, 79; (Stephen A. Douglas, John A. McClernanrd, John Pettit, and Robert C. Schenck, voting with the South to l ay o n the table;) eNavs 93; ( Henry Grider and William P. Thoinasson, of Ky. (Wligis) voting with the North against it. The bill was then engrossed for its third reading by Yeas 85, Nays, 80; and thus passed without further division. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table-Yeas, 71; Nays, 83. So the bill was passed and sent to the Senate, where Mr. Dixon H. Lewis, of Alabama, moved that the Proviso above cited be stricken out; on which debate arose, and Mr. John Davis of Masse, was speaking when, at noon of Aug,ust 10th, the time fixed for adjournment having arrived, both Houses adjourned without day. ‘lhe XXXth Congress assembled Dec. 6, 1847. Feb. 28th 1848, Mr.

Putnamn of NewYork moved the following: Whqereas, In the settlement of the difficulties pending between this country and Mexico, territory raay be acquired in which Slavery does not now exist. I I e f e s e e e n I h r d d I d I f t 71

Page 72 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. So Mr. Claytoui’s project of Compromise was defeated. The next session of the same Congress opened under very different auspices. The Mexican War had been ternminated, so that none could longer be deterred from voting for Slavery Ex c lllsion by a fear that the prosecution of hos tilities would thereby be embarrassed. General Tavior had been elected President, receiviig> the votes of Delaware, Maryland, North Caro lina, Georgia, Kenrtucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Florida-a moiety of the Slave States-over Gen. Cass, now th e avowed opwioihesit of Slavery Restriction. Many of the Northern Democrat,s considered themselves absolved by this vote froll) all extra-constitutioft al obligations to the South, and voted accordingly. .Dec. 13.-Mr. J. AI.

Root, of Ohio, offered the followi tng: Resolved, That the Commit te e o n Territories be in structed to report to this House, with as li ttle delay as practicable, a bill or bills providing a Territorial Govern ment for each of the Territories of New Mexico and Cal fornia, and excluding Slavery t herefrom. A call of the Hou se was had, and the previous question ordered. ir. W. P. Hall, of Mo., m oved that the same do li e on th e table Lost: Yeas, 80; Navs, 106. The resolve then pass ed: Yeas, 108

Nays, 80, viz.: Yeas-All the Wh igs from Fre e States, and all the De mocrats, but th ose noted as Nays below, including the fol lowing, who had voted against the same principle at the former session: dI a.E,-Asa W. KI.

Clapp, James S. Wiley-2. NEW-YORK.-Frederick W. Lord-1. OnIo.-Thomas Richey-1. INDI)ANA.-Charles W. Cathcart, Thomas J. HIenley, John L.

Robinson, William W. Waick-4. ILLINOIS.-Robert Smith-1. Messrs. Clark and Hw. Williams, of Maine, eirdsall and Maclay, of NewYork, Brodhead and Mann, of Pa., Pettit, of Ind., Ficklin and McClelland, of Ill., who voted with the South at the f ormer session-n ow f ailed to vote Mr. Jackson, of N. Y, who the n vote d w it h the South, had been succeed e d by Mr. H.

Greeley, who voted with the North. b days-All the Members voting from the Slave States, with the following from the Free States: NEw-YoR:.-Itenlry C. Murphy-1. PENNSYLVANIA.. Charles Brown, Charles J. Ingersoll-2.

OHIO.-W llam Kennon, jun., John 1K. Mill er, William Sawyer-8.

ILLINOIS.-William A. Richardson-1. IowA.-Shepherd Lefiler-1. Total Nays from Free States-S. Mr. Robinson, of Ind, moved a recon sidera tion of this vote, which motion’Dec. 18), on nmotion o f Mr. Went worth, of Ill., was laid on the table: Yeas, 105; Nay s, 83. The Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation bill having passed the House in the usual form, came up to the Senate, where it was debated several days. _eb. 21st.-Mr. Walker, of Wise., moved an amendment, extending all the laws of the United States, so far as applicable, to the Territories acquired from Mexico. Mr. Bell, of’

Tenn., moved to add further sections organizing the State of Californlia, to be admitted into the Union onl the 1st cot October nlext. This was rejected: Yeas, 4 (Bell, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Davis): Nays, 39. Ieb.

26th. Mr. Dayton, of N. J., moved that the Presidenlt be vested with power to provide a suitable temlporary government for tile Territories.

Rejected: Yeas, 8; Nays, 47. Sec. 87. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the attorneys for said Territories, respectively, on the complaint of any person held in involuntaiy servitude therein, to make application in his behalf in due form of law, to the court next thereafter to be holden in said Territory, for a writ of habeas corpus, to be directed to the person so holding such applicant in service as aforesaid, and to pursue all needful measuires in his behalf; and if the decision of such court shall be adverse to the application, or if, on the return of the writ, relief shall be denied to the applicant, on the ground that he is a slave held in servitude in said Territory, said attorney shall cause an appeal to be taken therefrom, and the record of all the proceedings in the case to be transmitted to the Supreme Court of the United States as speedily as may be, and to give notice thereof to the Attorney General of the United States, who shall prosecute the same before said Court, who shall proceed to hear and determine the same at the first term thereof.

Yeas, 15 (all Northern, except Benton); Nays, 31. Mr. Davis, of Mass, moved to strike out section 12, and insert as follows: Sec. 12. And be it.farther enacted, That so much of the sixth section of the ordinance of the. 13th July, 178T, as is contained in the following words; viz.’ There shall be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,’ shall be and remain in force in the Territory of Oregon. This was defeated; Yeas, 21; Nays, 33. The bill was then engrossed for a third reading; Yeas, 33; Navs, 22; as follows: Yeas-For Clayton’s Compromise: Messrs. Atchison, Houston, Atherton. Hunter, Benton, Johnson, Md. Berrien, Johnson, La. Borland, Johnson, Ga. Br-eese, King, Bright, Lewis, Butler, Mang-dm, Calhoun, Mason, Clayton, Phelps, Davis, Miss.

Rusk, Dickinson, Sebastian, Douglas, Spruance, Downs, Sturgeon, Foote, Turney, Hannegan, WestCo tt, Yulee-83. Ya~yss-Against Claytoni’s bill: Mgessrs. Allen, F elch, Badger, Fitzgerald, Baldwin, Greene, Bell, Hale, Bradbury, Hamlin, Clarke, Metcalf. Corwin, Mille,-, Davis, Mass. Niles, Dayton, Underwood, Dix, Upham, Dodge, Walker-22. So the bill was engrossed, and immediately passed without a division. July 28th.-This bill reached the House, and was taken up and read twice. MrA.A. H. Stephens, of Ga., moved that th e bill do lie on the tabl e. Yeas and Nays orderd, and the motion prevailed: Yeas, 112; Nays, 97. Yeas, all the Free State Whigs, with 8 Whigs from Slave States; 20 Democrats from Free States. NVays-21

Democrats from Free States, with 76 Democrats and Whigs from Slave States.

Mfr. Pollock, of Pa., moved that this vote be reconsidered, and that the motion to reconsider do lie on the table; which prevailed: Yeas, 11 3; Nays, 9 6,v 72

Page 73 view page image

OREGON. The question recurredn’Mr. Walker’s amendment, which was carried: Yeas, 29; Nays, 27. The bill being returned to the House, thus amended, this amendment was (March 2d) voted down: Yeas, 101; Nays, 115-as follows: Yeas all the members from the Slave States, with the following from the Free States, viz.: Yea-al te enier frm he lae And neither Slavery, nor involuntary servitud e shall ever exist in said Territory, except for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. SiOn coming out of Committee, this amendWoment was agreed to-Yeas, 108; Nays, 44. (The Nays are all Southern, but Charles J. tngSersoll, Orlando B. Fieklin, and possibly one or tw o others; and all Democrats, but some half a dozen from the South, of whom Robert Toombs has since turned Democrat.) Stephen A.

Doutglas did not vote. The bill passed the House without further opposition, was read twice in the Senate, and referred; and Mr. Westcott, of Florida, made a report thereon from the Committee on Territories; but the session closed without further action on the bill. This Congress reassembled, Dec. 7th, 1846. On the 23d, Mr. Douglas again reported his bill to provide a Territorial government for Oregon, which was read twice and committed: Jan. 11th, 1847, was discussed in Committee, as als o on th e 12th and 14th, when it was resolved, to close tedet n the debate. On the 15th, it was taken out of Committee, when Gen. Burt, of S. C., moved the following additio n (already moved a, deb a nd vote d do wn in Committee) to the clause forbidding Slavery in said Territory: Inasmuch as the whole of said Territory lies north of thirtysix d egrees thirty minutes n orth latitude, known as the line of the Missouri Cmr ompromi se. The purpose of this is clear enough. It wain inte nde d t o recognize the Missouei line, not as limited to the Territories possessed b y the United States at the ti me said line was e stablished, but as extending to all that has since been, or hereafter should be, acquired, so as to legalize Slavery in any Territ ory h enceforth to be acquired by us s outh of 360 30’. Alr. Burt’s amendament was negatived: Yeas, 82; Nays, 114. The vote was very nearly section al; but the following members from Free States vo ted i n the minority: PF,NNSYLVANIA-Charles J. Ingersoll-1. ILLINOiS-Stephen A.

Douglas, Robt. Smith-2. IowA C. S. Hastings-1. In all, 5. No member from a Slave State voted in the majority. The bill then passed: Yeas, 134; Navs, 35, (all Southern). Jan. 15.-The bill reached the Senate, and was sent to the Judiciary Committee, consisting of Messrs. Ashley, Ark.

Berrien, Ga. Westcott, Fla. Breese, 111. Dayton, N. J. Jan. 25.-Mr. Ashley reported the Oreg,on bill with amendments, which were ordered to be printed. 29. Said bill, on motion of Mr. Westcott, was recommitted to the Judiciary CSommrittee. ~eb 10. Mr. Ashley again reported it with amendments. Ma~rch 3. It was taken UP AS inl Comnmittee of the Whole, when Mr. Evans, of Maine, moved that it be laid on the table. Defeated: Yeas, MAIsp-Heze’kiah Williams-1. NEW-YORK-Ausburn Birdsall-1.

PENNSYLVANIA-Samuel A. Bridges, Richard Bredhead, Charles Brown, Charles J. Ingersoll, Lewis C. Levi~n-5. OjIo William Kennon, jr., William Sawyer-2. ILLINOIS-OW lando B. Ficklin, John A. McClernand, William A.

lichardson-8. IowA-Shepherd Leffier-1. Total, thirteen from Free States; eighty-eight from Slave States. (Only two from Slave States absent or silent.) Nays-all the Whigs from Free States, and all the Democrats from Free States, except those named above. So the House refused to concur in this amendment, and the bill was returned to the Senate accordingly. The Senate resolved to insist on its amendment, and ask a conference, which was granted, but resulted in nothing. Messrs. Atherton, of N. H., Dickinson, of N. Y., and Berrien, of Ga., were managers on the part of the Senate, and insisted oni its amendment, organizing the Territories without restriction as to Slavery. Messrs. Vinton, of Ohio, Nicoll, of N. Y., and Morehead, of Ky., were appointed on the part of the House. These, after a long sitting, reported their inability to agree, and were discharged. Th e bill being now returned to the House, Mr. McClernand, of Ill., moved that the House do recede from its disagreement. Carried: Yeas, 111; Nays, 106.

Mr. R. W. Thompson, of Ind., move d that the H ous e concur with the Senate, with an amendSent, wh ich w as a su bstitute, extending the laws of th e United States over said Territories, but leaving them unorganized, And that, until the fou rth day of July, eighteen hundred and fifty, unless Congress shall sooner provide for the government of said Territories, thle existing laws theretshall be retained and obser exd. The question be ing reached on amending th e Senate’s proposition as proposed by Mr. Thompson, it was carried: Yeas, 111; Nays, 105. (All the Southern members in the negative, with Levin and a few of the Northern Denmo.

crats; the residue, with all the Northern Whigs, in the affirmative.) The House now proceeded to agree to the Senate’s amendment, as amended: Yeas, 110; Nays, 103, (the same as before; the friends of the Senate’s proposition voting against it, as amended, and tiice versa, on the understanding that Mr. Thompsoln’s amendment would exclude Slavery.) The bill as thus amended being returned to the Senate, it refused to agree to the House’s amendment, and receded from its own proposition; so the bill was passed and the session closed, with no provision for the government of the newly-acquired Territories. is OREGON.

Page 74 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. Mr. hIouston, of Delaware, voting in the majority as before: otherwise, members fiom the Free States in the affirmative; those from the slave States in the negative.] Atq. 3.-This bill reached the Senate, when Mr. Badger, of N. C., moved its indefinite postpoiiemeiit: negatived, 47 to 1, (Ytilee). It was then sent to the Committee on Territories. The Senate had had under consideration, from time to time through the Session, a bill of its own, reported by Mr.

Douglas, which was finally referred to a select Committee-Mr. Clayton, of Delaware, Chairman-and by said committee reported some days before the reception of the House bill. Jt was then dropped. Aug. 5.-Mr. Douglas reported the House bill, with amendments, which were printed. Aug. 10.

-After some days’ debate, the Senate proceeded to vote. Mr. Foote, of Miss., moved that the bill do lie on the table. Defeated: Yeas, 15

(Southern); Nays, 36. On the question of agreeing to this amend ment: Inasmuch as the said Territory is north of thirtysix deg. thirty Ilsin., usually known as the [line of the] Missouri Compromise. It was rejected: Yeas, 2 (Bright and Dour glas); Nays, 52. Mr. Douglas moved to amend the bill, by inserting after the word ” enacted:” That the line of thirtysix degrees and thirty minutes of north latitude, known as the Missouri Compromise line, as defined in the eighth section of an act entitled, ” An Act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory to form a Constitutional and State Government, and fr the admission of such State into the Unionon an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit Slavery in certain Teri itorie., approved March 6th, 1820,” be, and the same is hereby, declaiedl to extend to the Pacific Ocean; and the said eighth section, together with the compromise therein ffected, is hereby revived, and declared to be in full fance atd binding, for the future organization of the Trr itories of the United States in the same sense, and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted; andWhich was carried: Yeas, 33; Nays, 21; as fol lows: Yeas-For recognizing the Missouri line as rightfully extending to the Pacific: Messrs. Atchison, Hannegan, Badger, Houston, Bell, Hunter, Benton, Johnson of Md., Berrien, Johnson of La., Borland, Johnson of Ga., Bright, Kin, Butler, Lewis, Calhoun, Mangum, C am e ron, Mtson, Davis of Miss., Metcalfy Dickinson, Pearce, Douglas, Sebastian, Dowlls, Spruance, Fitzgerald, Sturgeon, Foote of Miss., Turney, Underwood 33. gays-Against recognizing said line: Messrs. Allen, Dodge, Atherton, Felch, Baldwin, G r leene, Bradbury, lIale, Breese, Hatnlin, Clar ke, Miller, Corwin, Niles, Davis of M~ass., Phelps, Dayton, Upham, Dix, Walker, W’ebster 21. The bill was then engrossed for a third reading: Yeas, 33; Nays, 22, (nlearly the same as 19, (all Whigs but Calhoun, of S. C., and Yulee of Florida); Nays, 26, (24 Dem., with Corwin of Ohio, and Johnson of Louisiana.) Mr.Westcott, of Fla., immniediately moved that the bill do lie on the table, which prevailed: Yeas, 26; Nays, 18 (a mixed vote, evidently governed by various motives); but the negatives were all Democrats, but Corwin anid Johnson aforesaid. This being the last day of the session, it was evident that the bill, if opposed, as it was certain to be, could not get thNrough, pted it was, doubtless, in behalf of other pressing business that many Senators voted to lay th i s aside. It was, of course, dead for the session. Dlec. 6, 1847.-The NXXXsth Congress assembled; Robert C.

Winthrop (Whig) of Ma ss. was chosen Speaker of the House. Pres i dent Polk, in hi s Annual Message, regretted that Oregon had not already been organized, aid urged the neces sity of a ction on the subject. Feb. 9.-Mr.

Caleb B. Smith, of Indiana, reported to the Ho use a bill to establish the territorial g overnment of Oregon; which, bv a vote of twothirds, was made a special order for March 14th. It was postponed, howe ver, to the 28th; a was taken tup and discussed, as on one or tw o subs equen t days.

Nay 29th, it was again made a s pec ial order next after the Apppropr iation bills. The Presiden t that day sent a special message, urging action on th is subject. J uly 25th, it wa s t ak en up in earnest; Mr.

Wentworth, of Illinois, moving that debate on it in C ommi tte e c ease at t wo o’clock this day. Mir. Geo. S. Houston, of Ala, endeavore d to put this m otion on the table. DeBeated: Yeas 85; Nays 89, (nearly, but not fully, a sectional division). Mr. Geo. W. Jones, of Tenn., moved a reconsiderati on, which was carried: Yeas, 100; Nays, 88; and the resolution laid on the table: Yeas, 96; Nays, 90. The bill continued to be discussed, and finally (Aug. 1) was got out of Committee; when Mr. C. B.

Smith moved the Previous Question thereon, which was ordered. A-ug. 2.

The House came to a vote on an amendment made in Committee, whereby the following provision of the original bill was stricken out: That the inhabitants of said Territory shall be entitled to enjoy all and singular, the rights, privileges, and advantages granted and secured to the people of the Territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio, by the articles of compact contained in the ordinance for the government of said Territory, passed the 18th day of July, seventeen hundred and eigiaty-seven; and shall be subject to all the conditions, and restrictions, and prohibitions in said articles of compact imposed upon the people of said territory, and The House refused to agree to this amendment: Yeas, 88; Nays, 114. The Members from the Free States who voted with the South to strike out, were NZEw YoRK:.-Ausburn Birdsall 1. OuIo.

William Kennon, jun., John K. Millers-2. ILLINOIS. Orlando B. Ficklin, John A. McClernand, William A, Richardson 3. INDIALNA. John L. Robinson, William W. ,ick 2. SMr. John W. Houston of~ Delaware voted in the maJority. The biI] was then passed-Yeas, 128;Z Nays, ~/1. [This vote was almost completely sectional. T4

Page 75 view page image

THIE COMPROMISE OF 1850. before-Westcott of Florida added to the Nays-and thus passed). Agog. 11.-The bill, thus amended, having been returned to tiie House, the amendment of Mr. Douglas, just recited, was rejected: Yeas, 82; N.}ys, 121. Yeas from l’ilee Stat es: NEw YORK.-Ausbirn Bird,Isall-1. PENNS YLVXIA. Charlies Brown, Charles J. Ingersoll-2.

Total-3. Otherwise, from Slave States, all Yeas: from Free States, all Nays. A2lag. 12.-The Senate, after voting down various propositions to lay on the table, etc., finally decided to recede from its amendnments to the Oregeo bill, and pass it as it came from the House: Yeas, 29; Nays, 25

(all from Slave States). So the bill became a law, and Oregon a Territory, under the original Jefferson or Dane Proviso against Slavery. Resolved, That, as the people in Territories have the same inherent rights of self-government as the people in the States, if in the exe cise of such inhee.ont rights the people in the newly-acquired Te,ritories, by the Annexation of Texas and the acquisition of Cal.fornia and Newv-Mexico, south of the parallel of 86 degrees and 30 minutes of north latitude, extending to the Pacific Ocean, shall establish Neg-o Slavery in the formation of their state governments, it shall be deemed no objection to their admission as a State or States into the Union, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. Jan. 21.-Gen. Taylor, in answer to a resolution of inquiry, sent a message to the House, stating that he had urged the formation of State Governments in California and NewMexico. Feb.

13, 1850. Gen. Taylor communicated to Congress the Constitution (free) of the State of Califbornia. Jan. 29, 1850. Mr. Henry Clay, of Kentucky, submoitted to the Senate the following propositions, with others, which were made a special order and printed: 1. Resolved, That California, with suitable bounda-ies, ought, upon her application, to be admitted as one of the States of this Union, without the imnposition by Congress of any restriction in respect to the exclusion or introduction of Slavery within those boundaries. 2. Resolved, That as Slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any of the territory acquired by the United States from the Republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for Congress to proside by lav either for its introduction into, or exclusion from, any part of the said Territo y; and that appropriate territorial governments ought to be established by Congress, in all the said Territory, not assigned as within the boundaries of the proposed State of California, without the,, adoption of any restriction or condition on the subject of Slavery. 5. Resow,ed, That it is inexpedient to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, whilst that institution continues to exist in the State of MIaryland, without the consent of that State, without the consent of the people of the District, and without just compensation to the owners of slaves within the District. 6. But oResolved, That it is expedient to prohibit, writhin the Distric t, th e slav e-trad e in slaves brought into it fro m State css or places beyon the limits of the District, either to be so ld the rein a s merchandise, or to be transported to other markets withou t the District of Columbia. 7. Resolved, That mor e effectual provision ought to be made by law, a ccording to t he requprement o f the Constitution, for the restitution and delrvery of. pe’sons bound to service or labor in any State, wh o may escape into any othe r State or Territory in the Un ion. A nd, 8. Resolved, That Congr ess has no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the slaveholding States, but that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into another of them, depends exclusively upon their own particular laws. Feb.

28. Mr. John Bell, of Tennessee, suibmitted to the Senate the following propositions: Whereas, Considerations of the highest interest to the whole country demand that the existing and increasing dissensions between the North and th~e South, on the subject of Slavery, should be speedily a,-rested, and that the questions in controversy be adjusted upon somne basis which shall tend to give present quiet, repress sectional animosities, remove, as far as possible, the causes of future discord, and secure the uninterrup.ted enjoyment of those benefits and advantages which the Union was intended to confer in equal measure upon all its members; Anid, ~ohereas, It is manifest, under pr esent circumstances, that no adjustment ran be effected of thle points of difference unhappily existing between the Northern and Southern sections of the Union, connected with the subject of Slavery, which shall secure to eithler section all that is contended for, and that mutual concessions upon questions of melre policy, not involving the violation of any constitutional right *Zr prinlciple, mulst be the basis of every project affordingt any assulrancte of a favorable acceptance;w At, d, whereas, Thle joint resolution -for annexing THE COMPROMISE OF 1850. The XXXIst Congress commenced its first Session at Washington, Dec. 3, 1849; but th e House was unable to organize-no person receiving a majority of all the votes for Speaker -until the 22sld, when, the Plurality rule having been adopted by a vote of 113 to 106, Mr. Howell Cobb, of Ga., was elected, having 102 votes to 100 for Robert C. Winthrop of Mass., and 20
scattering. It was thereupon resolved -Yeas, 149; Nays, 35-” That Howell Cobb be declared duly elected Speaker;” and on the 24th President Zachary Taylor transmitted toboth Houses his first Annual Message, in the course of which he says: No civil government having been provided by Congress for California, the people of that Territory, impelled by the necessities of their political condition, recently met in Cosivesition, for the purpose of forming a Constitution and State Government; which, the latest advices give me reason to suppose, has been accotplished; and it is believed they will shortly apply for the admission of California into the Union, as a Sovereign State. Should such be the case, and should their constitution be conformable to the requisitions of the Constitution of the Uiiited States, I recommend their application to the favorable consideration of C ongress.

The people of NewMexico will also, it is believed, at no very distant period, present them selves for atdmission into the Union. Preparatory to the admission o f California and NewMexico, the people of each will have instituted for themselves a republican form of government, laying its foundation in such principles, and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall see. most likely to effect their safety and happiness. By awaiting their action, all uneasiness may be avoided and confidence and kind feeling preserved. With a view of maintaining the harmony and tranquillity so dear to all, we should abstain from the introduction of those exciting topics of a sectional character which have hitherto produced painful apprehensions in the public mind; and I repeat the solemn warning of the first and most illustrious of my predecessors, against furnishing any ground for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations. Jan. 4.-Gen. Sam. Houston, of Texas, subntitted to the Senate the following proposition Whiereas, The Congress of the United States, possessing only a delegated authority, have no power over the subject of Negro Slavery within the limits of the United States, either to prohibit or interfere with it, in the State s, Te’.-ritories, or District, where, by nmunicipal law, it now exists, or to establish it in any State or Territory wher e it does not exist; but, as a n assurance and guaranty to promote harmony, quiet apprehension and remove sectional prejudice, which by possibility might impair or weatken love And devoti-n to the Unio)n in any part of the country, it is hereby I I f I 75

Page 76 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. Texas to the United States, approved March 1, 1845, con-instructed to report a bill in conformity with the spirit tras the following condition and guaranty-that is to and principles of the foregoing resolutions. say: “New States of onvenientsize, not exceeding four A debate of unusual duration earnestness in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and hav ing sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent and ablity ensued, mainly on Mr. Clay’s Reso of said State, be fortned out of the territory thereof, lutious. They were regarded by uncompromnis which shall be entitledi to admiss pion unds,whether oforthe provi-at sious of the Federal Constitution; and such States as mnay be formed out of that pot tion of said Territory lying eri views, but especially of the latter, as con south of thirtysix degrees thirty minutes north latitude, cedillg substantially the matter in dispute to commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, shall the other side. Thus be admitted into the Union with or without Slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission may desire; January 29th.-Mr. Clay having read and and in such State or States as shall be formed out of briefly commnented on his propositions, seriatim, said territory north of said Missouri Compromise line, he desired that they should be held over with Slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) out debate, to give time for consideration, and shall be prohibited:” Therefore, 1. iReolved, That the obligation to comply with the made a special order for Monday or Tuesday condition and guaranty above recited in good faith be following. But this was not assented to. distinctly recognized, and that, in part compliance with Mr Foote, of Mississippi, spoke against the the same, as soon as the people of Texas shall, by an act of their legislature, signify their assent by restricting the generally, saying: limits ther’eof, within the Territory lying east of the If I understand the resolutions properly, they are ob Trinity and south of the Red River, and when the people jectionable, as it seems to me, of the residue of the territory claimed by Texas adopt a 1. Because they only assert that it is not expedient constitution, republican in form, they be admitted into that Congress should abolish Slavery in the District of Union upon an equal footing in all respects with the ori-Columbia; thus allowing the implication to arise that ginal States. Congress has power to legislate on the subject of Slavery 2. Pesolved, That if Texas shall agree to cede, the in th e District, which may hereafter be exercised, if it United States will accept, a cession of all the unappro-should become expedient to do so; whereas, I hold that priated domain in all the Territory claimed by Texas, ly-Congress has, under the Constitution, no such power at ing west of the Colorado and extending north to the all, and that any attempt thus to legislate would be a forty-second parallel of north latitude, together with the gross fraud upon all the States of the Union. jurisdiction and sovereignty of all the territory claimed 2. The Resolutions of the honorable Senator assert by Texas, north of the thirty-fourth parallel of north that Slavery does not nowv exist by law in the Territories latitude, and to pay therefor a sum not exceeding recently acquired from Mexico; whereas, I am of millions of dollars, to be applied in the first place to the pinio n that the tre aty wi th the Mexican republic carried extinguishment of any portion of the existing public the Constitution, wit/ltill its gaatl aittieo, to all the Ter debt of Texas, for the discharge of which the United ritory obtained by treaty, and secured the privilege to States are under any obligation, implied or otherwise, every Southern slaveholder to enter any part of it, at and the remainder as Texas shall require. tended by his slave-property, and to enjoy the same 8. Resolved, That when the population of that portion therein free f,‘om all molestation or hindrance whatso cf the Territory claimed by Texas, lying south of the ever. thirty-fourth parallel of north latitude and west of the 3. Whether Slavery is or is not likely to be introduced Colorado, shall be equal to the ratio of representation in into these Territories, or into any of them, is a proposi Congress, under the last preceding apportionmenlt, ac-tion too uncertain,in uy judgment, to be at present cording to the provisions of the Costitution, and the positively affirmed; and I am unwilling to make a people of such territory shall, with the assent of the new solemn legislative declaration on the point. Let tfle State contemplated in the preceding resolution, have l,atureprovide thle appropt’iate 8olittioon of t/lis i1zte adopted a State Constitution, republican in form, they resting question. be.admitted into the Union as a State, upon an equal 4. Considering, as I have several times heretofore for footing with the original States. mally declared, the title of Texas t o all the Territory lesolved, That all the Territory now claimed by Texas, embraced in her boundaries, as laid down in her law of lying north of the thlirty-fourth parallel of north latitude, 1836, full, complete, and undeniable, I am unwilling to and which may be ceded to the United States by Texas, say anything, by resolution or otherwise, whicih may in be incorporated with the Territory of NewMexico, ex-the least degree draw that title into question, as I think cept such part there of as lies east of the Rio Grande and is done in one of the resolutions of the honorable Sena south of the thirty-fourth deg’ee of north latitude, and tor from Kentucky. - that the Territory so composed form a State, t: be ad-6 As to the abolition of the slavetrade in the District mitted into the Union when the inhabitants thereof shall of Columbia, I see no particular objection to it, provided adopt a State Constitution, republican in form, with the it is done in a delicate and judicious manner, and is not consent of Congress; but in the mean time, and until a concession to the menaces and demands of factionists Congress shall give such consent, provision be made for and fanatics. If other questions can be adjusted, this the government of the inhabitants of said Territory suit-one will, perhaps, occasion but little difficulty. able to their condition, but without any restriction as to 7. The resolutions which provide for the restoration of Slavery. fugitives from labor or service, and for the establishment 5.

Pesolvede, That all the Territory ceded to the of territorial governments, free from all restriction oi United States, by the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, the subject of Slavery, have my hearty approval. The lying west of said Territory of New Mexico, and east of last resolution-whichi asserts that Congress has no power the contemplated new State of California, for the present, to prohibit the trade in slaves from State to State-I constitute one Territory, and for which some form of equally approve. government suitable to the condition of the inhabitants S. If all other questions connected with the subject of be provided, without any restriction as to Slaverv. Slavery can be satisfactorily adj.fsted, I see no objec 6. lesolved, That the Constitution recently formed tion to admitting all California, atbove the line of 66 by the people of the western portion of California, and degrees 30 minutes, into the Union; provideS anotlier presented to Congress by the President, on the 3tli day neto Slave State cav be laidl oqf’ Witibn t/le presesnt of February, 1850, be accepted, and that they be admit-lisits of Texas, so as to keep the present eqtipoitdeo,-e ted into the Union as a State, upon an equal footing in anec between the Slave and Free States of the Uiion: all respects with the original States. and provided further, all this is done by way of cona -esolvel, That, in future, the formation of State Con-promise, ano it order to save tle Uniox, (as dear to etitutions, by the inhabitants of the Territories of the me asto any man living ) Un.ted States be regulated by law; and that no snch. Constitution be hereafter formed or adopted by the in-Mr. Masons, of Virginia, after expressitsi labitants of any Teriitory belonging to the United his deep anxiety to’ go with himt wlto Sates, without the consent and authority of Congress. went furthest but within the limits of Strict 8.!esolvec, Th at the inhabitants of any Territory of.. t the United States, whes they shallbe authorized by on-duty, la adjusting these u rha,ppy cifcevies,‘r gress to form a State Constitution, shall have the sole added: and exclusive power to regulate and adjust all questions so far as I have read these resolutions, there is of internal State policy, of whatever nature they may be, but one proposition to which I can give a hearty assent controlled only by the restrictions expressly imposed by and that is the resolution whob proposes to organize thle Constitution of the United States. iToerritorial gove,‘nments at once in these Te ritories, ‘J. Lesolved, That the Committee on Territories be without a decla. ation one way or the other as to their

Page 77 view page image

THE COMPROMISE OF 1850, domestic institutions. But there is another which I deeply regret to see introduced into this Senate, by a Senator from a slaveholding State; it is that which assumes that Slavery does not now ex’st by law in th ose countries. I understand one of these proposition s to declare that, by law, Slavery is now abolished in NewMexico and California. That was the very proposition advanced by the nonslaveholding States at the last session; combated and disproved, as I thought, by gentlemen from th e slavehlolding States and which the Compromise bill was framned to test. So far, I regarded ,the question of law as disposed of, and it was very clearly and satisfactorily shown to be against the spii it of the resolution of the Senator from Kentucky. If the contrary is true, I presume the Senator from Kentucky would declare that if a law is now valid in the Territories abolishing Slavery, that it could not be introduced there, even if a law was passed creating the institution, or repealing the statutes already existing; a doctrine never assented to, so far as I know, until now, by any Senator representing one of the slaveholding States.

Sir, I hold the very opposite, and with such confidence, that at the last session I was willing and did vote for a bill to test this question in the Supreme Court. Yet this resolution assumes the other doctrine to be true, and our assent is challenged to it as a proposition of law. Mr. Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, objected specially to so much of Mr. Clay’s propositions as relates to the boundary of Texas, to the blave-trade in the Federal district, and to Mr. Clav’s avowal in his speech that he did not believe Slavery ever would or could be establistted in any part of the Territories acquired t’roll Mexico. He continued: X1X. William R. Kin,, of Alabama, was in hilletr t o l ook w ith eavor on Mr. Cliy’s pro positioDis, and assented to some of the m; but I-,e o)b)jected to the mode in which California had w’ooued what is called a State Co nstitution. He preferred th e g ood old way of firsteorganizit g Territories, and so train ing up the ir people “f or Mtie ex ercise and enjo yment o f our i nsti tutions.” lesides, he thoug ht ” there was not that kind of population there that justified the formation of a State Government.” On the question of Slavery in the new Territories, he said: We ask no act of Congress-as has been properly intima ted by t he Senat or fro m Mis sissippi-to carry Slavery any where. Sir, I believe we have as much Constitutional power to prohibit Slavery from goin g into the Territories of the United States, as we have t o pa ss an act carrying Slavery there.

We have no right to do either the one or the other. I would as soon vote for the Wilmot Provi so as I would vote for any law which required that S
lavery should go into any of the Territori es. Mr. Downs, o f Loui siana, sa id: I must confess that, in the whole cours e o f my life, my astonishment has never been greater th an it was when I saw this (Mr.

Clay’s) proposition brought forward as a compromise; and I rise now, sir, no t fo thae purpose of discussing it at a ll, but t o protest most solemnly against it. I consider th is compromise as no compromise a a t all. What, sir, doe s it grant to the South? I can see not hing at all.

Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, said: As I understand it, the Senator from Kentucky’s whole proposition of compromise is nothing more than this: That California is already disposed of, having formed a State Constitution, and that Territorial Governments shall be organized for D)eseret and NewMexico, under which, by the operation of laws already existing, a slaveholding population could not carry with them, or own slaves there.

What is there in the nature of a compromise here, coupled, as it is, with the proposition that, by the existing laws in the Territories, it is almost certain that slaveholders cannot, and have no right to, go there with their property? What is there in the nature of a compromise here? I am willing, however, to run the risks, and am ready to give to the Territories the governments they require. I shall always think that, under a Constitution giving equal rights to all parties, the slaveholding people, as such, can go to these Territories, and retain their property there. But, if we adopt this proposition of the Senator from Kentncky, it is clearly on the basis thlat Slavery shall not go there. The debate having engrossed the attention of the Senate for nearly two months -larelh 25.-Mr. Douglas, fi’om the Comnmittee on Territories, reported the following bills: Senate, 169.-A bill for the admission of California into the Union. Senate, 170.-A bill to establish the Territorial G overnments of Utah and NewMexico, and for other purposes. These bills were read, and passed to a second reading. April 11. Mr. Doug,las moved that Mr. Bell’s resolves do lie on the table. Lost: Yeas, 2‘6; Nays, 28. April 15.-The discussion of Mr. Clay’s resolutions still proceeding, Colonel Benton move’d that the previous orders be postponed, and that the Senate now proceed to consider the bill (S. 169) for the admission of the State of Caflifornila. Mr. Clay moved that this proposition do lie on the table.

Carried: Yeas? 27 (for a C:omlpromise); Nays} 24 (for a settlemenet without compromise). The Senate rmw took up Mr. Bell’s resolves, But, sir, we are called upon to receive this as a measure of compromise! As a measure in which we of the minority are to receive nothing. A measure of compromise! I look upon it as but a modest mode of taking that, tle claim to which has been more boldly asserted by otiers; and, that I iay be understood upon this question, and that my position may go forth to the country in the same columns that convey the sentiments of the Senat or from Kentucky, I here assert, that never will I take less than the Missouri Compromise l ine extended to the Pacific Ocean, with the specific recognition of the right to hold slaves in the Territory below that line; and that, before such Territories are admitted into the Union as States, slaves may be taken there from any of the United States at the option of the owners. I can iever consent to give additional power to a majority to commit further aggressions upotn the minority in this Union; and will never consent to any proposition which will have such a tendency, without a full guaranty or counteracting measure is connected with it. Mr. Clay, in reply, said: I am extremely sorry to hear the Senator from Mississippi say that he requires, first, the extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific; and also that he is not satisfied with that, but requires, if I understood him correctly, a positive provision for the admission of Slavery south of that line. And now, sir, coming from a Slave State, as I do, I owe it to myself, I owe it to truth, I owe it to the subject, to state that no earthly power could induce me to vote for a specific measure for the introduction of Slavery where it had not before existed, either south or north of that line. Coming as I do from a Slave State, it is my solemn, deliberate, and well-matured determination that no power-no earthly powershall compel me to vote for the positive introduction of Slavery either south or north of that line. Sir, while you reproach, and justly, too, our British ancestors for the introduction of this institution upon the Continent of America, I am, for one, unwilling that the posterity of the present inhabitants of California and NewMexico shall reproach us for doing just what we reproach Great Britain for doing to us. If the citizens of those Territories choose to establish Slavery, I am for admitting them with such provisions in their Constitutions; but then, it will be their own work, and not ours, and their posterity will have to reproach them, and not us, for formliing, Constituti,ons allowing the institution of Slavery to exist among them. These are my v iews, sir, and I choose to express them; and I care riot how extensively audt universally they are known. The honorable Senator from Virginia has expressed his opinion that Slavery exists ill these Territories, and I have no doubt that opiniotn is sincerely and lhonestly entertained by him; asml I would say with equal siscer ty and honesty, that I believe that Slavery nowhere exists within any portion 9 d 9e r n t 0y Is h r e t d f a r e m a f eu f 0f at t i 0 17

Page 78 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. aforesaid, when Mr. Benton moved that they lie on the table. Lost: Yeas, 24S; Nays, 28. Mr. Benton next moved that they be so amended as not to connect or mix up the adiissionII of California with any other question. Lost: Yeas, 23; Natys, S28. Variotus imodifications of the generic idea were sever-itlv voted down, generally by large amjorities. v On motion of Mr. Foote, of Miss., it was now Orde~‘ed, That the resolutions submitted by Mr. Bell on the 28th February, together with the resolutions submitted on the 29th of January, by Mr.

Clay, be referred to a s M lect Committee of thirteen; Provided, that the Se nate does not deem it necessary, and therefore declines, to express in advance any opinion, or to give any instruction, either general or specific, for the guidance of the said Committee. Appril 19.-The Senate proceeded to elect by ballot such Select Committee, which was com-1 posed as follows: Mr. Henry Clay, of Ky., CA7,airman. Messrs. Dickinson, of N.Y.

Cooper, of Pa. Phelps, of Vt. Downs, of La. B ell, of Tenn. King, of Ala.

Cass, of Mich. Mangum, of N. C. Webster, of Mass. Mason, of Va. Berrien, of Ga. Bright, of Ind. Ma[y 8.-fir. Clay, from said Committee, reporte(i it length, the views and recoinmenidatious of the report being substantially as follows: 1. The admission of any new State or States formed out of’exas to be postponed until they shall hereafter present themselves to be received into the Union, when it will ko the duty of Congiress fairly and faithfully to execute the compact with Texas, by admitting such new State or States. 2. The admission forthwith of California into the Union, with the boundaries which she has proposed. X.

The establishment of Territorial Governments, without the Wilmot Proviso, for New-Mlexico and Utah, embracing all the territory recently acquired by the United States from Mexico, not contained in the boundaries of California. 4. The combination of these two last mentioned measures in the same bill; 5. The establishment of the western and northern boundaries of Texas, and the exclusion from her jurisdiction of all NewMexico, with the grant to Texas of a pecuniary equivalent; and the sect’:on for that purpose to be incorporated in the bill admitting California and establishing Territorial Gove, nments for Utah and NewMexico. 6. More effectual enactments of law to secure the prompt delivery of persons bound to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, who escape into another State; and, 7. Abstaining from abolishing Slavery; but, under a heavy penalty, prohibiting the slavetrade in the District of Columbia.

The Senate proceeded to debate from day to day the provisions of the principal bill thus reported, commonly termed “the Omnibus.” June 28.-Mr, Sonic6, of Louisiana, moved that all south of 36~ 30’ be cut off from California, and formed into a Territory entitled South California, and that stid Territory “shall, when ready, able, and willing to become a State, and deserving to be such, be admitted with or without Slavery, as the people thereof shall desire, and make mknown through their Constitution.” This was rejected: Yeals, 19 (all ~outnern); Nays, 36.

Jiel1y 10-The discussion was interrupted by the death of President Taylor.

Millard Fillmore succeeded to the Presideincy, and William R. King,. of Alabama, was chosen President of the Senate, pro temnpore. July 15. The bill was reported to the Senate and stmended so as to substitute “that Congress shall make no law establishing or prohibiting” Slavery in the ne w Territories, instea d o f i in r espec t to” it. Yeas, 27; Nays, n. Mr.

Sewar m ed move d to add atend the end of the |37th section: MBut neither Sl avery nor involuntary servituele shall be allowed in either of the Territories of New-ealexico or Utal, exce pt on legal conviction f or crime. Which wa s negatived; Yeas and NS-atys hot taken. July 17. The Sen ate resumne d t he consid er an tiotn of the “i Omnibus bill.” Mr. Benton moved a change in the proposed boundary between Texas and NewMexico.

R~e.jected: Yeas, 18; Nay s, 3(i. lr. Foote moved that the 34th parallel of north latitude be the northern boundary of Texas throughout. Lost: Yeas, 20; Nays, 34. July 19. Mr. King moved that the parallel of 350~ 30’

be the southern boundary of the State of California. Rejected: Yeais, 20; Navs, 37. Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, moved 360 30’. Rejected: Yeas, 23; Natys, 32. July 23d. Mr. Turriey, of Tenn., moved that the people of California be enabled to form a new State Constitution. Lost: Yea,is, 19.; Nayvs, 33. Mr. Jeff. Davis, of Mississippi, moved to add: And that all laws and usages existing in said Territory, at the date of its acquisition by the United States, which deny or obstruct the right of any citizen of the United States to remove to, and reside in, said Territory, with any species of property legally held in any of the States of this Union, be, and are hereby declared to be, null.nal void. This was rejected: Yeas, 22; Nays, 33. ) eas For Davis’s amendment: Messrs. Atchison, Mo. Barnwell, S.

C. Bell, Tenn. Berrien, Ga. Butler, S. C. Clemens, Ala. Davis, Miss.

Dawson, Ga. Downs, La. Houston, Texas. Hunter, Va. King, Ala. Mangum. N.

C. MIason, Va. Morton, Fla. Pratt, Md. Rusk, Texas. Sebastian, Ark. SoulS, La. Turney, Tenn. Underwood, Ky. Yulee, Fla.-22. aoays-Against Davis’s amenduieut: Messrs. Badger, N. C. Foote, Miss. Baldwin, Conn. Greene, R.

I. Benton, Mo. Hale, N.H. Bradbury, Me. Ilamlin, Me. Bright, Ind. J ones, Iowa. Cas s, Mi ch. Miller, N. J. Chase, Ohio. Norris, N. 11. Clarke, R.

I. Pearce, Md. Clay, Ky. Seward, N. Y. Cooper, Pa. Shields, Ill. Davis, Mass. Smith, Conn. Dayton, N. J. Spruance, DeL Dickinson, N. Y. Sturgeon, Pa. Dodge, Wisc. Upham, Vt. Dodge, Iowa. Wales, Del. W14elch, Mich.

Walker, Wise, Whitcomb, Ind.-3. .A1/7. 10.-TThe Californiia bill was now taken up. Mr. Yiilee, of Fla., moved a substitute, rermi,anding California to a territorial condition and limiting her southern boundary. Rejected: Yeas, 12 (all Southtertn); Navs, 35. MNIr. Foote moved }t like project, cutting off so much of California as lies south of.96 deg. 30 mnin., and erecting it into the, T(Jrritory ot’ Colorado. Rejected: Yeas, 13 (ultrai Southern); Navs, 29. Aug. 12.-Still another proposition to limit I I I is

Page 79 view page image

THE COMPROMISE-KANSAS-NEBRASKA. California southwardly, by the line of 36
deg. 30 min., was made by Mr. Turnev, and rejected: Yeas, 20 (all Southern); Nays, 30. After de-! feating Southern motions to adjourn, postpone, and lay on the table, the bill was engrossed for a third reading: Yeas, 33 (all the Senators froml Free States, witi Bell, Benlton, Houston, Spruance, Wales and Underwood); Nays, 19 (all from Slave States).

Mr. Clay still absent, endeavoring to restore his failing health. Afceg.

13.-The California bill passed its th ird reading: Yteas, 34; Nrays, 18

(all Southern). oAug. 14.-The Senate now to ok up the bil l o rganizing the Territor ies of Ne w Mexico and Utah (as it wa s orig inally reported, prior to its inclusion in Mr-. Clay’s ” Omnibus”). Mr. Chase, of Ohio, mov ed to amend the bill by inserting: Nor shall ther e b e i n sai d Terr itory either Slavery or involuntar y ser vit ude o therwis e tha n in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally guilty. Which was rejec t ed: Yeas, 20; Nays, 25. The bill was then reported c omplete, and passed to be engrossed. Aug.

15.-Said bill had its third re ad ing, and was finally passed: Yeas, 27; Nays, 10. [T he S enate proceeded to take up, consider, mature, and pass the Fugitive Slave bill, and the bill exclud ing the SlaveTrade from the D istrict of Columbia; but the hist ory of the se is but remotely conne cted with our theme]. We return to the House. .Aug. 28. The California bill was taken up, read twice, and committed. The Texas bill coming up, Mr. Inge, of Ala. objectedto it, and a v ote w a s taken on its rejection: Yeas, 3 4; Nays, 168; s o it was not rejected. Mr. Bovd, of Ky., moved to amend it so as to create and define thereby the Territories of NewMexico and Utah, to be slaveholding or not as their people shall determine when they shall come to form State governments. [In other words, to append the bill organizing the Territory of New Mexico to the Texas bill.] Sept.

I.-The California bill now came up. Mr. Boyd moved his amendment already moved to the Texas bill. Mr. Vinton, of Ohio, declared it out of order.

The Speaker again ruled it in order. Mr. Vinton appealed, and the House overruled the Speaker: Yeas (to sustain), 87; Nays, I115. Mr. Jacob Thompson, of Miss., moved to cut offfrom California all below 36~ 30’.

Rejected: Yeas, 76; Nays, 131. The bill was now ordered to a third reading: Yeas 151a; Nays, 57, and then passed: Yeas, 150; Navs, 56 (all Southern). The Senate bill organizing the Territory of Utah (without restriction as to Slavery) was then taken up, and rushed through the same day: Yeas, 97; * ays, 8,5. [The Nays were mainly Northern Free Soil men, but some Southern menl, for a different reason, voted with them]. Sept. 9.

The House having returned the Te xas Boundary bill, with all amendment (Linn Boyd’s), incluldingr the bill organsizingf the Territory of ANew Mexico ther ein, the Senate pOCeeded to consider and agree to the same: aes, 31; Nays, 105 namnely: Messrs. Baldwin, Conn., Ewing, Ohio Benton, Mo., Hamlin, Ale., Chase, Ohio, Seward, N. Y., Davis, Mass., Upham, Vt., Dodge, Wis., W~inthrop, Mass. So all the bills originally included in Mr.

Clays ” Omn,,iibus ” were passed two of them in the same bill-after the Seniate had once voted to sever them. THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA STRUGGLE. Out of the Louisiana Territory, since the adrnission first of Louisiana and then of Missouri as Slave States, there had been formed the Territories of Arkansas, Iowa, and Minnesota; the first without, and the two others with, Congressional inhibition of Slavery. Arkansas, in due course, became a Slave, Iowa and Minnesota Free States. The destiny of one tier of States, fronting upon, and westward of, the Mississippi, was thus settled. Wvhat should be the fate of the next tier? The region lying immediately westward of Missouri, with nmuch Territory north, as well as a more cleailv defined district south of it, was long since dedicated to the uses of the Aborigines -not miierely those who had originally inhabited it, but the tribes fromii titie to time removed from the States eastward of the Mississippi. Very little, if anvy, of it was legally open to seettlement bv Whites; and, with the exception of the few aud small military and trading posts thinly scattered over its surface, it is probable that scarcely two hundred white families were located in the spacious wilderness bounded by Missouri, Iowa. and Minnesota on the east, the British possessions on the north, the crest of the Rocky Mountains on the west, and the settled portion of NewMexico and the line of 36~ 30’ oIy the south, at the time when Mr. Douglas first, at the session of 1 852-3, submitted a bill organizing the Territory of Nebraska, by which title the region above bounded had come to be vaguely indicated. This region was indisputably included within the scope of the exclusion of Slaverv from all Federal Territorv inortil of 360 30’, to which the South had assented by the terms of the Missouri compact, in orde ter thereby to secure the admission of Mi,ssoutri as a Slave State. Nor was it once intimated, during the loMlr, earn est, and searching debate in the Senate on the e t o h e Compromise hMeasures of 1850, that the adoption of those measures, whether together or separately, would involve or imply a repeal of the Missouri Restriction. We have seen on a former page how Mr. Clay’s original suggestion of a Compro mise, which was substantially that ultimately adopted, was received by the Southern Senators who spoke oln its introduction, with hardly a qualifications, as a virtual surrender of all that the South hatd ever claimed with respect to the new Territories.

And, from the beg,inning to the close of the lon-and able discussion which followed, neither friend nor foe of the Compromises, nor of any of them, hinted that one effect of tlheir adoption would be the lifting of the Missouri restriction from the Territory now covered by it. When the Compromises of 1850 were accepted in 1852 by the N~ational Conventions of the two great parties, as a settlement of the distracting controversy therein conteirn I I 79

Page 80 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. I am willing now that the question shall be taken, whether we will proceed to the consideration of the bill or not.

plated, no hint was added that the Nebraskk rel,ion was opened thereby to Slaverv. Several petitions for the orgalTli7ation of Territory westward of iMissouiri and Iowa wer presented at tile session of 18,51-2, but no de cisive action taken tlhereoni, until the next ses .sioll, wlhe!l, -Dec.

13th.-,Mr. W. P. Hall, of Mo., pursuan to notice, submitted-to the House a bill to organ ize the Territory of Platte, which was real twice, and sent to the Conmmittee on Territories From that Comriiittee, _’e6. 2d, 18o.-Mr.

W. A. Richardson, of Ill. reported a bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska, which was read twice and corn tnitted. Feb. 9tl..-The bill was ordered to b e taker out of Committee, on motion of W. P. Hall. Feb.

10th.-The bil l was reported from the Committe e of the Whol e to th e I-louse, with a recommendation that it do not pass. ilr. Richardson moved thle previou s ques tion, which prevailed. sa r. Letcpher, of Va., moved th at th e b ill do lie on the table. Lost: Yeas, 49 (mairnly Southe rn) Nays, 107. Thie bill was then e Stgrosse(l, re ad a third time, and pass ed. Yeas, 98; N rays, 43, (as before.) pib. 11th.-The bill reached the Senate and ewas referred t tthe Copmcittee on Terri toriis. f’rb.

17th.oIr. Douglas reporte d i t wi thout amielldtneint. Jfrotrch 2d.-(Last da y b ut on e of the session), oir. Dougnlas moved that the bill be talkein tip Lo,t: Ye fos, 20; (all N or thern but Attcliisont and Geyer, of’Nlo.;) Nays, 25a; (21 Southern, 4 N orthiernti.) to arch 3rd. Mir. Doug la s aga in mov ed that the bill be taken up. nr. Botr land, of Ark, moved th at i t do he on th t e table, Car ried: Yeas, 23o; (a v ll Sother but 4;) Naysv, 17; (all Northern but Atechison and Geye r.) So the bill wi s put to Sleet) ior the session. Oin the motier to take up M1r. Russk of Texas ol)jectiig-M-Ar. Atchison said: I must ask f t he i ndulgence of the Senate to say one word in relation to this matter. Perhaps there is not a State in t he Uni on more deeply interested in this quesy tion than the State of M issouri. I f n ot th e largest, I wll say the best, porti on o f that Teritory, perhaps the only portion of it that in half a century will become a State, lies immediately west of the State of Missouri. It is only a question of time, whether we will organize the Territory at this session of Cong;ress, or whether we will do it at the next session; and, for my own part, I acknowledge now that, as the Senator from Illinois well knows, when I came to this city, at the beginning of the last session, I was perhaps as much opposed to the proposition, as the Senator from Texas now is. The Senator from Iowa knows it; and it was for reason4 whic/h I ‘Will not now mention or saggest. But, sir, I have from reflection and investigation in my own mind, and from the opinions of others-my constituents, whose opinions I am bound to respect-come to the conclusion that nowv is the time for the organization of this TLerritory>. It is the most propitious time. The treaties with the various Indian tribes, the titles to whose possessions must be extinguished, can better be made, now than at any future timne; for, as the question is agitalted, and as it is understood, white mnen, speculators, will interpose, and interfere, and the longer it is postponed the mrore we will havre to fear from them, a~nd the more difficult it will he to extinguish’the Indian title lit that country, and the harder the terms to lee imp/osed. Therefore, Mr.

President} for this reason, without going into detail, Thie meanilig is here diplomatically veiled, yet is perfectly plain. Gen. Atchison had been aver se t o organizing this Territorv until he could procure a relaxation of the Missouri Restriction as to Slavery; but, seeing no present hope of this, he was willing to waive the point, and assent to an organization iunder a bill silent with respect to Slavery, and of course leaving the Missouri Restriction unimpaired. f Gen. Pierce was inaugurated President on the - 4th March, 1853. The XXXIIId Congress assembled at Washn ington, Dec. 5th, 1853, with a large Adminis trattion majority in either House.

Linn Boyd e of Ky., was chosen Speaker of the House. The President’s Annual Message contained the following allusion to the subject of Slavery: It i s no part of my purpose to give prominence to any subject which may properly be regarded as set at rest by ithe deliberate judgment of the people. But, while the pre sent is bright with promise, and the future full of deNand and inducements for the exercise of active intelli gence, the past can never be without useful lessons of almonition and instruction. If its dangers serve not as beacons, they will evidently fail to fulfill the object of a wise design. When the grave shall have closed over all, wlho are now endeavoring to meet the obligations of duty, T t he year 1850 will be recurred to as a period filled with anxious apprehension. A successful war had just termi nated. Pea,ce brought with it a vast augmentation of terito ry. Disturbing questions arose, bearing uponl tlhe domestic institutions of one portion of the conifedleracy, and involving the constitutional rights of the States, But, notwithstandlinfFdifferences of opinion antd sent,imnenit which then existed in relation to details, aidl specific pro visions the acquiescece of distin,uished citizens, whose L levotion to thie Union can iever be do hubted, has given renewed vigor to olr i astitutions, and restoredl a sense of repose andl security to the pul)lic mind t,houg,liout tihe confederacy’lihat this iepose is to suffer no sh o,ck durin g ly official term, if Iliave power to averit it., those who placed me here may be assured. -Dec. 15.-Mr. A. C. Dodge of Iowa submitted to the Senate a bill (No. 22) “To organize the Territory of Nebraska,” which was read twice, and referred to the Committee on Territories. J05n. 4.- Mir. Doiglas, from said Commnittee, reported sftid bill with aimencdments which were printed.

He said in his Report: The principal amendments which your committee deem,, it their duty to} c(mmnd to the f’avorable action of the Senate, in i ssecil report, are th ose in which the principles esntblisred by the Cotmpiomise Measures Ofr 15s), so far was taey are applicable to te ri torial organliza ti(ens, are proposedl to be arirtreed, arnd carlied into practical oper,Lrioin within the limits of tlhe nlew Terri tory… With -”’ viewv of conformiing their action to what they regard as thl.e settled policy of the Government. sane tio,ned by thle approving Voice of the Am,elican Peo,le, your Conm,fittee have deemed it, their d,uty to incofrforate arid perpetutte, il thleir territorial bill, the principles and spirit of those measures. If any other con)si.lderaition were necessary to reeler the piro)priety of this courise im-,perative uipon tie Comm,ittee, tlmey my be-found,l in the fact that the Nebraska country ocecupies the same relative posiittion tthe Slave-y question, as (lid New Mexico and Utafh, whenll those Territories were organlized. It was a disputed point, whether Slavery wa.s8 prohibited by law in the countriy acquilred from MIexico. On the one hanid, it was contended, as a legal proposition, that Slavery having been prohibited by the enactments of Mexico, according to the lass of nations, we received the country with all its local laws and do,,.,tie institutions attached to the soil, so far as th,ey did rnt conflict with the Constitution of the United States; and that a law either protecting or prohibiting Slavery, was not repugnant to thait instrument, as was evidtlencedl by the fact that onehalf of the States of thie UIniou tolerated, 80

Page 81 view page image

THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA STRUGGLE. while the other half prohibited, the institution of Slavery. On the other hand, it was insisted that, by virtue of tihe Constitution of the United States, every citizen had a right to remove to any Territory of the Union, and carry his property with him under the protection of law, whether that property consisted of persons or things. ‘!‘te difficulties arising from this diversity of opinion were greatly aggravated by the fact that there were many persons on bo th sides of the leg,tl controversy, who were unwilling to abide the decision of the courts on the legal matters in dispute; thus, among those who claimed that the Mexican laws were still in force, and, consequently, that Slavery was already prohibited in those Territories by valid enactments, there were many who insisted upon Congress making the matter certain, by enacting another prohibition. In like manner, some of those who argued that Mexican law had ceased to have any binding force, and that the Constitution tolerated and protected Slave plroperty in those Territories, were unwilling to trust the decision of the courts upon the point, and insisted that Congress should, by direct enactment, remove all legal obstacles to the introduction of Slaves into those Territo ries… Your Committee deem it fortunate for the peace of the country, and the security of the Union, that the con troversy then resulted in the adoption of the Compro mise Measures, which the two great political parties, with singular unanimity, have affirmed as a cardinal article of their faith, and proclaimed to the world as a final settlement of the controversy and an end of the agitation. A due respect, therefore, for the avowed opinions of Senators, as well as a proper sense of pa triotic duty, enjoins upon your Committee the propriety and necessity of a strict adherence to the principles, and even a literal adoption of the enactments of that adjust menit, in all their territorial bills, so far as the same are not locally inapplicable.

These enactments embrace, among other things, less material to the matters under rconsideration, the following provisions: When admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without Slavery, as their constitution may pre scribe at the time of their admission; That the legislative power and authority of said Terri tory shall be vested in the Governor and a Legislative Assembly. That the Legislative power of said Territory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, and the pro visions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil; no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States; nor shall the lands or other property of nonresidents be taxed higher than the lands or other property of residents. Jan. 24.-The bill thus reported was considered in Committee of the Whole and postponed to Monday next, when it was made the order of the day. The bill was further considered Jan. 31st, Feb. 3d, Feb. 5th, and Feb. 6th, when an amendment reported by Mr. Douglas, declaring the Missouri Restriction on Slavery “inoperative and void,” being under consideration, Mr. Chase, of Ohio, moved to strike out the assertion that said Restriction “was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measures.” This motion was defeated by Yeas, 13; Nays, 30. Messrs. Ad ams, Gwin, Atchis on, Hunter, Bayard, Jo hnson, Bell, Jones, o f Iowa, Benjamin, Jones, of Tenn. Brodhead, Mason, Brown, Morton, Butler, Norris, Cass, Pearce, Clayton, Pettit Dawson, Pratt, Dixon, Sebastian, Dodge, of Iowa, Slidell, Douglas, Stuart, Evans, Thompson, of Ky., Fitzpatrick, Toombs, Geyer, Weller, Williams-835.

Nays-Against said a mendment; Messrs. Allen, Foot, Chase, Houst o n, Dodge, of Wise., Seward, Everett, Sumner, Fish, Wade-10. NoTe. Prior to th is move of Mr. Douglas, M r. Dixon, (W’hig) of Kentucky, had moved to insert a clause directly and plaily repealing the Missouri Restriction.

Mr. Dixon thought if that was the object, (and he was in favor of it,) i t should be approached in a direct and manly way. He was assailed for this in T7he Union newspaper next morning; but his suggestion was substantially adopted by Douglas, after a brief hesitation. Mr. Dixon’s proposition, having been made in Committee, does not appear in the journal of the Senate, or it would here be given in terms.] The bill was further discussed dailv until March 2nd, when the vote was taken on Mr. Chase’s amendment, to add to Sec. 14 the fol lowing words: Under whic the apeople of the Territory, through their appropriate representatives, may, if they 8eo .fit, proaibit the existence of Sla/very thereign which was rejected: Yeas, 10; N,ays, 36, as follows: Yeas-For Mr. Chase’s amendment: Messrs.

Chase, Hamlin, Dodge, of Wise., Seward, Fessenden, Smith, Fish, Sumner, Foot, Wade-10. Gays-Against Chase’s amend ment: Messrs. Adams, Hunter, Atchison,. Johnson, Badger, Jones, of Iowa, Bell, Jones, of Tenn., Benjamin, Mason, Brodhead, Morton, Brown, Norris, Butler, Pettit, Clay, (C. C.), Pratt, Clayton, Rusk, Dawson, Sebastian, Dixon, Shields, Dodge, of Iowa, Slidell, Douglas, Stuart, Evans, Toucey, Fitzpatrick, Walker, Gwin, Weller, Houston, Williams-36. Mr. Badger, of N. C., moved to add to the aforesaid section: Provided, That ibothing herein contained shall b construed to revives or put in force any law or regu~lation which fmay halve existed prior to the act of 6th of ~Iarck, 1820, efithefr protecting, establisking, pro. hibitirng, or abolishingS Sin/very.

Carried: Yeas, 3s5; Nawys,‘6. Mr. Clayton now moved to strike oult so much of said Douglas amendment as permnits emigrants Feb. 15.-The bill having been discussed daily until now, Mr. Douglas moved to strike out of his amendment the words above quoted (which the Senate had-refused to strike out on Mr. Chase’s motion,) and insert instead the following: Which being inconsistent with the principle of NonIntervention by Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, (com.monly called the Compromise Measures,) is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States 6 81 which prevailed-Yeas, 25; Nays, 10-as fol. lows: Yeas-For Douglas’s neiv. aynendtneiit:

Page 82 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. fioiii Europe, who shall have declared their in-teintion to become citizens, to vote. Carried: Yieits, 23; N ys, 21-as follows: ]eas-For Clayton’s amendment: .Iessrs. Adams, Dixon, Atchison, Evans, Badger, Fitzpatrick, Bell, Houston, Benjamain, Hun ter, Brodhead, Johnson, B row n, s, Jowes, of Tenn., But le r, M ason, Cl ay, Morton, Clayton, Pratt, Dawson, adSebas ti an, Slidoil 23. rarys-Against Clayton’s ame ndment: M e s s rs. Chase, Noirris Dodge, of Wisc., Pettit Dodge, of Io w a, Seward, D o uglas, Shield s, Fessdenden, Sm ith, Fish, Stuart, Foot, Sumner, Gwin, Toucey, Hamlin, Wade, Jones, of I ow a, Walker, Williams-21. Mcr. Chase moved to amend, by providing for the appointment of th ree Commission ers residi ng in th e Territory to organize the Territory, divide it i nto election d istricts, notify an election on the firs t M onday in September then ensuitng, atc., at which election the people should choose their own Governor, as well as a Territorial Legislature-the Governor to serve for two years, a-id the Legislature to meet not later than May, 1855. This ex tension of the principl e of “Squatter Sovereignitv ” was defeated-Yeasr, 10; Nays, 30.

Mr. Douglas’s amendment was then agreed to, and the bilt reported from the Committee of the Whole to the Setate. The question oin the engrossment of the bill was inow reached, and it was carried: Yeas, 29; Nays, 12. March 3.-The rule assigning Fridays for the consideration of private bills having been sus pended, on motion of Mr. Badger, the Senate proceeded to put the Nebraska-Kansas bill on its final passage, when a long and earnest de bate ensued. At a late hour of the night MIr. Seward, of New York, addressed the Senate, in opposition to the bill, as follows: MR.

PRESIDENT: I rise with no purpose of further re sisting or even delaying the passage of this bill. Let its advocates have only a little patience, and they will soon reach the obj ect for which they have struggled so earnestly and so tongr. The sun has set for the last time upon the guaranteedl and certain liberties of all the unsettled and unorganized portions of the American continent that lie within the jurisdiction of the United States. To-morrow’s sun will rise in diha eclipse over them. How long that ob scuration shall last, is known only to the Power that di rects and controls all human events. For myself, I know only this-that now no human power will prevent its com ing on, and that its passing off will be hastened and se cured by others than those now here, and perhaps by only those belonging to future generations. Sir, it would be almost factious to offer further resist ance to this measure here. Indeed, successful resistance was never expected to be made in this Hall. The Senate floor is an old battle-ground, on which have been fought mnany contests, and always, at least since 1320, with fortune adverse to the cause of equal and universal freedom. We were only a few here who engaged in that cause in the beginning of this contest. ~All that we could hope to do -aln that we didl hope to do was to organize and pre pare the issue for the House of Representatives, to which the country would look for its decision as authoritative, and to awaken the country that it might be ready for the appeal which would be made, whatever the decision of Congress might be. We are no stronger now. Only four teen at the first, it will be fortunate if, among the tIls and accidents which surround us, we shall maintain that number to the end. We are on the eve of the consummation of a great rational transaction-a transaction which will close a cycle in the history of our country-and it is impossible not to desire to pause a moment and survey the scene around us, and the prospect before us. However obscure we may individually be, our connection with this great transaction will perpetuate our names for the praise or for the censure of future ages, and perhaps in regions far remote. If, then, we had uo other motive for our actions than but that of the honest desire for a just fame, we could not be indifferent to that scene and that prospect.

But individual interests and ambition sink into insignificance in view of the interests of our country and of mankinid. These inter. ests awaken, at least in me, an intense solicitude. It was said by some in the beginning, and it has been said by others later in this debate, that it was doubtful whether it would be the cause of Slavery or the cause of Freedom that would gain advantages from the passage of t his bill. I do not find it necessary to be censorious, nor even unjust to others, in order that my own course may be approved. I am sure that the honorable Senator from Illinois [Mr. DouglasJ did not mean that the Slave States should gain an advantage over the Free States; for he disclaimed it when he introduced the bill. I believe in all candor, that the honorable Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Toombs,4 who comes out at the close of the battle as one of the chiefest leaders of the victorious party, is sincere in declaring his own opinion that the Slave States will gain no unjust advantage over the Free States, because he dis claims it as a triumph in their behalf.

Notwithstanding all this, however, what has occurred here and in the country, during this contest, has compelled a conviction that Slavery will gain something, and Freedo-mw will endure a severe, though I hope not an irretrievable, loss. The slaveholding States are passive, quiet, and content, and satisfied with the prospective boon; and the Free States are excited and alarmed with fearful forebodings and apprehensions. The impatience for the speedy pas sage of the bill, manifested by its friends, betrays a knowledge that this is the condition of public sentiment in the Free States. They thought in the beginning that it was necessary to guard the measure by inserting the Clayton amendment, which would exclude urinaturalized foreign inhabitants of the Territories from the right of suffrage. And now they seem willing, with almost perfect unanimity, to relinquish that safeguard, rather than to delay the adoption of the principal measure for at most a year, perhaps for only a week or a day.

Suppose that the Sena te should adhe re to that condition, which so lately was thought so w is e and so important-what then? The bill could only go back to the House of Representatives, which must either yield or insist!

In the one case or in the other, a decision in favor of the bill would be secured; for even if the house should disagree, the Senat% would have time to recede. But the majority will hazard no thing, even on a prospect so certain as this. They will recede at once, without a moment’s further struggle, from the condition, a nd thu s secure the passage of this bill now, to-night. Why such haste? Even if the question were to go to the country before a final decision here, what would there be wrong in that?

There is no man living who will say that the country anticipated, or that lbe anticipated, the agitation of this measure in Congress, when this Con gress was elected, or even when it assembled in Decem ber last. Under such circumstances, and in the midst of agita tion, and excitement, and debates, it is only fair to say, that certainly th e country has not dec ide d in favor of the bill. The refusal, then, to let the question g o to the c oun - try, is a conclus ive proof that the Slave States, as repre s ented here, expect fromn the passage of this bill what the Free States insist that they will lose b y it-an advantage, a material advantage, and not a me re abstracti on. There are me n in teSae e s i he Sl ave States as in the Free St ates, who in sist always too p ertin aciously upon mer e ab stractions. But that is not the policy of the Slave States to-day. They are in earnest in seeking for, and securing, an object, and an important one. I believe they are going to have it. I do not know how long the advantage gained will last, nor how great or comprehensive it will be.

Every Senator who agrees with me inl opinion must feel as I do-that un.o der such circumstances he can forego nothing that can be done decently, with due respect to difference of opinion, and consistently with the constitutional and settled rules of legislation, to place the true merits of the question be fore the country. Questions sometimes occur which seem to have two right sides. Such were the questions that di vided the English nation between Pitt and Fox such the contest between the assailant and the defender of Quebec. The judgment of the world was suspended by its symp~ I 82

Page 83 view page image

THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA STRUIGGLE. thies, and seemed ready to descend in favor of him who should be most gallant in conduct. And so, when both fell with equal chivalry on the same field, the survivors united in raising k common monument to the glorious but rival memories of Wolfe and Montcalm. But this contest involves a moral question. The Slave States so present it.

They maintain that African Slavery is not erroneous, not unAjust, not inconsistent with the advancing cause of hu man nature. Since they so regard it, I do not expect to see statesmen representing those States indifferent about a vindication of this system by the Congress of the United States. On the other hand, we of the Free States regard Slavery as erroneous, unjust, oppressive, and therefore absolutely inconsistent with the principles of the American Constitution and Government. Who will expect us to be indifferent to the decisions of the American people and of mankind on such an issue?… Sir, I am surprised at the pertinacity with which the honorable Senator from Delaware, mine ancient and hon orable frienid, [Mr. Clayton,] perseveres in opposing the granting of the right of suffrage to the unnaturalized for eigner in the Territories. Congress cannot deny him that right. Here is the third article of that convention by which Louisiana, including Kansas and Nebraska, was ceded to the United States: ” The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incor porated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Fede ral Constitution, to the enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizens of the United States; and in the meantime they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion they profess.”

The inhabitants of Kansas and Nebraska are citizens already, and by force of this treaty must continue to be, and as such to enjoy the right of suffrage, whatever laws you make to the contrary. My opinions are well known, to wit: That Slavery is not only an evil, but a local one, injurious and ultimately pernicious to society, wherever it , exists, and in conflict with the constitutional principles of society in this country.

I am not willing to extend nor to permit the extension of that local evil into regions now free within our empire. I know that there are some who differ from me, and who regard the Constitution of the United States as an instrument which sanctions Slavery as well as Freedom. But if I could admit a proposition so in congruous with the letter and spirit of the Federal Consti tution, and the known sentiments of its illustrious found ers, and so shouldl conclude that Slavery was national, I must still cherish the opinion that it is an evil; and because itis a national one, I am the more firmly held and bound to prevent an increase of it, tending, as I think it manifestly does, to the weakening and ultimate over thirow of the Constitution itself, and therefore to the injury of all mankind. I know there have been States which have endured long, and achieved much, which tolerated Slavery; but that was not the slavery of caste like Af,‘ican Slavery. Such Slavery tends to,emoralize equally the subjected race and the superior one. It has been the absence of such Slavery fr-om Europe that has given her nations their superiority over other countries in that hemisphere. Slavery, wherever it exists, begets fear, and fear is the parent of weakness. What is the secret of that eternal, sleepless anxiety in the legislative halls, and even at the firesides of the Slave States, al ways asking new stipulations, new compromises and abrogation of compromises, new assumptions of power and abnegations of power, but fear?

It is the apprehen sion, that, even if safe now, they will not always or long be secure against some invasion or some aggression from the Free States. What is the secret of the humiliating part which proud old Spain is acting at this day, ti-em bling between alarms of American intrusion into Cuba on one side, and British dictation on the other, but the fact that she has cherished Slavery so long and still cherishes it, in the last of her American colonial possessions? Thus far Kansas and Nebraska are safe, under the laws of 1820, against the introduction of this element of national debility and decline. The bill before us, as we are assured, contains a great principle, a glorious principle; and yet that principle, when fully ascertained, proves to be nothing less than the subversion of that security not only within the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, but within all the other present and future Territories of the United States.

Thus it is quite cleat’ that it is not a principle alone that is involved, but that ;hose who crowd this measure with so much zeal and earn~esthess must expect that either Freedom or Slavery shall gain something by it it}

those regions. The case then, stands thus ill Kansas and Nebraska: Freedom may lose, but certainly can gain nothing; while Slavers may gain, bout as certainly can lose nothing. So far-as I ama conce:cned~ the time for looking on the dark side has passed. I feel quit e sure that Slavery a t most can get nothing more than Kan s as; While Nebra as-ka-ede othe Uin will d er n orthern region-will, under existig circumstan ces, escape, for the reason t h at it s soil an d t climate are uncongenial with the st aples o f slave culture -rice, sugar, cotton, and tobacco. More over, since thei o publ; c attention has been so well and so effectually directed toward the subject, I cherish a lcop)e twlat Slavery may be prevented even fro m ga ining a foothold in Kansas. Congress on ly give s consent, but it do es rot and can not int roduce Slavery the re. Slavery will be embarrassed by it s own ove grasp ing spirit. No one, It am su r e, anticipates the possible reestablishment of the African Slavetrade.

The tide of emigra tion to Kansas i s therefore to be supplied te el b thee solely by th domestic founta in of slave pr o duction. But Slavery has also other regions besides Kansas to be fille d f ro m th at fo untain. Thevi reto e o a re all of New exico and all of Utah already within the United States; an d then the re is Cuba, that consu mes slave labor and life as fast as any one of the slaveholding Sta tes can suppl y it; and bes ides these regions, there remains all of Mexico down to the Isthmus. The stream of slave labor flowin g f om iso smal l a fo untain, and broken into s ever al divergent channels will not cover so great afield; and it is rea sonably to be hoped that the part of it nearest to the North Pole w i ll be the last to be inundated. But African slave emigration is t o com pete wi th fr ee emi gra tion of white men, and the source of this latter tide is as ample as the civilization of the tw o entire continents. The ho norable Senator from Del aware men tio ned, as if it vere a startling fact, that twenty thous and European immigrants arrived in Ne w-York in one month. Sir, he has stated the fact with to o much modera tion. On my return to the capital a day or two a go, I met twelve thousand of these e migrants who had arrived in New Yo r k o n one morn ing, and wh o had thronged the churches on the following Sabbath, to return thanks for deliverance from the perils of the s e a, and for their arrival in the land, not of Slavery but of Liberty. I also tha n k God for thei r escape, and for their coming. Th ey are now on their way westward, and the news of the passage of this bill, pre ced ing them, will speed many of them toward Kansas and Nebr aska. Such arrivals ar e not extraordinary-they occur almost every week; and the * immigration from German y, friom G reat Britain, and from Norway, and from Sweden, during the European war, will rise to six o r se ven hundre d thousand s oul s in a year. And w ith this t ide i s t o be mingled one rapidly I swelling fmom Asia and from the islan ds of the South I Seas. All the immigrants under this bill, as the House of Repr esentatives over r uling you have ordered, will be - good, loyal, Liberty-loving, Slavery-fealring citizens.

Com e on, then, gentle men o f the Slave States. Since there is no escaping your challe nge, I accept it in behalf of the cause of Freedom.

We will engage in competition for the virgin soil of Kansas, and God give the victory *to the side which is stro nger in numbers a s it is in right.

3 There are, howe ver, earnest advocate s of this bill, wh o do not e xpe ct, and who, I su ppos, do not desie, thait Slavery shall gain possession of Nebraska. What do they expect to gain? The hono ra b le Sen ato r f aom Indiana (Mr. Pettit) says that by thus o bliter at ing the Missour i Compromise restriction, they will g a i n a tabula - irasa, o n which t he inhabitants of Kansas and Ne braska may writ e whatever they will. This is the great pnivnci eple of the bill, as he un ders tands it. We ll, wh at gain is there in th at? You obliterate a Constitution of Free domn If they write a new con s titution of freedom, can the new be better than the o ld? If they write a Constitu tion of Slavery, will it not be a worse one?

I ask the - honorable Senator that. But the honorable Senator say~ n that the people of Nebraska will have the privilege of establishing institutions for themselves. The y have now I the privilege of establishing free institutions. Is it a pri - vilege, then, to establish Slavery? If so, what a mockery r are all our Constitutions, which prevent the inhabitantu t from capriciously subverting free institutions and estab irshing institutions of Slavery! Sir, it is a sophism, a sub tlety, to talk of conferring upon a country, already secure in the blessings of Freedom, the power of self-destruction. What mankind everywhere want, is not the removal ! of the Constitutions of Freedom which they have, that athey may make at their pleasure Constitutions of lavery r or of Freedom, but the privilege of retaining Co nstitut tions of Freedom when they all’eady have them, and the - removal of Constitutions of Slavery when they have Ythem, that they may establish Constitutions of Freedoms , in their place. We hold on tenaciously to all existing n Constitutions of Freedom. Who denounces arny man for y diligently adhering to such Constitutions? Who would dare to denounce any one for disloyalty to our existing e Constitutions, if they wer e Constitutions of Despotism ends 8

1. I 0

Page 84 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. Slavery? But it is supposed by some that this principle S t is less important in regard to Kansas and Nebraska than as a general one-a general principle applicable to all o other present and future Territories of the United States. Do honorable Senators then indeed suppose they are establishing a principle at all? If so, I think they up egregiously err, whether the principle is either good or bad, right or wrong. They are not establishing it, and cannot establish it in this way.

You subvert one law capriciously, by making another law i n its place.

That I is all. Will your law have any more weight, authority, t sole mnity, or binding force on future Congresses, than t h e first had? You abrogate the law of your pre deces-f sors-others will have equal power a nd equal liberty to l a b r o g a t e yours. You allow no barriers around the old l a w, to protect it from abrogation. Y ou erec t none around your new law, to stay the hand of future innova-h tors….. Sir, in saying that your new principle will not be I established by this bill, I reason firom obvious, clear, well t settled principles of human nature. Slavery and Freedom are antagonistical elements in this country. The founders of the Constitution framed it with a knowledge of that antagonism, and suffered it to continue, that it might work out its own ends. There is a commercial antagonism, an irreconcilable one, between the systems of free labor and slave labor. They have been at war with each other ever since the Government was established, and that war is to continue forever. The contest, when it ripens between these two antagonistic elements, is to be settled somewhere; it is to be settled in the seat of central power, in the Federal Legislature. The Constitution makes it the duty of the central Government to determine questions, as often as they shall arise, in favor of one or the other party, and refers the decision of them to the majority of the votes in the two Houses of Congress. It will come back here, then, in spite of all the efforts to escape from it. This antagonism must end either in a separation of the antagonistic parties-the Slaveholding States and the Free States-or, secondly, in the complete establishment of the influence of the Slave power over the Free-oir else, on the other hand, in the establishment of the superior influence of Freedom over the interests of Slavery. It will not be terminated by a voluntary secession of either party. Commercial interests bind the Slave States and the Free States together in links of gold that are riveted with iron, and they cannot be broken by passion or by ambition. Either party will submit to the ascendency of the other, rather than yield the commercial advantages of this Union. Political ties bind the Union together-a common necessity, and not merely a common necessity, but the common interests of empire-of such empire as the world has never before seen. The control of the national power is the control of the great Western Continent; and the control of this continent is to be, in a very few years, the controlling influence in the world. Who is there, North, that hates Slavery so much, or who, South, that hates emancipation so intensely, that he can attempt, with any hope of success, to break a Union thus forged and welded together? I have always heard, with equal pity and disgust, threats of disunion in the Free States, and similar threats in the Slaveholding States. I know that men may rave in the heat of passion, and under great political excitement; but I know that when it comes to a question whether this Union shall stand, either with Freedom or with Slavery, the masses will uphold it, and it will ~tand until some inherent vice in its Constitution, not yet lisclosed, shall cause its dissolution. Now, entertaining, hess opinions, there are for me only two alternatives, tiz.: either to let Slavery gain unlimited sway, or so to exert what little power and influence I may have, as to secure, if I can, the ultimate predominance of Freedom..-. Sir, I have always said that I should not despond, even if this fearful measure should be effected: nor do I now despond. Although, reasoning fromr my present convictions, I should not have voted for the compromise of 1820, I have labored, in the very spirit of those who established it, to save the landmark of Freedom which it assigned. I have not spoken irreverently even of the compromise of 1850, which, as all men know, I opposed earnestly and with diligence. Nevertheless, I have always preferred the compromises of the Constitution, and have wanted no others. I feared all others. This was a leading principle of the great statesman of the South, (Mr. Calhoun).

Said he: “I see my way in the Constitution; I cannot in a dompromise. A.

compromise is buta n ato fCon gress. Itmay be overruled at any time. It gives us no security. But the Constitution is stable. It is a rock on which we can stand, and on which we call meet our friends from’the no-a-laveholding States. It is a firm and stable ground, on which we can bet er stand in opposition to fsnaticis m than on the shifting sands of compromnise. Let us be done with compromises. Let us go back and sta nd u pon the CoTdstitution.” I stood upon this ground in 1850, defending Free do m upon it as Mr. Calhon did i n defending Slavery. I was overruled then, and I have waited since without propos ing to abrogate any compromises. It has been no proposition of mi ne t o ab rogat e them now; but the pro p o sition ha s come from anothe r quar ter-from an adve rse o ne. It is abou t to prevail. The shifting s ands of c om promise e are passing from u nder my feet, and they are now, without agency of my own, taking hold again on the rock of the Constitution. It s hall be no fault of mine if they do not remain firm. This seems to me auspicious of better days and wiser legislation. Through all the darknes s and gloom of the present hour, bright stars are breaking, that inspire me wi th hope, and excite me to perseverance. They show that the day ot compromise s has past forever, an d that hence. forward all great questions between Freedom and Slavery legitimately coming here-and none other can come-s hall be decided, a s ugte the ought to be, upon their merits, by a fair exercise of legislative power, and not by bargains of equivocal prudence, if not of doubtful morality. Mr. Douglas closed the debate, reiterating and enfo)reing the views set forth il his Report already referred to; and at last the vote was taken, and the bill passed: Yeas, 37; Nays, 14; as follows: Yeas-For the KansasNebraska bill: Messrs. Adams, Hunter, Atchison, Johnson Badger, Jones, of Iowa, Bayard, Jones, of Tenn., Benjamin, Mason, Brodhead, Morton, Brown, Norris, Butler, Pettit, Cass, Pratt, Clay, of Ala., Rusk, Dawson, Sebastian, Dixon, Shields, Dodge, of Iowa, Slidell, Douglas, Stuart, Evans, Thompson, of Ky. Fitzpatrick, Thomson, of N. J., Geyer, Toucey, Gwin, Weller, Williams-87. .Nays-Against the said bill: Messrs. Bell, Houston, Chase, James, Dodge, of Wise., Seward, Fessenden, Smith, Fish, Sumner, Foot, Wade, 1tamlin, Walker-14. So the bill was passed, and its title declared to be “An Act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas,” and the Senate adjourned over to the Tuesday following. In the House, a bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska had been noticed on the first day of the session, by Mr. John G.

Miller, of Mo., who introduced it December 22d. Jaw. 24th.-Mr. Giddings gave notice of a bill to organize said Territory. Jan. 30.-Mr. Pringle, of N. Y., endeavored to have the bill passed at the last session (leaving the Missouri Restriction intact), reported by the Committee on Territories; but debate arose, and his resolution lay over. Jan. 31. Mr. Richardson, of Ill., chairman of the Committee on Territories, reported a bill “To organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas,” which was read twice andl comnmitted. ;Mr. Richardsoh’s bill was substantially Mr. Douglas’s last bill, and was acecompanlied by noQ report. Mr. English, of Ind., submitted the i II I I t r f f I e e e f e d ey e f e 1 is s f sr Is e t et d 84 0

Page 85 view page image

THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA STRUGGLE. views of a minority of said Committee on Territories, proposing, without argument, the two following amendments: 1.

Amend the section defining the boundary of Kansas, so as to make “the summit of the Rocky Mountains” the western boundary of said Territory. 2.

Strike out of the 14th and 34th sections of said bill all after the words “United States,” and insert in each instance (the one relating to Kansas, and the other to Nebraska) as follows: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to prevent the people of said Territory, through the properly constituted legislative authority, from passing such laws, in relation to the institution of Slavery, as they may deem best adapted to their locality, and most conducive to their happiness and welfare; and so much of any existing act of Congress as may conflict with the above right of the people to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, be, and the same is hereby, repealed. This appears to have been an attempt to give practical effect to the doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty; but it was not successful. May 8/h.-On motion of Mr. Richardson, the House-Yeas, 109; Nays, 88-resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, and took up the bill (House No. 236) to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, and discussed it -Mr. Olds, of Ohio, in the chair. On coming out of Committee, Mr. George W. Jones, of Tenn., moved that the rules be suspended so as to enable him to move the printing of Senate bill (No. 22, passed the Senate as aforesaid) and the amendment now pending to the House bill. No quorum voted-adjournied. .zfay 9th.-TThis motion prevailed. After debate in Committee on the KansasNebraska bill, the Committee found itself without a quorum, and thereupon rose and reported the fact to the House-onily 106 Members were found to be present. After several fruitless attempts to adjourn, a call was ordered and a quorum obtained, at 9 P.M.

At 10, an adjournment prevailed. May 10th. Debate.in Committee continued.

fusay 11th.-Mr. Richardson moved that all debat e in Commit tee close to-morrow at noon. Mr. Enelish m oved a c all of the House: Refused; Yeas, 88; Navs, 97. Mr. Mace moved that Mr. Richardson’s motion be laid on the table: Defeated. Yeas, 95; NTays 100. Mr. Edgerton, of Ohio, moved a call of the Slouse. Refused: Yeas, 45; Nays, 80. The da y was spent in what has come to be called ” Filibustering “-that is, thie minority moving adjournments, calls of the House, asking to be excused from voting, taking appeals, etc., etc. In the midst of this, Mr. Richardson withdrew his original motion, and moved irstead that the debate in Committee be closed in five minutes after the House shall have resumed it. The hour of noon of the 12th having arrived, Messrs. Dean and Banlks raised points of order as to the termination of the legislative day. The Speaker decided that the legislative day could only be termnirated by the adjournmenet of the House, except by constitutional conclulsion of the session. Sir. Banlks appealed, but at leng~th withdrew his appeal. Finally, at I11 o’clock, P.Mt., of Friday, 12th, after a continuous sitting of thirtysix hours, the House, on motion of Mr. Richardson, adjourned. Maay 13th.-The House sat but two hours, and effected nothing. May 15th. Mr. Richardson withdrew Iiis demand for the Previous Question on closing the debate, and moved instead that the debate close at noon on Friday the 19th instant.

Tiiis he finally modified by substituting Saturday thje 20th; and in this shape his motion prevailed by a twothirds majority-Yeas, 137 i Nays, 66the following opponents of the bill Voting for the motion, namely: MAINS.-Thomas J. D. Fuller, Samuel Mayall 2. NEW-HIIMPSI IRE.-Geo. W.

Kittredge, Geo. W. M or. rison-2. MASSACITUSETTS.-Nathaniel P. ];2nks, jr-1. CONNE:CTICUT.-Origen S. Seymour i. NEW-YoRK. Gilbert Dean, Charles Hughes.-2. PEN.NSYLVANIA.-Michael C. Trout-h-. OHIo -Alfred P. Edge-ton, Harvey II. Johnson, Andrew Ellison, William D. Lindsley, Thomas Richey-5.

INDIANA.-Andrew J. Ha-lan, Daniel Mace-2. ILLINOIS.-John Wentworth-1.

MICHIGAN -David A. Noble, Hestor L. Stevens-2. WISCONSIN.-John B. Macy-1

VIRGINIA.-John S. Millson-1. Total-21. Mr. Richardson, having thus got in his resolution to close the debate, put on the previous question again, an d the House-Yeas, 113; Nays, 59-agre ed to close the debate on the -20th.

Deba te having been closed, th e o ppone nt s of the measure expected to defeat or cripple it t)y movine and aing ng a vote in Cormmittee oil various propositions of amendment, kindred to those moved and reject ed in the S enate; sonwe of which it was belie ved a majority of tlhe HNs ouse w ould not choose (or dare) to vote down; and, though the name s o f t hose voting on one side or the o ther in Committee of the Whole are not recorded, yet any proposition moved and rejected there, t ay be re newed in the House a fter taking the bill out of commit tee, and is no lon g er cut off by the Previous Ques tion, as it formerly was. But, whe n the hour for closing debate in Committee had arrived, Mr. Ale x. H. Stephens moved t hat th e enacting?, clause of the bill be stricken out; which wa s carried by a rally of the friends of the bill, and of course cut off all amendments. The bill was thus reported to the House Wit h i ts head off; when, after a long struggle, the House refyused to agree the areport of the Com mittee of the Whole-Yeas, (for agreeing) 97; Nays, 117-bringing the House t o a direct vote on the engrossment of t he bi ll. Mr.

Richardson now moved an amendment, which was a substitute for the whole bill, being substantially the Seniate’s bill, with the clause admitting aliens, who have declared their in tention to become citizens, to the rig-ht of suf frage. He thereupon called the Previous Ques tion, which the House sustained-Yeas, 116; Nays, 90-when the House adopted his anmend ment-Yells, 115; Nays, 95-and proceeded to engross the bill-Yeas, 112; Nays, 99-when he put on the Previous Question again, and passed the bill fillyllv-Yeas, 113; Nays, 100, as follows. 85

Page 86 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. B. Jiorgan, William Murray, Andrew Oliver, Jared V. Peck, Rufus W. leckham., Bishop Perkins, Beijamiit Pringle, Russell Sage, George A. Simsmons, GERR?IT SMrr1H, Johnl Widelef 22. NwN
w-JE:sS.Y.-Alew. C. If. Peningto, Charles Skelto,,, Nathan 1. Straiton-3.

PENNSYLVANIA.-Josephh R. Chasndles, Caliton B. Curtis, Johln Dick, Augustus Di-u, Willia, m Eter7art, James Gamible Gailusia A. Grow, J8aac E

Illester, Thomas f. Ilowe Joules IcOtlloch, -er 3fiddle6ewargh, leaohid Titchi6,e &imuel L. R,sesell, Miclael C. Trout14.’ OHIO.-Edward Ball, Lewis )D. Campbell, Al’red P. EIdgeL ton, A,‘Ii-ew Ellisoil, J)SHUAt R.

(6IDDINGS, Aaron Harlas, John Scott larris on, H.. Jonso, William D.

Li1(InseY, Ml. H1. Nicl-,ols, Tho s Richey, William R. Sapp, Andrewv Stuart, John L. Taylor, EDWARD WADE -15. INDDIANA.-Andrew J. Harlan, Daniel Mace, SamteZ W. P arker-, -3. ILLINOIS.-James Know, Jesse 0.

Norton, Eih; B. Was.Nhbuarne, Johna Wentworth, Clicha-ed Yates-5.

MICI~IGAs.-David A. Noble, 1tiestor L,. Ste vens-2. WIsco2sIs. Be jiin JC. Eastmlan, Daniel Wells, j r. Iows. 2o?1e. CALIFORNIA. .one.

Total-91. YEAS-113. FROM THE FREE STATES. MAINE.-Moses McDonald-1.

N.W-HIAI gPSHWRE-tIarry Hibbard-1. CON.‘gSCTICUT.-Colin M. Ingersoll-1.

YE,RMt hNT.- NoneO. MASSACHUSETTS.-NOne. ]ILOD; ISLAND.-None. NE

W-YoRK.-Thomas W. Cumming, Fr a ncis B. Cutting, Peter Rowe John J.

Taylor, Will iam M. Tweed, Hiraral Walbridge William a Walker, Mike Walsh, Theo. R. Westbrook-9. PNNSYLVANIA.-Samuel A. Br idges, John L. Dawson, Thom as B. Florence, J. Clancy Jones, William H. Kurtz, John elcNair, Asa Packer, John Robbins, jr., Christian M. Straub, William H. Witte, Hendrick B. Wright 11. NEw-JERsiY Samuel Lilly, George Vail-2. OHIo.-David T.

Disney, Frederick W. Green, Edson B. Olds, Wilson Shannon-4. INDIANA.-John G. Davis, Cyrus L. Dunham, Norman Eddy, William H. English, Thomas A.

Hendricks, James H. Lane, Smith Miller-7. ILLiNOIS.-James C. Allen, Willis Allen, Wm. A. Rich#rdson-3. MICmIf iN.-Samuel Clark, David Stuart-2.

IOWA.-Bernhart Henn-1. WISCONSIN. -None,. CALIFORNIA.-Milton S. Latham, J.

A. McDougall-2. Total-44. SOUTHIIRN STATES. VIRGINIa.-John S. Millson-1.

NORTu CA.OLINA.-Bichard C. P,ryear, Sion iH. Rogers 2.

TDLNAsrsEse.-RGober t Rzi Bluggi, B illia m Ciillom Eser-. son E’tlerid ge, Arattacniel G. Baylor-4. LOUISIANA. l’/eodore G. Itnt l.

MISSOURI.-Tihonias H. Bent,on-1. OTHER SOUTHERN STATES.-None. Total-9.

Total, Free and Slave States-100. Absent, or not voting-21. N. ENGLAND

STATES.- Williams Appleton, of Mass.-I. NatW-YoRK.-Gaeo. W. CSeate, James Maurlice-2. PEN-ISYLVANIA.-NOnO. N,:w-J ERSEY. one. OHIO.-George Bliss, MGoser B. Corwit -2. ILLINLOIS.-Wm. ft. Bissell-1. CALIFORNIA..-.No0e.

INDIANA.-Ebeo M. Chamberlain-s1. M ICHIG AN.-.None. IOWA.-Johnn P.

Cookc-1. WNScoNsY.-John B. Macy-1. Total from Free States-9.

MARYLAND.-Jo]&n R. Fran,klin, Augtusts R. Soplors -2. VIRGINIA.-Fayette McMullen-1. NORTH CAROLINqA. VOne. DELAWARR. .Vone. SOUTH CAROLINA.-Wm.

-iken, Lawrence M. Keitt, John McQIieen-3. GE,ORGIA.-Wln. B. W. Dent, James L. Seward-2. ALABAMA. -OnO. MIssisspPPi-Viley P. Harris-1.

KENTUCKY.-Linn Boy(l, (Speaker,) Presley Ewing-2. MissouRi.-Sarqmuel Carulther-l. ARKANSAS.-_]one. FLORtDA. o~ne. TEXAS.-.Vone.

T’ICNNhSSCE.-NVOne. LoUSANA.-Alonee. Total froin Slave States-1 2. Whigs in Itaics. Abolitionists in SMALL CAPITALS. Democrats in Roman. MVay 23d,.-The bill being thus sent to the Senate (not as a Senate but as a House bill), was sent at once to the Committee of the Whole, and there briefly considered. May 24th.-Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, moved to strike out the clause in section 5, which extends the right of suffrage to those who shall have declared on oath their intention to become such, [citizens] and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, antd the provisions of this act. Negatived Yeas: Bayard, Bell, Brodhead, Brown, Clayton, Pearce, and Thompson of Kentucky. Navs, 41. The bill was then ordered to be en,grossed FROM THE SLAVE STATES. DELAWARsr.-George R.

Riddle-1. MARYLAND.-William T. Hamilton, Henry May, Jacob Shower, Joshua Vansant-4. VIRGINIA.-Thomas H. Bayly, Thomas S. Bocock, John S. Caskie, Henry A. Edmundson, Charles J. Faulkner, William O. Goode, Zedekiah Kidwell, John Letcher Paulus Powell, William Smith, John F. Snodgrass-l1.

NORTH CAROLINA.-William S. Ashe, Burton Craige, Thomas L. Clingman, John Kerr, Thos. Ruffin, Henry M. Shaw-6. SOUIH CAROLINA.-William W. Boyce, President S. Brooks, James L. Orr-8. GEORGIA.-David J. Bailey, Elijah W.

Chastain, Alfred H. Colquitt, Junius Hillyer, David A. Reese, Alex..II Stephens-6. ALABAMA.-James Abercrombie, Williamson R. W. Cobb, James F.

Dowdell, Sampson W. Harris, George S. Houston, Philip Phillips, William R.

Smith-T. Mississippi.-William S. Barry, William Barksdale, Otho R.

Singleton, Daniel B. Wright-4. LOUISiANA.-William Dunbar, Roland Jones, John Perkins, j,-.-3 KENTucKY.-John C. Breckinridge, James S. Chrisman, Leacnder H. Cast, Clement S. Bill, John M. Elliot, Benj. E. Grey, William Preston, Richard IH. Stanton -S. NRHCRL’AKee TENNESSEE.-William M.

Churchwell, George W. Jones, DLWR Kos CWarlet Ready, Samuel A. Smith, Frederick P. Stanton, Feliax Zotlicoffer-6. MIss,,uI.-Alfred W. Lamb, James J. Lindley, John G. Mliller, Mordecai OZive,, John S. Phelps-5.

ARKASsiAS.-Alfred B. Greenwood, Edwin A. Warren-2. FLORIDA.-Augustus E.

Maxwell-1. TEXAS.-Peter H. Bell, Geo. W. Smyth-2. Total-69. Total, Free and Slave States-113. NAYS-100. FREE STATES. A MAINe.-Samuel P. Beson, B.

Wilder Farley, Thomas J. D. Fuller, Samuel Mayall, Israel Washburn, jr.

-5. NEw HAMPSHIRE.-George W. Kittredge, George W. Morrison-2.

MASSACHUSETTS.-Nathaniel P. Banks, jr., Samuel L. Orockcr, ALEX. Dg WITT.

Edward Dickinson, J. Wiley lnxnds, Thomas D. Eliot, John Z. Goodrich, Chlarlos W. Upham, Sameuel H. Walley, Tappean Wentworth10. RHODE ISLAND.

Thomas Davis, BeDjamin B. Thurston -2. CO;N”ECTICUT.-Nathan Belcher, James T. Pratt, Origen S. Seymour-3 VERMONT. -James Meacham, Alvak Sabin, Aesdrew Tracy-3. NEw Yoa~. Henry Bennett, Davies arpenter, Gilbert D)ean, Caleb lJyon, Rel.,en E. Fenton. T%omas T. Flaglotr, George Hlastings, Solomoon G IJ(en, CGhrles. Ruges, Danit.l T. Josnes, Orsamus B. Matteson, EdtwisTn s6

Page 87 view page image

THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA STRUGGLE. (Dec. 31st) his Annual Message, and next (Jan. 24Lh) a special message with regard to the condition of Kansas, in which he thus alludes to those who think Slavery not the best institution to make a prosperous and happy State, anti to those who opposed the repeal of the Missouri restriction: This interference, in so far as concerns its primary causes and its immediate commnencement, was one of the incidents of that pernicious agitation on the subject of the condition of the colored persons held to service in some of the States, which has so long disturbed the repose of our country, and excited individuals, otherwise patriotic and lawabiding, to toil with misdirected zeal in the attempt to propagate their social theories by the perversion and abuse of thle powers of Congress. The persons and parties whom the tenor of the act to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas thwarted in the endeavor to impose, through the agency of Congiess, their particular views of social organization on the people of the future new States, now perceiving that the policy of leaving the inhabitants of eachi State to judge for themselves in this respect was iner-adicably rooted in the convictions of the people of the Union, then had recourse, in the pursuit of their general otject, to the extraordinary measure of propagandist colonization of the Territory of Kansas, to prevent the free and natural action of its inhabitants in its internal organization and thus to anticipate or to force the deterrnibation of th a t question in this inchoate State. The President makes the following reference to the action of the people of Kansas, who, claiming the right ” peaceably to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances,” did so assemble, and sent a petition to Conigress, to permit them to form it State Government, with the ConstituLion submitted: for a third reading-Yeas, 35; Navs, 13, ast follows: t Yeas-For Engrossing: Messrs. Atchison, Mo.. lason, Va. Badger, N. C., A]ort~, Fln, Benjamin, La., Norris, N. H., B, odhead, Pa., Peitrce, Md., Brown, Miss, Pettit, Ind., Butler, S. C., Pratt, Md., Cass, Mich., Rtusk, T exas, Clayv, Ala., Sebastia n, Ark., Dawsoma, Ga., Slbields, Ill., Dw uglas, Ill., sliidell, La., Fitzpatrick, Ala., Stuart, Mich., Gwi n, Ca l., ThomJpson, Ky., Hunter Va., Thomson, N. J., Joihnson, Ark., Toomrbs, Ga., Jones ow, Iowa, Toucey, Ct., Jonesw, Tenn., Weller, C al., Ma llory, stftI, W i lliams, N. H., Wright, N. J.,-5. Arays-Against Engrossing: M
ess rs. Allen, R. I., GILLnsTT, Ct., Bell, Tenn., iv ar lin, Me., CHAlte Ohiot, i James, R. I., Clayton, Del., ioard, N.Y., Fis/i N. Y., aUMNd e R, l ass., .Foot, Vt., Wcade, Ohio. Walker, Wis.-13. Democrats in Roman; Whig s i n Iftalic; Free D emo crats in SMALL CAPS. Th e bill wa s t hen p ass ed w i thout fu rther, div ision, and, being appr oved by the Pr esident, became a law. The clause inhe cae 14th section, which repe aled the Missouri Compromnise, with the Badger p i sProced, is as f ollows: T hat the Constitution and allls f the rsgnizo a the United States wlhic h are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same f orce an( effect within the said territory of Ne braska, as elsevhere within te Ute te et the Uited States except the eighthl section of the act prepar atory to the admission of Mi, ssouri int o the Union, approved March sixth, eighteen lhundired and twenty, which being inconsistent with the principles of nonintervention by Congress with Slavery il the States anal Territories, as recognized by th e legisla tion, of eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the Comnpi’omilise Mleasures, is hereby declared inoperative atl void; it being the true internt and meaning of this act not to legislate Slavery into any Territory or State, tior to exclude it therefro-, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. sutbject only to the Constitu tion of the United States; Provided, That nothing here in contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which iay have existed prior to tlhe act of sixth of March, eighteen hundred and twenty, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting or abolishing ‘iavery. -Dec. 3, 1855. The XXXIVth Congress converied at the Capitol, in Washigtiton.-Jesse D. Bright, of Ind., holding over as President pro temnpore of the Senate, in place of VicePresident William R. KinD, of Alabama, deceased. A quorum of either House was found to be present. But the House found itself unable to organize by the choice of a Speaker, until after an unprecedented struggle of nine weeks’ duration.

Finally, on Saturday, Feb. 20, 1856, the plurality-vule was adopted-Yeas, 113; Nays, 104 -and the House proceeded under it to its onte htundred and thirty-tlhiid ballot for speaker, when Nathanliel P. Banks, jr.

(anti-Nebraska) of Matssachusetts, was chosen, having 10X votes to 1t J0, for William Ailken, of South Carolinla. Eleven votes scattered on other persons did not count aga;inst a choice. It was therefore resolved Yeas, 15a; Nays, 40 that Mr. Banlks was duly elected Speaker. But, during the penldencyv of this election, the P~‘esidenlt l-ad transmtittedl to both Houses, first Following upon thi s m ovement was anothe r an d more important one of the same general character. Persons confessedly not constituting the body politic, or all the inhabitants, but merely a party of the inhabitants’ and without law, have un de rtaken to summon a convention for the purpose of t r ansforming the Terrlitory into a State, and have framed a constitution, a dopted it, and under it electe d a governor and other officers, and a representativ e to Cohngress. BMarch 12.-In Senate, Mr. Doiuglas, of Illinois, from the Coimmittee on Territor i es, made a report on matters relating to Kansas affairs, in which he says: The act of Congre ss for the organization o the Terr ito ries o f Kan sas and Nebraska, w as desi gned to conf ors e to the spirit and letter of tiae Federal Constitution, by preserving and maintaining the fundamental principle of equality among all the States of t he UnioTi, notwitih standing the restriction contained in the 8th section of the act of March 6,1820, (preparatory to th e admission of Missou r i into the UnioK,) which as sume d to deny to the people forever the right to settle the question of Slavery for themselves, provided they should make their homes and organize States north of tlirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude. Conforming to the cardinal principles of State equality and self-gover-nment, in obedience to the Constitution, the KansasNebraska act declared, in the precise language of the Compromise Measures of 1850, that, ” when admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without Slavery, as their constitutions may prescribe at the time of their admission.” He then refers to the formation of the ” Emigrant Aid Company,” which had been orgtau. ized on the principle of ” State equality ” by the people of Massachusetts. This proceeding he calls ” a perversion of the plain provisions” of the Kainsas-Nebraska Act-that the only * “The Emigrant Aid Company,” withl five millions dollars, to which Mr. Douglas alludes, and from the existence of whichi he makes a special plea for the Border Ruffians, was. never organized: See Roeprt of Special Gonouittee of Con 
gross, (pa. e 100.) I 87

Page 88 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. kind of lawful emigration was “‘such as hase filled up our new States and Territories, when I each individual has gone on his own account, to improve his condition and that of his family.”

The report then states that the people of Missouri were greatly alarmed at the rapid filling up of Kansasby people opposed to Slavery-that this mietht endanger the existence of Slavery in Missouri-and that, as the people of Missouri had a right to defend their own institutions, they might properly resist the formation of ait Anti-Slavery State in their neighborhood. The report continues: For the successful prosecution of such a scheme, the Missourians who lived in the immediate vicinity possessed peculiar advantages over their rivals from the more remote portions of the Union. Each family could send one of its members across the line to mark out his claim, erect a cabin, and put in a small crop, sufficient to give him as valid a right to be deemed an actual settler and qualified voter as those who were being imported by the Emigrant Aid Societies. In an unoccupied Territory, where the lands have not been surveyed, and where there were no marks or lines to indicate the boundaries of sections and quartersections, and where no legal title could be had until after the surveys should be made, disputes, quarrels, violence, and bloodshed might have been expected as the natural and inevitable consequences of such extraordinary systems of emigration, which divided and arrayed the settlers into two great hostile parties, each having an inducement to claim more than was his right, in order to hold it for some new-comer of his own party, and at the same time prevent p erson s belonging to the opposite party from settling in the neighborhood. As a result of this state of things, the g r e a t mass of emigrants from the northwest an d from o t h e r States who went there on their own account, with no o t h e r object, and influenced by no other motives than to im p rov e their condition and secure good homes for their families, were compelled to array themselves under the b a n n e r of one of these hostile parties, in order to insure prot e c tion to themselves and their claims against the aggressi o n s and violence of the other. On the 29th of November, 1854, the first election in the Territory was held for a delegate to Congress.

This was a very short time after the arrival of the Free State emigrants in sufficient bodies to protect themselves. At this election, according to the returns, J. W. Whitfield had received 2,268 votes; other persons, 575.

Whitfield, of course, received the Governor’s certificate, but great dissatisfaction was expressed by the Free State settlers, chargingt that many of the votes received by Whitfield were given by men living in Missouri; and it afterward appeared that at the time of the first election there were but 1,114 legal voters in the Territory. Nevertheless, the report continues: effort to send at least an e qual number, to counteract them apprehended resul t of t he new imp ortation. The report then gives a history of the Legrisla ture elected March 30th, 1855, its removal from Pawnee City to the Shawnee Mission, its s dbse quent quarrel with Gov.

Reeder, and conti nues: A few days after, Governor Reeder dissolved his official relations with the legislature, on account of the reImoval of the seat of government, and while that body was still in session, a meeting was call ed by ” man y voters,” t o as semble at Lawrence, on the 14th or 15th of August, 1 t55, ” to take into consideration the propriety of calling a Ter rit ori al Convention, preliminary to the formation of a State Government, and other subjects of public i nterest.” At that meeting, the following preamble and resolutions w e re adopted with but one dissenti ng voice: ” Whereas, the people of Kansas Territory I har been sinte the settlement,o and ow are, without an y law-makitg power; therefore “Be piit ro KoleN, That we, the people of Kansas eritr, in mass meetin g assembled, irrespective of party (li Xors, in flueneed by a common necessity, and greatl desir o s,f pro moting the common g ood, do he reby call upon and ea st a1 bona. fide citizens of Kansas Territ ory, of wh atever political views and pred il ections, to consult together in their respective election districts, a nd in mass convention or otherwis ee, elect three delegate s for ea ch repre sentative in the legislative i as sembly, by proclamation of Governor Reeder of date l()th March, 51855; said delegates to assembly in convention at theU e town of T o p e ka, on the 19th d a y of S eptem ber, ls55, then and there to consider and de t ermine upon all suljects of publi c i n terest, and particularly upon that having reference to the speedy formation of a State Constitution, with an intention of an immediate application to be admitted as a State into the Union of the United States of America.” This meeting, so far as your Committee have been able to ascertain, was the first step in that series of proceedings which resulted in the adoption of a Constitution and State Government, to be put in operation on the 4th of the pre sent month, in subversion of the Territorial Government established under the authority of Congress. The right to set up the State Government in defiance of the constitu ted authorities of the Territory, is based on the assumption 11
that the people of Kansas Territory have been since its settlement, and now are, without any law-making power;” in the face of the wellknown fact, that the Territorial Le gislature was then in session, in pursuance of the pro clamation of Governor Reeder, and the organic law of tlhe Territory. The report then proceeds to narrate the cir cumstances attending the formation of a State Government in Michigan, Arkansas, Florida and California, and states that ” in every instance the proceeding has originated with, and been conducted in subordination to, the authority of the local governments established or recognized by the Government of the United States.” It then refers to the case of the effort to change the organic law, made in Rhode Island some years ago, from which it says the “insurgents” (as the FreeState party in Kansas is called) “can derive no aid or comfort.” The following concludes the Report; the words in Italics below perhaps explain in what sense the people of a Territory are “perfectly free to form their own institutions, in their own way:” Without deeming it necessary to express any opinion on this occasion, in reference to the merits of that contro versy, [referring to Rhode Island,] it is evident that the principles upon which it was conducted are not involved in the revolutionary struggle now going on in Kansas; for the reason, that the sovereignty of a Territory remains ia abeyance, suspended in the United States, in trust folk the poeople, u,, til thiey s7all be admitted into tha Union as a State. In thie meantime, they are entitled to enjoy and emercise all the privileges and rights qf sel.]-g~oeermment, i,qbord i~natiorb to the Constitubtgon of the United States, and con obediencee to their organic lawt?J passed by Congress ir p~srsuaCnce of that instru,ment. These rights and privileges are all derived from the Constitution, through the act of Congress, and must be exercised and enjoyed in subjection to all the limitations and restrictions which that Constitution imposes. Hence, it is clear that the people of the Territory have no inherent; Lsovereign rightt, under the Constitution of the United States, *to annul the lawvs and resist the authority of the TerritoriM?

government which Congress has established in obedience to the Constitution. Certain it is, that there could not have been a system of fraud and violence such as has been charged by the agents and s upporters of the emigrant aid societies, unless the .Governor and judges of election were parties to it; and :your committee are not prepared to assume a fact so dis;reputable to them, and so improbable upon the state of :facts presented, without specific charges and direct proof. In the absence of all proof and probable truth, the charge that the Missourians had invaded the Territory and controlled the congressional election by fraud and violence was circulated throughout the Free States, and made the basis of the most inflammatory appeals to all men opposed to the principles of the KansasNebraska act to emigrate or send emigrants to Kansas, for the purpose of repelling the invaders, and assisting their friends who were then in the Territory in putting down the slave-power, and prohibiting Slavery in Kansas, with the view of making it a Free State. Exaggerated accounts of the large number of emigrants on their way under the auspices of the emigrant aid companies, with the view of controlling the election for members of the Territorial Legislature, which was to take place on the 80th of March, 1855, were published and circulated. These accounts, being republished and believed in Missouri, where the excitement had already been inflamed to a fearful intensity, induced a corresponding I 88

Page 89 view page image

THlE KANSAS-NEBRASKA STRUGGLE. to their admission into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, so soon as it shall appear, by a censrus to be taken under the direction of the Gover no r, by th e authority of the Legislature, that the Territory contains nitety-tteree thousand, four hu ndre d a nd twenty inhabitants-that being the number required by the present ratio of repr esentation fo r a member o f Con gress. In compliance with tie other recommendation, your Committee propose to offer to the appropriation bill an amendment appropriating such sum as shall be found necessary, by the estimates to be obtained, for the purpose indicated in the recommendation of the President. All of which is respectfully submitted to the Senate by your Committee. Mr. Collsmiier, of Vermont, the Republican member o,f same Committee, submitted a ninority report, in which he sayss: Thirteen of the present prosperous States of this Union passed through the period of apprenticeship or pupilage of territorial training, under the guardianship of Congress, preparatory to assuming their proud rank of manhood as sovereign and independent States.

This period of their pupilage was, in every case, a period of the good offices of parent and child, in the kind relationship sustained between the National and the Territorial Government, and may be remembered with feelings of gratitude and pride. We have fallen on different times. A territory of our government is now convulsed with violence and discord, and the whole family of our nation is in a state of excitement and anxiety. The National Executive power is put in motion, the army in requisition, and Congress is invoked for interference. In this case, as in all others of difficulty, it becomes necessary to inquire what is the true cause of existing trouble, in order to apply effectual cure. It is but a temporary palliative to deal with the external and more obvious manifestations and developments, while the real, procuring cause lies unattended to, and uncorrected, and unremoved. It is said that organized opposition to law exists in Kansas. That, if existing, may probably be suppressed by the President, by the use of the army; and so, too, may invasions by armed bodies from Missouri, if the Executive be sincere in its efforts; but when this is done, while the cause of trouble remains, the results will continue with renewed and increased developments of danger. Let us, then, look fairly and undisguisedly at this sub ject, in its true character and history. Wherein does this Kansas Territory differ from all our other Territories which have been so peacefully and successfully carried through, and been developed into the manhood of independent States? Can that difference account for existing troubles? Can that difference, ala cause of trouble, be removed? The first and great point of difference between the Territorial government of Kansas and that of the thirteen Territorial governments before mentioned, consists in the subject of Slavery-the undoubted cause of present trouble. The action of Congress in relation to all these thirteen. Territor,ies was conducted on a unziform and prudeit principle, to wit: To settle, by a clear prtovision, thte law in rela tiogi to thle su,bject of Slafety to be ojperatisve in tle Territory, wltile it remained 8uch; not leaving it in any one of those cases to be a subject of controversy within the same, while in the plastic gristle of its youth. This was done by Congress in the exercise of the same power which molded the form of their organic laws, and appointed their executive and judiciary, and sometimes their legislative officers; it was the power provided in thle Constitution, in these words: ” Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.” Settling the subject of Slavery while the country remained a Territory, was no higher exercise of power in Congress, than tile regulation of the functions of the territorial government, and actually appointing its principal functionaries. This practice commenced with this National Government, and was continued, with uninterrupted uniformity, for more than sixcty years. This practical contemporaneous construction of the constitutional pow~er of this government is too clear to leave room for doubt, or opportunity for skepticism. The peace, prosperity, and success which attenldedl this course, and the results which have ensued, in the formation and admission of the thirteen States tilmrefrom, are most conclusive and satisfactory evidence, also, of the wisdom and prudence with which this pow~er was eoxercised. Deluded must be that people who, in the pur1suit of plausible theories, become deaf to the lessons? and blind to the resultl of their own experience. In tracing, step by step, the origin and history of these Kansas difficulties, your Committee have been profoundly impressed with the significant fact, that each one has resulted from an attempt to violate or circumvent the principles and provisions of the act of Congress for the organlzation of Kansas and Nebraska. The leading idea and fundamental principle of the KansasNebraska act, as expressed in the law itself, was to leave the actual settlers and bonafide inhabitants of each Territory ” perfectly fvee to fornm and regulate their domestic institutions in thleir own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” While this is declared to be the “true intent and meaning of the act,” those who were opposed to allowing the people of the Territory, preparatory to their admission into the Union as a State, to decide the Slavery question for themselves, failing to accomplish their purpose in the halls of Congress, and under the authority of the Constitution, immediately resorted, in their respective States, to unusual and extraordinary means to control the political destinies and shape the domestic institutions of Kansas, in defiance of the wishes, and regardless of the rights, of the people of that Territory, as guaranteed by their organic law. Combinations, in one section of the Union, to stimulate an unnatural and false system of emigration, with the view of controlling the elections, and forcing the domestic institutions of the Territory to assimilate to those of the nonslaveholding States, were followed, as might have been foreseen, by the use of similar means in the slaveholding States, to produce directly the opposite result. To these causes, and to these alone, in the opinion of your Committee, may be traced the origin and progress of all the controversies and disturbances with which Kansas is now convulsed. If these unfortunate troubles have resulted, as natural consequences, from unauthorized and improper schemes of foreign interference with the internal affairs and domestic concerns of the Territory it is apparent that the remedy must be sought in a strict adherence to the principles and rigid enforcement of the provisions of the organic law. In this connection, your Committee feel sincere satisfaction in commending the messages and proclamation of the President of the United States, in which we have the gratifying assurance that the supremacy of the laws will be maintained; that rebellion will be crushed; that insurrection will be suppressed; that aggressive intrusion for the purpose of deciding elections, or any other purpose, will be repelled; that unauthorized intermeddling in the local concerns of the Territory, both from adjoining and distant States, will be prevented; that the federal and local laws will be vindicated against all attempts at organized resistance; and that the people of the Territory will be protected in the establishment of their own institutions, undisturbed by encroachments from without, and in the full enjoyment of the rights of self-government assured to them by the Constitution and the organic law. In view of these assurances, given under the conviction that the existing laws confer all the authority necessary to the performance of these important duties, and that the whole available force of the United States will be exerted to the extent required for their performance, your Committee repose in entire confidence that peace, and security, and law, will prevail in Kansas. If any further evidence were necessary to prove that all the collisions and difficulties in Kansas have been produced by the schemes of foreign interference which have been developed in this r eport, in violation of the principles and in evasion of the provisions of the KansasNebraska act, it may be found in the fact that in Nebraska, to which the emigrant-aid societies did not extend their operations, and into which the stream of emigration was permitted to flow in its usual and natural channels, nothing has occurred to disturb the peace and harmony of the Territory, while the principle of self-government, in obedience to the Constitution, has had fair play, and is quietly working out its legitimate results. It now only remains for your Committee to respond to the two specific recommendations of the President, in his special message. They are as follows: “This, it seems to me, can be best accomplished by providIng that,‘wlln the inhabitants of Kansas may desire it, and shall be of suffirient numbers to constitute a State, a convention of delegates, duly elected by the qualified voters shall assemble to frame a Constitution, and thus prepare through regular and lawful means, for its admission into the Union as a State. I respectfully recommend the enactment of a law to that effect. ” I recommend. also, that a special appropriation be made to defray any expense which may become requisite in the execution of the laws, or the maintenaiice of public order in the Territory of Lansas.” In compliance with the first recommendation, your Como mittee ask leave to report a bill authorizing the Legislature of the Territory to provide by law for the election of delegates by the people, and the assembling of a Convention to form a Constitution and State Government preparatory 89

Page 90 view page image

A POLITiCAL TEXT-BO0K FOR 1860. revive or put in force any law or regulation which may hlave existed prior to the act of 6 March, 1820, eithier pro tectillg, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing Slavery.”

Thus it was promulgated to tie people of this whole country that here was a cleat field for competition an open course for the race of rivalship; the goal of which was, the ultimate establishment of a sovereign State; asd,l the prize, the reward of everlasting liberty and its institu tions on the one hand, or the perpetuity of SlI very and its concomitants on the other. It is the obvious duty of this government, while this law continues, to see thiis manifesto faithfully, and honorably, and honestly per formed, even though its particular supporters may see cause or a result unfavorable to their hopes. It is further to be obser ved that, in the per formance of this novel experiment, it was provide d that all while tnen who became inhabitantaddss in Kansas were entitled to vote w i thout regard to their time of residence, usually [ kovided in other Terr itoroies. Nor was tics i ight of voting confined to American citizens, but included all such alien s as had declared, oa-would declare, o n oath, their intention to become citizens. Thus was the procla mation to tlhee world to become inhabitants of Kan sas, and e nlist in this great enterprise, by the force of num bers, by vote, to decide for it the great questio n. Was it to be expected that this great pro clamation for the political tournament would be listened to with indifferenc e and apathy?

Was it prerepared and pre sented in that spirit? Did it relate to a subject on wlhich the people were cool or in different? A large part of the p eo ple of this country look on domestic Slavery as ” only evil, a nd that con tinually,” alike to master and to slave, and to the com munity; to be left alon e to th e management o r enjoy ment of the people of the States where it exists, but not to be extended, more especially as it gives, or may give, political supremacy to a minority of the people of this country in the United States government. On the other hand, many of the people of another part of the Ujnited States regard Slavery, if not in the abstract a blessing, at least as now existing, a condition of society best for both white and black, while they exist together; while others regard it as no evil, but as the highest state -,f social condition. These consider that they cannot, with safety to their interests, permit political ascendency to be largely in the hands of those unfriendly to this pecu liar insttttation. From these conflicting views, long anti violent has been the controversy, and experience seems to show it interminable. A succinct stateineot of the exercise and progress of the material events in Kansas is this: After the passage of this law, establishing the Territory of Kansas, a large body of settlers rapidly entered into said Territory witlh a view to permanent inhabitancy therein.

Most of these were from the Free States of the West and North, who probably intended by their votes and influence to estab lish there a Free State, agreeably to the law which invited them. Some part of those from the Northern States had been encouraged and aided in this enterprise by the Emigrant Aid Society formed in Massachusetts, which put forth some exertions in this laudable object, by open and public measures, in providing facilities for transpor tation to all peaceable citizens who desired to become per manent settlers in saidl Territory, and providing there in hotels, mills, etc., for the public accommodation of that new country. * The Governor of Kansas, having, in pursuance of law, divided the territory into districts, and procured a census thereof, issued his proclamation for the election of a Legislative Assembly therein, to take place on the Seth day of March, 1855, and directed how the same should be conducted, and the returns made to him agreeable to the law establishing said Territory. On the day of election, large bodies of armed men from the State of Missouri, appeared at the polls in most of the districts, and, by most violent and tumultuous carriage and demeanor, overawed the defenseless inhabitants, and by their own votes elected a large majority of the members of both Houses of said Assemtibly. On the returns of said eleotion being made to the Governor, protests and objections were made to him in relation to a part of said districts; and as to them, he set aside such, and such only, as by the returns appeared to be bad. In relation to others, covering, in all, a majority of the two Houses, equally vicious in fact, but apparently good by formlal returns, the inhabitants ther eof, bor ne lowny by said violence andi intimnidation, scattered and discour aged, and laboring under apprehensions of personal violence, refr ained and desisted from presenting any protest to the Governor in relation thereto; and he, then uninformed in relation thereto, issued certificates to the mlemtbers wtlso appearedl by said formal returns to hlave been electfed. In relation to those distr icts which the Governor so selm aside, orders is e by him issued for nsew elec tionls. In Let us next inquire by what rule of uniformity Congress was governed, in the exercise of this power of determining the condition of each Territory as to Slavery, while remain uig a Territory, as manifested in those thirteen instances. An examination of our history will show that this was not done from time to time by agitation and local or party triu mph s in Congress.

Th e rul e pursued w as uniform and clear; and, whoever ma y h ave l os t by it, pea ce and pros cuerity have been gained. That rule was this: Where Slavery was act ually existing in a country to any peopnsiderable o r general extent, it was (though somewhat m odified as to further importation in some instances, as in MTississippi an d Orl e ans Territories) suffered to remain. d tie fa ct that it had been taken and existed there, waois taken as an indica tion o f its adaptation and local utility. Wrr here S lavery did not i n fact exist to any appreciable ex tent, the same was, by Congress, expressly prohibited; so that in either case the country w as s ettled up with out diffi c ulty or doub t as to the character of its in stitutions. In no instance was t hi s d ifficul t a nd di sturbing subject left to the people who had and who might settle in the Territory, to be ther e an e verl as ting bone of contention, so long as the Territorial governmen t s hould continue. It was ever re garded, t oo, as a subject in which the whole country had an interest, and, th erefore, improper for local legislation. And th ough, whenev er the people of a Territory come to f orm their own organic law, as an independent State, they would, eithe r before or after their admission as a State, form an d m ol d their institutions, as a Sovereign State, in their own way, yet it must be exp ected, and has always proved true, that th e S tate ha s t aken the character her pupilage has pre pared her for, as well in respect to Slavery as in other r espects. Hence, six of the thirteen States are Free States, because Slavery was prohibited in them by Congress, while Territories, to wit: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michig an, W
is consin, and Io wa. Seven of the thirteen are slaveholding States, b ecause Slavery was allowed in th em b y Congress while they we ere Territories, to wit: Ten n essee, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, Lou isiana, A r kansas and Missouri. On the 6th of March, A.D. 1820, was passed by Con gress the act preparator y to e dmssi the admission of the State of Miss our i into the Union. Much controversy and discus sion aro se on the qu e stion whether a prohibition of Sluvery within said State shoul d be inserted, and it re sulted in this: that said State should be admitted without sucth prohibition, but that Slavery should beforever poro hibited in t he rest of that country ceded to us by France lying north of 96~ 30’ n or th l atitude, and it was so done. ‘l his contract is known as the oeri8or,i Comppromise. Under this arrangement, Missouri was admitted as a slaveholding State, the same having been a slaveholding Territory.

Arkansas, south of the l ine, was formed in to a Territory, and Slavery allowed therein, and afterward admnitted as a slaveholdi ng S tate. Iow a wa s ma de a Territory no r th of the Lne, and, under the operation of the law, w as settled up iithout slaves, and admitted as a free State. The country now making the Territories of K ansas and Nebraska, in 1820, was almost or entirely uninhabited, and l ay north of said line, and whatever s e ttlers entered the sae before 1S54, did so un der that law, free forever forbidding Slavery theerein. In ]854, Cong ress passed n act establishing two n ew T err itori es-N ebr aska and Kansas-in this region of cou ntry, where Slaverly had been prohibit ed for more than thirty years; and, instead of leaving said law against Slavery in operation, or prohibiting or expressly allowing or establishing Slavery, Congress left the subject in said Territories, to be discussed, agitated, and legislated on, fr,omn time to time, and the elections in said Territories to be conducted with reference to that subject, from year to year, so long as they should remain Territories; for, whatever laws might be passed by the Territorial legislatur’es on this subject, must be subject to change or repeal by those of the succeeding years. In most former Territorial governments, it was provided by law that their laws were subject to the revision of Congress, so that they would be made with caution. In these Territories, that was omitted. The provision in relation to Slavery in Nebraska and Kansas is as follows:‘i The eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union (wh~ich being inconsistent with the principole of nonintervention by Congress with Slavery in the States and Terr itories, as required by the legislation of 185!], commonly called the Comlpr omrise Measures) is hereby declaredl inoperative and~ foid-it being the true intent and mleaning of this act not to legislate Slavery into said Tlerritory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to le-ave the people thereof poerfectly freef to form and1
regulate their domestic institutions ill their owvn way, sulkiect only to the Conlstitution of thle United States: Providled~ ‘That nothing herein conltainedl sh all be conlstruedi to 90

Page 91 view page image

THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA STRUGGLE. ine of these districts, the same proceedings were repeated by men from Missouri, and in others not, and certificates were issued to the persons elected. This legislaitive assembly, so elected, assembled at Pawv-nee, on the second day of July, lS55, that being the tioe and place for holding said meeting, as fixed by the Gov erno-, by authority of law. On assembling, the said houses proceeded to set aside and reject those members so elected on sai d second election, except in the distr ict wl,e-e the men from lissoui-i had, at sail e lection, chosen tihe same persons they had elected at the said first election, uandi they admitted all of the said fil stelected member s. A legislative assembly, so created by military forc e, ly a foreign invasion, in violation of the o-rg;nic law, was tl,ti, a tsu-p ation. No act of its own, no act or neglect of ‘ie Gove rnor, could legalize or sanctify it. Its own dlcisions as to its owvn legality are l ike its laws, but tile fruits f it s own usu-pation, which no Governor could legitimate….. The people of Kansas, thus invaded, subdued, oppressed anri insult ed, seeing their Territorial Goverlnment (such ontly in for.u) perverted into an engine to crush them in the dust arid to defeat and dtestroy the professed object of thleir organic law, by depriving them of the “perfect fe,eedom” therein provided; and finding no ground to hope fot rrghts in that organization, they proceeded, under the guaranty of the United States Constitution, p’ eaceably to assemible to petition the Government for the redress of (their) grievances.” They saw no eartflly soutrce of relief but in the formation of a State Govern nient by the people, and the accepta nce and ratif ication thereof by Congress. It is true that, in sever al instances in our political his tory, the people of a Territory have be e n authorized by an act of Congress to forml a State Cons titution, and, after so doing, were admitted by Congress. It is quite obvious that no such authority could be given by the act of thle Territorial Govelnment. That clear y has no power to create another Government, paramount to it self. It is equally true that, in nurber,aus instances in our history, the people of a Territory have, without any previtous act of Congress, proceeded to call a Convention of the people by their delegates; have fo rened a State Con stitutioi, which has been adopted by the people, and a State Legislature assembled under it, and chosen benator s to Congress and then have presented sa i d Constitution to Congress, which has approved the same, and received the Senators ani members of Congress who were chosen under it before Congress had approved the same. Such was the cse of Tennessee; such was the case of Micliigan, where the people not only formed a State Constitution without an act of Congress, but they actually put their State Governmient into full operation and passed laws, and it was approved by Congress by receiving it as a State. Tthe people of Florida formed their Constitutio n without any act of Congress therefor, six years bef,re they were admitted into the Union. Wle,n the people of Arkansas were about forming a State Constitution witlout a previous act of Congress, in 1S35, the uesritorial Governor applied to the President on the subject, who referred the matter to the Attorney-Geneial, iand his opinion, as then expressed and published, contained the following: ” It is not in the power of the general assembly of Arkansas to pass any law for the purpose of electing members to a Coiventio to form a Constitution and State government, nor to do any other act directly or indirectly to create such government. Every such law, even though it were approved by the governor of the Territory, would be null and void; if passed by them n otvithstanding his veto, by a vote of twothirds of each branlch it would still be equally voi d.” He further decided that it was not rebellious, or insurrectiona-y, or even untlawful, for the people peaceably to proceed, even without an act of Congress, in forming a Constitution, and in so forming a State Constitution and so far organizing und er the same as to choose the officers necessary for its representati on in Congress, with a view to present the same to Congress for aomission, was a power which fell cleat ly within the right of the people to assemble and pettiton for red ress.

The people of Arkansas proceeded without an act of Cofgress, and were received into the Ucnion accoodinigly. If ay right s were deri ved to the people of Arka nsa s fw hom the terms of the Fienich treaty of cession, they equally extended to the people of Kansas, it beitig a part of tie s:tLue cession.X In this view ofthe subject, in the filst part of August, 1X55, a call was publishled in the public papers, for a ieeting of the ci tizens of Kansas, irrespective of party, to 0meet at. awre10ce, in said Territory, 11 tTte 15tl g of satxd August, to take into consideration the propriety of calling a Couveittion of the people of the echole Territory, to totsitler Tilat subject. Tttit ineetinig v,es ielh on the 15th, day if August iast, tand it proceeded to call such Convet tion of delegat es t o be eleoted, t and’o a-sets le at Topeka in said Te rritory, on trle19h (lay of Septebe 15 no; to form. a Constitution, but to consider the profiely of calling, formally,. Convention for that pu’.‘lp),se. Delegates were elected ag eeably to the proclamation so issued, and they met at Topeka on the fourth Tues day in October, 1&55, and formed a constitution, which was submitted to the people, and was ratified by them by vote in the districts. An e’ection of S ate officers and members of the State legislature has been had, and a representative to Congress elected, and it is intended to proceed to the election of senators, with the view to present the same, with the constitution, to Congress for admission into the Union. Whatever views individuals may at times, or in meet ings, have expressed, and whatever ultimate determina tion may have been entertained in the result of being spurned’ by Congress, and refused redress, is now en tirely immaterial. That cannot condemn or give char acter to the proceedings thus far pursued. Many have honestly believed usurpation could make no law, and that if Congress made no further provisions they were well justified in forming a law for themselves; but it is not now necessary to consider that matter, as it is to be hoped that Congress will not leave them to such a necessity. Thus far, this effort of the people for redress is peace ful, constitutional, and right. Whether it will succeed, rests with Congress to determine; but clear it is that it should not be met and denounced as revolutionary, rebellious, insurrectionary, or unlawful, nor does it call for or justify the exercise of any foice by any depart ment of this government to check or control it. It now becomes proper to inquire what should be done by Congress; for we are informed by the Presi dent, in substance, that he has no power to correct a usurpation, and that the laws, even though made by usurped authority, must be by him enforced and ex ecuted, even with military force. The measures of redress should be applied to tle true cause of the difi culty. This obviously lies in the repeal of the clause for freedom in the act of 1S20, and therefore, the true lremedy lies in the entire repeal of the act of 1854, whicl effected it. Let this be done with frankness and mag nanimity, and Kansas be organized anew as a Free Tel ritory, and all will be put right. But, if Congress insist on praoceeding with the experi ment, then declare all the action by this spurious, foreign legislative assembly utterly inoperative and void, and direct a reorganization, providing proper safeguards for legal voting and against foreign force. There is, however, another gray to put an end to Ill this trouble there, and in the nation, without retracing steps or continuing violence, or by force compelling obedience to tyrannical laws made by foreign force; and that is, by admitting that Te,-rrtory as a State, with her free constitution.

True, indeed, her numbers are not such as give her a right to demand admission, be ing, as the President informs us, probably only about twentyfive thousand. The Constitution fixes no nulmi ber as necessary, aid the importance of?ivow settling this question may well justify Congress in adm,,itting her as a State, at t/&is tiore, especially as we have good rea son to believe that, if admitted as a State, and contro versy ended, it will immediately fill up wtlh a nu-,et: ous and successful population. At any rate, it seems impossible to believe that Con gress is to leave that people without redress, to have enforced upon them by the army of the nation these measures and laws of violence and oppression. Are they to be dragooned into submission; Is that an ex periment pleasant to execute on our own free people? The true character of this transaction is matter of ex tensive notoriety. Its essential features are too obvious to allow of any successful disguise or palliation, however complicated or ingenious mllay be the statedments, orhowever,special the pleadings, for that purpose. The case requires some quietiirg, kind and prudent teatment by the hand of Congress to do justice and satisfy the nation. The people of this country a.-e peacefully relying on Congress to provide the competent m,easures of redress which they have the undoubted power to administer. The A~ttorney-G-eneral, in the case of Arkansas, says: “Congress may at pleasure repeal or-modify the lawss passed by the Territorial Legislaturle, and may at any timle abrogate and remodel the legislattur e itself, and all the other departments of the Territorial Governmrrent.” ‘T, eatingJ thtis grievance in Kansas with ingrenious excuses1 with neglect or contempsIt, or riding over the oppressed with an army, and d~ ag~ocuing thleml into submission, wvill mlake no satisfactory terminiation. Party success may at times b~e temporarily secured by adtroit, ol

Page 92 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. These gentlemen proceeded to Kansas, and spent several weeks there in taking testimony as to the elections, etc., which had taken place in that Territory. The testimony thu s taken forms a volume of nearly twelve hundred large and clos e ly-print ed pag es, the substance of whi ch was summed up on their retur n by the majority (Messrs. Howard ad Sherman), i n the following REPORT ON THE OUTRAGES IN

KANSAS. A journal of proceedings, including sundry communications made to and by the Committee was kept, a copy of wh ich is herewith submitted. The testimony also is herewith submitted; a copy of it has been made and arranged not according to the or der in whi ch it was taken, but so as to present, as clearly as possible, a consecuti ve history of events in the Territory, from its organiz ation t o the 19th day of March, A. D. 1856.

Your Committee deem it their du ty to state, as briefly as possible, the principal facts pro ven before them. When the act to organize the Territory of Kansas w as pa sse d o n the 24th day of May, 1854, the greater portion of its eastern border was included in Indian reservations not open fosettlement; and there were but few white settlers in any portion of the Territory. Its Indian popula tio n was r apidly decreasing, while many emigrants f ro m different parths of our country were anxiousl y waiting the extinction of the Indian titl e, and the est ablishment of a Territoriai Government, to seek new home s o n i ts fe r tile prairies. It cannot be doubted that, if it s cond it ion as a free Ter ritory had been left undisturbed by Congress, its settlement would have been rapid, peaceful, and pros perous. Its climate, soil, and its e asy access to the o lde r se ttlemen ts, would have m ade it the favored course for the tide o f emigration constantly flowing to the West, and by th is time it would have been admitted into the Union as a Free State, without the lea s t section al excitem ent. If so organized, none but the kindest feel ing cou ld ha ve existed be - tween it and the adjoining State. Their mutual interests and intercourse, instead of, as now, endangerin g t he ha rmony of the Union, would have strenthehene d the ties of national brotherhood.

The testimony clearly shows, that before tepoon o reeal the proposition to repeal the Missouri Compromise was i ntroduc ini nto Con gress, the pe opl e of wester n Mi& souri appeared indifferent to the prohibition of Slavery in the Territory, and nei ther asked nor desired its repeal. When, however, the prohibition was re moved by the action of Congress, the aspect of affairs entirely changed. The whole country was agitated by the reopening of a controversy which conservative men in different sections hopead had bee n settled, in every State and Territo ry, by some law beyond the danger of repeal. The excitement which h as always accompanied the discussion of the Slavery question was greatly increased, by the hope on the one hand of extending Slavery into a region from which it had been e xcluded by law, and o n the other by a sense of wrong done by what was regarded as a dishonor of a national compact. This excit ement was naturally transferred into the border c ounties of Missouri and the Territory, as settler s favoring free or slave institutions moved into it.

A new d ifficulty soon occurred. I)iff erent constructions were put upon the organic law. It was con tended by the one party that the right to hold slaves in the Terri tory e xist ed, an d th at neit her the people nor the Territorial Legislature could prohibit Slavery-that that power was alone posse ssed by the people when they were auth ori ze d to form a State government. It was cori tended that the removal of the restriction virtually establishe d Slavery in t he T erritory. This claim was urged by many prominent men in we s te rn Missouri, who actively engaged i n the affair s of the Territory. Ev ery movement, of whatever character, which tended to establish free insti tutions, was regarded as an interference with their rights. Within a few days after the organic l’,w passed, and as soon as its passage could be known oil the border, leading citizens of Missouri crossed into the L-riitory, held squat ter meetings, and then returned to their homes. Among their resolutions are the following: ” That we will afford protection to no Abolitionist as a settler of this Territory. ” X” That we recognize the institution of Slavery as alreadyv existing in this Territory, and adlvise slaveholders to introduce their property as early as possib~le. ” Similar resolutions were passed in various parts of the Territory, and by meetings in several counties of Missouri. Thus the first effect of the repeal of the restriction against Slavery was to substitute the resolves of squatter meetingfs, composed almost exclusively of Missourians, for the deliberate action of Congress, acquiesced in for 35 years. This unlawful interference has been continued in every important event in the history of the Territory; ever~, devices, plausible pretenses, and partisan address; but the permanent preservation of this Union can be maintained only by frankness and integrity. Justice may be denied where it ought to be granted; power may perpetuate that vassalage which violence and usurpation have produced; the subjugation of white freemen may be necessary, that African Slavery may succeed; but such a course must not be expected to produce peace and satisfaction in our country, so long as the people retain any proper sentiment of justice, liberty, and law. J. COLLAMER. The majority and minority Reports being received, various matters relating to Kansas were debated until the 19th of March, the House was brought to a vote on the proposition of the committee of elections to empower said committee to send to Kansas for persons and papers, which was modified on motion of Mr. Dunn, of Ind., so as to raise a special committee of three members, to be appointed by the Speaker. The resolutions raising this committee gave it ample powers To inquire into and collect evidence in regard to the troubles in Kansas generally, and particularly in regard to any fr au d or force atptmpted or practiced in reference to any of the elections which ha ve taken place in said T erritory, either und er the law organizing said Territory, or undr any pretended law which may be a lleged to have taken effect there since.

That they shall fu lly i nvestigate and take proof of all violent and tumul tuous proc eed ings in said T erritory, at an y time since the passage of the Kansas Nebraska act, whether engaged in by the residents of said Territory, or by any person or persons from elsewhere going into said Territory, and doing, or encouraging others to do, any act of violence or public disturbance against the laws of the United States, or the rights, peace, and safety of the residents of said Territory; and for that purpose, said Committee shall have full power to send for, and examine, and take copies of, all such papers, public records, and proceedings, as in their judgment will be useful in the premises; and also, to send for persons and examine them on oath, or affirmation, as to matters within their knowledge, touching the matters of said investigation; and said Committee, by their chairman, shall have power to administer all necessary oaths or affirmations connected with their aforesaid duties. That said Committee may hold their investigations at such places and times as to them may seem advisable, and that they have leave of absence from the duties of this House until they shall have completed such investigation.

That they be authorized to employ one or more clerks, and one or more assistant ser,geants-at-arms, to aid them in their investigation; and may administer to them an oath, or affirmation, faithfully to perform the duties assigned to them, respectively, and to keep secret all matters which may come to their knowledge touching such investigation, as said Committee may direct, until the Report of the same shall be submitted to this House; and said Committee may discharge any such clerk or assistant sergeant-at-arms for neglect of duty or disregard of instructions in the premises, and employ others under like regulations. Tie vote of the Slave States was unanimous against the investigation, 17 from the Free States voting with them. Yeas 101; Nays 93. The following are the negatives from the Free States: Nisys-Against the Investigation: MAINE-Thomas J. D.

Fuller-1. NEW-YORK John Kelly, WVilliam W.‘Falk, John Wheeler, Thomas R.

Whitney-4. NEw-JERsEY-George Vail-1. PENNSYLVANIA-John Cadwalader, Thomas B. Florence, J. Glancy Jones-3. INDIANA William H. English, Smith Miller 2. I1CEIAs George W. Peck 1. ILLINOIS-James a. Allen, Thomas L. Harris, Samuel S Marshall, William A. Richardson 4. CALIFORNIA-Philemon T’.

Herbert 1. So the resolution prevailed, and Messrs. Wilfiam A. Howard, of Michigan, John Sherman, of Ohio, and 3Iordecai Oliver, of Missouri, were appointed the Committee of Inlvestigration thereby required. I I I I 92

Page 93 view page image

TIlE KANSAS-NEBRASKA STRUGGLE. 93 electi,~ has been controlled, not by the actual settlers, Chapman’s, over 40 miles from the Missouri State line but by citizens of Missouri; and, as a consequence, every It was a thinly-settled region, containing but 47 voters officer in the Territory, from constables to legislators, ex-ill Fehlruary, 1855, when the census was taken. On the cept those appointed by the President, owe their positions day before the election, from 100 to 150 citizens of Cass to nonresident voters. None have been elected by the and Jackson Counties, Mo, came into this district, settlers; and your Committee have been unable to find declaring their purpose to vote, and that they were that any political power whatever, however unimportant, boud to make Kansas a Slave State, if they did it at has been exercised by the people of the Territory. the point of the sword. Persons of the party on the way In October, A. D. 1854, Governor A. H. Reeder and the drove each a stake in the ground and called it a claimother officers appointed by the President arrived in the and in one case several names were put on one stake.

Territory. Settlers from all parts of the country were The party of strangers camped all night near where the moving in in great numbers, making their claims and election was to be held, and in the morning were at the building their cabins. About the same time, and before election-polls and voted. One of their party got drunk, any election was or could be held in the Territory, a secret and, to get rid of Dr.

Chapman, a judlge of the election political society was formed in the State of Missouri. It they sent for him to come and see a sick man, and in his was known by different names, such as ” Social Band,” absence filled his place with another judge, w]Ro was not “Friends’ Society,” “Blue Lodge,” “The Sons of the sworn. They did not deny nor conceal that they were South.” Its members were bound together by secret residents of Missouri, and many of them were recognized oaths, and they had passwords, signs, and grips, by which as such by others. They declared that they were bound they were known to each other. Penalties were imposed to make Kansas a Slave State. They insisted upon their for violating the rules and secrets of the Order. Written right to vote in the Territory if they were in it one hour. minutes were kept of the proceedings of the Lodges, and After the election, they again returned to their homes in the different Lodges were connected together by an effec-Missouri, camping over night on the way. tive organization. It embraced great numbers of the citi-We find upon the pollbooks 161 names; of these not zens of Missouri, and was extended into other Slave States over 30 resided in the Territory; 131
were nonresidents. and into the Territory. Its avowed purpose was not only But few settlers attended the election in the Yth Disto extend Slavery into Kansas, but also into other terri-trict, the district being large and the settlement scattered. tory of the United States; and to form a union of all the 82 votes were cast; of these between 20 and 80 were setfriends of that institution. Its plan of operating was to tiers, and the residue were citizens of Missouri. They organize and send men to vote at the elections in the Ter-passed into the Territory by way of the Santa Fe road and ritory, to collect money to pay their expenses, and, if by the residence of Dr. Westfall, who then lived on the necessary, to protect them in voting. It also proposed to western line of Missouri. Some little excitement arose at induce ProSlavery men to emigrate into the Territory, to the polls as to the legality of their voting, but they did aid and sustain them while there, and to elect none to vote for General Whitfield, and said they intended to office but those friendly to their views. This dangerous make Kansas a Slave State, and that they had claims in society was controlled by men who avowed their purpose the Territory. Judge Teazle, judge of the court in Jackto extend Slavery into the Territory at all hazards, and son County, Missouri, was present, but did not vote. He was altogether the most effective instrument in organizing said he did not intend to vote, but came to see that others the subsequent armed invasions and forays. In is Lodges voted. After the election, the Missourians returned the in Missouri, the affairs of Kansas were discussed, the force way they came. necessary to control the election was divided into bands, The election in the VIth District was held at Fort Scott, and leaders selected; means were collected, and signs and in the southeast part of the Territory, and near the Misbadges were agreed upon. While the great body of the souri line. A party of about one hundred men, from Cass actual settlers of the Territory were relying upon the and the counties in Missouri south of it, went into the rights secured to them by the organic law, and had formed Territory, traveling about 45 miles, most of them with no organization or combination whatever, this conspiracy their wagons and tents, and camping out. They appeared against their rights was gathering strengthinMissouri, and at the place of election. Some attempts were made to would have been sufficient at their first election to have swear them, but two of the judges were prevailed upon overpowered them, if they had been united to a man. not to do so, and none were sworn, and as many as chose Your Committee had great difficulty in eliciting the voted. There were but few resident voters at the polls. proof of the details in regard to this secret society. One The settlement was sparse-about 25 actual settlers voted witness, member of the legislative council, refused to out of 105 votes cast, leaving 80 illegal votes. After the answer questions in reference to it. Another declined to voting was over, the Missourians went to their wagons and answer fully, because to do so would result to his injury. commenced leaving for home. Others could or would only answer as to the general pur-The most shameless fraud practiced upon the rights of poses of the Society, but sufficient is disclosed in the the settlers at this election was in the VIIth District. It testimony to show the influence it had in controlling the is a remote settlement, about 75 miles from the Missouri elections in the Territory. line, and contained in February, A.D. 1855, three months The first election was for a Delegate to Congress. It was afterward, when the census was taken, but 53 voters, and appointed for the 29th of November, 1854. The Governor yet the pollbooks show that 604 votes were cast. The divided the Territory into seventeen Election-Districts; election was held at the house of Frey McGee, at a place appointed Judges and prescribed proper rules for the called “110.”

But few of the actual settlers were present election. In the Ist, IIId, VIIIth, IXth, Xth, XIIth, at the polls. A witness who formerly resided in Jackson XIIth, and XVIIth Districts there appears to have been County, Missouri, and was well acquainted with the citibut little if any fraudulent voting. zens of that county, says that he saw a great many wagons ‘Thle election in the IId District was held at the village and tents at the place of election, and many individuals of Douglas, nearly fifty miles from the Missouri line. On he knew from Jackson County. He was in their tents, and the day before the election, large companies of men conversed with some of them, and they told him they had came into the district in wagons and on horseback, and come with the intention of voting. He went to the polls declared that they were from the State of Missouri, and intending to vote for Flenniken, and his ticket being of a were going to Douglas to vote. On the morning of the different color from the rest, his vote was challenged by election, they gathered around the house where the elec-Frey McGee, who had been appointed one of the judges, tion was to be held. Two of the judges appointed by but did not serve. Lemuel Ralstone, a citizen of Missouri, the Governor did not appear, and other judges were was acting in his place. The witness then challenged the elected by the crowd. All then voted. In order to vote of a young man by the name of Nolan, whom he make a pretense of right to vote, some persons of the knew to reside in Jackson County. Finally, the thing was company kept a pretended register of squatter claims, hushed up, as the witness had a good many friends there on which any one could enter his name and then assert from that county, and it might lead to a fight if he chalhe had a claim in the Territory. A citizen of the district lenged any more votes. Both voted, and he then went who was himself a candidate for Delegate to Congress, down to their camp. He there saw many of his old ac was told by one of the strangers, that he would be quaintances, whom he knew had voted at the election in abused and probably killed if he challenged a vote. He August previous in Missouri, and who still resided in that was seized by the collar, called a d-d Abolitionist, and State. By a careful comparison of the poll-lists with the was compelled to seek protection in the room with the census-rolls, we find but 12 names on the pollbook who judges. About the time the polls were closed, these were voters when the census was taken three months strangers mounted their horses and got into their wagons afterward, and we are satisfied that not more than 20 legal and c ied out: votes could have been polled at that election. The only “All aboard for Westport and Kansas City.” A num-residents who are known to have voted are named by the bes were recognized as residents of Missouri, and witness, and are 13 in number-thus leaving 584 illegal asmiong them was Samuel H. Woodson, a leading lawyer votes cast in a remote district, where the settlers within of independence. Of those whose names are on the poll-many miles were acquainted with each other. bo,ks;:5 were resident settlers and 226 were not. Ttle total number of white inhabitants in the XIth Tile election in the IVth District was held at Dr. District, in the month of February, A.D. 1855, including

Page 94 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. mnen, women and children, was 86, of whom 24 were votersyet the poll-lists itn thlis District show that 245 votes were cast, at this election. For reasons stated her eafter in regarl to tie election on the 30th of Mal rch, your Cowenitice we e unable to procure the attenlalnce of witnesses fro. this D,str ict. From the records, it clearly appear. that tie votes cast could not have been by lawful resilent voters. Tle best test, in thie absence of direct proof, by wliich to ascertain the number of legal votes cast, is by a comparisou of the census-roll with the pollbook by whicl it appears that but 7
resident settlers voted, and 235 votes were illegally and fiaudulently cast. The election in the XIVth District was held at the house of Benjamtin Hariling, a fetv miles from the town of St. Joseph, Aissour i.

Before the polls were openedl, a large number of citiaens of Bchanan County, Missouri, arid among them n,any of the leading citizens of St.

Joseph, wer e at the pl;,ce of voting and made a majority of tihe company present. At the time appointed by the G ov ertior for opening tie polls, two of the Judges were i yot there, and it tecame the duty of the legal voters present to select otlher judges Thle judge wto was present*
suggested the nte of Mr. Waterson as one of the Judges -but the crowd voted down the proposition. Some dis cussion thei arose as to the right of nonresidents to vote or judges, during which Mr. Bryant was nominated and elected by the crowd. Some oie notnitiated Col. Joh n d Scott as the other judge, who was then and is nov a resident of St. Joseph. At that time, he was the City At toritey at that place, and so continued until this spring, I)but he clied that the night befor e he had’come to the house of Mr.

Bryant, and had engaged boarding for a nonth, ao d considere himself a resident of Kansas on that groutd.‘I’he j ulges appointed by the Gover nor f efuse(d to put the nom,it ation of Col. Scott to vote, because he was ot a resilent. &fter some discussion, Judge Leonatd, a citizen of Missouri, stepped forward and put the vote bhimaself; and. Scott was declared by him as electedl by tlhe crowd, atnd sered as a judge of election that lay.

After the election was over, he returned to St. Josepl, and tiever since has res&ided in the Territory. It is nitest that thi s election of a non-i esilent lawyer as a judige was imposed tipo:i the settlers by the citizens of tile State. Wle,- the board of judges was thus completed, the voti,g proeedled; but the effect of the rule adopted by tile judges allowed many, if not a majority of the nresients, to vote. Ti,ey clatimed that their pyesence on the grouond, especially when they nad a eaitc?n in tlhe Territory, gave t,lem a ri glet to vote-under that construction of t he law, they teadily, when required, swore they were’ ieidents,” and thlen voted. By this evasion as nearly as your Comimittee can ascertain from the testimony, as utaity tis 5) illegal votes were cast in this District out Of 153, the whole nuosbe-polled. T’h e electio r in the XVt. h District was Fhell at Penseman’s, ou Stranger Creek, a few miles from Weston, MIissouri. On the day of the election, a large number of citizenls of Platte County, but chiefly from,, Weston an,. Plate Cit y, ae in smell patrties, in wawRas ahd t b o n horseback, to the polls. Aimongo th em were several e iJgg citizens of that to wn, and tie rames of nlaly of tie are given by the witnesses. They gener a ly insisted i upon their right to vote, on the ground that every ma., having a claim in the Territory could vote, I3 at er where he lived. All voted who claose. No tu?~n w,i cjhallengedl or sworn. Sone of tihe residents did nor vo,c. Ttle purpose of the strangers in voting was declared io bc to make Kansas a Slave State. We find by the I,(}11-,o.4s that 3,)6 votes were cast-of these we find but, 5] a e, i the census-rolls as legal voters in February followi,,g. Your Coamm“‘ittee is satisfied from tim test imouv illat no; over 100 of those wlo votedl had any riglht so to do, le,v ing.t least 2: 6 illegal votes cast. The election in tle XVIth District -as held( ait L,eaven worth. It was tllen a small vill,e of three or four houses, located on the Delawa-e lR,eserevation. The1re were but comparatively few settlers t}len, in the district, but thre number rapidly increased a,fterward. On the day before and, on the lay of the election, a great many citizens of Platte, Clay and Ra.y counties crossed thre river-most of them camping in tents and wagons about the town, ” like a camnp-m,,eetin2g.” Tlhey were in comnpanlies or messes of ten to fifteen in each, a<nd niuml,bered in all several hundred. The ybrouglht t weir ow provision and cooked it thlemselves, and we-e generally arme(l. Many of tihem,i were known by the witnesses, and their names given, andl their nam,es are found upon the pollbooks. Am.ong themi, were several p1esons of influence where they resideld in Missouri, who hclhl, or h1adl held, high official p)ositionIs in that State. rIhey claiined to be residents of. the Territory, from thle fact that tiey were then present, and insisted upon the r iglht to vote, and did vote. Their avowed purpose in doing so was to mlake Kan.sas a Sla ve State. Tli.,se strangers crowded ar-ound tlhe polls, and it was with great difficulty that the settlers coul,l get to tlhe polls. One residlenlt al.temnlted to get to the polls in the afternoon, but was c rowded and pulled back. He then went outside of the crowd and hui-rahe(l for Gen. Whlitfield, and some of those who didl not knowv him.l said,’ that’s at good Pio-Slaver-y man,” and lifte,l hlimn over tlleir heads so that he cra.wled( on tlieir leads and lput in ],is vote. A person who sa,, fro tlhe color of h1is ticket that it was not f,,r Gert. WhIitfiel(l, criet out, “ie is t la damned Abolitio(nist let hlim down;”.tnd they tIrol-cP eal-> him.l Others were passed to the lls in tl,e sam,e way, and others crowded up in thle lbest way thley coulh. After this m.ockely of ani election s over, tl,e nonresidents returned to tlheir-hloml,es in Missouri. Of the 312 votes cast, not over 150 were by legal v)ters. The following abstract exlhibits the whole n.umber (,f votes at this election, for each candidate; thle nufber of legal and illegal votes cast in each district; a id the number of legal votes in each district in February fo lowing: ABSTRACT OF CENSUS AND ELECTION NOV. 29, 1854. I o V-9 C;V 369 199 10! 4T 442 253 53 39 36 63 24 78 96 834 3O)8 385 5.} 4t it i 51 1 a - 7 — 1.5 7 - 29 — 3 c5 - 1 1 1 5 23 - 39 - so - 13 - 8i)5 1‘21

PLACE OF VOTING. vd v~ a S 400 63‘3 32 4 ct 7 -I 80) -3 47~ 1 62 25 80 “0

5147 16 l  40 l  37 28 41l — 71 - 108S 5, 10(} 2{~6 1:,0 l16-2 62 i-_
lll1 1729 Lawrence………………………….

Douglas……………………………

Stinson’s…………………………. Dr.

Chapman’s……………………. I-I.

Shlermnanl’s…………………….. Fort Scott……………………….. “116”……………………………

Coun.cil Grove…………………….

Iteynold’s……………………….. Big B;ue Cross…………………… Martysville………………………..

War-toh’s Store…………………….

Osawkie…………………………. Ifardi ng’s……………………….. Pensen…………………………

Leavenwvorth…………………….. Shawvnee Ageticy…………………. Totl………………..26 249ya Blardin271

- 1 12 * Benjamin Harding. i i I I I I I 94 .4 A 300 261 47 161 82 106 604

16 4-1 37 245 41 71 1.53 306 312 62 28 2871 I 11 III IV I’ VI vil Vill ix x XI XI[ xiii xiv xv xvi xvii xviii I 46 235 4;) 140 63 1 (j5 597 1 6 1 9

2 2.‘37 81 69 130 267 2’i 2 49 2268 iss 2i) 21 4 6 9 1 249 1

Tota,l……………….. ……

Page 95 view page image

THIE KANSAS-NEBRASKA STRUGGLE. by Colonel Young and others, calling for volunteers to go to other districts where there were not Missourians enough to control the election, as the re were more a t Lawr ence than were needed there. Many vo lunte er ed to g o, and the m orning of the election several companies, from 150 to 200 men each, went off t o T
ecumseh, Hickory Point, Bloomington, a nd other plac es. O n th e morn ing of the election, the Missourians cam e over to the place of voting from their camp, in b o die s of one h undre d at a time. Mr. Blant on not appearing, ano ther judge was appointed in his place-Colonel Young claiming that, as the people of the Territory had two judges, it wa s not hing more than right that the Missourian s should have the other one, to look after their interests; and Robert E. Cnummins was elect ed in Blanton’s stead, b e caus e he consi dered tha t every man had a right to vote if he h ad been in the Terri tor y but an hour. T he Mi ss ourians brought their tickets with t he m; b ut, not having enough, they had three hun dred more printed in Lawrence on the evening be fore and the day of election. They had white ribbons in their but tonholes to distinguish the mse l ves f rom t he settlers. When the voting commenced, the question of the legality of the vote of a Mr. Page was raised. Before it was de cided, Colonel Samuel Young ste ppe d up to the windo w where the votes were received, an ad said he wou ld settle the matt er. The voe of Mr. Page was withdra wn, and Colone l Young offere d to vote. I - e refused to take the oath prescribed by the Governor, but swore he was a resi dent of the Territory, upon which his vote was received He t old Mr. Abbott, one of th, judges, when as ke d if he intended to make Kansas his s future home, that it was none of his business; that if he were a resident then he should ask no more. After his vote was received, Colonel Young got up in the window-sill and announced to the crowd that he had been permitted t o vote, and they could all come up and vote. le told the judges that there was no use in swearing the oth ers, as they woul, all swear as he had done. After the other judges concluded to receive Colone l Young’s vote Mr. Abbott resigned as judge of election, and Mr. Benjcnm int was elected in hdis place. The polls were so much crowded until late in the e ven i ng, that, for a time, w he n th e men lhad voted, they were obliged to ge t out by being hoisted up on the roof of the building where the el ection was be ing held, a nd pass out over the h ouse. Afterward, a passage-way tlroul sh the crowd wa s m a d e, by two lines of men being f ormed, t hrough which the vot ers c ould get up to the polls. Colonel Young asked that the old men b e a llowe d to go up firs t and vote, as they were tired wi th th e tr aveling, and wanted to get back to camp. The Missourian s sometimes came up to the polls in pro cession, two by two, and vote d. During the day, the Missourians dr ove of f the ground some of the citizens, r. Steens, Mr. Bond, and Mr. Willis. They threatened to shoot Mr. Bond, and a crowd rushed h after hi m, threatening him; and, as he ran fro m them, some shots we fre fired t him a s he jumped off the bank of the river and mae i this esc ape. Th e citizens o f the town went over in a body, late in the afternoon, when the polls had become comparatively clear, and voted… The whole numbei’ of names appearing upon the poll lists is 1,034. After full examiation, we ae satisfied that n ot o ver 2C2 of the se were lega l voters, and 802 we!ie nonresident and illegal vote rs. This District is strongly in favor of making Kansas a Free State, and the; e is no doubt that the FreeState candidates for the legislature would have been elected by lar-ge majorities, if none but the actual settlers lhad voted. At the preced ing election in Novem,iber, 1854, where none but legal voters were polled, Gelle al Whlitfield, who received the full strength of the ProSlavery party, got but 46 votes. IID

JDISTR ICT-BLOOMINGTO N. On the morning of election, the judges appointed by the Governor appea,e( and opened the lpolls. Their names were llai,lison Burson, Nathaniel Ramsay, and M’. Ellison TIhe Missourians began to come in early in the morning, some 500 or 600 of tlhem, in wagons and car.riages, and on horseback, under the lead of Samuel J. ,Jones, then Postmaster of Westport, Mlissouri, Claiborne F. Jackson, and Air Steely, of Independence, Missouri. They we re armed with double-btarreled guns, rifles, bowieknives, and pistols, and held flags3 hoisted. They [held a sort of info~rmal elect’,on, off at one side, at first [for Governor of Kansas, anld shor tly afterward announced’ Thomas Johlnson, of Shawnee Mission, elected Governor. Thle polls had been opened but a short time, when Mr. XJones marched with the crow d up to the window, and tdemanded that they should be allowed to sote without swearing as to thei?

residence. After some noisy and threatening talk, Claiborne F. Jackson addressed the crowd, saying they h1ad comne there to wrote, tha~t they had a right to vote if they hadl been thlere but five minutes, Thus your Committee find that il this, the first election in the Territory, a very large majority of the votes were cast by citizens of the State of Missouri, in violation of the t organic law of th e Territory. Of the legal votes cast, Gen. Wlitfield received a plurality. Tlte settlers t ook but little interest in the election, not onehalf of them roting. This may be accounted for, from the fact that the settlements were scattered over a great extent-t heat the term of the Delegate to be elected was short-and that the question of Free and Slave institutions was not ge nerally regarded by them as distinctly at issue. Under these circumstar,ces, a systematic inva si on from an adjoining State, by which large numbers of illegal votes were cast in remote and sparse sett lements for tl.e avowed purpose of extending Slavery into the Terr itory, even though it did not change tihe result of the election, was a crime of great magnitude. Its immediate effect was to further excite the people of the Northern Statesinduce acts of retaliation, and exasperate the actual settiers against their neighbors in Missouri. In January and February, A.D. 1855, the Governor caused an enumeration to be taken of the inhabitants and qualified voters in the Territory, an abstract of which is here given: Total population…………………….. 8501 Total voters……………………. 2905 Natives of the United States…………… 7161 Of foreign birth……………………. 409

Slaves……………………………. 242 Free negroes………………………. 151 On the s ame da y th e c en s us was completed, the Governor issue d h is pr oclamation for an election to be held on the 30th of March A.D. 1S55, for members of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory. It prescribed the boundaries of districts, the places for polls, the names of judges, the appointment of membelts, and recited the qualification of voters. If it had been observed, a just and fair election would have reflected the will of the people of the Territory. Before the election, false and inflammatory rumors were busily circulated among the people of Western Missouri. The number and character of the emigration then passing into the Territory were grossly exaggerated and misrepresented. Through the active exertions of many of its leading citizens, aided by the secret societies before referred to, the passions and prejudices of the people of that State were greatly excited. Several residents there have testified to the character of the reports circulated among and credited by the people. These efforts were successful. By an organized movement, which extended from Andrew County in the north to Jasper County in the south, and as far eastward as Boone and Cole counties, companies of men were arranged in regular parties and sent into every council district in the Territory, aclid into every representative district but one. The numbers were so distributed as to control the election in each district. They went to vote, and with the avowed design to make Kansas a Slave State. They were generally armed and equipped, carried with them their own provisions and tents, and so marched into the Territory. The details of this invasion from the mass of the testimony taken by your committee are so voluminous that we can here state but the leading facts elicited. IST DISTRICT-MARCH 30, l$55.-LAWRE-.CE. The company of persons who marched into this district collected in Ray, Howard, Carroll, Boone, La Fayette, Randolph, Saline, and Cass counties, in the State of Missouri. Their expenses were paid-those who could not come contributing provisions, wagons, etc. Provisions wer-e deposited for those who were expected to come to Lawrence, in the house of WIilliam Lykins, and were distributed among the Missourians after they arrived there. The evening before and the morning of the day of election, about 1000 men from the above counties arrived at Lawrence, and encamped in a ravine a short distance from town, near the place of voting. They came in wagons-of which there were over one hundred-and on horseback, under the command of Colonel Samuel Young, of Boone County, Missouri, and Claiborne F. Jackson, of Missouri. They were armed with guns, rifles, pistols, and bowieknives, and had tents, music, and flags with them. They brought with them two pieces of artillery, loaded with musket-balls. On their way to Lawrence, some of them met M~r. N. B. Blanton, who had been appointed one of the judges of election by Governor Reeder; and, after learning fr’om him that he considered it his duty to demand an oath from them as to their place of residence, first attempted to bribe, and then threatened him with hanging, in order to induce him to dispense with that oath. In consequence of these threats, he did not appear at the polls the next morning to act as judge. The evening before the election, while in camp, the Missourians were called togfether at the tent of Captain Claiborne B. Jackson,t and speeches were made to them .95

Page 96 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. and he was not willing to go home without voting; this was received with cheers. Jackson then called upon them to form into little bands of fifteen or twenty, which they did, and went to an ox-wagon filled with guns, which were distributed among themn, and proceeded to load some of them on the ground. In pursuance of Jackson’s request, they tied white tape or ribbons in dheir buttonholes, so as to distinguish them from the “‘Abolitionists.” They again demanded that the Judges should resign, and upon their refusing to do so, smashed in the window, sash and all, and presented their pistols and guns to them, threatening to shoot them. Some one on the outside cried out to them not to shoot, as there were ProSlavery men in the room with the judges. They then put a pry under the corner of the house, which was a log house, and lifted it up a few inches and let it fall again, but desisted upon being told there were Pro Slavery men in the house. During this time, the crowd repeatedly demanded to be allowed to vote without being sworn, and Mr.

Ellison, one of the judges, expressed him self willing, but the other two judges refused; thereupon a body-of men, headed by ” Sheriff Jories,”

rushed into the judges’ room with cocked pistols and drawn bowie knives in their hands, and approached Bucson and Ram say. Jones pulled out his watch, an d said h e w ould give them five minutes to resign in, or die.

When the five minutes had expired and the judges did cot resign, Jones said he would give them another minute, and no more. Ellison told his associates that if they did rot resign, there would be one hundred shots fired in the room in less than fifteen minutes; and then, sna.tching up the ballotbox, ran out into the crowd, holding up the ballotbox and hurrahling for M issouri. About that time Buison, and Ramsay were called out by their friends, and not suffered to return. As Mr. Burson went out, he put the ballot pollbooks in his pocket, and took them with him; and as he was going out, Jones snatched s o me paper s away from him, and shortly afterward came out himself holding them up, crying” Hu r rah tor lMi-,ui!”

After hie discov ered they were not the pollbooks, he took a party of men with himn and started off to take the pollbooks from Bur son. Mr. Burson saw them coming, and he gave the books to Mr. Umberger, and told him to start off in another direction, so as to miislead Jones and his party.

-Jones and’ his party caught Mr. Umberget-, took the poll hooks away from him. and Jones tooli him up behind him on a hose, and carried him back a prisoner. Afte-r Jones and his party had taken Umberger back, they went to the house of Mr. Ramsay and took.ludge John A. Wakefield prisoner, and carried him to the place of election, and iiade him get up on a wagon and make them a speech; after which they put a white ribbon in his buttonhole and let him go. They then chose two new judges, and proceeded with the election. They also threatened to kill the judges if they lid not receive their votes without swearing them, or else resign. They said no man should vote wh o would su b en,i t h to be sworn-that they would kill any one that would offer to do so-” shoot him,” ” cut his guts out,” etc.‘hey said no man should vote this day unless he voted an open ticket, and was “all right on the goose,” and that if they could not vote by fair means, they would by foul means. They said they had as much right to vo te, if they had been in the Territory two minutes, as if thcey had been there for two years, and they would vote. Some of the citizens who were about the window, but had not voted when the crowd of Missourians marchlied up there, upon attempting to vote, were driven back by the iob, or driven off. One of them, Mir. J. MI. Macey, was asked if he would take the oath, and upon his replying that he would if the judges required it, he was dragged through the crowd away from the polls, amid cries of ” Kill the d-d nigger-thief,” “Cut his throat,” ” Tear his heart out,” etc. After they had got him to the outside of the crowd, they stood around him with cocked revolvers and drawn bowieknives, one man putting a knife to his heart so that it touched h im, another holding a cocked pistol to his ear, while another struck at him with a club. The Missourians said they had a right to vote if they had been in the Territory but five minu tes. So me said they had been hired to come there and vote, and get a dollar a day, and, by G-d, they would vote or die there. They said the goth day of March was an important day, as Kansas would be made a Slave State on that day.

They began to leave in the directio n of Missouri in the afternoon, after they had voted, leaving some thirty or forty aiound the house where the election was held, to guard the polls until after the election was over.

The citizens of the Territory were not around, except those who took part in the mob, and a la,ge portion of - them did not vote: 341 votes were polled there that day, of which but some thirty were citizens. A protest against the election was made to the Governor. The: returns of the election made to the Governor wrere lot by the Com mit t ee of Elections of the Legislat ure at Panv nee. The duplicate returns left in the ballotbox,ere taken by F. E. Laley, one of the judges elected by the Missourians, and were either lost o r destroyed in h s house, so that your Committee have b een unalle to insti tute a comparison between the poll-l;sts a nd census returns of this district. The t estimony, howeve r, is uni form, that not even thirty o tht hose who voted there that day were entitled to vote, leaving 811 illegal votes. Wae are s atisfied from the testimony that, had the actual set. tlers alone voted, the FreeState candidates would have been elected by a handsome majority. IIID

DISTRICT-TEcuMs?X}. For some days prior to the election, companies of men were organized in Jackson, Cass, and Clay counties, Mo., for the purpose of coming to the Territory and voting in this Vth district. T he day previou s to t he election, some 400 or 500 Missourians, armed with gunt d pistols, and knives, came into the Territory and camped, some at Bull Creek, and others at Potawatarie Creek. Their camps were about sixteen miles apart. On the evening before the election, Judge Hamilton of the Cass County Court, Mo.. came from the Pottwatamie C eek camp to Bull Creek for sixty more Missourians, as they had not enough there to render the election certain, and about that number went down there with him. On the evening before the election, Dr. B. C. Westfall was elect ed to act as one of the Judges of Election in the Bull Creek precinct, in place of one of the judges appointed by the Governor, who, it was said, would not be there the next day. Dr. Westfall was at that time a citizen of Jackson County, Mo. On the morning of the election, the polls for Bull Creek precinct were opened, and, with out swearing the judges, they proceeded to receive the votes of all who offered to vote. For the sake of appear ance, they would get some one to come to the window and offer to vote, and when asked to be sworn he would pretend to grow angry at the judges and would go away, and his name would be put down as having offered to vote, but “rejected, refusing to be sworn.“‘This arrangement was made previously and perfectly under stood by the judges. But few of the residents of the district were present at the election, and only thirteen voted. The number of votes cast in the precinct was 893. One Missourian voted for himself and then voted for his little son, but 10 or 11 years old. Col. Coffer, Henry Younger and Mr. Lykins, who were voted for and elect ed to the Legislature, were residents of Missouri at the time. Col. Coffer subsequently married in the Territory. After the polls were closed, the returns were made, and a man, claiming to be a magistrate, certified on them that he had sworn the judges of election before opening the polls. In the Potawatamie precinct, the Missourians attended the election, and after threatening Mr. Ches nut, the only judge present appointed by the Governor, to induce him to resign, they proceeded to elect two other judges-one a Missourian and the other a resident of another precinct of that district. The polls were then opened, and all the Missourians were allowed to vote without being swor,n. After the polls were closed, and the returns made out for the signature of the judges, Mr. Chesnut refused to sign them, as he did not consider then correct returns of legal voters. Col. Cotfer, a resident of Missouri, but elected to the Kansas Legislature from that district at that election, en deavored with othe;s to induce Mr. Chesnut by threats to sign the returns, which he refused to do, and left the house. On his. way homlie, hie was fired at by some Mis sourians, though not injured. There were three illegal to one legal vote given there that day. At the Big Layer precinct, the judges appointed by the Governor met at the time appointed], and proceeded to open the polls, after being duly swo:‘n. After a few votes had been received, a party of AIsssourians came into the yard of the house where the election was held, and, unloading a wagon filled with arm,ts, stacked their gins in the ya d, and came up to the window and demanded to be admintted to vote. Two of the judges decided to receive their votes, whereupon the third judge, Mr. J. M. Arthur, resignled, and another was chosen in his place. Col. Young, a citizen of Missouri, but a candidate for, and elected to, the Territorial Legislative Council, was plesent and voted in the precinct. Ate claimed that all Missourians who were present on thle day of election were entitled to vote. But thirty or forty of the citizens of the precinct were present, and many of them did riot vote. At the Little Sugar precinct, the election seemed to have been conducted fairly, and there a FreeState majority was polled. From the testimony, the whole district appears to have been largely Free-S3tate, andl, 96 Irl

Page 97 view page image

KANSAS-NEBRASKA STRUGGLE. had none but actual settlers voted, the FreeState candidates would have been elected by a large majority. From a careful examination of the testimony and the records, we find that from 200 to 225 legal votes were polled out of 885, the total number given in the precincts of the Vth District. Of the legal votes cast, the Free State candidates received 152. VITH DISTRICT-FORT SCOTT. A company of citizens from Missouri, mostly from Bates County, came into this District the day before the election, some camping and others putting up at the public-house. They numbered fiom 100 to 200, and came in wagons and on horseback, carrying their provisions and tents with them, and were generally armed with pis tols. They declared their purpose to vote, and claimed the right to do so. They went to the polls generally in small bodies, with tickets in their hands, and many, if not all, voted. In some cases, they declared that they had voted, and gave their reasons for so doing. Mr. Anderson, a ProSlavery candidate for the Legislature, endeavored to dissuade the nonresidents from voting, because he did not wish the election contested. This person, however, insisted upon voting, and upon his right to vote, and did so. No one was challenged or sworn, and all voted who desired to. Out of 350 votes cast, not over 100 were legal, and but 64 of these named in the census taken one month before by Mr. Barber, the candidate for Council, vote d. Many of the FreeState men did not vote, but your Committee is sat isfied that, of the legal votes cast, the ProSlavery candi dates received a majority r.Mr. Anderson, one of these candidates, was an unmarried man, who came into the District from Miss our i a few days before the elec tion, a n d boarded at the public-house until the day after the election. H e then took with him the poll-l ists, and did not return to Fort Scott until the occasion of a barbacue the week before the electio n of Octobe r 1, 1855. IHe voted at that elec tion, an d after it left, and has not since been in the District. S. A. Williams, the other Pro Slavery candidate, ati the time of the election had a claim in the Territory, but his legal residence was no t there until after the election. VIITH DISTRICT. From two to three hundred men, from the State of Missouri, came in wagons or on horseback, to the elec tion ground at Switzer’s Creek, in the VIIth District, and encamped near the polls, on the day preceding the election. They were armed with pistols and other wea po11ns, and declared their purpose to vote, in order to se cure the election of ProSlavery members. They said they were disappointed in not finding more Yankees there, and that they had brought more men than were necessary to counterbalance their vote. A number of th’em wore badges of blue ribbon, with a motto, and the company were under the direction of leaders. They de clared their intention to conduct themselves peacefully unless the residents of the Territory attempted to stop them from voting. Two of the judges of election appointed by Governor Reeder refused to serve, where upon two others were appointed in their stead by the crowd of Missourians who surrounded the polls.- The newly-appointed judges refused to take the oath prescribed by Governor Reeder, but made one to suit themselves. Andrew Johnson requested each voter to swear if he had a claim in the Territory, and if he had voted in another district. The judges did not take the oath prescribed, but were sworn to receive all legal votes. The Missourians voted without being sworn. They supported H. J. Stickler for Council, and M. W. McGee for Representative. They left the evening of the election. Some of them started on horseback for Lawrence, as they said they could be there before night, and all went the way they came. The census-list shows 53 legal voters in the District. 253 votes were cast; of these 25 were residents, 17 of whom were in the District when the census was taken. Some of the residents present at the polls did not vote, declaring it useless.

Candidates declined to run on the FreeState ticket because they were unwilling to run the risk of so unequal a contest-it being known that a great many were coming up from Mlissouri to vote. Nearly all the settlers were FreeState men, and 23 of the 25 legal votes given were cast for the only FreeState candidate running. Mobillet McGee, who was declared elected Representative, had a claim-a~ saw-mill and a house in the Territory and he was there part of the time. But his legal residence is now, and was then, near Westport, in Missouri, where he owns and n~onducts a valuable farm, and where his family resides. ~fIIITH DISTRICT. This was attached to the VIIth District for member of 7 the Council and a Representative, and its vote was con trolled by t he illegal v o te cast there. T he cen sus shows 89 votes in it-8T vote s were cast, of whom a majority voted the FreeState ticket. IXTH DISTRICT. Fort Riley a nd P a wn ee are in this District. The Iat ter place was selected by the Govern or a s the te mpo - rary capital, and he desi gned there to expend the sums appro priate d by Con gress in th e c ons truction of suitabie houses f or the Legislature. A good de al of build ing wat s then being done at the fort near by. For these reason s, a number of mechan ics, mostly from Penns ylvania, c ame into this district in March, 18f5, to seek employment. Some of these voted at the election. Th e con struct ion of the capital was first postponed, the c ita w i ed en aband oned, and finally the site of the town was declar ed by the Secre tary of War to be within the military res ervation of Fort Riley. Some of the inhabitants re turned to the States, and some went to othe r part s of the Territory.

Your Committee find that the y c ame as settlers, int end ing to remain as such, and were entitled to vote. XTtr DISTRICT. In this district, ten persons belonging to the Wyandot t ribe of Indians voted. They wer e of that class who under the law were entitled to vote; but their residence was in Wyandot Village, at the miouth of Kansas River, and they had no right to vote in this d i strict. The y voted the Pro -Slavery ticket.

Eleven m en recently from Pennsylvania voted the FreeState Ticket. From the t estimony, they had not, at the time of the election, so established their residence a s to have entitled the m to vote. In both t hese classes of cases, the judges exam ined the voters und e r oat h and a llowed them to vote. and in all respects the election seems to have bee n con ducted fairly. The reject ion of bot h w ould not have change d t he r esult.

This a nd tlhe VIIIth Election District formed one re presen tative d istri ct, a nd was the only one to which t he invasion fro m Mi ssouri did no t extend. XITir DISTRICT. The IXth, Xth, Xlth and XIIth Election Districts, being all s parse ly se ttled, were attached together as aD

Council District, a nd the Xlth and XIIth as a Repre sentative Districth This Election Distr ict is 60 miles north f rom Paw nee, and 150 m iles f rom Kan sas City. It is th e northwest settlement i n the Territory, and contained, when t he census w as take n, but 36 inhabitants, of whoum 24
were voters. There was on the day of electio n no wh ite s e ttlement about Marysville, the place of voting, for 40 miles, except that Marshall and Bishop kept a store and ferry at t he crossing of the Big Blue an d th e California re ad. Your Committee we re u nable to pro cure witn e sse s from this district. Persons who were pre sen t a t th e election w ere du ly summoned by an officer, and among them was F. J. M ar shal l, the member of the HIous e from that district. On his return, the officer was arrested and detained, and persons bearing the names of some of the witnes ses summoned were stopped nea r Lecompton, and did not appear before the Committee. The returns show that, in defiance of the Governor’s proclamation, the voting was tivao Voce, instead of by ballot. 328 names appear upon the pollbooks as voting, and by comparing these names with those on the census rolls, we find that but seven of the latter voted. The person voted for as Representative, F. J. Marshall, was chief owner of the store at Marysville, and was there sometimes, but his family lived in Westoe. John Don aldson, the candidate voted for the Council, then lived in Jackson County, Missouri. On the day after the election, Mr. Marshall, with 25 or 80 man from Weston, Mo., was on the way from Marys ville to the State. Some of the party told a witness who had formerly resided at Weston, that they were up at Marysville and carried the day for Missouri, and that they had voted about 150 votes. Mr. Marshall paid the bill at that point for the party. There does not appear to have been any emigration into that district in March, 1855, after the census was taken, and, judging from the best test in the power of your Committee, there were but seven legal votes cast in ;the district, and 821 illegal. w ~~~~~XIITHt DISTRICT. The election in this district was conducted fairly.

No complaint was mnade that illegal votes were cast. 3 ~~~~XIIITH

DISTRICT. 1Previous to the day of election, several hundreds of Missourians from Platte, Clay, Boone, Clinton, and How ard counties, came into the district in wagons and on horseback, and camped there. T~hey were armed withl guns, revolvrers, and bowie-knlives, and had badges of V,3 t ar h t i t I 97

Page 98 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. hemp in their buttonholes and elsewhere about their persons. They claimed to have a right to vote, from the fact that they were there on the ground, and had, or intended to make, claims in the Territory, although their families were in Missouri. The judges appointed by the Governor opened the polls, and some persons offered to vote, and when their votes were rejected on the ground that they were not residents of the district, the crowd threatened to tear the house down if the judges did not leave. The judges then withdrew, taking the pollbooks with them. The crowd then proceeded to select other persons to act as judges, and the election went on. Those persons voting who were sworn were asked if they considered themselves residents of the district, and if they said they did, they were allowed to vote. But few of the residents were present and voted, and the FreeState men, as a general thing, did not vote. After the Missourians got through voting, they returned home. A formal return was made by the judges of election setting out the facts, but it was not verified. The number of legal voters in this district was 96, of whom a majority were FreeState men. Of these - voted. The total number of votes cast was 296. XIVTH DISTRICT. It was generally rumored in this district, for some days before the election, that the Missourians were coming over to vote. Previous to the election, men from Missouri came into the district, and electioneered for the ProSlavery candidates. Gen.

David R. Atchison and a party controlled the nominations in one of the primary elections. BURR OAK PRECINCT. Several hundred Missourians from Buchanan, Platte, and Andrew counties, Mo., including a great many of the prominent citizens of St. Joseph, came into this preinct the day before, and on the day of election, in wagons and on horses, and encamped there.

Arrangements were made for them to cross the ferry at St. Joseph fre e of expense to themselves. They were armed with bowieknives and pistols, guns and rifles. On the morning of the election, the FreeState candidates resigned in a body, on account of the presence of the large number of armed Missourians, at which the crowd cheered and hurrahlied. Gen. B. F.

Stringfellow was present, and was prominent in promoting the election of the ProSlavery ticket, as was also the Hon. Willard P. Hall, and other M
of the most prominent citizens of St. Joseph, Mo. But one of the judges of election, appointed by the Governor, served on that day, and the crowd chose two others to supply the vacancies. The Missourians said they came there to vote for, and s ecu re the election of, Major Wm. P. Richardson.

Major Richardson, elected to the Council, had a farm in Missouri, where his wife and daughter lived with his sonin-law, Willard P. Hall, he himself generally going home to Missouri every Saturday night. The farm was gene rally known as the Richardson farm. He had a claim in the Territory, upon which was a saw-mill, and where he gene,-ally remained during the week. Some of the Missourians gave as their reason for voting that they had heard that eastern emigrants were to be at that election, though no eastern emigrants were the,‘e. Others said they were going to vote for the purpose of making Kansas a Slave State. Some claimed that they had a right to vote, under the provisions of the KansasNebraska bill, from the fact that they we,‘e present on the ground on the day of election. The F,eeState men generally did not vote, and those who did vote, voted generally fc,, John H. White head, ProSlavery, for Council, against Major Wm. P. Richar’dson, and did not vote at all for members of the Lower Hlouse. The parties were pretty nearly equally divided in the district, some being of opinion that the FreeState party had a small majority, and others that the Pro 8lavery party had a small majority.

After the election was over and the polls were closed, the Missourians re turned home. During the day, they had provisions and liquor served out, free of expense, to all. DONIPHAAN PRF;CINCT. The evening before the election, some 200 or more Missourians from Platte, Buchanan, Saline, and Clay counties, Mlissouri, came into this precinct, with tents music, wagons, and provisions, and armed with guns rifles, pistols, and bowieknives, and encamped about two miles from the place of voting They said they came to vote, to make Kansas a Slave State, and intended to return to Missouri after they had voted On the morning of the election, the Judges appointed by the Governor would not se:‘ve, and others were appointed by the crowd. The Missourians were allowed~~ to vote without being sworn-oome of them voting as many as eight or nine times; changing their hats and coats, and giving in different names each time. After they had voted, they returned to Missouri. The FreeState men generally did not vote, though constituting a majority in the precinct. Upon counting the ballots in the box and the names on the poll-lists, it was found that there were too many ballots, and one of the judges of election took out ballots enough to make the two numbers correspond. WOLF RIVER PRECINCT.

The number of voters in the district by the cens us was 334 of these 124
voted. The testimony shows that quite a number of p ersons whose legal res idence was in the populous county of Buchanan, Mo., on the opposite si d e of the river, had claims in the Territory. Some r anged cattle, and others marked out their claim and w bui lt a cabin, and sol d this incipient titl e where they could. Th ey were not residents of the Territo ry in an y just o r legal sense. A number of settlers moved into the district in the month of March. Your Committee are satisfied, after a careful analysis of the r ecords and testimony, that the n umb er of l egal v otes c ast did not exceed 20a out of 727. XVTH DISTRICT. The election in this disdit ric t was held in the house of s Mr. Hayes. On the day of electi on, a crowd of from 400 to h00 men collected around t he polls, of whicuh sle great body were citizens of Missouri. One of the judge s of election, in his testimony, states a that the strangers comcmeeed crowd i ng around th e polls, and that then the residents left. Threats were made before and during the election day tha t th ere shou ld be no FreeState candidates, although there were nearly or quite as many FreeState as ProSlavery men resident in the district. Most of the crowd were drinking and carousing, cursing the Abolitionists and threatening the only FreeState judge of election. A majority of those who voted wore hemp in their buttonholes, and their password was, ” all right on the hemp.” Many of the Missourians were known and are naned by the witnesses. Several sp eeches were made by th em at th e p olls, and among those who spoke were Major Oliver, on e of your Com mittee, Col. Burns, and Lalan Williams, of Platte County. Major Oliver urge d upon all present to use no harsh words, and expressed the ho pe t hat nothing would be said or don e to harm i the feelings of the most sensitive on the o ther side. He gave some gro u nds, based on the Missouri CompromPise, in regard to t he right of voting, and was understood to excuse the Missourians for voting. Your Committee are satisfied th at he did not vote. Col. Burns reconmended all to vote, and he hoped none would go home without voting. Some of the Pro Slavery residents were much dissatisfied at the inter f erence with the ir rights by the Missourians, and for that reason-because reflection convinced them that it would be better to have Kansas a FreeState-they ” fell over the fence.” The judges reque sted t he v ote rs t o take an oath that they were actual residents. Thev o bjected at first, some saying they had a claim, or ” I am here.” But the FreeState judge insisted upon the oath, and his associates, who at first were disposed to waive it, coin cided with llim, and the voters all took it after some grumbling. One said he cut him some poles and laid themn in the shape of a square, and that made him a claim; and another said that he had cut him a few sticks of flood, and that made him a claim. The FreeState men did not vote, although they believed their numbers to be equal to the ProSlavery settlers, and some claimed that they had the majority. They were deterred by threats throughout by the Missourians, before and on the day of election, from putting up candidates, and no candidates were run, for this reason-that there was a credited rumor previously that the Missourians would control the election. The Free-,tate judg,e was threatened with ex pulsion fi’om the polls, and a young man thrust a pistol into the window through which the votes were received. The whole inuimber of votes cast was 41;, of the names on the pollbook, but 62 are in the census-rolls, and the testimony shows that a small portion, estimated by one witness at one-quarter of the legal voters, voted. Your Committee estimate the number of legal voters at 80. One of the judges referred to, certified to the Governor ‘ that the election was fairly conducted. It was not con tested, because no one would take the responsibility of doing it, as it was not considered safe, and that if another election was held, the residents would fare no, bettern.

XVITH DISTRICT. Fort sane tim-ne p,‘evi,,ts to the election, meetings were l I fel nd arra n gements made il Mi-isourl to get up Od in 98

Page 99 view page image

TIlE KANSAS-NEBRA.SKA STRUGGLE, panies to come over to the Territory and votc, and the day before, and on the day of election, large bodies of NMissourians fomn Platte, Clay, Ray, Clharlton, Carrol, Clinton, andl Saline counties, Missouri, came into tlDis district and camped there.

They were armedl with pistolP; P and bowieknives, and some with guns and rifles, all had badges of theiip in their buttonholes ad elsewhere about tleir persons. On the morning of the election, there were from 1,0~0 to 1,4()0 pr-sons present on the ground. Previous to the c’ection, ihe Mlissourians endeavored to persuade the two FreeState jlidges to resign by making threats of personal violence to tlemn, one of whom -esigued OiI the iiorning of election, ai(l the crowd chose a nother to fill his place.

But one of the judges, the Fi-ee-State judge, woull take the oath pr esci ibed by the Govei noi, the other two deciding that they had 1no right to swear any one who off,ered t) vote, but that all on the ground were entitled to vote. The only votes refused were some Delaware Indians, some S0 Wyandot Indians being allowved to vote.. c - ‘the FreeState men generally did not vote at that election; and no newly-arrived Eastern emigrants were tilere. The FreeState judge of election refuseil to sign the returns until the words ” by lawful resident voters” were stricken out, which was done, and the returns made in that wa.y. The election was contested, and a new election ordereil by Gov. Reeder, for the 22d( of May. Tlhe testimony is divided as to the relative strengtlh of parties in tlis district. The whole nuimber of voters in the district, according to the census returns, was 3S5; and, according to a ver y carefully prepared list of voters, prepared for the ProSlavery candidates and other ProSlavery men, a few days previous to the election, thel ea were 305
voters in the district, including tlhose who had claims but did not live on thlemn. The whole number or votes cast was 964. Of those named in the census 1li6 voted. Your Co 0~mittee, upon careful examination, are satisfied that th,ee were not over 150 legal votes cast, leaving S814
illegal votes. XVI[TH DISTRICT. The election in this district seems to have been fairly XVIIITH DISTRICT. Previous to the election, Gen. David R.

Atcchison of Platte City, Missouri, got up a comnpany of Mlisourians, and passing through Weston, Mlissouri, went, over into the’Territony. He meoiained all night at thle house of and then exhwibited his arms, of whlich. he had an ab,und an.ce. lle proceeded to the Nemala (XVIIIth) district. On his way, lhe,nd his xal rty attended a Nomr.inat~ing Con ventioh in the XIVth District, and proposeid ad causeAl to be ominated a set of candidates in opposit ion to the wislnes of the Plo-Slavery resident s of t he di strict. At that Convention, l e said that th ere we e 1,100 men comning over fr-om Platte County, and if tlhat wasn’t enough, they could sell 5,0t,O more-tlhat they came to vote, and would vote or kill every fG-d d-d Abolhtionist in the Teru ito ry. On tlre day of election the Mi ssourians, under Atchi son, wio were encamlped tllele, came up to the polls in the XVilIth Dislt ictt. ta king tihe oath that the ny were residents of the district. The Missourians were all armed witlt pistols or lowie-lknives, and( said there were 60 in tl-teir company. But 17 votes given on that day wer-e giveni by residlents of the district. The whole number of votes was 62. R. L. Ki-k, one of the candidates, came into the di;; tl’ict fr-om,] Missouri about a week before the election, and boa, ded there. lie left’aft~er the election, an( was not at the time a legal resident of the district in which he was elected. No protest was sent to the Governor on account of thlrea.ts made against any who should dare to contest tlhe election. The following tables embody the result of the examina tion of your Comlmitt-ee in regard to thi* election. In some of the districts, it was impossible to ascertain thle p,‘ecise number of the legal votes cast, and(‘-especially in the XIVth, XVth, and XVI,h Districts. In such cases, the nlum,iber of lefgal and illegal votes cast is statedl, after a careful reexatmiination, of all the testimony and record,s , concerning the election: ABSTRACT OF CENSUS, AND RETURNS OF

ELECTION OF MARCII 30, 1855, BY ELECTION DISTRICTS. sus. Council. I1ouse.

rr 369 1 2 2 3 199 2 i 2 10o 3 I 4 1 C ~~~.-. ~~~~~~~~C O5 - C O 47 1

- 1 1 442 4 2 7 4 258 5 1 6 2 58 3 f 89 8 - 5 86 6 1 8 1 63 1 - 8 — - 8 -

8 - 24 9 - 9! 10 - 9 - 78 1 9 96 10 - 10 1 _ 7 - 11 - 334 7 1 1 - 2 - 8 -

12 2 208 9 1 1,3 2 885 10 2 14 3 50 1 — -_ 28 7 1 - - 2892 -I 18 — 26

Ce! ko o - ad 81,2 962 8316 519 83s 232 63 177 8so) — 191 - 19 14(j7 2t9

118 - 8:3 - 86 86 21 15)1 821 86; 141 230 284 580 1167 837 873 814 1’ES

— 1.5t 45 99 4968 8501 ._ a - 3 11 841 a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Soa 2 87a2 - 80) - 886 - 264 7 98 - 1~ 4 _ 85 — 234 3 87  75 _t-, - 23 - 828 — 11 2 33s 28g 3 346 6 78 48 8oB6 5 417 5 964 b9 62 92 6320) Lawrence…………….. Bloomington…………. Stinson’s, or Tecumseh….. Dr. Chapman’s……….. Bull Creek…………….

Potawatamie………….. Big Sugar Creek………. Little Sugar Creek……… Fort Scott……………. Isaac B. Titus………….

Council Grove………… Pawnee………………. Big Blue…………….. gRok Ck’eek…………. lMarysville…………….

St. Mary’s…………… Silver Lake…………… Hickory Point…………. Doniphan…………….. Wolf Creek……………

Burr-Oak, Rlodge’s…….. 5 layes………………..

Leavenworth………….. Gum Springs…………..

Moorestown…………… Total……………..5427 791 92 6321) 1311) 4963 8501 2392 - 113 I - Bythe election, as conducted, the ProSlavery candi-them, in both the Council and the House, did not ” reside dates in every district but the VIIIth representative dis-in” aud were niot’inhabitanrts of” the district for trict, received a majority of the votes; and several of which they were elected, is required by the organic law. . ..” I 99 conducted, and not contested at all. In this t’,Pro-llav,,ry party had the inajoi-‘,It,y. t 11 I t El 2.32 so 82 15 13

75 32 104 100 2,5 87 7.) 48 23 7 11 83 12 200 8) 1,5i 1 59 1 7 1310 .2 1 4
t a 1 2 3 4 p LI ‘tI 4 78t sis 366 78 3TT i99 74 34 . 31b 211 17 23 27 2

‘28 4 12 233 313 57 26 412 899 43 48 542T I B lb 2,53 12 4 2 9 65 17 7.) 85 23 17 52 42 21 7 19 6 80 15 2 60 16 14 i 791 1 PLACES OF VOTING. 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is Total..

Page 100 view page image

100 A POLITICAL TEXt-BOOK FOR 1860. By that act it was declared to be the true intent and Your Committee here felt it to be their duty not only to meaning of this act to leave the people thereof perfectly inquire into and collect evidence in regard to force and free to form and regulate their domestic institutions fraud attempted and practiced at the elections in the in their own way, subject to the Constitution of tle Territory, but also into the facts and pretexts by which United States. this forc e and fraud has been excused and justified; and So careful was Congress of the right of popular for this purpose your Committee have allowed the decla sovereignty, that to secure it to the people, without a rations of nonresident voters to be given as evidence in single petition from any portion of t he countr y, tey their own behalf, also the declarations of all who came removed the restriction against Slavery imposedl by the up the Missouri River as emigrants in March, 1855, Missouri Compronmise. And yet this right, so carefully whetter they voted or not, and whether they came into secured, was thus by force and fraud verthrown by a the Territory at all or iot; and also the rumors which portion of the people of an adjoining State. we re circulated among the people of Missouri previous to The striking difference between this Republic and othler the election. The great ibo(ly of the testimony taken at Republics on this Continent, is not i the povision the pson the instance of the sitting Delegate is of this character. constitutions and laws, but that here changes in the ad-When the declarations of parties passing up the river ministration of those laws have been made peacfully iand were offered in evidence, your Committee received them quietly through the ballotbox.

This invasion is ti e first upon the distinct statement that they would be excluded and only one in the history of our Govercintteot, lby unless the per sons making the declarations were by other which an organized force from one State has electedl a proof shown to have b een connected with the elections. Legislature for another State or Territory, aiti as suilc it This proof,Is not made, and therefore much of this class shlould have been resisted by the whole executive po,wer of testimony i, incompetent by the rules of law, but is of the National Government. allowed to let,ain as tending to show the cause of the Your Committee are of the opinion that the Constitu-action of the citizens of Missouri. tion and laws of the United States have invested the The alleged causes of the invasion of March, 1855, are President and Governor of the Territory with amtple included il the following charges: power for this purpose. They could only act after re-I. That the New-England Aid Society of Boston was ceiving authentic information of the facts; but wleni re. then importing into the Territory large numbers of men, ceived, whether before or after the certificates of election merely for the pur pose of controlling the elections. That were granted, this power should hav e been exercised to they came wi thout women, chlildren, or baggage, went its fullest extent.

It is not to be tolerated that a legisla-into the lTerritory, voted, and returned again. tive body thus selected should assume or exercise any II.

That men were hired i n the Eastern or Northern legislative functions, and their enactments should 1)be States, or induced to go into the Territory, solely to vote, e (ed as null and void; nor should the question of and not to settle, and by so doing to make it a Free State. its leg,hl existence as a legislative body be dete ied by III. That the Governor f the Territolry purposely postitself, as that wou ld be allowing the criminal to j(ilge of poiedi the (lay of election to allow th is emigration to his own crime. In section twenty-twvo of the o0rgan,c act arrive, and notified tile Emigtant Aid Society, and perit is provided, that” the persons having the highest num-sons in the Eastern States, of the day of electios, before bee of legal votes in each of said Council-districts for he gave noticeto the people ofI issouri a,d the Territory. memb ers of the Council, shall be declared by the Governor cThat these char ges were industriously circulated; that to be duly elected to the Council, and the personis having grossly exaggerated statements were made in regard to tihe highest number of legal votes for the House of Repre-them; that the newspaper press and leading men in seutatives, shall be declar ed by the Governor duly public meetings in Weste Missou ri, aided in one case by elected members of said House” The proclasnatioet of a ChaplaiS of the United States Army, gave currency tle Governor required a verified notice of a contestwhen’ted credit to them, and thus excited the people, and one s,as made, to be filed wit h him within four days induced iaTany well-imeaning citizens of Missouri to march after the election. Within that time, he did not obtain into the Territory to meet and r epel the alleged Eastern intfo’ation as to force or fraud in any except the 1ol-paupers and Abolitionists, is fully proven by many witlotwing districts, and in these thre were material defects eesses. in ille returns of election. Without deciding up on his But these charges are not sustained by the pro,f. lowver to set aside elections for force and fraud, tthey In April, 18S54, the General Assembly of Massachusetts were set aside for the following reasons: passed a n act entitled ” An act to incorporate the lasss - In the Ist District, because the words “by lawful resi-chliuset,ts EmigrantAid Society.” The object if the Society, dent voters,”

were stricken f’ om the return. as declared in the first ection of this act, was ” for the II thle IId District, because the oath was administeredl purpose of assisting emigrants to settle in the West.” by G.

W. Taylor, who was not authorized to administer an The moneyed capital (of the cor pot ration was not to oath. exceed five millions of dolla,s; but n o more than four per In the IIId District, because materialerasures from the cent. could be assessed during the year l.54 attid ito) printed form of the oath were purposely made. imore thant ten per cent. in any tne year t,hle ieafter. No I,, the IVth District, for the same reason.

organtization was perfected, or proceedings had, ucider In tile VIIth District, because the Judges were not sworn this law. at all. On the 24th Jlay of July, 1854, certain persons in Bo)s In the XIth District, because thie returns show tile ton,Massachlusetts, c cllded rt,icles of ag-eeIet anl election to have been held viva voce instead of by ballot. association for a n Emig-ant Aid Society. The purpose of In the XVIth District, because the words ” by lawful this association was ecled to be “assisting emigrats residence” were stricken from the returns. to settle in the West.” Under these articles of associt tion, each stockholder was individually liable. To av,,id ABSTRACT OF THE RETURNS OF ELECTION OF
t,lhis difficulty, an application was ade to the enel MAY 22, 18S55.

Assembly of Moassaclusetts for an ct of incorporation, which was granted.

Otn the 21st day of oFebru.ry, 18S5, an act was paissed to incorporate the New Eng!a,dl Emigrant Aid Comspany. The pur poses of this a(t were ~
cdeclared to be ” directing emiigration westward, and 50cz ‘

Oaiding and lprovidirng accommodation for emigrants tft,er ‘S PLACES or YOTINO. * X >. ~~~~~ arriving a~t their pla~ce of d1estinlationl.“‘lhse capital PLACES OFVOINGstock of the corporation was not to exceed one m.illioc i::n~~~~~ X-;:.of dollars. Unlder this chlarter, a (omp )an y wa orize. ‘0O~~~ 10an~ t~ - Your Committee have examined some of its officers, and ~~~o g vi ~~~~~~~~~~ a portion of its circularsandrecords toascertain what has z;| A X E-been done by it. The public attention at that time was - directed to the Tersitory of Kansa s, and emigration natu 1 Lwrence……………..i - 28 18 806 rally tended in that direction. To ascertain its character 2 Douglas……………….. 127 -

127 and resources, this Company sent its agent into it, and the 8

Stinnon’s…………. -…- 148 1 149 information thus obtained was published. The Company 7 10 -‘li………………….- - 81-9 md r npraint 7~~~ ~~ i;-~ }****vrvv@@*e*ew&***- 66 13 7 made arrangements with various lines of transportation to 8 Council Grove………….|.- 8

- 81 reduce the expense of emigration into the Territory, and 16

Leavenworth……………..56 140 15 procured tickets at the reduced rates. Applications were _ made to the Company by persons desiring to emigrate; Total. 560 8()2-1409 and when they were numerous enough to form a party of convenient size, tickets were sold to them at the reduced Although the fraud and force in other ilistricts were rates, An agent acqiuainted with the route was selected to equally great as in these, yet, as the Governor had no accompany them. Their baggage was checked, and alt isfoeritiation in regard to them, he issued certificates ac-trouble and danger of loss to the emigrant in this way cording to the returns.

avoided.

Page 101 view page image

PREPORT OF KANSAS INVESTIGATING CO0IMITTEE. the Territory, as a means to control the election and es. tablish Slave ry there. The real purpose is avowed and illustrated by the testimony and onduct of Colonel John conu o Cln oh ot t, o f St. Joseph’s, Missouri, who acted as the attorney for the sitting delegate before your Committee. The following a re extracts from his deposition: ” Pri or t o the election in Bu rr-Oak precinct, in the XIVthl District, on the j29h of November, 1854, I had been a resident of Missouri, and I thens determined, if I found it necessary, to become a resident of Kanifsas Territory. On the day previous to that election, I settled up my board at my boa rdin g-ho use, in St. Joseph’s, Missouri, and went over to the Territory, and took boarding with Mir. Bryant, near whose house the polls were held the next day, for one month, so that I m ight have it in my power, by merely determining to do so, to become a resident of the Territory on the day of election. ” When my name was proposed a s a Judge of Election, objections were made by tvo persons only….. I then publicly informed those present, that I had a claim in the Territory; that I had taken board in the Territory for a m onth; and that I could, at any moame nt, become. an actual r esiden t and legal voter in the Territory, and that I would do so, if I concluded at any time during the day that my vote would be necessary to carry that precinct in kavor of the ProSlavery candidate for delegate to Congress….. I did not during the dav consider it necessary to become a resident of the Territory for the purpose mentioned, and did not vote nor offer to vote at that eletion. ” I held the office of City-Attorney for St. Joseph’s at that time, and had held it for two or three years previously, and continued to hold it until this spring…… I voted at an election in St. Joseph’s, in the spring of 1855, and was reappointed City-Attorney. The question of Slavery was put in issue at the election of November, 1854, to the same extent as i every election in this Territory. Geen. Whitfield was regarded as the ProSlavery candidate for the ProSlavery party, I regarded the question of Slavery as the primarily prominent issue at that election, and, so far as I know, all parties agreed in making that question the issue of that election. “It is my intention, a nd the intention’ a great.a,y ot7her M~issourian.s noto resident in Missouri, whenever the Slavery issue is to be determined upon by the people of this Territory in the adoption, of the State Constitution, to remove to this Territory in time to acquire thre tiqht to become legal v oters.p.on that qtestfo,. The leadi, g purpose of our intended removal to the Te, rito1,y is to determinehe do mestic if thie Tdoes i to,,iy,,hot it come.~ to be a State, and toe,,,,ld not come onlyfor that pu,.po.e. a.,d would never thian of cominig he,-e but/br t7’at pu,rpse. I believe there are a gr eat many in JMissour$ ut’ho axe so situated.’ The invasion of March 80th left both parties in a state of excitement, tending directly to produce violence.

The successful party was lawless and reckless while assuming the name of the “Law and Order” party. The other party, at first surprised and confounded, was greatly irritated, and some resolved to prevent the success of the invasion. In some districts, as before stated, protests were sent to the Governor; in others, this was prevented by threats; in others, by the want of time, only four days being allowed by the proclamation for this purpose; and in others, by the belief that a new election would bring a new invasion. About the same time, all classes of men commenced bearing deadly weapons about the person, a practice which has continued to this time. Under these circumstances, a slight or accidental quarrel produced unusual violence, and lawless acts became frequent. This evil condition of the public mind was further increased by acts of violence in Western Missouri, where, in April, a newspaper press, called Thte Parksville Lumimna,y, was destroyed by a mob. About the same time, Malcolm Clark assaulted Cole McCrea at a squatter meeting in Leavenworth, and was shot by McCrea in alleged self-defense. On the 17th day of May, William Phillips, a lawyer of Leavenworth, was first notified to leave; and upon his refusal, was forcibly seized, taken across the river, and carried several miles into Missouri, and then tarred and feathered, and one side of his head shaved, and other gross indignities put upon his person. Previous to this outrage, a public meeting was held, at which resolutions were unanimously passed, looking to unlawful violence, and grossly intolerant in their character. The right of free speech upon the subject of Slavery was characterized as a disturbance of the peace and quiet of the community, and as “circulating incendiary sentirnents.” They say “to the peculiar friends of northern fanatics,” “

Go home and do your treason where you may find symnpathy.” Among other resolves is the following: “Rlesoled, That the institutionl of Slavery is known and recognized in lhis Trerritory; and we repel the doctrine that it is a moral sled political evil, and we hurl back with scorn upon its slanderous authors the charge of inhumanity;* and we warn all personls nlot to come to our peaceful firesides to slander us, and sowv the seeds of discord between the master and the servant;l for, as notch as we deprecate the necessity to which wve m~.y bej driven, wve cannot lbe responsible for the consequenc~es. ” A Committee of Vigilance of 80 men was appointed ” to I obsess nd report all such persons as shall… by Under these arrangements, companies went into the Territory in the Fall of 1854, under the articles of association referred to. The company did not pay any portion of the fare, nor furnish any personal or real property to the emigrant. The company, during 1855, sent int o the Terri - tory from eight to ten saw-mills, purchased one hotel in Kansas City, which they subsequently sold, built on e hotel at Lawrence, and owned one other building in that place. In some cases, to induce them to make improvements, town lots were given to them by town associations in this Territory. They held no property of any other kitid or description. They imposed no condition upon their emigrants, and did not inquire into their political, religious, or social opinions. The total amount expended by them, including the salaries of their agents and officers, and the expenses incident to all organizations, was less than $100,000. Their purposes, so far as your Committee can ascertain, were lawful, and contributed to supply those wants most experienced in the settlement of a new country. The only persons or company who emigrated into the Territory under the auspices of the Emigrant Aid Society in 1855, prior to the election in March, was a party of 159 persons, who came under the charge of Charles Robinson. In this party, there were 67 women and children. They came as actual settlers, intending to make their homes in the Territory, and for no other purpose. They had about their persons but little baggage; usually sufficient clothing in a carpet-sack for a short time. Their personal effects, such as clothing, furnituse, etc., were put into trunks and boxes; and for convenience in selecting, and cheapness in transporting, was marked ” Kansas party baggage, care B. Slater, St.

Louis.” Generally, this was consigned as freight, in the usual way, to the care of a commission merchant. This party had, in addition to the usual allowance of one hundred pounds to each passenger, a large quantity of baggage on which the respective owners paid the usual extra freight. Each passenger or party paid his or their own expenses; and the only benefit they derived from the Society, not shared by all the people of the Territory, was the reduction of about $7 in the price of the fare, the convenience of traveling in a company instead of alone, and the cheapness and facility of transporting their freight through regular agents.

Subsequently, many emigrants, being either disappointed with the country or its political condition, or deceived by the statements made by the newspapers and by the agents of the Society, became dissatisfied, and returned, both before and after the election, to their old homes. Most of them are now settlers in the Territory. Some few voted at the election in Lawrence, but the number was small. The names of these emigrants have been ascertained, and of them were found upon the pollbooks. This company of peaceful emnigrants, moving with their household goods, was distorted into an invading horde of pauper Abolitionists, who were, with oth er s of at s imilar character, to control the domestic istitutions of the Territory, and then overturn those of a neighboring powerful State. In regard to the second charge: There is no proof that any man was either hired or indu ced to come into the Territory from any Free State, merely to vote. The entire emigration in March, 1855, is estimated at 500 persons, including men, women, a nd children. They came on steamboats up the Missouri River, in the ordinary course of emigration. Many returned for causes s imil ar to those before stated; but the body of them are now residents. The only persons of those who were connected by proof with the election, were some who voted at the Big Blue Precinct in the Xth District, and at Pawn ee, in the IXth District. Their purpose and character are s ta ted in a former part of this report. The third charge is entirely groundless. The organic law requires the Governor to cause an enume rati on of the inhabitants and legal voters to be made; and that hle apportion t he members of the Council and lwouse, accord ing to this enumeration. For reasons stated by persons engaged in taking the cen sus, it was not completed until the early part of March, 1o55. At that time, the day of holding the election had not been, and could not have been, named by the Governor. So soon as practicable after the returns were brought in, he issued his procl am ation for an election, and named the earliest day, consistent with due notice, as the day of election. The day on which the election was to be hel d was a matter of c onjecture all over the country; but it was generally known that i t w ould be in-the latter part of March. The precise day was not known by any one until the proclamation issued. It was not known to the ag ents of the Emigrant Aid Society in Boston on the 13th of March, 1855, when the party of emigrants before referred to, left. Your Commnittee are satisfied that these charges were made the mere pretext to inducge awn armed inva,sion into I I 101

Page 102 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. the expression of abolition sentiments, produce disturbance to the quiet of the citizens, or danger to their domestic relations; and all such persons so offending shall be notified, and made to leave the Territory.” The meeting was “ably and eloquently addressed by Judge Lecompte, Colonel J. N. Burns of Western Mlissouri, and others.” Thus the head of the judiciary in the Territory not only assisted at a public and bitterly partisan uieeting,wliose direct tendency was to produce violence and disorder, but, before any law is passed in the Territory, he prejudges the character of the domestic institutions which the people of the Territory were, by their organic law, “left perfectly free to form and regulate in their own way.” On this committee were several of those who held certificates of election as members of the legislature; some of the others were then and still are residents of Missou ri; and many of the committee have since been appointed to the leading offices in the Territory, one of which is the slheriffalty of the county. Their first act was that of mobbing Phillips. Subsequently, on the 25th of May, A.D. 1855, a public meeting was held, at which R. R. Rees, a member elect of the council, presided. The following resolutions, offered by Judge Payne, a member elect of the house, were unaniitously adopted: “

ReIsolved, That we heartily indorset the action of the committeea of citizen r that shaved, tarred and fe athereod, r ode on a rloil, and had sol d by a negro, William Phillips, the moral peo’juror. “tRsolt red, That we return our thanks to the committee for faithfully performing the trust enjoined up on the by the ProSlavery party. “TRemoeed, That t he comm ittee b e n ow discharged. “R memolers, That w e severe ly condemn those Tro-Slarery men who, from mercenary motives, are alling upor the ProSlavery party to submit without further action. “R eloRed, That in order to secure p eace and harmony to the community, we now solemnly declare that the ProSlJvery pa rty will stand firmly by and carry out the resolutions reported by the committee appointed for that purpose on th m e oae cano o0h.” The a ct of moral perjury here referred to is the swearing by Phillips to a t ruthful protest in regard to the election of Marc h 30, in the XVIth District. The m emb ers rece ivi ng their certificate s of the Governor as members of the Gener al Assembly of the T erritory, met at Pawnee, t he pl ace appointe d by the Governor, on the 2d o f J uly, A.D.

1855. Their proc eedings are stated in three print ed books, herewi th submitted, entitled respectively, ” The Statutes of the T erritory of Kansas,” ” The Journal of the Coun cil of thei Territor y of Kansas,” and ‘i T he Jou rnal of the Ho use of Representatives of the Territory of Kansas.” Your Committee do not regard their enactments as valid laws. A legisl ature thu s impos ed upon a people can not affect their political rights. Such an attempt to do so, if successful, is virtually an overthrow of the organic law, and reduces the peopl e of the T err it ory to the condition of v assal s to a neighbo r ing State. To avoid the evils of anarchy, no armed or organized resistance to them should be made, bu t the citizens should appeal to the ballotbox at public e lection s, to the federal judiciary, and to Congress, for relief. Su ch, fro m th e proo f, would have been the cours e of the p eople, but for the nature of these eactments and the manner in which they are enforced. Their charact er and their exec u tion have been s o intimately connected with one branch of this investigation-that relating to ” violent a nd tu multuous proc eedings in the Territory “-tha t w e w e re compelled to examine them, The ” laws ” in t he st atu t e-books are gener al and special; the laterrity o aharter are strictly of a local character, relating to bridges ad-, roads, and t he like. The gr eat body of t he general laws are exact transcripts from the Missouri code. To mao e them in so me ca se s conform to the organic act, s epa ra te acts were passed, de fining the meaning of words. Thus the wor d ” State” is to be understood as meaning ” Terri tory;” the words ” Coun ty Court” shall be construed to mean the board of commissioners transacting county business, or the Probate Court, according to the intent thereof. The words “Circuit Court” to iean “District Court.”

The material differences in the Missouri and Kansas statutes are upon the following subjects: The qualifications of voters and of members of the legislative assembly; the official oath of all officers, attorneys, and voters;* the mode of selecting officers and their qualifications-the slave code, and the qualifications of jurors. Upon these subjects, the provisions of the Missouri code are such as are usual in many of the States. But by the t’ Kansas Statutes ” every office in the Territory, executive antd judicial, was to he appointed by the legislature, or by some officer appointed by it. These appointments were not merely to meet a temporary exigency, but were to hold over two regular elections, and until after the general election in October, 1857, at which the members of the new council were to be elected. The new legislature is required to meet on the first Monday in January, 185S. Thus, by the terms of these “laws,” the people have no control whatever over either the legislature, the executive, or the judicial departments of the Territorial government until a time before wh ich, by th e nat ur al progress of population, the Territorial government w ill be superseded by a State government. No session of the legislature i s to b e held during 1856, but the members of the House are to be electe d in October of that year. A candidate, to be eligible at this election, must swear to support the fugitive slave law; and each judge of election, and each voter, if challenged, must take t he sam e oath. The same oath i s re quired of every officer electe d or appointed in thle Territory, and of every attorney admitte d to practice i n the courts. A portion of the militia is r equired to muster o n the day of election. ” Every free whi e male citizen of the United States, and every free male Indian who is made a citizen by treat y or otherwise, and o ver the age of twentyone ye ars, and who shall be an inep eabivtsnt of the Territory and of the counand tu tynd district in which he offers to vote, and shall have pai d a Territorial ta x, shall be a qualified elec to r for all elective offic es.” Two classes of persons were thus excluded, who, by the organic act, were allowed to vote, viz.: those who would not swear to the oath required, and those of foreign birth who had declared on oath their intention to become citizens. Any man of proper age who was in the Territory on the day of election, and who had paid one dollar as a tax to the sheriff, who was required to be at the polls to receive it, could vote as an “inhabitant,” although he had breakfasted in Missouri, and intended to return there for supper. There can be no doubt that this unusual and unconstitutional provision was inserted to prevent a full and fair expression of the popular will in the election of members of the house, or to control it by nonresidents. All jurors are required to be selected by. the sheriff, and ” no person who is conscientiously opposed to the holding of slaves, or who does not admit the right to hold slaves in the Territory, shall be a juror in any cause ” affecting the right to hold slaves, or relating to slave property. The Slave Code, and every provision relating to slaves, are of a cha~‘acter intolerant and unusual even for that class of legislation. The character and con duct of the men appointed to lold office in the Territo,-y contributed vewy much to produce the events which followed. Thus Samuel J. Jones was appointed sheriff of the county of Douglas. which included within it the Ist and Ild Election Districts. He had made him self peculiarly obnoxious to the settlers by his conduct on the 30th of March in the IId District, and by his burning the cabins of Joseph Oakley and Samuel Smith. An election for delegate to Congiess, to be held on the Ist day of October, 1S55, was provided for, with tlhe same rules and regulations as were applied to other elections. The FreeState men took no) part in this election, having made arrangements for holding an election on the 9th of the same month.

The citizens of Missouri attendedl at the election of the lst of October, some paying the dollar tax, and others not beilg re quired to pay it. They wer:e present and voted at the voting places of Atchison and Doniphan, in Atchison County; at Greene Springs, Johnson County; at AVillow Springs, Franklin, and Lecomptoi, in Douglas County; at Fo,-t Scott, Bourbon County; at Baptiste Paola, Lykins County, whet”e some Indians voted, some whites paying the $1 tax for them; at Leavenwortlh City, and at lKickapoo City, Leavenworth County; at the latter place, under the lead of Gen. B.

F. Stringfellowv and Col. Lewis Barn,es of Missouri. From two of the election precinits at which it was alleged there was illegal voting -viz., Delaware and Wyandotte-your Committee failed to obtain the attenldanlce of witnesses Your Committee did not deemi it necessary, in regard to this election, to enter into details, as it was manifest that, from there being but one candidate-Gen.m Whlitfield he must have received a majority of the votes cast. This election, therefore, depends not on the number or character of the votes received, but upon the validity of the laws under which it was held. Sufficient testimony was taken to show that the voting of citizens of Missouri was practiced at this election, as at all former elections in the Territory. The following table will exhibit the result of the testimony as regards the number of legal and illegal votes at this election. The eouoty of Marshall embraces the samne territory as was included in the Xlth District, andl the reasons before stated indicate that the great majority of the votes then cast were either illegal or fictitious. In the counties to which our exalminawtion extended, ther e were-illegal votes cast as near ats thle proof will enlable us to determlinle. 102 ;w 11

Page 103 view page image

REPORT OF KANSAS INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE. ABSTRACT OF POLLBOOKS OF

OCTOBER 1, 1855. .192 1 63 5O 100 50 100 150 14T TOWNSHIPS. -a E. 219 242

4 29 12 251 332 ]5 4.5 190 895 220 67 17t 6 28 75 14

Grasshopper…………….. Shlannon………………..

………………………. ………………………….- 4

……………………….

Davi…………………………………….. 8 2 1 n.Burr Oak……………… Iowa…………………..

W’ayne………………… Wash,ington…………….. Wolf River…………….. Franklin………………..

La,wr’ence………………. Lecompton……………. Willow Springs………….. ……………………….

……………………….

Johnon…………………………………..10 - 98 9 10
aAlexandria……………… Dlelaware……………….

Kickapoo………………. Leavenworth…………….

Wyandott……………….. …………………………….

………………………… (See Wise Co.)…………..

………………………….

Neusaha~~~~~~~……………………………………. -

Lucy………………~~…………………………………2 8 2 One Hundred and Ten…… Tecumseh………………. Council Grove…………… and delegates were selected in compliance with its recommendations. They met at Topeka, on the 19th day of September, 1855.

By their resolutions, they provided for the appointment of an Executive Committee, to consist of seven persons, who were required to ” keep a record of their proceedings, and shall have a general superi ntende nce o f the affai rs o f th e Ter rito ry so far as regards t he organ ization of the State Governme nt.” They were required to take steps for an election to be held on the second Tuesday of the October following, under regulations imposed by that Committee, I”for members of a Convention to form a Constitution, adopt a Bill of Rights for the people of Kansas, and take all needful measures for organizing a State Government, preparatory to the admission of Kansas into the Union as a State.” The rules prescribed were such as usually govern elections in most of the States of the Union, and in most respects were similar to those contained in the proclamation of Gov. Reeder for the election of March 30,1855. The Executive Committee appointed by that Convention accepted their appointment, and entered upon the discharge of their duties by issuing a proclamation ad. dressed to the legal voters of Kansas, requesting them to meet at their several precincts, at the time and places named in the proclamation, then and there to cast their ballots for members of a Constitutional Convention, to meet at Topeka on the 4th Tuesday of October then next. The proclamation designated the places of elections, appointed judges, recited the qualifications of voters and the apportionment of members of the Convention. After this proclamation was issued, public meetings were held in every district in the Territory, and in nearly every precinct. The State movement was a general topic of discussion throughout the Territory, and there was but little opposition exhibited to it.

Elections were held at the time and places designated, and the returns were sent to the Executive Committee. The result of the election was proclaimed by the Executive Committee, and the members elect were required to meet on the 23d day of October, 1855, at Topeka. In pursuance of this proclamation and direction, the Con stitutional Convention met at the time and place ap pointed, and formed a State Constitution. A memorial While these enactments of the alleged legislative assembly were being made, a movement was instituted to form a State government, and apply for admission into the Union as a State. The first step taken by the people of the’ITerritory, in consequence of the invasion of Mar ch 80,1855, was the circulation for signature of a graphic anal truthful memorial to Congress.

Your Co cemittee find that every allegation in this memo rial has been sustained by the testimony. No further step wvas taken, as it was hoped that some action by the General aGoven rineent would pr otect themn in their rights. When the alleged legislative assembly proceeded to construct the series of enactments referred to, the settlers were of opinion that submis si on to them would result in depriving them of the rights secured to them by the organic law. Their p olitical condition was freely discussed in the Ter ritory during the summer of 1855. Several meetings were held in reference to holding a convention to form a State govemnment, and to apply for admission into the Union as a State. Public opinion gradually settled in favor of such an application to the Coigress to meet in December, 1855. The first general meeting was held in Lawrence on the 15th of August, 1855. The following preamble and resolutions were then passed: “Whereas, The people of Kansas have been, since its settlement, and now are, without any law-making power, therefore be it “Resolved, That we, the people of Kansas Territory, in mass meeting assembled, irrespective of party distinctions, influenced by common necessity, and greatly desirous of promoting the common good, do hereby call upon and request all bon a fide citizens of Kansas Territory, of whatever political views or predilections, to consult together in their respective Election Districs and in mass convention or otherwise, elect three delegates for each representative to which said Election District is entitled in the House of Represetatives ofthe Legislative Assembly, by proclamation of Governor Reeder, of date 19th of March, 1855; said delegates to assemble in convention, t the town of Topeka, on the 19th day of Septemb er, 1855, the n and there to consider and determine upon all subjects of public i nterest, and particularly upon that having reference to the speedy formation of a State Constitution, with an intention of an immediate application to be admitted as a State into the Union of the United States of America.”’ Other meetings were held in various parts of the Terri.

tory, which inidorsed the action of the Lawrence meeting, I I 108 I .n -t t., . -i 6 z -B t 1. 16 50 4 29 12 4L 81 612 1.)9 .53 23 4!), 53 15 90 70

24 6 2S 23 b2 14 COU19TIES. I bb .E ‘ I m 4 4 3 1 5 T 131 242 4 29 s 42 8t 66 59 .53 86 42 101 i(3 115 42 190 4-2 239 151) 212 246 221) 67 ITI 6 28

2‘3 ,52 14 Pourbon……………….. B.-o…………………..

Calhou………………… Davi………………….

Do.ipl.an………………. Douglas…………………

Fra.klin………………. . J,2ffe”,.,l……………..

Jol,,,so………………… Leavenwortli…………….

Lykins…………………. l,ynn…………………..

Ala,liso………………… IL,rshall……………….

Nemaha……………….. P,iley………………….

Shawnee………………. Wise……………………

Page 104 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. to Congress was also prepared, praying for the admission Accordingly, an election was held for that purpose on of Kansas into the Union under that Constitution. The the 15th day of December, 1855, in compliance with the Convention also provided that the question of the adop-proclamation issued by the Executive Committee. The tion of the Constitution and other questions be submitted returns of this election were made by the Executive Comto the people, and required the Executive Committbe to mittee, and an abstract of them is contained in the foltake the necessary steps for that purpose. lowing table: ABSTRACT OF

THE ELECTION ON THE ADOPTION OF TIE STATE CONSTITUTION, DEC. 15, 1855.

Exclusion of Negroes and Mulattoes. Constitution. General Bank ing Law. -a To 356 76 12 53 137 18 136 42 24 85 72 81 21 12 43 60 37 ]‘3 t59 44 31 21

20 14 19 45 64 22 23 12 28 20 47 19 T 24 15 83 73 7 1778 Yes. No. Yes. No.

Yes. No. Lawrence………………. Blanton…………………

Palmyra……………….. Franklin………………..

Bloomington……………. East Douglas…………….

Topeka…………………. Washington………………

Brownsville…………….. Tecumseh………………. Prairie City……………. Little Osage…………….. Big Sugar………………. Neoslh…………………..

Potawatamie……………. Little Sugar……………..

Stanton………………… Osawatomie……………..

Titus…………………… Juniata…………………. Ohio City……………….. Mill Creek……………… St.

Mlary’s……………….. Waubaunsee……………..

Pawnee………………. Grasshopper Falls………..

Doniphan………………. Burr Oak………………. Jesse Padur’s…………….. Ocena…………………..

Kickapoo……………….. Pleasant Hill……………..

Indianst…………………….. Whitfield……………….. Wolf River……………… St. Joseph’s Bottom………. Mt.

Pleasant……………. Easton……………

Mission…………………. Yes. 225 59 9 31 122 13 125 41 22 23 89 16 5

6 21 83 4 83 82 23 16 17 15 19 5 7 1 8 7 37 11 4 82 53 3 1120 Yes. 133 48

12 48 113 14 69 42 22 35 69 23 20 12 25 4‘2 33 38 25 10 20 20 14 7 40 50

21 22 12 28 16 45 19 6 i8 14 80 71 1 1287 N. B.-PollBook at Leavenworth was destroyed. of Congress, or they are regarded as the mere expression of popular will, and Congress should refuse to grant the prayer of the memorial, that cannot affect their legality. The right of the people to assemble an d expr ess their political opinion in any form, whet her by means of an election or a convention, is secured to t e them by the Constitution o f the Uni t ed States. Even if the ele ctions a re to be regarded as the act of a party, whether political or otherwise, they were proper, in accordance with exam ples, both in States and Territories. The elections, however, were preceded and followed by acts of violence on the part o f th ose who op posed them, and those persons who approved and sustained the invasion from Missouri were peculiarly hostile to these peaceful movements preliminary to the organization of a State government.

Instances of this violence will be referred to hereafter. To provide for the election of delegates to Congress, and at the same time do it in such a manner as to obtain the judgment of the House of Representatives upon the validity of the alleged legislative assembly sitting at Shawnee Mission, a convention was held at Big Springs on the bth and 6th days of September, 1855. This was a party convention, and a party calling itself the FreeState party was then organized. It was in no way connected with the State movement, except that the election of a delegate to Congress was fixed by it on the saie day as the electikon of members of a constitutional c.nveuti,n. instead of the day prescribed by the alleged The Executive Committee then issued a proclamation reciting the results of the election of the 15thl of Decem-o ber, and at the same time provided for an election to be held on the 15th day of January, 1856, for State officers and members of the General Assembly of the State of Kansas. An election was accordingly held in the several election-precincts, the returns of which were sent to the Executive Committee. The result of this election was announced by a proclamation by the Executive Committee. In accordance with the Constitution thus adopted, the members of the State Legislature and most of the State officers met on the day and at the place designated by the State Constitution, and took the oath therein prescribed. After electing United States Senators, passing some preliminary laws, and appointing a Codifying Committee and preparing a Memorial to Congress, the General Assembly adjourned to meet on the 4th day of July, 1856. The laws passed were all conditional upon the admission of Kansas as a State into the Union. These pr oceedings were regular, and, in the opinion of your Committee, the Constitution thus adopted fairly expresses the will of the majority of the settlers. They now await the action of Congress upon their memorial. These elections, whether they were condu cted in pursuance of law or not, were not illegal. Whether the result of them is sanctioned by the action I 104 PRECINCTS. .4 .2 A 1 Yes.

848 72 11 48 137 is 135 42 24 35 72 21 is 12 89 . 42 32 56 89 30 21 20 14

39 46 .54 22 23 12 28 20 47 19 T 2,4 115 32 Ti T 1781 No. 1 2 1 4 No. 83

14 3 15 11 4 9 1 2 11 88 12 16 6 19 13 33 20 7 6 5 20 14 1 29 84 14 16 11

20 13 6 is 4 12 9 1 19 564 No. 223 20 2 15 4 64 2 3 7 2 3 7 2 4 6 is 2 5

17 15 19 1 it 5 3 3 18 1 5 I 8 2 46 9 10 1 4 1 11 13 6 1 2 2 453 14 15 16

IT Total………………..

Page 105 view page image

REPORT OF KANSAS INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE. legislative assembly. Andrew II.

Reeder was put in nomination as Territorial delegate to Congress, and an election was provided for under the regulations prescribed for the election of March 30, 1855, excepting as to the appointment of officers, and the persons to whom the returns of t he elections should be made. The election was held in accordance with these regulations, and A. II. Reedel-received 2,827 votes. The resolutions passed by this convention indicate the state of feeling which existed in the Territory in consequenre of the invas ion from Missouri, and the enactments of the alleged legislative assembly. The language of some of the resolutions is violent, and can only be justified either in consequence of the attempt to enforce ghe grossest acts of tyranny, or for the purpose of guarding against a similar invasion in future. Inl the fall of 1855, there sprang out of the existing ,I sco’is and excitement in the Territory, two secret see-c.tate societies.

They were defensive in their cha ractc, and were designed to form a protection to their members against unlawful acts of violence and assault.

One of the societies was purely of a local character, and was confined to the town of Lawrence. Very shortly after its organization, it produced its desired effect, and then went out of use and ceased to exist. Both societies were cumbersome, and of no utility except to give confidence to the Free-state men, and enable them to know and aid each other in contemplated danger. So far as the evidence shows, they led to no act of violence in resistance to either real or alleged laws. On the 21st day of November, 1855, F. NJ. Coleman, a ProSlavery msan, and Charles W. oDow, a Ft-ee-State man, had a dispute about the division line between their respective claims. Several hours afterward, as Dow was passing from a blacksmith shop toward his claim, and by the cabin o f Coleman, the latter shot Dow with a double-barreled gun loaded with slugs. Dow was unarmed.

Ilme fell across the road and died immediately. This ewas about 1 o’clock, P.M. His dead body was allowed to lie where it fell until after sundown, when it was conveyed by Jacob Branson to his house, at which Dow boardeed.‘the testimony in regard to this homicide is voluminous, and shows clearly that it was a deliberate murder by Coleman, and that Harrison Bulkley and a Mr. Hlargous were accessories to it. The excitement caused by it was very great among all classes of the settlers. On the 26th, a large meeting of citizens was held at the place where the murder was committed, and resolutions passed that Coleman should be brought to justice. In the meantime, Coleman had gone to Missouri, and then to Gov.

Shannon, at Shawnee Mission, in Johnson County. He was there taken into custody by S. J. Jones, then acting as Sheriff. No w a rrant was issued or exam’nation had. On the day of the meeting at Hickory Point, Harrison Bradley procured a p eace warrant against Jacob Branson, which was pl ac ed in the hands of Jones. That same evening, after Branson had gon e to bed, Jones came to his cabin with a party of about 25 persons, among whom were Hargous and Buckleiyburst open the door, and saw Branson i n b ed. He then drew his pistol, cocked it, and presente d it to Branson’s breast, and said, “You are my prisoner, and if y ou move I will blow you through.”

The others cocked their guns and gathered round him, and took him pr isoner. They all mounted and went to Buckley’s house. Af ter a time, they went on a circuitous route toward Blanton s Bridge, stopping to “drink” on the way. As they approached the bridge, there were thirteen in the party, several having stopped. Jones rode up to the prisoner and, among other things, told him that he had “heard ther.e were one hundred men at your house to-day,” and “that he regretted they were not there, and that they were cheated out of their sport.” In the meantime, the alarm had been given in the neighborhood of Branson’s arrest, and several of the settlers, among whom were some who had attended the meeting at Hickory Point that day, gathered together. They were greatly excited; the alleged injustice of such an arrest of a quiet settle,, under a peace warrant by “Sheriff Jones,” aided by two men believed to be accessory to a murder, and who were allowed to be at large, exasperated them, and they proceeded as rapidly as possible by a nearer route than that taken by Jones, and stopped near tie house of J. S. Abbott, one of them. They were on foot as Jones’s party approached on a canter. The rescuers suddenly formed across the road in front of Jones and his party. Jones halted, and asked, “What’s up?” The reply was, “That’s what we want to know. What’s up?” Branson said, “They have got me a prisoner.” Some one in the rescuing party told him to come over to their side. He did so, and dismounted, and the mule he rode was driven over to Jones’s party; Jones then left. Of the persons engaged in this rescue, tihree were from Lawrence, and had attended the meeting. Your Committee have deemed i t proper to detail the particulars of this resc ue, as it was made the groundwork of what is known as the Wakerusa War. On the same night of the rescue, the cabins of Coleman and Buc kle y were burned, but by whom, is left in doubt by the testimony. On the morning of the rescue of Branson, Jones was at the village of Franklin, near Lawrence. The rescue was spoken of in the presence of Jones, and more convetsation passed between two others in his presence, as to whether it was most proper to send for assistance to Col. Boone, in Missouri, or to Gov. Shannon. Jones wrote a dispatch and handedl it to a messenger. As soon as he started, Jones said: “That man is taking my dispatch to Missouri, and by G d I’ll have revenge before I see Missouri.” A person present, who was examined as a witness, complained publicly that the dispatch was not sent to the Gover nor-; and within half all hour one was sent to the Governor by Jones, through Ifargous. Within a few days, large numbers of men from the State of AMissouri gathered and encamped on the Wakerusa. They brought with them all the equipments of war. To obtain them, a party of men under the direction of Judge T. Y.

Thompson broke into the United States arsenal and armory at Liberty, Missouri, and after a forcible detention of Captain Leonard (then in charge), they took the cannon, muskets, rifles, powder, harness, and indeed ill the materials and munitions of war they desired, some of whlich have never been returned or accounted for. The chief hostility of this military foray was against the town of Lawrence, and this was especially the case with the officers of the law. Your Committee can see in the testimony no reason, excuse, or palliation for this feeling Ujg to this time, no warrant or proclamatio onf any kitnd had bee t ib the Ahands of any officer against any citizes of Laivrene. No arrest had been attempted, and no writ resisted in that town. The rescue of Branson sprang out of a murder committed thirteen miles from Lawrence, in a detached settlement, and neither the town nor its citizens extended any protection to B1,ansoin’s rescuers. On the contrary, two or three days after the rescue, S. N. Wood, who claimed publicly to be one of tile rescuing party, wished to be arrested for the purpose of testing the Territorial laws, and walked up to Sheriff Jones and shook hands with him, and exchanged other courtesies. He could have been arrested without difficulty, and it was his design, when he went to Mr. Jones, to be arrested; but no attempt was made to do so. It is obvious that the only cause of this hostility is the known desire of the citizens of Lawrence to make Kansas a Free State, and their repugnance to laws imposed upon them by nonresidents. Your Committee do not propose to detail the incidents connected with this foray. Fortunately for the peace of the country, a direct conflict between the opposing forces was avoided by an amicable arrangement. The losses sustained by the settlers in property taken and time and money expended in their owln defense, added much to the trials incident to a new settlement. Many persons were unlawfully taken and detained-in some cases, under circumstances of gross cruelty. This was especially so in the arrest and treatment of Dr. G. A. Cutter and G. F. Warren. They were taken, without cause or warrant, sixty miles from Lawrence, and when Dr. Cutter was quite sick. They were compelled to go to the camp at Lawrence, were put into the custody of “Sheriff Jones,” who had no process to arrest themthey were taken into a small room kept as a liquor shop, which was open and very cold. That night, Jones came in with others, and went to ” playing poker at twentyfive cents ante.” The prisoners we, e obliged to sit up all night, as there was lno room to lie down, when the men were playing. Jones insulted them frequently, and told one of them he must either “tell or swing.” The guard then objected to this treatment of prisoners, and Jones desisted… While we remained in the Territory, repeated acts of outrage were committed upon the quiet, unoffending citizeas, of which we received authentic intelligence. Men were attacked on the highway, robbed, and subsequently imprisoned. Men were seized and searched, and their weapons of defense taken from them without compensation. Horses were frequently taken and appropriated. Oxsen were taken from the yoke while plowing, and butchered in the presence of their owners. One young man was seized in the streets of the town of Atchison, and, under circumstances of gross barbarity, was tarred and cottoned~ anld in that condition was sent to his family. All the provisions of the Constitution of the U~nited States, securing persons and property, are utterly disregarded. The offi cors of the law, instead of protecting the people, were 105 0

Page 106 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. in some instances engaged in these outrages, and in no in-I mine on his peril, we declined to give him any protection stance did we learn that any man was arrested, indicted, or take any action in the matter. He refused to obey the or punished for any of these crimes. While such offenses writ, believing it to be a mere pretense to get the custody were committed with impunity, the laws were used as s of his person, and fearing, as hlie alleged, that he would be means of indicting men for holding elections, preliminary vksassinated by lawless bands of men then gathering in to framing a Constitution and applying for admission into and near Lecompton. He then left the Territory. the Union as the State of Kansas. Charges of high trea-Subsequently, H. Miles Moore, an attorney in Leavensol were made against prominent citizens uponi grounds worth City, but for several years a citizen of Weston, Mo., which seem to your Committee absurd and ridiculous, and kindly furnished the Committee information as to the resiunder these charges they are now held in custody and are dence of persons voting at the elections, and in some cases refused the privilege of bail. In several cases, men were examined witnesses before us. He was arrested on the arrested in the State of Missouri, while passing on their streets of that town by an armed band of about thirty lawful business through that State, and detained until in-men, headed by W. D. Wilkes, without any color of audictments could be found in the Territory, Ithority, confined, with other citizens, under a military These proceedings were followed by an offense of still guard for twenty-four hours, and then notified to leave the greater magnitude. Under color of legal process, a corni-Territory. His testimony was regar ded as important, and pany of about 700 armed men, the great body of whomi, upon his sworn statement that it w ould endanger his peryour Committee are satisfied, were not citizens of the Toer-son to give it openly, the majority of your Committee ritory, marched into the town of Lawrence, under Mar-deemed it proper to examine him ex-parte, and did so. shial Donaldson and S. J. Jones, officers claiming to act By reason of these occurrences, the contestant and the under the law, and bombarded and then burned to the party with and for whom he acted, were uinrepresented beground a valuable hotel and one private house; destroyed fore us during a greater portion of the time, and your two printing presses and material; and then, being re-Committeewere required to ascerta in the trut h i n thebest leased by the officers, whose posse they claimed to be, pro-manner they could. ceeded to sack, pillage, and rob houses, stores, trunks, etc., Your Committee report the following facts and conclueven to the clothing of women and children. Some of the sions as established by the testimony: letters thus unlawfully taken were private ones, written by First. That each election in the Tlerritory, held under the contesting Delegate, and they were offered in evidence. the organic or alleged Territorial law, has been carried by Your Committee did not deem that the persons holding organizedl invasions from the State of Missouri, by which them had any right thus to use them, and refused to be the people of the Territory have been prevented from made the instruments to report private letters thus ob-exercising the rights secured to them by the organic tained. law. This force was not resisted, because it was collected and Secotd. T’ihat the alleged Territorial Legislature was marshaled under the forms of law. But this act of bar-an i]legally-,oi.stitu.ted body, and had no power to pass barity, unexampled in the history of our Government, w as val id laws, a id their enactments are, therefore, null and followed by its natural consequences. All the restraints void. which American citizens are accustomed to pay even to Tf/ird. That these alleged laws have not, as a general the appearance of law, were thrown off; one act of vio-thing, been used to protect persons and property and to lence led to another; homicides became frequent. A punish wrong, but for unlawful purposes. party under ItI. C. Pate, composed chiefly of citizens of fourth. That the election under which the sitting Delelissouri, were taken prisoners by a party of settlers; and gate, John W. Whitfield, holds his seat, was not held in while your Committee were at Westport, a company chiefly pursuance of any valid law, and that it should be regarded of Missourians, accompaniedl by the acting Delegate, went only as the expression of the choice of those resident citito relieve Pate and his party, and a collision was prevented zens who voted for him. by the United States troops. Civil war has seemed im-Ffifth. That the election under which the contesting pending in the Territory. Nothing can prevent so great a Delegate, Andrew I-. Reeder, claims his seat, was not held calamity but the presence of a large force of United States in pursuance of law, and that it should be regardled only troops, under a commander who will with prudence and as the expression of the choice of the resident citizens who discretion quiet the excited passions of both parties, and voted for him. expel with force the armed bands of lawless men coming S?t]ith. That Andrew H. Reeder received a greater numfrom Missouri and elsewhere, who with criminal pertisia-ber of votes of resident citizens than John IV. Whitfield, city infest that Territory. for Delegate. In some cases, and as to one entire election district, the Seveoith. That in the present condition of the Territory, c ondition of the country prevented the attenlance of a fair election cannot be held without a new census, a witnesses, who were either arrested or detained while obey-stringent and well-gu arded election law, the selection of ing our process, or deterred from so doing. The Sergeant-impartial Judges, and the presence of United States troops at-Arms, who served the process upon them, was himself at every place of election. arrested or detained for a short time by an armed force, Eightt. That the various elections held by the people claiming to be a part of the posse of the arslal, ibut of the Territory prelimi y to the formation of tie State was allowed to proceed upon an examination of lis pa-Government have been as regular as the disturbed condipers, and was furnished with a pass, signed by “Warren tion of th e Territov would allow and thit the Constitl1). Wilkes, of South Carolina.” John Upton, another ofii-tion passed by the Convention, held in pursuance of said cer of the Committee, was subsequently stopped by a law-elections, embodies the will of a majority of the people. less force on the borders of the Territory, and after being As it is not tle province of your Committee to suggest detained and treated with great indignity, was reletsed. remedies for the existing troubles i the Territory of KanHe also was furnished with a pass signed by two citizens sas, they content themselves with the foregoing statemnent of Missouri, and addressed to “ProSlavery smen.” By of facts. reason of these disturbances, we were delayed in Westport, All of which is respectfully submitted. so that while in session there, our time was but partially WM. A. HOWARD occupied. JooN ShERMAN. But the obstruction which created the most serious embarrassmuent to your Committee, was the attempted arrest of Gov. Reeder, the contesting Delegate, upon a writ of The FreeState Corstitutioi frraned at Toattachment issued against him by Judge Lecompte, to coipel his atteln ance as a witness before the Grand Jury of peka for Karsas by the Cosivention called by Douglas County. William Fane, recently from the State the FreeState party, (as set forth iii the foreo of Georgia, and claiming to be the Deputy Marshal, came going documeit,s) was il due season submitted into the room of the Committee, while Gov. IReeder was examining a witness before us, and producing the writ re-to Conress-Messrs. Andrew H. Peeder tihe quired Gov. Reeder to attend him.

Subsequent events FreeState Territorial delegate) and James H. have only strengthened the conviction of your Committee, Lane having been chosen by the first FreeState that tlis was a wanton and unlawful interference by the Judge who issued the writ, tending greatly to obstruct a full and fair investigation. Gov. Reeder and Gen. Whitfield Mr. M. W. Delahay elected Representative in the alone were fully possessed of thatlocalinformation which House, by the FreeState men of Kansas, would enable us to elicit the whole truth, and it was obvs of course these were not entitled to their seals rus to every one that any event which would separate either of them from the Committee, would necessarilyhin-until the aforesaid instrismesit (known as the der, delay, and embarrass it Gov. Reeder claimed that,’ Topeka Cotistitution “) should be accepted by under the circumstances in which he was placed, he was Congress and the State thereupon admitted privileged from arrest except for treason, felony, or breach n of the peace. As this was a question of privilege, proper into the Union. This Constitution beizig form for the Courts, or for the privileged person alone to deter-. ally presented in either House, was received anl m 106

Page 107 view page image

THE TOPEKA CONSTITUTION. referred to their respect re Committees oil Territor-ies; but the accompanying Memor ial fromn. tile FreeState Legislature, setting forth the grounds of the application, and praying for admission as a State, was, after having been received by the Senate, reconsidered, rejected, and retu{rned to Col. Lane, on the allegation that material changes had been made in it sirnce it left Kansis. The Senate, in li.ke manner, rejected repeated motions to accept the ConstitutinoI, and thereupon a dmit Kansas as a Free SMt-te-tl-mer e never being more than M
e ssrs. liIi antd Fessede, of aie Hale and Bell, of New-H.aimpsliire, Collamer a and Foot, of Vernxocnt, Sutneeer and Wilson, of Mass., Foster, of Connecticut, Se w ar td ad Fish, of New-Yoirk, Wadhe, of Ohio, Durkee at d Dode of Wiscohisin, Trr iebull, of Illinois, antd Harlan, of Iowa, (15) Senators in favor of such admission, and ,tiese n evter all pr esent at the same time. In the Hlouse-the aforesaid Constitution and Memorial having beern submitted to the Comimittee oni Territories-its Chairman, Mr.

Grow, of Penna., from a majority of said Comnmyiittee reported in favor of the admission of Kansas urder such Con sittitution, a a Free State; and afler debate the Previous Question thereon was ordered (June 28th) by a vote of 98 Ayes to 63 Noes. Previous to this, however, Mr. Steplheiis, of Georgia, had proposed, as an amneind iiienit or substitute, a radically different bill, contemplating tle appointmenit by the Presidenit anid Senate of live Commissioners, whc should repair to Kansas, talke a census of the inhabitants and legal voters, and thereupon pro cee(d to apportion, during tlhe morntlh of Septem ber, 1856, the delegates (52) to form a Coslti tutional Convention, to be elected by the lega voters aforesaid; said delegates to be choser oni the day of the Presidential election (Tties day, iNov. 4th, 1856), and to assemble in Con Ventionl onl thie first MIonday ini December, 1856 to form a State Constitutioil. The bill proposed also, penalties for illegal votirng at said election To this substitute-bill, Mr. Dunii, of Inidiaina proposed the following amendment, to come iI at the end as ani additional sectioni: Shc. 1S.-Aitd be, itfirther enacted, That so much o the fourteenth section andi of the thiriy-seconed section o th e act passed at, the first session of th.e Thir-ty-‘ThIird Con gress, comm,,l,onl,y called tle Kansas and Nebraska act, a r-eads as follows:‘1 Exceplt the eighthl section of the ad prel)aratory to the admission of Mlissouri into the Union app)r~ovedl 6ach 6,1&S2., whichl, being inconsistent witl tle p)r-in,ciple of n,on-illtelrven,tion, by Con,gr-ess witl Si1ave:y in the States and Territories, as recognized b th.e legislation of 1S50, commonly,alled the Comnpro,m,is( 3Ieasures, is ]hereby declare( inoperative and voidl; i beintg tlhe true intent arid meaning of th.is act not to legis late lavery into any St.ate or’I erritory, o.- to exclude i therefrom,l1
but to leave the people thereof perfectly f.,e to fo,rm and regulate their dom~lestic institutions in thlei own way, sulbject only to the Constitution of the Uniitec States: Prov,ided, That nothing lherein contained shal b)e construedl to revive or put in force any law or-regula tiOon wlich ma y have existed prior to the act of 6th of .Ifrh, 1S20, eIither pIotecting, establishing, prohibitin g or abolishxing Sla~ver-y,”

be, atnd the same is her-eby, re paled. P~oqided, Tlhat any person or persons lawfull, h-ehtl to ser vice wvilhiu eithler of the l’errlitories named iz st~id act shall be discharged from suchs service, if they shal]

not be rem~,ved andl kepjt out of said Territories withli twelve mtonth-s froml the passage of this act. Mr. Dunln’s amlendment to the Stephen amnendmnent or substitute, was carried: Yeas Mr. Steplhens’s substitute, as thus amended by its adversaries, was abandoned by its origilal friends, arid received but two votes-those of Messrs. George G. Dutnn, of Indiana, and John Scott Ilarr-ison, of Ohio Nays, 210. Mr. Dunn had previously mioved a reference of the bill to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union. This was now defeated: Yeas, 10(j1; Nays, 109. iMr Jones, of Tennessee, now moved that the bill do lie on the table, which was defeated. Yeas, l06 Ntiyvs, 107; (Barclay of P(-ensvl vaiiat, Diinii of Indiana, Haven tnld Williatlis, of NewYork.- Yeas: Bayard Clarke, of New Yorkl, Hickman and Millward, of Penunsylvania, Moore, of Ohio, and Scott, of Indiana. Ar,ys: Scott Harrisonr, of Ohio, not voting, Wells of Wisconsin, absent). The House lloiv refused to a(djourn bv 106 to 102; and, after a lorng struggle, the final questioln was reaclied, and the 1
bill rejected: Yeas, 106; Nays, 107. So the bill was lost. Jtly list.-Mr.

Barclay, (Denm.) of Peunsyl, vania rose to a privileged rmotion. lie mioved r a reconsideration of the preceding vote, by u which thle Free-Kansas bill had been rejected. s A stormy debate ensued, inl the niidst of which y Mr. Howard, of Michigan, rose to a question of . higher privilege (as affecting the right of a me iiibei- [delegatte] to his seat) and submitted , the report of the lKansas Investigatinig Coin tiittee (alrea(ldy given). The Speakler sustained ) the mnotion, 111(1 thle louse sustainied tle S peiert The report was thereupon presented - and read, consuming a fiull day. tJuly 3r-d.-The question of reconsidering the vote defeatinlg the Free-Kansas bill wa(s again 1 reached. Mr. lHouston, of Alabama, moved that it do lie on the table; defeated: Yeas, 97; , Nays, 102. The main question was then order - ed: Yeas, 101; Nays, 98; and thereconsiderat, ioncarried: Yeas, 101; Nays, 99. The previous , question on the passage of the bill was now L ordered: Yeas, 99; Nays, 96; a nmotion by L, Mr. McQueen, of South Carolina, to lay the biil p on l the table was defeated: Yeas, 97; Nays, 100; and then the bill was finally passed: Yeas, 99; Nays. 97. )f )f Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, moved the recori. sideratioti of tllis vote, and that the motion to cs reconsider do lie on the table, which was per:; mitted, w^ithout furtlher division. h Ju,te 3!)t/.-Mr. Douglas reported to the t Senate on sever tl bills submitted by Messrs. Y Claytori, Tombs, anid others, for the pacificait tioi of tlhe Kat.sas troubles, as also decidedly 3-agairist Gov. Seward’s proposition to adritit it Kansas as a Free State under her Topeka Conir stitutioli. MI. CollaInie, beirig the milnority of d the Territorial Conitnittee, made a brief and apungent counter-report. Mr. Douglas g,-ve wnotice that he would ask for a final vote on the ,, day after the next. r July lst.-Bill debated by Messrs. Thompson do of Ky., Hale of N H., Bigler of Pa., Adams of liMiss., anld Grittendenl of Ky. e t July 2d.-Debate continued through the day and following night, the triajority resisting all ss motions to adjourn. Messrs. Wade, Pugh, s, Briggs, Bigler, Tooribs, Clayton, Crittenden Bell, Seward, Hale, and nearly half tlre Serrte 107

It)9; Nays, 102,

Page 108 view page image

A l’OLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. participated. An amendment mnoved by Mr.

Adanis, of Miss., the day before, striking out so much of the bill as secures the Riglit of Sutffrage, in the proposed reorganization of Kansas, to alien residents who shall have declared their intention to become ci tizens, and renounced all allegiance to foreign governments, was adopted: Yeas, 22; Nays, 1g. Some time in the morning of July 3d, the following anlendmient, reduced to shape by Mr. Geyer, of Mo., was added to the 18th section of thie bisi-only Brown, of Miss.,- Fitzpatrick, of Ala, aid Mason, of Va., voting against it: Yeas, 40. It provides that No law shall be made or have force or effect in said Territory [of Kansas] which shall require any attestation or oath to support any act of Congress or other legislative act, as a qualification for any civil office, public trust, or for any employment or profession, or to serve as a juror, or vote at an electio n, or which shall impose any tax upon, or condition to, the exercise of the right of suffrage, by any qualified voter, or which stall restrain or prohibit the free discussion of any law or subject of legislation in the said Territory, or the free expression of opinion thereon by the people of said Tlerrikor-y. Mr. Trumbull, of I.,ll moved the following: Aedt be it.ftrtter’ enacted, That it wa s the true intent and meaning of the “i act to o rganize the TerBritories of Nebraska and Kansas,” not to legislate Slavery into Kansas, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free through their Territorial Leg,slature to regulate the institution of Slavery in their own waty, subject to the Constitution of the United States; and that, until the Territorial Legislature ac ts upon the subject, the owner of a slave in one of the States has no right or authority to take such slave into the Tlerritory of Kansas, and there hold him as a slave; but every slave taken to the Territory of Kansas by his owner for purposes of settlement is hereby declared to be free, unless there is some valid act of a duly constituted Legislative Assembly of said Territory, under which he may be held as a slave. The*Yeas and Nays being ordered, the propositioI was voted down-Yeas, 9; Nays, 34as follows: YESs.-r Iessrs.

Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, I-ale, Sewarte o, Bl, ubull, W ade, and Wilson-9. NAYs.-CMesrls. AdCreadl eD, Allen, Bayard, Bell of Tentessee, vBel;is, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, BrodheadB Brown, Cass, CttClay, Crittelden, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geye, Huntter, Iverson, Jonso, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, PrPsat, Pugh,l Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Tiompson of Kenituciy, Toorolbs, Toucey, Weller Wright, and Y ulee-4. Mr.

Trumbull then proposed that theKansasNebraskla act was intended to, and droe, confer upon, or leave to, the people of the Territory of Kansas full power, at any time, titrougli its Tecritoritrl Legrisl.ture, to exclude Slavery from said Territory, or to recognize irnd regulate it thereill.

This, too, was voted down. Mr. Trumbull then proposed the following: And be it,further enacted, That all the acts and proceedings of all anid every body of,en heretofore assembled in said T crritory of Kansas, and claimring to be a Legislative Assembly there,f, with authority to piass laws for the g;,vei-rlsient of saii territory, are hereby declared to be utterly null and void. And no person shall hold any office, or exercise ary authority or jurisdiction in said Territory, under or by virtue of any power or authority derived f,om such Legislative Assenibly; nor shall the oembers thereof exercise an y power or authority as such. This, t oo, was voted down, as follows: YEAS.-AMessrs. Bell of Newv-Itampshire, Cellamet, Dotkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trurbull, Wade, and Wilson 11. NAY.S.-M5essrs. Adams, Allen, Ba~yard, Blell of Tennessee, itenjamisin, Bigg0, Bigler, Bright, Brodhead, Brown o Cats, Clay, Crittenderi, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, Fit-f pM trick, Geyer, Hunter, Iversoton, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mlallory, Mason r, attPugh, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Stu agrt, T pompnson of Kentucky, To or bs, Toucey, Weller, Wrigt,t, and Yulee 36. Mr. Foster, of Connecticut, moved the followiiig amendment: oEC.-Aitd be it faxtwer engacted, That, uCltail the inI-habitants of said Territory shall proceed t o hold o C olver tions to form a State Constitution accor ding to tfhe o “visions of this a ct, aTi(s s o long as said T erritory T elails a Territory, the foll owing sections contained il chapter one hutodred and fifty-one, in the volumve transmittedl to tile Senate, Tty the President of the Uni t ed States, as co,taining the laws of Kansas, be, and th e same are heey, declared to be utterly null and void, viz.: ” 12. If any free person, by speaking or by writinig, aqsert or maintain that persons have not the right to hold sliaves in this Territory, or shall introduce into this T erritory any Iook, paper, m agazine, pamphlet, or circular, containing any denial t of th persons to h old slaves in this TTerritory, such persons shall be deemed guilty of fel ony, and punishe d by ifa - prisonment at hard labor for a term of not less than two years. ” 13. No person who is conscientiously opposed to holding slaves, or who does not admit the right to hold slaves i this Territory, shall sit as a juror on the trial of any prosecuti for the violation of any one of the sections of this act.’” This was rejected [as superfluous, or covered by a former amendment,] as follows: YEAS. Messrs. Allen, Bell of NewHampshire, Clayton, Collareer, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Seward, T’rumbull, Wadle, and Wilson-iS. NAYs.-Iessrs. Bayard, Ben~jamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Bredhead, Brown, Cass, Clay, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer-, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Mason, Pratt, Pugh, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thompson of Kentucky, Toormbs, Toucey, Weller, Wright, and Yulee-32. Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, moved that the whole bill be stricken out and another inserted instead, repealing all the Territorial laws of Kansas. Rejected: Yeas, 8, (Bell, of New-ttampshiie, Collamiier, Durkee, Fessenden, Foster, Sewbard, Wade, and Wilson;) Nays, 35. Mr. Seward moved to strike out the whole bill, and insert instead one admitting Kansas as a Free State, under the Topeka Constitution’

Defeated-Yeas, 11; Nays, 36-as follows: YEAs. lessrs. Bell of NewHampshire, Collamer Durkee, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson 11. N.YS.-Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Bell of Tennessee, Benjam.in, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brodhead, Brown, Cass, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geye,, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, Mason, Pratt, Pugh, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Ttiormpsori of Kentucky, Toomrbs, Toucey, WYlle, hi right, and Yulee 86. The bill was now reported as amended, and the amendment made in Comnmittee of the Whole concurred in. The bill was then (S A. m.) ordered to be engrossed and read a third time; and, on the question of its final passage, the vote stood-Ye as, 33; Nays, 12 as follows: Yi,,As. Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Bell of Tennessee, Benjanfiin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brodhead, Brow,,, C;ss, Clay, Crittenden, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geye,, liunter, Iverson, Jolhnson, Jones of Iowa, Mallory, PrIatt, Pughl, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Stuart, Thoml,pson, of Kenltucky, Toorobs, Toucey, Weller, Wright, and Yulee-33. NAYs. lessra.

Bell of New-Hampshiire, Collam.er, Dodge, Durkee, Fessenden, Foot,, Foster, Hale, Seward, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-12. The bill was then sent to the House. It provides that five competent persons appointed by the Presidenlt, shall take a census of the legfal voters of the Territory on the 4th of July, 1856, these to be apportioned into 52 districts, for the purpose of electing delegates to formn a State Constitution; it imposes penalties for u~singo foree or threats to influence any qualified voter I i 108

Page 109 view page image

MR. DUiNN’S KANSAS BILL. in giving his vote, or to deter him from going I to the polls; the delegates elected under this act to assemble in Convention on the 1st Mon-d a y of December, 1856, to first determine by v o t e whether it is expedient to form a State Constitution and Government, and if it is decided to be expedient, to proceed ~ form a Constitution and Governmeint for the State of Kansas, with the boundaries defined in this act. The bill was never acted on in the House, but lay on the Speaker’s table, untouched, when the session terminated by adjournment, Monday, Aug. 18th. Jugly 8th.-In Senate, Mr. Douglas reported back from the Commit tee on Territ ories the House bill to admit Kansas as a State, with an amfendm ent st riking out all a fter the enacting c laus e, an d ins erting instead the Senate bill (No. 356) just referred to. Mr.

Hale, of N. H., moved to amend this substitute by pr o vi ding that all who migrate to the Territory prior to July 4th, 1857, shall b e entitle d t o a vo te i n de termining the character of the ins titution s of Kansas. Lost: Yeas, 13 Nays,’ 32. nIr. Trumbull, of Ill., moved th at all the Territosial laws of Kansa s b e repealed and th e Territorial officers dis missed. Rejected: Yeas, 12; Navs, 32. Msr. Collamer, of Vt., proposed an amendment, prohibiting-Slavery in all that portio n of th e Louisiana purchase north of 36~ 80’ not inwlatded in the Territory of Kansas.

RejectedYeas, 12; Nays, 30-as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Bell of N. H., Collamer, Dodge, Fessen,den, Fish, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, Seward, Trurmbull and Wade. NAYS Messrs.Adams, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, Bright, B3rodhead, Butler, Cass, Clay, Crittenden, Douglas, Fitzp)atrick, Geyer, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, Jones of Iowa, Jon-es of Tenn., Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Pugh, Reid, Seb astian, Slidell, Stuart, Thoompson of Ky., Toombs,Weller, an~d Yulee. h’lie substitute reported by Mr. Douglas was illell agreed to-Yeas, 32; Nays, 13-and the ,ill it this shape passed.

[This amendment was not concurred in nor ever acted on by the House.]

utlly 2’Jth.-)Mr. Dunn, of Ind., called up a bill ‘i’o reorganize the Territory of Kansas and for other purposes,” which he had originally (July 7thi) proposed as a substitute for the Senate bill (No 356) aforesaid. Its length, and the substantial identity of many of its provisions with these of other bills organizing Territories contained inl this volume, dissuade us from quoting it entire. It provides for a legislative election on the fis;t Tuesday in November next; and section 15 proceeds: 15. A,?ad be it.)qrther enacted, That all suits, processes, and proceedings, civil and criminal, at law and in chancery, and all indictments and informations which shall’be pending and undetermined in the courts of the Territo,‘y of Kansas or of New-MNexico, when this act shall take effect, shall remain in said courts where pendinlg, to be heard, tried, prosecuted, and determinied in sulch courts as though this act had not been passed: PT’(videdl, evertheless, That all criminal prosecutions now pending in any of the courts of the Territory of Kansas imputing to any person or persons the clime of treason1 against the United States, and all criminal prosecutions, by informnation or’ indictment, against any per son or persons for any alleged violation or disregard whatever of what are ulsually known as the laws of the Legislature of Kansas, shall be forthwith dismissed by the courts where such prosecutions may be pending, and every person who may be restrained of his liberty by reason of said prosecutions, shall be released therefrom without delay. Nor shall there hereafter be instituted any criminal prosecution, in any of the courts of the United States, o. of said Torritory, against any person or persons for any such charge of treason in said Territory prior to the passage of this act, or any violation or disregard of said Legislative enactments at any time. 23 grants to every actual settler a iriglht of preemption t o the quartersection of public land improved and occupied by himn in saidi Territor y of Kansas, prior to Jan. 1st, 1858. The two last and mo st important sections of Mr. Dunn’s bill are verbatin cm as follows: 24.

And be it further enacted, That so much of the fourteenth section, and also so much of the thirty-second section, of the act passed at the first session of the thirtythird Congress,commonly known as the KansasNebraska act, as reads as follows, to wit: ” Except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved MSarch 6,1820, which being inconsistent with the principle of nonintervention by Con. gress with Slavery in the States and Territories as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate Slavery into any Territory or State, n or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States:.Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of 6th March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting or abolishing slavery”-be and the same is hereby repealed, and the said eighth section of said act of the 6th of March, 1820, is hereby revived and declared to be in full force and effect within the said Territories of Kansas and Nebraska: Provided, however, That any person lawfully held to service in either of said Territories shall not be discharged from such service by reason of such repeal and revival of said eighth section, if such person shall be permanently removed from such Territory or Territories prior to the ist day of January, 1858: and any child or children born in either of said Territories, of any female lawfully held to service, i f in like manner removed without said Teiritories before the expiration of that date, shall not be, by reason of anything in this act, emancipated from any service it might have owed had this act never been passed: And provided further, That any person lawfully held to service in any other State or Territory of the United States, and escaping into either the Territory of Kansas or Nebraska, may be reclaimed and removed to the person or place where such service is due, under any law of the United States which shall be in force upon the subject. ~ 25. And be it.frthter enacted, That all other parts of the aforesaid KansasNebraska act which relate to the said Territory of Kansas, and every other law or usage having, or which is pretended to have, any force or effect in said Territory in conflict with the provisions or the spirit of this act, except such laws of Congress and treaty stipulations as relate to the Indians, are hereby repealed and declared void. Mr. Dunn, having carried a reference to the Coniiiiittee of the Whole, of a bill introdutced by Mr. Grow, repealing all the acts of the alleged Territorial Legislature of Kansas. now mnoved and carried at reconsideration of that vote, and proceeded to the strikling out of Mr.

Grow’s bill and the insertion of his own as a su bstitute. The motion prevailed. Whereupon Mr. Dunn moved the previous question on ordering this bill to be engrossed and read a third timie, which prevailed-Yeas, 92; Nays. 86 -and then the bill passed-Yeas, 88; Navs, 74. This bill was not acted on by the Senate. q’lhe House, ila the course of its action on the several Annual Appropriation bills, affixed to several of them, respectively, provisos, ab)olishing, repealing or suspending the various obnoxious acts of the Territorial Legislatture; but all these were resisted by the Seiiate and were I loo

Page 110 view page image

A PCLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. ultimately given up by th. HIouse, save one appropriating $20,000 for the pay and expenses of the next Territorial Legislature, which the Senate gave up, on finding itself in serious disagreement with the House, and thus secured the passage of the Civil Appropriation bill. Finally, the two Houses were at odds, on a proviso forbidding the employment of the Army to enforce the acts of the Shawnee Mission assemblage, claiming to be a Territorial Legislature of Kansas, when at noon on the 18th of August the speaker’s hammer fell, anouncing the termination of the session, leaving the Army bill unpassed. But President Pierce immediately issued a proclamation convening an extra session on the 21st (Thursday), when the two Houses reconvened accordingly,and a full quorumn of each was found to be present. The House promptly repassed the army bill, again affixing a proviso forbidilg the use of the army to enforce the disputed Territorial laws, which proviso the Senate as promptly struck out, and the House as promptly reinserted.

The Senate insisted on its disagreement, but asked no conterence, and the House (Aug. 22d) by a close vote decided to adhere to its proviso: Yeas, 97; Na.yvs, 93; but one of the yeas (Bocock of Va.) was so given in order to be able to move a reconsideration; so that the true division was 96 to 94, which was the actual division on a ,notion by Mr. Cobb of Ga. that the House recede from its position. Finally, a motion to reconsider was made and laid on the table; Yeas, 97; Nays, 96; and the House thereupon adjourned. Ang. 23d.-The Senate also voted to adhere: Yeas, 35; Nays, 9.

Mr. Clayton proposed a committee of Conference, to which Mr. Seward objected. No actloii. In the ttouse, Mmr. Campbell, of Ohio, proposed a similiar Committee of Conference. Objected to. Mr. Cobb, of Ga., moved that the House recede from its Kansas proviso. Defeated: Yeas, 97; Nays, 100. Adjourned. The struggle for the passage of the bill with or without the proviso continued until Saturday, August 30th, when, several imemibers, hostile to the proviso, and hitherto absent, unpaired, having returned, the House again passed the Ai lily bill with the proviso modified as follows: Pi-ovided, however, that no part of the military force of the United States, for the support of which appropr!iations are made by this act, shall be employed in aid of the enforcement of any enactments heretofore made by the body claiming to be the Territorial Legislature of Kansas. The bill passed as reported (under the Previous Questioin): Yeas, 99; Nays, 79; anrd wa s .s eit to the Senate, where the abov e proviso wvts stricken out: Yeas, 26;‘Nays, 7; anid t he b ill thus returned to the House, when the Seinate’s amiieiidimient was concurred in: Yeas, 101Nays, 97. So the proviso was beaten at lalst, and the bill passed, with no restriction os i the President’s iiiscretion in the use of the Army in Kansas w just as all attempts of the House to direct the i’resident to have a niolle prosegui entered in the case of the FreeState prisoners in Kan sas charged with aiding the formation and adoptioni of the FreeState constitution as aforesaid, had been previously beaten, after prevy-iliig ini the Housethe Senate striking theus out and the House (by union of nearly all the stip porters of Fillmore witwh neadr ly or quite all those supporting Buchanan) finally acquiescing. The 34th Congress re assemb led on the 1st of December. Sin ce the adjournment from the last ses sion the presidential election had taken place, resulting in the elect io n of Jasates Buchanan as President. The popular vote gave neither of the th re e ca ndid ates a majori ty. in the Free Sta tes th e election w as h otly conte sted and a very large vote polled. In the Southern States the vote was small, as n o issue was presented to the people, it being claimed by their respective partisans, ha that both the candidates (Buchan an and Fillmore) voted for in that sectioni were equally Pro-Slaverv. But the pro-slavery leaders had declared in favor of Bucthanan, and ihe conlsequently received large majori ties i n nearly every Slave State. Onfird the firsti dtuo of the session, K ansas affairs came up in the HIouse oni an objection to a(dmriit J. W. Whitfield to a seat as a delegate, the ob jectioni being that the border ruffian laws under which he had been elected were’; null and void.” Mr. Grow spoke against admitting Whitfield, and quoted froimi a speech of Mr. Clayton (.t short time before his decease) in the Senate. Mr. Clayton, in speaking of these lawvs, said: Noxv, sir, let me allude to that subject which is the great cause of all this discord between the two }louses. The in,tibtiquitous, oppr)essive, and ittfamous laws enacted by the Kansas Legislature, as it is called, ought to be repealed befor’e we adjourn.”

What ar e these laws? One of them sends a man to hard labor for not less tihan two years for daring to discuss the question whether Sil~ve,‘y exists, or does not exist, in Kansas: not less than two years-it may be fifty; and if a man could live as old as Mlethuselah, it might be over nine hund,‘ed years. That act prohibits all fr’eedom of discussion in Kansas on the great subject directly lre ferred to the exclusive decision of the people in that Territory; strikes down the liberty of the press too; and is an act egregiously tyrannical as ever was attempted by any of the Stuarts, TLudors o,’ Plaitagenets of En gland, and this Senate persists in declaring that we are not to repeal that! Sir, let us tender to the House of Representatives the repeal of that and all other objectionable and infamous laws that were passed by that Legislature. I include in this denunciation, without any hesitation, those acts which prescribe that a man shall not even practice law in the Territory unless he swears to support the Fugitive Slave Law; that he shall not vote at any election, or be a member of the Legislature, unless he swear’s to support the Fugitive Slave Law; thaft he shall not hold any office of honor or trust there, unless he swears to support the Fugitive Slave Law; and you may as well impose just such a test oath for any other and every other law.. I will not go through the whole catalogue of the oppres sive laws of this Territory. I have done that before to day. There al’e others as bad as these to which I have now rleferred…’.. I will not, on the other hand, ever degrade myself by standing for an instant by those abominable and iiifainotes laws which I denounced here this morning. Wi,slat I desire now is, that the Senate of the Unlted States shall waste its hands of all participa tion in these iniquities by repealing those laws. On Dee. ndrl, Pr esident Pierce sent his annual message to thec twvo Houses of (Congress. Inl re fizrringt to tile late election, the Presidenlt says8: It is impossible to misapprehend the great principles which, by their recent political action, the people of the United States have sanctioned and announced. They have asserted the Constitutional equality of each and all of the States of the Union as States;* they have affirmed the constitutional equality of each and all of the citizens of the United States as citizens, whatever I I I I 110

Page 111 view page image

PRESIDENT PIERCE ON KANSAS. their religion, wherever their birth, or their residence; they hlave maintained the inviolability of the constitutional rights of the different sections of the Union; and they have proclaimed their devoted and unalterable attachmnent to the Union and the Constitution, as objects of interest superior to all subjects of local or sectional controversy, as the safeguard of the lights of all as the spirit and true essence of the liberty, peace, and greatness of the Republic. In doing this, they have, at the same time, emphatically condemned the idea of organizing in these United States me e geographical parties; of marshalling in hostile array towards each other the different parts of the country, Noith or South, East or West. Schemes of this nature, fraught with inca lculabl e mischief, and which the consi derate sens e of the pe ople h as ejected, could h ave had countenance in ro part of the count, y, had they not be en disgui sed b y suggestions plausible in appearance, acting upon an excited state of the public mind, indu ced b y ca uses temporary in their chalacter, and it is to be ho ped transient in their infiuence. Perfect liberty of association for political objects and the widest scope of discussion are the received and ordinary conditions of government in our country. Our institutions, framed in the spirit of confidence in the intelli ge nce and integrity of the people, do not forbid citizens, either individually or associated together, to attack by writing, speech, or any other methods short of physical force, the Constitution and the very ex i stence of the Union. Under the shelter of this great liberty, and protected by the laws and usages of the government they assail, associations have been formed in some of the States, of individuals who, pretending to seek only to prevent the spread of the institution of Slavery into the present or future inchoate States of the Union, are really inflamed with desire to change the domestic institutions of existing States. To accomplish their objects, they dedicate themselves to the odious task of depreciating tie Government organization which stands in their way, and of calumniating, with indiscriminating invective, not only the citizens of particular States, with whose laws they find fault, but all others of their fellow-citizens throughout the country, who do not participate with them in their assaults upon the Constitution, framed and adopted by our fathers, and claiming for the privileges it has secured, and the blessings it has conferred, the steady support and grateful reverence of their children. They seekt an object which they well know to be a revolutionary one. They are perfectly aware that the change in the relative condition of the white and black races in the slaveholding States, which they would promote, is beyond their lawful authority; that to them it is a foreign object; that it cannot be effected by any peaceful instrumentality of theirs; that for them, and the States of which they are citizens, the only path to its accomplishment is through burning cities, and ravaged fields, and slaughtered populations, and all there is most terrible in foreign, complicated with civil and servile war; and that the first step in the attempt is the forcible disruption of a country embracing in its broad bosom a degree of liberty, and an amount of individual and public prosperity to which there is no parallel in history, and substituting in its place hostile governments, driven at once and inevitably into mutual devastation and fratricidal carnage, transforming the now peaceful and felicitous brotherhood into a vast permanent camp of armed men, like the rival monarchies of Europe and Asia. Well knowing that such, and such only, are the means and the consequences of their plans and purposes, they endeavor to prepare the people of the United States for civil war by doing everything in their power to deprive the Constitution and the laws of moral authority, and to undermine the fabric of the Union by appeals to passion and sectional prejudice, by indoctrinating’its people with reciprocal hatred, and by educating them to stand face to face as enemies, rather than shoulder to shoulder as friends. It is by the agency of such unwarrantable interference, foreign and domestic, that the minds of many, otherwise good citizens, have been so inflamed into the passionate condemnation of the domestic institutions of the Southern States, as at length to pass insensibly to almost equally passionate hostility toward their fellow-citizens of those States, and~ thus, finally, to fall into the temporary fellowvship with the avowed and active enemies of the Constitution. Ardlently attached to liberty in the abstract, they do not stop to consider practically how the objects they would attain can be accomplished, nor to reflect that, even if the evil were as great as they deem it, they have no remedy to apply, and that it canl be only aggravated by their violence and unconstit~.tional act~ion. A question which is one of the most d:fficult of al; the problems of social institutions. political e conomy, and statesmanship, they treat with un reasonable iauetpe - rance of th ought an d language. Exttemes beget extremes. Violent attack fron the North finds its inevitable consequence in the growth of a spirit of ar ity defiance at the South. Thus, in the progress of e ve nts, we h ad reach ed th e consummation which the voice of the people has now so point edly rebuked, of t h e atte mpt of a portion of the States, by a sectional organi zation and movement, to u sur p the contro l of th e Government of the United States. I confidently believe th at the gre at body of thos e who inconsiderately took this fatal st e p are sincerely att ached to the Constitution and the Union.

They w ould, upon deliberation, shrink with unaffected horror from any con scious act of disunion or civil war. But they have entered into a path which leads nowhere, unless it be to civil war gnd disunion, and which has no other possible outlet. They have proceeded thus far in that direction in consequence of the successive stages of thei r progress having consi ste d of a series of secondar y issues, each of which professed to be confined within c onstitutional and peaceful limits, but which attempted indirectly what few men were willing to do directly; that is, to act aggres s ively against the constttitutional rights of nearly onehalf of the thir ty-one States. In the long serie s o f act s o f indirect a ggression, the first was the strenuous agitation, by citizens of the Northern States, ic Congress and out of it, of the quest io n of negro emancipation in the South ern States. In reference to the repeal of the Missouri Cornpromiiise, and the legislative p ower of Con gress over th e Territories, the President says The enactment which established the res trictive geo gr aphical line, was acquiesced in, rat her than a pp roved, by the States of the Union. Itstood on the statute-book, lowever, for a number of years; and the p eople of t he respective States cquiesced in the reenactment of the principle as applied to the State of Texas; and it was propose d to acquiesce in it s furthe r appliction to the territ ory acquired by the United States f l Mexico. But this proposition was successf ully resisted by th e re presenta tive s fr om the Northern States, who, regardless of tie statute line, insisted upon applying restr ictio n to the new territory gen e rally, wh ether lyi ng no r or oth or south of it, thereby repeal ing it as a legislative copromise, and, on the part of the Nor th, persistently v iolating the coth pact, if compac t ther e was. TSe ereupon, thi s enactment ceased to have b inding virtue in any sense, whether as respects the Nor t h or the South; and so in effect it was t reated on o the occasion of the ad nission of the State of Cali for nia, and the organization of the Territor ie s of Nemw Mexico, Utah and Wash ington. Such was the state of this question whe n the time arrived for o i at i o o the org aniza ttion of the Territo ies of Kansas gand Nebraska. In the progress of constitutional in quir y *an d reflection, it had n o w a t le ngth come to be seen clearly that Congress doe s n ot possess constitutional power to impose restrictions of this character upon any p resent or future State of the Union. In a long ser ies of decisions, on tha the ofullest agument, n after the most deliberate consideration, the Supreme Court of the United States had finally determined this point in every form under which the questi on co u ld arise, whether as affecting public or privat e Oiglts-ii question s o f the public do aini, ein of religion, of tavigation, an d of servitude. Tte several Stat e s r ae, of the Union are, by foce of the Constitution, coequal in domestic l eg islative power. Con gress cannot change a law of domestic relation in the State of Maine: no more can it in the State of Missouri. Any statute which proposes to do this is a mere nullity; it takes away no rigtht, it confers none. If it remains on the statute-book unrepealed, it remains there only as a monument of error, and a beacon of warning to the legislator and the statesman. To repeal it will be only to remove imperfection from the statutes, without affecting, either in the sense of permission or of prohibition, the action of the States, or of their citizens. Still, when the nominal restriction of this nature, already a dead letter in law, was in terms rep(ealed by Itthe last Congress, in a clause of the act organizing the rTerritories of Kiansas and Nebraska, that repeal was made the occasion of a wide spread and dangerous agitation. It was alleged that the original enactment being a compact of perpetual moral obligation, its repeal con.stituted an odious breach of faith. tOn the motion to print the Message and acrcompa~nying documents,:Mr. Hale, of N.HI., said: DI look on the message of the President. as a most un .11

Page 112 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. fortunate one. I have no desire to say anything which shall be construed into a want of courtesy, kindness, or respect for him. I mean all due courtesy, kindness and respect. IIis situation is certainly such as to appeal to the magnanimity rather than provoke the hostility of his opponents. If he had been content to submit to it, and go out, as it seemed to be the wish of his friends and foes that hie should, without attempting to make such a charge as this against his political opponents, I should certainly have been content. But, sir, this message of the President is an arraignment of a vast majority of the people of eleven States of this Union of want of fidelity to their constitutional obligations, and of hostility to the Union and Constitution of these States. I deny it totally. More than that; the President of the United States, by virtue of the privileges conferred on him by the Constitution, charges upon the majority of the people of these States, in the exercise of their constitutional prerogative of voting for whom they please, the high offense of endeavoring to “usurp “-this is his very language-” the control of the Government of the United States.” “Usurp,”

if lexicographers understand the meaning of the word, is “to seize by force without righit.” I have observed in the history of the past few months no attempt in any section of the country, last and least in that section which the President arraigns, to seize upon power in this Government except by the regular constitutional discharge of the people’s obligations and duties as citizens going to the polls in the exercise of their elective franchise. Again, sir, I have not heard fromn a single citizen of those States an intimation, that if they should fail in the canvass upon which they had entered and in which they were striving to secure a majority in the councils of this Government, they were to do anything else but submit quietly and peaceably to the constitutionally expressed will of a majority. Mr. Seward, of N. Y., said: The President, I think, has departed from a customary course which was well established by his predecessors; that was to confine the annual message of the Executive to legitimate matters of legislation which must necessarily occupy the attention of Congress, and leave partisan disputes, occurring among the people, to the consideration and reflection of the people themselves. This President of the United States was the first one, I think to depart from that course in his Inaugural Ad-n dress’; and, if I remember a)right, he continued this departure in his first message and second message. He has been uncorrected, or rather unreformed in his erroneous course; he goes through to the end in the same course. I am willing, for my own part, that he, like all the rest of us, shall have hA speech-shall assign his reasons and his vindication for his policy. I do not question his right; I do not dispute it. Whatever I have thought necessary to submit to any portion of my countrymen in regard to the canvass which is past, has been submitted in the right time, in the right place, and I trust, in the right spirit. I am willing to allow the President of the United States the same opportunity which you and I and all others have enjoyed. Mr. Mason, of Va., said: Mr. President: the constant and obstinate agitation of questions connected with the institution of Slavery, has brought, I am satisfied, the public mind in those States where the institution prevails, to the conviction that the preservation of that institution rests with themselves and with themselves only. Therefore, at this day, when it is the pleasure of Senators again to bring that institution under review upon this floor, in any connection whatever, as one of the Representativ es of t he South, I take no further interest iussn the discussion, or in the opinion which is entertained at the North in relation to it, than as it may confirm the hope that there is a public senti ment at the North yet remaining, whi ch unites with the South in the desire to perpetuate the Union, and that, by the aid of that public sentiment at the North, the Union will be preserved. But further than that, as a statesman, and as one representing a Southern State, where that institution prevails mn re largely than in any other, the public sentiment of the North is a matter indifferent to me, because I say again, we have attained the convic tion that the safety of that institution will rest, must rest, and should rest, with the people of the States only where it prevails. Mr. Wilson, of Mass., said: Tise party to which reference has been made in this message-for I take it this assault of the President of the United States is upon the Republican party, and the people who supported -that organization in the last election-stands before the country with its opinions clearly expressed and openly avowed. It has a right to claim from.he President of th e United States-it has a right to claim fro m honorable Senators here-it has a right to c lai m be fore the country that it s hall stand upon its broad a nd open declarations of principle. How does it stand? It accepts the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States as its fuindamental creedl of doctrine.

It claims that Congress has a right to legislate for the Territories of the United States, and to exclude Slavery from them. It avows its determination to exercise that power. It has a right to ask of the President, and the country, that it shall be judged by its open and avowed declarations, and shall not be misrepresented, as it has been misrepresented in this document by the President of the United States. The declaration is broadly made here, not only that these men are sectionalists-not only that they have gotten up a sectional warfare, but that they are maintaining doctrines hostile to the perpetuity of the Union. Now, sir, let me say here to-day, that I do not know a man in the Free States who supported John C. Fremont in the last presidential election, not one of the one million three hundred thousand intelligent freemen who supported that nomination, that ever avowed his intention to go for a dissolution of this Union; but at all times, on all occasions, in public and in private, they have avowed their devotion to the Union, and their intention to maintain and defend it. Let me say further, that the men in this country, who avow themselves to be disunionists, that squad, which, during the last thirty years, on all fit and unfit occasions, in moments of excitement and moments of calm, have avowed themselves disunionists, have, as a body, en masse, supported the Democratic party.

The whole southern heavens have been darkened during the last four months by the black banners of disunion that have floated in the breeze. Mr.

Pugh, of Ohio, defended the President against the construction put on certain parts of the message by other Senators. He said: My colleague (Mr.

Wade) asserts that the President has employed libellous terms in speaking of a large number of our common constituents, who voted for Col. Fremont at the last election. If the charges were true in any sense, I should unite with my colleague in the condemnation which he has pronounced; for although I would have deplored the election of Col. Fremont as the greatest calamity that could befall the Amtericatn people, I feel bound to render my tr’ibute of respect to those honest, patriotic, but as I think, misguided, citizens of Ohio, who voted for him. The paragraph upon which my colleague based this accusation, is the one which I now send to the secretary’s desk. (itere the secretary read the part of the message quoted above, beginning, iOur institutions framiied” and down to ” lather,han shoulder to shoulder-as friends.”) It is (continued Mr. Pugh) impossible that this paragraph should apply to thle members of the Republican party, if, as now asserted, they do not ailm at the abolition by Congress of Slavery within the States. It is directed against those who hold that doctrine. It refers to the men whom the Senator from Mass. (MAr. Wilson) and the Senator fromn Mlaine (Mr. Fessenden) themselves have denounced on the floo,’. TME LECOhrPTON CoNsTrITUTIO. On the 8th I)ecember, 1857, Presid,,.nt Bucllaiiani transmitted to Congress his first annual iimessage. He devotes considerable space to the subject of Slavery, giving a history of the formationi of the Lecomiipton Constitution for Kansas, and announcing the doctrine that the Constitution of its own force carries Slavery into all the Territories. Speaking of this subject, he says: In emerging from the condition of Territorial dependence into that of a sovereign State, it was their duty, in my opinion, to make known their will by the votes of the majority, on the direct question, whether this important domestic institution should or should not continue to exist:”

and that the slaves now in Kansas “were brought into the Territory under the Constitution of the United States.” The following is the part of the messae-o referring to Kansas affairs: 112

Page 113 view page image

THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION. to a direct vote. How wise, then, was it for Congress to pass over all subordinate and intermediate agencies, and proceed directly to the source o f a ll legitimate power under our institutions! How vain would any other principle pro ve in prao. tice!

This may be illustrated by the case,f Kanlsas. Should she be admitted into the Union with a constitu tion either maintaining or abolishing Slavery, ag ainst the sentim ent of the people, this coull have no o ther eff e ct than to con tin ue and to exasperate the existing agita tion duri ng the brief period required to make the con stitution co nform to the irresistible will of th e majority. The friends and supporters of the Nebraska and Kan sas act, when strugglin g on a recent occasion to sustain its wise provisions before the great t ri bun a l of the Ame. rican pe ople, neve r differe d a bout i ts true mea ming on this subject.

Everywhere throughout the Union they publicly pledged their f aith and their h onor tha t they would cheerfully submit the qu estion of Slavery to the decision of the botafhde people of Kansas without a ny restrict ocaion or qual ification whatever All were cordially unite d upon th e grea t doctrine of popul ar sovei eignty, which is the vital principle of ourfree incsttutions; lad it, the n, been in sinuat ed from any quarter tha t it would be a sufficien t compliance wit h th e requisition s o f the or-e gan ic law for the members of a convention, thereafter to be elected, to withhold the question of nlaveoy flom the people, and to substitute their own will fore that of a legally-ascertained m ajority of all their onstituents, this would have bee n instantly raejected. Everywhe re they remained true to the resolution a dopt ed on a celebrated occasion recognizing ” the r igh t of the people of all the Territories-including Kansas and Nebr aska, acting through the legally and f airly expressed will of a major - ity of actual resident s, and whenever the number of their inhabitants justified it-to form a constitution with or without Slavery, and b e ad mitted in to the Union upon term s of perfect equality with the ot he r States.” The Conventioirf to fiame a constitution for Kansas met on the first Monday of September last. They were called to ge ther by virtue of an act of the Territor ial legislature, whose lawful exist ence had been r ecognized by Congress in different forms and by different enact ments. A large proportion of the citizens of Kansas did n o t th ink p rope r to register their names and to vote at the election for delegates; b ut a n opportunity t o do this having been fairly affo rded, their refusal to avail them selves of their right could in no manner affect the legal ity of the convention. This Convention proceeded to frame a constitution for Kansas, and finally adjourned on the 7th day of No vember. But little difficulty occurred in the Convention, except on the subject of Slavery. The truth is, that the general provisions of our recent State constitutions are so similar, and, I may add, so excellent, that the differ ence between them is not essential. Under the earlier practice of the Government, no constitution framed by the convention of a Territory preparatory to its admis sion into the Union as a State had been submitted to the people. I trust, however, the example set by the last Congress, requiring that the constitution of Minnesota ” should be subject to the approval and ratification of the people of the proposed State,” may be followed on future occasions. I took it for granted that the Conven tion of Kansas would act in accordance with this exam. ple, founded as it is, on correct principles; and hence my instructions to Governor Walker, in favor of sub mitting the constitution to the people, were expressed in general and unqualified terms. In the KansasNebraska act, however, this require ment, as applicable to the whole constitution, had not been inserted, and the Convention were not bound by its terms to submit any other portion of the instrument to an election, except that which relates to the ” domes tic institution ” of Slavery. This will be rendered clear by a simple reference to its language. It was ” not to legislate Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof per fectly free to form and regulate their domestic institu tions in their own way.” According to the plain con struction of the sentence, the words “1 domestic institu tions ” have a direct as they have an appropriate refer>ence to Slavery. ” Domestic institutions ” are limited to the family. The relation between master and slave and a few others are ” domestic institutions,” and are en. firely distinct from institutions of a political character. OkBesides, ther e was no question then before Congress, nor indeed has there since been any serious question before the people of Kansas or the country, except that which relates to the ” domestic institution ” of Slavery. rThe Convention, after an angry and excited debate, finally determined, by a majority of only two, to submit tthe question of Slavery to the people, though at the low It is untie(essary to state in detail the alarming con dition of the Territory of Kansas at the time of my in auguration. The opposing parties then stood in hostile array against each other, and any accident might have relighted the flames of civil war. Besides, at this critica l moment, Kansas was left without a governor by the resignation of Governor Geary. On the 19th of February previous, the Territorial legis lature had passed a law providing for the election of de legates on the third Monday of June, to a convention to meet on the first Monday in September, for the pur pose of framing a constitution preparatory to admission into the Union. This law was in the main fair and just; and it is to be regretted that all the qualified elector s had not registered themselves and voted under its pro visions. At the time of the election for delegates, an extensive organization existed in the Territory, whose avowed ob ject it was, if need be, to put down the lawful govern ment by force, and to establish a government of their own under the so-called Topeka Constitution. The per sons attached to this revolutionary organization ab stained from taking any part in the election. The act of the Territorial legislature had omitted to provide for submitting to the people the constitution which might be framed by the Convention; and in the excited state of public feeling throughout Kansas, an apprehension extensively prevailed that a design ex isted to force upon them a constitution, in relation to Slavery, against their will. In this emergency it became my duty, as it was my unquestionable right, having in view the union of all good citizens in support of the Ter ritorial laws, to express an opinion on the true construc tion of the provisions concerning Slavery contained in the organic act of Congress of the 30th May, 1854. Con gress declared it to be “the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the peo ple thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way.” Under it Kansas, “when admited as a State,” was to “be re ceived into the Union with or without Slavery as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admis sion.” 1)id Congress mean by this language that the delegates elected to frame a constitution, should have authority finally to decide the question of Slavery, or did they in tend, by leaving it to the people, that the people of Kan sas themselves should decide this question by a direct vote? On this su bject I c onfess I had never entertai n ed a seriou s doubt, and, th erefore,n in my instructions to Governor Walker of the 28th March last, I merely said that w hen ” a cons titution shall b e submi t ted to the peo -le of the Territory, they must be protected in the exer cise of their right of voting for or against that instru ment, and the fair expression of the popular will must not be interrupted by fraud or violence.” In expressing this opinion it was far from my inten tion to interfere with the decision of the people of Kan sas, either for or against Slavery. From this I have always carefully abstained. Intrusted with the duty oif ” taking care that the laws be faithfully executed,” my only desire was that the people of Kansas should furnish to Congress the evidence required by the organic act, whether for or against Slavery; and in this manner smooth their passage into the Union. In emerging from the condition of Territorial dependence into that of a sovereign State, it was their duty, in my opinion, to make known their will by the votes of the majority, on the direct question, whether this important domestic institution should or should} not continue to egist. Indeed this was the only possible mode in which their will could be authentically ascertained. The election of delegates to a convention must necessarily take place in separate districts. From this cause it may readily happen, as has often been the case, that a majority of the people of a State or Territory are on one side of a question, whilst a majority of the representatives from the several districts into which it is divided may be upon the oth6r side. This arises from the fact that in some districts delegates may be elected by small majorities, whilst in others those of different sentiments may receive majorities sufficiently gr eat not only to overcome the votes given for the former, but to leave a large majority of the whole people in direct oppositions to a majority of the delegates. Besides, our history proves that influences may be brought to bear on tile representative sufficiently powerful to induce him to disregard the will of his constituents. The tr uth is, that no other authentic and satisfactory mode exists of ascertaining the will of a majority of the people of any State or Territory on an important and exciting question like that of Slavery in Kansas, except by leaving it 8

113

Page 114 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. show that the President did not mean to “
recommend” the Lecompton Constitution, but that he only referred that document to the Congress of the United States-as the Constitution of the United States refers it-for us to decide upon it under our own responsibil ity. “It is proper,” said Mr. D., ” that he should have thus referred it to us as a matter for congressional action, and not as an administrative or executive measure, for the reason that the Constitution of the United States says,’ Congress may admit new States into the Union.’ Hence we find the Kansas question before us now, not as an Administrative measure, not as an Executive measure, but as a measure coming before us for our free action, without any recommendation or interference, directly or indirectly, by the Administration now in possession of the Federal Government.”…… Mr. President, I am not going to stop and inquire how far the Nebraska bill, which said the people should be left perfectly free to form thei r constitution for themsel ves, authorized th e President, or th e Cab inet, or Gov ernor Walker, or any other Territorial officer, to int erfere and tell the Convent i o n of Kans a s whethe r they should or should not submit the question to the people. I am not going to stop to inquire how far they were i authorized to do tha t, it being my opinion that the s pirit of the Nebraska bill required it to be done. It is sufficient for my p urpo se that th e Ad minis tra tion of the Federal Gov ernment unanimously-t that the a dministration o f the Ter ri torial g overnment, in all.ts pa rts, unanimously understood the Territorial law under which the Conven tyon wa s a sse mbled to mea n t hat the const itution to be formed by t hat Convention should be submi tte d to th e people for ratification or rejection, and, if not confirmed by a majority of the people, should be n ull and void, witho ut co ming to Congress for approval. Not only did the Nat io nal Gov ernment and the Territo rial government so understand the law at th e e ti me, b ut, as I have already stated, the people of the Territory so understood it. As a further evidence on th at point, a large number, if not a majority, of the delegates were instructed in the nominating conventions to sub mit the constitution to the people for ratification. I know that the delegates from Douglas County, eight in number, Mr. Calhoun, Pre siden t of the Co nvention, b eing a mong them, were not only instructed th us to submit the question, but they signed and published, while candidates, a written pledge that they would submit it to the people for ratifi cation. I know that men high in authorit y, and i n the confidence of the Territorial and National Government, canvassed every part of Kansas during the election of delegates, a nd ea ch on e of the m ple dged hi mself to the people that no sn ap j udgmen t was to be taken; that the constitution was to be submit ted to the peo ple for accept ance or reject ion: th at i t would be vo id u nless that was done; tha t the Administration would s pur n and scorn it as a violation of the principles on wh ich it came into p ower, and that a Democratic Congress wo uld hurl it from their presence as an insult to the Demo c rats w ho stood pledged to see the people left free to form the ir domest ic institu tions for themselves Not only that, sir, but up to thea, r p t thtime when th e Con ven tion assembled, on the 1st of September, so fa r as I can learn, it was understood everywhere that the c onstitution was to be submitted for ratification or rejection. They met, however, on the 1st of September, and adjou rned until after the October election. I think that it was wise and prudent that they should thus have adjourned. They did not wish to bring any ques tion into that election which woul d divide the Democratic party, and weaken our cha nces of success in the election. I was rejoiced when I saw th at they did adjourn, so as not to show their hand on any question tha t wo uld divide and distract the party until after the election. During that recess,whil e the Convention was adjourned, Govern or Ransom, th e Demo cratic candidate for Congress, running against the present Delegate from that Territory, was canvassing every part of Kansas, in favor of the doctrine of submitting the consti tution t o t he people, declaring that the Democratic party wer e in favor o f such submission, a nd that i t was a slan der of the Black Republicans to intimate the charge that the Democratic party did not intend to carry out that pledge in good faith.

Thus, up to the time of the Con-! Vention, in October last, the pretense was kept up, the profession was openly mnade, and believed by me, and I thought believed by them, that the Convention intended’I to submit a constitution to the people, and not to attempt to put a government in operation without such submission. The election being over, the Democratic party being defeated by an overwhelming vote, the Opposition having triumphed, and got possession of both branches ~ f the legislature, anld having elected their Ter.-ito.‘ial forty-tlhree of the fifty delegates present affixed their signatures to the constitution. A large majority of the Convention were in favor of establishing Slavery in Kansas. They accordingly inserted an article in the constitution for this purpose similar in form to those which had been adopted by o ther Territ orial conventions. In the schedule, however, providing for the trans ition from a Territorial to a Stat e gov ernm ent, t he question has been fairly and explicitly referred to the people, whether they will have a constitutioon” wit withwithout Slavery.”’ It declares that, be for e t he constitution adopted by the Convention ” shall b e sen t to Congress for admission into the Union as a S tate,” a n election shall be held to decide this question, a t which all th e white male inhabitants of the Territory ab ove the age of 21 are e ntitled to vote. They are to vote by ballot; and “the ballots cast at said election shall be indor s e d’

constitution with Slavery,’ and’ constitution with n o Slavery.‘n If there be a majonity in favor of t the the consti tution w it h Slavery,” then it is to be transmitted to Congress by the p res ident of the Conventio n in its original form. If, on the conte ary, there s hall b e a majo rity in fav or of the ” constitution with no Slavery,” ” then the article providing for Slavery shall be stricken from the constitution by the president of this Convention;” and it is expressly declared that ” no Slavery shall exist in the State of Kansas, except that the right of property in slaves now in the Territory shall in no manner be interfered witi;” and in that event it is made his duty to have the constitution thus ratified, transmitted to the C on gre ss of the Unite d States, for the admission of the S ta te i nto the Union. At this election, every citizen will have an opportunity of expressing his opinion by his vote “whether Kansas shall be received into the Union with or without Slavery,” and thus this exciting question may be peace fully settled in the very mode required by the organic law. The election will be held under’legitimate authority, and if any portion of the inhabitants shall refuse to vote, a fair opportunity to do so having been presented, this will be their own voluntary act, and they alone will be responsible for the consequences.

Whether Kansas shall be a free or a slave State, must eventually, under some authority, be decided by an election; and the question can never be more clearly or distinctly presented to the people than it is at the present moment. Should this opportunity be rejected, she may be involved for years in domestic discord, and possibly in civil war, before she can again make up the issue now so fortunately tendered, and again reach the point she has already attained. Kansas has for some years occupied too much of the public attention. It is high time this should be directed to far more important objects. When once admitted into the Union, whether with or without Slavery, the excitement beyond her own limits will speedily pass away, and she will then, for the first time, be left, as she ought to have been long since, to manage her own affairs in her own way.

If her constitution on the sub ject of Slavery, or on any other subject, be displeasing to a majority of the people, no human power can prevent them from changing it within a brief period. Under these circumstances, it may well be questioned whether the peace and quiet of the whole country are not of greater importance than the mere temporary triumph of either of the political parties in Kansas. Should the constitution without Slavery be adopted by the votes of the majority, the rights of property in slaves now in the Territory are reserved. The number of these is very small; but if it were greater the provision would be equally just and reasonable. The slaves were brought into the Territory under the Constitution of the United States, and are now the property of their mas ters. This point has at length been finally decided by the highest judicial tribunal of the country-and this upon the plain principle that when a confederacy of sovereign States acquire a nev territory at their joint expense, both equality and justice demand that the citi zens of one and all of them thall have the right to take into it whatsoever is recognized as property by the com.non Constitution. To have summarily confiscated the property in slaves already in the Territory would have been an act of gross injustice, and contrary to the prac tice of the older States of the Union which have abol ished Slavery. MR. DOUGLAS ON LECOMPTON. Mr. Douglas, who very early joined in the de bate onl the President’s Message, at first said he dissented from the views of the President in regard to Kansas, but afterward endeavored to 114

Page 115 view page image

MR. DOUGLAS ON LECOMPTON.1 Delegate, the Convention assembled, and then proceeded’ to complete their work. Now let us stop to inquire how they redeemed the pledge to submit the constitution to the people. They first go on to make a constitution. Then they make a schedule, in which they provide that the constitution, on the 21st of December-the present month-shall be sub mitted to all the bonafide inhabitants of the Territory on that day, for their free acceptance or rejection, in the fol lowing manner, to wit: Thus acknowledging that they were bound to submit it to the will of the people; conced ing that they had no right to put it into operation without submitting it to the people, -providing in the instrument that it should take e ffect fr om and after the date of its ratification, and not before; showing that the Constitution derives its vitality, in their estimation, not from the au thority of the Convention, but from that vote of the peo ple, to which it was to be submitted for their free accept ance or rejection. how is it to be submitted? It shall be submitted in this form: “Constitution with Slavery, or constitution with no Slavery?” All men must vote for the constitution, whether they like it or not, in order to be permitted to vote for or against Slavery.

Thus a constitu tion made by a convention that had authority to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances, bit not to estab lish a governmenta constitution made under a pledge of honor that it should be submitted to the people before if took effect-a constitution which provides on its face, that it shall have no validity except what it derives fromn such submission-is submitted to the people at an election where all m en are a t liberty to come f orw ar d fr eely, with out hindr ance, and vote for it, but no man i s permitted to record a vote ag ains t it! That would be as fair an election as some of the ene mies of Napoleon attributed to him when he was elected First Consul. He is sa id to hav e cal led out his troops and ha d t hem r evi ew ed by his officers, with a speech, patriotic a nd fair in i ts professions, in which he said t to them: ” Now i my soldiers, you are to go to the election a nd vote freely, just a s y ou ple a se. If you vote for Napoleon, all is well-vote against him, and Lou are to be instantly shot!” That was a fair election.

(Laughter.) This elec tion is to be equally fair. All men in favor of t he consti t u tion may vote for it, all men against it shall not vote at all.

Why not let them vote against it? I presume you have asked many a man this question. I have asked a very large number of the gentlemen who framed the con stitution, quite a number of delegates, and a still larger number of persons who are their friends, and I have re ceived the same answer from every one of them. I never received any other answer, and I presume we never shall get any other answer. What is that? They say, if they had allowed a negative vote, the constitution would have been Toted down by an overwhelming majority; and hence the fellows shall not be allowed to vote at all. (Laughter.) Mr. President, that may be true. It is no part of my purpose to deny the proposition that that constitution would have been voted down if submitted to the people. I believe it would have been voted down by a majority of four to one. I am informed by men well posted there -Democrats-that it would be voted down ten to one; some say by twenty to one. But is it a good reason why you should declare it in force, without being submitted to the people, merely be cause it would have been voted down by five to one ii you had submitted it? What does that fact proves Does it not show undeniably that an overwhelming majority of the people of Kansas are unalterably opposed to that constitution? Will you force it on them against thei will, simply because they would have voted it down if you had consulted them? If you will, are you going to force it upon them under the plea of leaving them perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way? Is that the mode in which I am called upon tc carry out the principle of self-government and populai sovereignty in the Territoriesto force a constitution or the people against their will, in opposition to their protest with a knowlege of the fact, and then to assign as a reasot for my tyranny, that they would be so obstinate and s perverse as to vote down the constitution if I had giver them an opportunity to be consulted about it? Sir, I deny your right, or mine, to inquire of these peo pie what their objections to that constitution are. Then have a ri~ght to judge for themselves whether they like o dislike it. It is no answer to tell me that the constitutior is a good one, and unobjectionable. It is not satisfactor~ to me to have the President say, in his moessage, that tha |constitution isq an admirable one, like all the constitution of the new States that have been recently framed. Whethe | good or bad, whether obnoxious or not, is none of my busi 1hess, and none of yours. It is their business, and not ours. I care not what t he. have in their constitution, so that it suits them and doe not violate the Constitution of the United States and the fundamental principles of liberty upon which our istitut tions rest. I am not going to argue the question whetl} r the banking system established in tha t con stitution is o ise or unwise. It says there shall be nomonopolies, but there shall be one bank of i ssue in the State, with two branches. All I have to say on tha t po in t i s, i f they want a banking system, le t them have it; if they do not want it, let them prohibit it. If they want a bank wit h two bra nche s, be it so; i f the y want twenty, it is none of my business; and it matters not to me whether one o f th em shall be on the north side and the othe r on the south s i de of the Kaw River, or where they shall b e. Whilae I have n o right t o expect t o be consulte d on that point, I do hold that the people of Kansas have tole right to be consulte d and to decide it, and y ou have no righitful auth ority to deprive them of that privilege. It is eo justification, in my mind, to say that the provision f or t he eligibility for the off icers of Governor and Lieut.-Go - veMror requires twenty year s’ citizenship in the United Staptes. If men th ink that no person should vote or hold office until he has been here twenty years, they have a rigoit, to think so; and if a majority of the people of Kan sas think that no man of for ei gn birth should vot e or lold office unless he has lived there twenty years, it is their right to say so, and I have no i ight to ht interfere with t.Woem; it is their business, no t mine but if I lived ahere I should not be will ing to ha ve that provision in the constitution wit hout being hear d u po n the subject, and all owed to record my protest against it. I have nothin g to say about their system of ta xation, in which they have gone back and resorted to the old ex - plode! system which we tried in Illinois, but abandoned because we di d no t like i t. If the y wish to try it and get tire d of it and abandon it, be it so; but if I were a citizen of Kansas I wouldgprofit by th e experience of Illinois on that subject, and defeat wit if I could. Yet I have no objection to their having it if they want it t i t is their business, not mine. So it is in regard to the f-ee negroes.

They provide that no free negro shall be permitted to giove i n Kansas. i suppose they have a rigPit to say so if they choose; but if I lived t here I shou ld want to vote on the question. We, in Illinois, provide t hat no more sh al l come thee e. We say to tie other States, ” Take care of your own fiee negroes and we ill take of ours.” But wae arou. u do inot say that the negroes new there shall not be permitted to live in Illinois; and I think the people of Kansas ought to have the rigit to say whether they will allow them to live there, and if they are not going to do s o, how they are to dis pose of them. So you may g,, on with all the different clauses of the Constitution. They may be all right; they may be all wrong.

That is a question on which my opinion is worth not.intg. The opinion, of the wise and patriotic Chief Magistrate of the United States is not wor th anythin-g as against thait of the people of Kansas, for they havq a righit to judge for thlem)selves; and neither Pres] dent, nor Senates, nor Houses of Representatives, norL any other power outside of Kansas. has a right to judge’ for them. Hlence it is no justification, in my mind, for the violation of the great principle of self-gover.,ent, to say that the Conistitution you are forcing on them is not particularly obnoxious, or is excellent, in its provisions. f lIerhaps, sh’-, tihe same thing might be said of the, Topeka Constitution. I do not recollect its peculiar proy visions. I know one thing: we Democrats, we Nebraska t men, would not even look into it to see what its provir siolns were. Why? Because we said it was made by a a political party, and not by the people; that it was made e in defiance of the authority ofCongress; that if it was as e pure as the Bible, as holy as the ren Commandments, yet r we would not touch it until it was submitted to and o ratified by the peolple of Kansas, in pursuance of r the forms of law. Perhaps tihe Topeka Conistitution, blt u for the mode of making it, would have been unexceptior able. I do not know; I do not care. You have no right to force an unexceptionable constitution on a people. It o does not mitigate the evil, it does not dimini,!ish the itlsult, n it does not ameliorate the wrong, that you are forcing a good thing upon them. I am not willing to be forced to ). do that which I would do if I were left, free to judge and y act for myself. Hence I assert that there is no justificar tion to be mlade for this flagranst violation of p~opular n rights in Kiansas, on the plea that thle constitution which y they have made is not part.icularly obnoxious. Lt But, sir~ the President of the United States is really and is sincerely of the opinion that the Slavery clause has been r fairly arid impartially submitted to the fr-ee atcceptanlce or irejection of the people of Kansas, andl that, inasmluch as thiat wars the exciting and paramounlt question, if th~ey y get the righ t to vote as they pslease on that subject, ~S they ought to be satisfied; and possibly it might be 115

Page 116 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. better if wv( would accept it, and put an end to the ques tion. Let ile ask, sir, is the Slavery clause fairly sub nmitted, so that the people can vote for or against it? Sup lose I were a citizeni of Kansas, and should go up to the polls and say, “I desire to vote to make Kansas a Slave State; here is my ballot.” They reply to ite, ” 3r. Douglas, just vote for that constitution first, if you ,lease.” “Oh, no!” I answer, ” I cannot vote for that constitution conscientiously-I am opposed to the clause by which you locate certain railroads in such a way as t o sacrifice my county and my part of the State. I am opposed to that batnking system. I am opposed to this Know-Nothing or American clause ill the constitutio n about the qualifications for office. I cannot vote for it.” Then they answer, ” You shall not vote on making it a Slave State.” I then say, ” I want to make it a Free ,tate.” They reply, ” Vote for that constitution fi st, and then you can vote to make it a Fr ee State; otherjise you cannot.” Thus they disqualify every F eeState man who will not first vote for the constitution; they dis qua’ify every Slave-State man who will not, first vote for the constitution. No matter wheth er or not the voters state that they cannot conscientiously vote lor those pro visions, they reply, “You cannot vote for or against Slavery here. Take the constitution as we have made it, take the Elective Franchise as we have established it, take the Banking System as we hav e dicta ted it, take the Railroad lines as we have located them, take the Judiciary ~ystem as we have formned it, take it all as we have fixed it to suit ourselves, and ask no questions, bu t vot e f or it, or you shall not vote either for a Slave or Free State.” In other wo rds, the legal effect of the schedule is this: all those who are in favor of this constitution may vote f or or rtgauist Slavery, as they please; but all those who are ,aginst thlis constitution are disfranchised, and shall not ,)te at all. That is the mode in which the Slavery pro!)-sition is submitted. Every man opposed to the consti tution is disfranchised on the Slavery clause. How many are Mhey? They tell you there is a majority, for they say the constitution will be voted down instantly, by an o ver ihelltlitg majority, if you allow a negative vote. This shoiws that t majority are against it. They disqualify and disfranchise every man who is against it, thus re’ferring the Slavery clause to a minority of the people of Kalnsas, and leaving that minority free to vote tor or against the Slavery clause as they choose. Let me ask you if that is a fair mode of submitting the S avery clause? Does that mode of submitting that par ticulc0r clause leave the people perfectly free to vote for or agatinst Slavery as they choose? Am I free to vote as I choose on the Slavery question, if you tell me I shall not vote on it until I vote for the Mlaine Liquor Ltw? Am I free to vote on the Slavery question, if you tell me I shall not vote either way until I vote for a Bank? Is it fireedomi of election to make your right to vote upon one question depend upon the mode in which you are going to vote on some other question which has no con nectioi with it? Is that freedom of elec tion? I s that the great fundamental principle of Self-Governmnent, for which we combined and struggled, in this bodly andl throughout the country, to establish as a rule of acti on ill all time to come?…. i Let me ask you, why force this Constitution down the jthiroats of the pe.p!e of Kansas, in opposition to their ! wishes and in violation of our pledges? What great ob ject is to be attained? Cue bono t What are you to gain by it?. Wil you sustain the party by violating its priti ciples? Do you propose to keep thle party united by forcing a division? Stand by the doctrine that leaves the people perfectly free to form and regulate their inisti tutions for themselves in their own way, and your party will be united and irresistible in power. Abandon th at great principle, and the party is no t worth saving, ande cannot be saved, after it shall be violated. I trust we are not to be rushed upon this question. Why shall it be doee? Who is to be benefited? Is the South to be the gainer? Neither theNorth nor the South has the right to gain a sectional advantage by tricker y or ft aSpd. But I am beseeched to wait, till I hear from the election on the 21st of December. I am told that perhaps that will put it all right, and will solve the whole difficulty. IHow can it? Perhaps there mnay be a large vote. There may be a large vote returned. (Laughter.) But I deny that it is possible to have a fair vote on the Slavery Clause; and I say that it is not possible to have any vote on the Constitution. Why wait foa’ the mockery of an election, when it is provided, unalterably, that the people cannot vote-when the majority are disfranchised? t But I am told on all sides, “Oh, just wait-the Pro Slavery clause will be voted down.” That does not obvi ate any of my objections; it dices not diminish any of them. You have no more right to force a FreeState Constitutiots oil Kansas than a Slave-State Constitution. If Kansas wants a Slave-State Constitution, she has a right to it; if sie wants a FreeState Constitution, she has a right to it. It is none of my business which way the Slavery claus e is decided. I care not Whelther it iSa voted douw orvoted Hap. Do you suppose, after pledges of iy honor, that I would go for that principle, and leave the people to vote as they choose, t ha t I would nfiow degrade myself by voting one way if the Slavery clause be voted down, andl another way if it be voted up,? I care not how that vote may stand. I take it for granted that it will be voted out. I think I have seen enough in the last thre e lays tc make it certa in tha t t twill be returned out, no matter how the vote may stand.’ (Laugh ter.) Sir, I am opposed to that concern, because it looks to me like a system of trickery and jugglery to defeat the fair expression of the will of the people.

rhere is no nie cessity for crowding this measure, so unfair, so unjust, as it is in all its aspects, upon us. On the 2nd of Feb., 1858, the President transmitted to Congress the Lecompton Constitution, accompanied by a special Message strongly urging the atdnmissioni of Kati,sas as a State under this constitution. (The following is a brief statement in regard to the origin of the Lecomptorn Constitution:) The first Territorial Legislature passed an act in 1855 to take the sense of the people on the call of a Convention to ftrm a State Constitutioni, at the election in Oct., 1856. Accordingly, an election was held at which about 2,500 votes were polled, the FreeState men not voting. At this election, a new legislature was elected, all ProSlavery, which met in Jan., 1857, and in conformity with the vote of 2,500 at the preceding October election, passed an act providing for tihe election of delegates on the 15th of June, to meet in convention in September following. Soon after this, Gov. Walker went to Kansas, and published an address to the people in which he assured them of his determination to use every means in his power to prevent all disorder and violence. He persuaded the FreeState men to go to the polls and vote. An objection which they urged was, that in 19 out of the 38 counties no registry had been made, and that in 15 out of the 19 no census had been taken, so that it was impossible for the people to vote in those counties. These facts are confirmed by Gov. Walker and Secretary Stanton. The election for delegates to the Convention was held on the 15th of June. The FreeState men did not vote, for the reason just mentioned, and also (as they stated,) that thev had no confl. denee in the officers who were to hold the election, and because the Constitution which might be formed, must, in the opinion of Gov. Walker, be submitted to a vote of all the people for ra,tification or rejection, whether they voted at this election or not. The entire vote for delegates was only about 2,200. The delegates elected assembled in Conivenltion at Lecompton, Sept. 5th, but soon adjourned over to October, to await the result of the Territorial Election on the first Mondav of that month. At this Territorial Election, both parties nominated candidates. At the request of Gov. Walker; 2,0U00U. S.troops were ia tho Territory, and they were stawtionled so as to protect the polls as much as possible. Over eleven thousand votes were polled, after rejecting 2,800 as fraudulent and irregular, 1,600 of which were returned fromn the Oxtbrd precinct, where, acc()rdiug to the cenlsus, there weere but 43 voters, and twelve hundred from McGee County, whero 116 I

Page 117 view page image

MR. Bl, CHANAN’S LECOMPTON MESSAGE. .,o poll was opened. The result of this electionI was, the FreeState party carried the legislature and the delegate to Congress. The Convention reassembled in October, ac-! cording to adjournment, and formed the Consti’ution now so famous as the Lecompton Consti;ution. When it became known that the Convention had refused to submit the entire cotsititution to a vote of the people for ratification )r rejection, and had submitted only a proposiioil in regard to Slavery, and that in a form and under a test oath which would prevent the FreeState people from voting, there was great excitement in the Territory, threatening bloodshed. Jiider these circumstances, Acting Gov. Stanton ;alled (Gov. Walker had resigned) an extra sesion of the Territorial Legislature. The legisla;ure assembled Dec. 17th, and passed an act to submit the Lecompton Constitution fairly to a vote of the people on the 4th of January next, following, the time fixed by the Lecompton convention for the election of State officers under that constitution. On the 21st of Dec., the vote was taken in the manner prescribed by the Convention, anrid resulted as follows: “:For the constitution with Slavery” 6,266 “For the constitution without Slavery ” 567 Total vote……. 6,793 Jan. 4tlh, 1858, in accordance with the act of the Territorial Legislature, the people voted as follows: For the Lecompton Constitution with Slavery. 138

” ” ” without”. 24 Against the Lecompton Constitution… 10,226 Being over ten thousand majority against the Lecompton Constitution). to which they owe allegiance, and have been ill the time in a state of resistance against its authority. They have all the time been endeavoring to subvert it and to establish a revolutionary Government, under the so-called Topeka Constitution, i its stead. Even at this very moment, the Topeka Legislature are in session. Whoeve r has read the correspondence of Gov.

Walker with the State Department, recently commnmunicated to the Senate, will b e convinced that this picture is not overdi-awn. He always protested against the withdrawal of any portion of the iilitary force of the United States from the Territory, deeming its piresence absolutely necessary for th e prese rvation of the regular Govern - ment and th e executi o n of the law s. In his very first dispatch to the Secre tary of tate, dated J une 2, 1857, he says: “The mo st a larming movement, however, proceeds from the assembling, on th e 9th of June, of th e so-called Topeka Legislature, with a viewt to the enactment of an entire code of laws. Of course, it will be my endeavor to prevent such a result, as it would lead t o inevitabl e and d isastrous collision an d in fact renew the civil war in Kansas.” This was with difficulty prevented by the e fforts of Governor Walker; but soon thereaftere, on the 14th of July, we find him requesting General Haofbey to furnish him a regiment of dragoons to proceed to the city of Lawrence, and this for the reason that he had received authe ntic intelligence, verified by h is ow n actua l observation, that a dangerous rebellion had occurred, involving an open defiance of the laws, and the establishment of an insurgent government in that city. In the Governor’s dispatch of July 15, h e inf orms the Secretary of State that “T-his movement at Lawrence was the beginning of a plan, originating in that city, to organize in surrection throughout the Territory, and especially in all towns, cities and counties where the Re publican partyh ave a majorityi Lawr ence is the ho t bed of all th e Abolition movements in this Territory. It is the town established by the Abolition S ocieties of the East, and, while the re are re specta ble peo pl e there, it is filled by a considerable numbe r of mercenaries, who are paid by Abolition Societies to eperpetuate and diffuse agitati on thro ugllout Kansas, and p revent a pe aceful settlement o f this ques tion.

Having failed in inducing their own so-called Topeka Stat e Legislature to organize this insurrection, Lawrence has commenced it herself, and, if not arrested, the rebellion will extend throughout the Territory.” And again: ” In order to send this communication immediately by mail, I must close, assuring you that the spirit of rebellion pervades the great mass of the Republican party of this Territoy, instigated, as I e ntertain no doubt they a re, by Eastern So cieties, having in view results most disastrous to the Govern ment and the Union; and that the continued presence of Gen.

Harney is indispensable, as was originally stipulated by me, with a large body of dragoons and several batteries.” On the 20th of July, 1857, Gen.

Lane, under the authority of the Topeka Convention, undertook, as Gen.

Walker informs us, ” To organize the whole FreeState party into volunteers, and to take the names of all who refuse enrolment. The professed object was to protect the polls at the elections, in August, of a new insurgent Topeka State Legislature. The object in taking the names of all who refuse enrollment is to terrify the FreeState Conservatives into submission. This is proved by the recent atrocities committed on such men by the Topekaites. The speedy location of large bodies of regular troops here with two batteries is necessary. The Lawrence insurgents await the developments of this new military organization.” In the Governor’s dispatch of July 27, he says that ” Ger. Lane and his staff everywhere deny the authority of the Territorial laws, and counsel a total disregard of these enactments.” Without making further quotations of a similar charac. ter fr-om other dispatches of Governor Walker, it appears, by reference to Secretary Stanton’s communication to Gen. Cass on the 9th of December last, that ” The important step of calling the legislature together was t.akn after I (he) had become satisfied that the election ordere,l by the Convention on the 21st of December could not be conducted without collision and bloodshed.” - So intense was the disloyal feeling among the enemies of the Government established by Congress, that an election which afforded them opportunities, if in the majority, of making Kansas a Free State according to their own expressed desire, could not be conducted without collision and bloodshed. The truth is that, up to the present moment, the enemies of the existing government still adhere to their-Topeka revolutionary constitution and government. The very first paragraph of the message of Gkov. Robinson, dated the 7th of December’, to the Topeka Legislature, now assembled at Lawrence, on. rains an open defiance of the laws and Constitution of the United States.‘The Governor says: ” The Convention which framed the Topeka Constituqiou orig~inated with the people of Kansas Territory. They PRESIDENT BUCHANAN’S LECOMPTON

MESSAGE. The following is the President’s special Message, of Feb. 2nd, 1858. I have received from J. Calhoun, Esq., President of the late Constitutional Convention of Kansas, a copy duly certified by himself, of the Constitution framed by that body, with the expression of the hope that I would subaeit the same to the consider ation of Congress ” with the view of the admission of Kansas into the Union as an independent State.” In compliance with this request, I herewith transmit t o Co ngress for-their action the Const,itution of K ansas, with the ordinance respecting the public la nds, as well as tpe letter of Mr. Calhoun, dated at Leco ipton, on t th t w ic the 14th ult., by which they were accotnpanied. HIaving receiv ed b ut a s ingl e copy of the Con stitution and ord inance, I send o this to the Senate. A great delusion seems to pervade the public mind in r elat ion to the conditio n of parties in Kansas. This arises from the difficulty of inducing the Ami erican people to realize the fact th at any portion of them should be in a state of reb,ellio n aga inst the Government under which t hey live. When w e sp eak of th e affairs of Kansas, we are ap t to refer merel y to the exist ence of two violent political parties in that Terpitory, divided on the question of Slavery, just as we speak of such parties in the States. This presents n o a dequate idea of the true state of the case. Tie dividing line t here i s no t b etwe e n two politicatl p arties, both acknowledging the lawful existence of the Gover nment, but between t ho se who ar e l oyal to this Governlmen t a nd thos e wh o h ave enTleavoL-ed to destroy its existence by force and by usurpation-between those who sustain, and those who have done all in their power to overthr ow, the Territorial Government established by Congress. This Government they would long since have subverted had it ne,t been pr,otected from their a-saults by the troops of the United States. Such has been the condition of affairs since my inauguration. Ever since that period, a large port,ion of t,he people of Kansas have been il a state of rebellion against the Government, with a military leader at their head, of most turbulent and dangerous character.

They have never ackriowledigeil, but have constantly renounced and defied, the Governmetit I i 117

Page 118 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1l60. have adopted and ratified the same twice by a direct vote, also t indirectly through two elections for State officers and members of tile State Legislature; yet it has pleased the Administration to regard the whole proceeding as revolutionary.” This Topeka Government, adhered to with such treasonable pertinacity, is a government in direct opposition to the existing government prescribed and recognized by Congress. It is usurpation of the same character as it would be for a portion of the people of any State to undertak e t o establish a separate government within its limits f or the purpose of redressing any grievance, real or imaginary, of which they might complain against the legitimate State Government. Such aprinciple, if carried into execution, would destroy all lawful authority and produce universal anarchy. From this statement of facts, the reason b ecomes palpable why the enemies of the government authorized by Congotess have refused to vote for the delegates to the Kansas Cornstitutional Convention, and also-afterward, on the question of Slavery submitted by it to the people. It is because they have ever refused to sanction or recognize any other Constitution than that framed at Topeka. Had the whole Lecompton Constitution been submitted to the people, the adherents of this organization would doubtless have voted against it, because, if successful, they would thus have removed the obstacles out of the way of their own revolutionary Constitution; they would have done this, not upon the consideration of the merits of the whole or part of the Lecompton Constitution, but simply because they have ever resisted the authority of the government authorized by Congress from which it emanated. Such being the unfortunate condition of affairs in the Territory, what was the right as well as the duty of the lawabiding people? Were they silently and patiently to submit to the Topeka usurpation, or to adopt the necessary measure to establish a Constitution under the authority of the organic law of Congress? That this law recognized the right of the people of the Territory, without an enabling act of Cong,-ess, to form a State Constitution, is too clear for argument. For Congress “to leave the people of the Territory perfectly free” in framing their Constitution ” to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States,” and then to say that they shall not be permitted to proceed and frame the Constitution in their own way, without express authority from Congress, appears to be almost a contradiction in terms. It would be much more plausible to contend that Congress had no power to pass such an enabling act, than to argue that the people of a Territory might be kept out of the Union for an indefinite period, and until it might please Congress to permit them to exercise the right of self-government.

This wouldbe to adopt, not their own way, but the way which Congress might prescribe. It is impossible that any people could have proceeded with more regularity in the formation of a Constitution than the people of Kansas have done. It was necessary, first, to ascertain whether it was the desire of the people to be relieved from their Territorial dependence and establish a State Government. For this purpose, the Territorial Legislature, in 1855, passed a law for taking the sense of the people of the Territory upon the expediency of calling a Convention to form a State Constitution at the general election to be held in October, 1856. The “sense of the people” was accordingly taken, and they decided in favor of a Convention. It is true that at this election the enemies of the Territorial Government did not vote, because they were then engaged at Topeka, without the slightest pretext of lawful authority, in framing a Constitution of their own for subverting the Territorial Government. In pursuance of this decision of the people in favor of a Convention, the Territorial Legislature, on the 27th of February, 1857, passed an act for the election of delegates on the third Monday of June, 1857, to frame a State Constitution. This law is as fair in its provisions as any that ever passed a legislative body for a similar purpose. The right of suffrage at this election is clearly and justly defined. Every bona fide citizen of the United States, above the age of twentyone, and who had resided therein for three months previous to that date, was entitled to a vote. In order to avoid all interference from neighboring States and Territories with the freedom and fairness of the election, a provision was made for the registry of qualified voters, and in pursuance thereof, nine thousand two hundred and fifty-one voters were registered. Gov. Walker did his whole duty in urging all qualified citizens of Kansas to vote at t his election. In his Inaugural Address on the‘2?th of May, he informed them that  ” Under our practice, the preliminary act of framing a State Constitu’.ionq is uniformly performed through the instrumentality of a Convention of delegates chosen by the people It may also be observed that at this period any hope, if such had existed, that the Topeka Constitution would ever be recognized by Congress must have been abandoned. Congress had adjourned on the thi; d of March previous, having recognized the legal existence of the Territorial Legislature in a variety of fterms, w hich I need not enumerate. Indeed, the Delegate elected to the House of Repre sentatives under a Territoria l law had been admitted to a seat and had just completed his te m of service the day previous to my inauguration.

This was the propitious moment for settlin g a ll the difficulties of Kansas. This was the time for abandoning the revolutionary Topeka organization, and for the enemies of the existing government to conform to the laws and unite with its friends in framing a State Constitution. But this they refused to do, and the cons equences of their refusa l to submit to the lawful authority, and vote at the election of delegates, may yet prove to be of the most deplorable character. Would that the respect for the laws of the land, which so eminently distinguished the men of the past generation, could be revived! It is a disregard and violation of law which has for years kept the Territory of Kansas in a state of almost open rebellion against its Government-it is the same spirit which has produced actual rebellion in Utah. Our only safety consists in obedience and conformity to the law. Should a general spirit against its enforcement prevail, this will prove fatal to us as a nation. We acknowledge no master but law, and should we cut loose from its restraints and every one do what seemeth good in his own eyes, our case would indeed be hopeless. The enemies of the Territorial Government determined still to resist the authority of Congress. They refused to vote for delegates to the Convention, not because, from circumstances which I need not detail, there was an omission to register the comparatively few voters who were inhabitants of certain counties in Kansas in the early spring of 1857, but because they had determined, at all hazards, to adhere to their revolutionary organization, and defeat the establishment of any other constitution than that which they had framed at Topeka. The election was therefore suffered to pass by default, but of this result the qualified electors who refused to vote can never justly complain. From this review, it is manifest that the Lecompto.Convention, according to every principle of constituo tional law, was legally constituted and invested with power to frame a Constitution. The sacred principle of Popular Sovereignty has been invoked in favor of the enemies of Law and Order in Kansas; but in what man/ ner is Popular Sovereignty to be exercised in this country if not through the instrumentality of established law? In certain small republics of ancient times, the people did assemble in primary meeting, passed laws and directed public affairs. In our country, this is manifestly impossible. Popular Sovereignty can be exercised here only through the ballotbox; and if the people will refuse to exercise it in this manner, as they have done in Kansas at the election of Delegates, it is not for them to complain that their rights have been violated. The Kansas Convention, thus lawfully constituted, proceeded to frame a Constitution, and, having completed their work, finally adjourned on the 7th of November last. They did not think proper to submit the whole of this Constitution to a popular vote, but they did submit the question whether Kansas should be a Free or Slave State to the people. This was the question which had con 118 il

Page 119 view page image

MR. BUCHANAN’S LECOMPTON MESSAGE. vulsed the Union and shaken it to the very center. This was the question which had lighted the f lame s of civil war in Kansas and had produced dangerous sectional parties throughout the confederacy. It wa s of a charac ter so paramount in respect to the condition of Kansas, as to rivet the anxious attention of the people of the whole country upon it and it alone-no person thought of any other question. For my own part, when I in st:‘ucted Governor Walker in general terms in favor of submitting the constitution to the people, I had no object in view except the all-absorbing question of Slavery. In what manner the people of Kansas night p regulate their other conce rns, was not the subject wh,ch attracted my attention. In fact, the general provisions of our recent State constitutions, after an experience of eighty years, are so similar and excellent that it would be difficult to go far wrong at the present day in framing a new constitution. I then believed, and still believe, that, utnler the organic act, the Kansas Convention were bound to submit this all-important question of Slavery to the people. It was never, however, my opinion that, independently of this act, they would have been bound to submit. any portion of the constitution to a popular vwte in order to give it validity. {lad I enter trained such an op Cnion, this would have b e e n in opposi tion to many p ecedents in our history, commencing in t th e v ery best age of our Republic. It would have been in opposition to the principle which pervades our insti tutions, and which is every day carried into practice, that the people have a right to delegate to the repre sentatives chosen by themselves their sovereign power to frame constitutions, enact laws, and perform many other important acts, without requiring that these should be subjected to their subsequent approbation. It would be a most inconvenient limitation of their own power, imposed by the people upon themselves, to exclude them from exercising their sovereignty in any lawful manner which they think proper.

It is true that the people of Kansas might, if they had pleased, have requir-edthe Convention to submit the con stitution to a popular vote, but this they have not done. The only remedy, therefore, in this case is that which exists in all other similar cases. If the delegates who framed the Kansas Constitution have in any manner violated the will of their constituents, the people always possess the power to change their constitution or laws according to their own pleasure. The question of Slavery was submitted to an election of the people on the 21st of December last, in obedience to the mandate of the Con vention. Here, again, a fair opportunity was presentel to the adherents of the Topeka Constitution, if they were the majority, to decide this exciting question “in their own way,” and thus restore peace to the distracted Ter ritor-y; but they again refused to exercise the right of Popular Sovereignty, and again suffered the election to pass by default. I heartily rejoice that a wiser and bet ter spirit prevailed among a large majority of these people on the first Monday in January, and that they did on that day vote under the Lecompton Constitution for a Governor and other State officers, a member of Congress, and for members of the Legislature. This election was warmly contested by the patties, and a larger vote polled than at any previous election in the Territory. We may now reasonably hope that the revolutionary Topeka organization will be speedily and finally aban doned, and this will go far toward a final settlement of the unhappy differences in Kansas. If frauds have been com mitted at this election by one or both parties, the legisla ture and people of Kansas, under their constitution, will know how to redress themselves and punish these detesta ble but too common crimes without outside interference. The people of Kansas have, then, ” in their own way,” and in strict accordance with the organic act, framed a Constitution and State Government, have submitted the all-important question of Slavery to the people, and have elected a Governor, a member to represent them in Congress, members of the State Legislature and other State officers; and they now ask admnission into the Union under this constitution, which is republican in its form. It is for Congress to decide whether they will admit or reject the State which has thus been created. ‘ For my own part I am decidedly in favor of its admission, and thus terminating the Kansas question. This |will carry out the great principle of NonIntervention recognized and sanctioned by the organic act, which declares in express language in favor of the noninter vention of Congo’ess swith Slavery in the States and Territories, leaving the people ” perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” In this manner, by localizing the question of Slavery and confining it to the people who it immediately conce/‘ned, every patriot anxiously expected that this question would be banished from the halls of Con gress, wher e it has alvays exerted a baneful i n flue nce thr oughout the whole country. It is proper that I should b riefly refer to the election held under the act of the Territorial Legislature on the first Monday of January last on the Lecompton Constitution. This eleion eon was held after the Territory had been prepared for admission into the Union as a Sovereign State, and when no authority e xiste d i n the Territorial Legislature which could possibly destroy it s existen ce or c hange its character. The election, which was pe aceably conducted under my instructi o ns, involve d strange i nconsistencies. A larg e majority of the persons nho vo eed against the Lecompton Consti tution were at the same time and place recogni zing its val d e xist en ce in the mo st soli d and authentic nmann er by votin g under its provisions. I have yet received no official informatioms of the result of this election. As a question of expedi ency, after right has been’ maintained, it may be wi se to reflect upon the benefits to Kansas a nd the wh ole country tha t will result fro m its immediate admission into the Union, as well as the d isasters that may fo llo w it s rejection. t )omestic peace will be the happy consequence of the a dmission, and t hat fine Te rrit o ry, which has hitherto been torn by dissensions, will rapidly increase in population and wealth, and speedily realize the ble ssings a n d comforts wh ich follow in the train of agricultural a nd me cha nical indus try. The people, then, will be sovereign, and can regulate their affairs in the ir own way.

If the majority of them desire to abolish domestic Slavery within the State, there is no other p o ssible mode by which it can be effected so speed i ly as by prompt admissiti n. The will of the majority is supreme and irresisti ble, whe n e xpre ssed i n an orde rly n awf and lawful m ann er. It can make and unmake constitutions at pleasure. It would be absurd to s ay that they can im pose fetters upon their own power which they cannot afterward remove. If they could do this, they might tie their own hands just as w ell for a hun dred as for ten years. These are the fundament al princi ples of American freedom, and are recognized, I believe, in some form or other by every Sta te constitution; an d if Con gress, in the act of admission, should t hink p rop er to recognize them, I can perc eiv e no objec tion This has been done ernpldaticaly in tohe constitution o f Kansas. It declare ts in its bill of rights that ” All politi cal power is in herent in the people,” and all free governments are founded on their authori ty an d instituted for their benefit, and therefore have at all times an inalien. able and indefeasible r ight to alter, reform and abolish their form of government, in such manner as the y may think proper. Tile great State of NewYork is at tlus moment governed under a constitution framed and estabaished in direct opposition to a mode prescribed by the i previous constitution. If, therefore, a provision chang. ing the constitution of Kansas after the year 1864, could by possibility be construed into a pro hi bition t o make such change previous to that period, th i s prohi bition wo uld be wholly unavailing.

The legislature alreadyi elected may, a t its ver y first session, su bmit the question to a vote of the people, whether they will or not have a convention, to amend their constitution, and adopt alli necessary means fo r giving effe ct to the popular will. It has been solemnly adjudged by the hi ghest judicial tri-i bunal known to our laws, that Slavery exists in Kansas Tby vi rt ue of the Constitution o f the Un ited States. Kansas is therefore at this moment as much a Slave St ate as Georgia or South Carolina. Without this, the equality of the Sovereign States composing the Union wou ld be violated, and the use and enjoyment of a Territory ac quired by the common tre a sure of a ll the States, would be closed against the people a nd p roperty of nearly half the members o the he Confederacy. S lavery can tlerefore, never be prohibited in Kansas, except thrl,ugh th.e means! of a constitutional provision; and in no other manner can! this be obtained so promptly, if the majority of the people desire it, as by admitting her into the Union und,Ier her present constitution.

On the other hand, shoulhl Con gress reject the constitution, under the idea of affording the disaffected in Kansas a third opportunity to pr.,ohibit Slavery in the State, which they might have done twice before if in the majority, no man can foretell the c~)nse quences. If Congr ess, for the sake of those men who re fused to vote for delegates to the convention, wheat they might have excluded Slavery from the constitution, and *who afterward refused to vote on thle 21st of Decemlber, Iwhen they might, as they claim, have stricken Slavery from the constitution, should now reject the State be cause Slavery remains in the constitution, it is manifest that the agitation upon this dangerous subject will be re1 newed in a mnore alarming formn thtan it has ever yet assumned. Every patriot in the-country had indulged the i hope that the Kansas-Nebraskha Act would hash put a 119

Page 120 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. final end to the Slavery agitation, at least in Congress, which had for more than twenty years convulsed the country and endangered the Union.‘Ihis act involved great and fundamental principles, and, if fairly carried into effect, will settle the question.

Shoull agitation be again revived-should the people of sister States be again estranged from each other with more than their forner bitterness-this will arise from a cause, so far as the interests of Kansas are concerned, more trifling and insignificant than has ever stirred the elements of a great people into commotion. To the people of Kansas, the only practical difference between admission or rejection, depends simply upon the fact whether they can themselves more speedily change their present Constitution if it does not accord with the will of the majority, or frame a second Constitution to be submitted to Cong ress hereafter.

Even if this were a question of mere expediency and not of right, a small difference of time one way or the other, is not of the least importance, when contrasted with the evils which must necessarily result to the whole country fromn the revival of the Slavery agitation. In considering this question, it should never be forgotten that in proportion, to its insigniificance, let the diecision be what it may, so far as it may affect a few thousand inhabitants of Kansas, who have from the beginning resisted the Constitution and the laws, for this very reason the rejection of the Constitution will be so miuch the ore keenly felt by the people of fourteen States of the Union where Slavery is recognized under the Consti tution of the United States. Again the speedy admission of Kansas into the Union will restore peace and quiet to the whole country. Already the atffairs of this Territory have engrossed an undue proportion of public attention. They have sadly affected the f iendly relations of the people of the States with each other a nd alarmed the fears of patriots for the safety of the Union. Kansas once admitted into the Union, the excitement becomes localized and would soon die away for want of outside aliment, and then every difficulty could be settled by the ballotbox. Besides, and no trifling consideration, I shall then be enabled to withdraw the troops from Kansas, and employ them on a service where they are much needed. They have been kept there on the earnest importunity of Governor Walker, to maintain the existence of the Territorial Government, and secure the execution of the laws. He considered at least two thousand regular troops, under the command of General Harney, were necessary for this purpose.

Acting upon his reliable information, I have been obliged in some degree, to interfere with the expedition to Utah in order to keep down the rebellion in Kansas. This has involved very heavy expenses to the Government. Kansas once admitted, it is believed there will no longer be occasion there for the troops. I have thus performed my duty on this important question under a deep sense of my responsibility to God and to the country. My public life will terminate in a brief period, and I have no other object of earthly ambitioni than to leave my country in a peaceful’and prosperous condition, and to live in the affections and respect of my countrymen. The dark and ominous clouds now impending over the Unio n I conscientiously believe will be dissipated with honor to every portion of it by the admission of Kansas during the present session of Congress; whereas, if she should be rejected, I greatly fear these clouds will become darker and more ominous than any which have ever yet threatened the Constitution and the Union. (Signed) JAMEs BUCHAsAN. The Lecomlipton Constitution coxntains a provisioni oil the subject of Slavery, as follows: They shall have power to permit the owners of slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights of creditors, and preventing them from becoming a p ubli c charge. They sh all have po wer to oblige the owner s of slaves o to treat them with human it y-t o provide for their necessary fooc a nd clot hing-to a bstain from a ll in juries to them, extending to life or limb-and, in case of neglect or refusal to comply with the direction of such laws, to have such s lave or slaves sold for the benefit of the owner o r owners. 3. In the prosecution of slaves for crimes of higher grade t e it r c ny than petit larceny, the Leg islature shall have no power to deprive the m of a n impartial trial by a petit jury. 4. Any person who shall dismember or deprive a slave of life shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like o ffense h ad been commit ted on a free white ocperson, and o n the like proof, except in case of insurrection of such slave. This provision, and this pr ovision alone, i t was finally determined by a close vote to sub mit to the registere d electors. Fo r this purpose, by the terms of a schedule annexed to the Constitution, an election w as to be held on th e 21st of December. The ballots cast were to be indorsed either “t Constitution with Slavery,” or ” Constitution with No Slavery.” Thus to have the privilege of voting No Slavery, it was s till made necessary to vote for the Constitution, beside which, all persons offering to vote Tmust, if challenged, “take an o at h to support the Con stitution if ado pt ed.” -

If the number of votes “o for the Constt ti tution without S lavery” sho uld be a majority, theni the schedule provides, tha t ” The rights of property in slaves now in the Territory, shal l in no manner be interfered with.” Making it impossible to abolish Slavery. t This schedule, as if with a di r ect vi ew o f superseding the Te rritorial Legislature and Congressional delegate elect, further provided that the Constitution shall be in force “after its ratification by the people” (without waiti ng for the approval of Congress) a State election to be held on the first Monday in January, 1858, for the choice of a Gov ernor, Lieu tenant Gove rnor, Sec retar y of Sta te, Auditor, State Treasurer, and members of the Legislature, and also a member of Congress. It also provided (as if to deprive the Territorial Legislature of all power of acting) that all laws inl force not repugnant to the Constitution shalt continue until altered, amended or repealed by a Legis lature assembled under the provisions of this Constitution; and that all officers, civil or military, under the authority of the Territory of Kansas, shall continue to hold and exercise their respective offices until superseded bv the authority of the State: the first meeting of the State Legislature to take place upon the issuo of a proclamation by the President of the Convention, upon the receipt of official infor ination that Congress has admitted Kansas into the Union. A provision is also inserted inll tended to prevent any amendment previous to the year 1864, and then only upon the concur renlce of tano-tthirds of the members of’ both~ houses, and ” a mnajority of all the citizens of~

,the State.” SLAVERY. 1. The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction, and the right of the owner of a slave to such a slave and its increase is the same, and is inviolable, as the right of the owner of any property whatever. 2. The Legislature shall have no power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, or without paying their owners, previous to emancipation, a full equivalent in money for the slaves so emancipated. They shall have no power to prevent emigrants to the State from bringing with them such persons as are deemed slaves by the laws of any one of the United States or Territories so long as any persons of the same age or description shall be continued slaves by the laws of this -State; providedr, that such person or slave be the bonaJfde property of such emigrant; and provi(ded, also, that laws may be passed to prohibit t he introduction of slaves in to th is State who have committed high crimes in other States or Territories. LECO-NIPTON AND ENGLISH BILLS. The following record of the action of Congress on the he admission of Kansas under the Leconiptoton (ofstitution, wili be interesting for future referenle. I I I I t a d f n sy n s 120 -4 A i

Page 121 view page image

THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION IN CONGRESS. SLAND.-SiTnmorvo.

TN’NNESSEE.-BELL. VERMONT. Colalroer, Foot. WIsco,sIs.-Durksee, Doolittle.

To tal, 25. ABSENT OR NOT VOTTNG.-Messrs. Bates (Del.), Reid (N. C.), Davis (Mi.), Cameron (Pa.) Mr. Caneroi paired off with Air. Davis.

Previous to taking this vote, Mr. Crittenden moved a substitute for the bill, in substance, that the Constitution be submitted to the people at once, and, if approved, the President to admit Kansas by proclamation. If rejected, the people to call a Convention and frame a Constitution. The substitute made special pro vision against frauds at the election. This substitute was lost: Yeas, 24; Nays, 34. On the first of April, the bill was taken up in the House and read once, when, its second reading having been objected to by Mr. Gid dings, the question recurred under the rule, Shall the bill be rejected? A vote woas taken and resulted, Yeas, 95; Nays, 137. Mr. Contgomiery, of Pa, offered ais a substitute, with slight alterations, the bill which or. Crittenden had offer ed in the Senate.

mir. Quitman, of Mississippi, also ooered a substitute, which was the same as the Senate bil l, with tie omission of the declaratory clause, ” that the’ people shall have the right at all time s to alter or amend the Constitution in such mann ii er as the y think proper,” etc. Mr. Quitman’s substitute was lost-Yeas, 72; Nays, 160, the yeas bein g all fromr the Slave States, and Mr. blMoktgoiiery’s was adopted, 120 to 112. The Crittenden-Moo stgomery substitute, as it passed the House, was in the following wor ds: 1. Be it enacted, etc., That the State o f Kansas be, and is hereby, admitted into the Union o n an equal footi ng wi th the original States in all respects whatever; but inasmuch as it is greatly disputed whether tile Constitu tion fra hsed at Lec sdptol on the ttl day of November last, and now pending before Congyes, wa s fairly made, or expressed the will of the people of Ka nsa s, this adlilssion of her into the Union as a State is here declared tou be u pon this funda mental condition lrecelent, namely: That the said constitutional inst,rumeit shall be first submitred to a vote of the p eople of K ansas, and asented to by them, or a majorit yof the voters a, at an eletion to be held for the purpose; and as soon as such assent shall bel given, an d duly made known, by a majorit y of the Corn-p miss ioners herein appoint ed, to the Pi’esident of the% United States, he shall announce the same by proclamation, and thereafter, withoiut any further proceedings on the part of Congress, the admission of the sai l State of Kansas into the Un ion upon an equal footing with the original States, in all respects wl-htever, shall be complete and absolute. At the said election the voting shall be by ballot, and by inlorsing on his ballot as each voter may please, ” for the Constitution,” or ” against the Constitu tionl.” Should the said Constitution be rejected at the said election by a majority of votes being cast against it, then, and in that event, the inhabitants of said Territory are hereby authorized and emipowered to forn for themselves a Constitution and State Governmilent by the name cf tihe State of Kansas, according to thlle Federal Constitution, and to that end may elect delegates to a con ventiol as tlereinafter provi(led(. 2. And be itf/atther enacted, That the said State of Kan,sats shall have concurrent jurisdiction on thle Missouri a…, all other rivers and waters bordering on tlhe said State Of K.ansa.s, so far as the same shall formal comm,,ion boundaly to saidl Stale and any other State or States now or hereafter to be formed or boundl~ed b~y the samle;,.ndl sa~id rivers anl watners, and all the navigable waters of salid State, shall be common h1ighwlays antd fo~rever free, as well to tile inha~bitants of said State as to all other citizens of the Unxitedi States, without, ally tax, duty, impo,st, or toll1 tiler e[‘or. 3. ATSd be itfJ~rther e.~acted, That for the purpose of inlsurings, as file itr asossible, t,llat, the elections authxor. izedl by this acit mlay be fail and~ free, the Governor and the Sccret~.ry of thle Tlerritory of Kansas, and the pr-esidl inlg officers of tile two branches of its Legislature, namlely The original bill, as it passed the Senate umder the lead of Senator Green (March 23, 1858), was as follows: THE LNCOMPTON BILL. A Bill for the Admission of the State of Kansas into ties Union, presented in the Senate by -fr. Green, of ]fi8so,sri, Jrom the Committee on Territories, Febr,uary 17, 1858. Whereas, The people of the Territory of Kansas did, by a Convention of Delegates called and assembled at Lecoinpton, September 4, 1857, form for themselves a Constitution and State Government, which said Conventi,in hlaving asked the admission of the Territory into the Union asa State on anequal footing with the original States, Be it enacted by the Senate and ou.se, of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of Kansas shall be, and is herseby declared to be, one of the United States of America, and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever; and the said State shall consist of all the territory included within the following boundaries, to wit: Beginning at a point on the western boundary of the State of Missouri where the thirty-seventh parallel of latitude crosses the same; thence west on said parallel to the eastern boundary of New Mexico; thence north on said boundary to latitude thirty-eight; thence following said boundary westward to the eastern bound ary of the Territory of Utah, on the summit of the Rocky Mountains; thence northward on said summit to the fortieth parallel of latitude; thence east on said parallel to the western boundary of the State of Missouri; thence south with the westward boundary of said State, to the place of b eginring:… 2. And be it farther enacted, That the State of Kansas is admitted into the Union upon the express condition that said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the public,landis, or with any regulations which Congress may find necessary for securing the title in said lands to the bona fide purchasers and grantees ther eof, or impose or levy any tax, assessment, or imposition of any descr iption whatsoever upon them, or other property of the United States, within the limits of said State; and that nothing in this act shall be construed to abridge or infringe any right of the people asserted in the Constitution of Kansas, at all times, to alter, reform or abolish their form of government it. such manner as they may think proper, Congress lhereby disclaiming any autheority to intervene or declare the construction of the Constitution of any State, excel pt to se e that it is republican in form and not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States; and nothing in thlis act’shall be coinstrued as an assent by Congress to all or to any of the propositions or claims contained in the ordinance annexed to the Constitution of the people of Kansas, nor to deprive the said State of Kansas of the same grants which were contained in said act of Congress, entitledl, ” An act to authorize tle people of the Territory of Minnesota to form a Constitution and State Governlent, preparatory to adlmission, into the Union on an equal foothing with the original States,” approved February 26, 1853. 3. Anod be, it further enacted, That until the next general census shall be taken, and an apportionment of representation made, the State of Kansas shall be entitled to one Representative in the hituse of Representatives of the United States. The bill passed, 33 to 25, as follows: YEAStFOR L

ECOI,iPTON. ALABAMi.-Fitzpatrick, Clay. ARKA.NSAs.-Seleastian, Johnson.

CALIFORNIa.-Gvili. D ELA WAR. Bayard. FLORIDA.-Maillory, Yulee.

G-:oteI..-lverson, Tioonibs. INDIANA.-Fitch, Bright. Iow..-Jones.

KENTUCKY.THOMPSON. LoUISIANA.-Beija.itin, Slitlell. MARYLAND. -Pearce, KsENNEDY. MISSISsiPPI-Browvn. MissciueI.Green, Polk. N.EW-J’EsY.-W right, Thom,son. NORTIt CA ROLINA -Biggs. PEN.ISYLVANILA Bigler, RHODE

ISLAND.-Allen. SOUTHI CAROLINA.-EvalIS, Hammo nd. TESqN’SSEE.-Johnson. 1E
xAS. Hel(ierson~ HOUSTON. VIRGINIA. Mason, Hunter. Total, 33, NAYS

AGAINST LE:COMIPTONo CALIF-RNI A.-B roderick. CONN,ECTICUT.-Foster,DiaOn.

ILI,INOIS. DoUgglas, Tra27b7)ull. IowA.-Iz(zrlan.

KI,,TUCKY.-CRITT.INDE:N. IA.INiR.-Fes8,endcen, YIamin. MASSACE[USETTS. 

TV180n, Sumnter. MICHIGAN.-StUart Chandler. NEw-I[AMIPSIgg. Ilalle, Clark. NEwYogi.-Seward, Ki,ff. OHIo.-Pughl, Wade. RHODSC t 121

Page 122 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. the President of the Council and Speaker of the House of vices the same compensation as is given for like sea,Y’-..

Rtepresentatives, are hereby constituted a board of coin-under the Territorial laws. missioners to carry into effect the provisions of this act, T. And be it farther enacted, That the said State of and to use all the means necessary and proper to that Kansas, when her admission as a State becomes complete end. Any thlreeof them shall constitute a Board; and and absolute, shall be entitled to one member in the the board shall have power and authority, in respect to I-louse of Representatives, in the Congress of the United each and all of the elections hereby authorized or pro-States, till the next census be taken by the Federal Govvided for, to designate and establish precincts for voting, ernment. or to adopt those already established; to cause polls to 8. And be it further enacted, That the following be opened at such places as it iiay deem proper in the re-propositions be, and the same are hereby offered to the spective counties and election precincts of said,l Territoly; said people of Kansas for their free acceptance or rejecto appoint, as judges of election at each of the several tion, which, if accepted, shall be obligatory on the United places of voting, three discreet and respectable persons, States and upon the said State of Kansas, to wi;: First, any two ofwhom shall be conmpetent to act; to require the That the sections numnbered sixteen and tiii Asix in Sheriffs of the several counties, by themselves or deputies every township of public lands in said State, d where to attend the judges at each of the places of votilng, for either of said sections, or any part thereof has leen sold the purpose of preserving peace and good order, r the or otherwise disposed of, other lands equivalent thereto, said Board may, inetead of said Sheriffs and their deputies, and as contiguous as may be, shall be giranted to said appoint, at their discretion, and il such instances as they State for the use of schools. Second, That seventy-two imay choose, other fit persons for the same purpose; and sections of land shall be set apart and reserved for the when the purpose of the election is to elect delegates to a use and support of a State University, to be selected by Convention to form a Constitution, as hereinbefore pro-the Governor of said State, subject to the approval of vided for, the number of delegates shall be sixty, and the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and to be they shall be apportioned by said Board among the appropriated and applied in such manner as the Legisseveral counties of said Territory, accordingto the nun-lature of said State may prescribe for the pu,‘pose afore ber of voters; and in making this apportionment, the said, but for no other purposes. Third, That ten entire Board may join two or more counties together to make sections of land, to be selected by the Governor of said an election or representative district, where neither of State, in legal subdivisions, shall be granted to said State the said counties has the requisite number of voters to for the purpose of completing the public buildings, or for entitle it to a delegate, or to join a smaller to a larger the erection of others at the seat of government, under county having a surplus population, where it may serve the direction of the Legislature thereof. Fouit/h. That to equalize the representation. The elections hereby all salt springs within said State, not exceeding twelve in authorized shall continue one day only, and shall not be number, with six sections of land adjoining, or as contigucontinued later than sundown on that day. The said ous as may be to each, shall be granted to said State for Board shall appoint the day of election for each of the its use; the same to be select,ed by the Governor thereof elections hereby authorized, as the same may become within one year after the admission of said State, and necessary. The said Governor shall announce, by pro-when so selected, to be used or disposed of on such clamination, the day appointed for any one of said elections, terms, conditions and regulations as the Legislature shall and the day shall be as early a one as is consistent with direct: Provided, That no salt springs or land the right due notice thereof to the people of said Territory, subject whereof is now vested in any individual or individuals, to the provisions of this act.

The said Board shall have or which may be hereafter be confirmed or adjudged to full power to prescribe the time, manner and places of any indivi dual or individuals, shall by this article be each of said elections, and to direct the time and manner granted to said State. Fifth, That five per centum of of the returns thereof, which returns shall be made to the the net proceeds of sales of all public lands lying within said Board, whose duty it shall be to announce the result said States, which shall be sold by Congress after the adby proclamation, and to appoint therein as early a day mission of said State into the Union, after deducting all as practicable for the delegates elected (where the election the expenses inc,dent to the same, shall be paid to said has been for delegates) to assemble in Convention at the State, for the purpose of making public roads and interseat of Governmient of said Territory. When so assembled, nal improvements as the Legislature shall dir ect: Prothe Convention shall first determine, by a vote, whether vided, The foregoing propositions hereiibefore offered it is the wish of the proposed State to be admitted into the are on the condition that the people of Kansas shall proUnion at that time; and if so, shall proceed to form a vide, by an ordinance, irrevocable without the consent Constitution, and take all necessary steps for the estab-of the United States that said State shall never interfere lisithment of a State Government, in conformity with the with the primary disposal of the soil within the same by Federal Constitution, subject to the approval and ratifica-the United States, or with any r egulations C. Ingress may tion of the people of the proposed State. And the said fnd necessary for seciuing the title in sad soil to bokss Convention shall accordingly provide for its submission #.de purchasers thereof, and that no tax shall be imposed to the vote of the people for approval or i-ejection; and on lands belonging to thle United States, and that in no if the majority of votes shall be given for the Constitution case shall nonresident proprietors be taxed highler than so framed as aforesaid, the Governor of the Territlory residents Si/: And t,hat the said S ate shall never shall, within twenty days after the result is knowv, notify tax the lands nr the pioper,y of the United States in that the President of the United States of the same. Anil State P,rovided however, That nothing in this act of thereupon the President shall announce the same by pro-admission shall be so construed as to ratify or accept the clamation, an d there after, and without any futther pro-ordinance attached to said Costitution but said odiceedings whatever on the part of Congress, the admission nance is hereby rejected by the Government of the Uniof the said State of Kansas into the Union, upon an equal ted States. footing with the original States in all respects whatever, shall be complete and absolute. The following are the Yeas and Nays: ~ 4. And be itfarther enacted, That in the elections hereby autlhorized, all white male inhabitants of said Ter-YEAS-TO AMEND OR

SUBSTITUTE. ritory over the age of twentyone years, who are legal CALIFOIA cKibbin-1. voters under the laws of the Territory of Kansas, and CONNECTICUT.-ClK Dean. none others, shall be allowed to vote; and this shall be ILLINOIS.ElUhu lash-,rre F,north, loDoy ILLINOIS. Elih~a W~a87b~rn~e, Fa,,2,o, worth,, Lovooy, the only qualification required to entitle the voter to the Kellogg, Morris Harris Shaw Robert Smith Sam. S.

right of suffrage in said elections. And if any personnot Marshall-9. so qualified shall vote or offer to vote, or if any person INDIANt.-English Foley, Kilgore, J. G. Davis, Wilson shall vote more than once at either of said elections, or Coto, Case, e 8 shall make, or cause to be made, any false, fictitious or Iowa.Cure i, Dat-‘. fraudulent returns, or shall alter or change any returns KENTO0Crt8, Hu’a Masnav i -2.

KENTUCKY.-UNDI;IWODOD, HUMPHFREY M~AR-,HALL 2. of either of said elections, such person shall, upon convic-MAINE IVood, Gilnatn, Abbott, Morse,. Wasp tion thereof before any court of competent jurisdiction, be burne Foter-6. kept at hard labor not less than six months, and not MA AN

IAUD M. HAis,.WINTE DAIS more than three years. MASSACHUSETTS hall Bu nton, Dsrell, Comins ~ 5. And be it firthr steacted, That the members of BMrlinrgaim, Dazvs, Gooch, Knap/p, Thayer, Ch’iffee, the aforesaid Board of Commissioners, and all persons asees-Il appointed by them to carry into effect the provisions of MICHIGAN-howard Waidron, Walbridge, LeacW4, this act, shall, before entering upon their duties, take an MissougL ai r-r1.

oath to perforis faithfully the duties of their respective NEW-HAMPSOIES

Pake, Tappan, drags. offices; anil on failure thereof, they shall be liable and Ns-Jsssev. Closvaon, Robins, Adrain-l. subject to the same charges and penalties as are provided’ NOsTH CAROLINA.-GJLM{;R-1. ni lIke cases under the Territorial laws. I N{ w-Yoaz.-Haskin, 11. F. Clark, Murray, Tliospso, ~ 6. And be itfurther enacted, That the officers men-I Olin, Dodd, Palmer, Spinner, Clark B. Cochra4e rioned in the preceding section shall receive for their ser-t t t atteson, Bennett, Goodwin, Hoard5 Qratgr 122 vices the same compensation as is given for like sei-,Yi-.,4 under the Territorial laws. S T. And be, it farther enacted, That the said State of Kansas, when her admission as a State becomes complete and absolute, shall be entitled to one member in the I-louse of Representatives, in the Congress of the United States, till the next census be taken by the Federal Government. ~ 8. And be, it further enacted, That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered to the said people of Kansas for their free acceptance o, rejection, which, if accepted, shall be obligatory on the United States and upon tile said State of Kansas, to wi;;.: F,,ir8t, That tile sections nunbered sixteen and in every township of public lands in said State, where either of said sections, or any part thereof has l,eii sold or otherwise disposed of, other lands equivalent thereto, and as contiguous as may be, shall be g,-anted to said State for the use of schools. Second, That seventy-two sections of land shall be set apart and reserved for the use and support of a State University, to be selected by the Governor of said State, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and to be appropriated and applied in such manner as the Legrislature of said State may prescribe for the pu,-pose afor ‘said, but for no other purposes. Third, That ten entire sections of land, to be selected by the Governor of said State, in legal subdivisions, shall be granted to said State for tile purpose of completing the public buildings, or for the election of others at the seat of government, under the direction of the Legislature thereof. Fou,-tlt, That all salt springs within said State, not exceeding twelve in number, with six sections of land adjoining, or as contign on as may be to each, shall be granted to said State for its use; the same to be selec,,ed by the Governor thereof within one year after the admission of said State, and when so selected, to be used or disposed of on such terms, conditions and regulations as the Legislature shall direct: Provided, That no salt springs or land the riglt whereof Is now vested in any individual or individuals, or which may be hereafter be confirmed or adjudged to any individual or individuals, shall by this article be granted to said State. F,fth,’ That five per centum. of the net proceeds of sales of all public lands lying within said States, which shall be sold by Congress after the ad mission of said State into the Union, after deducting all the expenses inc”dent to the same, shall be paid to said State, for the purpose of making public roads and inter nal improvements, as the Legislature shall direct: Pro vide,d, The foregoing propositions hereiiibefore offered are on the condition that the people of Kansas shall pro vide, by an ordinance. irrevocable without the consent.

of the United States, that said State shall never interfere with the primary disposal of tll e soil within the same, by the United States, or with any regulations C. i,gress may f-nd necessary for see,i-ing the title in sa,.d soil to boiks fi.de, purchasers thereof, and that no tax shall be imposed on lands belonging to tle United States, and that in no case shall nonresident proprietors be taxed higl.er than residents. And t,l-at the sai(i S ate siall never tax the land,r the property of the United States in that State: P)-ovide-d however, That nothing 1-i this act of admission shall be so construed as to ratifv or accept t),e ordinance attached to said Coristitution; but said ot-di nance is hereby rejected by the Government of the Uni-, ted States. The following are the Yeas and Nays: :1

Page 123 view page image

THE LECOMPTON CONSTITUTION IN C6NGRESS. Morgan, Pottle, Parker, Kelsey, Andrews, Slierman, Burroughhs, Fenton-23. Oulo.-Pendleton, Groesbeck, Campbell, Yictols8, Mott, Cockerill, H(Iartla, Stanton, Hall, Horton, Cox, Shsrmait, Blies, lompkins, Lawrence, Leiter, Vade,t Giddingts, Binglami-19. PENNSYLVANIA.-E. J..l]orris, Owen Jones, Hickman Roberts, Kunkel, Grow, Edge, Covode, Montgomery, lRitchie, Perviance, Stewart, Dick, Chapman.-14. RHODE 1SLAND.-DThr/ee, Brayton-2. VEIRMONT.-a 12 Slton, Jorrill, foyco-8. WISCONSIN.-PotterI, C. C. liVashbur,[e, Billinghurst3.-Total, 120. manded the previous question. The call for the previous question was lost by the casting vote of the Speaker: 108 to 11)8. Very much to the surprise of the House, Mr. English, ot’ India iaa, who had acted with the AntiLecompton party up to this time, moved that the Hotue agree to a Conference Committee, and that a committee of three be appointed by the Speaker to meet a similar cominittee of the Senate, and on this he called for the previous question, which was ordered. The Yeas and isNays were called, and the vote stood 108 to 108: the Speaker voting in the affirmnative, Mr. Eiglish’s proposition was agreed to. The Yeas and Nays were as follows: YEAs.-Messrs. Ahl, Anderson, Atkins, Avery, Barksdale, Bishop, Bocock, Bonhiam, Bowie, Boyce, Branch, Bryan, Burnett, Burns, Caruthers, Caskie, Clark (Mo.), Clay, Clemens, Clingman, Cobb, John Cochrane, Craig (Mo ), Craige (N. C.), Crawford, Curry, Davidson, Davis (Miss.), Dewart, Dowdell, Edmundson, Elliot, English, Eustis, Faulkner, Florence, Garnett, Gartrell, Goode, Greenwood, Gregg, Hall (Ohio), Hatch, Hawkins, Hill, Hlopkins, Houston, Hughes, Jackson, Jenkns, Jewett, Jones (Tenn.), J. Glancy Jones, Owen Jones, Keitt, Kelly, Kunkel (Md.), Lamar, Landy, Leidy, Letcher, Maclay, McQueen, Mason, Maynard, Miles, Miller, Millson, Moore, Niblack, Orr, Pendleton, Peyton, Phelps, Phillips, Powell, Quitman, Ready, Reagan, Ruffin, Russell Sandidge, Savage, Scales, Scott, Searing, Sesard, Shaw (N. C.), Shorter, Singleton, Smith (Trenn.), Smith (Va), Stallwroth, Stephens, Stevenson, Stewart (Md.), Talbott, Taylor (N.

Y.), T.ippe, Ward, Warren, Watkins, White, Winslow, Woodson, *~ortendyke, Wright (Ga.), Wright (Tenn.), Zollicoffer-109. [,The four in italic8 had hitherto voted anti-Lecompton.] NAYs.-KMessrs. Abbott, Andrews, Bennett, Billinghurst, Binglh.nm, Blai.r, Bliss, Brayton, Buffinton, Burlingame, Bu rroughs, Campbell, Case, Chaffee, Chapsman, Clark Conn.), Clark (N. Y.), Clawson, Cockerill, Colfax, Cornins, Covode, Cox, Cragin, Curtis, Daerell, Davis (iMd.), Davis (Ind.), Davis (Mass.), Davis (Iowa), Dawes, Dean, Dick, Dodd, Durfee, Edie, Farnsworth, Fenton, Foley, Foster, Giddings, Gilman, Gooch, Goodwin, Granger, Groesbeck, Grow, Hall (Mass.), H arlan, Harris (Md.), Harris, (IlL), Haskin, Hickman, Hoard, Ho,ton, Howard, Kellogg, Kelsey, Knapp, Lawrence, Leiter, Lovejoy, Marshall (Ky.) Marshall (Il.) Matteson, Montgomery, Morgan, Morrill, Morris (Penn.,) Morris (Ill.), Morse (Me.), Morse (N. Y.), Mott, Murray, Nichols, Palmer,’

Pettit, Pike, Potter, Pottle, Purviance, Ricaud, Ritchie, Rob bins, Royce, Shaw (Il.), Sherman (Ohio), Sherman (N.Y.), Smith (Ill.), Spinner, Stanton, Stewart (Penn.), Tappan, Thompson, Tompkins, Underwood, Wade, Wal bridge, Waldron, Walton, Washburne (ILL), Washburne (Me.), Wilson, Wood-10S. The following, not voting, had paired off: Adrain with Huyler, Dimmick with McKibbin, Gills with Roberts, Clar k B. Cochrane with Sickles, Reilly with Thayer, Taylor (La.) with Kunkel (Pa.), Wash burne (Wis.) with Arnold, Olin with Corning. White ley, absent. The Committee of Conference was composed of Messrs. James S. Green, (Mo.), Robert M. T.

Hunter, (Va ), and William H. Seward, (N. Y ), of the Senate; and Messrs.

William H. English, (Ind.), Alexander H Stephens, (Ga.), and Wil liam A.

Howard, (Mich.), on the part of the House. On the 23d of April, the Committee made their report (susceptible of various interpreta tion s), Mess rs. Seward of the Senate, and Ho w ard, o f the Housea di ssenting.

Af ter a running fight of a week between the friends and oppo nents of the new scheme, on the 80th of April, the report of the Committee was adopted by both branches of Congress. It was as follows: An, Act for the Admission or the State of Kansas into) the Unior. Whereas, the people of the Territory Iof Kansas did, by a convention of delegates assembled |at Lecompton on the?th day of Nov., 1S57r, for that pur. NATS.

ALABAMA.-Stallwoith, Shorter, Dowdell, Moore, Houston, Cobb, Curry-7.

ARKANSAS.-Greenwood, Warren-2. CALIFORNIA.-ScCOtt-1. CONS:CTICUT.-Arn old, Bishop-2. DELAWAKO.:-Whiteley-1. FLORIDA.-Hawkins-1. GEOhGCci.-aSeward, Crawford TRIPPE, Gartrell, Wright, Jackson, HILL, Stephens-8. INDIANA -Niblack, Hughes, Gregg-8. KENTUCKY.-Burnett, Peyton, Ta lbott, Jewett, Elliott, Clay, Mas on, Stevenson-8. IoJUISIANA.-EUSTIs a ylo, alor, Davidson, Sandidge-4. A!ARYLAND.-Stewart, K unkel, Bowie-3.

MIssouRI.-ANDERSON, Clar k, Craig, WooDsoN, Phelpse . MIsssSIPPi.-TLamar, R. Davis, Barksdale, Singleton, Quitman-5. NF~w-J,EssEy.-Huyler, Wortendyke-2. NORTH CAROLINA.-Shiaw, Ruffin, Winslow, Branch, Scales, Craige, Clingman-7. New-YoaK.-Hearing, Taylor, Sickles, Kelly, Maclay, John Cochrane, Ward, Russell, Corning, Hatch-10. Oslo.-Miller, Burns-2.

PFsNN’SYLVANIA.-Florence, Landy, Phillips, Glancy Jones, Leidy, Dimmick, White, Ahl, Gi,lis, Reilly, Dewart-11. SOUTH CAROLINA.-McQueen, Mles, Keitt, Bonham, Boyce-5. TENNESSEE,:.-IWatkins, MIAYNARD, S. A. Smith, Savage, READY, Jones, Wright, ZOLLICOFFER, Atkins, Avery-10. TExAS.-Bryan, Reagan-2. VIRGINIA.-G-at-net, Mlillson, Caskie, Goode, Bocock, Powell, Smith, Faulkner, Letcher, Clemens, Jenkins, Edmundson~ ttopkins 18.

Total, 112. Abten-Caruthers (lMo) RECAPITULATIONo Yeas. Republicans, 92; Democrats, 22; Americams, 6. Total  1’-‘0. Nrays. Democrats, 104; Americans, 8. Total-112. The bill having been returned to the Senate on the second day of April, Mr. Green moved to disagree to the House amendment which motion was adopted: Yeas, 34, Nays, 22. The followin,g are the Nays: Messrs. Broderick, Cameron, Chandler, Clark, Collamet-, Crittenden, Dixon, Doolittle, Douglas, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, King, Seward, Simmons, Stuart, Trumbull, Wade, Wilson. In the House of Representatives, on the 7th of April, Mr. Montgomery, of Pennsylvania, moved that the House adhere to its amendment, which motion was carried, Yeas, 119, Nays I 1-the vote being the same as on the adoption of the amendment, with the exception of Messrs. Marshall and Bowie, who paired off and did not vote. On the 13th of April, the Senate voted to insist and ask for a conference committee, Yeas, :0, Nays, 24-the Nays being the same as the SNays on Mr. Green’s motion to disagree, with the addition of Messrs. Bell and Sumner. On the following day, the H,use received a message from the Senate insisting on its disagreeient and asking a committee of conference, when Mr. Montgomery, of Pa., moved that the House insist on its adherence, o: which he d-a .I I 123

Page 124 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. pose, form for themselves a constitution and State government, which constitution is republican; and 5/ivereoas, at the sanhe time and place, said convention did adopt an ordinance, which said ordinance asserts that Kansas, when admitted as a State, will have an un doubted right to tax th e la nds within her limits belong isntg to the Uni ted States, and proposes to relinquish said asserted n i ght if certain conditions set fort h in said or diniance be accepted and a.g,,‘eed to by the Congress of t he United States; and qhereas, the said const itution and ordinance have been present ed t o Congr ess by order of said convention, and admission of said Territory into the Union thereon as a State requested; and whereas, said ordinance is not acceptable to Congress, and it is desirable to ascertain wheth er the people of Kansas concur in the changes in said ordinance, hereinafter sn,ated, and desir e admi ssion in t o the Union as a State as herein proposed: Therefore, Be it enacted, etc., That the State of Kansas be, and is hereby admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever, but upon t his fundamental condition precedent, namely: That the qu estio n of admission with the following pro position, in lieu of the ordinance framed at Lecomtpton, be submitted to a vote of the people of Kansas, and aesented to by them or a majority of the voters voting at an election to be held for that purpose, namely: Tnat the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered to the people of Kansas for acceptance or rejection, which, if accepted, shall be obligatory on the United States and upon the said State of Kansas, to wit: ~‘irst, That sections mumber sixteen and thirtysix in every township of public lands in said State, or where either of said sections or any part thereof has been sold or otherwise disposed of, other lands equivalent thereto, and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to said State for the use of schools. Se,ond, That seventy-two sections of land shall be set apart and reserved for the support of a State University, to be selected by the Governor of said State, subject to the approval of the Commissioners of the General LandOilice, and to be appropriated and applied in such manner as the legislature of said State may prescribe for the purpose aforesaid, but for no other pu pose. li’ird, That ten entire sections of land, to be selected by the Governor of said State, in legal subdivisions, shall be granted to said State for the purpose of completing the public buildings, or for the erection of other s at the seat of government, under the d rection of the legislature thereof. ll’ourt]6, Tbat allsaIt springs within said State, nsot exceeding twelve in number, with six sections of land adjoininig, or as contiguous as may be to each, shall be granted to said State for its use, the same to be selected by the Governor thereof, within one year after the admission of said State; and, when so selected, to be used or disposed of on such termis, conditions and regulations as the le;isltu’e may direct: ]Providead, That no sait spring or land, the right whereof is now vested in any individual or individuals, or which m-ay hereafter be confirmed or adiju,,dged to any individual or individuals, shall by this article be granted to said State. l’ift/t, That five per centurn of the net proceeds of sales of all public lands lying within said State which shall be sold by Congress after the admission of said State into the Union, after deducting a1l tile expenses incident to the same, shall be paid to said State for the purpose of making public roads and ihte. nal imilprovements, as the legislature shall direct: Jl,~oviie,l, The foregoing propositions herein offered are oi the condition that said ,State of Kansas shall never iwterfere with t14e primary disposal of the lands of the United States, or with any regulations which Congress imay lind necessary for securing the title in said soil to bonta fide purchasers thereof, and that nlo tax shall be imposed on lands belonging to the United States, and that in no case shall nonl-resident proprietors be taxed higher than residents. Sixtli, And that said State shall never tax the lands or property of the Uniited States in that State. At the said election the voting shall be by ballot, and by indorsing on his ballot, as each voter may be pleased, “Proposition accepted,” or ” Proposition rejected.” Should a majority of the votes cast be for ” Proposition accepted,” the President of the Unlited States, as soonl as the :‘act is duly mlade known to him, shall announce the same by proclamation; and thereafter, and without any further proceedings on the part of Congtress, the admission of the State of Kansas into the Unsion upon an equal footing witht the original States ill all respects whatever shall be complete and absolute; and said State shall be entitled to one member in the’House of Representatives in the Congress of the United States until tile next census be taken by the Federal Giovernmlent. But should a majority of the votes cast; be for “;Proposition rejected,” it shall be deemned and held that the people of Kansas do not desire adiission into the Union with said Constitution under the conditions set forth in said proposition: and in that event the people of said Territory are hereby authorized and empowered to form for themselves a Constitution and State Government, by the name of the State of Kansas, according to the Fed er al Constitution, and may elect delegates for thait purpose whenever, and not before, it is ascertained by a ccisu, duly and legally taken, that the population of said Terri tory equals or exceeds the ratio of representation required for a member of the House of Representatives of the Col gress of the United States; and whenever thereafter such delegates shall assemble in Convention, they shall first de te r mine by a vote whether it is the wish of the people of the proposed State to be admitted into the Union at that time; and, if so, shall proceed to form a Constitution, and take all necessary steps for the establishment of a state Government, in conformity with the Federal Constitution, subject to suchliinitations and restrictions as to the inode and manner of its approval or ratification by the people of the proposed State as they may have prescribed by law, and shall be entitled to admission into the Union as a State uil der such Constitution, thus fairly and legally made, with or without Slavery, as said Constitution may prescribe. ~ 2. And be it farther enacted, That for the pur pose of insuring, as far as possible, that the elections au.

thorized by this act may be fair and free, the Governor, gUnited States District Attorney, and Secretary of the Ter ritory of Kansas, and the presiding officers of the two branches of its Legislature, namely, the President of the Council and the Speaker of the hlouse of Representatives, are hereby constituted a board of Commissioners to carry into effect the provisions of this act, and to use aIl the means necessary and proper to that end. And three of them shall constitute a board; and the board shall have power and authority to designate and establish precincts for voting or to adopt those already established; to cause polls to be opened at such places as it may deem proper in the respective counties and election precincts of said Ter ritory; to appoint as judges of election at each of the several places of voting, three discreet and respectable persons, any two of whom shall be competent to act; tc require the sheriffs of the several counties, by themselves or deputies, to attend the judges at each of the places of voting, for the purpose of preserving peace and good or der; or the said board may, instead of said shieriffs antd their deputies, appoint at their discretion, and in such in stances as they may choose, other fit persons for the same purpose. The election hereby authorized shall continue one day only, and shall not be continued later than sun down on that day. The said board shall appoint the dab for holding said election, and the said Governor shall an nounce the same by proclamation; and the day shall be as early a one as is consistent with due notice thereof to the people of said Territory, subject to the provisions of this act. Thu said board shall have full power to prescribe the time, manner, and place of said election, and to direct the time (within) which returns’

shall be made to the said board, whose duty it shall be to announce the result by proclamation, and the said Governor shall certify the sanme to the President of the United States without delay. ~ 3. And be it fl,rther enacted, That in the election hereby authorized, all white male inhabitants of sait Ter ritory, over the age of twentyone years, who possess the qualifications which were required by the laws of said Ter ritory for a legal voter at the last general election fo r the members of the Territorial Legislature, and none others, shall be allowed to vote; and this shall be the only qualifi cation required to entitle the voter to the right of suffliage in said election. And if any person not so qualified shall vote or offer to vote, or if any person shall vote more than once at said election, or shall make, or cause to be made, any false, fictitious, or fraudulent returns, or shall alter or change any returns of said election, such person shall, up on conviction thereof before any court of competent juris diction, be kept at hard labor not less than six months anl not more than three years. 4. And be it fartlber enacted, That the members of the aforesaid board of commissioners, and all persons appointed by them to carry into effect the provisions of P this act, shall, before entering upon their duties, take an - oath to perform faithfully the duties of their respective Ic offices: and on failure thereof, they shall be liable and Xt’ subject to the same charges and penalties as are provided r in like cases under the Territorial laws. p

5. And be it.farther enacted, That the officers I mentioned in the preceding section shall receive for their - services the same compensation as is given for like services under the Territorial laws. s The vote in ttie Senate, on agreeing to the Conference Com mittee’s Report, stood~Yeas, 30-Nays, 22-as follows: d YEAs.-Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benjamin, Bigler, Bigg, a1 Bright, Brown, Clay, Davis. Evans, Fitzpatrick, Grewln, 124

Page 125 view page image

KANSAS-WYANDOT CONSTITUTION. (win, Ihammond, Houston, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson (Ark) Johnson (Tenn.), Jones, Kennedy, Mallory, Mason, Polk, Pugh, Sebastian, Thompson (N.J.), Toombs, Wright, Yulee. NAYs. Messrs.

Broderick, Cameron, Chandler, Collamer, Crittenden, Dixon, Doolittle, Douglas, Durkee, Fessdeden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, King, Seward, Simmons, Stuart, Trumbull, Wade, Wilson. PAIRED.-Bell with P
earce, Fitch with Sumner. ABss:ST.-Clark, Bates, Henderson, Reid, Tho mpson ‘JKy.), Slidell. In the House, on the final vote, among those who had voted against the original Lecompton Bill and who now supported the English scheme, were Gilmer, Am., of N. C., and the following Democrats, viz.: English and Foley, of Ind; Cockerill, Cox, Groesbeck, Hall, Lawrence and Pendleton, of Ohio; and Owen Jones, of Pa. Gen. Quitman, of Mississippi, and Mr. Bonham, of S. C., fire eaters, voted No, and the following members “paired off,” viz.: Washburn (Wis.) with Arnold; Matteson with teuben Davis; Purviance with Dimmick; Morrill with Faulkner; Horton with Hill; J. C. Kunkel with Miles Taylor; Montgomery with Warren; Thompson with Stewart (Md.); and Wood with George Taylor. In accordance with this act of Congress, the people of Kansas went into all election on the 3d of August, 1858. Notwithlstanding the liberal offers in regard to donations to Kanisas of’ public lands, inI this bill, and the threat that if the people did not accept a State Government with the Lecompton Constitution, they should not be permitted to come in as a State with any Constitution, till they should have a full population of 93,340, still, the Lecompton Constitution was again rejected by more than ten thousand nimjoritv. This may be regarded as the final disposition of this faimous Constitution. Fromi first to last, it had been the cause or the subject of more speeches in Congress than anyC measure ever brought before that body.

retaining as a part of the new State the westcrn gold region about Pike’s Peak, which was beginning to attract great numbers of immigrants; r the exclusi on from the elStato o e of free negroes, and fo r the prohibition of bank issues, but had been defeated as to all these points. By te pse an ope the Con stitution, as adopted, the boundaries of the new State were de clar ed to be the State of Missouri on the e a st, the f7th parallel of north latitude on the south, th e 41st parallel of north latitude on the north, a nd t he io3( meridian of longitude west from Washington on the wes t. The wes tern boundary cuts off the Pike’s Peak region and the desert which bounds it on the east, and limit s t he n e w State to the ha bitable ea stern portion o f the Te,ritory, embracing an area of some sixty thousand square miles. The Exe cutive i s t o consi st o f a Gover nor, Secretary of State, Auditor, Attorney-General, and Superintendent of Public Schools, to be chosen by the people, a nd to serve for two years.

The House of Represeiq - tatives is to consist of seventy-five me mbers, to s er ve one year, and the Senat e of twentyfive Senators, to serve two yea rs, t he numbe rs to be regulated by law, but never to exceed one hundred Representatives, and thirty-three Senators. The pay is t o be thre e dollars a dav and fifteen cents per m ile tra vel. All b ills must originiate w it h the House, and no act can include more th an o ne subject. The Supreme Court i s to consist of three Judges, to be chosen by the people, to hold office for six years, one to g o out every two years.

There are to be five District Judges, to be chosen bv the people of the ir respective dis tricts, a nd to s erve for four y e a rs. Each county is to choose a Judge of’Probate, to serve for t wo yea rs, and e ach to wns h ip is to choose Justices of the Peace, to serve also for two years. Elections are to be by ballot. Every white male adult who is a citizen of the Unite d State s, or who has declared his intention to bec ome one, having been a resident in the State for six months, and in the precinct for thirty days, is entitled to vote. The State is prohibited from becoming a party in carrying, on any worlk of internal improvermient, nor can any debt, to exceed a nmillion of dollars, be contracted, unless the question be previously submitted to, and the debt authorized by, a popular vote; and in all cases a special tax must be levied sufficient to pay the interest al4 provide a sinking fund atdequiate to meet the principal when it becomes due. All corporations, banks included, must be established under general laws only, and the corporators made liable to twice the amount of their stock. The sale of lottery tickets is prohibited. The schedule annexed to the Conistitution claimed of Congress $500,000, or in lieu thereof 500,000 acres of land, to meet the claims audited to nearly that amount for losses ins curred by citizens of Kansas during the late troubles. Thle Commnissioners had declined to entertain the claim of the Newv-England Emit grant Aid Society, to the amount of $2>5,0(00, for the destruction of their hotel at Lawrlence, on the ground that they had no authomity to act on any claims except those presented by citizens of Kansas, and the C)onventioal de. I I 125 THE WYANDOT CONSTITUTION. The Territorial Legislature passed an act (Feb. 11, 1859) to refer the question to the people of a new Constitutional Convention, the ,e lectioii to be held on the first Tuesday in March, 1859. The election was held, and resulted in a majority of 9,881 in favor of a Convention. This result being ascertained, the Governor issued his proclamation for an eleetioii of’ delegates. The old party organizations were now abandoned, and those of Republiean3 .,iiid Democrats,ubstituted, and it was on this basis that the caiivitgs for the election of delegat.es proceeded. The Convention was to consist of fifty-two delegates. The Democrats preclaiiiiqd themselves disciples of Mr. Douglas and his Territorial Sovereigntv doctrine, and decidedly opposed to making Kansas a Slave State. Ti:ie Leavenworth district, where, through its contractors for army stipplie,,q, the Goveriiitieilt exercised a great influence, and Nvliieli i’t-otii its population was entitled to ten delegates, elected the Democratic ticket, not, however, without the aid of fraudulent votes. But the RepublicaDs, bv their predominance in other parts of the Territory, succeeded in securiiig a majority in the Convention of thirtytive to seventeen. I’he Convention met at Wyandot on the 5th of Julv,,itid adjourned on the 27th of the same nioiit, after adoptin, a Constitution by a vote of tliirty-four to thirteen,,tll the Democrat,,i present voting against it and refusing to sign it. They had strenuously contended, in the Convention, for the annexation to Kansas of that part of Nebraska South of the Platte; for

Page 126 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. clined to go beyond the report of the Comriuis-stoners. A grant is asked from Congress of 4,550,00l a c r e s of land for internal inmprovements, also L t h e swamp lands of the State t o be appropriated as a school fund. Prefixed to the Constitution is a Bill of Rights, which includes a prohibition of Slavery. ]his Bill of Rights also provides that no person shall be incomnpetent to testify on account of his religious belief. By a provision of the schedule, this Constitu’on was submitted to a popular vote on the first Tuesday in October, which resulted in its ratification by the people by a majority of some four thousand. Tile Territorial election in November attracted but little interest from the general expectation of the admission of the State under the ntew Constitution. The Republicans, however, succeeded in electing their delegate to Congress and a majority of the Legislature. The first State Election under this Coniistitution was held December 6, 1859, and resulted in the election of Charles Robinison (Rep.) as Governor by 2513 majority. Martin F. Conway (Rep.) for Congress by 2107 majority, and the entire Republican ticket for State officers G by majorities ranging from 2000 to 2,500, also a Legislature which was Republican in both branches by very decided majorities. .Fb. 15-Mr. Glow introduced in the House, a bill to dit Kansas under the Wyandot Constitution. Referred to Committee on Territo ries, which (March 29th) reported (majority) through Mr. Grow in favor of admission. April 11.-Mr. Grow demanded the Previous Question on the passage of the Bill, whichl w as seconded, and the main question ordered. Mr. Barksdale, demanded the Yeas and NTays -ordered. The question was then taken, and decided ill the affirmative: Yeas, 134; Nays, 73, as followss: YEAs Messrs. Chas. F. Adams, A d r a i n, Aldrich, Allen, Alley, Ashley, Babbitt, Barr, Bar rett, Beale Bingham, Blair (Pa.), Blakes, BDla kn, Duell, DBuffinton, Bterc lo, Burlingame, Burnham, Butterfield, Campbell, Carey, Carter, Case, H o r a c e F. C I a r k, Clark B. Coch rane, Jgohn Cochrne, Colfax, Conkling, Cooper, Corwin, Covode, Cox, Curtis, D]awesh n, D el ano, Duell, D, dger e) ton, Edward s, Elliot, Ely, ETHERIDGE, Farnsworth, Fenton, Ferry, Flote,ce Foster, FoBA’e, Frank, French, Gooch, Grow, G urle y, Ilale, Ha ll, II a s k i n, Helmick, II i c k m a n, Hoard, IlolLnan, IHward (Ohio), Hfumphry, Hutch ins, Irvine, Junkin, Francis W. Kellogg, William Kellogg Kenyon, Kilgore, Killinger, La r, abee, De Witt C. Leach Lee, Logan, Longnecker, Loomis, Lovejoy,,!arston, Chsa., D. tI, -till, loCler’,atd, MIcKean, MlclCnight, AcPher son, IV;~. Jfonat.omery, Moorehead, Morrill, Edward Joy Morris, I.iaac,. JNorris, Morse,.NViblack, Nixon, Olin, Palmer, Peadletoa, Perry, Pettit, Porter, Potter-, Pottle, Rice, R i g g s, Christopher Robinson, James C. Robin. so7b, Royce, S c h w a r t z, Scranton, Sedgwick, Spauld iLg, Spinner, Stanton, Stevens, Wmn. Stewart, Stout, Strat ton, Tappan, Thayer, Ttleaker, Tompkins, Train, Trimble, Vallandiglba??, Vandever, Verree, Waldron, Walton, C. C. Washburn, E. B. Washburne, Israel Washburn, WEn STER, Wells, Wilson, Windom, Wood, Woodruff. Republicans, in Roman,……… 103 Democrats (from Free States.), in Iralice,.. 22

AntiLecompton Democrats, Roman spaced,.. 6 Americans, in S.MALL

CAPS,…….. 3 Total,…. 184 NAvs essrs. GIREENq ADAMS, Th08. l.

Anderson, WM. a. AsiDERSON. Ashmore,Avery Barksgale,,Bocock,,Bon. hal, BOTELqRE, Boyce, BRABSO,Bran~h, BmIqTOW,.Btbr ntett, John B. Clark, Clopton, Cbobb, James Craite BZJ’ton Cr’aige, Cr’awford, Ct~‘ry, Da~vidson, HERgY W’ DAVrs, Edmuntdson. Englimh (Indiana), Gumrnett, Gaim trell, GILMIER, liUanilton HARDEM.AN, John T litri’. llt~w-ins, hILL.

Itindmatan, IIouston, IlHg/he.s Jack8on, Jenkins, Jotes. Keitt. Lamar, JAMES M. LE.ici, Leake, Love, MALLORY, MIAYNARD, McQueen;-,.Moae, 2~iles, 2[lleon, LABAN T. MOORE, Sydenhaim M1oore, NELSON, Voell, Pughl, QUARLES, Reagan Rufin, Scott (Cal.), Sickles (N. Y.!, Simnms, Singleton, WVm.

Smith. W. N. H. SMITII. Stallworth, Stevenson, STOKES, Thomas, VANCs, WiVhitely, Vin,sloc, W Voodson. Democrats, in Italics, (3 from Free States),.. 55 Americans, in SAIALL CAPS (all from Slave States), I8

Total,……….. 73 Total,…….. 73 PAIRED-D a v i s (Indiana), with Phielps. Sherman with HARRIS, of Md. Wade with Peyton. Somes with dJcClay (N.Y.) Van Wyck with U,?zderwvood. Burroughs with Dejarnette. ABSENT

UNPAIREf -Dect/ 8 (Mis. ), Landrumn, w d artin, (Va.), Kvilkel. Senate, Feb. 21st. -Mr. Seward introduced a bill for the ad mission of Kansas under the Wyandotte Con stit ut ion. Oi the 5thi Juiie, thisa bill being un oder considerationi, Mr Wigfall, of Tex, e xpla ined h is views. He declared he w ould not vote for the admis sion of this so called State, under any circumstances. He objected to their moral characte r, and w as not willing Texas should associa te wi th such a State. eq tr. Greene’s amendrment, to change the boundary (taking in Pike’s Peak), was discussed by Mr. Wade, who said the eff ect of the a mend men t would be to defeat the bill. Mr. Ieunter moved to postpone the subject, and take up the Army bill. Mr. Trumbull opposed the motion. He should keey the Kansas bll befo re the Senate till it was finally d isposed of. It was more impor tant t han th e appropri ation bills, which,appeared to be kept back in order to interrupt othert important business. Mrr. Sewald hop ed the friends of Kansa s w ould let a vote be t aker, so tha t the responsibilit y might lie wher e it belonged. The vote was taken by yeas and nays, and resulted, Yeas, 82; Nays, 27. It was a strict party vote, except that Aessrs Pugh (Demt., Ohio) an d La tham (Dem., Cal.) voted witlh the Repul,bl cans not t o p ostpone. Mr. Kennedy (S. Am., Md.) voted with the Democrats. Messrs.

CrPttenden (S. Am, Kiy.), Douglas, Clay, (Dem. Ala ), and Nicholson (Dem., Tenn ) we e absent. Messrs. Douglas and Clay we-‘e pai,‘ed So the motion to postpone, and talke up the Army bill prevailed. aaMr. Trumbull called attention to the fact that the Nesa Benator fo Pennsylvania (Biglet) desired to postpone thle Kansas hill because the Senate was not full. The vote showed that sixty votes had been cast, with two paired off, showing the fullest vote of the session. IHe said th e effect of the voe just taken was equivalent to the defeat of the Kansas bill, and the Se nator from Pennsylvania must have known the effect of his vote. Mr. Wigfa1ll desired t o call attention to the fact that the House had once defeated the Army bill, because it d’Anot want the a,-my used against the Black Republi *can thieves and murderers in Kansas. ; t tiez 7. Or. Wa t~dt, of’ Ohio, moved to take , lp the Kanrsas-bill, which was lost-as followss: YEAs-3essrs. Anthony, Bigler, Bingham, Cameron, Chandler Cla, Collainmer, Dixon, Doolittle, Dur ke e, Fessende%, Foot, Foster-, Grimes, ltale, Hamlin, Harlan, King, Pugh, Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck. Trum bull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilson, Republicans, 25; Demo crats, (Bigler and Pugh) 2-2T. NAYS Messr-s. Bayard, Benjamin, Bragg, Bright, Brown, Chesnut, Clingman, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Greene, Gwin, Ilammond, Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson, (Tenn.) Lane, Latham, Mallory, Mason, Nichol son, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Rice, Sebastian, Slidell, Thom son, Toombs, Wigfall, Yulee.-82. [All Democrats.] Mr. Douiglas was paired with Mr. Clay ~ Crittenden (Am.), with Johnson, of Ark., Ken nedy and Saulsburv absent. So both Houses adjourned and left Kansas still in the condition of a Territory. 126

Page 127 view page image

THE NEBRASKA DOCTRINE AND THE DRED SCOTT DECISION REVIEWED, SPEECII OF

THIE IHION. ABRAHIAM LINCOLN, At Springfield, 111., Tune 17, 1858.

Slavery.” “Not we,” said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment. While the Nebraska bill was passing through Congress, a law case involving the question of a negro’s freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a Fre tte State and then into a Ter rit ory covered by the Congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long t ime in each, was passing through the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and law suit were brought to a decisi o n i n the same month of May, 1854. The negro’s name was ” Dred Scott,” which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next Presidential Election, the law case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election.

Still, before the election, Senat or Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state hi. opinion whether the people of a Territory can constitutionally exclude Slavery from their limits; and the latter answers: ” That is a question for the Supreme Court.” The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained.

The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible, echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement. The Supreme Court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument. The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming President in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then in a few days, came the decision. The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make as peech at this capital, indorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. rThe new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Sillimiian letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained! At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question offact, whether the Lecompton Constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether Slavery be voted (lown or voted up.

I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether Slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by’ him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mindthe principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision “squatter sovereignty” squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffold-ng-like the mold at the foundry served through one blast and fell back into loose sand-helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint strug gle with the Republicans, against the Leco,npton Con 127 [The following speech was delivered at Springfield, Ill., at the close of the Republican State Convention held at that time and place, and by which Convention Mr. Lincoln had been named as their candidate for U. S. Senator.] MIR. PRESIDENT, AND GENTLEMEN OF THE

CONVENTION: If we 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 confident 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 dissolvedI 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 t he 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 t]e course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new-North as well as South. Have we no tendency to the latter condition? Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination-piece of machinery, so to speak-compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott Decision. Let himn consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or r at her fail, if he can, to trace the evidence of design, and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning. The new year of 1854 found Slavery excluded from more than half the States by State Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by Congressional prohibition. Four days later, commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that Congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to Slavery, and was the first point gained. But, so far, Congress only had acted: and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispen sable, to save the point already gained, and give chance for more. This necessity had not been overlooked; but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of “squatter sovereignty,” otherwise called ” sacred right of self-government,” which latter phrase, t h o u g h expressive of the only rightful basis of any gov ernmelt, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any on e man choose to e n s l a v e a,tother, no third man shall be allowed to o b j e c t. That argument was incorporated into the Ne b r a s k a bill itself, in the language which follows: “It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to l egis l a t e Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to ex clu d e it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof per f ect l y free to form and regulate their domestic institu t i o n s in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of “Squatter Sovereignty,” and ” s a cre d right of self-government.” “But,”

said oppo s i t i o n members, “let us amend the bill so as to expressly d e c lare that the people of the Territory may exclude

Page 128 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-LOOK FOR 1860. stitution, involves nothing of the original Nebraska doc trine. That struggle was made on a point-the right of a people to make their own constitution-upon which he i tnd the Republicans have never differed. The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in con nection with Senator Douglas’s “care not” policy, cons ti tute the piece of machinery, in its present state of advance ment. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are: .First, That no negro slave, imported as such from Af rica, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a ci ti zen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in th e Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” Secondly, That ” subject to the Constitution of the Uni ted States,” neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude Slavery from any United States Territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of p erma nency to the institution through all the future. Thirdly, That whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a Free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any Slave Sta t e the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott’s master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other Free State. Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mold public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether Slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending. It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mys terious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left “perfectly free,” subject only to the Constitution.

What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see.

Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to after ward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the peo ple to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amend ment, expressly declaring the right of the people, voted down? Plainly enough now: the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision.

Why dvas the court decision held up? Why even a Senator’sin dividual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential elec tion? Plainly enough now: the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing Plesident’s felicitation on the ilndorsment? NVhy the delay of a re argumenit? Why the incoming President’s advance exhor tation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse prepara tory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that lie may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the President and others? I We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adapta tions are the result of preconcert. But wheni we see a l ot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen-Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance-and when we see these timbers joined to gether, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few-not omitting even scaffolding-or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame ex actly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in-in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Ste phen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck. It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska bill, the people of a State as well as a Territory, were to be left “perfectly free,” “subject only to the Constitution.” Why mention a State? They were legislating for Territo ries, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely Territorial law? Why are the people of a Territory and the people of a State therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same? While the opinion of the court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States ne ithe r permits Co ngress n or a Territ orial Legislature to exclude Slavery from any United States Territory, they all oi t to declare whethe ltr or not th e sa me l Constitution permits a State, or the people of a State, to exclude it. l’ossilly, this is a mere omission; but who can b te quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had soug ht to get i nto the opinion a declaration of unli mited power in the people of a State to exclude Slavery fiom their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a territory, into the Nebraska bill-I ask, who call be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other? The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over Slavery, is made by Judge Nelson, He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language, too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion, his exact language is, ” except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of Slavery within its jurisdiction.” In what cases the power of the States is so restrained by the United States Constitution, is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the Territories, was left open in the Nebraska act. Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude Slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of ” care not whether Slavery be voted down or voted up,” shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made. Such a decision is all that Slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall~ be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a Slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. This is what we have to do. How can we best do it? There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, a,.d yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that ob ject. They wish us to in~fer all, from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never diffeIed. They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones.

Let this be granted. But ” a living dog is better than a dead lion.” Judge Douglas, if not a dead s, lion, for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can lie oppose the advances of Slavery? He don’t care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the ” public heart “
to care nothings about it. A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas’s superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slavetrade. Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of Sla very to one of a mere right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slavetrade-how can he refuse V that trade in that ” property” shal be ” perfectly free ” unless he does it as a protection to the home production? And as the home producers will probably not ask the pro tection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition.

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man mlay rigfhtfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. ]But can vwe, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will matke any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation?9 Cawn we safely base our action upon any such vague inference?

Now, as ever, I wish1 not to misrepresent Judlge Douglas’s position, question his mlotives, or do awughlt that can be personally offensive to hliml. Whenever, if ever, he and wre can come together on principle so that our cause may hate assistance from hid I I I 128 0

Page 129 view page image

MR. LINCOLN S SPEECH. great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we obstacle.

But clearly, he is not now with us-he does not gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the ,pretend to be-he does not promise ever to be. battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted proud and pampered enemy.

Did we brave alH them to tby, its own undoubted friends-those whose hands are falter now?-now, when that same enemy is wavering, ltree, whose hearts are in the work-who do care for the dissevered and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. -result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation We shall not fail-if we stand firm, we shallunot jail. iiustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We Wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it, but, didf this under the single imnpulse o resistance to a common sooner or later, the victorv is sure to come. (lt, ger, with every externalcircumstaLce against us. Of SLAVERY DISCUSSED BY LINCOLN AND

DOUGLAS. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. MR. LINCOLN’S SPEECH. A. I do not stand to-day pledged to the abolition of Slavery i n th e D istric t of Columbia. Q. 5. “I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to the prohibition of the slavetrade between th e different States?” A. I d o no t stand pledged to the proh ibition of th e slavetrad e between the diff er ent Sta tes. Q. 6. “I desire to know whether he stands pledged to pr ohibit Slavery in all the Territories of the United States, No rth as well as South of the Missouri Compromise line?” A. I am impliedly, if ot expressly, pledged to a belief in the rihht and duty of Congress to prohibit Slavery i n all the Uni ted States Territories. . 7. ” I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition of any new territory unless Slavery is first pro hibited therein?” A. I a. not generally opposed to honest acquisition of ter ritory* and, in any given case, I would or would not oppose such acquisition, accordingly as I might think such acquisition would or would not aggravate the Slavery question among ourselves. Now, my friends, it will be perceived upon an examination of these questions and answers, that so far I have, only answered that I was notpledged to this, that or the other. The Judge has not framed his interrogatories to ask me anything more than this, and I have answered in, strict accordance with the interrogatories, and have. answered truly that 1 am not pledged at all upon any~ of the points to which I have answered.

But I am not disposed to hang upon the exact form of his inter rogatory..

I am rather disposed to take up at least some of these. questions, and state what I really think upon them. As to the first one, in regard to the Fugitive Slave Law,, I have never hesitated to say, and I do not now hesitate to say, that I think, under the Constitution of the United States, the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave Law. waving said that, I have had nothing to say in regard to the existing Fugitive Slave Law, further than that I think it should have been framed so as to be free from some of the objections that pertain to it, without lessening its efficiency. And inasmuch as we are not now in an agitation in regard to an alteration or modification of that law, I would not be thee man to introduce it as a new subject of agitation upon the general question of Slavery. In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the admission of any more Slave States into the Union, I state to you very frankly that I would be, exceedingly sorry ever to be put in a position of having to pass upon that question. I should be exceedingly glad, to know that there would never be another Slave Stateadmitted into the Union; but I must add, that if Slavery shall be kept out of the Territories during the territorial., existence of any one given Territory, and then the people shall, having a fair opportunity and a clear field, when they come to adopt the Constitution, do such an; extraordinary thing as adopt a Slave Constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, but to admit them into the Union. The third interrogatory is answered by the answer to the second, it being, as I conceive, the same as the second. The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia. In -elation to that, I have my mind very distinctly..ade up. I. should. be exceed AT the second Joint Debate, between Mr. Douglas and Mr. Lincoln, at Freeport, Illinois, August 27th, 1858, Mr. Lincoln spoke as fol lows: LADIES AqND GElNTLEMEN: Oil Saturday last, Judge Doutglas and myself first met in public discussion. He is oke one hour, I an hour and a half, and he replied for half and hour. The order is now reversed. I assm to seok an hour, he an hour and a half, and then I am to reply for half an hour. I propose to devote myself during the first hour to the scope of what was brought within the range of his half-hour speech at Ottawa. Of course there wvas brought within the scope in that half-hour’s speech somiething of his own opening speech, In the course of that opening argument, Judge Douglas proposed to nme seven distinct interrogatories. In my speech of an hour andi a half, I attended to some other parts of his speech, and incidentally, as I thought, answered one of the in terrogatories then. I then distinctly initimated to him that I would answer the rest of his interrogatories on condition only that he should agree to answer as many for me. He made no intimation at the tinie of the proposition, nor did he in his reply allude at all to that suggestion of mine. I do him no injustice in saying that he occupied at least half of his reply in dealing with me as though I had reffused to answer his interrogatories. I now propose that I will answer any of the interrogatories, upon condition that he will answer questions from me not exceeding the same number. I give him an opportunity to respond. The Judge remains silent. I now say that I will answer his interrogatories, whether he answers mine or-not; and that after I have done so, I shall propound tine to him. I have supposed myself, since the organization of the Republican party at Bloomington, in May, 1856, bound as v party man by the platforms of the party, then and since. If in any interrogatories which I shall answer I go beyond the scope of what is within these platforms, it will be perceived that no one is responsible but myself. Having said thus much, I will take up the Judge’s intelrrogatories as I find them printed in the Chicago Times, and answer them seriatim. In order that there may be no mistake about it, I have copied the interrogatories in writing, and also my answers to them. The first of these interrogatories is in these words: Question 1. “I desire to know whether Lincoln to-ay Stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law?” A,..,er. I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the ussconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. Q. 2. ” I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the admission of any more ‘ l fve States int o the Un ion, even if the p eople want them?” A. I do not now, or ever did, stand pledged against the admission of any more Slave States into the Union. Q. 3. “I want to know whether he stands pledged against the admission of a new State into the Union with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make?” A. I do lot stand pledged against the admission of a new St:-te into the Union, with such a Constitution as the people of that State may see fit to make. Q. 4. ” I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to bie abo.i Xl, of Slasery in the District of Columbia?” 9 129 6 6.

Page 130 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. ilgly glad to see Slavery abolished in the District of ColuiLbia. I believe that Congress possesses the coilstitutional power to abolish it. Yet, as a ieiber of Co,ngroess, I should not, with my present views, be in favor of endeavoriltg to abolish Slavery in the District of Co-a luosia, unless it would be upon these conditions: First, tiat tle ab oli tion should be gtadual. Second, that it should b e on a vote offthe major ity of qualified voters in the District; anol T/tird, that compensation should be made to unwillin g owners. W ith these three conditi ons, I confess I would be exceedingly glad to see Congress abolish Sla very in th e Di strict of Columbia, and, in t h e lan guage of Henry Clay, ” sweep from our Cap ital th at foul blot upon our nation.” Ili regar d to the fifth interrogatory, I must say here, that as to the question of the abolition of the slave-t s ade between the differe nt States, I can truly answer, as I have, that I ap pledged to nothing about it. It isa subject to which I hav e not g ive n that ma ture considerationl that would make me feel authorized to state a position so as to hold mysel f entirel y boundi by it. In other words, that question has never been prominently enough befor e e to induc e me t o investigate whether we really h av e the const itutional power to do it. I could investig ate it if I had sufficient t ime, o sp to bring myself to a conclusion upon tha t subject; but I h ave not don e so, and I say so franokl y t o you here, and to Judge Douglas. I must say, however, that if I sh ould be of opinion that Congress d oes possess the constitutiona l pow er to abolish the slavetrade amon g the differ ent States, I sh ould still not b e in favor of the se exercise of that power unless upon some conservative princ i ple as I conceive it, akin to what I h ave said in relation to the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia. My answer as to wh et her I desire that Slavery shoull be prohibited in all the Territories of the United States, is full and explici t wit hin itself, and cannot be made clearer by any comments of mine. So I suppose in regt,ar d t o th e que sti on w hether I am opposed to the acquisition o f any mor e territory unless Slavery is fi rst prohibited the rei n, m y answer is such that I could add nothing by way of illustration, or making myself better understood, than the answer w hich I have placed in writing.

Now in all this, the Judge has me, and he has me on the record. I suppose li e had flattered himself that I was really entertaining one set of opinions for onceplace and another set for another place-that I was afraid to say at onle place wha t I utter ed at anoth er. What I am sayinig here I suppose I say to a vast audience as strongly tending to Abolitionism as any audience in the State of Illinois, and I believe I am saying that which, if it would be offensive to any persons and render them enemies to myself, would be offensive to persons in this audience. I now proceed to propound to the Judge the interrogatories, so far as I have framed them. I will bring forward a new installment when I get them ready.

I will bring them forward now, only reaching to number four. The first one is: Question 1. If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirely unobjectionable il all other respects, adopt a State Constitutioln, and ask admission into the Union under it, bFbire they have the requisite number of inhabitants according to the En,‘glish bill-soim,e ninety-three thousand-will you vote to adm,,it them? Q. 2. ban the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, againist the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclu~de bavery froi its limits prior to the formation of. a tine ConIstil. tion *’ A. 5. If the supreme Court of the United States shall decide thaL States ca nlo ex clud e lavery from their limits, are you inl fatdo of acqtlieseing in, adopting and followintg such dee.sion as a rule of political action? at. 4. Are you ill astor of acquiring additional territory, in disreg,ar-d of i.ow such aequisition may art’ocL the nation on the bia, cry question I As introductory to these interrogateries which Judge Douglas pl,opoLluded two ml,e at Ottawa, he read a set of res~ittdons w;:ich he said Judge Tru,..buill and myself had )art icpated in adopting, in the tir-st Relpublic.n State Conlven.tion, held at SpiLgriehl, in October, 1854. He ;insisted that I and(l Judge Trum,.bull, and perhaps the entire Republican party, were responsible for tihe doct,i’ies cornta.ined in thle set of resolutions which he read, alld I understand that it was fro,. th~at set of resolutions that ile depleted the interrogaterios which he propounded to tit,- ulsing thlese resolutions AS a sor’t of authoriiy for prop lounduinlg those questions to me. N ow I say her e tonay thatl I do not answer his interrogatories because of th~eir springing at all fr om that set of lresolutions which he ‘e,,d. I answered theta because Judge Douglas thought ait to ask ttlem. I do no0t now, nor never did, recognize ally re-ponsibility uponI myself in that set of reso1lutions. :tl-% ILl lrepliedl to him on1 that occasion. I assured him giat! l n,:ver had anything to do with them. I repeat h~ere to-~iay, that I never, in any possible form, had anjythling to Go with that set of resolutions. It turns out, I be l ieve, that t h ose resolutions were neve r passed in any Convention held in Springfield. It turns out that tlhe>y were never passed at any Convention or a ny publi c meeting that I had any part in. I believe it turns out in addition to all this, that there was not, in the fall of 1S54, any Convention holding a session at Springfield callir-, -
itself a Republican State Convention; yet it is true thler’e was a Convention, or assemblage of men calling thetnselves a Convention, at Springfield, that did pass so0ne resolutions. But so little did I really know of the psceedlings of that Convention, or what set of resoluti(o s they had passed, though having a general knowledge that there had been such an assemblage of men there, that when Judge Douglas read the resolutions, I really did not know but they had been the resolutions passedl then and there. I did not question that they were the rt.solutions adopted. For I could not br ing myself to salpose that Judge Douglas could say what lie did upon this subject without knotoing that it was true. I contentedl myself, on that occasion, with denying, as I triuly coulil, all connection with theii, not denying or affirming whether they were passed at Sprinfgiehll. No,w it turns out that hie had got ih,,ld of soe es lutios passed at sonme Convention or public meeting in Kane County. I wis h to say here, that I don’t conceive tilat in asly fair and just mind this discovery relieves nle at Ill. I had just as much to do with the Convenltion in Kane County as that at Springfield. I am just as muclh resonsible for the res o lutions at Kane Counlty a s thdo s e a t Springfield, the amount of the responsibility being exactly nothing in either cas e: no more tha t t her e wo uld be in rega rd to a set of re so lutions passed i n the n ooon. I allude to p i t th is extraordinary io cyIer in thi s canvas s for some fure e ther purpose than anything yet advanced. Judge Douglas did not m ake his state imeit upon that occasion as ma tters th at he believed to be true, but he stated them roundly as being true, in such form as to pledge his veracity for their truth. When the whlole matter turns out as int dees, an d when we c onsi der wh o Judge Douglas is-that be is a disti nguishe d Senator of the United States-that he has served nearly twelve years as such-that his characte r is n ot at a ll li mited as an ordinary Senator of the United States, but that his .name has beco me of world-wide renown-i t is mo st, ctraoradinary that lie sho uldh s o far forget all the suggestions of justice to an adversary, or of prudence t o hi mself, as to venture upon the assertion of that which the slightinest investigation would have shown him to be wholly false. I can only account for his having done so upon the supposition that that evil genius whicnh has attended him through his life, giving to hi m an appar ent rston ishing prosperity, such as to lead very hy ma ny good men t o doubt the re be ing any advant a ge in virtue over vice-I say I can o nly a ccount for it on the supposition that that evil genius has at las t made up its mi nd to forsake hism. And I may add that another extraordi nary feature of the Judge’s conduct in this canvass-made more extras ordinary by this incident-is, that he i s i n the ha bit, in almost all the speeches he rmakes, of charging falsehood upon his adversaries, myself a nd oth ers. I n ow a sk whether he is able to find in anyth ing tfuat Judge Trumbull, for instance, has s aid, o r in anyth ing that I have said, a justification at all compared with what we have, in this instance, for that sort of vulgarity. MR. DOUGLAS’ REPLY.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I am glad that at last I have brought Mr. Lincoln to the conclusion that he had better define his position on certain political questions to which I called his attention at Ottawa. He there showed no disposition, no inclination, to answer them. I did not present idle questions for him to answer merely for my gratifica tion. I laid the foundation for those interrogatories by showing that they constituted the platform of the party whose nominee he is for the Senate. I did not presume that I had the right to catechise him as I saw proper, unless I showed that his party, or a majority of’it, stood upon the platform and were in favor of the propositions upon which my questions were based. I desired simply to know, inasmuch as he had been nominated as the first, last, and only choice of his party, whether he concurred in th~e platform which that party had adopted for its government. In a few moments I will proceed to review the answers which he has given to these interrogatories; but in order to relieve his anxiety I will first respond to these which he has pr esented to me. Mark you, he has not presenlted interrogatories which have ever received the sanc-o tion of the party with which I am acting, and hence he has no other founda.tion for them than his own curiosity. First, he desires to know if the people of Kansas shall ,form a Constitution by means entirely proper and uneb 180 11

Page 131 view page image

MIR. DOUGLAS’ REPLY. jectionable and ask admission into the Union as a State, before they have the requisite population fo r a member of Congress, whether I will vote for that admission. Well now, I regret exceedingly that he did not answer that interrogatory himself before he put it to me, in order that we might understand, and not be lef t to infer on which side he is. Mr. Trumbull, during the last session of Congress, voted from the beginning to the end against the admission of Oregon, although a free St ate, because she had not the requisite population for a member of Congress. Mr. Trumbull would not consent, under any circuatstanc es, to l et a State, free or sl a ve, come int o the U nion until it had the requisite population. As Mr. cTrumbull is in th e fi eld, fighting for M r. Lincoln, I would like to hav e Mr. Lincoln answer his own question and tell me whether he is fighting Trumbull on that issue or not. But I will answer his question. In reference to K ansas, it is my o pinion, th at as she has population enough t o const itute a sl ave State, she h as people enough for a Fe,ee State. I will no t m ak e Ka nsas an exceptionable case to the other St ates of the Uni on. I hold it to b e a sound rule of universal application to require a Territory to c ontain the requisite population for a mem ber o f Congress, befor e it i s admitted as a State into the Union. I made tha t proposi tion in t he Senate in 1856, and I renewed it dur ing the last session, in a bill providing that Do Territor y of the United States should fo rm a Constitution and apply for admission until it had the requisite population. On another occasio n I p ropos e d that n either K ansas, or any other Territory, should be admitted until it h ad the requisite population. Congress did no t adopt anry of my propositio ns containing this general rule, but did m ak e an exce ptio n of Kan sas. I will stan d by tbat exception. Eith er Kansas mus t come in as a Free State wit h w hateve r population she may have, or the rule must be applied to all the o ther territories alike. I therefore answer at once, that it having been decided that Kansas has p eople en ough for a Slave State, I hold that s he has enough for a Free State. I hope Mn. Lincoln is satisfied with ay answer; and now I would like to get his answer to his own interrogatory-whether or not h e will vote to admit Kansas befor e she has a the requisite population. I want to know whether he will vote to admit Oregon before t hat T erritory has the r equisite popula tion. Mr. Tlrumbull will not, and the same reason that commits Mr.

Trumbull against the admission of Oregon, commits him against Kansas, e ven i f shke should ap ply for admission as a Free State. If there is any sincerity, any truth, in the a rgument of Mr. Trumbull in the Senate, against the admissi on of Oegon becau se she had not 98,420 people, although her population was lar-ger than that of Kansas, he stands pledged against the admission of both Oregon and Kansas until they have 93,420
inhabitants. I would like Mr. Lincoln to answer this question. I would like him to take his own medicine. If he differs with Mr. Trumbull let him answer his argument against the admission of Otegon, instead of poking questions at me. The next question propounded to me by Mr. Lincoln is, can the people of the Territory in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the United States, exclude Slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution? I answer emphatically, as Mr.

Lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, that in my opinion the people of a Territory can, by lawful means, exclude Slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a State constitution.

Mr. Lincoln knew that I had answered that question over and over again. Me heard me argue the Nebraska bili on-that principle all over the State in 1854, in 1855, and in 1856; and he has no excuse for pretending to be in doubt as to my position on that question. It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract question whether Slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the Constitution; the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they please, for the reason that Slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by local poilce regulations. Those police regulations can only be established-by the local legislature; and if the people are opposed to Slavery they will elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its extension. Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a slave Territory or a free Territory is perfect and complete under the Nebraska bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems may’answer satisfactory on that point. In this connection. I will notice the charge which he has int~,edluced in relation to Mr. Chase’s amendment. I ought that I had chased that amendment out of Mr. Lilac Aln’s brain at Ottawa, but it seems that still haunts his imagina~tion, and hle is not yet satisfied. I had sup posed that he would be ashamed to press that question further. He is a lawyer, and has been a member of Congress, and has occupied his tinme and amused you by telling you about parliamentary proceeding. He ought to have known better than to try to palhni off his miserable impositions upon this intelligent audience. The Nel,raskla bill provided that the legislative power and authority cit the said Territory should extend to all rig,htful suLjects of legislation, consistent with the organic act and the Consti tution of the United States. It did not make aliy excepticti as to Slavery, but gave all the power that it was po’sible for Congress to give, without violating the Constitutior, to the Territorial Legislature, with no exception or limitation on the subject of Slavery at all. The language of that bill which I have quoted, gave the full power and the full,uthority over the subject of Slavery, affirmatively and legatively, to intr oducei.t or exclude it, so far as the Constitution of the United States would permit. WThat more could Mr. Chase give by his amen dment?

Noth ing. He offered hi s amendment for the i dentical purpose for which far. Lincoln is using it, to enable demagogues in t he country to t ry and deceive the p eople. His amendment was to this effect. It pr ovid ed that the Legislature should have the power to exclude Slavery: and Gener al Cass suggest ed, oe w hy not give the power to introduce as well as exclude?” The answer was, they have the power already in the bill to do both. Chase fsa s afraid his amendment would be adopted if lie put the a lternative proposition and so make it fair both ways, but would not yield.

HIe offered it for the purpose of having it re jected. He offered it, as he has himself avowed over and over again, simply to make capital out of it for the stump. Il e expected that it would be capital for small politicans in the country, and th at they would make an effort to deceive the people with it; an d he was no t mista ken, for Lincoln is carrying out the plan admirably. Lincoln knows that the Nebraska b i ll, with out Chase’s amendment, g ave all the power which the Constitution would permit. Could Congress confer any more? Cou ld Congress g o beyon d the Constitution of the country? We gave all a full grant with no exception in regard to Slavery one way or the other. We left that question, as we left all othe rs, to be dec ided by the people for themselves, just as they ple ased. I will not occupy y m time o n th is ques tion. I have argued it be fore all over Illinois. I have argued it in this beautiful city of Freeport; I have argued it in the Nor t h, the South, the Eas t, and the We st, avowi ng the sa me sentiments and the same principles. I have not been afraid to avow my sentiments up here for fear I would be trotted down into Egypt. The third question which Mr. Lincoln presented is, if the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide t hat a State of this Union can not exclude Slavery f rom its own limit s, will I submit to it?

I am amazed that Lincoln should ask such a question. (” A school-boy knows better.”) Yes, a school-boy does know better.) Mr. Lincoln’s object is to cast an imputation upon the Supreme Court. He knows that there never was but one man in America, claiming any degree of intelligence or decency, who ever for a mo ment pretended such a thing. It is true that the Wash ington Union, in an article published on the 17th of last December, did put forth that doctrine, and I denounced the article on the floor of the Senate, in a speech which Mr. Lincoln now pretends was against the President. The Untion had claimed that Slavery had a right to go in to the free States, and that any provision in the Constitu tion or laws of the Free States to the contrary were null and void. I denounced it in the Senate, as I said before, and I was the first man who did. Lincoln’s friends, Trum bull, and Seward, and Hale, and Wilson, and the whole Black Republican side of the Senate, were silent. They left it to me to denounce it. And what was the reply made to me on that occasion? Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, got up and undertook to lecture me on the ground that I ought not to have deemed the article worthy of notice, and ought not to have replied to it; that there was not one man, wo man, or child south of the Potomac, in any Slave State, who did not repudiate any such pretension. Mr. Lincoln knows that that reply was made on the spot, and yet now he asks this question. He might as well ask me, Suppose Mr. Lincoln should steal a horse, would I sanction it; and it would be as genteel in me to ask him, in the event he stole a horse, what ought to be done with him. He casts an imputation upon the Supreme Court of the United States, by supposing that they would violate the Constitu tion of the United States. I tell him that such a thing is not possible. It would be an act of moral treason that no man on on the bench could ever descend to. Mir. Lincoln himself, would never, in his partisan feelings, so far forget what was right as to be guilty of such an act. The fourth question of lar. Lincoln is, are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard as to howr such acquisition may affect the Union on the Slavery I’ll I

Page 132 view page image

A POLITICAL TEX:-BOOK FOR 1860. question? This question is very ingeniously and cun-exust burst and be rent asunder, or the child must did. ningly put. So it would t, with this great nation. With our natural The Black Republican creed lays it down expressly, i4rrease, growing with a rapidity unknown in any other that under no circumstances shall we acquire any more part of the globe, with the tide of emigration that is flee territory unless Slavery is first prohibited in the country. ing from despotism in the old world to seek iefuge il I ask Mr. Lincoln whether Le is in favor of that proposi-our own, there is a constant torrent pouring into this tion. Are you (addressing Mr. Lincoln) opposed to the country that requires more land, more territory uphill acquisition of any more territory, under any circum-which to settle, and just as fast as our interests and our stances, unless Slavery is prohibited in it? That he does destiny require additional territory in the North, in the not like to answer. When I ask him whether he stands South, or on the Islands of the ocean, 1 am for it, atnd up to that article in the platform of his party, he turns, when we acquire it, will leave the people, according to Yankee-fashion, and without answering it, asks me the Nebraska bill, free to do as they please on the sulbwhether I am in favor of acquiring territory without re-ject of Slavery and every other question. ga, d to how it may affect the Union on the Slavery ques-I trust now that Mr.

Lincoln will deem himself antion. I answer that whenever it becomes necessary, in swered on his four points. He racked his brain so much our growth and progress, to acquire more territory, that in devising these four questions that he exhausted himI am in favor of it, without reference to the question of self, and had not strength enough to invent the others.

Slavery, and when we have acquired it, I will leave the As soon as he is able to hold a council with his advise; s, people free to do as they please, either to make it slave Lovejoy, Farnsworth, and Fred Douglass, he will f amee or free territory, as they prefer. It is idle to tell me or and propound others. (” Good, good.”) You Black you that we have territory enough. Our fathers sup-Republicans who say good, I have no doubt think that posed that we had enough when our territory extended they are all good men. I hlave reason to recollect that to the Mississippi River, but a few years’ growth and ex-some people in this country think that Fred Douglass is pasnsion satisfied them that we needed more, and the a very good man. The last time I came here to ake a Louisiana territory, from the west branch of the Missis-speech, while talking from ti,e stand to you, people of sippi to the British possessions, was acquired. Then we Freeport, as I am doing to-day, I saw a carriage, and a acquired Oregon, then California and New Mexico. We magnificent one it was, drive up and take a position on have enough now for the present, but this is a young the outside of the crowd; a beautiful young lady was and a growing nation.

It swarms as often as a hive of sitting on the box-seat, whilst Fred Douglass and her bees, and as new swarms are turned out each year, there mother reclined inside, and the owner of the carriage must be hives in which they can gather and make their acted as driver. I saw this in your own town. (” What honey. In less than fifteen years, if the same progress of it?”) All I have to say of it is this, that if you, Black that has distinguished this country for the last fifteen Republicans, think that the negro ought to be on a social years coritinues, every foot of vacant land between this equality with your wives and daughters, and ride in a and the Pacific Ocean, owned by the United States, will carriage with your wife, whilst you drive the team, you be occupied. Will you not continue to increase at the have perfect right to do so. I am told that one of Fred end of fifteen years as well as now? I tell you, increase, Douglass’s kinsmen, another rich black negro, is now and multiply, and expand, is the law of this nation’s ex-traveling in this part of the State making speeches for lstence. You cannot limit this great Republic by mere his friend Lincoln ais the champion of black men. boun(ldary lines, saying, ”’

thus far shalt thou go, and no (” What have you to say against it?”) All I have to say furtAier.” Any one of you gentlemen might as well say on that subject is, that those of you who believe that the to a son twelve years old that he is big enough, and negro is your equal and ought to be on an equality with mu.iLt not grow any larger, and in order to prevent his you socially, politically, and legally, have a right to engrowth put a hoop around him to keep him to his pre-tertain those opinions, and of course will vote for Mr. uent size. What would be the result? Either the hoop Lincoln. POPULAIR SOVEREIGNTY IN TI E TERRITORIES. BY STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.

From Harper’s 3I-agazine, 1859. free labor and slave labor, Free States and Slave States, which is irreconcilable, and must continue to rage with increasing fury until the one shall become universal by the annihilation of the other. In the language of the most eminent and authoritative expounder of their political faith, ” It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and endur ing fo r ce s; and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slave holding nation or en tirely a free-labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina, and the sugar plantations of Louisiana will,l]imately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New-)rleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye fields and wheat fields of Massachusetts and NewV-York must again be surrendered by their farmers to slave culture and to the production of slaves, and Boston and NewYork become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men.” In the Illinois canvas n of 1858 the same proposition was ad vo cated an d defende d by th e dis tinguished Repub lican stan dardbearer in the s e word s: ” In my opinion it (the Slavery agitation) will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed.’ A House divided against itself cannot stand.’ I believe this government can not endure permanently half slave and half free. I (Io 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 io the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the Sta es -old as well as new, North as well as South.” Thus it will be seen, that under the auspices of a po litical party, which claims sovereignty in Congress over i the sulbject of Slavery, there can be no peace on the UN’:DER our complex system of government it is the first duty of American statesmen to mark distinctly the dividing line between Federal and Local Authority. To do this with accuracy involves an inquiry, not only into the potvers and duties of the Federal Government under the Constitution, but also into the rights, privileges, and immunities of the people of the Territories, as well as of the States composing the Union. The relative powers and functions of the Federal and State governments have become well understood and clearly defined by their practical operation and harmonious action for a long set ies of years; while the disputed question-involving the right of the people of the Territories to govern them,,elves in respect to their local affairs and internal polityremains a fruitful source of partisan strife and sectional controversy. The political organization which was formed in 1854, and has assumed the name of the Republican Party, is based on the theorythat African Slavery, as it exists in this country, is an evil of such magnitudesocial, moral, and political-as to justify and require the exertion of the entire power and influence of the Federal Government to the full extent that the Constitution, acc ordi ng to t heir in terpretation, will permit for its ultimate extinction. In the platform of principles adopted at Philadelphia by the Republican National Convention in 1856, it is affirmed: “That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the Territories of the United States for their governmemt, and that il the exercise of this power it is both the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and Slavery. ” According to the theory of the Republican party there is an irrepressible conflict between Freedom and Slavery, 132 4-0 1.

Page 133 view page image

MR. DOUGLAS ON POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY. 133 Slavery question-no truce in the sectional strife-ino fra-the creator; and that Congress, not possessing the power ternity between the North and South, so long as this Union to legislate in respect to Atrican Slavery in the Territories, remllains as ourt fathers made it-divided into free and cannot delegate to a Territorial Legislature any power slave States, with the right on the part of each to retain whiicli it dues inot itself possess.” Slavery so long as it chooses, and to abolsh it whenlever This propositioni is as Ilusible as it is fallacious. But it pleases. the reverse of it is true as a general rule. Congress can On the other hand, it would be uncandid to deny that, not delegate to a Territorial Legislature, or to any other while the Democratic party is a unit in its irreconcilable body of luen whatsoever, any powter which the Constituopposition to the doctrines and principles of the Repub-tion has vested in Congress. In other words: A~eiy lican party, there are radical differences of opinion in poweer er co (;b red (Sal ngese by thire Cor,titltti o,, respect to the power-s and duties of Congress, and tihe rmus,t be, exerscised 1y iogg ees it tie mode prescs-it,X rights and immunities of the people of the Territories is, tlte Co,:tittto. under the Federal Constitution, which seriously disturb Let us test the correctness of this proposition by reft - its harmony and threaten its integrity. These differen-ence to the powers of Congress as defined in the Constitoces of opinion arise firom tihe different interpretations tion: placed on the Constitution by persons who belong to one “The Congre.ss shall lar prowerof the following classes: “To lay ad collec.xs, duties, imposts, and excises,” HFi/st.-Those who believe that the Constitution of the etc.; United States neither establishes nor prohibits Slavery in “To borrow money o e reit of the Unit ed States,” the States or Territories beyond the power of the people o rg o r aut” ete.

legally to control it but ” leaves the people thereof per-Teo coin m.oney iand l iiz at, c+,ly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions “o establish ost-lis a, os-roads, in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of t i he “To onstitute Tiu ls iero o the upreme Cot;t United States.” “To dec wtr, c.; Secon,d.-Those who believe that the Constitution es- “lo provide a aitai a navy.” tablishes Slavery in the Territories, and withholds from This list might be extended so as to embrace all the Congress and the Territorial Legislature the p er to ower conferred on Congress by the Constitution; but control it; and who insist that, in the event the Territo-enough has been cited to test the principle. Will it be rial Legislature fails to enact the requisite laws for its contended that Congress can delegate any one of these protection, it becomes tire imperative duty of Congress powers to a Territorial Legislature, or to any tribunal to interpose its authority and furnisli-hsuch protection. whatever? Carn Congress delegate to Kansas the power ‘Itird.-Those who, while professing to believe that to “regulate commerce,” or to Nebraska the power “to the Constitution establishes Slavery in the Territories be-establish uniform rules of naturalization,”

or to Illinois the yond the power of Congress or the Territorial Legisla-power i” to coin money and regulate the value thereof,” ture to control it, at the same time protest against the or to Yirginia the power “to establish post-offices and duty of Congress to interfere for its protection; but post-roads?” insist that it is the duty of the Judiciary to protect and The mere statement of the question carries with it the mainta n slavery ini the Territories without any law upon emphatic answer, that Congress cannot delegate any the subject. power which it does not possess; but that every power con By a careful examination of the second and third pro-farred on Congress by the Constitution must be exercised positions, it wll be seen that the advocates of each agree by Congress in the manner prescribed in that instrument. on the theor etical question, that the Constitution estab-On the other hand, there are cases in which Congress tishes Slavery in the Territories, and compels them to may establish tribunals and local governments, and invest lhave it whether they want it or not; and differ on the them with powers which Congress does not possess, and practical point, whether-a right secured by the Constitu-cannot exercise under the Constitution. For instance, tion shall be protected by an act of Congress when all Congress may establish courts inferior to the Supremec other remedes fail. The reason assigned for not pro-Court, and confer upon them the power to hear and (ic tecting by law a righit secured by the Constitution is, that termine cases, and render judgments affecting the life, it is the duty of the Courts to protect Slavery in the Ter-liberty, and property of the citizen, without itself having ritories without any legislation upon the subject. iHow the power to hear and determine such causes, rendir the Courts a e to afford protection to slaves or any other judgments, or revise or annul the same.

In like m.anner property, where there is no law providing remedies and Congress may institute governments for the Territories imposing penalties and conferring jurisdiction upon the composed of an executive, judicial, and legislative depart courts to hear and determine the cases as they arise, re-ment; and may confer upon the Governor all the execu mains to be explained tive powers and functions of the Territory, without having Th e acts of Congr ess, establishing the several Territo-the right to exercise any one of those powers or functions ries of the United States, provide that: ” The jurisdictior itself. of the several Courts herein provided for, both appellate Congress may confer upon the judicial department all and original, and that of the Probate Courts and Justices the judicial powers and functions of the Territory, without of the Peace shall be limited by law”-nreaning such laws having the right to hear and determine a cause, or render as the Territorial Legislatures shall.-omn time to time a judgment, or to revise or annul any decision made by enact.

It wvill be seen that the judicial tribunals of the the courts so established by Congress. Congress may also Territories have just such jurisdiction, and only such, in confer upon the legislative department of the Territory respect to the rights of persons and property pertaining certain legislative powers which it can not itself exercise, to the citizens of the Territory as the Territorial Legisla-and only such as Congress cannot exercise under the ture shall see fit to confer; and consequently, that the Constitution. The powers which Congress may thus cot Courts can afford protection to persons and property O, but cannot e,-ercise, are such as relate to the do further than tile Legislature shall, by law, confer the mestic affairs and internal polity of the Territory, and do jurisdiction, and prescribe the remedies, penalties, and not affect the general welfare of the Republic. modes of proceeding. This dividing line between Federal and Local authority It is difficult to conceive how any person who believes was familiar to the framers of the Constitution. It is that the Constitution confers the right of protection in clearly defined and distinctly marked on every page of his the enjoyrmentofslave property in the Territories, regard-‘ tory which records the great events of that immortal less of the wishes of the people and of the action of the struggle between the American Colonies and the British Territorial Legislature, can satisfy his conscience and Government, which resulted in the establishment of our his oath of fidelity to the Constitution in withholding such national indepen.- ence. In the beginning of that strug Congressional legislation as may be essential to the en-gle the Colonies neithe r contemplated nor desired indejoyment of such right under the Constitution. ILUnder pendence. In all their addresses to the Crown, and to the this view of the subject it is impossible to resist the con-Parliament, and to the people of Great Britain, as well as clus’on that, if the Cosstitution does establish Slavery in to the people of America, they aserred that as loyal British the Territories beyond the power of the people to con-subjects they deplored tire causes which impelled their se trot it by law, it is the imperative duty of Congress to paration from the parent country. They were strongly supply all the legislation necessary to its protection; and and affectionately attached to the Constitution, civil and if this proposition is not true, it necessarily rlsults that political institutions and jurisprudence of Great Britain, the Constitution neither establishes nor prohibits Slavery which they proudly clai med as the birthright of all English anywhere, but leaves the people of each State and Terrim and desired to transmit them unimpaired as a pre tory entirely free to form and regulate their domestic cious legacy to their lmsteritr. r or a long series of years affa;rs to suit themselves, vithout the intervention of they remonstr ated.gaicrt the xiolation of their inalien Congress or any other power whatsoever. a ble rights of s,A.f-gov rnent un der the British - Ceonstltu lut it is urged with great plausibility by those who have tior, and htilruty petitioned icr the redress of their grieve entire fraitt in the sourdness of the proposition, that ” a ances. Territorv is the rirr: c tt rire of Congress; that the crea-They acknowledgedl snil affilr-med their allegiance to ture ca~mo+s be lohtite with ilny powers not possessed by the Crown, their itrfectioen for the people, and their devo

Page 134 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. always considered this as one of the questions affecting her “internal polity,” over which she, in common with the other colonies, claimed ” the right of exclusive legislation in their provincial legislatures” within their respective limits. Some of these acts, particularly those which were enacted prior to the year 1699, were evidently intended to foster and encourage, as well as to regulate and control, African Slavery, as one of the domestic institutions of the colony. The act of 1699, and most of the enactments subsequent to that date, were as obviously designed to restrain and check the growth of the institution, with the view of confining it within the limit of the actual necessities of the community, or its ultimate extinction, as might be deemed most conducive to the public interests by a system of unfriendly legislation, such as imposing a tax on all slaves introduced into the colony, which was increased and renewed from time to time, as occasion requi red, until the period of the Revolution. Many of the se acts never took effect, in consequence of the king withholding his assent, even after the governor had approved the enactment, in c ases where i t contained a clause suspending its operation until his majesty’s pleasure should be made known in the premises. In 1772, the provincial legislature of Virginia, after Imposing another tax of f iv e per cent. on all slaves imported into the colony, petitioned the king to remove all those restraints which inhibited his majesty’s governors assenting to such laws as might check so very pernicious a commerce as Slavery. Of this petition Judge Tucker says; ” The following extract from a petition to the Throne, presented fromn the House of Burgesses of Virginia, April 1st, 1772, will show the sense of the people of Virginia on the subject of Slavery at that period: ”’ The importation of slaves into the colony from the coast of Africa hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity; and under its present encouragement we have too much reason to fear will endanger the very existence of your Majesty’s American dominions.1’” Mark the ominous words! Virginia tells the king of England in 1772, four years prior to the Declaration of Independence, that his Majesty’s American dominions are it danger: not because of the Stamp duties-not because of the tax on tea-not because of his attempts to collect revenue in America!

These have since beer deemed sufficient to justify rebellion and revolution. But none of these are refer,ed to by Virginia in her address to the Throne-there being another wrong which in magnitude and enormity, so far exceeded these and all other causes of complaint, that the very existence of his Majesty’s American dominions depended ulponl it! That wrong consisted in forcing African Slavery upon a dependent colony without her consent, and in opposition to the wishes of her own people! The people of Virginia at that day did not appreciate the force of the argument used by the British merchants, ‘who were engaged in the African slavetrade, and which was afterward indorsed, at least by implication, by the king and his ministers; that the Colonies were the common property of the empire-acquired by the common blood and treasure-and therefore all British subjects had the right to carry their slaves into the colonies, and hold them in defiance of the local law and in contempt of the wishes and safety of the Colonies. The people of Virginia not being convinced by ths process of reasoning, still adhered to the doctrine which they held in common with their sister colonies, that it was the birthright of all freemen-inalienable when formed into political communities-to exercise exclusive legislation in respect to all matters pertaining to their internal polity-Slavery not excepted; and rather than surrender this great right, they were prepared to withdraw their allegiance from the crown.

Again referring to this petition to the king, the same learned judge adds: ” This pet]ition produced no effect, as appears from the fir,‘st clause of our (Virginia) Constitution, whhere, among other acls of misrule, the inhuman use of the royal negative in refitsin,g us (the people of Virginia) permission to exclude Slavery from us by law, is enumerated among the reasons or separating from Great Britain.’. This clause in the Constitution of Virginia, referring to the inhuman use of the royal negative, in refusing the Colony of Virginia permission to exclude Slavery from her limits by law, as one of the reasons for separating f our Great Britain, was adopted on the lath day of June~ 1776, three weeks and one day previous to the DeclaraStion of Independence by the Continental Congress; ands after remaining in force as a part of the Constitutionl for a period of fifty-four years, was re-adopbted, without alteration, by the Convention which franmed l he new Constitution in 1830, and then ratified by the people as a part of the new Constitution;? and was again readopted by the Convention which amended the Constitution in 1S50, and again ratified by the people as a part of the tion to the Constitution of Great Britain; and their only comnplaint was that they were not permitted to enjoy the rights and privileges of self-government, in the management of their internal affairs and domestic concerns, in accordalmce with the guaranties of that Constitution and of the colonia l charters granted by the Cro wn in pursuance of it. T hey conced ed the ri ght of the I mperial Governm ent t o m ake all laws and perform all acts concern ing the Colonies, which w ere in their nature Impoerial and not Cologatiabtwlhich affected the general welfare of the E mpi re, and did not interfere wit h t he “pinterna l poli ty” of the Colonies. They recogniz ed the right o f the Imperial Go - vernment to declare war and make peace; to coin money and determine its value; to make treaties and conduct intercourse w ith f oreign na t ions; to r egulate commerce between the several colonies, an d between each colony and the pa rent coun try, a n d with foreign countries; and in general they recognized th e right of the Imperial Governin ent of Gr eat Britain to exercise all the powers and authority wh ich, u nder o ur F ed eral Constitution, are delegated by the pe ople of the several States to the Government of the United States. Recognizing and conceding to the Imperial Government all these powers, including tile right t o imstitute governaens ufor the colonies, by granting charters under which the inhab itants resid ing wi thin t he l imits of any specified territory might be organiz ed into a political community with a government consisting of its appropriate departments, executive, legislative, and judicial; conceding all thaese powers, the Colonies emph atic ally d enied th at the Imperial G ov ernme nt h ad a ny rightfu l auth or ity to impose taxes upon them w ithou t their consent, or to interfere w ith thei r internal polity; cla im ing th a t it w as the b irthright of all Englishmen-inalienable when formed into a political community  to ex erc ise and enjo y all the rights, p rivileges, and immunities of self-government in respect to all mat ter s and things which were local an d not g eneral - interna l and not external-colonial and not imperialas fully as if they were inh abita nt s of England, with a fair representation in Parliament. Thus it appear s that our f athers o f t he Revolution were hcontending, not for independence in the first instance, but for the in estimabl e right of loca l se lf-go ver nmen t under the B
rit ish Constitution; the right of ever y distinct political communit y-d ependent col onies, terri tori es, provinces, as w ell as sovereign States-t o make their own local laws, form their own dome stic institutions, and manage their own internal affairs in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of Gr eat Britain a s the paramount law of the ,empire. w The government of Gr e a t Britain had violated this inalienable right of local self-government by a long series of acts on a great va riety of subjects. The first serious poin t of controversy arose on the Slavery question as early as 1699, which continu ed a fru itful source of irritation until the R evolution, and formed one oflc a the causes for the separation of the Colonies from the British crown. For more th an forty years the prov incial leg is lature of Vi rginia had passed laws f or t h e protection and encouragement of Af r ican Slavery within her limits. This p olicy was steadily pursued until the white inhabitants of Virginia b ecame alarmed for their own safety, in view of the numerous and formidable tribes of Indian savages which surrounde d and threatened the feeble white settlements while ship-loads of African savages were being daily landed in their mid st. I n ord er t o check and restrain a policy which seeme d t o threate n t he very existence of the colony, the provincial legislature enacted a law imposing a tax upon ever y slave who should be brought into Virginia. Th e British m erchants, who w e re e ngaged in the Afican slavetrade, regarding this le gislation as injurious to their i nterests and in violati on of their rights, petition ed the King of England and his majesty’s ministers to annul the obnoxious law, and protect them in the ir right to carry their slaves i nto Virginia and all o ther British colonies which were the commo n prop erty of the empire-acquire d b y the common blood and common treasure-and from which a few ad ventu re rs, who had settled on the imperial domain by his majesty’s sufferance, had no right to exclude them, or discrim ina te aga inst their property by a mer e provincial enactment. Upon a full consideration of t he subject, th e k ing graciously granted the prayer of the petitioners; and accordingly issued peremptory orders to t he royal gov ernor of Virginia, and to the governors of all the other British colonies in America, forbidding them to sign or approve any colonial or provincial enactment injurious to the African slavetrade, unless such enactment should contain a clause suspending its operation until his mal~jesty’s pleasure should be made known in the premises. Judge Tucker, in his Appendix to Blackstone, refers to thh’ty-one acts of the provincial legislature of V~irginia, passed at various periods from 1662 to 1772, tipota the sut-bm jeer of African Slavery, showing conclusively that Virginia 134

Page 135 view page image

MR. DOUGLAS ON POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY. 135 amended Constitution, and at this day remains a portion opportunity of annulling the acts of the colonial legisla. of the fundamental law of Virginia-proclaiming to the tures by the “inhuman use of the royal negative.” world and to posterity that one of the reasons for separa-Thus the policy of the Colonies on the Slavery question ting from Great Britain was “the inhuman use of the had assumed a direct antagonism to that of the British royal negative in refusing us (the Colony of Virginia) Government; and this antagonism not only added to the permission to exclude Slavery from us by law!” importance of the principle of local self-government in the The legislation of Virginia on this subject may be taken Colonies, but produced a general concurrence of opinion as a fair samnple of the legislative enactments of each of and action in respect to the question of Slavery in the the thirte en Colonies, showing conclusively that slavery proceedings of the Continental Congress, which assembled was - egai ded by them all as a domestic question to be at Philadelphia for the first time on the 5th of September, regarded and determined by each colony to suit itself, 1774. without the i ntervention of the British Parliament or On the 14th of October the Congress adopted a Bill of “the inhuman use of the royal negative.” Each colony Rights for the Colonies, in the form of a series of resolupassed a series of enactments, beginning at an early tions, in which, after conceding to the British Government period of its history and running down to the commence-the power to regulate commerce and do such other things ment of the Revolution, either protecting, regulating, or as affected the general welfare of the empire, without inrestrainis g African Slavery.within its respective limits, terfering with the internal polity of the Colonies, they deand in accordance with their wishes and supposed dlared “That they are entitled to a free and exclusive interests. North and South Carolina, following the ex-power in their several provincial legislatures, where their amiple of Virginia, at first encouraged the introduction right of representation can alone be preserved in all cases of slaves, until the number increased beyond their wants of taxation and internal polity.” Having thus defined the and necessities, when they attempted to check and principle for which they were contending, the Congress restrain the further growth of the institution, by imposing proceeded to adopt the following “Peaceful Measures,” a high rate of taxation upon all slaves which should be which they still hoped would be sufficient to induce coinbrought into those colonies; and finally, in 1764, South pliance with their just and reasonable demands. These Carolina passed a law imposing a penalty of one hundred “Peaceful Measures”

consisted of addresses to the king, pounds (or five hundred dollars) for every negro slave to the Parliament, and to the people of Great Britain, subsequently introduced into that colony. together with an association of non-intercourse to be ob-e The colony of Georgia was originally founded on strict served and maintained so long as their grievances should anti-slavery principles, and rigidly maintained this policy remain unredressed. for a series of years, until the inhabitants became con-The second article of this association, whichwas adopted vinced by experience that, with their climate and produc-without opposition, and signed by the delegates from all tions, slave labor, if not essential to their existence, would the Colonies, was in these words: prove beneficial and useful to their material interests. Tha we will neither imo nor purchase any slave im *” That vie winl neither import nor purchase any slave iraMaryland and Delaware protected and regulated African ported after the first day of December next; after which time Slavery as one of their domestic institutions. Pennsylva-we will wholly discontinue the slavetrade, and will neither nia, under the advice of William Penn, substituted fourteen be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels years’ service and perpetual adscript to the soil for here-nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are ditary Slavery, and attempted to legislate, not for the total engaged in it” abolition of Slavery, but for the sanctity of marriage This Bill of Rights, together with these articles of assoamong slaves, and for their personal security.

New-Jer- ciation, were subsequently submitted to and adopted sey, NewYork, and Connecticut recognized African Slavery by each of the thirteen Colonies in their respective proas a domestic institution lawfully existing within their re-vincial Legislatures. spective limits, and passed the requisite laws for its con-Thus was distinctly formed between the Colonies and trol and regulation. - the parent country that issue upon which the Decla Rhode Island provided bylaw that no slave should serve ration of Independence was founded, and the battles of snore than ten years, at the end of which time he was to the Revolution were fought. It involved the specific be set free; and if the master should refuse to let him go claim on the part of the Colonies-denied by the King free, or sold him elsewhere for a longer period of service, and Parliament-to the exclusive right of legislation he was subject to a penalty of forty pounds, which was touching all local and internal concerns, Slatvsy supposed at that period to be nearly double the value of included. This being the principle involved in the tile slave. contest, a majority of the Colonists refused to per Massachusetts imposed heavy taxes upon all slaves mit their delegates to sign the Declaration of Indebrought into the colony, and provided in some instances pendence except upon the distinct condition and exfor sending the slaves back to their native land; and finally press reservation to each colony of the exclusive right prohibited the introduction of any more slaves into the to manage and control its local concerns and police recolony under any circumstances.

gulations without the intervention of any general Con When NewHampshire passed laws which were designed gress which might be established for the United Colonies. to prevent the introduction of any more slaves, the British Let us cite one of these reservations as a specimen of Cabinet issued the following order to Governor Wentworth: all, showing conclusively that they were fighting for the “You are not to give your assent to, or pass any law im-inalienable right of local self-government, with the clear posing duties upon negroes imported into NewHamp-understanding that when they had succeeded in throwslire.” ing off the despotism of the British Parliament, no Con While the legislation of the several colonies exhibits gressional despotism was to be substituted for it: dissimilarity of views, founded on a diversity of interests, “We, the Delegates of Maryland, in Convention assembled, on the merits and policy of Slavery, it shows conclusively do declare that the King of Great Britain has violated his that they all regarded it as a domestic question affecting compact with this people, and that they owe no allegiance to their internal polity in respect to which they were entitled him We have therefore thought it just and necessary to eto a full and exclusive power of legislation in the several p r our Deputies in Congress to join with a majority of to a full and exclusive p ~owero’egsaio nte eealteU ited Colonies in declaring them free and independent provincial legislatures.

For a few years immediately pre-States, in framing sich further confederation betweep them, ceding the American Revolution, the African slavetrade in making foreign alliances, and in adopting such other meawas encouraged and stimulated by the British Government, sures as shall be judged necessary for the preservation of their and carried on with more vigor by the English merchants liberties: than at any other period in the history of the Colonies’ “Provided, The sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal polity and government of this Colony be res,erve,d to and this fact, taken in connection with the extraordinary nternal polty and goverpelet of this Colony e reserved tof. claim asserted in the memorable preamble to the act re- ” Wehave also thought proper to call a ew Convention for pealing the stamp duties, that “Parliament possessed the the purpose of establishing a government in this Colon y. right to bind the Colonies in all cases whatever,” not only I No ambitious views, no desire of independence induced in respect to all matters affecting the general welfare of the people of Maryland to form a union with the other Colo the empire, but also in regard to the domestic relations uses To procure an exemption …… *… ~~~~~~~tion, and to continue to the l~egislatures of these Colonies thxe and internal polity of the Colonies-produced a powerful sole and’exclusive right of regulating their Internal Polity, impression upon the minds of the colonists, and imparted was our original and only motiveh To maintain, inviolate our peculiar prominence to the principle involved in the c on-liberties, an o nsmit thr unimpaired to posterity, was troversy. our duty and first wish, our next, to continue conne ted wgh Hence the enactments by the several colonial legisla-and dependent on Great lJqtain. }or the truth of these tures calculated and designed to restrain and prevent the as rtssn5 n-e appeal to that Almighty Bein wio is increas.ofslaes;d on t. or te oderscally styled the Searcher of hearts, and from whose onmi incerease of slaves; and, onthe otherhann, the orders science none isconce:ld. }.elying on this Divine protection issued by the Crown, instructing the colonial governors and trting to lhe 3sstsce of our not to sign or permit any legislative enactment prejudicial exhort a-n conjure every vii tuols citizen to join c orcially in or injurious to the African slavetrade, unless such enact-defense of our esolimnon rich-s and in maintenantee of the free. ment should contain a clause suspending its operation dom of this ald her sister cr,]onies.” until the royal pleasure should be made known in the The first plan of Fedcr:I l (covernament adopted fo’ the prernises; or, in other words, until the l.rcg should have an United States was fornied during the Revolution, and im1 t

Page 136 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. usually known as “The Articles of Confederation.” By Secod.-” That the settlers within the Territory so to be tliese Articles it wvas provided that “Each State retains purelased and olfered for sale shall, either on tleir iw. ipe,itiou or on the ord,dr of Congress, receive aithority from its Sovereignty, Freedon, and Independence, and everyI the.,ith ppoint.l.trsoftie and lase, for h,,ir fr-,, themn wvith appointments of time and place, for their free male.t powei, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Con-of full age to meet together for the purpose of estlshing fede’ ation expressly delegated to the United States in I temporary governmenit to adopt a Constitution and laws of Congress assembled.” any one of these States (the original States), so that sfh ls At the time the Articles of Confederation were nevertheless shall be subject to altera ion by th,-ir o:-inary adopted-July 9 1778-the United States held no lands legiattre; and to erect, subject to lke alt i o:ti or a.fttory in vommon. or tow nships tf)r the election of members for their Letgisla tertor In common. he entire country-including tue f” all the waste and unappropr iated lands-embraced wich thin o0 pertaining to the Conifedei acy, belonged to and was Having thus rovided a mode by which the first inhaleithe prop)erty of the several States within whose limi ts ants or settlers of the territory imay assemble together te salute was situated. oeand chooseo forii l thte Constitution and elars of Oni the 6th day of September, 1780, Congress “
recom-some one of the original thiteen States, and declare te lse} ded to the several States in the Union having claims to same in force for the governmen t of their te;‘ritoy tern waste ittd utnappropriated Ianls in the Western counti-y porarily,with the right on the pait of the people to a li;belal cession to the United States of a portion of their change the same, through t e.spective claims for the common benefit of the Union.”

may see proper, the Plan then proceeds to point out the On the 20th (lay of October, 17T8, the Legislature of mode in which they may estabish for tlesle ” eVirginia passed an act authorizing the Delegates in Con-manent Constitution and governtent” whenever they g ess fiom that State to convey to the United States shallhavetwentythousandinhabta sfollos “the territory or tract of country within the limits of Third.-” That such temporarygovernetolyshl - the Virginia Charter, lying and bearing to the northwest tinue in force in any State until it sall iue,lid tientiy ofthe river Ohio “-which grant was to be made upon thousandfree iihabitants, when, gini. dii-t Congress, they shall receive from the ” condition that the territory so ceded shall be laid poitments of time and place tool:i.]pIe out and formed into States;” and that “the States so sentatives to establish a permanent Consti i and ovenformed shall be distinct republican States, and admitted meit for themselves.” members of the Federal Union, having the same rights Having thus provided for the first settlers a tempoof Sovereignty, Freedom, and Independence as the other rary government” in these “additional States,” and fo States.” a “permanent Constitution and government” when they On the Ist day of March, 1754, Thomas Jefferson and shall have acquired twenty thousand inhabitants, the Plan his colleagues in Congress executed the deed of cession contemplates that they shall continue to govern themin pursuance of the act of the Virginia Legislature, selves as States, having, as provided in the Virginia deed which was accepted and ordered to “be recorded f session, “the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and and enrolled among the acts of the United States in independence,” in respect to their domestic affairs and Congress assembled.” This was the first territory ever internal polity, “as the other States,” until they shall acquired, held, or owned, by the United States. On the have a population equal to the least numerous of the same day of the deed of cession, Mr.

Jefferson, as chair-original thirteen States; and in the meantime shall keep man of a committee which had been appointed, consist-a sitting member in Congress, with a right of tebatDng ing of Mr. Jefferson of Virginia, Mr. Chase of Maryland, but not of voting, when they shall be admitted into the and Mr. Howell of Rhode Island, submitted to Congress Union on an equal footing with the other States, as fol” a plan for the temporary government of the territory lows ceded or to be ceded by the individual States to the United States.” ~~~~~~~~Four th. ” That whenever any of the said States shall have United States.” ayo h -‘ t of free inhabitants as many as salll e in any l of he It is important that this Jeffersonian plan of govern-least numerous of t he thirteen original Siates, such Ste sh a ment for the Territories should be carefully considered be admitted by its delegates into the Congress of the United for many obvious reasons. It was the first plan of Sttes onan equal footing with the said original States.”…. government for the Territories ever adopted in the And United States. It was drawn by the author of the De-Until h by Congress any claration of Independence, and revised and adopted by of the id ftr thef (t ay those who shaped the issues which produced the Revo-government, shall hav e authoriiy o keep a sitti uellber in lition, and formed the foundations upon which our Congress, with the rightofdebaiin g, bit otf voti0 g.” whole American system of government rests. It was Attached to the provision which appears in this paper not intended to be either local or temporary in its character, but was designed to apply to all ” territory ceded under the “third” head is a proviso, containing fivepro poitions, which, when a?reed to and accepted by the or to be ceded,” and to be universal in its application positions, which, when greed to and accepted by the and eternal in its duration, wherever and whenever we people of said additional States, ere ” be formed might have territory requiring a government. It ignored into a charter of compact,” and to remain for a governme~~nt. tio a cater of comnact,” and to remain forever “unal terable,” except by the consent of such States as well as the right of Congress to legislate for the peopl e of, he ne States-to wit: the Territories, without their consent, and recognized o the inalienable right of the people of the Territories, “Procided, That both the temporary and permanent govwhen organized into political communities, to govern eromenis be established on these principles as their basis:” s t-“Tat they shall forever remain a part of the United themselves in respect to their local concerns and T hat they shall forever remai part of the United S,tats of America.”’ ternal polity. It was adopted by the Congress of 2d.-i”That in their persons, property, and Territory they the Confederation on the 28d day of April, 1784, and shall be subject to the government of the United States in stood upon the Statute Book as a general and perma-Congress assembled, and to the Articles of Confederation in all nent plan for the government of all territory which we those cases in which the original States shall be so subject.” then owned or should subsequently acquire, with a pro-d-” That they shall be subject to pay a part of the fderal de bts contracted, or to be contracted-to be apportioned on vision declaring it to be a “1Charter of Compact,” and vision. declaring it tohe by Congress according to the same common rule and that its provisions should “stand as fundamental con-measure by which apportionments thereof shall be made on ditions between the thirteen original States and those the other States.” newly described, unalterable but by the joint consent 4th.-” That their respective government shall be in reptib of the United States in Congress assembled, and of the lican form, and shall admit no person to be a citizen who holds particular State within which such alteration is proposed any hereditary title.” to be made.” Thus this Jeffersonian plan for the gov The fifth article, which relates to the prohibition of ernment of the Territories-this “Charter of Compact Slavery, after the year 1800, having been rejected by -” these fundamental conditions,” which were declared Congress, never became a part of the Jeffersonian Plan to be “
unalterable” without the consent of the people of Government for the Territories as adopted April 23, of “the particular State [territory]

within which such 1784. alteration is proposed to be made,” stood on the Statute Tie concluding paragraph of this Plan of Government, Book when the Convention assembled at Philadelphia which emphatically ignores the right of Congr.ess to bind in 178T7, and proceeded to form the Constitution of the the people of the Territo i consent, and United States. recognizes the people therein as the true source of all Now let us examine the main provisions of the Jeffer-legitimate power in respect to their internal polity, is in son Plan: these words: First.-” That the territory ceded or to be ceded by the “That all the preceding articles shall be formed into a eoarindividual States to the United States, whenever the same shall ter of conetira, shall lie duly executed byi thee President of the have been purchased of the Indian inhabitants and offered fIbr Unitied States. ill Congress assembled, llnder his tand and the sale by the United States, shall be formed into additional seal of the United States, shall be promulntgated, anl shall stand Sta.tes,” etc., etc. as fitridametital conditions between the thirteen original States The Plan proceeds to designate the boundar.es and and those nesely ieseriled, talterabte bet iv the jotut coo -territorial extent of the proposed “additional States,” and pasrticul:r State within wliaeh such alterateo:a is proposed te then provides: he made.” 136

Page 137 view page image

DOUGLAS ON POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY. interpreted and expounded by the Colonies during their controversy with Great Britain, for tileir model-making such modifications in its structure and principles as the change in our condition had rendered necessary. They Ientrusted the Executive functions to a President in the ,place of a King; the Legislative functions to a Congress, composed of a Senate and House of Representatives, in lieu of the Parl iament consisting of the Houses of Lords and ComTw toles; a nd the Judicial functions to a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress should from time to time ordain and establish. Hlaving thus divided the powers of government into the th ree appropriate departments, with which they had al ways been familiar, they proceeded to confer upon the Federal Government substantially the same powers which they as colonies had been willing to concede to thle British Gover nment; a n d to reserve to the States and to the peo p le the same rights and privileges which they as colonies had de ni ed to th e British Government during the entire struggle which terminated in our Independence, and wlhich they had claimed for themselves and their posterity as the birthright of all freemen, inalienable when organ ized into political communities, and to be enjoyed and ex er cised by colonies, territories, and provinces as fully and completely as by sovereign States. Thus it will be seen that ther e is no organic feature or fundamental principle embodi ed in the Constitution of the United States which ha d no t be en f amiliar to the people of the Colonies from the period of their earliest settlement, and which had not been repeatedly asserted by them when denied by Great Britain during the whole period of their colonial his tory. Let us pause at this point for a moment, and inquire whether it be just to those illustrious patriots and sages who formed the Constitution of the United States, to assume that they intended to confer upon Congress that unlimited and arbitrary power over the people of the American Ter ritories, which they had resisted with their blood when claimed by the British Parliament over British colonies in America? Did they confer upon Congress the right to bind the pe ople of the American Territories in all cases whatsoever, after having fought the battles of the Revolu tion against a “Preamble” declaring the right of Par liament ” to bind the Colonies in all cases whatsoever?” If, as they contended before the Revolution, it was the birthright of all Engl ishmen, inalienable when formed into political communities, to exercise exclusive power of legislati on in their local legislatures in respect to all things affecting their internal polity-Slavery not excepted-did not the same right, after the Revolation, and by virtue of it, become the birthright of all Americans, in like manner inalienable when organized into political commuoities-no matter by what name, whether Colon ies, Territories, Pro vinces, or new States? Names often deceive persons in respect to the nature and substance of things. A single instance of this kind is to be found in that clause of the Constitution which says: t “Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respeetiig the territory or other property belonging to the United States.” - This being the only clause of the Constitution in which the word “Territory” appears, that fact alone has ldoibt-less led many persons to suppose tlhat the right of Con griess to establish temporary governments for the Terri tories, in the sense in which the word is now used, must be der ived fro m it, overlooking the im,,poltant and con trolling facts that at the time the Constitution wfas formed the word “

Territory” lhad never been used or understood to designate a political community or gove rnment of any kind in any law, compact, deed of cession, or public document,; but had invariably been used either i its geographical sense to describe the superficial area of a State or distr ict of country, as in the Vi git,i deed of cession of the ” Territory or t,act ofcountry” northwest of the r ive r Ohio; o r as meani ng land i itsl clharacter - as property, in which latte r sense it appears in the clause of the Constitution referred to, when providing for the e disposition of the “Territory or other proper ty belonge ing to the United States.“‘Tliese facts, taken in conneStion with the kindre d one that during the whole period prof the Coin fes deration and the fi,‘masio’ of the Constitution the temporary gover nments lnhich toe now call r t a Territories,” were invariably refe rre d to in the ileeds e of cession, laws, compacts, pl1ans of government, resolou departments, ting directl public ecords, and authentic (locus aen ts as ” Staes,” or “onew States,”

copcslusively show Yd that the velotds “Territory anl ohlier property” in the , Constitution were useil to designate the unappropriated t lands and other plroperty which tie United States owned, and not the people whs iiigltt becouse residetits on those s lands, and be organized inlto 1politicat coteitiunities aftei s tihe United States had parted with their title. This Jeffersonian Plan of Gov ernment embodies and carties out the id eas and principles of the father s of the Revolution-t hat the peo ple of ev ery separate political community (dependent Colonies, Provinces, and Territories as well as sovereign States) have an inalienable right to govern themselves in respect to their internal polity, and repudiates the dogma of the British Ministry and the Tories of that day, that all Colonies, Provinces and Territori es were the property of the empire, acquired with the c omm on blood and c omm on treasure, a nd that the inhabitants thereof have no rights, privileges, or immunities except such as the Imperial Government should graciously condescend to bestow upon them. ‘his Plan recognizes by law and irrevocable “compact” the existence of two distinct classes of States under our American system of government-the one being members of the Union, and consisting of the original thirteen and such other States, having the requisite population, as Congress should admit inio the Federal Union, with an equal vote in the management of Federal affairs as well as the exclusive power in regard to their internal polity respectively-the other, not having the requisite population for admission into the Union, could have no vote or agency in the control of the Federal relations, but possessed the same exclusive power over their domestic affairs and internal policy respectively as the original States, with the right, while they have less than twenty thousand inhabitants, to choose for their government the Constitution and laws of any one of the original States; and when they should have more than twenty thousand, but less than the number required to entitle them to admission into the Union, they were authorized to form for themselves ” a permanent Constitution and government;” and in either case they were entitled to keep a delegate in Congress with the right of debating, but not of voting.

This ” Charter of Compact,” with its “fundamental conditions,” which were declared to be “unalterable” without ” the joint consent” of the people interested in them, as well as of the United States, thus stood on the statute book unr’epealed and unirepeala,ble-furnishing a complete system of government for all ” the territory ceded or to be ceded” to the Unkted States, without any other legislation upon the subject, when, on the 14th day of May, 178.7, the Federal Convention assembled in Philadelphia and proceeded to form the Constitution under which we now live. Thus it will be seen that the dividing line between Federal and Local authority, in respect to the rights of those political communities which, for the sake of convenience and in contradistinction to the States represented in Congress, we nosw call Territories, but which were then known as “

State,?” or “?new States,” was so distinctly marked at that day that no intelligent man could fail to perceive it. It is true that the government of the Confederation had proved totally inadequate to the fulfillment of the ends for which it was devised; not because of the relations between the Territories, or new States, and the United States, but in consequence of having no power to enforce its decrees on the Federal questions which were clearly within the scope of its expressly delegated powers. The radical defects in the Articles of Confederation were found to consist in the fact that it was a mere league between sovereign States, and not a Federal Government with its appropriate departments-Executive, Legislative, and Judicial-each clothed with authority to perform and carry Into effect its own peculiar functions. The Confederation having no power to enforce compliance with the resolves, ” the consequence was, that though in theory its resolutions of Congress were equivalent to laws, yet in practice they were found to be mere recommendations, which the States, like other sovereignties, observed or disregarded, according to their own good-will and gracious pleasure.” Congress could not impose duties, collect taxes, raise armies, or do any other act essential to the existence of government, without the voluntary consent and coopera tion of each of the States. Congress could resolve, but could not carry its resolutions into effect-could recommend to the States to provide a revenue for the necessi ties of the Federal Government, but could not use the means necessary to the collection of the revenue when the States failed to comply-could recommend to the States to provide an army for the general defense, and apportion among the States their respective quotas, but could not enlist the men and order themn into the Federal service. For these reasons a Federal Government, with its appropriate departments, acting directly upon the individual citizens, witlh authority to enforce its decrees to the extent of it delegated powers, and not dependent upon the voluntary action of the several States in their corporate capacity became indispensable as a substitute for the government of the Confederation. In the formation of the Constitution of the United States the Federal Convention took the British Constitution, a~ 137

Page 138 view page image

A POLIT. AL TEXT-B:)!)i FOR 1860. Here we find the original and rough draft of these sews raf powers as they now e xist, in their revised fo rm, in the Cons ti tution. The provision empoweri ng Cong ress ” t o dispose of the unappropriate d land s o f the U nite d States” was modified and enlarged, so as to include ” other pr o perty belongi ng to the Un ite d St ates,” and to authorize Congress to “*make all needful rules and regulatio ns ” f or the preservati on, management, and sale of the same.

The provision empowering Congress ” to institute tem porary governments for the new States arisging i thie un appropriated lands of the United States,” taken it con nection with the one empowering Congress “t o exercise excl usivel y Legisla t ive authority at the s eat of the Gene ral Government, and over a district of co untry a r o und the same,”

clearly shows th e difference in the extent and ia ture of the powers intended to be con fe rred in the nea States or Territories on n a i the one hao d, and in the Distric t of Columbi a on th e other. In the on e case it was pro posed to authorize Congress ” to instit ute te mporary gov ernments for the new States,” or Terri to ries, as they are now call ed, jus t a s our Revolution a ry fathers recognized the right of the British crown to institute l ocal govern ments for the Colonies, by issuing charters under which the people of the Colonies were ” entitled (according to the Bill of Rights a dopted by the C ontinental Congress) to a free and exclusive power of legislation, in their several Provincial Leg islatures, w here their right of representation can alone b e preserved, in a ll cases of ta xation and inter nal polity;” w hile, in the other ca se, it was p roposed to authorize Congress to exerc ise, exclusively, l egislative authority over the municipal and internal polity of the people residing within the district w hich should be ceded fo r that purpose a s e e to the seat of the G ene ral Government. Each of these provisions was modified and perfected by the Committee of Detail and Revision, as will appear by comparing them with the corresponding clauses as finally incorporate d into the Constitution. The provision to authorize Congress to inst itute temporar y governments for the new States or Ter ritor ies, and to provide for their admis si on intoi a the Uni on, a ppe ars in the Constitution in this form: New Sta t e s may be admitted by the Congres s into th is Union..” The power to admit‘1 itew States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper” to that end, may fairly be construed to include the right to institute temporary governments for such new States or Territories, the same as Great Britain could rightfully institute s imilar governments for the Colonies; but certainly not to author ize Congress to legislate in respect to their municipal affairs and internal concerns, without violating that great fundamental principle in defense of which the battles of the Revolution were fought. If judicial authority were deemed necessary to give force to principles so eminently just in themselves, and which form the basis of our entire political system, such authority may be found in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the /)red Scott case. In that case the Court say: “

This brings us to examine by what provision of the Con stitution the present Federal Governm,,ent, under its delegated and restricted powers, is authorized to acquire territory out side of the original limits of the United States, ai,d what powers it may exercise therein over the person or property of a citi, zen of the United States, while it remains a territory, and ur til it shall be admitted as one of the States of the Union. “‘There is certainly no power given by the Constitution to the Federal Government to establish or maintain colonies, bordering on the United States or at a distance, to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure; nor to enlarge its terri. torial limits in any way except by the admission of new States…. ‘i The power to expand the territory of the United States by the admission of new States is plainly given; and in the con. struction of this power by all the departments of the Govern ment, it has been -held to authorize the acquisition of territory, not fit for admission at the time, but to be admitted as soon as its population and situation would entitle it to admission. It is acquired to become a State, and not to be held as a colony and governed by Congress with absolute authority; and as the propriety of admitting a new State is committed to the sound discretion of Congress, the power to acquire territory for that purpose, to be held by the United States until it is in a suitable condition to become a State upon an equal footing with the other States, must rest upon the same discretion.” Having determined the question that the powrer to at’quire territory for the purpose of enlarging our territorial limits and increasing the number of States, is included within the power to admit new States and conferred by the same clause of the Constitution, the Court proceed to say that ” the power to acquire necessarily carries with it the power to preserve and apply to the purposes for which it was acquired.” And again, referringf to a former decision of the same court in respect to the powver of Congere~ }to institute governments for the Territories, the Court say: i ” The power stands firmlyl on the latter alternative put by It is front this clause off the Constitution -lo-ne that Congress derives the power to provide for fle surveys and sale of the public lands anti all other I ropert,y be longing to the United States, not only in the Territories, but also in the several States of the Union. But for this pr ovision Congress would have no power to authorize the sale of the public landls, military sites, old ships, cannon, imuskets, or other property, real or personal, which be lon.g to the United States, and are no longer needed for ally public purpose. It refers exclusively to property in co,t,‘adtistinction to persons and communities. It con I,,-s the sane power “to make all needful rules a nd oglainsin the States as in the Territories, and ex tenlis wherever there may be any land or other property 1,ltonlgiig to the United States to be regulated or disposed oi’; but does not authorize Congress to control or inter fe e vitlh the domestic institutions and internal polity of tile people (either in the States or the Territories)who lieay reside upon lands which the United States once owned. Such a power, had it been vested in Congress, would annihilate the sovereignty and freedom of the Slates as well as the great principle of self-government in the Territories, wherever the United States happen to own a portion of the public lands w ithin their r es pectiv e liasits, as at present, in the States of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnes o ta, California, and Oregon, and in t h e Territories of Wase  ington, Nebraska, Kainsas, Utah, and NewMexico. The idea is repugnant to the spirit and genius of our complex system of Government; because it effectually blots out the dividing line between Federal and Local authority which forms an essential barrier for the defense of the independence of the States and the liberties of the people aga.ist Federal invasion. With one anomalous excep tion, all the powers conferred on Congress are Federal, and not ffuticipal, in their character-affecting the general welfare of the whole country without interferinsg with the internal polity of the people-and can be ca rried into effect by laws which apply alike to States and Tear ritoies. The exception, being in derogation of one of the fundamental principles of our political system (be cause it a uth o rize s the Federal Government to control tile municipal affairs and internal polity of the people in ,,rtai. specified, limited localities), was not left to vague inference or loose con struction, nor expressed in dubious or equ ivoc al l anguage; but is found plai nly written in theat Section of the C onstitution which says: ” Co v ngress shall h ave power t o exercise exclusive legislatiol i Ail capses whatsoever, over stch district (not exceeding te, mi l tes square uj) a s may, by cessio n of particular States, and tile acceptance of Congress, b ecom e the seat of the gover pedm at of the United States. and to exercise like authority over ai places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State il which the same shall be, for the e rectio n of forts m.”,zilnes, arsenals, dock-yardsand otherlneedfulbuildings.”’ No such power “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever,” nor indeed any legislation in any case whatsoever, is conferred on Congress in respect t o the municipal affairs and internal polity, either of the States or of the Territories. On the contrary, after the Constitution had been f in ally adopted, w ith its Federal powers delegated, enumerated, and defined, in order to guard in all future time against any possible infringement of the reserved rights of the States, or of the people, an amendment was incorporated into the Constitution which marks the dividing line between Federal and Local authority so directly and indelibly that no lapse of time, no partisan prejudice, no sectional aggrandizement, no frenzied fanaticism can efface it. The amendment is in these words: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This view of the subject is confirmed, if indeed any corroborative evidence is required, by reference to the proceedings and debates of the Federal Convention, as reported by Mr. Madison. On the 1Sth of August, after a series of resolutions had been adopted as the basis of the proposed Constitution and referred to the Committee of Detail for the purpose of being put in proper form, the record says: “MSr. Madison submitted, in order to be referred to the Committee of D~etail, the following powers, as proper to be added to those of the general Legislature (Congress): “TSo dispose of the unappropriated lands of the United States. “Tlo institut.e temporary governments for the new States arisinlg therein. “To regulate affairs with the Indians, as well within as vitlhout the limtits of the United States. “TIo exercise exclusively legislative authority at the seat of the General Government, and over a district around the samne not exeeeding — square miles, the consent of the legisl:~ture of the State or States comnprising the same being first obtainled.”> I 138

Page 139 view page image

DOUGLAS ON POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY. footing with citizens of the States, and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the General Government might attempt tinder the plea of implied or iuteidental powers.

And if Congress itself cannot do this-if it is beyond the powers cotiferred on the Federal Government-it will be ad.mitted, we prsme, that it could not authorize a Territotial ri gogvermet to exercise them. It could confer no power o, ally loc(al govre nt, established by its authoority, to violate th provision ohe tCl, onstitution.” Nothing can be more cer ta in than that the Court were here speaking only of forbidden powers, which were den ied alske to Congress, to the State Legislatures.

adl to the Territorial Legislatures, and that the prohibition extends “
evew er ywh ere within the dominion of the United State s,” applicable equally to States and Territories, as well as to the United States. - If this sweeping prohibition-this just but inexorable res t riction upon the power s of Government-Fedetal, t State, and rTetrit,orial-shall ever be held to include the Sl a very question, thus negativing the right of the people of the States and Territories, as well as the Fedeial Government, to control it by law (and it will be observed that in th t e opin ion of the Co urt “the citizens of a Ter-i tory, so far as these rights are concetned, are on the same footing with the ci tizens of the States.”) then, n indeed, w ill th e doctrine become firmly establlshed that the principles of law applicable to African Slavery are ueeijort tihroughout the doominnioc of tle Uiited States, and that there ” is an irrepressible conflict t between opposing and enduring forces, which IImeains that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation or enti, ely a free labor nation.” e Notwithlstanding the disastrous consequences which t would inevitably result from the authoritative recognri tion and practical operation of such a doctrine, there ar oe those who maintain tha ththe Co urt C e fe, red to and included the Slavery question within tlat class of forbidden powers which (although th e same in the Telr-i tories as in the States) could inot be exercised by the people of the Territories. If this propositon-were true, which fortunately for the e peace and welfare of the whole country it is not, the , conclusiotn would inevitably result, which they logically ; deduce from the premises-that the Constitutioit by the recognition of Slavery establishes it in the Teen’ito:-ies - beyond the power of the people to control it by law, and guarantees a cii e tec to every citizen the right to go the e and be protected in the enjoyment of h is slatve e property; and when all othe r re me dies fail for the e protection of such rigb n of of p roperty, it becomes thile s imperative duty of Congress (to the per for mance of e which ever y member is bound by his contscitence and hi,a - oath, and from which no consideration of political policy t or expediency can release him) to provide by lalv such ad equate and complete protection a s is essentia l to the e enjoyment of a n important right secured by the ConstiG tution. If the proposition be true, that the Constitution s establishes Slavery in th e Territories beyond the power 1
of the peopl e legally to control it, another result no less - startling, and from which t here i s no escape, must ineviytably followrg. The Constitution is uniform ” everywhe re v within the dominions of the United States”-is the same s in Pennsylvan ia as in Kansas-a nd if it be t rue, as e stated by the President in a special message to Congr ess, 1 ” that Slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the Constie tut,ion of the United States,” and that ” Kansas is there fore at this monent as much a Slav e State as Geogia or South Carolina,” why does it not exi st i n Pennsylva nia by virtue of the same Constituti on? , If it be said that Pennsylvania is a sovereign State, a nd therefore has a right to regulate the Slavery question e within her own limits to suit herself, it must be borne in mind that the sovereignty of Pennsylvania, like that of every other State, is limited by the Constitution, which provides that: e “This Constitution, and all laws of the United St.tes which] * shall be made in p ursuance ther’ of aI;d all lr ea i:s n’a,e, or wh1ic,h shall be made, under the autihority of thlt Unitedi blatcs, t shall be the s 7.reme log o/the lar:d, and the j,g,es in Xvery State shall be bound theriebv, anxytng in the C67a,litutio, or e laxs of any State to the contrar,y not.ith,~tandi~.” i, Hence, the State of Pennsylvania, with her Constitution I-and laws, and domlestic inst~itutionls, and internal policy, is subordinate to the Const~itutionl of the U~nited States, in ,e the same mlanner and to the same extent as the Territory of Kansas. The KansasNebraska Act says that the Tere ritory of Kansas shall exercise legislative power over ” all r rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constig rution,” and that the people of said Territory shall be left ‘} “;perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic insti tutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.”

The provisions of this, act are bee Ueved to be in entire ha~rmlony with the Constlbuticnl, and the Court-that is, as the’ inevitabl e onsequen ce of th e r ight to acquire t erritory. ro The power to acquire territory, a s well as the right, in the language of Mr. Madison, “lto institute temporary gov ernm ents f or the new S tat es arising therein ” ( or Territorial governments, as they are now called), having been traced to that provision of the Constitution which provides f or the a dmission o f ” new States,” the Court proceed to consider the natur e and exten t of t he pow er of Congress ov er the people of the Territories: ” All we mean to say ont this point is, thast, a sthere is no expr oess regul a tin in the Cotetit tion odefiing time power whibh tn G e eneeral Government may exercise over the person or propertv of a citizen in a territ ory thus acquired, the Ciounrt miccst ectssarily l ook to the provisions and principles of th e Constit”tion, and it s distribution of powers, or the rules an d pri r dtiplts by which its decision must hbe governed. iTak ing this rul e to guide use, it may be safelv assumed that iies of the United States, who emigrate toa territory belo,ging to the p eop le of the Uited States, cannio t be ruled as mer colonists, f dependent upon the will of the Genn weral Governenkt, and to be gove rn ed bv any laws it may think proper to impose…… The Teritorv being a par t of the United A,tes, the Government and the citizen both entei pr it under the authority of the Constitultion, wi th th ei r respective rights de filled and marked out; and the Federal Government can exercise,no power over his person or property beyond what that instrlment confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.” Hence, i nasmuch as the Constitution has conferred on the F eder al Government no right to inter fer e with the pro perty, domestic relations, police regulations, or internal polity of the people of the Territories, it necessarily fol lows, under the authority of the Court, that Congress can rightfully exercise no such power over the people of the Territories. For this reason alone, the Supreme Court were authorized and compelled to pronounce the eighth section of the Act approved March 6, 1820 (commonly called the 3Missouri Compramise), inoperative and voidthere being no power delegated to Congress in the Consti tution authorizing Congress to prohibit Slavery in the Ter ritories. In the course of the discussion of this question t,he Court gave an elaborate exposition of the structure principles, and powers of the Federal Government showing that it possesses no powers except those which are delegated, enumerated, and defined in the Constitu tion; and that all other powers are either tprotbibitea altogether or are reserved to the States, or to the people In order to show that the prohibited, as well as tle delegated powers are enumerated and defined in the Constitution, the Court enumerated certain powers which cannot be exercised either by Congress or by the Territorial Legislatures, or by any other authority what even, for the simple reason that they are forbidden by the Constitution. Some persons who have not examined critically the opinion of the Court in this respect have been induced to believe that the sl.avey-y question was included in this class of prohibited powers, and that the Court had decided in the Dred Scott case that the Territorial Legis lature could not legislate in respect to slave property the same as all other property in the Territories. A few extracts from the opinion of the Court will correct this error, and show clearly the class of powers to which the Court referred, as being forbidden alike to the Federal Government, to the States, and to the Territories. The Court say: ” A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitutio will illus rate this proposition. For example, no one, we pre sume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Ter ritory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free ex ercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the the press. or the right of the people of the territory peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress oi grievances. ” Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel any one to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding…. So too, it will hardly be contended that Congress could by law quarter a soldier in a house in a territory without the consent of the owner in a time of peace nor in time of war but in a manner prescribed by law. Nor co-l,d they by law forfeit the property of a citizen in a territory who was convicted of trea son, for a longer period than the life of the person convicted noer take private property for public use without just cornpen salton. ” “TJhe powers ouver persons and property, of which we speak, are nlot only not granted to Congress, but are ill es press terms denied, and they are forbidden to exercise them bald this prohibition is not confined to the States, but th~ vordls are general, and extend to the whlole territory ovel which the Constitution gives it power to legislate, includin~t those portions of it remaining under Territorial governments ats well as that covered by States. ” It is a total absence of power, evrerywvhere within thll dlominionl of the United States, andl plane,s the citizens of. erckory, sao tkar as these righ~ts are colns,:rned, on the F~ils 139

Page 140 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. under them the people of Kansas possess every right,o privilege, and immunity, in respect to their internal polity and domestic relations, which the people of Pennsylvania can exercise under their Constitution and laws. Each is invested with full, complete, and exclusive powers in this respect, “subject only to the Constitution of the United States.” The question recurs, then, if the Constitution does establish Slavery in Kansas or any other Territory beyond the power of the people to control it by law, how can the conclusion be resisted that Slavery is established in likernanner and by the same authority in all the States of the Union? And if it be the imperative duty of Congress to provide by law for the protection of slave property in the Territories upon the ground that “Slavery exists in Kaneas (and consequently in every other Territory) “by virtue of the Constitution of the United States,” why is it not also the duty of Congress, for the same reason, to provide similar protection to slave property in all the States of the Union, when the legislatures fail to furnish such protection? Without confessing or attempting to avoid the inevitable consequences of their own doctrine, its advocates endeavor to fortify their position by citing the Dred Scott decision to prove that the Constitution recognizes property in slaves-that there is no legal distinction between this and every other description of property-that slave property and every other kind of property stand on an equal footing-that Congress has no more power over the one than over the other-and, consequently, cannot discr iminate between them. Upon this point the Court say: “No person held to service or labor In one State, usder th, laws thereof, escaping into ano’her, shall, it consequence of any law or regulation there,in, be disharged from suci,h ser vice or labor, but sha11 be delivered up on claim of the, party to whom-such service, or labor may be due.” Thus it will be seen that a slave, within the meaning of the Constitution, is a “1person held to service or labor in one State, under the, lawes tltereof” not under the Coni stitution of the United States, nor by the laws thereof, nor by virtue of any federal authority whatsoever, but under the laws of the particular State where such service or labor may be due’ It was necessary to give this exact definition of Slavery in the Constitution in order to satisfy the people of the South as well as of the North. The slaveholditig States would never consent for a moment that their domestic re lations-and especially their right of property in their slaves should be dependent upon Federal authority, or that Congress should have any power over the subject, either to extend, confine, or restrain it, much less to pro tect or regulate it lest, under the pretense of protection and regulation, the Federal Government, under the influ ence of the strong and increasing anti-slavery sentiment which prevailed at that period, might destroy the institu tion, and divest those rights of property in slaves which were sacred under the laws and constitutions of their respective States so long as the Federal Government had no power to interfere with the subject. In like mnanner, the nonslaveholding States, while they we re entirely willing to provide for the surrender of all fugitive slaves-w as is conclusively an by sothe unanimous vote of all the States in the Convention for the provision now under consideration and to leave each State perfectly free to hold slaves under its own laws, and by virtue of its own separate and exc l usive auth ority-so long as it please d, and to abolish it when it cho s e, were unwilling to become responsible for its existence by incorpor at ing it into the Constitution as a national institution, to be protected and regulated, extended and controlled by Federal authority, regardless of the wishes of the peop~le, and in defiance of the local laws of the several State~s and Territories. For these opposite reasons, the Southern and]

Northern States uniited in giving a una,nimious vote in the Convention for that provision of tle Constitution which recognizes Slavery as a local in~stitution. in1 thle several States where it exists, “under th~e laws thlereof,” and provides for the surrender of fugitive slaves. It will be observed that the term ” State ” is used!., this provision, as well as in various other parts of the Con~stitution, in the same sense in which it was used by M,r. Jefferson in his plan for establish:,ng governments for the new States in the territory ceded and to be ceded to th~e United States; and by Mr. Madison in his proposition te confer on Congress power ” to institute temporary governments for theinew States arising in th-e unappr,,,iopria~ted lands of the United States,” to designate the political communities, Territories as well as States, within the dominion of the United States. The word “1St.(rtes ” is used~, in the same s,ense in the ordinance of the lath July, 17ST, for the government of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio, which was passed by the remnant of the Congress of the Confederation, sitting in New York while its most eminenlt members were at Philadelphia, as delegates to the Federal Convention, aiding in the formation of the Conistitution of the United States. In this sense the word “1States” is used in the clause providing for the rendition of fugitive slaves, applicaballe to all political communities under the authority of the United States, including the Territories as well as the several States of the Union. Under any other construction, the right of the owner to recover his slave would be restr~icted, to the S5tates of the Union, leaving the Territories a secure place of refuge for all fugitives. The same rem,,rk is ap~plicable to the clause of the Constitution wh~ich provides that “1a person charged in any Sta.tte, with treason, felony,i or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in arnotlae? State, shall, on the demand of the eeuieauthority of the State, from which he fled, be delivered up to,, be removed to the State having jurisdiction of thecre. Unless the term State, as used in these provisions of th-e Constitution, shall be construed to include every distinct political community under the jurisdiction of the United “N ow as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a diflbrent point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution… s And if the Constitution recoginizes th~e right of property of the master in a slave, and makes no distinction between that des cription of property and other property owned by a citizen, no tribunal acting under the authority of the United States, whether it be legislative, executive or judicial, has a r ight to draw such a distinction, or deny to it the benefit of the pro visions and guarantie,s which have been provided for the pro tection of private property against the encroachments of the government…… And the government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all foture time, if the tre r escapes fro,m his owoer. This is done in plain words-u ooo plain to be understood. And no word eao be fou nd in the Coostitutbon which gives Coogreso a greater power over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other d ecito.The only power conterred is the power cocipled w, h the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights.” The rights of the owner, which it is thus made the duty of the Federal Government to guard and protect, are those expressly provided for in the Constitution, and defined in clear and explicit language by the Court that ” the gov ernment, in express terms, is pledged to protect it (slave property) in all future time, if the slave escapesfus suon i owaer.” This is the only contingency, according to the plain reading of the Constitution, as authoritatively interpreted by the Supreme Court, in which the Federal Government is authorized, required, or permitted to interfere with Slavery in the States or Territories; and in that case only for the purpose “of guarding and protecting the owner in his rights ” to reclaim his slave property. In all other respects slaves stand on the same footing with all other property-” the Constitution makes no distinction between that description of property and other property owned by a citizen;” and “no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property, or which entitles property of that kind to less protection than property of any other description.” This is the basis upon which all rights pertaining to slave property, either in the States or the Territories, stand under the Constitution as expounded by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case. Inasmuch as the Constitution has delegated no power to the Federal Government in respect to any other kind of property belonging to the citizen-neither introducing, establishing, prohibiting, nor excluding it anywhere within the dominion of the United States, but leaves the owner thereof perfectly free to remove into any State or Territory, and carry his property with him, and hold the same subject to the local law, and relying upon the local authorities for protection, it follows, according to the decision of the Court, that slave property stands on the same footing, is entitled to the same rights and immunities, and, in like manner, is dependent upon the local authorities and laws for protection. The Court refer to that clause of the Constitution which proviles for the rendition of fugitive slaves as their atithority for saying that “the right of property in slaves 0is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.“a Biy referene to that provision, it will be seen that, while tile word “slaves” is not used, still the Constitution not 140

Page 141 view page image

DOUGLAS ON POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY. not only to the preservation of property, but to the peace of the. clli,ory. It will leave the right to make such police l-4.;ufoass as al-e. necessary to prevent disorder, and which w’iit,eatlJsuluily necessary with such properly as that to - t:U; its ba[,-,icial ulse Io it.s own el’. With tlhis brief expl li:i(m I suibinit the amend~menit.“1 Mr. Clay, in reply to Mr. Davis, said: ” S ” s. 11 ot perfectly sIlre that I cmprehend the full mt,!aning of the dmet d by the eator om Mississippi. ii i bo, I think he acompiss nohing by str i ikiga out the cl.se oi the bill and its ertin g to whieh he propose s wo -s.t.

jlhe clause no w il i the bill is, tha t th e e rritorial cgrisiatioll shall not extend to anything respecting African Staycry within the Territory.‘she elect of retaining the clause as reported by t he Committee w ill be this: hat if in any of th e Territories Slave ry n ow exisis, it shall not be ab,olished by ithe Territori al L egisla ture an d if in any f the Terripories Sl.very does ot now exist, it can not be intro duced by the’Terrilorial Legislat ur e. h e c laus e itself was intiod.uced into the bill by the Committee for the purpose o f t ying t p the hands of the Territorial Legislatur e in respect t legislating at all, one way or the other, poi the subject of Alitia havery. It was intended to leave the legislation and the law of the respective Territories ie the c ondi tio n in which the Act will a ind them. I stlted on a former occasion that I did dtat in Comf iittee, vote for the amendment to inserit the rla rse, though it was proposed to be introduced by a majority of the Committee. 1
attached very lit tle con sequene to it at the time, and I attach very little to i t a t present. It is perhaps of no particular importance whatever. Now, sir, if I understand the measure proposed by ihe Senator from 1ississippi, it aims at the same thing. I do not understiand him as proiosing that if ay one shall car ry s laes i nto the Territoryalshough ws byf the laws ofr the erritory he cannot take the there the Legis lative hands o of the Territorial government should be so tied as to prevent it saying he shall c o t enrjoy the fruits of their labor. If the Senator from Aiiississippi means to s.‘y that ” Mr. Davis: ” I do mean to say it.” Mr. Clay: ” If the object of the Senator is to provide that slaves may be introduced into the Terr,iory contrary to the lea; loci, and, being introduced, nothing shall be done by the Legislature to impair the rights of owners to hold the slaves thus brought contrary to the local laws, I ce-1^taiy cann~ot ote for qt. In doing so I shall repeat again the expression of opinion which I anniounced at an early period of the session.” tiere we find the line distinctly drawn between those who contended for the right to carry slaves into the Territories and hold them in defiance of the local law, and those who contended that such right was subject to the local law of the Territory. During the progress of the discussion on the same day, Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, said: “We are giving, or proposing to give, a government to a Territory, which act rests upon the basis of our liight to make such provision. We suppose we have a right to confer power. If so, we may mark out the limit to which they may legislate, and are bound not to confer power beyond that which exists in Congress. If we give them power to legislate beyond that, we commit a fraud or usurpation, as it may be done openly, covertly, or indirectly.“1

To which Mr. Clay replied: Now, sir, I only repeat what I have had occasion to say before, that while I am willing to stand aside and make no legislative enactment one way or the other-to lay off the Territo ries without the Wilmot Proviso, on the one hand, with which I understand we are threatened, or without an attempt to introduce a clause for the introduction of Slavery into the Territories while I am for rejecting both the one and the other, I am content that the law as it exists shll prevail; and if there be any diversity of opinion as to what it means, I am willing that it shall be settled by the highest judicial authority of the country. While I am content thus to abide the result, I must say that I cannot vote for any express provision recognizing the right to carry slaves there.” To which Mr. Davis rejoined, that ” It is said our Revolution grew out of a preamble; and I hope we have something of the same character of the hardy men of the Revolution who first commenced the war with the mother country something of the spirit of that bold Yankee who said he had a right to go to Concord, and that go he wou ld; and who, in the maintenance of that right, met his death at the hands of a British sentinel. Now, sir, if our right to carry slaves into these Territories be a constitutional right, it is our first duty to maintain it.” Pending the discussion which ensued, Mr. Davis, at the suggestion of friends, modified his amendment from time to time, until it assumed the following shape: “

Nor to introduce or exclude African Slavery. Pronided that nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to prevent said Territorial Legislature from passing such laws as may be necessary for the protection of the rights of property of every kind which may have been, or may be hereafter, conformably to the Constitution of the United States, held in or introduced into said’Territory. ” To which, on the same day, Mr. Chase, of Ol~io, offered the following amendment: ”’ Provided further, That nothing herein contained shall bo construed as authorizing or permitting the intr-oductiol o,f If any other illustration were necessary to show that the political communities which we now call Territories (but which, during the whole period of the Confederation and the formation of the Constitution, were always referred to as “States” or “new States’ ), are recognized as “States” in soime of the provisions o f the Consti - tution, they may be found in those clauses which declare that ” no State” shall enter into any’ treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make aniything but gold and silver coin a tender in paymen t of d ebt s; pass any bill of attainder, em post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.1” It must be borne in mind that in each of these cases where the power is not expressly delegated to Congress the prohibition is not imposed upon the Federal Government, but upon the States. There was no necessity for any such prohibition upon Congress or the Federal Goveritment, for the reason that the omission to delegate any such powers in the Constitution was of itself a prohibition, and so declared in express terms by the 10th amendment, which declares that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.?’ Hence it would c ertainly be competent for the States and Territories to exercise these powers but for the prohIibition contained in those provisions of the Constitution; and inasmuch as the prohibition only extends to the “States,” the people of the “Territories” are still at liberty to exercise them, unless the Territories are included withIn the term States, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution of the United States. It only remains to be shown that the Compromise Measures of 1850 and the KansasNebraska Act of 1854 are in perfect harmony with, and a faithful embodiment of, the principles herein enforced. A brief history of these measures will disclose the principles upon which they are ?ounded. On the 29th of January, ]950, Mr. Clay introduced into the Senate a series of resolutions upon the Slavery question which were intended to form the basis of the subsequent legislation upon that subject. Pending the discussion of these resolutions, the chairman of the Committee on Territories prepared and reported to the Senate, on the 25th of March, two bills-one for the admission of Californlia into the Union of States, and the other for the organization of the Territories of Utah and New Mexico, and for the adjustment of the disputed boundary with the State of Texas, which were read twice and printed for the use of the Senate. On the 19th of April a select committee of thirteen was appointed, on motion of Mr. Foote, of Mississippi, of which Mr. Clay was made chairman, and to which were referred all pending propositions relating to the slavery question. On the 8th of May, Mr. Clay, from the select committee of thirteen, submitted to the Serate an elaborate report covering all the points in controversy, accompanied by a bill which is usually known as the “Oumibus Bill.” By reference to the provisions of this bill, as it appears on the files of the Senate, it will be seen that it is composed of the two printed bills which had been reported by the Committee on Territories on the 25th of March previous; and that the only material c’ange in its provisions, involving an important and essential principle, is to be found in the tenth section, which prescribes and defines the powers of the Territorial Legislature. In the bill, as reported by the Committee on Territories, the legislative power of the Territories extended to ” all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States,”

without eaxcepting A.f’ican Slavery; while the bill, as reported by the committee of thirteen, conferred the same power on the Territorial Legislature, oitah the exception, of Africa’la, very. This portion of the section il its original form read thus: ” And be it furthe enacted that the Legislative power of the Territory shall11 extend to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act; but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposition of the soil.” To which the committee of thirteen added these words: “Noor ist respect to Africani Slawery.” When the bill came up fir ac tion on the 15th of May, Mr. Davis, of Mississippvi, said: ” I offrer the following amendment. To strike out, in the smith line of the tenth section, the words’ in respe~ to Atfrican S/,g,:e;‘yip and insert the words,’ Writh thase rights of property ff’ocuiug olt oa the iwstit,tison of Af sicam Slavery as it fists in t at!/ of the State.o of the Union.’ The object of the amendment is to prevent the Territorial Lecislaltire from legislating at:inst the rights of property groaingt out of the institution of tIlaver…… It will leave to the Territorial Legislat,r.its those rights and powers which are essentially necessary, t I I 141

Page 142 view page image

142 A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. Slavery or the holding of persons as property wi.hin said Ter-I Which was ejected-Yoas, 23; Nays, 88. rhory.”

i After various other amendments had been offere-l and Upon these amendments-the one affirming the Pro-voted upon-all relating to the power of the Territorial Slavery, and the other the Anti-Slavery position, in 1lpo-Legislature over Slavery-Mr. Douglas miovedl to strike out sition to the right of the people of the Territolies to de-e all relating to African Slavery, so that the Territorial Locide the Slavery question for themselves-Mr. Douglas said: I gislature shoult have the same p ower over that question iThe position that I have ever taken has been, that tisi-

-as ov er all other rightful subjects of legislation consistent and all other questions relating to the domestic awtaiis alt with the Costitution-which amendment wts rejt d. domei stic policy of the Territories, ought to be left to tile deci-Atter the rejection of this amendment, the discussion, sion1 of the people themselves; and that we ought to be o-renewed with great ability and depth of feeliig in respect tent with whatever way they may decide the question, because to the powers which the Territorial Legislature should - they have a much deeper interest i. tthese att,t-,s tha,l ercise upon the subject of Slavery.

Various proposition hav~e,.,id know much better what institutions suit them t h ad,and aenmnsofrdadrjc,d,I we, who have never been there, can decide for them. I would wll 1 wcr cmtadc, and amnicdmnt s ofbe nejelcitedalitrc therethre have inch preferred that that. portion of the bill lting to this oe controverted point-when Mir. Norris, of should have remained as it was reported from til e New-lampshire, renewed the motion of Mr. Douglas, to on Territories, with o provision on the subject of lavery, strike out tile restriction on tile Territorial Legislature in the one way or the other. And I do hope yet that that clausvery. On the st o Jlv tis will lee stricken out. I am satisfied, sir, that it. gives no strength - itdid givekstoen ram etigib atietidment was adopted by a vote of 32 to 19 rstoring to “he bill. I au satisfied, even if it did give strength t st tilecbll toa doomi t ito w sret,o d that it ought not to be there, because it i s a v iolation offprici-this sect. ion of the bill to the form in which it was repoIted ple-a violation of that principle upon which we have all from the Committee on Territories on the 25th of Marc’, rested’our defense of’ the course we have taken on this ques-and conferring on the Territorial Legislature power over tio. I do not see how those of us who have taken the post- “all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the tiou we have taken-that of non-interventtiono-anftheUnited h States,” uitltoz,t eaxcedtin agtdConstituto n o thUntd tates,” otef/soic eccep~icug in favor of the right of the people to legislate for themselves Af,ri(a~b S’g,,ery. on this question, can support such a provision without aban f i al edoniing all the arguments which we used in the Presideitial Thus terminated this great struggle in the affirmance of campaign in the year 1848, and the principles set forth by the the principle, as the basis of the Compromise Aleasules of honorable Senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass) in that letter 1S50, so far as they related to the organization of the Te-s which is known as the’ Nicholson Letter.’ We are required ritorites g,at tie people o’ te lf “ies torie8 8sottld de,i ftd to abandon that platform; we are required to abandon s tth o Slveeselves tleot/ tq/ fe ctiot principles, and to stultify ourselves, and to adopt the opposite xloctritei-and for what In1 order to say that thepeople of the /er itoria Leislte. Tertoies sh t ha ve such isstitutions as they shall deem This controverted question having been definitely set, a, l:jped to their condition and their wants.

I do not see, sir, tled, the Senate proceeded on the same day to consider the howr s,h a,provision can be acceptable either to the people other portions of the bill, and after striking out all except of the Nor ih or the South.” those provisions which provided for the organization of the Upon the question of how many inhabitants a Territory Territory of Utah, ordered the bill to be engrossed for a should contain before it should be formed into a political third reading, a nd on the next day-August 1, 1850-the commuinity with the rights of self-government, Mr. Doug-bill was red a third time, and passed ~~~~~~~~las said : Oni the 14th of August the bill for the organization of the Territory of NewMexico was taken up, and amended so ” Th Senator from Mississippi puts the question to me as to to y of wMexico was taken up, ad amended o hat uber of people there must be in a Territory before as to conform fully to the provisions of the Utah Act in rethis right to govern themselves accrues. Without determining spect to the power of the Territorial Legislature over “all the precise number, I will assume that the right ought to rightful subjects of legislationi consistent with the Constiacruec to the people at the moment they have enough to con - tution,” without excepting African Slavery, and was ors;itute a government; and, sir, the bill assumes that there are dered to be engrossed for a third reading without a divipeople enough there to require a government, and enoughext dy the bill was passed-Yeas 2
authorize the people to govern thenselves…… Your bill ovncedes that a representative government is necessary-Nas, 10. a government founded upon the principles of popular sore-These two bills were sent to the House of Representarei,‘nty and the right of a people to enact their owi laws and tives, and passed that bodly without any alteration in refor this, reason you give them a Legislature composed of two spect to the power of the Territorial Legislatures over the branch lieteLgaueof thes, like the Legislaturesct of thSlavery, and wifferent approve y resident illTerritories of the Union. You confer upon them thie right to9, 150.

legislate on’ all rightful subjects of legislation,’ exceptem e t g negroes. Why except groeroes? Why except African the two great political parties-W, and very? If the inhabitants are competent to govern themselves Democratic-into which the country was then divided, asupon all other subjects, and in reference to all other descrip-sembled in National Convention at Balti.more for the purtions of property-if they are competent to make laws and pose of noniinating candidates for the Presidency tnl determine the relations between husband and wife, and pa VicePresidency ech Convention adopted a afirmed rent and child~ and municipal laws affecting the rights and *’ property a o d monicipal laws affecting the righsts and the principles embodied in tise Compromise Measures of property of citizens generally, they are competent also to make laws to govern themselves in relation to Slavery and 185I as rules of action by which they would be governed in negroes. ” all future cases in tihe organization of Territorial govern With reference to the protection of property in slaves ments and the admission of new States. Mr.

Douglassaid:’ On the 4th of January, 1154, the Committee on Territo ries, of the Senate, to which had been referred a bill for ” I have a word to say to the honorable Senator fro. Mississippi (itMr Davis). le insists that I am not in favo f is the organizat ion of the Territory of Nebraska, reportel teciiiig property, and that his amendment is offered for the the bill back, with an amme dment, in the form of a substi puirpose of protecting property under the Constitution. Now, tute for the entire bill, which, with some modifications, is sir, I ask you what authority he has for assuming that? Do I now known on the statute book as the KansasNebraska not desire to protect property because I wish to allow the Act,” accompanied by a Report explaining the principles people to pass such laws as they deem proper respecting upon which it was proposed to organize those Territories, their rights to property without any exception? He might as follows: just as well say that I am opposed to protecting property in merchandise, in steamboats, in cattle, in real estate, as to say “The principal amendments which your Committee deem it that I am opposed to protecting property of any other their duty to commend to th e favorable action of the Senate, il description; for I desire to put them all on an equality, anid a special report, are those in which the principles established allow the people to make their own laws in respect to the by the Compromise Measures of 1850, so far as they are appliwhole of them.” cable to territorial organizations, are proposed to be affirmed Mr. Cass said (referring to the amendments offered by and carried ito practical operation within the liits of the new Territory. The wisdom of those measures is ttested, Mr. Davis and Mr. Chase): not less by their salutary and beneficial effect s in allaying see Now, with respect to the amendments. I shall vote tional agitation and restoring peace and harmony to an iriagainst them both; and then I shall vote in favor of striking tated and distracted people, than by the cordial and almost out the restriction in the bill upon the power of the Territorial universal approbation with which they have been receive and governments. I shall do so upon this ground. I wasopposed, sanctioned by the whole country. as the honorable Senator from Kentucky has declared he weas’e In the judgment of your Committee those measures were to the insertion of this prohibition by the Committee. I con-‘ intended to have a far more comprehensive and endiurinig sider it inexpedient and unconstitutional. I have already effect than the mere adjustment of the difficulties arising itrt stated my belief that the rightful power of internal legislation of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were deil the Territories belongs to the people.” signed to establish certain great principles, which would lot only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, blt, il all Afth vtees taken by yeas end time to come, avoid the perils of a similar agitation by eithnays on the amendment of Mr. Chase, and decided in the drawing the question of Slavery from the Halls of Congress negative: Yeas, 25; Nays, 30. The question recurring on and the political arena, and cormtiting it to the arbitr ament of the amendment of Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, it was also those who were immediately interested in and alone respotisirejected* Yeas, 25, Nays, 30. Whereupon Mr. Seward his for its sonseqaences offered the following amendment: *action to the settled policy of the Government, sanctioned by the approving voice of the American people, your Committee “Neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise have deemed it their duty to incorporate and perpetuate, in th an by conviction for crime, shall ever be allowed in either their territorial bill, the principles ant spirit of those of said Territories of Utah and New Mexico. measures.“p I

Page 143 view page image

MR. DOUGLAS ON POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY. of Congress, and became the law of the land by the approval of the President, May 8pr, 1854. In 1856, the Democratic party, assembled in National Convention at Cincinnati, declared by a unanimous vote of the delegates from every State in the Union, that After presenting and reviewing certain provisions of the bill, the Committee conclude as follows;,. ” Frorn these provisions it is apparent that the Compromise Measures of lS50 affirm and rest upon the following propositions: ‘First.-That all questions pertaining to Slavery in the Territories, and in the ew artes to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate r epr esentatives to be chosen by them for that purpose. ”’ Second.-That all cases involving title to slaves and questions of personal freedom, are referred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the Uited States. “‘Tlird. What the provision of the Constitution of the ‘United States in respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried into faithful execution in all the organized Territories, the same as i n the States. The substitute for the bill which your Committee have prepared, and which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these propositions and principles into practical operation, in the precise language of the Compromise Mleasures of 18la. a” ~ By reference to that section of the “K
ansasNebraska Act” as it now stands on the statute book, which prescribed and defined the power of the Territorial Legislature, it will be seen that it is, “in the precise language of the Compromise Measures of 1550,”

extending the l egfislative power of the Territory “to all rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the Constitution,” without excepting African Slavery. It having been suggested, with some plausibility, during the discussion of the bill, that the act of Congress of March 6, 1S20), prohibiting Slavery north of the paralle l of 36’ 30’

would deprive the people of the Territory of the power of regulating the Slavery question to suit themselves while they should remain in a Territorial condition, and before they should have the requisite population to entitle them to admission into the Union as a St ate, an amendment was prepared by the Chairman of the Committee, and incorporated into the bill to remove this obstacle to the free exercise of the principle of popular sovereiginty in the Territory, while it remained in a Territorial conditios, by repealing the said act of Congress, and de claring t he true intent and meaning of all the friends of the bill in these words: “That the Constiitution and all laws of the United States wlich a re n ot locally inap plicable shall have the same forer a nd effect with in the Territory as elsewhere wi thin the eUited States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which being inconsistent with the principle of non-interventiol by Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, as .recognized by the legislation of 185C’, commonly called the ‘ C7opromise Measures,’ is hereby declared inoperative and void-it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to leqislate Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exlude it t7ie?e’oe, but to leave the people thereof perfectlyfree to Jor dand ‘eglate their domestic institttiors in their own u’ay, subject onIly to the Constitution of the Un,ited States. To which was added, on motion of Mr. Badger, the following: “Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or re gulation w,hih may have existed prior t9 the act of the sixth of March, 120, either protecting, establishing, of abolishing slavery.” In this form, and with this distinct understanding of its 41 Rue intent and meaning,” the bill passed the two houses ” Th e American Democracy recognize and adopt the pl,rinciples contained in the organic laws establishing the’erritories of Kansas and Nebraska as embodying the only s oun d and safe solution of the’Slavery question,’

upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole oupt ry can repose in its determined c on servat ism of the Union-anoninterference by Congress with Slavery in State and Territory, or in the I)istrict of Columbia; ” That hi wthis was the basis of the Compromises of 1&50, confirmed by both the Democratic and Whig parties in National Conventions-ratified by the people in the election of 1trcand rightly applied to the organization of t he Territ,ories in 1854; That by the uniform a pplication of this I)e mocrati~ principle to the organization of Territories and to the adiss ion of new States, with or with ou t domestic Slavery as they may elect, the equal rights of all will be preserved intact-the original compacts of the Constitution mai ntaine d inviolate-and the perpetuity and expansion of this Union insured to its ut most capacity of embracing in p eace and larmogy any future American State that may be constitu te d or aos n nexe with a Republican form of government.” In accepting the nomination of this Convention, lit.r Buchanan, in a letter dated June 16, 1856, said: ” The agitation on the question of domestic Slavery has too long distriacted and divided the people of this Union, ala alienated their a flittion s from eac h ohr.

This agi tation heas assvuned many forms since its comdmencement, but it wno s seem ecs ito e direted chiefl y to te T errit ories; and jbde.ing fro its present character, I think we aoy safely anti, idate that it is rapidly approaching a’finality.r Theecet legislation of Cor ess respecting domesti lavery, deCived, as it has been, from the original and pure foulai of legiimeate politi,.al power, th e will o f tlhe majority, promises, re long, 0 allay the dalgrerous excitement.‘l his l- gisimtionl is foundI(ed “prl heie lT principles as auniert as frlee goi esmet its.lt, and il u.d orS oat ore pwith T heil s sieplty lde lared tgat the p,soplet of a y herpriory, lke alcofe f a atate,.c. bl esti,l e oat/ ths ivi.selres tcl,cter~et S’le.~:el 7.,ha(ll or shafl7 ~oxt exis.t.tt 7iibi ti1tel liniis.“O This exposition of the history of these measures shows conclusively that the authors of the Compromise Measures of 1850, and of the Kanssas-Nebraska Act of t18‘4, as well as the members of the Continental Congress of 1774, and the founders of our sys tem of governmenit subsequent to the Revolution, regardedl the people of the Territories and Colonies as political communities which were entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their Provincial Legislatures, where their representation could alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity. This right pertains to the people collectively as a lawabiding and peaceful community, and not to the isolated individuals who may wander upon the public domain in violation of law. It can only be exercised where there are inhabitants suficienit to constitute a government, and capable of performing its various functions anad duties-a fact to be ascertained andl determined by Congress. Whether the number shall be fixed at ten, fifteen or twenty thousand inhabitants does not affect the principle. The principle, under our political system, is ta,t every distin ct political Comimztmzity, loyal to the Cons,ttutiorn and tlhe Union, is eqntitled to all the righ,ts, privileges and iquities of sel/,’-overitgne,t in restpect to their local con,,erns an d instepnal polity, subject only to the Constitutioit of the U[7wited Stateies. .143

Page 144 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOR FOR 1860. NATIONAL POLITICS. SPEEICH OF ABRIAIAM

LINCOLN, OF ILLINOIS, -Delivered at the Cooper Institute, Monday, Feb. 27, 1860. In 1787, still before the Constittition, but while the Conventioon was in session framing it, an d while the Northwestern Territory still w a s the only Territory owned by the United States-the same questioni of pro hibiting Slavery in the Territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and three mor e of the ” thirty-nine” who afterward signed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on th e que s tion.

They were William Blount, William Few and Abraham Bald win; and they all vot ed for the pr ohibition -thus showe ing that, i ththeir unders tanding, no l in e dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbids tile Federal Government to control as to Slavery in federal territory. This time the prohibition became a law, b eing part of what is now well knohwn as the Ordinanc e of‘87. The question of federal control of Slavery in the Ter riton ies, seems not to have been di r ectly before the Convention which fr ame d the or iginal Constitution; and hencei it is not recordedth that the ” thirty-nine,” or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any o pinion on that ptecise ques tion. In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Consttitution, an act was p assed to enforce the Ordinance of‘87, including the prohi bit i on of Slavery in th e Nort h westeern Te rritory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the ” thirty-nine,” Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representative s ftom Pe nnsyl vania. I et went through all its staes without a word o f opposi tion, an d finally passed totit blanches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there wer e sixte e n o f the ” thiity-nine”

fath ers wh o framed tile o riginal Constitu tion. The y we r e Jo hn Langdon, Nicholas Ginheae, Wim. S. John s on, Roger She rman, Robert Monreis, TI onas Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abr-ahamn Baldwvn, Rufus King, William Patterson, George Clymer, Richard Bas sett, Geoppge Read, Pierce Butler, Da niel Car oll, James Madison. This shows that, in heeir under standing, no line dividing local from fe deral authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit, Slavery in t he fe(les al ter ritory; e lse both their fidelity to correct prin,,ilple, and their oath to support the Con stitution,, would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition. Again, George Washington, another of the “thirty nine,” was then President of the United States, and, as such, approved and signed the bill, thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his under standing, ino linle dividing local from, federal atutlo:ity, nor anything il the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government, to cons’el as to Slavery in federal terri tory. No great while after the adoption of the original Conisti!utionl, North Carolina ceded to the Fedleral Government the country now constituting the State of I Tennressee; and a few years later Georgia-ce(led that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi anid Alal bama. In both deeds of cession it was made a condition l by the ceding States that the Federal Govelrnmentt . should not prohibit Slavery in the ceded country. ABesides this, Slavery was then actually in the ceded . country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on ‘ taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit Slavery within them. But they did interfere e with it-take control of it-even there, to a certain 7 extent. In 1793, Congress organized the Territory of a Mississippi. In the act of organization they prohibited the bringing of Slaves into the Territory, from any place MR.

PRESIDENT AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF NEW-YORK: The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the gene ral use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation. In his speech, last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in “IThe New York Times,” Senator Douglas said: ‘ Our fa thers, w hen they framed the Government under which we live underst ood this question just as well, and even better than we do now.” I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and a n a greed s tarting point for a discussion between Republicans a nd tha t witg of Democracy headed by Senator Di,uglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: ” What was the understanding those fath ers ha d of the question mentioned?” What is t he frame of Government under which we ive? T nte answer must be: ” Th e Constitution of the United n trtesu” yThat Constitution consists of the original, ti,,,ed in i17S (and under which t he present Govern iaed first w ent into operation), and twelve subsequently f,’ illed anmendm-,ents, the first ten of which were framed Who were our fathers that fl’amed the Constitution? I suppose the ” thirty-nine” who signed the original inistrumenlt may be failly called our fathers who fra,ned that pa,t of the present Government. It is almost exac tly true to say they f saened it, an d it is altogether tr ue to s ay they fairly represented the opinion al sentiment of the whole nation at that time. Tlheir nsames, being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now~ be repeated. I take these ” thirty-nline,” for the present, as being “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live.” What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood just as well, and even better than we do nlow? It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Governmenit to control as to Slavery in our Federal Terr-iitories? Upon this, Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. Tif,is affirmative and denial form an issue; and th,s issue-this questionis precisely what the text declares our fathers understood better than we.

Let us now inquire whether the ” tihirty-nine,” or any of themll, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it-how they expressed that betteo: understanding. In ITS4-three years before the Constitution-the Un ited States then owning the Northwestern Territory a.1id no other the Congress of the Confederation had befo re them the question of prohibiting Slavery in that Te lito,y* and four of the “
thirty-nine,” who afterward f~‘a,,eid the Constitution were in that Congress, and vot. ed on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thiomnas Mlimin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the p ohibition  thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anytiing else, properly forbade the Federal Government to con trol as to slavery in Federal Territory. The other of the four - James McI-lenry-voted against the prohibition showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it. 144 a 4 6

Page 145 view page image

VIEWS OF “THE FATHERS” ON SLAVERY PROHIBITION. Without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom fr to slaves so brought. This act passed both branches of ts Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress a] were three of the “thirty-nine” who framed the original w Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Itead d and Abraham Baldwin. They all, probably, voted for ti it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition b to it upon record, if, in their understanding, any line m dividing local from federal authority, or anything in the n Constitution, properly forbade the Federal Government ti to control as to Slavery in federal territory. u In 1803, the Federal Government pu rchased the Louisi-p ana country. Our former territorial acquisitions camne s from certain of our own States; bit this Louisiana t country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804, Congress gave a Territorial organization to that part of t it which no w constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old aitd coiapars-E tively large city. There were other con siderable towns i and settlements, and Slavery was extensively and t thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did lI not, in the Territorial Act, prohibit Slavery, but they n did interfere with it take control of it-ill a m ore marked t and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi. ‘The substance of the provision therein made, in relation I to slaves, was: b iIrst. That no slave should be imported into the T er - ritory from foreign parts. Second. That no slave should be carried into it who t had been imported into the United States since the first b day of May, 1798. Third. That no slave shall be carried into it except by t the owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty i in all the cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave. l This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In 1 the Congress which passed it, there were two of the I ” thirty-nine.” They were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have ]

allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to o it, if, in their understanding, it violated either the line. prope r dividing local from federal authority or any provision of the Constitution. In 1819-2), came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two of the ” thirty-nine”-Rufus King and Clharles Pinckney-were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for Slavery prohibition and against all comnpromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted against Slavery prohibition and against all comproriises. By this Mr. King showed that, in his understandilg, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibiting Slavery in federal territory; while Mir. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that in his understanding there was sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case. The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the “thirty-nine,” or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover. To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, three in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-2-thlere would be thirtyone of them. But this would be counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read, each twice, and Abraham Baldwin four times. The true number of those of the “thirty-nine” whom I have shown to have acted upon the question, which, by the text they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any ‘way.

.Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our ” thirtyIiine” fathers who framed the Government under which We live, who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the velry question which the text affirms they ” understood just as well, and even better than we do now;” and twentyone of them-a clear majority of the whole “
thirty-nine “-so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety, and willful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to Slavery in the federal territories.

Thus the twentyone acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions under such responsibility speak still louder. Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of Slavery in the federal Territories in the in. ‘tances in which they acted upon the question. But for what reason they 80 voted is not known. They may have done 80 because they thought a proper division of local 10 rom federal authority, or some provision or principle of he Constitution, stood in the way; or they may, w ithout ny such question, have voted against the prohibition, on That appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expe liency. No one who h as sworn to support th e Constitu ion, can conscientiously vote for w hat he under st ands to ie a n un c onstitutional n easure, however exped ient he nay think it; but one may and o ugh t to vote a gainst a neasure wh i c h h e deems constitutional, if, a t the sapo e ime, he deems it ine xpedient. It, therefore, would be nsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition, as having done so because, in their under tanding, any p roper division of l ocal from federal au hority, or anything in the Co nstitution forbad e the Federal Government to control as to Slavery in fede ral ternitory. The remai n in g sixteen of the ” thirty-nine, ” so fa r a s I ave discovered, have left no reco rd of their understand ng upon the direct question of the contr ol of Slavery in t he federal territories. But the re is much re ason to be lieve that their understanding’upon that question would not have appeared different from that of the ir twenty thre e compeers, had it been manifested a t all. For the purpose of a dher in g r igidl y to the text, I have purposely oihitted whatever understanding may have been manifested, by any person, however distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omit ted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any of the ” thirty-nine” even, on any other phase of the general question of Slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slavetrade, and the morality and policy of Slavery generally, it would appear to us that on, the di rect question of federal control of Slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti slavery men of those times-as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris-while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina. The sum of the whole is, that of our ” th’rty-nine” fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty one-a clear majority of the whole-certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal authority nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control Slavery in the federal territories, while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question better than we. But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of Government under which we live consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that federal control of Slavery in federal territories vio lates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that ” no person shall be de prived of property without due process of law;” while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant them selves upon the tenth amendment, providing that ” the powers not granted by the Constitution, are reserved to the States respectively, and to the people.” Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed b: the first Congress which sat under the Constitution the identical Congress which passed the act already men tioned, enforcing the prohibition of Slavery in the north western Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were the identical, same individual men, who, at the same session, and at the same time within the ses sion, had under consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting Slavery in all the Territory the nation then, owned. The Constitutional amendments were introduced, before, and passed after the act enforcing the Ordinance, of‘87; -so that during the whole pendencyr of the act to enforce the ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also pending. That Congress, consisting in all of seventy-six members, including sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were preeminently our fathers who framed that part of the G~overnmrent under whlich we live,e which. is not claimled as forbidding the Federal IGovernment to control Sl5avery in the Federal Territories. 143

Page 146 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. It is not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to liceans.” In all your contentions with one another, each affi rm that the two things which that Congress deliber-of you deems an unconditional condemnation of “Black atel y fra med, andi carried to maturity at the same time, Republicanism” as the first thing to be attended to. Inare absolutely inconsistent with each other? And does deed such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensanot such affirmation become impudently absurd when ble prerequisite-license, so to speak, among you to be adcoupled with the other affirmation, from the samie moutht, nitted or permitted to speak at all. that those who did the two things alleged to be inconss-Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to tent understood whether they really were inconsistent consider whether tis is quite just to us, or even to yourbetter than we-better than he who affirms that they are selves? inconsistent? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then It is surely safe to assume that the “thirty-nine” be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. framers of tie original Constitution, and the seventy-six You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an members of the Congress which framed the amendments issue: and the burden of proof is upon you. You prothereto, takern together, do certainly include those who duce your proof; and what is it? Vhy, that our party mnay be fairly called “our fathers who framed the Gov-has no existence in your section-gets no votes in your ernment under which we live.” And so assuming, I section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we proper division of local from federal authority, or any should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Govern-this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? went to control as to Slavery in the federal territories. If you are, you will probably soon find that we have I go a step further. I defy any one to show that any ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your secliving man it the whole world ever did, prior to the be-tion this very year. You will then begin to discover, as ginning of the present century (and I might almost say the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the prior to the beginning ot the last half of the present cen-issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section is a tury) declare that, in his understanding, any proper fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be division of local from federal authority, or any part of fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and rethe Conistitution, forbade the Federal Government to mains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong control as to Slavery in the federal territories. To those principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong who now so declare, I give, not only ” our fathers who principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you framed the Goveriinment under which we live,”

but with to where you ought to have started-to a discussion of the them all other living men within the century in which it right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours able to findt the evidence of a single man agreeing with or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, thestu. are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as Now, and here, let me guard a little against being mis-such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our prinanderstood. I do not niean to say we are bound to follow ciple, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so, would be meet it as if it were possible that something may be said to discard all the lights of current experience-to reject on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No? Theo all progress-all improvement. What I do say is, that if you really believe that the principle which our fathers whe we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers framed the Government under which we live thought so in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and and argument so clear, that even their great authority, again, upon their olicial oaths, is, in fact, so clearly fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most wrong as to demand your condemnation without a mesurely not ili a case whereof we ourselves declare they ment’s consideration. understood the question better than we.

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning If any nman, at this day, sincerely believes that a against sectional parties given by Washington in his proper livisiono of local from federal authority, or any Farewell Address. Less thin eight years before Washpart of thle Constitution, forbids the Federal Government ington gave that warning he had, as President of the to control as to Slavery in the federal territories, he is United States, approved and signed an act of Congress enright t o sa y so, and to enforce his position by all truthful forcing the prohibition of Slavery in the northwestern Terrievidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no tory, which act embo died the policy of the Governiment right to mislead othlers, who have less access to history upon that subject, up to and at the very moment he and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that ” our penned that warning; and about one year after he penned fa,thers, who framed the Government under which we it he wrote Lafayette, that he considered that prohibition live,” were of the same opinion-tlthus substituting false-a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hood anti deception for truthful evidence and fair argu-hope that we should sometime have a confederacy of free meit. If any man at this slay sincerely believes “our States.

fathers, who framedi the Government under which we Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has live,” used and applied principles, in other cases, which since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a ough,t to have led them to understand that a proper weapon in your hands against us, or, in our hands, against division of local from federal authority or some part of the you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the Constitution, forbids the federal government to control blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, as to Slaver y in the Federal Territories, he is right to say or upon you, who repudiate it?

We respect that warning so. But he should, at the same time, brave the respoisi-of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with bility of declaring that, itn lis opinion, tie understands his example pointing to the right application of it. tiseir principles better than they did themselves; and But you say you are conservative-eminently onseraespecially shiould he not shirk that responsibility by astive-while we are revolutionary, destructive, or s ome setting that they “understood thie question just as well, thinus of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adaud even better, than we do nhow. ” herence to the old and tried, againstthe newanduntried? But enough. Let all who believe tthat ” our fathers, We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the who framed tie Goverunent under wticih we live, under-point in controversy which was adopted by our fathers stood the question just as well, and even better, tlan we who framed the Government under which we live; while (lo now,” speak as lhey spoke, and act as they acted upon you, with one accord, reject, and scout, and spit upon that i&. T his is 11

Republicans ask-all Republicans desire  old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. ilerelat,ion to Slavery. As those fathers marked it. so let True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that subit be again ma rked, Is an evil not to be extended, hut tt) be stitute shall be. You have consilerable variety of new tolerated and protected only because of atnd so far as its propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting actual presence anong us m akes that toleration anid pro-and denouncing the old l))olict of the fathers. Some of tectioi a necessity. Let all the guaranties those fathiers you are for reviving the forign slavetrade; some for a congave it, be not grudgingly, but fully and fairly, tiain-gressional slave-code for tie Teritories; sone for Contained. For this ttepublicatts contend, and with tlis, so gress forbidding the Territories to prolilit Slavery within far as I know or believe, they w I1 be content. their limits, some for mainLaininr ~lavery in the Territ And now, if they would listen, as I suppose they will ries through the judiciary, some for the” gut-reat pur-rinnot,:I would addre ss a few words to the southern peo-ciple” that “if one man would enslave another, no third pile. person should object,” fanithsticilly calle “

Popular So I would-say to them: You consider yourselves a reason-vereignty *” but never a mat among you il favor of fedve able and a just people; and I consider that in the general ral prohibition of Slavery in Feder.al Territories, according qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any to the practice of our fathers who framed the (osernment other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, under which we live. Not one of all y,)u’ vi,rious plans you do so onlylto denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, can show a precedent or an advocate in t’ - centtury withas no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to in which our Government ori[tinate-l.’.tnitider, then, pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to “Black Bepub-whether your claico of conFsorva-tias j’eer yourselves, anti 146 ir

Page 147 view page image

SLAVE INSURRECTIONS-DRED SCOTT. your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on ago, “it is still in our power to direct the process of eman the most clear acnd stable foundations. cipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow Again, you say we have made tieSlavery quiestion degrees as thattileevilwi ll wear off insensibly; and their more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We places be, pare passu,, filled up by free white laborers. admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human na made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the ture must shudder at the prospect held up.” Did policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that tie your innovation; and thence comes the greater promi-power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He nence of the question. Would you have that question re-spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, ducedt o its f ormer proportions? Go back to that old I speak of the slaveholding States only. policy. W\hat has been will be again, under the sanme The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the conditions.

If you would have the peace of the old power of restraining the extension of the institution-the times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times. power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur You charge that we s tir up insurrections among your on any American soil which is now free from Slavery. slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? liarper’s John Brown’s effort was peculiar. It was not a slave in Ferry! John Brow! Joh Brown was no Republican; surrection.‘t was an attempt by white men to get up a and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in revolt among slaves, in w hich the slaves refused to partici his Ilarpei’s Fery enterprise. If any imember of our pate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all party is guilty in that miatter, you know it, or you do not their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable to not That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with many at designate the man, and prove the fact. If you do inot tempts related in history, at the assassination of Kings and know it, you are inexcusable to assert it, and especially Emperors. Al enthusiast broods over the oppression of a to persist in the assertion after you have ti-ed and fail ed( people till he fancies hi mself commissioned by Heaven to to make the proof. Y,u need not be told that p)ersisting liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in in a charge which one does not know to be true, is sirn-little else than in his own execution. Orsini’s attempt cn ply a malicious slander. Louis Napoleon, and John Brown’s attempt at larper’s Some of you admit that no Republican designedly Ferry, were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The aided or encouraged the lIarper’s aercry attair; but still eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, insist that our doctrines and declaatios necessarily and on New England in the other, does not disprove the lead to such results. We do not believe it.

We know sameness of the two things. we hold to no doctrine, and ake no declarations, which And how uch would it avail you, if you could, by the were ot held to ad n made by our fathers who framed use of John Brown, Helper’s book, and the like, break up the Government under wlicl we live.

You never dealt the Republican organization? Human action can be mod fairly by us ill elation to this affair. When it occurred, ified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. some i otat tate elections were near at hand, and There is a judgment and a feeling against Slavery in this you were in evident glee with the belief tlg.t, by charg-nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. iug the blame upon us, you could get an advaitage of us You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling-that sen in those elect’us. The elections catle, tand your extiment-by breaking up the political organization which pectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican rallies around it. Y ou can scarcely scatter and disperse man knew that, as to hiself at least, your charge was a an army which has been formed into order in the face of slanidei, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his your heaviest fire, but if you could, how much would you vote in your favor. Republican doctrines and declara-gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the tions ar e accompanied with a continual protest against peaceful channel of the ballot box, into some other chan any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you nel? What would that other channelprobably be? Would about your slaves. Siurely, this does not encourage them the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by tilhe to revolt. True, we do, in common with out fathers, who operation? framed the Governnent under which we live, declare But you wil1treak up the Union rather than submit to a our belief that Slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not denial of your constitutional rights. hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right, it but for your misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. plainly written down in the Constitution. But we are pro In your political contests among yourselves, each fac-posing no such thing. tion charges the other with sympathy with Black Re-When you make these declarations, you have a specific publicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, and well-understood allusion to an assumed constitutional defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, right of yours, to take slaves into the federal territories, blood and thunder among the slaves. and to hold them there as property. But no such right is Slave insurrections are no more common now than specifically written in the Colstitution. That instrument they were before the Republican party was organized. is literally silent about any such right. We, on the con’What induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty-trary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Con eight years ago, in which, at least, three times as many stitution, even by implication. lives were lost as at Itarper’s Ferry? You can scarcely Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is, that you will stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to conSouthampton was got up by Black Republicanism. In strue and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all the present state of things in the United States, I do not points in dispute between you and us. You will rule orthink a general, or even a very extensive slave insurrec-ruin in all events. tion, is possible. The indispensable concert of action This, plainly stated, is your language to us. Perhaps cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed communication; nor can incendiary free men, black or Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. white, supply it. The explosive materials are every-But waiving the lawyer’s distinction between dictum and where in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be sup-decision, the Courts have decided the question for you plied, the indispensable connecting trains. in a sort of way The Courts have substantially said, it Much is said by Southern people about the affection of is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the9 slaves for their m asters and mistresses; and a part of it, federal territories, and to hold them th ere as plope’ty. at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, devi sed and communicated to twenty individuals before mean it was made in a divided Court by a bare majority some one of them, to sehe life of a favorite master or of the Judges, and they not quite ag reeing with one mnistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made slave-revolution in I-layti was not an exception to it, but a as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another case occurring under pecW-iar circumstances. The gunl-abou t its meaning, and that it wvas mainly based upon a powder plot of British hry, though not connected with mistaJken statement of fact the statement in the opinion powder plot of Brit~ih O~y, though emost ofnfacte wthco~no slaves, flas more in point. Int hatcase,only about twenty that “thle right of proper ty in a sl ave is distinctl and were admitted to the secret-and yet one of them, il his expressly affirmed in the C‘0nstitution.” anxiety to save a fiield, betrayed the plot to that friend An inspection of the Constitution will show that the and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional right of pioperty in a slave is not distinctly and expressly poisonintsofromthe kitchen, and open or stealthy assassi-affirmedinit. Bear in mindthe Judges do not pledge nations il the field, and local revolts extending to asore theio judicial opinion that such is right is impliedly afor so, will continue to occur as the natural results of Sla-firmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity very; but no general insurrection of slaves, as Ithink, can that it is distinctly and expressly affirmel there-” dishappen in this country for a long time. Whoever much tinctly,” that is, not mingled with anything else-” exfears, or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike dis-pressly,” that is, in words meaning just that, without the appointed. aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning. Ir the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years. If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that 147

Page 148 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the word “slave” nor “Slavery” is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word “property” even, in any connection with the language alluding to the things slave, or Slavery, and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a “person;” and wherever his master’s legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as “service or labor due,” as a “debt” payable in service or labor. Also, it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and Slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man. To show all this is easy and certain. When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their notice, it is not r easonable to expsect that they will withdraw the mistaken statemnent, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it? And then it is to be remembered that ” our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live”-ethe men who made the Constitution-decided this same Co nstitutional question in our favor, long ago-decided it without a division among themselves, when making the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts. Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government, unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican President. In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us? That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!” To be sure, what the robber demanded of me-my money-was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Un ion, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle. A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Cotifederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yi eld to them if, in our deliberate v ie w of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all the y say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them? Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionlally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territor ies alre scarcely mentioned.

Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation. The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must, somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them, from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them. These natural, and apparently adequate means all facil. ng, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call Slavery wrong, and join them in calling it higt. And this must be rone thioroughly-don e in acts as well,s in wordcs. Silence will not be tolerated-twe must pla e o u rselves avowedly w ith them.

Douglas’s new seditio n law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that Slave ry is wrong, whethe r ma de in politics, n r ee in presses, in p u lpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugiti ve slaves witl greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Fr ee State con stit utions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to Slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles pr ocee d fr om us. Im a quite awar e they do not state their case precise ly in this way. Most o f the m w ould probably say to us, “

Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you p lease about Slave ry.”

ut t we do let them alone-have never disturbed them-so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They w ill continue to a ccu se us of doing, until we cease saying. I am also aware they have not, as yet, in terms, demanded the ove rthrow of ou r FreS e State Co nstitutions. Yet those cons t i tutions declalre tihe wrong of Slavery, with more soleLnn emphasis, than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have beymen silenced, the overthrow of these constitutions will be demanded, and nothingi be l e ft to resis t the demand. It is nothing too t e a g ono de n the contray, t hat they do no t dem and the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, asld for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhe re short of this consummation.

Holding, as they do, tha t Slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recogni tion of it, as a legal r ight, and a social blessing. Nor can we justifiably withhold this, on any grou nd save our conviction that Sl avery i s twrong. If Slavery is right, all words, a cts, laws, and constit utions against it, are themse lves wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away. If it is Xright, we cannot justly object to its nation ality-its uni versality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension-its enlargement.

All they ask, we could readily gr ant, if we thought Slavery right; all we ask, they could a s readily grant, if the y t hought it wrong. Their thinking it rigtit, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not t( blame for desiring its full recognition, as being righit; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with tlheir view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political respon, sibilities, can we do this? Wrong as we think Slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right anti the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man-such as a policy of,” don’t care” ol a question about which all true men do care-such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repent ance-such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washing ton did. Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Covernment, nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, ti’he end, dale to do our duty, as we understand it.

lis

Page 149 view page image

DRED SCOTT-MISSOURI COMPROMISE. MR. BRECKINRIDGE ON NATIONAL POLITICS.

SPEECIH AT FRANKFORT, KY. pealed, and we passed the act known as the KansasNebraska bill. The Abolition, or qaa8i Abolition party of the United States were constantly contending that it was the right of Congress to prohibit Slavery in the common Territories of the Union. The Democratic party, aided by most of the gentlemen from the South, took the opposite view of the case. Our object was, if possible, to withdraw that question from the Halls of Congress, and place it where it could no longer risk the public welfare and the public interest. In the Congress of the United States it had been agitated all the time, to the disadvantage of the South; accordingly (I have not a copy of the bill before me now, but I remember its leading provisions), a bill was passed, repealing the Missouri line, ard leaving those Territories upon t h e contract a nd the a ssertion that the bill made. Did w e intend by it to l egislate Slavery into Kansas and Nebraska? We den ied th at, and denied it upo n the face of the bill itself. The settlement thus made, afterward received the approval of the people of the who le coun try. The bill said within itself, not that we intend to legislate Slavery into the Territories, but to leave the people free to form thei r own d omes t ic institutions, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. That w as as much as we could agree upon. There was a point u po n w hich we could not agree. A considerable portion of the Northern De mocracy held that Slavery was in derogation of common right, and could on ly exist by force of positi ve law. They contended thatthe Constitutiondid notfurnish that law, and that the slaveholder could not go in to the Territo r ies wi th his’slaves with the Constitution to authorize him in holding his slaves as pr operty, or to prote ct hi m. The South, generally, woithout distinction of party, he ld the opposite view. They he l d th at t he citizens of all tihe States may go with whatever wa s recognized by th e Constitution as property, and enjoy it. That did not seem to be denied to any articl e of proper ty except slaves. Accordingly, the bill contained the provision, that any ques - tio n in re feren ce to Slavery s houl d be referred to the court of the United States, and the understanding was, th at whatever the judicial decision shoul d be, it w ould be binding upon all parties, not only by virtue of the agreement, b u t under the obligation of the citizens to respect the auth or - ity of the legally cons tituted cour ts o f the country. WHAT TIE SAID IN 1856. It was under these circumstances, while the Territory of Kansas was in a state of co mmotion, and when that question had not been determined by the courts, that the canvass of 1856
came on. It be came my duty, by the request of my friends, to visit th e Sta tes o f Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania. In all those State s I made speeches. In all those States I uttere d the same opinions and declared the same principles that I have ever done in the commonwealth of Kentucky, and am ready to do again. None other! It has been charged that the Democratic party of the country, and particularly of the South, desired to employ the Federal Government for the purpose of propagating Slavery and slave legislation in the Terfitmies. I denied that the Democratic party desired to use the Federal Government for the propagation of Slavery, and I never conceded what we believed to be our constitutional right to its protection, and what the decision of the Supreme Court has allowed to be our right, I said-yes! I did say that the Democratic party of this country, in its federal aspect, was neither a ProSlavery nor an Anti-Slavery party, but a constitutional party, and I repeat it here to-night. (Ap plause.) I do not believe it is. I do not believe that the Federal Government was organized for either purpose, but to protect the rights adjudicated by the courts. All these belong to the States themselves. These were the declarations that I made, of which some thing has been heard in all the States. I made.t THE HON. JOHN C. BRECKINRIDGE
delivered the following speech on the general political topics of the day before the Legislature of Kenltucky at Frankfort in Dec. 1859. M1r.

Breckinridge had been recently elected to the United States Sellate, by the Kentucky Legislature; and after returning his thanks for the distinguished honor, and promising to serve the State to the best of his ability, he continued as follows: The election took place on Monday. The day before I received a letter signed by a number of gentlemen in the Legislature, asking my opinion in reference to the DRES) SCOTT decision, in reference to Territorial Sovereignty, and the power of Congress to protect the property of citizens within the Territories. I received that letter with profound respect, and only regret it did not come to my hands in time, that I might answer it before the election. But yet I am glad that I could not answer it before that day, for your choice is a sort of indorsement of my soundness upon those questions. I confess I was somewhat gratified that the election took place before I had those questions to answer. It was utterly impossible for me to have returned an answer before the time fixed by your law for the election, but, I never intended t o fail in this answ er. I never sho uld have failed. Had it been one who signed it, instead of twenty, the result would have been precisely the same. Besides this, it would have been of but little consequence, be the answer before or after. I belong to that school of politics that believes in instruction, and whenever I am not ready to receive the instructions of the State, I stand ready to give back the trust confided in my hands. THE

DRED SCOTT DECISION. Gentlemen, I bow to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon every question within its proper jurisdiction, whether it corresponds with my private opinion or not; only, I bow a trifle lower when it happens to do so, as the decision in the Dred Scott case does. I approve it in all its parts as a sound exposition of the law and constitutional rights of the States, and citizens that inhabit them.

(Applause.) It may not be improper for me here to add that so great an interest did 1 take in that decision, and in its principles being sustained and understood in the commonwealth of Kentucky, that I took the trouble, at my own cost, to pr nt or have printed a large edition of that decision to scatter it over the State, and unless the mails have miscarried, there is scarcely a member elected to the Legislature who has not received a copy with my frank. To approve the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case would seem to settle the whole question of Territorial Sov ereignty, as I think will presently appear; but, in order that no one may misunderstand my views on that question, I will, with your leave, detain you with a brief review of what was done as to the Slavery question up to the time of that decision, referring also to the duties imposed by it. TIlE MISSOURI LINE. I was in the Congress of the United States when that Missouri line was repealed. I never would have voted for any bill organizing the Territory of Kansas as long as that odious stigma upon our institutions remained upon the statute-book. I voted cheerfully for its repeal, and in doi ng that I ca st no reflectio n upon the wise patriots who acquiesced in it at the time it wa; established. It was re 149 . 0 0

Page 150 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. “And whatever the political department of the Government shall recognize as within the limits of the United States, the Judicial Departme.it is also bound to recognize, and to administer in it the laws of the United States, so far as they apply, and to maintain in the territory the authority and rights of the Government, and also the political right and rights of property of individual citizens s ssecured by the Constitution. All we mean t o say on this po int is, that as the re is no epress regullatio i the Constitution defiing the power which the s ener a i h tle Government ma exercise over the pers o n or property of a citizen in a territory thus acluired, the Court must neessarily look to the provisions and principle,s of the Constitutioid ad its distribulion of powers, for’ the rules and principles by which its decision must be governed.” So that in regard to slave property, as in regal d to any other propertv recognized and guarded by the Constitution, it is the duty, accorling, to the Supreme Court, of all the Courts of the couintry to protect and guard it by their decision, whenever the question is brought before them. ‘o which I will only add this, that the judicial decisions in our favor must be maintainedl-these judicial decisions in our fLvor must be sustained. (Applause.) declarations that I am willing to make before my own constituents; I made the declarations that I am willing to stand here and repeat. (Applause.) We had confideice in our own view of our own rights. Our northern friends had their views. It was a paradoxical question, and we gave it to the Courts. Well, the Courts did decide the very question, which had been submitted to them, not upon a case from Kansas, but in another case. Without going into the argumeDt, for ti me does not permit of that, let me give you the conclusion. In the opinion of the Court in the cas e of Died Scott, it is said: ” Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the Court tlhat the eact of Congress which prohibits a citizen from holding antd owning property of this kind in the Territory of the Un ited States, north of the line herein mentioned. is not warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; aLd that either Drel Scott himself nor ally of his family were made f-ee by being carried into this Territory, even if they had been carried there by the owner, with the intention of becomtng a permanent resident.” SLAVE

CODE. If presenit remedies are adequate to sustain these de. cisions, Iwould have nothing more done I, w ith many other public msen in th e cou nt ry, bel ieve they are able If tey are not-if the y can not be e n for ced for want of the p roper legisl ation t o e nforce thaeI, sufficient legislation must be passed, or our Government is a failure. (Applause.) Gentleme n, I see n o escape from that conclusion. At the same time, fellow-citizetu s, I make no hesitation in saying to you that I trust the time will neve r comeI trust tile time wi ll nev er c ome when it may b e d eemed necessary for the Congress of the Unite d States in any form to interfere with this question in the Territories. So far it has been only productive of evil to us, and it would portend only evil in the future. At present there is no question bef ore Cong ress. N o S outhern Representa tive or Senato r proposes legislation on that poi nt-no complaint comes from any territory-there is no evidence that t he existing laws and decisions of the Courts re not adequate to protect every description of property ecognized by the several States. None whatever. Therefore, in my otieviont, and I submit it itumbl y and with deference, our true policy is not to an ticipate trouble, but to le t t he matter rest upo n the Executi ve, u pon th e existing laws, and upon the decision s of the C ourts.

(Applause.) I will add this: we must never give up tile principle, we must never give up the question that has been judiciousl y decided, that this constitutional right exists. We must stand by th at decision. We ust hold to our constituti onal rights, but I would never prematurely raise the question to distract the country, when there is no voice calling for it, North, East, South or West. (Applause.) I say we must hold to the principle -we must stand byit. We stand in a good position. We have the Executive, we have the laws, we hlave the decisions of the Courts, and that is a great advance fi’om where we stood ten years ago. I am glad-although we did not succeed as we desired in Kansas-I am glad that the territorial question is nearly fought out. It is nearly foughlt out. I know of no existing Territory where this question can arise. As to the territory soutih of the line, where slave labor is really profitable, I have not a doubt but that the climate and interest, and the proximity of slavehohllers, and the Constitution and law,, and the decision of the Court, will sustain and protect us there in the full enjroyment of our rights, and in making Soutlhern ternitory out of Southern soil. While I would not give up the principle, I never have believed, and I do not believe now, in the possibility of Slavery plan.tinig itself in a territory against the determined opposition of the inhabitants, any more than I believe the institution of Slavery could continue in existence in Kentucky fox three years against the desire of thle voters of the Commonwealth, even with the constitution,al restictions that are here tihrown around it. Still, I would save the question and the principle, and never let go the constitut,ional right, because our protection in the Union consists ill a stiict adherence to the provisions of tie Constitution. WVile we allow an infraction of the Constitution on any one point, we lose our claim to the observance of the vhole. We should insist to the last that the Constitutioni of the country shall be sustained in every particular. (A voice-” Good.”) “The powers over person and property of which we speak, are not only inot granted to Congress, but are in express terms denieu, and they are forbidden to exercise them. And this prohibition is not confined to the States, but the words are general and extend to the whole territory over which the Constitution gives it power to legislate, including those portions of it remaining under Territorial government, as well as tlat overed by States. t is a total absence of power everywhere within the dominion of the United States, and places the citizen of a Territory, so far as those rights are concerned ott the same footing with citizens of the States, and guards them as firmly and plainly against any inroads which the General Government might attempt, under the plea of implied or incidental power. And if Congress itself cannot do thisif it is beyond the powers conferred on the Federal Governmei.t-i t w il l b e a dmitted, we presume, that it could not authorize a Territorial government to exercise them. It could confer no power on any local government, established hy its authority, to violate the provsions of the Constitution.” Thus the highest court in the United States settled the very question referred to it as the disputed point, not legislative in its character, on which Congress could not agree wlhen the KansasNebraska bill passed. The view that we in the Southern States took of it was sustained, that in the Territories, the common property of the Union, pending their Territorial condition, Congress itself nor the Territorial Government had the power to confiscate any description of property recognized in the States of the Union. The Court drew no distinction between slaves and other property. It is true some foreign philanthropists and some foreign writers do undertake to draw this distinction, but these distinctions have nothing to do with our system of Government. Our Government rests not upon the speculations of philanthropic writers, but upon the plain understanding of a written constitution which determines it, and upon that alone. It is the result of positive law; therefore we are not to look to the analogy of the supposed law of nations, but to regard the Constitution itself, which is the written expression of the respective powers of the Government and the rights of the States.

UNFRIENDLY LEGISLATION. Well, that being the case, and it having been authoritatively determined by the very tribunal to which it was referred that Congress had no power to exclude slave property from the Territory, and judiciously determined that the Territorial Legislatures, authorities created by Congress, had not the power to exclude or confiscate slave property, I confess that I had not anticipated tlsait the doctrines of unfriendly legislation would be set up. Hence, I need not say to you that I do not believe in the doctrine of unfriendly legislation; that I do not believ e in the autllhority of Territorial Legislatures to do by indier-c tion what they cannot do directly. I repose upon the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, a s to the point that neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature ha s the right to obstruct or confiscate the p roperty of any citizen, slaves included, pending the territorial condition. (Applause.) I do not see any escape from that decision, if you admit that the question was a judicial one; if you admit the decision of the Supreme Court, and if you stand by the decision of the highest Court of the country. The Supreme Court seems to have recognized it as the duty-as the duty of the Courts of this Union in their proper sphere to execute this constitutional right, thus adjudicated by the Supreme Court, in the following language. In speaking of the acquisition of territory, they pronounce it a political question for Congress to determrline what territory they acquire and how many. Now mark the words of the Court: TtIE

PERIL OF THII COUNTRY. . Fellow-citizenis, if youi will allow me, I will offer you some observ ations upon another aspect of public affairs. We have been talklting of thinlgs that concern us no more than they cioncern others, but we have questions to deter. maitte that cotme nearer hosue-questions that come to our I 150 Again:

Page 151 view page image

BRECKINRIDGE O7 REPUBLICANISII. ftresi(ldes. Accordilg to ny huimible judgmnent, the c on-In h dition of our country was never so perilous as it is at sy this hour; an if things go drifting on as they have of h late, we shall have to determine questions of far nearer cn vitality t hea. the territorial question. I hope I do inot speak in the spirit of an alarmist or a Y demagogue, butt since I have been acquainted with public p affairs (aln tieti older and wiser than myself say the tl samte thing) there never was a time when the interests of of this Un ioni were il so nmuch peril, and when the feelings of e our peopie ee so nmuch alienated as at this hour. Ci,-t,atinly if tie taspect of affairs at Washington is in the S
s;lightest deg ree indicative of the feeling elsewhere, that c retlark is truth. ITS CAUSF,. a p Fellow-citizens, the danger arises, in the opinion of io our wisest ar,d best len, from the character and purpose t ansl aiti of an organrization in the country catlled tle Re-Ih publican pa rtyn. f I do not tling we fully realize what are the objects, t purposes an I aim,s of thie Republican party, what it il intends, and wiat would be the consequences to us of o their success and dominion in the United States.

If you n will allow me, therefore, I have gathered together thi ee b or four facts-it ere expressions-mere illstrations or t exasiples, f,r,i many thousands of kindrled ch aracters, fir thie lput pose of showing what its oljets are-to show wlat we imitay expect to follow their success. t HILS

VIEWVS OF REPUBLICANIS-f. t! First is their platform, made three years ago, but v leyonnl whichi they have ftsr advanced. l,ike ill aggressive organliz stions, the rear rank of the Republican ie party tta,-ches iup atnd comes upon the ground that the c advanced guard occupied itontltis before, while the advanced guard is going ahead. Thle itepulblicans are far in advance of their platform, but we have there enough to put us on our gulrl. a r. What are our rights? t ave e no t a righ t to have ourn fugitives return eed? If thele is a, plainer provision than a that in the instrumaent, what is it? laave we not a right to live in peace in this Utiont? Wi-hat was the Constitui tion formed for? Whe n the Constitution was made, was it not made by brethren? Was it not niade that this l political organization sh ould b e c arrie d oin in peace and harmony?

ihave we not a right to demand of our sister f States, that we may live together in peace with our respective State institutions, with our whole domestic policy? And is it not a gross violation of the Con s t itution not to allow us to live in peace, as to refuse to return our fugitives from labor that have escaped into o the r States? Do they intend to do it?

No, they do not. They begin by declaring the Declaration of Independence is a rule of our political action. Here is the declaration of the Republican platform, adopted three years ago, beyond which they have now far advanced: “Resolved, That with our Republican fathers we held it to be a self-evident truth that 11 llmen are endo wed with the inalienable riglt of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our oiederal Government were to scure these righlts to all persons tinder Its exclusive jurisdiction; that as or Itepublican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery il all our national terror’I ordained that no person should be deprived of life, liberty and property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitttion against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establislling slavery in the Terortories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting ice existence or extension thereinl. Thiis is a po sitive pledge, that as soon as that party obtains power, it will recognize the equality of the negro withthewhiteman. Its object will be to give him those rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To maintain that equality what follows? Everybody knows that when they obtain the power in the District of Columbia, they will abolish Slaveoy there; when they obtain the power, they will undertake to abolish it in the forts, arsenals, and dockyards of the United Stat es throughout the South; they will undertake to abolish the internal slavetrade. Already they declare that not another Slave State shall be admitted into the Union, and they will go beyond that. How can we expect to live in peace and harmonyi when declarations of this sort are uttered: ” Resolvsed, Thlat t he Constitltfon confers upon Congress sovereign power over the Territories of the United States for tlleir governmrrent, and that, ill the exercise of this power, it is both the rightl and tihe imperative duty of CDongress, to prohibit ill the Territories those twinl relics of barbarism polygamy and Slavery.“7 Is that in the spirit of our revolutionary ancestors et Is it in the spirit of our revolutionary ancestors for a great and greoring palty, that now claims, and perhaps ave, dominance in the Northern States of the Union, t4 a y o f an institution of their Southern relatives they as e arbot ing a relic of barbasism? That sh ows you, fellow itizeiis, their indomitable purpose, their deer-seated ate. I am sorry that it exists, but it is true How can ou expect a great po litical organization that obtains ower, to fai to o exercise that power when in its opinion his Union is stained or defiled as to onehalf,,p ehaps, f its inhabitants, by a relic of barbarism, whlich i t class s with. the crime of polygamy. SEWARD QUOTPD. This is not all. I could have bTn OUgllt here the declar tions of its representat ive and leadlin g b e farom all a rt s of the Nont t ern States, going infsicitiely fulrther than s contained there. Allow iae, however, to read one or woo he ot t the oson of the most stikig fro the most eminent of their eaders. I b eg you, fellow-citizen s, t hough they m ay be familiar, not to weary with a few extracts, for these ut eraprces ar e the r allying cr y of rcilliors of men. I hold n my hand a speech d elivered by a Senator of the State of NewYork, who i s to-day the most influential public man in this Union, on whose words naillions h a ng, and by whose direction millions move. Is this the Constitu ion and Union that our father s f ounded? Last year, in a speech delivered at Rochester, that gentleman uttered the following language: ” Our country is a theatre which exhibits, il full operation, wo rIldically differen,t political systemns; the one re sting on he basis of servile or slfo tav e labor, the her on the basis of voluntary labor of freemen. ” The two systems are at once perceived to be incongruous. But they are more than incongruous. They are incempat hlc. Tliey never have permanently existed toget her in one oountry, and they never can. ” Ilitherto the two systems have existed in different States, but side by side within the American Union. This has hap pened because the Union is a confederation of States. But on another aspect the United States constitute only one nation. Increase of population which is fillinig the States out to their very borders, together with a new and extended net-work of railroads and other avenues, and an internal commerce which daily becomes more intimate, is rapidly bringing the States into a higher and more perffect social unity or consolidation. Thus these antagonistic systems are consnmtionally coming into close contact and collision results.” Yes, “collision ensues,” and his prophecy was ful filled in less than twelve months after it was made.

” Shall I tell you what this collision means? It is an irre pressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces; and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina, and the sugar plantations of Louisiana will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New-Orleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone; or else the rye-fields and awheat-fields of’!,assachusetts and NewYork must again be surrendered by their farmers to slave culture, and to the pro duction of slaves, and Boston and NewYork become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men. It is the failure to apprehend this great truth that induces so many unsuccessful attempts at final compromise between the Slave and Free States, and it is the existence of this great fact that renders all such pretended compromises, when made, vain and ephemeral.” These things would have no consequence if they were the individual opinions of their authoir, but they are the opinions of a large and formidable and growing party in this Union; of a party that now claims a majority in the House of Representatives, and which looks, at ieo very distant day, tt have a majority in the Senate. I ask you if that waS,the Union formed by our fathers? Did they anticipate Iuch a political party would a,-ise to de clare that there “is an irrepressible conflict between op posing and enduring forces ” in the United States? It is not my purpose to characterize oc stigmatize this doctrine now, but to set forth what we are to expect and what we are to meet. At a later period, in the Senate of the United States, that same distinguished Senator uttered tale following language, (I well remember the occasion and the speech:) “A free Republican Government like this, notwithstanding all its constituitional checks, cannot long resist and coualerac~ lhe progress of society. “: ‘They don’t expect the provisions of the Constitution and its checks to prevent them from taking their onward iprogress Inldeed, they have a facility of construing [that instrument, which makes it as dust in the balance. They construe it to authorize them not to return fugitive /slaves;* to authorize them to make a war upon one half of the nation.

There is no provision of the Constitution [which has stood in their wvay as to any right of ours that we have claimed upon this g~‘eat question.

Not iIonly did hoe announce in the Senlate of the United Statedj 151

Page 152 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. that constitutional checks cannot stand for any time against the progress of Northern opinion, but, “Free labor,”

says Mr. Seward, ” has at last apprehended its rights andi iS destiny, and is organizing itself to assume the goverm, ent O tile Repunlic. it will henetorbth meet you bolidly andi resolutely here (tashingtonl;) it will meet you everywhere, in the Terrilories a nd out of them, wherever you may go to extend Slavery. It has driven you back in California a,d in Kansas; it will invade you soon in D)elaware, Maryland, Virginia, Missouri and Texas. It will meet you in Arizona, i etral America, and even in Culba.1”

Not content with confining it to the Territories, he adds: “You may, indeed, get a start under or near the tropics. and seem safe for a time, but it will be only a short time, Even there you will found States only for free labor to maintain and occupy. The interest of the white race demands the ultimate emancipation of all hen. Whether that consummation shall be allowed to take effect, with needful and wise precautions against sudden change and disaster, or be hurried on by violence, is all that remains for you to decide. T he white i-n needs this continent to labor upon. H is i head is clear, his arm is strong, and hi ecs necessaries are fixed. It is for yourselves.ad to t for is to decide how long and through what further mortiiications and disasters the contest shall be protracted, before f’eedom shall enjoy her already assured triumph! You may refuse to yield it now, and for a short period, but your refusal will only animate the f riends of freedom with the courage and the resolution, and produce the union among them, which alone are necessary on their part, to attain the piosition itself, simultaneously with the impending overiLo w of the exi lg, Federal Adinistration, and thel ,)os,;tmiuio. of a new and more independentCongress,”-and th iy think they have that Congress. I tell you again, fellow-citizens, this is not the opinion of AMr. St:WARD alone. It is Mr. SEWARD and, with one or two exceptions, the other Republican Senators in the Senate of the United States, and nine-tenths of the Republican members of the House of Representatives. Could that language have been uttered with impunity or been sustaiied at the epoch of 17T9, when the Constitut.on was formied? LDid not the Constitution languish and sop aust because there was some question about inserting these checks about the institution of the Southern States? WVere they not put into the Constitution by the gteat mnen who foruned it, and are not all the citizens of all the States bound to respect the relations that exist between them, and to give tihe Southern States peace in this Union? Ilow do you receive the declaration that there is an irrepressible conflict waging-that there shall be no peace? There is no use attempting to turf over the voicano, there is no use crying peace when there is no peace. It is the avowed purpose of the Republican party to agitate, agitate; to overturn the Coinstitution itself, until they succeed not only in drawing a c ordons al ounid ou, and shutting you within your present limits, but to puit you in a position where you were about, f or peace sake, to emancipate your slaves. Well might we say, as was once said in France, “Oh, Constitution! what crimes are committed in tihy sacred name!” crops of cotton, and a trifle over, to do it. That was indorsed, I tell you again, by sixty-eight or sixty-nine members of the House of Representatives, and the very gentleman wh o they are runn,i ng for Speaker of that body indorsed it. It is true, his friends say that he indorsed it without having read it. Admi t th at to be true, he has again and again when called upon, refused to disavow tho se se ntiments, he nce the e xc u se is paltry. HARPER’S FERRY. Tha t is the condition of affairs, and that is the conditio n o f the Republican o rganization of this country, i f any relance is to be pla ced in thei r re cord, i n their d ec la rations, in their public attitude, in the attitude which they defia n tly as sume before the country. Their purpose is to make war, eterna l w ar, u pon t he institutions of one half of the States of the Union. Gradually we appoa c h the crisis until at last is not the legitimate resulet of the irrepressible conflict of which they speak, of the crime of which they say we are guilty, to p u t down these relics of barbarism? The ignorant and fanatical throw off the obligations of the Con stitution and invade by violence the Southern States of the Union, and although I am far from holding the Republican par ty o f the No-,l h, or any l arg e portion of them responsibl e f or the late atroc ious pro ceed ising s in Virginia, I do say that that proceeding was the carrying out of the logical result of their teachings-carrying it into execution. How did they receive it? Why gentlemen, the conservative portion of the North abhors it; but, in the Senate and House, in the great body of their public press, what do they say of it? That they regret it-they deplore it-they even condemn it-they say, because it was against law, and they stand for law. These are the honeyed and qualified phrases with which they characterize the most atrocious act of treason, rapine, and murder combined, that vas ever known in the Republic, and then, as though afraid of what they have said, they immediately go on to eulogize the man and his motives, much as they regret the act. A VOLLEY OF COMPLA!NINGS. Gentlemen, have we no complaints in other respects? Are laws passed for the purpose of punishing those who make inroads into the border States and lob us of our property? Suppose a Kentuckian should go into the State of Ohio and rob a citizen of that State, does any one doubt that we would pass a law to punish him and to prevent the recurrence of the outrage? So far from this being their course, they are encouraged, and we are subject to constant secret predatory incursions by which we lose annually hundreds of thousands of dollars, these people availing themselves of the bond of amity between us, to perpetrate the outrage. That is not all! About one half of the Northern States have passed laws and made it a criminal and penal offence for their citizens to give any assistance in the rendition of fugitive slaves. Massachusetts has passed lawsclositng her jailsto us, and naking it a penal offence to aid in the enlforcemenlt of the Fugitive Slave law, or to appear as council to try such a case, thus nullifying the laws of Congress, and of the United States, distinctly, and some seven or eight States have passed similar laws refusing all remedy and making it penal in their citizens to obey the behests of the Constitution. I have not uttered these things for the purpose of arousing any spirit of disloyalty to the Constitution and the Union. I hope I love them as reverently as any man within the sound of my voice, but let us look and see the facts as they are. What may be set down as the unquestioned purpose of this organization? It is avowed that it is to exclude all and any slave States from the Union hereafter. It is to give us no fugitive slave law, declaring that the States under the Constitution must provide for that, and then to give no remedy in the States; it is to pass no laws for the putpose of preventing the robbery of our property but, on thle contrary, in many Slates to make it penal to enforce the law,; it is to abolish Slavery in the District of Colum.bi,a; to abolish the internal slavetrade and the coastwise slavetrade, and then to agitate and agitate, giving us no peace as long as we retain~ this’ relic of b~arbarism ” and crime, as they call it. This is the purpose. Are you ready for it? Alre you ready to say we will make no stand in any form fo,’ your Constitutional rights? I think you are not! Yet that is vtle present condition of caifars-but what are we to do? PRACTICAL REMEDIEgS. I know they will consider the consequences, and carefully consider the c~onsequenc;es of any seriou~ collisions HELPER’S CRISIS. v But, gentlemen, I hold in my hand another book, which is of no consequence as the opinions of its individual author, but is of consequence as lindorse(l by the i distinguished gentleman from whose productions I have read, and as lindorsed also by sixty-eight or nine Republicans of the House of Representatives, who r epresent a constituency of seven inillions of people. ithis, then, may be considered as the declar a tion of near seven millions of men. What is it? It is a bo ok called the “Impending Crisis of the South,” by a person called Helpe-, who professes to be a North Carohnian. Vhethe r he is or not I amn unable to say. (I will read very litt le, gentlemen.) In this book, thus indorsed by neatrly seventy members of the House of Representatives, representing nearly seven millions of the people, this sentiment is declared: The slaveholding oligarchy say we cannot abolish Slavery without infringing on the right of property. Again we tell them we do not recognize property in men. But the Constitution does; the bond of our Union does, and the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that it does. Our fathers so considered it.

It has been so admitted all the time, until the apostles of the new doctrine spoke. At another point hlie says: For the services of the blacks from the 20th of August, 1620, up to the 4th of July, 1869-an interval of precisely two hundred and forty-eight years, ten months and fourteen days-their masters, if unwilling, ought, in our judgment, to be compelled to grant them their f, eedom, and to pay each and every one of them at least sixty dollars cash in hand. HIe goes on to remark that it would only take two .1I 152

Page 153 view page image

THE PERIL AND THE REMEDY. 153 in this IUn on. I know we duly appreciate the position the circumstances then? Andrew Jackson was President of our own State, not only a border State, but an in-of the United States, and he was a native of South Carotenior border State having no ocean outlet. I know that lina; the question was a mere question of policy; few of we have read history to some purpose, and that we have the other States sympathized with the movement of that seen what have been the consequences of the disruption little State. Henry Clay was alive, and Calhoun was ready of amicable relations between those who have banded to give the benefit of his influence to peace and armony themselves together as a confederation of States. We and yet that little question, when Jackson, a native son o? need but go back and see the consequence upon the that State, was President, and Clay and Calhoun were in Greeks w ien they carried on the Peloponnesian war, the Senate, brought on a struggle that shook this Union to until at last exhausted, they fell into the lap of des-its centre, ant imperilled it in the esti mati on of the wisest potism The same fate might meet us. What would be and best o;m6n. Look at itasitmaybe,witlih disaffection. our con dition? War! War! Inevitable war, in all spread a”Over the South, with a very different state o f lihumlan p.obability, would be our position, and then in feelings stthe North to what existed then, with Clay dead iimie we might be driven into degrading alliances with and Calhoun deal, and none to take their places, with fo eigii pow0ers-the most degrading position for Ameri-such a man as Seward, not only not native, but hostle to cz5l citizelis. the South, in the Chair of State. Cannot a child read the Thls the spectacle would be presented of America fall-result? Cannot we see that one State falling away, our ing back under the control of Europe, and American lib-Union will be like an arch with two or three stones dropped erty sinking down under European despotism. Besides out, the whole fabric may fall in pieces. tiisi, could we ever hope that a fairer state of things would These are facts which it becomes the people of Kenarise? Could we ever hope that Providence itself would tucky, with all their loyalty to the Union, to observe, to ever exercise its omnipotent power to create a State, or know, to see, to think of, and then to act upon, with the Union of States, under more favorable auspices than in dignity and moderation which marks anid so well becomes these? Would it not be worse than impiety itself, to pre-them. sume that the Almighty would ever attempt to sustain a But, gentlemen, what is the mode that occurs to any man confederation of Free States under circumstances more -because no man, I take it, in Kentucky, will back onI bright or favorable than in our system? I know that the this subject, except as a friend of the Union of thle States State of Kentucky is devoted to the Union, not only be- -what is the mode? 1 see none, except it be the union cause of her interests, but from that feeling of affection of all the conservative elements of the country, North and and of loyalty, and that sentiment of love that have South. The South must first be united, a nd I am sure she always marked her people from the earliest period of her will, for I take it there is not a citizen of Kentucky that lhistory. I do not believe there is a man under the sound would associate himself with an organization whose march of my voice who would not view as the last, the greatest to triumph would be over the ruins of our rigihts.

of all evls, the wreck of the Union I do not believe there is the mai in the State that would compete to enjoy MEND OUR MANNERS DOWN SOUTII. the highest honsors within the State, purchased at such a Oiught we not first to put ourselves righlt in Court? price. Some little there is to coumplain of us. 1 say to you, in WIICA IS TO BE DON’E. my opinion, those who appeal to the Constitution and the laws should obey the Constitution and the laws. I At the same time steps must be taken, something must would have the South, if I might ventu e, as one of her be doe. I do not believe that if the Constitution is al-humblest but truest son,s, to advise her to obey the laws lowd to remain permanently violated in its important pro-of our country. (Applause.) I would have te South visions, we can have hope under it. None whatever! first obey the laws of the Union which pIoli1bit the forlro:ei in one particular, itwillso on fall to pieces in all eigil slavetrade. (Applause.) That is the law of the I recollect when I was a boy, to have read that great land. It rests not with us to complain of the violation speech of I)emosthenes, for the crown, whlere the real of law by others, when in a portion of our S ates the citiquestion at issue was the charge that he was the author zeins violate the laws themselves. Let us f,own down of thle public misfortunes, because he had advised the any attempt to violate those laws upon the part of our Greeks to make a last stand for their country, against States. Let us do more. Let us do looe, by preventing Philip of lIacedon. He was arraigned, and on trial anid the fitting out of filibustering expeditions upon our in his great defence, he says “I What, though we did fail? shores, to invade feeble sister countries. Tiat is the law, We did our duty. We responded in the temper and char-and we live by the Constitution and the law, and let us acter of our forefathers.” The result is such as God gives obey it, and whatever expansion of territory we make to each; and even those degenerate Greeks acquitted let us make it in a manner becoming tlhe dignity of this him, and crowned the worll’s great orator as a benefac-glorious Confederacy under our own flag. Then let us tor; debased as they were in national character, they did call to our aid the pure elements o f conse rvatism and tis, and from that day have never kn own or read of the truth that we can find in the northern States. What are success of him who would be deterred from the assertion they? I did not intend to introduce any party question of fundamental rights for fear of offence. to-niight, but the largest organization I see is the )emo Gentlemen, the condition of affairs existing here, and cratic Prty of the North. As a historical fact, it is unexisting generally, I anm happy to say, throughout the disputed; as a current fact of the day, it is undisputed, Commonwealth of Kentucky, is not a fair indication of the that you do not find these declarations of hostilCty issufeeling in many parts of the Urnion. I have seen the evi ing frot the Northern 1)enocracy; you do not find these dence growing within a few years, and Culmin ating during attempts to overturn the laws coming fiom 1e)oc’atic the last few weeks, of a determined purpose in the Soutll sources; you do not find these denunciations of you and to attain and maintain the comnplete power i Union, and your institutions coming from Detmocratic lips and DemoI have seen, upon the other hand, in the representatives c’atic Presses. On the cointrary, you find tihe at of the lower Southern States, a most resolute a nd deter-home, and in most cases in the misority, sustaining with mined spirit of resistance. The representatives from unfaltering courage your rights and institutions, at odds Georgia-from Alabama-from South Carolina-from is-aind risks that you little think of. sissippi, not to speak of other Southierii States, say that 1 want them all. We need them all. We need every they represent their constituents nay, say that they do Soutihern State, and every honest mlan everywhere not not go so far as their cons tituents, and they declare that willing to enter into,he crusade against us. they are ready at any momient for aseparateorganization. These is another element Notlth, not large but noble God forbid that such a thing should take place. God and true They are thescattesed and wa sgle,ilng cohorts forbid the overt act should ever be done; but we know of the old \ hig party, who have refused to alloy them enough of our political institutions, that when once done s elves with the Republicanrs of the North-n)en of whom the subject becomes involved in inexplicable distress. If Evl,:l,,TT and CIoIrT and others are illustrious examples. one were to fall upon Washington and see the state of ilee ae thousands of them in the Northern States. feeling there, he would think tixat tie President of your Whllen this great crisis comes upon us, I hiave confidence country was the Executive of two hostile coustries. Ti le tamen lise these will be found to unite Demofeeling of alienation seems to be almost complete from the ctatic party in suaintainirig the la ws a nd the Constitution. expression of the public press and puslic ien. (I imiean these are the eoimeoits upon which we ale to rely. not your inflammatory, furious speakers, but oen of’ iheu you get thoer togellie, let us see if there cannot thought and reflection.) They are alarmed, other men are be a general revolt of the intelligence, virtue, and loyal alarmed, we all arc alarmed. It is not a craven fear, but ty of tile country, against these pern iciou s g8ms, and if it is the ennobled gear that patriots feel for an imperilled slot, let us see how far these perracious absd control so country. Suppose this should occur-do you not reineos-cie,y. ber, in 1832 when South Carolina arrayed herself against biesides these, there are many thousands of men in the the Federal Government, upon a mere question of policy Nortssern States who, silent, are not heard in the midst of connected with the collection of taxes, that it did shake the clamor that surrounds then men who seldom atietsi the the Uniosi to its centre. Such is the nature of our system, polls. Let us hope that that feeling will be in our Savor. that it did shake the Union to the very centre. What were Fellow-citizens, I have uttered these things because I

Page 154 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 150O. believe we are standing to-day not in the presence of spectres and shadows, but in the presence of terrible realities. There is a mode by which we can have peace-a permanent peace-and that is by an utter and absolute Bsurrende r of all our rights upon the subject to which I have referred, at the call of this IRepublican Party. If we do not make this surrender, we will have n,) peace until the Republican Party is destroyed, which ciia only be done by producing a reaction upon the public mind of the North. As it is, without our being aware of it, thingts are getupin worse every day. I had almost intended to say, that we were absolutely dissolving m onth by month, and ye ar 1)y year. I see no mode-owiser menta r n o than I see no mode to avoid this, except to produce a reaction in the public mind, and to bring up sharply, in some form, tle question, Can we not, North and Southl, live in peace with our several State institutions, after the manner of our fathers? For myself, I yet believe in, and I have an abounding hope of, the ultimate destiny of our common country. I believe a reaction will take place; and I believe that out of this commotion is destined to come for us an era of tranquillity and peace. Of this I am quite certain, that this Commonwealth of Kentucky will pursue a course answerable to her v c harac te r and history; she will stand by t he union of the States as long as there is a thread of th e Constitution to hold it together. We know that if madness, and folly, anp fanaticism shall succeed in tearing down the fairest fabric ever erected to liberty among iien-we know that our honored State will conduct her self with so much moderation and prudence that she shall stand justified for lher acts before men and in the eye of H leave n i.

Fellow-citizens, I do not propose to detain you by more extend ed observa t ions. I h ave trespassed too far upon youre time already. I think, if you will allow me to say so, that I know somethling, of the temper, and spirit, and interest of this people; and, a,s far as my humble abilities extend, I propose, in the sphere to which you have devoted me, to serve you with all the fidelity of a grateful heart. At all times, and under all circumstances, i owe my alieglance to the State, and I am ready, and willing, and anxious to devote whatever faculties of neind a nd body I possess to serve you, and to serve you with the uncalculatitg devotion of a man who loves the green mountains and smiling plains, the clear running streams and the generous people of the State, and with one who loves all her iinfirmities with the affection of a son. KANSAS-THE MORMONS-SLAVEt Y.

SPEECH OF SEN4TOR DOUGLAS. Delivered at Sprifzgfield, Ill., J’qze 12, 1857. MR. PRESIDENT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I appear of whose leaders they act, let the blame be visited of before you to-night at the request of the grand jury in fastening upon the people of a new State, institutions attendance upon the United States Court, for the lpur-repugnant to their feelings and in violation of their pose of submittin g y vi ews upon certain topics upon wishes. The orgaiic act secures to the people of Kansas which they have expressed a desire to hear my opinion. the sole and exclusive righ t of foimin,g and regulating It was not niy purpose when I arrived among you, to their domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject to have engaged in any public or political discussion; but no other limitation than that which the Constitution of when called upon by a body of gentlemen so intelligent the United States imposes. The eoatic party is and respectable, comning from all parts of the State, and determined to see the great fundamen t,l principles of connected with the administration of public justice, I do the organic act carried out in good faith. Thle present not feel at liberty to wvithhold a full and fronts expres-election law in Ka1s a s is acknowledged to be fair and sion of my opinion dipon the subjects to which they have jtist-the rights of the v, tersre cler ly defited-an d referred, and which now engrosses so large a share of the exercise of those r ights will be efiiciently and scruthe public attention. pulously protected. lleice, if the mnajority of the The points wlicli I am requested to discuss are: people of Kansas desire to have it a Free ~tate (and w e lst. The present condition and prospects of Kaisis. are told by the lei)ulilictl paitsr that nie-tentlhs of the ‘2d.

The principles affirmed by the Supreme Court of people of that Terr,tory are Free State e), there is no the United States in the D])red Scott case.

obstacle in the way of banging Kansas into the Union 8d. The condition of things in Utah, and the approprias a Free State, by the votes and voi ce of her own peoate remedies for existing evils. ple, and in conformity withli the lliciples of the Ka nsas Nebraska act; poi ed all the Free Stat e e will go ItK~~~ANSAS. to the polls, and vote their’ princilples in accor(lance with Of the Kansas question but little need be said at the theirpl ofessio,. If such is not the reslt let the consepresent time. You are familiar with the history of the quences be visited upon the heads of those whose policy question, and my connection with it. Subsequent re-it is to produce strife, anarchy and bloodshed i Kansas flection has strengthened and confirmed my convict.ons that their pasrty iay profit by Slavery agitation in the in the soundness of the principles and the correctness of Northern States of this Union. That the Iemlocrats in the c ourse I have felt it my duty to pursue upon that Kansas wvill peifomi their duty fearlessly and nobly, subject. Kansas is about to speak for herself through according to the principle they ceis, I have no doubt, her delegates assembled in Convention to form a Consti and that the result of the struggle will b)e such as will tution, preparatory to her admission into the Union on gladlderi the heart and strengthen the hopes of every an equal footing with the original States. Peace and friend of the Union, I ve entire confidence. prosperity now prevail throughout her borders. The IT’lie Kaisas q i,eon eii g ii settled i peacenully and satislaw under which her delegates are about to be elected, factouily, in acoace with the of e own people is believed to be just and fair in all its objects and proSlavery agitation s uld i e bani(d from the halls f visions. There is every reason to hope and believe that Congress, anl cease to Oe an exciting elerten t in our the law will be fairly inteipreted and impartially exe-political st uggles. Give fair ll y to lthat principle of cuted, s o as to insure to every bona fide ichabitant the self-government which ec izes tile lig. oft the people free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise. If any of each State anl Territory, to formi and r egulate their portion of the inhabitants, acting under the advice of own domestic i,stitutioo,s and sectional strife will be political leaders in distant States, shall choose to absent forced to give place to that fraternal feeling which themselves from the polls, and withhold their votes, with aninatel the fathe s of the Revlution, and made every a view of leaving the Free State Democrats in a minority, citizen of every State of this glorious cc),feileracy a lree r and thus securing a ProSlavery Constitution in ol aposi-ter of a con.oi brothe,’ Ioodi. tion to the wishes of a majority of the people living That we are steadily and iapidly approaching that reunder it, let the re-p,onsitbility rest on those who, for suIt, I cannot doubt, for the Slavery issue has already partisan purposes, wiil sacrifice the principles they pro-dwindled (lowvi to the ai.rrow licicts covered by the fess to cherish and liccole. Upon them, and’ upon the ldecisions of the Sulirecie Court of tIe United States in the tvititical party for -tis: benefit and under the direction D-red Scott case. Tie aoriieat that decision was pro. I 154 4 -. . 0 0

Page 155 view page image

THE DPRED SCOTT DECISION. t he merits of the case, as they are now denounced and abused for not having done, the result would have been to remanrl Dred Scott and his children to perpetual Sla very under the decisions which had already been pronounced by the Supreme Court of Missouri, as well as by the Circuit Court of the United States, without o btaining a decision on the merits of his case by the Su preome Court of the United States. Suppose Chief Jus tice Taney and his associates ha d thu s lemanded Dre, Scott and his children back to Slavery oil a plea iL
abatement or any nmere technical point, not touching th merits of t he ques tio n, and with out deciding whether’ under the Constitution a nd laws as applied to the facts of the ae Dre d Scott was a fiwee man or a slave, would they not have been denounced with increased virulence and bitterness on the charge o f having remanded Dred Scott to perpetual Slavery without first vxaliining the merits of his case and ascertaining whether he was a slave or not? If the case had been disposed of in that way, who can doubt that such wou ld h ave been the character of the de nunciations which would have been huriled uiponi the devote d l-eads of those illustrious Judges witll imtucli more plausibility and show of fairness tihan thley are now odeteounced fo r having decided tie case fairly and hoi estly upon its merits? ”le material and controlling points of the case-those whichi have been made the subject of unnmeasured abuse and denunciation-may be thus statedl: 1. The Court decided that under tle Constitution of tihe United States a negro descended from slave parents is not and cannot be a citizen of the United States. , 2. That the act of the 6th of Mar-ch, 1820, commonly called the Missouri Compromise act, was unconstitutional acd void before it was repealed by the Nebraska act, and consequently did not and could not have the legal effect of ext,nguishing a master’s liglt to his slave in that Territory. While the right continues in full force under the guaranty of the Constitution, and cannot be divested *or alie nated by alr act of Coangressc, it necessarily remains a batren and a worthless rigt, unless ustained, pro teted and enforced by alppr-oplri.te police regulations and tlofta l le,oslacio iJ, pre~c’isihrg adequate reriredies for its vilati. Ts regulat ions au t refeplies must neeessa aily depend entirely upon tle wi ll and wishees of the people of the Tlerritory, as they can only be prescribed by the local Legislatures.

Ile1ce the great pirinciple of popular sovereignty and self-government is sustainedl I anid firmly established by tihe authority of this decision.

Thus it appears that the only sin involved in tihe passage of the KansasNebraska act consists in the fact of having removed orom the statute-book an act of Congress which was unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and void because passed witlout constitutional authority, and constituted in lieu of it the great funda nlierital principle of self-government, which i r ecognizes the r iights of the people of such State and Territory to control their own domestic concerns.

cI wi ll direct attention to the question involved in the first proposition, to wit: That the negro is not and can not be a citizen of the United States. We are atold by a certain political organization that , that decision is cruel-i s inhuman and infamouss, and should neitghe r be respected nor obeyed. What is the objection to that decision? Si mply that the negro is not , a citizen. What is the object of making him a citizen?

- Of course to give hiw thei O r ighot s, privileges and iminunit ties of a citizen, it being the great fundamental law in our GoverfCnrent, that under the law, citizens are equal in , their r ights t and privileges. It is said to bt tnhuman-to - be infamous-to sdeprive ran African negro of these privi, leges of citizenship, whifIf would put him oil an equality s with the other citizens of the country. Now, let me ask my fellow-citizens, are vou prepared to - resis t the constituted authorities of this country, in order - to secure citizenship, and, through citizenship, equality e wit h the white man. Voices, ” No! no!”) If you are, you - must reverse the whole policy of this State-the organic lawr , of our own State. In order to carry out that principle of , negro citizenship and negro equality under the law, you g must not only reverse the organic law in our own Stlte, e but of every other State in this Union. But you have not - accomplished it then; you must make fm’ious war upon e the slaveholding States, to compel them to emancipate and d se t at liberty their three millions of slaves. When that ct shall be done, before you have secured that great princi-i pie of equality to the son of Africa, you must strike orut d of the constitution of Illinois that provision which prevents d’ a negro, whether free or slave, from crossing the Ohio or isn the Mississippi, and coming into Illinois to reside. When e you shall have made that change in our organic law, and It turned loose all the Africans that may choose to come g from the slaveholding States to settle upon our prairies, noun redi, and bef ore n of the opinions of the Curt could )e pul,i.i,le( anti read byd t he people, te newspaper press ill the interest of aT powerful political party ill this outr, beganl to Misour ftti torrents of abuse and isrepresettions, not only upon the decision, but u pon the Uteaciter abd motives of the venerabl e Chief Just ice and hi s illustriou,s associates on the bench. The character of Chief Justice Talley ancd the associate Judges who concurred witIh him., require no eu,logy-ilo vindication front me. They ar-e e ndeared to the people of the United States by tileit’ eminenlt Iulblic services-venerated for their great learnig,, wisdom and experience-andt belovedl for the sp,Jless purity of their characters and their exempla,y lives.‘the poisonous shafts of partisan malice will fall harlIeSS tt their fetet, while then’

juidicial decisions will stand in all future timlle, a proud monument to their great ess the adm ira tion of the good and wise, and a rebuke to thie pa,rtisanis of faction and lawless violence. if, unfortunately, any considerable portion of the people of tile United Slates sh. ll so far forget their obligations to society as to allow partisan leaders to array them in violent resistance to the fiial decision of the highest judicial tribunal on earth, it will become the duty of all the friends of order and constitutional government, without lreference to past political differences, to organize themselves and marshal their forces under the glorious banner of the Union, in vindication of the Constitution and the supremacy of the laws over the advocates of faction and the champions of violence. To preserve the Constitution inviolate, and vindicate the supremacy of the laws, is the first and highest duty of every citizen of a free Republic. The peculiar merit of our form of government over-all (othlers, consists in the fact that the law, instead of the arbitrary will of a hereditary prince, prescribes, defines and protec,ts all our rights.

In this country the law is the will of the people, embodied and expressed according to the forms of the Constitution. Tihe Cour.ts are the tribunals prescribed by the Con.stiLution, and created by the authority of the people to (etermine, expounld and enforce the law. Hence, whoever resists the final decision of the h1iglhest judicial tribunal ailus t deadly blow to ou’ whlole republican system of gcvernrneilt a blow which, if successful, would place all (>ur rights and liberties at the mercy of passion, anarchy and violence. I repeat, therefore, that if resistance to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in a m.at ter like the poi ts decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly within their jurisdictioin as defined by the Const.iLu~tion, shall be forcedl upon the country as a political issu,e, it will become a distinct and naked issue between tile frliends and the enemies of the Constitution-the friends and the enemies of the supremacy of the laws. THE DRED SCOTT DECISION. The case of Dred Scott was an action of trespass, Be et a,’.,mis, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Missouri, for the purpose of establishing his claim to be a free man, and was taken by writ of error on the application of Scott to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the final decision was pronounced by Chief Justice Taney.

The facts of the case were agreed upon and admitted to be true by both parties and were in substance, that Dred Scott was a negro slave in Missouri, that he went with his master, who was an officer in the army, to Fort Armstrong, on Rock Island, and thence to Fort Sn’elling on the west bank of the Mississippi River, and within the country covered by the act of Congress known as the Missouri Compromise: and then he reaccompanied his master to the State of Missouri where he has since remained a slave.

Upon this statement of facts two important and material questions arose besides several incidental and minor ones, which it was incumbent upon the Court to take notice of and decide The Court did not attempt to avoid responsibility by disposing of the case upon technical points without touchillg the merits, nor did they go out of their way to decide questions not properly before them and directly present ed by the record. Like honest and conscientious judges as they are, they met and decided each point as it arose and faithfully performed their whole duty and nothing bout their duty to the country by determining all the questions ill the case, and nothing but what was essen timl to the decision of the case upon its merits.* The State Courts of Missouri had decided against Dred Scott.

and declared himl and his children slaves, and the Circuil Court of tile Unlited States for the district of Missour had decidedl the same thing in this very case which hac thus been removed to the Supreme Court of the Unitec States by Scott, with the hope of reversing the decisioI of the Circuit Court and securing his freedom. If th( ;Supr emie Cou,rt had dismissed the writ of error for wan of,ur sd~ctiol, without firt examining ino and decidi~ 155

Page 156 view page image

A POLITICs. TEXT-BOO! FOR 1860. and turn Illinois into a negro colony, rather than into a alienate them. They did not mean the negroes and InState of white men, stillyou have not secured to the negro dians-they did not say we white men and negroes were ‘he rights of citizenship on an equality with the white man born equal; but they were speaking ol the race of people You must then strike the word “white” out of the consti-who colonized America, who ruled America, and who were tution of our own State, and allow the negro to come to declaring the liberties of Americans, when they proclaimed our poils and vote on an equality with yourselves. You the self-evident truth that those men were born free and must also change the Constitution in that respect that de-equal. And if you will examine the journal of the Conticlares, that a negro shall not be eligible to oltice, and de-neital Congress you will find this great principle carried clhre that t negro shall be eligible to your Legislature, to out. No one of tile colonieswould then consentto the Dethe bar, bench, and gubernatorial chair. And still you claration of Independence until they had placed on the have not reached that point to which we are told we must record the express reservation, that each colony reserved go, of placing the negro on an equality with other citizens. and retained to itself the sole and exclusive right of reguYou must admit him to the jury-box, and license him by lating its own domestic concerns and police regulations. law to narry a white woman. And then you will have It was made a fundamental condition of the Declaration secured nearly all the privileges that the decision of the that this right should be forever reserved beyond the Supreme Court has denied him. (Applause.) power of Congress or other Confederation or power on I submit to iou, fellow-citizens, whether any man car earth, except the free will of their own people. The artipronounce the decision inhuman and infamous, without cles of confederation were based upon the same great funresorting to that great principle, which, carried out, damental principle, and the Constitution of the United puts the negro on an equality with other citizens. But States was adopted for the purpose of preserving and carlisten to the speeches of any one of those who sympathize rying into effect the same grand principle that made us so much with the poor African that they are not willing to one people for one specified oDject, but reserved to each allowv him to occupy an inferior position, and you will find State and each locality the sole and exclusive privilege of that they all adhere to the position of negro equality. For managing its own domestic concerns. instance, did you ever hear any of them make a public At that day the liegro was looked upon as a being of a-l speech in which he did not quote the Declaration of Inde-infer or race. All history had proved that in no part of pendence, that ” we hold all men are born free and equal,” the world, or of the world’s history, had the negro ever and then appeal to you to know whether Slavery could be shown himnself capable of self-government, andit was not justified or palliated by any man who believed in the De-the intention o f the founders of this Government to claration of Independence. Do they not argue that by v iolate that great lawv of Godi, which made the distinction this instrument negroes were declared to be born equal to between the white and the black man. That distinction is white men; and hence, any man who is opposed to carry-plain aiil palpable, and it has been the rule of civilization ing out that great dear principle of theirs, of negro and of Clhristianity the world over, that whenever any equality with the white man, is opposed to the Declaration one man, or set of men, were incapable of taking car e of of Independence themselves, they should consent to be governed by those Now, my friends, permit me to reply to this assumption, who were callable of managing their affairs for themi. It that the Declaration of Independence declared the negro is oi that principle that your courts of justice appoint to be equal with white men, by a few historical facts re-guardians to take charge of the idiot, the lunatic, the c orded in our school-books, and familiar to our children. insane, blind, dumb, the unfortunate, whatever may be his By reference to the History of the United States, you will cosdition. And it histoi y had proved that the negro race, find that on the Fourth of July, 17T6, when the Declara-s a race, were incapable of self-government, it was not tion of Independence was put forth, the thirteen colonies only the right but the duty of those who were capable to were then, each and all of them, slaveholding colonies. provide for them. It did not necessarily follow that they Each signer of the Declaration, without an exception, re-were to be reduced to Slavery. The true principle is that presented a slaveholding constituency. Every battle of the inferior race should be allowed to enjoy all their the Revolutionary War, from Lexington and Bunker Hill rights, which their nature is capable of exercising and to King’s Mountain and Yorktown, was fought in a slave-enjoying, consistently with the good of society. I wouli hol.,ing constituency. The treaty of peace with Great sot advocate that tihe negro slhould be treated harshly or Britain which acknowledged our independence, was made unkindly. Far from it. I would extend and secure to on the part of Great Britain on the one side and the thir-him every right, privilege and immunity he was capable teen original slaveholding States on the other. Passing of enjoying consistent with the highest welfare of society. from that to the formation of the Constitution of the the Constitution is founded on that great principle, and United States, you will find that instrument was framed, leaves to eacl State, as the articles of confederation did and adopted, and put into operation with the immortal to each colony, the right to determine for itself what Washington at the head, by twelve slaveholding States these principles were, and the extent of them, in older and one free State, or one State about to become free. In that they might adopt their lawvs to their actual condition. view of these facts, I submit to you whether any sane man Under that great provision, Illinois has chosen to say, can assert that tie founders of our institutions intended to that the negro shall not come here to reside-that a negr o put the negro and the white man on an equality in the sys-shall not vote-shall not hold office-shall not serve in the tem of government which they adopted? If the signers of the jury-box-shall not marry white women-and I think Declaration had intenled to declare the negro equal to the that the Constitution of Illinois is wisely framed as to this white man, would not they, on that very day, have abolished provision. On the other hand, Kentucky goes fu, thes, Slavery in every one of tie States of the Union in order to and deprives the negro of his right over his perso n. have conformed to that Declaration? If any one of these Kentucky, under the Constitution, had a riglt to make States had thus understoo s the Declaration of Indepen-that provision. We have no right to complai n of her, dence, would not that State then immediately have abol-nor can she complain of us. Each has the right to do as lshed Slavery, and put the negro on an equality with the it pleases, and each tust mustind its own business and not white man in conformity with that Declaration? Did they interfere with its neighbor’s concerns. (Applause.) do so? I have already shiown you that no one of those Our fathers, when they framed this Governmen t, had States abolished Slavery during the whole period of the witnessed the sad and melancholy results of the mixture Revolutionary war. I have already stated, and I challenge of the races in Mexico, South America and Central contradiction, that to this day no one of them has put America, where the Spianish, from motives of policy, had the negro on an equality with the white man in all the admitted the negro and other inferiorraces to citizenship, laws touching on the relations of life. And yet, if they and, consequeitliy, to political and s ocial amalgamation. honestly believed the Declaration of Independence meant the demoralization and degradation which prevailed in negroes as well as white men, they were bound to advocate the Spanish and French colonies, where no distin ctions on every law so as to carry out their principle. Their posi-account of color or race were tolerated, operated as a tion on this subject would charge the signers of that De-warning to our revolutionary fathers to preserve the claration with hypocrisy in making it to the world, and purity of the white race, and to establish their political, going on to fight battles on the principle thus asserted. social and domestic institutions upon such a basis as But no vindication is needed from me of those immortal would forever exclude the idea of negro citizenship and men who drafted, and signed, and proclaimed to the world negro equality. (Applause.) the Declaration of Independence.

They did what they They understood that great natural law which declares professed. They hall reference to the white man, and to that amalgamation between superior and inferior races him only, when they declared all men were created equal. brings their posterity dowis to the lower level of the infeThey were in a struggle with Great Britain. The principle rior, but never elevates them to the high level of thle suthey were asserting was that a British subject, born on perior race. I appeal to each of those gallant young American soil was equal to a British subject born in Eng-men before me, who won immortal glory on the bloody land-that a British subject here was entitled to all the fields of Mexico, in vindicatiosi of their country’s right rights, and privileges, and immunities, under the British and honor, whether their information and observation in Constitution, that a British subject in England enjoyed; that country does not fully sustain the truth (if the prothalt their rights were inalienable, and hence that Parlia-position that amalgamation is degraadation, demoralizausent, whose power was omnipotent, had no power to tion, disease and death? Is it true thsit tSle negro is out t56

Page 157 view page image

NGFIELD SPEECH. 15 from office, and to fill their places with boldal, able, and true men, and to cause o a thorough and searching inves tigation into all t he crim es and enormities which are all eged to be perpetrated daily in th at Territory, under the direction of Brigha m Young and his confederates and to use al l the military for ne ce necessary to protect the officers in the discharge of thei r duties, and to en force the laws of the l and. (Applause.) When the authentic evidence shall arrive, if it shall e stablish the facts which are believed to exist, it wil l be come the duty of Congress to apply the knife and cut out this loatdhsome, disgusting ulcer. (App lause.) No temporizing policy-no h al fwa y measur es wll then an swer. It has been supposed by th o se who have not thought deeply upon the subject, that a n a ct of Con gress prohibiting murder, robbery, polygany, and other crime s, with appropriate penalties for those offences, would afford adequat e remedies for all the enotrmities complained o f. Su p pose such a law to be on the sta tute book, a nd I be ie ve they have a criminal code, pro viding the usual punishment for the entire catalogue of crimes, ac co rdin g to the usages of all civilized and Christian countries, with the exception of polvgamy, wh ich is practis ed under the sanction of the lMormonu Church, but is neithe r pro hibited nor authorized by the laws of the Territory. Suppose, I repeat, that Congress shou ld p ass a law p rescribing a criminal code, and punishing polygamy among other offences, what other effect would it have what good would it do? Would you call on twenty-three grand jurymen, with twenty-three wives each, to find a bill of indictment against a poor miserable wretch for having two wives? (Cheers and laughter.) Would you call upon twelve petit jurors, with twelve wives each, to convict the same loathsome wretch for having two wives? (Continued applause.) Would you expect a grand jury composed of twenty-three “Danires” to find a bill of indictment against a brother “Danite” for having murdered a Gentile, as they call all American citizens, under their direction? Much less would you expect a jury of twelve “destroying angels ” to find another “
destroying angel ” guilty of the crime of mur der, and cause him to be hanged for no other offence than taking the life of a Gentile? No! If there is any truth in the reports we receive from Utah, Ccngress may pass whatever laws it chooses; but you can never rely upon the local tribunals and juries to punish crimes com m,itted by Mormons in that Territory. Some other and more effectual remedy must be devised and applied. In my opinion, the first step should be the absolute and unconditional repeal of the organic act-blottin, the Territorial Government out of existence upon the ground that they are outlaws, denying their allegiance and defying the authorities of the United States. (Im mense applause.) Tihe Territorial Government once abolished, the coun try would revert to its primitive condition prior to the act of 1850, ” under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States,” and should be placed under the operation of the act of Congress of the 80th of April, 1790, and the various acts supplemental thereto and amendatory the:reof, ” providing for the punishment of crimes against the United States witifii any fort, arsenal dockyard, magazine, oR ANY OT HhER PLACE OR DISFT,RICr OF COUNTRY, UNDER TIHE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE 7Y’?isdic ti,o of tlhe United States.” All offenses against the provisions of these acts are required by law to be tried and punished by the United States Courts in the States or Territories where the offenders shall be ” FIRST APPTE HENDED OR BROUGHT

FOR TRIAL.” Thus it will be seen that under the plan proposed, BRIGHAM

YOUNG and his confederates could be ” apprehended and brought for trial,”

to Iowa or Missouri, California or Oregon, or to any other adjacent State or Territory, wher,e a fair trial could be had, and justice administer ed impartially where the witnesses could be protected and the judg ment of the court could be cardied into execution, with out violence or intimidation. I do not propose to inltro duce any new principles into our, jurisprudence, nor to chang~e the modes of proceeding or the rules of practice in our Courts. I only propose to place the district of country embraced within the Territory of Utah under the operation of the same laws and rules of proceeding, that Kansas, Nebraska, Minnresota and our other Terri-~ tories were placed before they-became organized Terri*
tories.‘t’he whole country embraced within these Terri tories was under thle operation of that same system of llaws, and all the offenses committed within the same wer e punished in the manner now proposed, so long as the country remained ” under the sole and exclusive :jurisdiction of the United States,” but the momrent the *country was organized into T~erritorial Governments. ;‘with legislative, executive and juchlcial departmtlenlts; equal and our brother? The history of the times clearly f show that our fathers li not regard the African race as I t any kin to them. asal determined so to lay the foundation t of society and govel.iilerit that they should never be of E kin to their posterity.

(Inmense applause.) i But, when you confer upon the African race the privileges of citizenship, and put them on an equality with t white men at the polls, in the jury-box, on the bench, in i the Executive chair, and in the councils of the nation, upon what principle will you deny their equality at the festive board and in the domestic circle? The Supreme Court of the United States have decided that, under the Constitution, a negro is not and cannot be a citizen. The Republican Abolition party pronounce that decision cruel, inhuman and infamous, and appeal to the Ame rican people to disregard and refuse to obey it. Let us join issue with them, and put ourselves upon the country for trial. (Cheers and applause.) CONDITION OF AFFAIRS IN UTAH, AND THE REMEDY. Mr. President, I will now respond to the call which has been made upon me for my opinions of the condition of things in Utah, and the appropriate remedies for existing evils. The Territory of Utah was organized under one of the acts known as the Compromise Measures of 1850, on the supposition that the iwnhabitants were American citizens, owing and acknowledging allegiance to the United States, andl consequently entitled to the benefits of self-government while a Territory, and to admission in t he Union on an equal feoting with the original States, as soon as they should number the requisite population It was conceded on all hlandls, and by all parties, that the peculiarities of their religiou s fa ith and c e remonies interposed no valid and constitutional objection to their reception into the Uilion, in conformity with the Federal Constitutioni, so long as they w er e in all other respect s entitled to admission. Hence, the great political parties of the country indorsed and approved the Conipromise Measures of 1850, including the act for the organization of tale Territory of Utah, with the hope and in t he confiilencte that the inhabitants would conform to the Constitution and laws, and prove themselves worthy, respectable ai,d lawabiding citizens. If we are permitted to plac e l aedfuce i n the rumors and reports from that country (atnd it must be admitted that they have increased andi strengthened and assumed consistency and plausibility by each successive iiail), seven years’ experience has disclosed a state of facts entirely different from that which was supposed to exist when Utah was organized These ruinoris ai,l r eports would seem to justify the belief that the following facts are susceptible ofproof; 1. That nine-tenths of the inhabitants are aliens by birth, who have refused to become naturalized, or to take the oath of allegiance, or to do any other act recognizing the Gov ertnment of the United States as the paramount authority in that Territory. 2. That all the inhabitants, whether native or alien born, known as Mormons, (and they constitute the whole people of the Territory), are bound by horrid oaths and terrible penalties to recognize and maintain the authority of Brigham Young, and the government of which he is the head, as paramou nt to th at of the United States, in civil as well as in religious affairs, and that they will, in due time, and under the direction of their leaders, use all means in their power to subvert the government of the United States, and resist its authority. 3.

That tihe Mormon government, with Brigham Young at its head, is now forming allia nce wi th Indian tribes in Utah and adjoining territories-stimulating the Ind i ans to acts h outy ad iin bn of hostility-and organizing bands of his own follower s under the name of “

Danites, or Destroying Angels,” to prosecute a system of robbery and mrel ders upon American citizens, who support the authority of the United States, and denounce the infamous and disgusting practices and institutions of the Mormon Government. If, upon a full investigation, these representations shall pr ov e tru l te, they will establish the fact that the eiot mon inhabitants of Utah, as a community, are ouwt laws and alien enemies, unfit to exercise the right of self-government under the organic act, and unworthy to be admitted into the Union as a State, when their only obj ect in seeking admission is to interpose the sov ereignty of the State, as an invincible shield to protect them in their treason and crime~ debauchery and in rainy. (Applause. ) Under this view of the subject, I think it is the duty of the President, as I have no doubt it is htis fixed pur  pose to remove Brigham Young and all his followers MR.

DOUGLAS’ SPR

Page 158 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. money; or, if purchased for a post-office, it must be governed under the power to establish1.post-ofices and iost-rosds; or, fol a custot-lhouse, under thle power to a regulate commuer ce; or for a court-house, under the judiciary power. In short, the clause in the Constitutio under which any land or territory belonging to the United States must be goiveited, is itdicated by the object for which it was acquired and the purpose for which it is dedicated. So long, therefore, as the organic act of Utah sha ll remain il force, setting apart that country for a nielv State, and pledging the faith of the United Stttes to receive it into the Union as soon as it should lhave tie requisite population, wve are bound to extend to it all the rights of self-government, agreeably t o the clause in the Constitution providing for the admission of new States. Hience the necessily of repealing the o,ganic act-withdrawing the pledge of admission, and placing it under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, in order that persons and property niay be protected, and justice administered, and crimes punished under the laws prescribed by Congress in such cases.

Wvhile the power of Congress to l epeal this o,rganic act and abolish the Territorial Governmenit cannot be dleied, the question may arise whether we possess the moral right of exercising the power. after the charter has been once grant ed and the local gov e mtizd under its pro.visions. This is a grave questioll-one whichI should not be decided hasti!y, nor unider tle i flunce of plassion or ptrejudice I am free to say that in ily opinion there is no ioral right to repeal the organiic act o f a Territory, and abolish tihe government o,rganlizedl under it, unless the inhabitants of that Te, ritory, as a coiniciunity, have done such acts as atmount to a fh)rfeiture f all rights under it-uch as becoming alien enemies, ou tlaws, dis avowing their allegiance, or resistin.g the auttloi-ity of the Unit ed State s. The se, and kind i-ed cts, which we lhave every reason to believe are daily perpetrated in that Territory, would not only give us the iimor al right, but mrlake it our imperative duty to abolish the Territorial Governm.enst, and place the ithabita n,ts und,Ir the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Unlitedl States, to the end that justice may be done and the dig,nity and authorily of the Gove.rnm.en,t vin, icated. I have thlus presented pl;inily and frankly my views of the Utah question-the evils and the remd(y-upoti the fact s a s they have re icied( us, anti are supposed to be substantially correct. If official reports acnd authentic iffornmatio n shail cltange or umod)lify these facts, I shall be ready to conform uty iotion to the rea l facts as they shall be found to exist. I ib.ve no such pride of opinion as will induce tme to persevere in al er one ioment after my judgonent is convincedl. If, eef)e, a better plan can be devised one ore consistent with justice anid so ut d policy, or inoye iffective as a remiedy for acknowledge4 evils, I shall take great pleasure il adlopting it, ill lieu of the one I have presented to you to-n.iglt. In conclusion, permit.a to express my grateful ackniowle,dgment.~ for your patient attention and the kind and respectful mnaniner in whlichi you have received my remarks. it ceased to be under the sol e an d exclusive jurisdiction of the ite States, wit the cmp ta tes itthe reaning of the g act of Congresst, for the rea son that it had p ass d e under a nother and a different jurisdiction. Hence, if we abolish the Territorial government of Utah, preserving a ll existing rigChts, and place the country under the prsole and exclusive j urisdictio n of the Un ited S t ates, o fofenders can be apprehended and brought into the adjacen t S tate s or Te oritories f o r punishment, in the same manner and under th e sa me rul es and re gulations which obtained and have bee n uniformly practic ed u nder like circumstances since 1790. If the plan proposed shall be found an effective and adequate re med y for the evils complained of in Utah, no one, no matter what his political creed or partisan associations, need be apprehensive that it will violate any cherished theory or constitutional right in regard to the government of the Territories. It is a great mistake to suppose th at all th l e t erritory or land belongint,g t o the United States m ust necessarily be governed by the same lawvs and under the same clause of the Constitution, without reference to the purpose to which it is dedicated or the use which it is proposed to make of it; while all that portion of the country which is or shall be set apart to become new States, must necessarily be governed under and consistent with that clause of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to admit new States, it does not follow that other territory, not intended to be organized and admitted into the Union as States, must be governed under the same clause of the Constitution, with all the rights of self-government anid State equality. For instance, if we should purchase Vanrcouver’s Island from Great Britain for the purpose of lremoving all the Indians from our Pacific territories and locating them on that island as their permanent homle, with guaranties thtat it should never be occupied or settled with white men, will it be contended that the purchase should be made and the island governed under thie power to admit new States when it was not acquired for that purpose, nor intended to be applied to that object?

Being acquired for Indian purposes and applied to Indian purposes, it is not more reasonable to assume that the power to acquire was derived from the Indian clause, and the island must necessarily be governed under and consistent with that clause of the Constitution which relates to Indian affairs. Again, suppose we should deem it expedient to buy a small island in the Mediterranean or the Carribean Sea for a naval station, can it be said with any force or plausibility that the purchase should be made or the island governed under the power to admit new States? On the contrary, is it not obvious that the right to acquire and govern in that case is derived from the power ” to provide and maintain a navy,” and must be exercised consistently with that power. # So, if we purchase land foi forts, arsenals, or other military purposes, or set apart and dedicate any territory which Eve now own for a military reservation, it immediately passes under the military power and must be governed in harmony with it.

So if the land be purchased for a mint, it must be governed under the power to coin iNVASION OF STATES SEDITION LAW PROPOSED. SPEE CH OF MIR.

DOUGLAS. O I have information from various quarters, upon which I rely, thlt a c o nspiracy of furmidable extent in means and ot’m;bers, is foriied iti Ohio, Pennsylvania, NewYork, and other S tates, te rescue John Browni and his associates, prisoners at Chharlneston, Virginia. The information is specific enough to be reliable 1’….. “Places in Maryland, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, have, been occupied as depots and rendezvous by these desperadoes, unobstructed by g,uards or otherwise, tt invade this State, aid we are kept i con tinulc apprehension of outrage fr n fire and rapine. I apprise yo, of these facts in order that you may take steps to prestr,e peace between the States.” To this communication, the President of the United States, on the 28th of November, returned a reply, fromt which I read the following sentence: i’ Im am at a lo ss to discover anv provision in the Constitutio,, or laws of the United States which would authorize me to ‘take steps for this p urpose.’” [Thatis, to preserve the peace between the Stat es.] Mr. Douglas argued at considerable length, to prove that the Constitution does provide for the ON the 10th of January, 1860, Mlr. Douglas submitted to the Uniited States Senate the following Resolution: Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to report a bill for the protection of each S tate and Territory of the Union, against invasion by tlhe authorities or inhabitants of any other State or Telrlritor y; and for the supp ession and punishiment of conspir acies or combinati,,ns in any State or Territory with intent to invade, assail, or molest the government, inhabitants, property, or institutions of any other State or Territory of the 1Union. This Resolution, coming up as a special order on the 23d of January, Mr. Douglas said: Mr. President, on the 25th of November last, tile Governor of Virginia addressed on official communication to tile President of the United States, in Whichl he said: 1158 4 .

Page 159 view page image

MR. DOUGLAS’ PROPOSED SEDITION LAW. protection, by the Federal Goverinient, of each State against invasion fron any anid all sources, andi cotitinuiedb: The questio n then remaining is, what legislat ion is necessary an d pro pe r to rt.nder this guaranty of the C(onstitutioi effectual? I presume there will be very attle d iffereul ce of opin ion th at it will be necessary to lace tile iwhol e milatariy power of the Government at the disp,osal of the President, unidier proper guards and restrictions against abuse, to repel and suppress invasion wh,enl tie hlo,tle force shall be actually io thie field. But, sir, that is n(,t sufficient. Such legislation would not be a full com phlianc e with tliis guaranty of the Constitution. :ciie fraiier s of tl-a t instrument meant more when they gave the g to caranty. M ark th e diff erence in language tpetweer tie plrovision for protecting the United States ags,iidItst inlvesion and tha t f or protecti ng the Stat es. W e t provi dedt for protecting the United States, it s aid Conlll hitS shal i hav e power to repels i nv asion.” When it catie to plnke this guaranty to the States, it c hange d the language, and said the Unlited States shall “protect eac of tihe States against invasion. In the one instance, tee duty of the Governmoent is to repel; in the other, the guarranty is that they will protect. In other words, the Unitel States are not permitted t o wait until the enemy sal b; upon you r borders; until the inva(in g army sthe have been organizedndand drilled and placed in larch with a v iew to t he invasion; bu t they must pass all laws anecessay and p rope r to insure pro tection and domestic tranquility to each State and T erri tor y of this Un ion aait invasio n or hostil ities from other States and Ter ritortes. is, sir, I hold th at it is n ot onl y nece ssary to use the erilitary power when ath,e actual case of invasion shall otcuIr, but to inttmrize the judicial depar tment of the Gover me Jt to suppr ess a ll con s pi racie s and combin a tions i the several t,ates with intent t invade a State with te on a a, for molest o disturb its government, its peace, its citizens, its plopefrty or its institutions. You must punish the conlspiracy, th e combination with intent t o do the act, a l(il ien ouwill suppress it in ad vance. T her e is no p rincipl e mo re f a mili t e ar to the legal profession than that when ever it -s proper to uecla r e an act to be a crime, it is proper to pulaislh a conspiracy or combinati on with intent to peipetra e the t act. Look up on your statute-books, -,d I presume you will find an enactment to punish the counterleiting of th e coin of the United States; and then allnother s ection to punish a san for h aving coun terfeit co in in his possession with intent to pass it; and another ectison to puni, h lim for having t he m olds or dies or in struments for counterf eiting, with intent to use them. This is a familiar b pincipleg s tie if legislative and judicial pro ceedings. If the act of invasion is criminal, the con sinitacy to invad e should also be made criminal. If it be unlawful and illegal to invade a State, anid run off fugi t ive slaves, why not rake it unlawful to form conspiracies and combinations in th e several States with intent to do the act? We h ave been told that a notorious man whoi has recently suffered death for his crimes upon the gal lows, boasted in Cleveland, Ohio, in a public lecture, a year ago, that lie lad then a body of men employed in running away horses from the slaveholders of Missouri, and pointed to a livery stable in Cleveland which was full of the stolen horses at. that time. I think it is within our com. petency, and consequently our duty, to pass a law making every conspiracy or conm bination in any State or Territory ol this Union to invade. another with intent to steal or run away property of any kind, whether it be negroes, or horses, or property of,any other description, into another State, a crime, and punish~ the conspirators by indictment, in the United States courts and confinemenit in the prisons and penitentiaries of the State or Territory where the conspiracy may be formed and quelled. Sir, I would carry these provisions of law as far as our constitutional powers will reach. I would fmake it a crime, to form conspiracies with a view of invvadii?g States or Territories to control elections, wlhetlher they be under t]~e garb of l:nig}ant Aid Societies of_Yew Englancd or Blwue Lodges of XMis 6ourl. (Applause in the galleries.) In other words, this plovisionl of the Constitutions means more than the mlere repelling of an invasion when the invading army shall reach tile border of a State. The language is, it * shall protect the State against invasion;* the meaning of which is, to use the language of the preamble to the Con stitution, to insure to each State domnestic tranquillity against external violence. There can be no peace, there carn be no prosperity, there can be nlo safety in any coml munuity, unless it is secured against violence from abroadl. Why, sir, it hlas been a question seriously mooted in Europe, whether it was not the duty of England, a power foretell to France, to pass lilts to punish conspiracies in England against the lives of the princes of France. I shall not argue the question of comity between foreign States. I predicate nmy argument upon the Constitution by which we are governed, and which we have sworn to obey, and deamand t hat the Constitution be executed in good faith so as to punish and suppress every combination, every conspiracy, either to invade a State or to molest its inha bitants, or to disturb its property, or to subvert its institutions and its government. I believe this can be effectually done by authorizing the United States courts in the several States to take jur isdiction of the offense, and punish the violation of the law with appropriate punishments. It cannot be said that the time has not yet arrived for such legislation. It cannot be said with truth that the Harper’s Ferry case will not be repeated, or is not in danger of repetition. It is only necessary to inquire into the causes which produced the Hiarper’s Ferry outrage, a nd ascertai n whether those causes are yet in active operation, and then you can determine whether there is any ground for apprehension that that invasion will be r epeated. Sir, what were the causes which produced the Harper’s Ferry outrage? Without stoppinig to adduce evidence in detail, I have no hesitation iii expressing my firm and deliberate conviction that thee Iarper’s Berry crime was the natural, logical, inevitable result of the doctr i nes and teachings of the Republican party, as explained and enforced in thleir platjbrm, their partisan presses, thei/r pamphlets acnd books, and espy cially in the speeches of their leaders in amd out of Congress. (Applause itn the galleries.)… And, sir, inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States confers upon Congress the power coupled with the duty of protecting each State against external aggression, and inasmuch as that includes the power of suppressing and punishing conspiracies in one State against the institutions, property, people, or governmnient of every other State, I desire to carry out that power vigorously. Sir, give us such a law as the Constitution contemplates and authorizes, and I will show the Senator from New York that there is a constitutional mode of repressing the “irrepressible conflict.” I,vitl open the prison doors to allow con,sfi,‘ators ag/ai..ast the peace of thie Iepublic and the do?8estie tran(quillity of our States to select their cells whier-eir to dr’,atg out at ,miserable life as a puish8menttfbr their crimees again tke ~peace of society. Mr. President, the mode of preserving peace is plain. This system of sectional warfare must cease. The Constitution has given the power, and all we ask of Congress is to give the means, and we, by indictments and convictions in the Federal courts of our several States, will make such examples of the leaders of these conspiracies as vill strike terror into the hearts of the others, and there will be an end of this crusade. Sir, you must check it by crushing out the conspiracy, the combination, and then there can be safety. [A s pecial committee the e of the Senatei, of which Mr. Mason, of Va., was chairman, appoin.ited to investigate the Harper’s Ferry affair, ascertain the cause of the raid, and report what laws, if any, were necessary to prevent a repetition, reported near the close of the session, that the committee were unable to discover that any persons were either directly or indirectly engaged in the invasion, other than John Brown and those who accompanied hiim to IHlarper’s Ferry.] .. .

X:….. v… 159 WIIAT POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY IIAS I)ONF,. From J, fr.

Douglas’ S -zlf(,ty 16,1860. But, we are told that the necessary result of this doctrine of nonintervention, which, geit,le.ei,, by way cf throwing ridicule upon it,, call squatter sovereignty, is to deprive the South of all participation in wl.t they call the cominon Territories of the United States. That was the ground on which the Senator foii Misissil)pi (ivlr.

Davis), predicated his itiol to the Co,.I,)ro,.ise Measures of 1850. lie ?eporsded a refusal to repeal the Alexican law as equivalent to the IV-iliiot Pro,,Iso; a,efasal to recognize by an act of Congress the right to carry a slave there as equivalent to the Wil.,ot Proviso; a refusal to deny to a Territorial Legislature the right to exclude Slavery as equivalent to an exclusion. Ile I)elieved at that time that this doctrine did 2,iioi-int to a denial of southern rights; and he told the people of

Page 160 view page image

A POLIT;CA-L TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. Mississippi so; but they doubted it. Now let us see how, tor from Mississippi regards as hostile to the rights of the far his theory and suppositions have been verified. I South. Where did you ever get any other fruits that infer that he told the people of Mississippi so, for he were more palatable to your taste or more refreshing to makes it a charge in his bill of indictment against me, yourstrengtlh? WhatotherinchofFreeTerritoryhasbeen that I am hostile to southern rights because I gave those converted into Slave Territory on the American continent, votes. since the Revolution, except in New Mexico and Al izona, Now, what has been the result? My views were under the principle of nonintervention affirmed at incorporated into the Compromise Measures of 1850, and Charleston? If it be true that this principie of non-interhis were rejected. Has the South been excluded from all vention has given to Slavery all New Mexico, which was the territory acquired from Mexico? What says the bill surrounded on nearly every side by Free Terlritory, will from the House of Representatives now on your table, not the same principle protect you in thenorthern states repealing the slave code in New Mexico, established by of Mexico when they are acquired, since they are now surthe people themselves? It is part of the history of the rounded by Slave Territory; are several hundred miles country that under this doctrine of non-intervesetion, further South; have miany degrees of greater heat; and this doctrine that you delight to call squatter sore-have a climate and soil adapted to Southern products? reignty, the people ofnew baMexico have introduced Are you not satisfied with these practical results? Do and.protected Slavery in the whole of that Territory. you desire to appeal from the people of the Territories Under this doctrine, they have converted a tract of to the Congress of the United States to settle this quesFree Territory into Sl8ve Territory, more than five tion in the Territories? When you distrust the people times the size of the State of NewYork. Under this and appeal to Congress, with both houses largely against doctrine, Slavery has been extended from the, Rio you on this question, what sort of protection will you get? Grande to the Gulf ofCalifornia, and from the line of Whenever you ask a Slave code from Congress to protect the Republic ofMeaico, not only up to 86 deg. 30 min., your institutions in a Territory where the people do not bet up to 38
deg.-GIVING YOU A DEGREE AND A HALF MIORS want it, you will get that sort of protection which the SLAVE TERRITORY THAN YOU EVER CLAIMED. In 1848 and wolf gives to the lamb; you will get that sort of friendly 1849 and 1850, you only asked to have the line of 36 deg. hug that the grizzly bear gives to the infant. Appealing 80 min. The Nashville convention fixed that as its ulti-to an Anti-Slavery Congress to pass laws of protection, matum. I offered it in the Senate in August, 1848 and it with a view of forcing Slavery upon an unwilling and was adopted here but rejected in the House of Represen-hostile people! Sir, of all the mad schemes that ever tatives. You asked only up to 86 deg. 80 min., and non-could be devised by the South, or by the enemies of the intervention has given you Slave Territory up to 38 South, that which recognizes the right of Congress to deg., A DEGREE AND A HALF MORE THAN YOU ASKED; touch the institution of Slavery either in States or Terriand yet you say that this is a sacrifice of Southern tories, beyond the single case provided in the Constiturights! tion for the rendition of fugitive Slaves, is the most These are the fruits of this principle which the Sena-fatal.-Appendix to Congressional Globe, page 314 THIIE IRPREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT. A SPEECH BY

WILLIAM II. SEWARD, J)elirered at Rochester, 3~oitday, Oct. 25, 1858. this new continent as an engine of conquest, and fer the establishment ofmonarchical power, by the Portuguese andl the Spaniards, and was rapidly extended by thot c,ll over South America, Central America, Louisiana, and Mexico. Its legitimate fruits are seen in the poverty, imbecilit y, andl anarchy, which now pervade all Portugues e and Spanish America. The free-labor system is of German extraction, and it was established in our country by emigr ants from Sweden, Holland, Germany, Gr eat Britain, and Ireland. We justly ascricbe to its influences the str ength, wealth, greatness, in,telliigence, and freedomn which the whovhle American people now en joy. One of the chief elements of the value of human lif e is freedom in the pursuit of happi. ness. The slave system is not on ly into lerant, u h jus t, i actnd inhuman toward the laborera, whom, only bec;tise he is a laborer, it loads down with chains and converts into merchanlise, but is scarce ly les s severe upon the freemain, to whedmi, on ly because he i s a l abor er from necessity it denies facilities for employment, and whom it expels from the community because it cannot enslave and convert him into merchandise also. It is necessarily improvident and ruinous, because, as at general truth, communities prosper and flourish or droop and decline in just the degree that they practice or neglect to practice the primary duties of justice and humnanity. The free-labor system conforms to the divine law of equality, which is written in the hearts and consciences of men, and therefore is always and every where beneficent. The slave system is one of constant danger, distrust, suspicion, and watchfulness It debases those whose toil alone can produce wealth and resources for defense, to the lowest degree of which human nature is capable, to guard against mutiny and insurrection, and thus wastes energies which otherwise might be employed in national development and aggrandizement. The free-labor system educates all alike, and by open ing all the fields of industrial employment, and all the departments of authority, to the unchecked and equal rivalry of all classes of men, at once secures universal contentment, and brings into the highest possible acti vity all the physical, moral, and social energies of the whole State.

In States where the slave system prevails, the masters, directly or indirectly, secure all polit’zal ‘FELLOW-CITIZENS: The unmistakable outbreaks of zeal which occur all around me, show that you are earnest men -and such a man am I. Let us, therefore, at least for a time, pass by all secondary and collateral questions, whether of a personal or of a general nature, and consider the main subject of the present canvass. The Democratic party, or, to speak more accurately, the party which wears that attractive name, is in possession of the Federal Government. The Republicans propose to dislodge that party, and dismiss it from its high trust. The main subject, then, is, whether the Democractic party deserves to retain the confidence of the Ainerica n people. In attempting to prove it unworthy, I think that I am not actuatedl by prejudices against thtat party, or by prepossessions in favor of its adversary; for I have learned, by some experience, that virtue and patriotism, vice and selfishness, are found in all parties, and that they dilfer less in their motives than in the policies they pursue. Our country is a theatre, which exhibits in full operation, two radically different political systems; the one resting on the basis of servile or slave labor, the other on the basis of voluntary labor of freemen. The laborers who are enslaved are all negroes, or persons more or less purely of African derivation. But this is only accidental. The principle of the syste m is, that labor in every society, by whomsoever performed, is necessarily unintellectual, groveling, and base; and that the laborer, equally for his own good and for the welfare of the State, ought to be enslaved. The white laboring man, whether native or foreigner, is not enslaved, only because he cannot, as yet, be reduced to bondage. You need not be told now that the slave system is the older of the two, and that once it was universal. The emancipation of our own ancestors, Caucasians and Europeans as they were, hardly dates beyond a period of five hundred years. The great melioration of human society which modern times exhibit, is mainly due to the incomplete substitution of the system of voluntary labor for the old one of servile labor, which has already taken place. This African slave system is one which, in its origin and in its growth, has been altogether foreign from the habits of the races which colonized these States, and established civilization here. It was introduced on 160 o 8 I

Page 161 view page image

MR. SEWARD’S IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT. )ower, and constitute a ruling aristocracy. In States where the free-labor system prevails, universal suffrage necessarily obtains, and the State inevitably becomes, sooner or later, a republic or democracy. Russia yet maintains Slavery, and is a despotism. Most of the other European States have abolished Slavery, and adopted the system of free labor. It was the antagonistic political tendencies of the two systems which the first Napoleon was contemplating when he predicted that Europe would ultimately be either all Cossack or all Republican. Never did human sagacity utter a more pregnant truth. The two systems are at once perceived to be incongruous. But they are more than incongruous-they are incompatible. They never have permanently existed together in one country, and they never can. It would be easy to demonstrate this impossibility, from the irreconcilable contrast between their great principles and characteristics. But the experience of mankind has conclusively established it. Slavery, as I have already intimated, existed in every state in Europe. Free labor has supplanted it everywhere exceptin Russia and Turkey. State necessities developed in modern times, are now obliging even those two nations to encourage and emplhy free labor; and already, despotic as they are, we find them engaged in abolishing Slavery. In the United States, Slavery came into collision with free labor at the close of the last century, and fell before it in New-England, NewYork, NewJersey, and Pennsylvania, but triumphed over it effectually, aud excluded it for a period yet undetermined, from Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Indeed, so incompatible are the two systems, that every new State which is organized within our ever-extending domain makes its first political act a choice of the one and an exclusion of the other, even at the cost of civil war, if necessary. The Slave States, without law, at the last national election, successfully forbade, within their own limits, even the casting of votes for a candidate for President of the United States supposed to be favorable to the establishment of the free-labor system in new States. Hitherto, the two systems have existed in different States, but side by side within the American Union. This has happened because the Union is a confederation of States. But in another aspect the United States constitute only one nation. Increase of population, which is filling the States out to their very borders, together with a new and extended net-work of railroads and other avenue s, and an in ternal c om merce which daily becomes t moe intimate, i s rapi dly bringing the States i nt o a higher and m ore perfect social unity or consolidation. Thus, these antagonistic systems are contiIually coming into closetr co n t act, and collision results. ShaUl I t ell you what this collision meas? They who tnk that it is accidental, unnecessary, the work of interest ed o r fanatical agitators, and therefore ephemeral, mi stake the case altogether. It is an i eoible onflict between opposing and -lmg forces and”it mea n s Ttt he U fiued S t ates must and w i, usooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation. Either the cotton and rice field s of Sou th C a rolina and the sugar plantations of Louis iana will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charle s to n and New Orleans become marts for legitimate merch andi se alone, o r else the rye-fields and wheat-fields of Massachusetts and NewYork must again be s urrend ered by their farmers to slave culture and to the production of slaves,t and Boston and NewYork become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men. It is the failure to apprehend this great truth tha t induces so many unsucc essfu l attempt s at f inal compromise between the Slave and Free States, and it is the existence o f th is great fa ct that renders all such pretended compromises, when made, vain and ephemeral.v Startling as this saying may appear to you, fellow-citizriso, it is by no means an original o r even a modern one. Our forefathers knew it to be true, and unanimously acted upon it when they framed the Constitution of the United States. They regarded the existence of the servile system in so m an y of the States with sorrow and shame, which they openly confessed, and they looked upon the co)llision between them, which was then just revealing itself, and which wve are now accust om ed to deplore, wi th favor and hope. They knew that either the one or the other system must exclusively prevail. Unlike too many of those who in modern times invoke their authority, they had a choice between the two. They preferred the system of free labor, and they determined to organize the Government, and so to direct its activity, that that system should surely andl certainly prevail. For this purpose, and no other, they based the 11 w hole structure of Gover nment br oadly oln the principe that all men are creat ed e q ual, an d therefo re free-little dreaming that, within the s hort peri od of one hun dred years, their descenda nt s would bear to be told by any or ator, however popular, that t he utterance of that principle was merely a rhetorical rhapsody; or -by any jud ge however venerated, that it was attended by mental reservation s, which rendered it hypocritical and false. By the Ordina nce of 1787, the y dedicated all of the national domain not yet polluted by Slavery to free labor immediately, th encefor th and f orev er; whil e by th e new Constitution and laws they invited foreign free labo r from all lands under the sun, and interdicted the importation of African Slave Labor, at a ll t imes, in a ll places, and under all circumstances whatsoever. It is true that they necessarily and wisely modified this policy of Freedom, by leaving it to the several States, affected as they were by differing circumstances, to abolish Slavery in their own way and at their own plea sure, instead of confiding that duty to Congress, and that the y secured to t he Slav e State s, w hile yet retaining t h e s y stem o f Slavery, a three-fifths representation of slaves in the Federal Government, unti l the y should find themselves able to relinquish it with safety. But’ the very nature of these modifications fortifies my posi tion that the fathers knew that the two systems couldi not endure within the Union, and expected that within a short period Slavery would disappear forever. More over, in order that these modifications might not alto gether defeat their grand design of a Republic maintain ing universal equality, they. provided that twothirds of the States might amend the Constitution. It remains to say on this point only one word, to guard against misapprehension. If these States are to again be come universally slaveholding, I do not pretend to say with what violations of the Constitution that end shall be accomplished. On the other hand, while I do confidently believe and hope that my country will yet become a land of universal Freedom, I do not expect that it will be made so otherwise than through the action of the several States cooperating with the Federal Government, and all acting in strict conformity with their respective Constitutions. The strife and contentions concerning Slavery, which gently-disposed persons so habitually deprecate, are nothing more than the ripening of the conflict which the fathers themselves, not only thus regarded with favor, but which they may be said to have instituted. It is not to be denied, however, that thus far the course of that contest has not been according to their humane anticipations and wishes. In the field of federal politics, Slavery, deriving unlooked-for advantages from commercial changes, and energies unforeseen from the facilities of combination between members of the slaveholding class and between that class and other property classes, early rallied, and has at length made a stand, not merely to retain its original defensive position, but to extend its sway throughout the whole Union. It is certain that the slaveholding class of American citizens indulge this high ambition, and that they derive encouragement for it from the rapid and effective political successes which they have already obtained. The plan of operation is this: By continued appliances of patronage and threats of disunion, they will keep a majority favorable to these designs in the Senate, where each State has an equal representation.* Through that majority they will defeat, as they best can, tlhe admission of Free States, and secure the admission of Slave States.

Under the protection of the Judiciary, they will, on the principle of the Dred Scott case, carry Slavery into all the Territories of the United States now existing, and hereafter to be organized. By the action of the President and the Senate, using the treaty-making power, they will annex foreign slaveholding States. In a favorable conjuncture they will induce Congress to repeal the act of 1505, which prohibits the foreign slavetrade, and so they will import from Africa, at the cost of only $20
a head, slaves enough to fill up the interior of the continent. Thus relatively increasing the number of Slave States, they will allow no amendment to the Constitution prejudicial to their interest; and so, having permanently established their power, they expect the Federal Judiciary to nullify all State laws which shall interfere with internal or foreign commerce in slaves. When the Free States shall be sufficiently demoralized to tolerate these designs, they reason-; ably conclude that Slavery will be accepted by those States themselves. I shall not stop to show how speedy or how’ complete would be the ruin which the accomplishment of these slaveholding schemes would bring upon the country.

For one, I should not remain in the country to test the sad experiment.

Having spent my manhood, though not my whole life, in a Free State, no aristocracy of any kind, much less an aristocracy of slaveholders, shall ever make the lawns of the land in which I shall be content to live.

Having seen thie society around me ulniversally engaged ill 161

Page 162 view page image

162 A POLITICAL TEX agriculture, manufactures and trade, which were innocent and beneficent, I shall never be a denizen of a State where men and women are reared as cattle, and bought, and sold as merchandise. When that evilday shall come, and all further effort at resistance shall be impossible, I then, if there s hall be no better hope fo r re dempti on th an I I can no w foresee, I shall say with Franklin, while looking. abroad over thewle Whole ear t h for a new and mor e congeni al home, ” Where liberty dwells, there is my country.” You will tell me that these fears are extravagant and chimerical. I answer, they are so; but they are so only because the designs of the slaveholdels must and can be defeated. But it is only the possibility of defeat that renders them so. They cannot be defeated by inactivity. There is no escape from them, compatible with non-resistance. How, then, and in what way, shall the necessary resistance be made? There is only one way. The Democratic party must be permanently dislodged from the Governmenit. The reason is, that the Democratic party is inextricably committed to the designs of the slaveholders, which I have described. Let me be well understood. I do not charge that the Democratic candidates for public office now before the people are pledged to, much less that the Democratic masses who support them really adopt, those atrocious and dangerous designs. Candidates may, and ‘generally do, mean to act justly, wisely, and patriotically, when they shall be elected; but they become the ministers and servants, not the dictators, of the power which elects them. The policy which a party shall pursue at a future period is only gradually developed, depending on the occurrence of events never fully foreknown. The motives of men, whether acting as electors, or in any other capacity, are generally pure. Nevertheless, it is not more true that ” Hell is paved with good intentions,” than it is that earth is covered with wrecks resulting from innocent and amiable motives. The very constitution of the Democratic party commits it to execute all the designs of the slaveholders, whatever they may be. It is not a party of the whole Union, of all the Free States and of all the Slave States; nor yet is it a party of the Free States in the North and in the Northwest; but it is a sectional and local party, having practically its seat within the Slave States, and counting its constituency chiefly and almost exclusively there. Of all its representatives in Congress and in the Electoral College, twothirds uniformly come from these States. Its great element of strength lies in the vote of the slaveholders, augmented by the representation of three-fifths of the slaves. Deprive the Democratic party of this strength, and it would be a helpless and hopeless minority, incapable of continued organization. The Democratic party, being thus local and sectional, acquires new strength from the admission of every new Slave State, and loses relatively by the admis sion of every new Free State into the Union. A party is, in one sense, a joint-stock association, in which those who contribute most direct the action and management of the concern. The slaveholders contributing in an overwhelmning proportion to the capital strength of the Democratic party, they necessarily dictate and pre scribe its policy. The inevitable caucus system enables them to do so with a show of fairness and justice. If it were pos sible to conceive for a moment that the Democratic party should disobey the behests of the slaveholders, we should then see a withdrawal of the slaveholders, which would leave the party to perish. The portion of the partywhich is found in the Free States is a mere appendage, conve nient to modify its sectional character, without impairin{ its sectional constitution, and is less effective in regulating its movement than the nebulous tail of the comet is in de termining the appointed though apparently eccentric course of the fiery sphere from which it emanates. To expect the Democratic party to resist Slavery and favor Freedom, is as unreasonable as to look for Protestan{ missionaries to the Catholic Propaganda of Rome. The history of the Democratic party commits it to th~ policy of Slavery. It has been the Democratic party, and n other agency, which has carried that policy up to its pre sent alarming culmination. Without stopping to ascertain critically, the origin of the present Democratic party, we Lady concede its claim to date from the era of good feelin~ ,which occurred under the Administration of Presiden Monroe. At that timle, in this State, and about that time inmany others of the Free States, the Democratic part~ , ~ellberately disfranchised the free colored, or African citi ‘sen, and it has pertinaciously continued this disfranchise ,merit eser since. This was an effective aid to Slavery for while the slaveholder votes for his slaves against Fl-ee ,lom, the freed slave in the Free States is prohibited from v oting against Slavery.’ In lS24, the Democracy resisted the election of John Quiincy Adams himself before that time all acceptablh ~Democrat -and in 1S2~5, it expelled him from the Presi ardency, and put a slaveholder in his place, althoulgh the office had been f illed by slaveholders thirty-two out of forty years. In 1886, Martin Van Buren-the first nonslaveholding citizen of a Free State to whose election the Democratic party ever consented-signalized his inauguration into the Presidency, by a gratuitous announcement, that under no circumstances would he ever approve a bill for the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia. From 1838
to 1844, the subject of abolishing Slavery in the District of Columbia and in the national dockyards and arsenals, was brought before Congress by repeated popular appeals The Democratic party thereupon promptly denied the right of petition, and effectually suppressed the freedom of speech in Congress, so far as the institution of Slavery was concerned. From 1840 to 1843, good and wise men counselled that Texas should remain outside of the Union until she should consent to relinquish her self-instituted slavery; but the Democratic party precipitated her admission into the Union, not only without that condition, but even with a covenant that the State might be divided and reorganized so as to constitute four Slave States instead of one. In 1846, when the United States became involved in a war with Mexico, and it was apparent that the struggle would end in the dismemberment of that republic, which was a nonslaveholding power, the Democratic party rejected a declaration that Slavery should not be estab lished within the territory to be acquired. When, in 1850, governments were to be instituted in the Territo ries of California and NewMexico the fruits of that war, the Democratic party refused to admit NewMexico as a Free State, and only consented to admit California as a ;Free Htate on the condition, as it has since explained the t transaction, of leaving all of NewMexico and Utah open to Slavery, to which was also added theconcession of perpetual Slavery in the District of Columbia, and the passage of an unconstitutional, cruel, and humiliating I law, for the recapture of fugitive slaves, with a further stipulation that the subject of Slaver y should never again be agitated in either chamber of Congress. When, in 1854, the slaveholders were contentedly reposing on these great advantages, then so recently won, the Democratic party, unnecessarily, officiously, and with superservicea ble liberality, awakened them from their slumnber, to offer and force on their acceptance the abrogation of the law which declared that neither Slavery nor involuntary ser vitude should ever exist within that part of the ancient L territory of Louisiana which lay outside of the State of . Missouri, and north of the parallel of 36 deg. 80 min. of l north latitude-a law which, with the exception of one other, was the only statute of Freedom then remaining in the Federal code.

In 1856, when the people of Kansas had organized a 1 new State within the region thus abandoned to Slavery, 1 and applied to be admitted as a Free State into the Union, the Democratic party contemptuously rejected their pe tition and drove them, with menaces and intimidations, from the halls of Congress, and armed the President with s military power to enforce.

their submission to a slave code, established over them by fraud and usurpation. At every subsequent stage of the long contest which has since raged in Kansas, the Democratic party has lent its sympathies, its aid, and all the powers of the Government h which it controlled, to enforce Slavery upon that unwil. ling and injured people. And now, even at this day, r while it mocks us with the assurance that Kansas is free, g the Democratic party keeps the State excluded from her just and proper place in the Union, under the hope that c she may be dragooned into the acceptance of Slavery. cThe Democratic party, finally, has procured from a d Supreme Judiciary, fixed in its interest, a decree that t Slavery exists by force of the Constititioi in every Terrie tory of the United States, paramiount to all legislative y authority either within the Territory, or residing in Cono gress. - Such is the Democratic party. It has no policy, State or Federal, for tiltatce or trade, or mFanlfacture, or come merce, or education, or internal improvements, or for the g protection or even the security of civil or religious libt erty. It is positive and uncompromising in the interest e of Slavery-negative, compromising and vacillating, in y regard to everything else. It boasts its love of equality i-and wastes its stre ngth, and even its life, in fortifying the is only aristocracy known in the land. It professes frater nity, a nd so ofte n a s Slavery requires, allies itself with fo proscription. It magnifies itself for conquests in foreign mn lands, but it sends the national eagle forth always with chains, and not the olive branch, in his fangs. n This dark record shows you, fellow citizens, what I le was unwilling to announce at an earlier stage of this i-argument, that of the whole nefarious schedule of slaveee holding designs which I have submitted to you, the Deb

Page 163 view page image

THE DE.IOCRATIC PARTY FOR ALAVERY. cratic party has left only one yet to be consummated-I too conservative for otheis. As if any party ever foresaw the abrogation of the lawv which forbids the African slave I so clearly the course of future events as to plan a uttivertrade. sal scheme for future action, adapted to all possil)le Now, I know very well that the Democratic party has, I emergencies. Who would ever-have joined even the ANiig at every stage of these pioceedings, disavowed the motive I party of the Revolution, if it had been obliged to answer, and the polcy of fortifying and extending Slaveyy, and in o1775, whether it would declare for Inidepenflence ill has excused them dn entirely diflerent and more plausi-1776, and for this noble Feder al Constitution of ours in ble grounds. But the inconsistency and frivolity of 1787, and not a year earlier or later? these pleas prove still mor e conclusively the guilt I The people of the United States will be as wise next charge upon that party. It must, indeed, try to excuse year, and the year afterward, and even ten years hence, such guilt before mankind, aid even to the consciences s we are now. They will oblige the Republican party of its own adherents. Tilere is an instinctive abhorrence to act as the public welfare and the interests of justice of Slavery and a. inborn and inhering love of Freedom and humanity shall requite, through all the stages of its in the human heart, which lreders palliat on of such career, whether of trial or triumph. gross misconduct irdispensable. Itdisfranchised the flee Other s will not venture an effort, because they fear African on the ground of a fear that, if left to enjoy the that the Union would not endure the change. Will right of suffrage, he m ight seduce the free white citi-such objectors tell me how long a Constitution can bearzeit into amnalgamatio n with lis wronged and despised a strain directly along the fibres of which it is conirace. The L’enocratic party condetiuedi and deposed posed? Thlis is a Constitution of Freedom. It is being John Quirncy Adams, because he expended $12,000o,000 a converted into a Constitution of Slavery. It is a repubyear, while it justifies his favored successor in spending licari Constitution. It is being made an aristocratic one. $70,000,000o- $80,000,000oo, and even $1 0,000,000, a year. Others wish to wait until some collateral questions conIt denies emancipation in the District of Columbia, even cerning temperance, or the exercise of the elective franwith compensation to masters ald the const of tie clise are properly settled. Let me ask all such persons, people, on the ground of an implied constitutional inhi-whether time enough has not been wasted on these bition, although the Constitution expressly confets upon points already, without gaining any other than this Congress sovereign legislative power in that District, and single advantage, namely, the discovery that only one although the Denioctatic party is tenacious of the prin-thing can be effectually done at one time, and that the ciple ol strict cotst ruction. It violitei tile express plx o-one thing which must and will be done at any one time visions of the Costlu in isuppressing petition and is just that thing which is most urgent, and will no debate on the subject of Slavery, triouglh tear of dis-longer admit of postponement or delay. Finally, we turbatce of tihe public hairlony, althougl it claims that ate told by faint-hearted men that they despond; the the electors have a right to instruct their representlatives, Deioctatic party, they say, is unconquerable, and the and even demand their resignation in ca.es of contu-dominion of Slavery is consequently inevitable. I iiacy. Iextended Slavery over Texas, ani connived at reply to them, that the complete and universal dominion the atteimpt to si)real it across the Aexican territories, of Slavery would be intolerable enough when it should even to the shores of the Pacific Ocan, utiter a plea ol ha ve come after the last possible effort to escape should enlarging the are a of eedo. It a irogated the Mexi-have been made. There would, in that case, be left to can sl;ve law a,nd the Alissou-i Compromtise pr-,hibition us the consoling reflection of fidelity to duty. of Slavety in Kasnsas, not to open thle new Telritories to But I reply, further, that I know-few, I think, know Slavery, but to try tie rei n the new and fascinating better than I-the resources and energies of the Demotheories of Non-inttrvention and Popular Sovere gnty; cratic party, which is identical with the Slave Power. I and, fitially, it overtlhrew bothi these new atnd elegant do ample prestige to its traditional popularity. I know systems by the English Lecottiptoti bill and the Di)ed fuither-few, I think, know better than I-the diffiScott decision, on the groundt that the Free States ought culties and disadvantages of organizing a new political iot to enter the Uion without a population equal to the force like the Republican party, and the obstacles it representative basis of one mencber of Congress, altlhough must encounter in laboring without prestige and without Slave States miight coime in without inspection as to their patronage. B ut, notwithstanding all this, I know that numbers. the Democratic party must go down, and that the tie Will any member of the Democratic party now here publican party must rise into its place. The Demo  claim that the authorities chosen by the suffrages of the catic party derived its strength, originally, from its party transcended their partisan platforms, and so misre-adoption of the principles of equal and exact justice to presented the party in the various transactions I have all men. So long as it practiced this principle faithrecited? Then I ask him to name one Democratic fully, it was invulnerable. It became vulnerable when statesman or legislator, from Van Buren to Walker, it renounced the principle, and since that time it has, who either timidly or cautiously like them, or boldly or maintained itself, not by virtue of its own strength, or defiantly like Douglas, ever refused to execute a even of its traditional merits, but because there as yet behest of the slaveholders, and was not therefor, and had appeared in tl e political field no other party that for no other cause, immediately denounced, anid de-had the conscienc e and the courage to take up, and posed from his trust, and repudiated by the Democratic avow, and practice the life-inspir-ing principles which party for that contumacy. the Democratic party had surrendered. At last, the I think, fellow-citizens, that I have shown you that it Republican party has appeared. It avows now, as the is high time for the friends of Freedom to rush to the Republican paity of 1S00 did, in,one word, its faith and rescue of the Constitution, and that their very first duty its works, “

Equal and exact justice to all men.” Even is to disnms the Democratic party from the administra-when it first entered the field, only half organized, it tion of the Government. struck a blow which only just failed to secure complete Why shallit not be done? All agree that it ought to and triumphant victory. In this, its second campaign, be done. What, then, shall prevent its being done? it has already won advantages which render that triNothing but timidity or division of the opponents of the umplh now both easy and certain. Democratic party. The secret of its assured success lies in that very char Some of these opponents start one objection, and some acteristic which in tile mouth of scoffe rs, constitutes its another.

Let us notice these objections briefly. One great and lasting imbecility and reproach. It lies in class say that they cannot trust the Republican party; the fact that it is a party of one idea; but that idea is a that it has not avowed its hostility to Slavery boldly noble one-an idea that fills and expands all gene’ous enough, or its affection for Freedom earnestly eniough. souls; the idea of equality-the equalty of all men be I ask in reply, is there any other party which can be more fore human tribunals and human laws, as they all are safely trusted? Every one knows that it is the Republican equal before the Divine tribunal and Divine laws. party or none, that shall displace the Democratic party. I know, and you know, that a revolution has begun. But I answer further, that the character and fidelity I know, and all the world knows, that resolutions never of any party are determined, necessarily, not by its go backward.‘Twenty Senators and a hundred Reprepledges, programmes, and platforms, but by the public sentatives proclaim boldly in Congress to-day sentiments exigencies, and the temper of the people when they call and opinions and pr inciples of Ft eedotn which hardly so it into activity Subserviency to Slavery is a law writ-many men, even in this ftee State, dared to utter itl their ten not only on the forehead of the Democratic party, own homes twenty years ago. Whitle the Governinelt but also il its very soul-so resistance to Slavery, and of the United States, under the conduct of the Demodevotion to Freedon, the popular elements now ac-cratic patity, has been all that time surrendering one tively working for the Republican party among the peo-plain and castle after another to Slavery, the people of ple, must and will be the resources for its ever-renewing the United States have been no less steadily and persestrength and constant invigoration. vesingly gathering tagether the forces with which to re Others cannot support the Republican party, because it cover back again all the fields and all the castles which it has not sufficiently exposed its platform, and deter-have been lost, and to confound and overthrow: by one mined what it will do, and what it will not do, when decisive blow, the betrayers of the Constitution and triumphant. It may prove too progressive for some, and Freedom forever.

163

Page 164 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. “NEGRO SLAVER,Y NOT UNJI)ST.” A SPEECH BY

CHARLES O’CONOR, At the Union Aleeting at the Academy of Music, New York City, -)ec. 19, 1859. told in the legislative assemblies of our Northern States, not merely by speakers, but by distinct resolutions of the whole body-we are told by gentlemnen occupying seats in the Congress of the Union through the votes of Northern people-that tile Constitution seeks to enshrine, to protect, to defend a llistrous crime against justice and humanity, and that it is our duty to idefeat its provisions, to outwit them, if we cannot otherwise get rid of their eff ect, an d t o trample upon the rights which it has declared shall be pro - tected an d insured to our brethre n of th e S outh. (Ap plause.) That is no w the d octrine advocated. And I ask whether that doctrine, necessarily involving the destruc tion of our Union, shall be permitted to prevail as it has hitherto prevailed? Gentlemen, I trust you will excuse me for deliberately coming up to and meeting this question not seeking to captivate your fancies by a tack of words -not seeking to exalt your imaginations by’declamation or by any effort at eloquence-but meeting this question gravely, sedately, and soberly, and asking you what is to be our course in relation to it? Gentlemen, the Constitu tion guarantees to the people of the Southern States the protection of their slave property. In that respect it is a solemn compact between the North and the South. As a solemn compact are we at liberty to violate it? (Cries of “No, no!”) Are we at liberty to seek or take any mean, petty advantage of it? (Cries of “No, no!”) Are we at liberty to con over its particular words, and to restrict and to limit its operation, so as to acquire, under such narrow construction, a pretence of right by hostile and adverse legislation? (“

No, no!”)-to interfere with the interests, wound the feelings, and trample on the political rights of our Southern fellow-citizens? (“No, no, no!”) No, gentle men. If it be a compact,and has anything sacred in it,we are bound to observe it in good faith, honestly and honorably, not merely to the letter, but fully to the spirit, and not in any mincing, half-way, unfair, or illiberal construction, seeking to satisfy the letter, to give as little as we can, and thereby to defeat the spirit. (Applause.) That may be the way that some men keep a contract about the sale of a house or of a chattel, but it is not the way honest men observe con tracts, even in relation to the most trivial things. (” True,” and applause.) What has been done, having a tendency to disturb harmony under this Constitution, and to break down and destroy the union. now-existing between these States? Why, gentlemen, at an early period the subject of Slavery, as a mere philosophical question, was discussed by many, and its justice or injustice made the subject of argument leading to various opinions. It mattered little how long this discussion should last, while it was confined within such limits. If it had only led to the formation of societies like the Shakers, who do not believe in matri mony; societies like the people of Utah, destined to a short career, who believe in too much of it (laughter); or societies of people like the strong-minded women of our country, who believe that women are much better qualified than men to perform the functions and offices usua lly performed by men (laughter)-and who probably would, if they had their way, simply change the order of proceedings, and transfer the husband to the kitchen, and themselves to the field or the cabinet. (Laughter and applause.) So long, I say, as this sentimentality touching Slavery confined itself to the formation of parties and societies of this description, it certainly could do no great harm, and we might satisfy ourselves with the maxim that “

Error can do little harm as long as truth is left free to combat it.” But unfortunately gentlemen, this sentimentality has found its way out of the meeting-houses-from among pious people, assemblies of speculative philosophers, and societies formed to benefit the inhabitants of Barioboolagha-it has found its way into thle heart of the selfish politician; it has been made the war-cry of party; it has been made the instrument whereby to elevate not merely to personal distinction and social rank, but to political power Throughout the nonslaveholding States of this Union, menl have been thus elevated who advocate a course of con.

MR. MAYOR AND GENTLEMEN: I cannot exp)ress to you the delight which I experience in beholding in this great city so vast an assembly of my fellow ciLizens, conivened for the purp ose st ated in your resolutions. I ai delight ed b e yond me a sure to behold at this time so vast (An assembly responding to the call of a b ody so r espectable as th e twenty thousa nd New Yorkers who have colvedted this meeting. I f any thing can give assurance to those who d oubt, and confidence to those who may have had mis givin gs as to the permanency of our institutions, and tihe solidity of the s upport which th e people of the North are prepared to giveteen them, it is that i te queen ciy of the New World, in th e c apital of North America, there is assein,)led a m eeting so large, so respectable, and so uani us AS thi Ws is m ee ting lIas shown itself to be in re oeivi bg sentiments wh ich, if observed, must protect ouw Untion fronm destruction, and even from danger. (Ap plause.) Gentlemen, is it not a subject of astonishment that the idea of dan ger, and the still mo re dr eadful idea of dissolution, s h ould be heard from the lips of an Ameri cal citize n, at th is day, in reference to, or in connection with, the sacred nane of this most sacred Union? !Applause.) Why gentlemen, what is our Union? What are its antecede n t s? Wh at is its present cdondition?

If we war-d off the evils which threaten it, what its future hope fior us and for the great family of mankind? Why gentlemen, it may well be s ai d of this Union as a gover, inent, that as it is the last offspring, so is it Tie’s ii most glorious and beneficent production. Gentlemen, we are Lcreated by an Omniscient Being. We are created by a Bei ng n ot only All-Seeing, but All-P owe rful and All-Wise. And in the benignity and th e farseeing wisdom of His pow er, le permitted the great family of mankind to live on, to advance, to improve, step by step, and yet permit ted five thousand years and upward t o elapse etoe il e laid the foundation of a truly fr ee, a truly happy, and a truly independent empire. It was not, gentlemen, until that. gre at l ength of tim e had elapsed, t ha t the earth was deemed mat ure for laying the foundat ion s of this iibiginty an d prosperous State. It was then that He inspi red the noble-mind ed a nd c hivalrou s Genoes e to set forth upon t he trackless ocean and discover the empire that we slow enjo er cpatiely, Bu t a few years, compaaatively, }sad elapsed whena there was raise ld up in this b lessed la cd a set of ied whose like had never Biefore existed upon the face of this ear th. M
en unequal led in their p er ception s of the true principles of justice, in their comprehensive benevolence, in their capacity to lay safely, justly, soundly, and with all the q u alit ies which should insure peromanency, the founda tions of an empire. It wa s in 1776, an d in this country, that th er e assembled thle first, the very ficst, assemwbly of rational men who ever proclaimed, in cleaand unden iable form, the immutable principles of liberty, and consecrated, to all time I trust, in the face of tyrants, and in opposition to their power, the rights of nations and the rights of men. (Applause.) These patriots, as soon as the storm of war had pas sed away, sat down and framed that instrument upon which our Union rests, the C on stituti on of th e U nit e d St ates of America. (Applausen) And the question now before us is neither more nor less than this: wheth er that C onstitu tion, consecrated by the blood s hed in that glorious Revolution, consecrated by the signature of the most illustrious man wh o ever livedr G e orge Washington (a pplau se)-w hether that inst rument, accepted by the wis est and by the best of that day, and accepte d in c onvention, one by one, in eac h and every State of this Unionthat instrument from which so many blessings have flown-whether that instruient was conceived in crime; is a chapter of abominations (cries of “No, no,”) is a violation of justice, is a league between strong-handed but wicked-hearted white men to oppress, and impoverish, and plunder their fellow-creatures, contrary to rectitude, honor and justice. (Applause.) This is the question, neither more nor less. We are tot 1 fromn pulpits, we are told from the political rostrum, ye -.:e I 164

Page 165 view page image

CHARLES O’CONOR JUSTIFYING SLAVERY. duct necessarily exasperating the South, and the natural compact, to separate from us and to dissolve it?

Why effect of whose teachings renders the Southern people inse-gentlemen, the greatness and glory of the American name ure in their property and their lives, making it a matter will then be a thing of yesterday. The glorious Revof doubt each night whether they can safely retire to their lution of the thirteen States will be a Revolution not umbers without sentries and guards to protect them achieved by us, but by a nation that has ceased to exist. gainst incursions from the North. I say the effect has The name of Washington will be, to us at least at the )een to elevate, on the strength of this sentiment, such North (cheers), but as the name of Julius Coesar, or of Men to power. And what is the result-the condition of some other great hero who has lived in times gone by, “ings at this day?

Why, gentlemen, the occasion that whose nation has perished and exists no mote. The :alls us together is the occurrence of a raid upon the Declaration of Independence, what will thatbe? Why, ~tate of Virginia by a few misguided fanatics-follovers of the declaration of a State that no longer has place hese doctrines, with arms in their hands, and benrt upon among the nations. All these bright and glorious recolapine and murder. I called them followers, but they lections of the past must cease to be our property, and houldbe deemedleaders. They were the best, the bravest, become mere memorials of a by-gone race and people. and the most virtuous of all the abolition party. (Ap-A line must divide the North from the South. What will plause.) On the Lord’s day, at the hour of still repose, be the consequences? Will this mighty city-g’owing ‘hey armed the bondman with pikes brought from the as it now is, with wealth pouring into it from every por’orth, that he might slay his master, his master’s wife, and tion of this mighty empire-will it continue to flourish as .is master’s little children. And immediately succeeding to it has done? (Cries of “No, no!”) Will your marble ‘at this very instant-what is the political question pend-palaces that line Broadway, and raise their proud tops ag before Congress? toward the sky, continue to increase, until, as is now A book substantially encouraging the same course of promised under the Union, it shall present the most provocation toward the South which has been long pur-glorious picture of wealth, prosperity, and happiness, ued, is openly recommended to circulation by sixty-eight that the world has ever seen?

(Applause.) No! gennembers of your Congress. (Cries of “Shame, on them,“‘tiemen, no! such things cannot be. I do not say that applause, and hisses.)-Recommended to circulation by we will starve, that we will perish, as a people, if we sixty-eight members of your Congress, all elected in North-separate from the South. I admit, that if the line be ern States (hisses and applause)-every one, I say, elected drawn between us, they will have their measure of prosfrom nonslaveholding States. And with the assistance of perity, and we will have ours; but meagre, small in the their associates, some of whom hold their offices by your extreme, compared with what is existing and promised votes, there is great danger that they will elect to the under our Union, will be the prosperity of each. highest office in that body, where he will sit as a repre-Truly has it been said here to-night, that we were sentative of the whole North, a man who united in causing made for each other; separate us, and although you that book to be distributed through the South, carrying may not destroy us, you reduce each to so low a scale poison and death in its polluted leaves. (“Hang him!” that well might humanity deplore the evil courses that and applause.) Is it not fair to say that this great and brought about the result. True, gentlemen, we would glorious Union is menaced when such a state of things is have left, to boast of, our share of the glories of the Revofound to exist? when such an act is attempted?

Is it lution. The Northern States sent forth to the conflict reasonable to expect that our brethren of the South will their bands of heroes, and shed their blood as freely as calmly sit down (“No”) and submit quietly to such an those of the South. But the dividing line would take outrage? (Cries of “No, no.”) Why, gentlemen, we away from us the grave of Washington. It is in his own greatly exceed them in numbers. The nonslaveholding beloved Virginia. (Applause and cheers. ) It is in the States are by far the more populous; they are increasing State and near the spot where this treason that has been daily in numbers and in population, and we may soon growing up in the North, so lately culminated in violence overwhelm the Southern vote. If we continue to fill the and bloodshed. We would lose the grave-we would halls of legislation with abolitionists, and permit to occupy lose all connection with the name of Washington. But the executive chair men who declare themselves to be en-our philanthropic and pious friends who fain woull listed in a crusade against Slavery, and against the pro-lead us to this result, would, of course, comfort us with visions of the Constitution which secure that species of the consoling reflection that we had the glorious memory property, what can we reasonably expect from the people of John Brown in its place. (Great laughter and cheers.) of the South but that they will pronounce the Constitution, Are you, gentlemen, prepared to make the exchange? with all its glorious associations, with all its sacred memo- (Cries of “No, no.”) Shall the tomb of Washington, ries-this Uuion, with its manifold present and promised that rises upon the bank of the Potomac, receiving its blessings-an unendurable evil, threatening to crush and tribute from every nation of the earth-shall that become to destroy their most vital interests-to make their coun-the property of a foreign State-a State hostile to us in try a wilderness. Why should we expect them to submit its feelings, and we to it in ours? Shall we er ect a monuto such a line of conduct on our part, and recognize us as ment among the arid hills at North Elba, and deem the brethren, or unite with us in perpetuating the Union? privilege of making pilgrimages thither a recompense For my part I do not see anything unjust or unreason-for the loss of every glorious recollection of the past, able in the declaration often made by Southern members and for our severance from the name of Washington?9 on this subject. They tell us: “If you will thus assail He who is recoginized as the Father of his Country? us with incendiary pamphlets, if you will thus create a (Cries of “No, no,” and cheers.) No, gentlemen, we spirit in your country which leads to violence and blood-are not prepared, I trust, for this sad exchange, this shed among us, if you will assail the institution upon fatal severance. We are not prepared, I trust, either to which the prosperity of our country depends, and will ele-part with our glorious past or to give up the advantages vate to office over us men who are pledged to aid in such of our present happy condition. We are not prepared transactions, and to oppress us by hostile legislation, we to relinquish our affection for the South, nor to involve cannot-much as we revere the Constitution, greatly as our section in the losses, the deprivation of blIessings we estimate the blessings which would flow from its and advantages necessarily resulting to each from dis faithful enforcement-we cannot longer depend on your union. Gentlemen, we never would have attained the compliance with its injunctions, or adhere to the UJnion.” wealth and prosperity as a nation which is now ou0’s, For my part, gentlemen, if the North continues to con-but for our connection with these very much reviled and duct itself in the selection of representatives to the injured slaveholders of the Southern States. And, genCongress of the United States as, from, perhaps a certain tlemen, if dissolution is to take place, we must part with degree of negligence and inattention, it has heretofore the trade of the South, and thereby surrender our particonducted itself, the South is not to be censured if it cipation in the wealth of the South. Nay, more-we are withdraws from the Union. (Hisses and applause. A told from good authority that we must not only part voice-” that’s so.” Three cheers for the Fugitive Slave with the slaveholding States, but that our younger sister Law.) We are not, gentlemen, to hold a meeting to say with the golden crown-rich, teeming California, she that “We love this Union; we delight in it; we are who added the final requisite to our g:eatness as a proud of it; it blesses us, and we enjoy it, but we shall nation-will not conme with us. She will remain with fill all its offices with men of our own choosing, and, our the South. brethren of the South, you shall enjoy its glorious past; Gesitleusen, if we allow this course of injustice toward you shall enjoy its mighty recollections, but it shall the South to continue, these are to be the consequencestrample your institutions in the dust.” W e have nc evil to us, evil also to them. Mucs of all that we are right to say it. We have no right to exact so muck.’ most proud of; issucti of all that contributes to our prosand an opposite and entirely different course, fellow-pesity and greatness as a siatiosi, must pass away from citizens, must be ours-eust be the course of the great us. North, if we would preserve this Union. (Applause, he question is-lhould we permit it to he continued, and cries of” Good.”)’. and submit to all these evils, Is there any reason to And, gentlemen, what is this glorious Union? What justify such a course? There is a reason preached to us must we sacrifice if we exasperate our bathren of the lor periimittiing it. WVe are tohll that Slavery is unjust; we South, and compel them, by injustice and brea..f are tolil thatiL is a isatter of coussience to put iv down; 165

Page 166 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. trine. There are some principles well known, well understood, universally recognized and universally acknow ledged among men, that are not to be found written in constitutions or in laws. The people of the United States, at the formation of our Government, were, as they still are, in some sense, peculiarly and radically distinguishable from other nations. We were white men, of-what is commonly called, by way of distinction-the Caucasian race. We were a monogamous people; that is to say, we were not Mohammedans, or followers of Joe Sm ithwith half a dozen wives apiece. (Laughter.) It was a fundamental principle of our civilization that no State could exist or be tolerated in this Union, which should not, in that respect, resemble all the other States of tie Union. Some other distinctive features might be stated which serve to mark us as a people distinct from others, and incapable of associating on terms of perfect political equality, or social equality, as friends and fellow-citizens, with some kinds of people that are to be found upon the face of the earth. As a white nation, we made our Constitution and our laws, vesting all political rights in that race.

They, and they alone, constituted, in every political sense, the American people. (Applause.) As to the negro, why, we allowed him to live under the shadow and protection of our laws. We gave him, as we were bound to give him, protection against wrong and outrage; but we denied to him political rights, or the power to govern, * We left him, for so long a period as the community in which he dwelt should so order, in the condition of a bondsman. (Applause.) Now, gentlemen, to that condition the negro is assigned by nature. (Cries of “Bravo,” and “That’s so,” and applause.) Ex perience shows that this race cannot prosper-that they become extinct in any cold, or in any very temperate clime; but in the warm, the extremely warm regions, his race can be perpetuated, and with proper guardianship, may pros per. Ile has ample strength, and is competent to labor, but nature denies to him either the intellect to govern or the willingness to work. (Applause.) Both were denied him. That same power which deprived him of the will to labor, gave him, in our country, as a recompense, a master to coerce that duty, and convert him into a useful and val uable servant.

(Applause.) I maintain that it is not in justice to leave the negro in the condition in which nature placed him, and for which alone he is adapted.

Fitted only for a state of pupilage, our’ slave system gives him a master to govern him and to supply his deficiencies: in this there is no injustice. Neither is it unjust in the master to compel him to labor, and thereby afford to that master a just compensation in return for the care and talent em ployed in governing him. In this way alone is the negro enabled to render himself useful to himself and to the so ciety in which he is placed. These are the principles, gentlemen, which the extreme measures of abolitionism compel us to enforce. This is the ground that we must take, or abandon our cherished Union. We must no longer favor political leaders who talk about negro Slavery being an evil; nor must we advance the indefensible doctrine that negro Slavery is a thing which, although pernicious, is to be tolerated merely be cause we have made a bargain to tolerate it. We must turn away from the teachings of fanaticism. We must look at negro slavery as it is, remembering that the voice of inspiration, as found in the sacred volume, nowhere condemns the bondage of those who a re fit only for bond agee. Yieldin g t o the clear decree of nature, a nd the dic tates of sound philosophy, we must pronounce that insti tution just e i, beni gn, lawful and proper. The Constitution e s tablished by the fathers of our Republic, which recog nized it, must b e maintained. And that both may st and together, we must maintain that neither the in stitution itself, nor the Constitution which upholds it, is wicked or unjus t; ut thau t each is s ound and wise, and entitled to our fullest support. We must visit with our execrati on any man claimin g our suffrages, who objects to enforcing, with enti re good faith, the provisions of the Constitutio n in fa vor of negro Slavery, or who seeks, by any indirection, to wit hhol d it s protectio n f r om the S
out h, o r t o get a way from its obliga tiolls upon t he North. Let us henceforth suppor t no man for public office whose speech or action tend t t o induce assaults upon the territory of our Southern neighbors, or to generate in surrection within their borders. (Loud applause.) These are the principles upon which we nmust act. This i-8 wvhat we must say to our brethren of the South. If wve have sent men into Congress who are false to these viewfs, and are seeking to violate the compact which binds us together, we must ask to be forgiven until we have another chance. to mal~n i!est our will at tile ballotboxes. Wve must tell them that these men shlall be consigned to plrivacy (applause), anti that true mlen, mlenl faithful to the onlstltution, enie loving all portionls of the country alike, shall be elected in their st,eald Andl, gentlemlen,s we mutst dit nln’e thail promise thxis-ie mlus~ perf,,rma it. (Loud applause, foL atn t hat wnxtener t reaties or compactins, or laws, or const itultion%, hve been made to sanction and uphold it, it is Stil u holy, and that we are bound to trample upon t eBlutie lasen, tlaws and constitution s, an d to stand ,M y what t,se en arrogantly tell us is the law of God Oana a fundamental prin cipl e of natural justice. Indeed, gentlemen, these two things are not distinguishable. The IgLW 0f rod and na tur al justice, as between man and man, a on e land the same. the wisest philosolaher of anci ent tise-s-heathen philosophers-said, The rule of conduct betweer n Ima and m an is, to live h onestly, to injure no ar, and to render to every man his due. In words far luone direc t and emphatic, in words of the most perfect coavwphieheonsiveness, th e S avi our o f the world gave us the sab or fule in one shor t sen tence-” Love th y feighbor as thyself.”

(Applause.) Now, speaking between us, people of the North and our brethren of the South, I ask you to eac t upoin this maxim-th aoe axi of then-the comnmlapld o f the living God: ” Render to every man his due,” (rLov e thy neighbor a s t hyself.” (Applause.) Thus we should act and feel toward the South. Upon that ar rxim w hich cam e from Him of Nazareth we should act toward the S outh, but with out putt ing upon it any newtalgled, i odleon int erpretation. We should neither say nor think that any Gospel minister of this day is wiser than God hinaselt-than le w h o gav e u s the G,ospel. These iaxitrs s hould govern between us and our brethren of the South. But, gentlemen, t he question is this: Do these leaximsjustify the assertion of those wh o seek to invade he ri s of th e fl e South, by proclaiming negro Slavery unij ust? That is the point to which this great argument, involving the fate of our Union, must now come. Is rlegr-o Sl avery unjust? If it be unjust, it violates the oiets t rule of human conduct,” Render to every man hi s due.” If it be unjust, it violates the law of God, which says, ” Love thy neighbor as thyself,” for that law requires tihat we should perpetrate no injustice. Gentlemen, if it could be maintained that negro Slavery is unjust, is thus in conflict withe lofn the law of nature and the law of God, perhaps I might b e prepared-perhaps w e all ought to be prepared to go with that distinguished man to whom allusion is frequently made, and say, there is a ” higher law ” which compels us to trample beneath our feet, as a wicked andl unholy compact, the Constitution established by our fathers, with all the blessings it secures to their clhildl-en. But I inlsist-and that is tne argument which we must meet, and on which we must come to a conclusion that shall govern our action in the future selection of representat.ives in the Congress of the United States-I iisist that negro Slavery i8 not urnjust. (Long continued applause.) It’isi ot ujus8t; it is ju8t,Wise, and besiofweit.

(Hisses, followed by applause, and cries of iPut him out.”) Let him stay, gentlemen. PlRESlD,NT.-Let him stay there. Order. MR. O’CoRog.-Serpents may hiss, but good men will hear. (Cries again of ” Put him out;” calls to orderconfusion for a time.) THE: PR_2IDENT.-If anybody hisses here, remember that every one has his own peculiar way of expressing hitmself, and as some birds only understand hissing, they must hiss. (Applause.) MR.

O’Co.oR.-Gentlemen, there is an animal upon this earth that has no faculty of making its sentiments known in any other way than by a hiss. I am for equal rights. (Three cheers were here given for Air. O’Conl’, three for Gov. Wise, and three groans for John Brown.) I beg of you, gentlemen, all of you who are of my mind at least, to preserve silence, and leave the hissing animal in the full enjoyment of his natural privileges. (Cries of ” Good, good,” laughter and applause.) The first of our race that offended was taught to do so by that hissing animal. (Laughter and applause.) The first human society that was ever broken up through sin and discord, had its happy union dissolved by the entrance of that animal.

(Applause.)‘therefore I say it is his privilege to hiss. Let him hiss on.

(Cries of “Good, good,” laugl,tter and applause..) Gentlemen, I will not detain you much longer. (Cries of “‘Go on, go on.”) I maintain that negro Slavery is not unjust-(a voice~~’ No, sir,” applause,) that it is benign in its influence upon the white man and upon the black. (Voices-” Th’at’s so, that’s so,” applause.) I maintain that it is ordained by riature; that it is a necessity of both races; that, inl climates where the black r-ace can live and prosper, nature herself enjoins correlative duties on the black man and on the white, which cannot be performed except by the preservation, and, if the hissing gentleman please, the perpetuation of negro Slavery. I am fortified in this opinion by the highest tribunal in our country, that venerable exponent of our institutions, and of the principles of justice the Supreme Court of the United States. That court has held, on this subject, what wise men will ever pronounce to be sound and just doc 166

Page 167 view page image

CHARLES O’CONOR JUSTIFYING SLAVERY. lowed by three cheers for Mr. O’Conor, and a tiger.) But States, and the negres’,-.ndman in the Southern States.

a w,,d irore, gentleuen, and I havedone. (Cries of” Go Thie white man is to be emancipated at twentyone. on.”) I have no doubt at all that what I have said1 to because his God-given intellect entitles him to etnancipayou this evening will be greatly misrepresented. It is lion and fits him for the duties to devolve upon him. very erltain that I have not had time enough properly to The negro, to be sure, is a bondman for life. le may be enlarge uponi and fully to explain the interesting topics on sold from one master to another but where is the ill in whit I have ventured to express nyself thtus boldly and that?-one maybe as good as another. If there be laws distinctiy, takinig uphn myself the consequences, be they with respect to thie mode of sale, which by separ ating man wiat they may.

(Applause.) But I will say a few words and wife do occasionally lead to that which shocks by way of explanation. I have maintained the justice of humanity, and may be said to violate all propriety and lavery; I have taititaioed it, because I hold that the all conscience if such things are done, let the South negr-o is decreed by natu,re to a state of pupilage under the alone and they will correct t he evil. Let ou r brethren of domtinion of tile wiser white man, in every clime where the South take care of their own domlestic institutions Go/l an nature meant the negro should live at all. and they will do it. (Applause.) Tfiey will so govern (Applause.) I say a state of pupilage, an,], that I nmay themselves as to suppress acts of this description, if they be rightly un(lerstood, I say tha it is the duty of the are occasionally committed, is perhalps they are, and we white ian to t-eat hi kindly; that is tle int erest o f the must all admit that they are contrary tojust conceptions wlwhite tan totreat im kindly. (Applause.) And further, of right and humanity. I have never yet heard of a it is my belief thi,at if the whitte a in the Sta tes wihere nation conquered from evil practices, brought to the Slavery exists, is ot inter fer ed with by the fanatics who light of civilization, brought to the light of religion or the ae now creating these disturbances, whatever laws, knowledge of the Gospel by the bayonet, by the penal whatever i~)ov etwhathatever variations in the con-laws, or by external persecutions of any kind. It is not duct of society are necessary for the purpose of enforcing by declamation and outcty against a people from those in every instance the d ictates of inte-est and humnanity, abroad and outside of thei r territory that you can im,prove ias ietween the white man and tie black, will be faith-their manners or their morals ill any respect. No; if, fully and faily carried out in the progessof that im-r standing outsideoftheirterritory, you attack the errors provement it -,I ttese things in which we are engaged. of a people, you make them cling to their faults. From It. is not preten (ided that tie master has a right to slay his a sentiment somewh.at excusablessomlewha t akin to selfslave; it is rot preten(ed that he has a l ighlt to be guilty respect and patriotismn-they will resist their nation’s of hness al inhumaiity to his slave. The laws of enemry. Let our brethren ot the South alone, gentletimen, all tle Sojuther n States forbid that; we lave not thie right and if there be any errors of this kind, they will correct here at the Noth to be guilty of cruelty toward a horse. them. it is al indicta,ble offence to commit such cruelty. The There is but one way in which you can thus leave them samie laws exist il the South, and if there is any failure to the guidance of their own judgment-by whicih you can il enforcing tieh, to the fullest extent, it is dueue this retain them in this Union as our brethren, and perpetuate external force, which is pressing upon t he Southern this glorious Union; and that is, by resolvinig-without bEates, andi compels themt to albstain poer iaps from many reference to the political party or laction to which any acts beneficent toward the negro which otherwise would one of you may belong, without ieference to the name, be performed. (Applause.) I,, truth, in fact. in deed, political or otherwl ise, which yotu may please to bearthe white man in the slaveholding States has no more resolving that the man, be he who tie mity, who advocates authority by law ofthe land over lis slave than our laws the doctrine that negro Slavery is nnjust, and ought to allow to a father over his nior children. He can no be assailed or legislated against, o-r Wino agitates thie submore violate humanity with respect to them, than a father ject of extinguishing negro Sliavery in aney of its forms as in any of tile free States of this Union can exercise acts a political hobby, tat thlat Ia i lt le deited your sufviolative of humanity toward his own son under the age frages, and not only denied your suff ages, but that you of twentyone. So fr as the lw is concerned, you own will select from the ranks of the ol ptlsite party, or your your boys, and have a right t o their services until they own, if necessary, the man you like least, who entertains are twentyone. You can make them work for you; you opposite sentiments, but through w,ose instrumentality have the right to hire out their services and take their you may be enabled to defeat his election, and to secure earnings; you have the right to chastise them withjudg-in the councils of the nation.en who are true to tile ment and reason if they violate your comnmands; and Constitution, who are lovers of the Union-menwho canthey are entirely without political rights. Not one of not be induced by considerations of imaginary benevothem at the age of twenty years and eleven months even, lence for a people who really do not desire their aid, to can go to the polls and and give avote. Therefore, gen-sacrifice or to jeopard in any degree the blessings we tiemen, before the law, there is but one difference between enjoy under this Union. May it be perpetual. the free white man of twenty years of age in the Northern (Great and continued cheering.) THE REAL QUESTION STATED. LETTER FROM

CHARLES O’CONOR TO A COMMITTEE OF MERCHANTS. drawn to the true issue, and steadily fixed upon it. To effect this object was the sole aim of my address. Though its ministers can never permit the law of the land to be questioned by private judgment, there is, nevertheless, such a thing as natural justice. Natural justice has the Divine sanction; and it is impossible that any human law which conflicts with it should long endure.

Where mental enlightenment abounds, where morality is professed by all, where the mind is free, speech is free, and the press is free, is it possible, in the nature of things, that a law which is admitted to conflict with natural justice, and with God’s own mandate, should long endure? You all will admit that, within certain limits, at least our Constitution does contain positive guaranties for the preservation of negro Slavery in the old States through all time, unless the local legislatures shall think fit to abolish it. And, consequently, if negro Slavery, however humanely administered or judiciously regulated, be an institution which conflicts with natural justice and with God’s law, surely the most vehemeut and extreme admirers of NEW YORK, Dec. 20, 1859.

CHAS. O’CoNOR, EsQ.: The undersigned, being desirous of circulating as widely as possible, both at the North and at the South, the proceedings of the Union Meeting held at the Academy of Music last evening, intend publishing in pamphlet form, for distribution, a cort ect copy of the same. Will you be so kind as to inform us whether this step meets your approval; and if so, furnish us with a corrected report of your speech delivered by you on that occasion. Yours respectfully, LEITCH, BURNET &

CO., GEO. W. & JEHIAL READ, BRUFF, BROTHER & SEAVER, C. B. HATCH & CO., DAVIS, NOBLE & CO., (Formerly FURMAN, DA-VIs & Co.,) WESSON & COX, CRONIN, HURXTHAL & SEARS, ATWATER, MULFORD CO. GENTL’EMEqN: The measure you propose meets my entire approval. I have long thought that our disputes concerning negro Slavery would soon terminate, if the public mind could be 167 4-b

Page 168 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. John Brown’s sentiments are right; and thei: denun-It is in vain to say that this could be endured; it is sim ciations against the Constitution, and against the most ply impossible.

hallowed names connected with it, are perfectly justifia-What, then, remains to be discussed? ble. The negro race is upon us. With a Constitution which The friends of truth-the patriotic Americans who would held them in bondage, our Federal Union might be presustain their country’s honor against foreign rivalry, and served; but if so holding them in bondage be a thing fordefend their country’s interests against all assailants, err bidden by God and Nature, we cannot lawfully so hold greatly when they contend with these men on any point them, and the Union must perish. but one. Their general principles cannot be refuted; This is the inevitable result of that conflict which has their logic is irresistible; the error, if any there be, is in now reached its climax.

their premises. They assert that negro Slavery is unjust. Among us at the north, the sole question for reflection, This, and this alone, of all they say, is capable of being study, and friendly interchange of thought should be-Is fairly argued against. negro Slavery unjust? The rational and dispassionate If this proposition cannot be refuted, our Union cannot inquirer will find no difficulty in arriving at my concluendure, and it ought not to endure. sion. It is fit and proper; it is, in its own nature, as an Our negro bondmen can neither be exterminated nor institution, beneficial to both races; and the effect of this transported to Africa.

They are too numerous for either assertion is not diminished by our admitting that many process, and either, if practicable, would involve a viola-faults are practised under it. Is not such the fact in retion of humanity. If they were emancipated, they would spect to all human laws and institutions? relapse into barbarism, or a set of negro States would I am, gentlemen, with great respect, yours truly, arise in our midst, possessing political equality, and enti-CHARLES O’COXOR. tied to social equality.

The division of parties would soon To Messrs. Leitch, Burnet & Co.; Geo.

W. & Jehial Read; Brur, make the negro members a powerful body in Congress-Brother & Seaver; C. B. Hatch & Co.; Davis, Noble & Co.; would place some of them in high political stations, and Wesson Cox; Cronin, Hurxthal & Sears; Atwater, Mulfo-d occasionally let one into the executive chair. & Co. HERSCHEL V. JOHNSON ON SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. Hence Congress has, in all cases since the foundation of our government, reserved a veto upon the legislation of the territorial governments; it is absolutely necessary, in order to restrain them from violations of the Constitution and infringements of the rights of the States, as joint owners of the public lands. If, therefore, the act of the Territorial Government, prohibiting Slavery, should be sent up to Congress for approval, they would be bound to withhold it, upon the ground of its being an act which Congress themselves could not pass. But suppose the right of legislation for the Territory be in its inhabitants, can they prohibit Slavery? Surely not; and for reasons similar to those which show that Congress cannot. The Territories are not independent of, but s u bord inate to, the United States; and therefore their legislation must be subordinate. Let us look at some of the limitations which this condition imposes. Under the Constit uti on, “No title of nobil ity shall be granted by th e United States;” ” Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or pertaining to the free exercise thereof; no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States,” etc. It is true, these restrictions do not apply in terms to the Territories; but will it be contended for a moment that they would have the right by legislation to lay these impositions upon citizens of the States who emigrate thither for settlement?… Sovereignty follows the ownership of the domain, and therefore the sovereignty over the Territories is in the States in their confederated capacity; hence the reason that the legislat ion of Congress, as the agent of the States respecting the Territories, must be limited by the object of the trust, the situation and nature of the property to be administered, and the respective rights of the proper owners. Now, if the sovereignty over the Territories i, in the States, and the right of legislation not in Congress, but in the inhabitants of the Territories, it is evident that they can have no higher right of legislation than Congress could have; they must be bound by limitations just mew tioned; and if the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories by Congress be inconsistent with these limitations, its prohibition by the territorial legislature would be so likewise. If possessing the right of legislation, the inhabitants of the Territories are bound by the limitations to which I have alluded, it may be asked, who holds the check upon their action? I reply, that it is indispensable for Congress to exercise the veto upon their legislation.

WJh else shall prevent their passing laws in violation of the. equal rights of the States in the Territory, which is the common property of all? Without the retention of a veto upon the legislation of the Territorial Governments, it would make the inhabitants of the Territory inlependlent of Congress; aye, it would establish the proposition, that the moment you conqt,,r a people they rise superior t,: the government that co~i-{uuc-,. NewMexico and Califor On the 7th of July, 1848, while the bill to establish the Territorial Government of Oregon was under consideration in the Un i te d States Sen ate,th i ehe s the Hon.

Herschel. Johnson, then a m ember of the Senate, from Georgia, and now a candidate for VicePresident on the ticket with Mr. Douglas, m ade a lengthy spe ech fiom which we extract the following: It remains now to consider the question involved in the am endment proposed by the Senator from Mississippi (prIr. Dav is). That qu estion is, whether it is the duty of C ongr ess to guarantee to the slaveholder, who shall remove with hi s salves into the territory of the United States, the undisputed enjoyment of his property in them, s o long as it continues to be a Territory. Or, in othe r word s, whe ther t he i nhabitants of a Territory, d ur ing their Territorial condition, have the right to prohibit S lavery therein.

For the pu rpose of this question, it matters not where the p ower of legislating for the Territory resideswheth er exclusiv ely in C ong ress, or jointly in Congress and the inhabitants, or exc lusively in the inhabitants of th e Territory; the power i s precisely the same-no greater in th e h ands of one than the other. In no event, can the slaveholder of t he South b e excludei from settling in such Territory with his propert y of every descrip tion. If the right of exclusive legislation for the Territories belongs to Congress, then I hav e sh own that they have no Constitutional power, either expressed or implied, to prohibit Slavery ther ein. But suppose that Congress have the right to establish a Territorial Governm e nt only, and that then, all fur ther governmental control ceases; can the Territorial Legislature pa ss an act prohibiting Sla very? Surely not. For the pol ment y ou admit the right to o rganiz e i orn a Te ritorial Government to exis t in Congress, you admit, necessarily -he subordination of the people of the Territory-their Dependence on this Government for an organic law to give them political existence. Hence all their legislation must be in conformity with the organic law; they can pass no act in violation of it-none but such as permits. Since, therefore, Congress has no power, as I have shown, to prohibit Slavery, they cannot delegate such a power to the inhabitants of the Territory; they cannot authorize the Territorial Legislature to do that which they have no power to do. The stream cannot rise higher than its source. This is as true in governments as in physics. It is idle, however, to discuss this question in this form. For if Congress possess the pow er to o rganize temporary governments, it must then possess the power to legislate for the Territories. If they may perform the greater, they may the less; the major includes the minor proposition. 168 4.1.

Page 169 view page image

HIIERSCHEL V. JOHNSON ON POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY. nia are ours by tieaty; but for all the purposes of this argument, we have acquired them by conquest.

To assert, therefore, that they have the right to legislate over all subjects-to prohibit Slavery, despite the consent of the | United Statesis to say that, by our conquest of them, they become invested with rights superior to those of Congress. The institution of Slavery is fguarantteecd by the Constitution of the United States, and it has the same protection thrown around it which guards our citizens against the granting of titles of nobility or the establishment of religion; therefore Coigress would be as much bou7td to veto an act of Territorial legislation prohibiting it, as an act violating these rights of every citizen of the lpuihblic…. MAr. Mangum.-This is a free Territory (NewMexico) I am now speaking about. Suppose a North Carolinian emigrates to NewMexico with his slaves? they must either be recognized as property, or not; who has the right to determine that question? Mr. Johnson.-I think that question has already been decided by the late treaty (with Mexico)… Now, is not Slavery in the United States a political as well as a municipal institution? It is municipal, in that its entire control and continuance belong to the State in which it exists; and it is political, because it is recognized by the organic law of the Confederacy, and cannot be changed or altered by Congress, without an amendment to the Constitution;- and because it is a fundamental law, that three-fifths of the slaves are represented in the National Legislature. Being political, upon the execution of the Treaty of Cessionwith Mexico, it extended eo instaiti, over the Territories of NewMexico and California. Then, I say, if a fellow-citizen of the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Mangum) were to remove with his slaves into NewMexico, his right to their use and service is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and no power on earth can deprive him of them,.. It is a misapplication of terms to speak of prohibiting Slavery in the territory of the United States. It already exists in contemplation of law, and the legislation proposed (prohibition) amounts to abolition… But suppose, Mir. President, you have the right to prohibit Slavery in the Territories of the United States, what high political consideration requires you to exercise it? All must see, that it cannot be effected without producing a( popular coievulsion which will probably dissolve ths Union. a majority one by twenty members of the Committee, and a minority one by four members. which latter division included Herschel V. Johnson who, as as chairman, i ntroduced the minority report. The two reports were discussed bv various persons, Mr. Johnson defending his, and Howell Cobb, Secretary of the Treasury, acting as pacificator. The latter gentleman stated that there was ” no difference in the principles enunciated in both the majority and minority reports. There were only two minor differences; one was, that the majority report indorsed the secession from the Charleston Conventionwhile the minority neither indorsed nor commended the action of the Georgia delegates there.”

The result was, that the majority report was adopted by a vote of 299 to 41, when the minority, under the lead of Mr. Johnson, seceded, organized another Convention and appointed a full delegation to Baltimore, onehalf of whom were admitted to seats by the Convention, together with onehalf of the other delegation. The following is the report presented to the regular Convention by Mr. Johnson: MINORITY REPORT. P~esovecd, That we reaffirm the Cincinnati Platform, with the following additional propositions: 1st. That the citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their joroperty ofaTsy kiitd, in the organized Territories of the United States, and that under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Dred Scott, which we recognize as the correct exposition of the Constitution in this particular,.Plane property stands Upon the same footing as all other descriptions of property, and that neither the General CGoverment., fOR

ANY TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT, can e destroy or impair the right to slaove property in the common Territories, any more than the right to any other description of property; that property of all kinds, slaves as well as any other species of property, in the Territories, stand upon the same equal and broad Constitutional basis, andsubjectto like principles of recognition and protection in the LERGISLATIVE, j,tdicial and exeutive Zepartmeeq,ts of the Governmeiit. 2d. That we will support any man who may be nominated by the Baltimore Convention, for the Presidency, who wholds the principles set forth in the foregoing proposition, and who will give them his isidoi-sement, and that we will not hold ourselves bound to support any man, who may be the nominee, who entertains principles io consistent with those set forth in the above proposition, or who denies that slave property in -the Territories does stand on an equalfooting, and on the same Constitutional basis of other descriptions of/prtpe,-ty. In view of the fact that a large minijority of the delegates from Georgia felt it to be their duty to withdraw from the late Democratic Convention at Charleston, thereby depriving this State of her vote therein, according to the decision of said Convention. lResolved, That this Convention will appoint twenty delegates-four from the State at large, and two from each Congressional District-to represent the Democratic party of Georgia, in the adjourned Convention at Baltimore, on the Sthl inst., and that said delegates be and they are hereby instructed to present the Job?-eg(oisigpro. positions, and aeisk their adoption by tla Nationsal Democratic (?,v~eition. fIERSCIIEL V. JOIvNSON Trios. P. SAFIOLD, lt. K.

AIcCAY, A. CI)LVAltD. Mr. H ersche l V. Johnson made a speec h at a Democratic meeting in Philadelphia on the 17th of September, 1856, in which the newspapers report him as having said, among other things: “We believe that capital should own labor; is there any doubt that there must be a laboring class everywhere? In all countries and under every form of social organization there’ must be a laboring class-a class of men who get their living by the sweat of their brow; and then there must be another class that controls and directs the capital of the country.” MR. JOHNSON’S

VIEWS ON POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY. After the adjournment of the Democratic National Convention from Charleston to Baltimore a Democratic State Convention met at Milledgeville, Ga., on the 4th of June, to take action in regard to the secession of most of the G eorgia delegates at Charleston. It seems that a Business Committee of 24 was appointed, of which Herschel V. Johnson was one. This Committee disagreed as to the propriety of appointing new delegates to Baltimore, the friends of the Seceders opposing and a few who preferred to see Douglas elected to a dissolution of the party, favoring that step; and the consequence was, that two reports were presented I 169 “CAPITAL SHOLTLD OWX LABOR.”

Page 170 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. TREASON AND DISUNION AVOW17’D. Is 1856, as lnow, many of the leading Statesmen and editors of the Democratic party in the Southern States uttered predictions of Disun,ioc, made arguments for Disunion and very solemni threats of Disunion in case they shoulde be beaten in the Presidential Electioi. Mr. Slidell, S en a t o r from Louisiana, and the partic ular friend and champion of Mr. Buchanan, declared in 1856 that ” if Fremonot should be elected, the Uniion would be dissolved.” Mr. Toombs, of Georg,ia, said “that ill such an event the Union would be dissolved, and ought to be dissolved.” Mr. Butler, of S.

C., a leadiing meinber of the U. S. Senate and chairman of the Judiciary Conmmtittee in 1856, said: arm of sosuttern Co,eeme ra, upon the Treas,pry and a,r. chives of tfle Government. (Applause.) LThe Charle ston “

Mercury,” the recognized organ of t he Sout h Ca rolin a Demo cracy, in a recent article says: u poni thepon olicy of dissolving the Union, of separat ing the Soiath from her norther~ eenemie, and e8tablishing a southern Confederacy, parties, preasses, politicians, and peoprle, are a u?it. Thaet-e is not a single public man in he r limits, a ot on e of t h er present rers sentatives or senators in Congaress who is [ot pledged to tle lips in favtor ofdisunioi. Indeed, we well remember that o ne of the most prominent leaders of the cooperation party, whe n t aunted with submission, rebuked the thought by saying, ” that in oppost izy secession, we only took a step backward to strike a blow mor e deadly agaiest the Union.” In the autumn of 1856, Henr y A. Wise, the n Governor of Virginia, told the people of that State that The South could not, without degradation, submit to the election o f a Blac k Republican Piesident. To tell me e sh ould subm it to the election of a Black Republcan, u nd e r circ umstances like these, iso o tell me that Virginia and the four teen Slave States are already subjug,.ted and degraded, [cheers;] that the southern people are without spirit, and without pu rp ose to defend the rights they k now a nd dare not maintain. [Cheers ] If you submit to the election of Fremont, you will prove what Seward and Burlingame said to be true-that the South cannot be kicked out of t he U nion. During the Presidential caTnpaign o f 1856, the Washington correspondent of the “New Orleans Delta,” a journal high i n thre c onfidence of’ the Pier ce administration, wrot e: It is already arranged, in the event of Fremont’s election, or a failure to elect by the people, to call the Legislatures of Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia’to concert measures to withlraw fr-om the Union before Fremont can get possession of the Army and navy and the purse-strings of gov er nment. (vernor )Vise is actively at work alsrealy iib the ma(tter. I/ie 5,uth can rely on the Presideent ill th,e eemerqen Ad:y,,o,nten?f,Iplated. The question now is, wileth,er the people of v.,a South will sustain their leader s. At a Union ineetin, recenitlyN li(l I at Knoxville, Tenn., Juidge Daily, torilllv of Georgia, made a violent southern spjeecl!, mn the course of which he said: During the Presidential contest, Governor Wise had addressed letters to all the southern governors, and that the one to the, Governor of Florida had been slwwt&
lihim, in vohieh Gao. Wvise s3aid he 7had {iz army in readines.s to prevent F,5em ont./Forn taking 7irs seat if elected, and asking the cooperation of those to whom he wrote: Clharles J. Falulllklnert, formfierlv a Represenitative in Conigress tfr-omi Vi,ti-niiia, Clhairmaiitil of the Democratic Coiigressioil C ommittee, in 1856, and now Minister to Fat,e, At a r(‘ecent Deinocratic meeting held in Vitrginiai, over which ho presided, said: When that noble and gallant son of Virginia, Hfenry A. Wise, declared, as was said he did in October, 1856, that I if Fremont should be elected, IIE WOULD SEIZE THE NATIONAL ARSENAL AT

IIARPEIR’S FERRY, how few would, at that time, have justified so bold and decided a measure? It is thejbrtune of some g,“eat and y’ifted winds to ses far in azdva,e of their contempor-arie.s Should William H. Seward be elected in 1,8;60, where is the man now in our midst, who -ouild not callfor th, ig?,peachiment !of a Govsemnor of 7ircjiniiauto q/o old s ilently 8uffer When Fremont is elected, we must rely upon what we have-a good State Government. Every Governor of the South should call the Legislature of his State together, and have measures of the South decided upon. If they did not, and submit to the degradation, they would deserve the fate of slaves. I sould cadvise mym Legislatcre to go at the tap of tite drum. Mr. Keitt, of S. C., made a fiery speech at Lynchburgh, Va., in 1856 and in view of the apprehended election of Col. Fremtionit, exclaimied: I tell you now, that if Fremont is elected, adherence to the ~lUtion is treason to liberty. (Loud cheers.) I tell you now, that the southern man who will submit to his election is a traitor acd a coward.

(Enthusiastic cheers.) This speech was itidorsed as “sound doctrine” by the Hon. John B. Floyd, of Vat., now Mr. Buchanai’s Secretary of War. Mr.

Preston S. Brooks was complimented fbr his attempted (and nearly successful) assassination of Senator Sumner, by an ovation tt the hands of his constituents at which Setinators Butler, S. C., and Toombs, of Georgia, assisted. The hero of the day, Mr. Brooks, made a speech on the occasion from which the following is an extract; ~We have the issue upon us now; and how are we to meet it? I tell you, fellow-citizens, from the bottom of my heart, that the only mode which I think available for meeting it is )cst to tear the Constitution of the, United States, trample it ztnder foot, andbform a S outhern Confederacy every State of” which will be a slaveholdiang State. (Loud and prolonged cheers ) I believe -it, as I stand in the face of my Maker; I believe it on my responsibility to you as your honored representative, that the only hope of the South is in the Southl, and that the only available means of making that hope effective is to cut asunder the bonds that tie it,s together, an4take our separate position in the family ofnations. These are my opiions. They have always been my opinions. I have been a disunioccist from the time I could think Now, fellow-citizens, I have told you very frankly and undisguisedly, that I believe th,e only hope of the South is in dissolving the bonds which connect us with the Government-in separating the living body fromn the dead carcass. If I was the commander of an army, I ncever would post a sentinel who would itot swear that Slavery is right.”… I speak ol my indi vidual responsibility: If F,,,emont be elected Preside-at of the United States, I am for the people in their m ajesty?ising above the laiw and leaders, takingy the poswer into their own hands, going b.4, concert or toot by corcert, and laying the 81-0?tog I r I 8 e, 170 - O-.

Page 171 view page image

DISUNION AVOWED AT THE SOUTH. that arminry to pass itodes-t7fo econtrol of s8uc7i ani Executivee ihead The Richi-o)nd Enqu,irer, long one of tile leading exponents of the Southern Democracv, in commnien tinr o n the murderous assault on Senator Sumner, said: Sumner, and Sumnier’s friends, must be punished and silenced Either such wretches must be hung or put in the penitentiary, or the South should prepare at once to quit the Union.

If Fremont is elected, the Union will not last an }four after Mr. Pierce’s term expires. If Fremont is elected, it will be the duty of the South to dissolve the Union and form a Southern Confederacy. Let the South present a compact and undivided front. Let her, if possible, detach Pennsylvania and southern Ohio, southern Indiana, and southern Illinois, from the North, and make the highlands between the Ohio and the lakes the dividing line. Let the South treat with California; and, if necessary, ally herself with Russia, with Cuba, and Brazil. the blessings of Slavery, like the, religion of our Diein7e B~aster,s to the uttermost ends of the earth; and, rebellious and wicked as ie Yankees have been, I would even extend it to them. ]…. Whether we can obtain the Territory while the Union lasts, I do not know; I fear we cannot. But I would make an honest effort, and if we failed, I would go out of the Union, and try it there. I speak plainly-I would make a refusal to acquire territory, because it was to be slave territory, a cause for disunion, just as I would make the refusal to admit a new State, because it was to be a Slave State, ruse for disunion…..

tThe election of Mr. Seward, or any other man of his party, is not, per se, justifiable ground for dissolving the Ungion. But the act of putting the Government in the hands of men who mean to use it for our subjugation, ought to be resisted, even tl the disruption of every tie that binds us to the Union. J Jefferson Davis, U. S. Senator fi’om Mississippi, in an address to the people of his State, July 6, 18.59, said: For myself, I say, as I said on a former occasion, in the contingency of the election of a President on the platform of Mr. Seward’s Rochester speech, let the Union be dissolved. Let the ” great, but not the greatest of evils,” come.

Mr. Clay, of Alabaina, in a r ecent speech in the Senate, conitemplating, the possible defeat of his party in the coming Presidential contest, said: Senator Iverson, of Georgia, in a speech made to his constituents previous to the assemnbling of the second session of the 36th Congress, said: Slaivery m,tst be maintained-in the Union, if possible,; out of it. if necessary; peaceably, if w, e may, for.cibly if we, nust. In a confederated government of their own, the Southern States would enjoy sources of wealth, prosperity, and power, unsurpassed by any nation on earth. No neutrality laws would restrain our adventurous sons. Our expanding policy would stretch far beyond present limits. Central America would join her destiny to ours, and so would Cuba, now withheld from us by the voice and votes of Abolition enemies. During the late memorable cont est for Speaker, thie same Senator remarked, as follows: Sir, I will tell you what I would do, if I had the control of the southern members of this house and the other, when you elect John Sherman. If I had control of the public sentiment, the very moment you elect John Sherman, thus giving to the South the example of insult as well as injury, I would walk, every one of us, out of the Halls of this Capitol, and consult our constituents; and I would never enter again until I was bade to do so by those who had the right to control me. Sir, I go further than that. I would counsel my constituents instantly to dissolve all political ties with a party and a people who thus trample on our rights. That is what I would do. fIn an elaborate speech delivered later in th oe session bv the sam e Senator, he said: r Sir, there is but one path of safety to the South; but one mode of preserving her institution of domestic Slavery; and that is a confederacy of States having no incongruous and opposing elements-a confederacy of Slave States alone, with homogeneous language, laws, interests, and institutions. Under such a confederated Republic, with a Constitution which should shut out the approach and entrance of all incongruous and conflicting elements, which should protect the institution from change, and keep the whole nation ever bound to its preservation, by an unchangeable fundamental law, the fifteen Slave States, with their power of expansion, would present to the world the most free, nrosperous, and happy nation on the face of the wide earth. Sir, with tbese views, and with the firm conviction which I have entertained for many years, and which recent events have only seemed to confirm, that the ” irrepressible conflict t” between the two sections must and will go on, and with accumulated speed, and must end, in the Union, with the total extinction of African Slavery in the southern States, that I have announced my determination to approve and urge the southern States to dissolve the Union upon the election of a Black Republican to the Presidency of the United States, by a sectional northern party, and upon a platform of opposition and hostility to southern Slavery. r Senator Brown, of Mississippi, in a recent Speech to his constituents, said: I waist Cuba; I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I soant athem all for the samne reasons-for tlfe pli,nting and spreading of Slavery. And a footing in Central America will powerfully aid us in acquiring those other States. Yes; I want these cotntiiesfor the spread of Slavery. I would spread I m ake n o pre d ictions, no promise for my State; but, in conclusion, will only say, th at if she is f aithful to the pledges she has made and principles she has professed-if she is true to her own interest and her own honor-if she is not rec reant to all th at State pride, integrity and duty demand she will never submit to your authority. I will add, thait unless she and all the southern States of this Union, with perihaps but two, or, at most, three exceptions, are not faithless to t he pledges they have given, they wilalt ever tabmit to the yegolernent aoofn a President professicg y o r politicual, faithl and elected by your sectional majority. When Mr. Clay had taken his seat, Mr.

Gwin, of California, made a speech in which he declared it as ” the inevitable result th’tt the South would prepare for resistance in the event of the election of a Republican President.” On the 24th ofrJanuary, 1860, the Hon. Robert Toombs, of Georgia, made a violent speech in the Senate, on Mr. Douglas’ Resolution directing the Judiciary Commiittee to report a bill for the protection of each State and Territory against invasion from any other State or Territory. Mr. Toorobs commenced his speech bv the announcement that the country was in tlie midst of civil war, adding, ” I feel and know that a large body of these Senators are enemies of my courntrv.” Mr. Toombs pro ceeded in anl elaborate and vituperative speech to prove that the people of the North had violated the Constitution, by refusing to capture and return fugitive slaves to -their masters in the South. Sir, I have but little more to add-nothing for myself. I feel that I have no need to pledge my poor services t,. this great cause-to my country. My State has spoken for herself. Nine years ago a convention of her people met and declared that her connection with this government depended upon the faithful execution of this fugitive slave law, and her full enjoyment of equal rights in the common Territories. I have shown that the one cortingency has already arrived; the other waits only the success of the Republican party in the approachbig Presidential election. I was a member of that convention, and stood then and now pledged to its action. I have faithfully labored to avert these calamities. I will yet labor until this last contingency happens, faithfully, honestly, and to the best of my poor abilities. When that time comes, freemen of Georgia redeem your pledge; I am ready to redeem mine.

Your honor is involved-your faith is plighted. I know you feel a stain as a wound; your peace, your social system, your firesides are in, - 171

Page 172 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. volved. Yever permit thisq Federal Government to pass into the traitorous hands of the Black RBepablicasit party. It has already declared war against you and y ou r institutions. It every day commits acts of war against you: it has already compelled you to arm for your de’ense. Listen to “no vain babblings,” to no treacherous jargon about “overt acts;” they have already been committed. Defend yourselves; the enemy is at your door; wait not to meet him at the hearthstone-meet him at the door-sill, and drive him from the temple of liberty, or pull down its pillars and involve him in a common ruin.

Senator Clingman, of North Carolina, in a recent speech, says that “there are hundreds of disunionists in the South now, where there was not one ten years ago,” and that in some of the States the men who would willingly see the Union dissolved are in the majority. In consideritng, the proper cause for disunion, Mr. Clingman continues: I think I speak the sentiments of my own constituents and the State of South Carolina, when I say so. Mr.

Crawford, of Georgia, said: Now, in regard to the election of a Black Republican President, I have this to say, and I speak the sentiment of every Democrat on this floor fr o m t he State of Georgia: we will never submit to the inauguration of a Black Republican President. (Applause from the Democratic benches, and hisses from the Republicans.) I repeat it.

sir-and I have authority to say so-t h at no Democratic representative from Georgia on th is floor w ill ever submit to the inauguration of a Black Republican President. (Renewed applause and hisses. )… T he most confiding of them a-! are, sir, f o r “‘equ alit y in the Un ion or independence out of it;” having lost al l h o p e in the former, I am for ” INDEPENDENlCE NOW AND INDEPENDENCE FOREVER!” Mr. Gartrell, of the same St ate, said Just so sure as the Republican p arty succ eeds in electing a s ecti onal man, upo n thei r sectional, Anti-Slavery plmaratform, breat hing destruc tion an d death to the rights of my people, just so sure, in my judgment, the time will have come when t he So uth m us t and will take an undiistakable and decided action, a nd that then, Su he who dallies is a dastard, and he who doubts is damned.” I need not tell what I, as a So uther n man, will do-I think I may safely speak for the masses of the pe o pl e of Georgia -that when that event happens, they, in my judgment, will consider it an overt act, a declar ation of war, and meet immediately in conventi on, to t ake i nto consideration the mode and measure of redress.

That is my posi - tion; and if that be treason to the Government, make the most of it. Mr. McRae, formerly Governor of Mississippi, now a member of the House of Representatives, recently spoke in that body as follows: I said to my constituents, and to the people at the capital of my State, on my way here, that if such an event did occur, while it would be their duty to determine the course which the State wuhl 1 pursue, it would be my privilege to counsel with them as to wl,at I believed to be the proper course; and I said to them, what I say now, and will always say in such an event, that my counsel would be to take independence out of the Union en preference to the loss of constitutional rights, and consequent degradation arid dishonor in it. That is my position, and it is the position which I know the Democratic party of the State of Mississippi will maintain. Mr. De Jarnette, a member of the IIouse from Virginia, says: Thus William H. Seward stands before the country a perju’ed traitor; and yet that man, with hands stained with the blood of our citizens, we are asked to elect President of the United States. You may elect him President of the North, but of the South never. Whatever the event may be, others may differ; but Virginia, in view of her ancient renown, in view of her illustrious dead, and in view of her sic se8mer tyrannis, will lresist his authority. I have done. Mr. Leake, also of Virgi nia, declares: Virginia has the right, when she pleases, to withdraw from the Confederacy. (Applause f’om the Democratic benches.)… That is her doctrine. W\e will not fight in the Union, but quit it the instant we think proper to do so. Mr. Singleton, of Mississippi, says: You ask me when will the time (for disunion) come; when will the South be united? It will be when you elect a Black Republican Hale, Seward, or Chlase-Presiden.t of the United States. Whenever you undertake to place such a man to preside over the destinies of the South, you may expect to see us undivided and indivisible friends, anal to see all parties of the South arrayed to resist his inauguration. We can never quietly stand by anal permit the control of the army and navy to go into the hands of al Black Republican President. Gov. Letcher, of Virginia, in his recent messag:e to the Legislature of his State, avows the rankest disunion and revolutionary sentiments. Iln this ~toculment, he declares that if a3

Republican President’s elected ill 1860), It is useless to attempt to conceal the fact theat id the ,pr esent temper o f the So~uthlern pxeop~le, it cannoat be cwed In my judgment, the election of the Presidential candidate of the Black Republican party will furnish that cause… No other “overt act ” can so imperatively demand resistance on our part as the simple election of their candidate. Their organization is one of avowed hostility, and they come against us as enemies… The objections are not personal merely to this Senator (Mr. Seward), but apply equally to any member of the party elected by it. It has, in fact, been suggested that, as a matter of prudence, for the first election they should choose a southern free-soiler. Would the Colonies have submitted more willingly to Benedict Arnold than to Lord Cornwallis? Mr. Curry, of Alabama, a member of the House of Representatives, in a recent speech, says: However distasteful it may be to my friend from New York (Mr.

Clark), however much it may revolt the public sentiment or conscience of this country, I am not ashamed or afraid publicly to avow that the election of William H. Seward or Salmon P. Chase, or any such representative of the Republican party, upon a sectional platform, ought to be resisted to the disruption of every tie that binds this Confederacy together. (Applause on the Democratic side of the iouse.) Mr. Pugh, of the same State, made a speech in the Hlouse, in which he said: If, with the character of the Government well defined, and the rights an, privileges of the parties to the compact clearly asserted by the Democratic party, the Black Republlicans get possession of the Government, then the question is fully presented, whe ther the Southern Sta t es will r emain in the Union, as subject and degraded colonies, or will they withilraw and establish a Southern Confederacy of coequal homogeneous sovereign?s? In my judgment, the lttter is the only course compatible with the honor, equality, and safety of the South; and the sooner it is known and acted upon the better for all parties to the compact. The truest conservatism and wisest statesmanship demand a speedy terninationi of all association with such confederates, and the formation of another Union of States, homogeneous in population, institutions, interests, and pursuits. Mr. Moore, of the same State, said: I do not concur with the decl aration made y esterday by th e gentleman from Tennessee, that the election of a Black Republican to the Presidency was not cause for a dissolution of the Union. Whenever a President is elected by a fanatical majority at the North, those whom I represent, as I believe, and the gallant State which I in part represent, are ready, let the consequences be what they may, to fall back on their reserved rights, and say, ” As to this Union, we have no longer any lot or part in it.” Mr. Bonham, a member of the House from South Carolina, said: As to disunion, upon the election of a Black Republican, I can speak for no one but myself and those I have here the honor to represent; and I say, without hesitation, that, upon the election of Mr. Sewardl, or any other man who indorses and proclaims the doctrines held by him and his party-call him by what name you please-I am in favor of an immediate dissolution of the Union. And, sir, 172

Page 173 view page image

GARRISONIAN VIEW OF DISUNION. will not A submittecd to. The “
irrepressible conflict” ” iclririe, anrinouncedi and advocated by the ablest and I r.iost distinguL-ned leader of the Republican party, is an open declaration of war against the institution of African Slavery, wherever it exists; and I would be disloyal to Virginia and tile South if I did not declare that the election of such a man, entertaining such sentiments, and advocating such doctrines, ought to be resisted by tire slavelolding States. Tile idea of permitting such a man to have the control and direction of the army and navy of the United States, and the appointment of high judicial and executive officers, postmasters included, cannot be entertained by the Souah for a momtent. The Hon. William L.

Yancv, a leading and prominent Democratic politician of Alabama, and formerly member of Congress from that State, wrote the following letter in 1858, which the Washington States, a Democratic Journal, recently published under the title of the “Scarlet Letter.” ” The bargain between Freedom and Slavery contained in the Constitution of the Unit ed States, is morally and po litically vicious, inconsistent with the principles on which alone our Revolution can be justified; cruel and oppres sive, by riveting the chains of Slavery; and grossly une qual and impolitic, by admitting that Slaves are at once ene mies to b e k ept i n subjection, property to be secured and returned to the ir owne rs, a nd per son s no t to be repr e sented sluto o themselves, but for whom their masters are privi leged with nearly a do uble sh are o f representation;” and Whereas (to quote the language of Wm. Ellery Cha n nngi ” We in the Free States cannot fly fr om the shame or guilt of the Institution of Slavery, whil e the re are pro visi o ns of the Constitution binding us to g ive it support. On this su bject o ur fathers, in fram in g the Constitution, swerved from the right. We, th e hei r children, see the path of duty mor e clearly tha n t hey, and m us t walk in it. No blessings of the Union c an be a compen sation for taking part in the enslaving of ou r fellow-creat ures;” a nd Whereas (to quote the language of Josiah Quincy, Sen.), The arm of the Union is the very sinew of the subjection of the Slaves; it is the Slaveholder’s main strength; its continuance i s his f orlorn ho pe;” and Whereas (to quote the la nguage of Mr. Underwood, of Ken tucky, as uttered on the floo r o f Congress), ” The Dissolution of the Unio n, making the Ohio River and Mason and Dixon’s line the boun dary l ine, is the Dissolution of Slavery. I t had b een the common practice for Southern men to get up on this floor and say,’ Touch this subject and we will Diss olve the Unio n as a re med y.’ Their remedy was the destruction of the thing which they wishe d to save, mus and any sensible man could see it ” and Whereas (to quote the language of Mr. Arnold, of Ten. nessee, on the same occasion), ” The South has n ot hing to rely on, if the Union be Dissolved; for, supposing tha t Dissolution to be ef fecte d, a million of Slaves a e re r eady to rise and strike for Freedom at the first tap of the drum:” the refore, 1. Reisoeed, That in a dvocat ing the D issolutio n of the Union, the Abolitionists a re justified by every pre cept o f th Ginc e Go spelt, by e very principle of morality, by every claim of hum anity; that such a Union is a “Co venant with Death,” which ought to be annulle d, a nd ” an a greement with Hell,” which a just God cannot permit to stand; and that i t is t h e imp erativ e an d p aram ount duty of all who would keep their soul s from blood-guiltin ess, to de liver the oppressed out of the hand of the spoiler, and usher in the day of Jubile e; to s eek its immediate overthrow by all righteous instrumentalities. 2. Resolved, That (to quote the language of Wil l iam H. Seward) ” they who thin k thi s agitation is accidental, unnecessary, the work of interested or fanatical agitators, and therefore ephemeral, mistake the case altogether: it is an Irrepressible Conflict between opposing and enduring forces’ and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a Slaveholding Natior or entirely a Free Labor Nation. It is the failure to apprehend this great truth that induces so many unsuccessful attempts at final Compromise between the Free and Slave States; and it is the existence of this great fact that renders all such pretended Compromises, when made, vain and ephemeral.” Therefore, 3. Pesol/ved, That no matter how sincerely or zealously any Political Party may be struggling with side issues, in relation to Slavery, to prevent its extension, or otherwise cripple its power, while standing within the Union and sanctioning its ProSlavery Compromises, and.refusing to attack the Institution itself, its position is morally inde-, fensible; it rests upon a sandy foundation; its testimonies are powerless, and its example fatal to the cause of lib erty: hence we cannot give it any support. .4. Resolved, That “better a thousand times that all North America should be obliterated by a concurrence of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, as a dead, revenging sea over buried Cities, than that we, after all our light and Liberty, should live only by removing the truth that gave us being, or should set the example to a terrified and struggling world of a Nation claiming and daring to exist , only by sustained and sanctified oppression.” MONTGOMERY, June 15, 18;8.

DEA,Ri SiR: Yo ur ki nd fav or of the 15th i s received. I hardly agre e with you that a general movement ca n b e mad e t hat will clear out th e Augean stable. I f the Democracy wer e overthrown, it would result in giving place to a gre ater and hu ngrie r swarm of flies. The remedy of t he South is not in such a process. It is in a diligent organization of her true men for prompt resistance to the next aggression. It must come in the nature of things. No national party can save us; no sectional party can ever do’it. But if we could do as our fathers did-organize committees of safety all over the Cotton States (and it is only in them that we can hope for any effective movement)-we shall fire the Southern heart, instruct the Southern mind, give courage to each other, and at the PROPER MOMENT, by one or ganized concerted action, we can precipitate t/be Cotton St, tes into a revolution. The idea has been shadowed forth in the South by Mr.

Ruffin; has been taken ui) and recommended in She Advertiser (Published at Montgomery. Alabama), under the name of ” League of United Southerners,”

who, keeping up their old party relations on all other questions, will hold the Southern issue paramount, and will influence parties, legislatures, and statesmen. I have no time to enlarge, but to suggest merely. In haste, yours, etc., I V. L. YANCEY. TO JAMES S. SLAUGHTER, Esq.

T/fe J~ontqomnery (Ala.) Coifederation thus gives the record ot’ the leading secession delegaites from the Charleston Convention from tihat State. It says: No one can be deceived as to what are the objects of the Charleston Convention. Listen to what their men say: ” I want the Cotton States precipitated into a revolution.”-Win. L. Yaney. ” If I had the power, I would dissolve this Government in two minutes.”-J. T. Morgan. “

Let us break up this rotten, stinking, and oppressive Government.”-Georgee Gayle. ” Resistance! Resistance to death against the Government is what we want now.”-Daavid Hubbard. I I I 173 AN ANTI-SLAVERY VIEW OF DISUNION. The following Resolutions, prepared by Wm. Lloyd Garrison, were adopted at a Conventioii of the iioil-voting Abolitionists (better known as Garrisonians), at Albany, NewYork, on the 2d of February, 1859: WAere,as (to quote the language of John Quincy Adams),

Page 174 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. TH1E POWER OF THE SUPREME COUlrr. Is view of the Dred Scott di(eta and other en-Under date of Montecello, Dec. 25, 1820, he croachments upon the Liberties of the People writes to Thomas Ritchie as follows: and the rights of the States, that may well be appr ehended from future decisions of a Federal… The Judiciary of the United States is the apprehee rom uture oeciions of ta leadersal subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working partisan Judiciary, the opinions of the leaders of under-ground to undermine the foundations of our conthe old Jeffersotsian Republican party on the federated fabric. They are construing our Constitution powers and duties of the Supreme Court become from a coordination of a general and special government powers of pubiities. to a general and supreme one alone. matter of public interest.

matter ofpblOn the 18th of August, 1821, Mr. Jefferson OPINIONS OF TIIOMAS

JEFFERSON. writes to Mr. C. Hanimond, as follows: It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have In a letter to John Adams, dated Sept. 11, Ithsln,hwvrbenyopno,adIhv In a letter to John Adams, dated Sept. 11, ever shrunk from its expression, that the germ ofdisso1804, Mr. Jefferson says: lution of our Federal Government is in the constitution You seemed to think that it devolved on the Judges to of the Federal Judiciary-a irresponsible body, work decide on the validity of the Sedition Law. But nothing in ig like gravity by night and b day gaining a little to the Constitution has given them a right to decide for the day and a little to-morrow, and advaing its noiseless Executive, more than the Executive to decide for them step, like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction until all Botls magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of shall be usurped from the States and the Government of action assigned to them. The Judges, believing the law all be consolidated into one. o this I am pposed; be constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and cause, when all government domestic and foreign, in imprisonment, because the power was placed in their little as in great tiings, shall be dan to Washington as hands by the Constitution. But the Executive, believing the centre of all power, i ill ender poerless the checks provided of one Governmen~t on another, and will the law to be unconstitutional, were bound to remit the checks provided of one Govenmt on a execution of it, because that power had been confided to become as venal and oppressive as the Govenment from them by the Constitution.” which we separated. It will be as in Europe, where every man must be either pike or gudgeon, hammer or Again, in a letter to Judge Rioane, dated anvil. Our functionaries and theirs are wares from the Poplar Forest, Sept. 6, 1819, Mr. Jefferson re-same workshop, made of the same materials, and by the marks * same hand.

If the States look with apathy on this silent ~~~~mark ~~~s:~~.descent of their Government into the gulf which is to In denying the right they usurp in exclusively ex-swallow all, we have only to weep over the human charplaining the Constitution, I go further than you do, if I acter, formed uncontrollable but by a rod of iron, and understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist, the blasphemers of man as incapable of self-government, of an opinion that “The Judiciary is the last resort in re-become his true historians. lation to the other departments of the Government, but In a letterto Judge Johnson dated Monticello not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the Judiciaryis derived.” If this opinion be March 4, 1820, he says sound, then indeed is our Constitution a completefelo de I cannot lay down my pen without recurring to one of se. For intending to establish three departments, cobrdi-the subjects of my former letter for, in truth, there is no nate and independent, that they might check and balance danger I apprelhenld so iuch a s the consolidation of our one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one Government by the noiseless, and therefore unalarming, of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the govern-instrumentality of the Supl eme Cou t. This is the form ment of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected in which Federalism now ari ays itself. by and independent of the nation……..The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax, in the In a letter dated June 12, same year, he says, hands of the Judiciary,which they may twist and shape into The practice of Judge larshall, of traveling out of his any form they please. It should be remembered, as an eter-case to prescribe what the law would be in a moot case naltruthinpolitics,thatwhateverpowerin anygovernment not before the court is very irregular and very cen is independent, is absolute also; in theory only at first,while suable. the spirit of the people is up, but in practice as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with Ill writing to Mr. H. Torrinee, June 11 the people in mass. They are inherently independent of 1815, Mr. Jefferson says all but moral law. My construction of the Constitution is te very different from that you quote.

It is that each d-e second question hether the Judges are invested partment is truly independent of the others, and has an with exclusivc auttotity constitutionality of a law, has been he-etofore a subject of consideration equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the with e i n e eofof a uties. Certainly Constitution in the cases submitted to its action, and espe-thee ds a in cially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal tin a t he Constitution which has given that power to them morie than to the Executive or Legis In a letter to Ar. Jarvis, dated Monticello, lative branches. Questions of property, of character, Sep~t.

28 1820 Air. Jeffeison says of cime being ascribed to the judges through a Sepat8~ 1820~,.definite course of legal proceeding, laws involving such You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider questions, belong, of course, to them; and as they decide the Judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional on them ultimately, and without appeal, they, of course questions-a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one decide fo-thensselv, s. The constitutional validity of the which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. law or laws again prescribing executive action, and to Our judges are as honest as other tuen, and not more so. be administered by that branch ultimately, and without They have, with others, the same passions for party, for appeal, the Executive must decide for themselves, also, power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is, whether under the Constitution, they are valid or not. ” bonijudicis est amplZaiejeurisdictioe?em,” and their So also, as to laws governing the pr oceedings of the Leg power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, islature, that body must judgefo. itselfthe constitution and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the ality of the law, and equally without appeal or control elective control. The Constitution has erected no such from its coordinate branches. And, in general, the single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, branch wh!ch is to act ultimately, and without appeal on with the corruptions of time and party, its members would any law, is the rightful expositor of the validity of the become despots. It has mo e wisely made all the depart-law, uncolt, oiled by the opinions of the other cobrdi ments coequal and co-sove rigni within themselves. Date authlorites. 174

Page 175 view page image

SOUTIIERN OPINIONS ON THE SUPREME COURT. for that I think I have shown to be impossible, with the -owers which the Legislature may safely use and exerCise, and because the people have retained in their own hands the power of controlling and directing the Legislature, by their immediate and mediate elections of President, Senate, and House of Representatives.-See ib., page 73. Mr. Cocke, of Tellniessee, oil the same subject, said: We have been told that the nation is to look up to these immaculate judges to protect their liberties; to protect the people against themselves.-lIb., page 75. In the House, Robert Williams, of North Carolina, said: If this doctrine is to extend to the length gentlemen contend, then is the sovereignty of the Government to be swallowed up in the vortex of the Judiciary. Whatever the other departments of the Government may do, they can undo. You may pass a law, but they can annulit. Will not the people be astonished to hear that their laws depend upon the will of the judges, who are themselves independent of all law? Ib., puaes 531, 532. Joh!n Taylor, of Caroline, Va., who used in i his day to speak and write “as one havi ng authority” in the old Jeffersonian RepublicanhI partv, in an essay entitled ” New Views of the Constitution,” says: The perseverance of the gentleman in favor of a National Government proves that the subject was tho - roughly considered; and the solemn preference of the j Federal form demonstrates that no construction by which the preference will be frustrated can be just. Its basis was State sovereignty, compatible with a federal limited Government, but incompatible with a suvreme National Government. Hence State Sovereignty was denied by the gentlemen who proposed a National Government. This sovereignty is the foundation of all lhe powers reserved to the Stat es. Unless the y ar e sus,ained by it, they are baseless. State legislative, executive, and judicial powers, most all or none flow from this source.- All are necessary to sustain the State Re$ublican Governments. Subject either to a master, gnd the others become subject to the same master. If he State judicial power, as flowing from State sovteignty, is not independent, State legislative and executive power cannot be independent, because all rest upon the same foundation; and because if a supreme federal Judiciary can control State Courts, it can also control State Legislatures and Executives. Thus a federal form of Government would be rejected, though it was established, and a National Government would be established, though it was rejected… The legal features of the Constitution, in relation to judges, is expressed in the sixth article: “The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State are to be bound thereby.” Can the judgments of the Federal court be a supreme law over this supreme law? Is there no difference between the supremacy of a Federal court over inferior Federal courts, and the supremacy of the Constitution over all courts? The supremacy of the Constitution is a guaranty of the independent powers, within their respective spheres, allowed by the Federalist to the State and Federal Governments. A supremacy in the court might abridge or alter these spheres. The State judges are bound by the Constitution and by an oath to obey the supremacy of the Constitution, and not even required to obey the supremacy of the Federal court. Why are all the departments of the State and Federal Governments equally bound to obey the supremacy. of the Constitution? Because the State and Fede-al Governments were considered as checking or balancing departments. Had either been considered as subordinate to a supremacy in the other, it would have been tyrannical to require it by an oath to support the supremacy of the Constitution, and also to break that oath by yielding to the usurped supremacy of the other. John Randolph, of Roanoke, s a id: But, sir, if you pass the law, the judge s are to put their veto upon it by de claring it unco nsti tutional. Here is a new power, of a dangerou s and uncon tro llable nat ure, cont ended for. The decision of a constitutio n al question must rest somewhere. Shall it be confided to men immediately re sponsiblet e pto the people, or to those who are irresponsible? for the responsibility by impeachment is little less tha n a name. Fro m whomf is a corrupt decision most to be feared? To me it app e ars that the power which ha s the right of passing, wit hout appeal, on the validit y of you r laws, is your sove reign…. But, sir, are we not as deeply interested i n the t ru e expositi o n of the Constitution as t h e judges can b e?

With all due deference to their talents, is not Congrres s as capable of forming a correct opinio n as they are? Are not its members acting under a responsibility to public opinion, wh ich ca n and wi ll che ck t heir abe rrations f rom duty? Let a case, not an imaginary one, be stated: Congress violates the Constitution by fetteringe the press; the judicial corrective is applied to; far from protecting the liberty of e it the citizen, or the letter of the Constitution, you find t he m ou tdo i ng the legislature in zeal; pressing the common law of England to thei r service where the sedition law did not apply. Suppose your reliance had bee n altogether on this broken staff, a ndno t on the elective princ iple? Your press might have been enchainied till doomsday, your citizens incarcerated for life, and where is your remedy? But if the construction of the Constitution is left with us, there are no longer limits to our power; and this rwould b e tr ue, if a n appe al did not lie through the elections, fw ortn us to the nation, to whom alone, and not a few privileged isldividuals, it belongs to decide, in the last resort, on tile Constitution. In their inquisitorial capacity, the Supreme Court, relieved from the tedious labor of investigating judicial points by the law of the last session, may easily direct the Executive, by mandamus, in iswhat mode it is their pleasure that we should execute hls functions. They will also have more leisure to at,tenvid to the legislature, and forestall, by inflammatory lpanijphilets, their decisions on all important questions; wlhilst, for the amusement of the public, we shall retain the eight of debating, but not of voting.-lb.,pages 661, 662. During the administrat ion o f John Adams, she Judiciary system was remodeled inf such w a y a s to create a large number of Circuit Judnlesoips, and to make t he Supreme Court simply a Co urt of App eal from th e inferior jurisdictions. After the election of Mr. Jefferson, with a Republican (Democratic) majority in Congress the act was repealed. Duri ng the debate in the Sena te, which was protracted, on this repeal bill, Mr. Jackson of Georgia, said: We have been asked if we are afraid of having an army of judges? For myself, I am more afraid of an at-my of judges under the patronage of the President, than of an army of soldiems. The former can do us more harm. They may deprive us of our liberties, if attached to the Executive, from their decisions; and from the tenure of office contended for, we cannot remove themf; while the soldier, however he may act, is enlisted, or if not enlisted, only subsisted for two yearswhilst the judge is enlisted for life, for his salary cannot be taken fromn him.-,See.A4nal-of Cgres~, 1&01-2, page 47.

Dturinig the saite discussion, Mr. Mason, of Virginia, said: The objects of courts of law, as I understand them, are to settle questions of right between suitors, to enforce olbedience to the laws, and to protect the citizens against the oppressive use of power in the Executive othc,s. Not to protect theim against the Legislature, Natlihatiel MNacon, f[f Northl Crolinai, said: We have heard much about the judges, and the necessity of their independence. I will state one fact, to show that they have power as well as independence. Soon after the establistihment of the Federal Cou itcs, they issued a writ-not being a professiol, I shall not undertake to give its name-to the Supremne Court of North Caroli na, directing a case then depending in the State Court to be brought into the Federal Cou.t.

The State judges refused to obey the summcon s, and lai d the whole proceedings before the legislature, who approved then.conduct, and, as well as I l’erember, unainiously and this in that day was not called disorganizing.-1b. page 711. Jolln Bacon, of Massachtusett s, sp id t: The Judiciary have no mor,e right to prescribe, (‘i ect, 3r control the acts of the other departments of the ov v i I I i t e e t e e I y d I d ee r es e t r. S, 11 it t r rsy n n n t, s i d is 175

Page 176 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. ernment, than the other departments of the Government have to prescribe or direct those of the Judiciary.Ib., page 983. THE SEDITION LAW. When the case of Matthew Lyon was before the United States Senate in 1818, on petition asking, indemnity for a fine imposed upon him under the Sedition Law, John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, said: The judiciary is a valuable part of the Government, and ought to be highly respected, but is not infallible. The Constitution is our guide-our supreme law. Blind homage can never be rendered by freemen to any power.

In all cases of alleged violations of the Constitution, it was for Congress to make a just discrimination. - Bentoni’s Abridgment, vol. 6, page 184. Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, on the same day said: According to some gentlemen, we were to regard the Judiciary more than the law, and both more than the Constitution. It was a misfortune the judges were not equal in infallibility to the God who made them. The truth was, if the judge was a party-man out of power, he would be a party-man in. The office would not change human nature. He had no doubt that the Sedition Law, and the proceedings under it, had more effect in revolutionizing the Government than all its other acts. lie well remermbered the language of the times-pay your taxes, but don’t speak against government.-Ibicd., page 187. Hon. James Barbour, of Virginia, made a report on the subject of the petition, of which the following is an extract: The first question that naturally presents itself in the investigation is, was the law constitutional? The com mittee have no hesitation in pronouncing, in their opinions, it was not… The committee are aware that, in opposition to this view of the subject, the decision of some of the judges of the Supreme Court, sustaining the constitutionality of the law, has been frequently referred to, as sovereign and conclusive of the question. The committee entertain a high respect for the purity and intelligence of the Judiciary. But it is a rational re spect, limited by a knowledge of the frailty of human na ture, and the theory of the Constitution, which declares, not only that Judges may err in opinion, but also may commit crimes, and hence has provided a tribunal for the trial of offenders.

preme Court of the United States annulled the judgment ill the State court, and issued a mandate to the Superior Court of Georgia, to carry its judgment of reversal into execution. Judgo Beaning proceeds: Now, what did Georgia do on receipt of this special mandate? Through every department of her government she treated the mandate and the writ of error with conitempt the most profound. She did not even protest against jurisdiction, as she had done in the case of Chisholm’s executors; but she kept Worcester and Butler in the penitentiary, and she executed, in the Creek nation, the laws, for violat in g which the y ha d bee n put in the penitentiary… Judge Benaliag, in de l ivering hi s opinion, says further: It was not only in this case that Ge orgia occupied this position; she did it in two oth e r cases, and those, cases o f life and death: the cas e o f T assels, and that of Graves. One of these happened before those of Worcester and Butler, namely, in 1880; the other afterward, in 1834. The Supreme Court had issued writs of error in each of these cases, on the application of the defendants to the State of Georgia; but, as the cases are not reported, it is to be presumed that these writs never got back to the Supreme Court; or that, if they ever did, it was too late. It is certain that Georgia hung the applicants for the writ. In the Tassels case, the legislature passed these, among other resolutions: Resolved, That the State of Georgia will never so far compromit her sovereignty, as an independent State, as to become a party to the case sought to be made before the Supreme Court of the United States by the writ in question. I Resolved, That his excellency the Governor be, and he and every other officer of this State is hereby, requested and enjoined to disregard any and every mandate and process that has been or shall be served on him or them, purporting to proceed from the Chief Justice or any Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, for the purpose of arresting the execution of any of the criminal laws of this State. Similar resolutions were passed, as to the case of Graves, by the legislature of 1834. PENNSYLVANIA. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in the case of the Commonwealth v. Cobbett, gave a unanimous opinion in 178S, from which the following is an extract: If a State should differ with the United States about the construction of them, there is no common umpire but the people, who should adjust the affair by making amendments in the constitutional way, or suffer from the defect. In such a case, the Constitution of the United States is federal; it is a league or treaty made by the individual States as one party, and all the States as another party When two nations differ about the meaning of any clause, sentence, or word, in a treaty, neither has an exclusive right to decide it; they endeavor to adjust the matter by negotiation; but if it cannot be thus accomplished, each has a right to retain its own interpretation, until a reference be had to the mediation of other nations, and arbitration, or the fate of war. There is no provision in the Constitution that in such a case the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States shall control and be conclusive; neither can the Congress by a law confer that power.Respublica v. Cobbett, 3 Dallas’s Reports, page 475. GEORGIA. In the case of Paddleford, Fay, & Company v. the Mayor and Aldermen of the city of Savannah, J udg e Benning, in delivering the opinion of the cour t, recited two or three cases in which the State of Georgia had acted in disre(ard of tire decisions of the S upr eme Court of the United S tates.

In the case of C hisholm, executor, against Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States Ordered, that u nless the said State shall either in due form appear, or show cause to the contrary, in this co ur t, by t he first day of nex t term, ju dgment by default shall be entered against the said State. The reporter adds, in a note, that ” in February term 1794, judgment vas rendered for the plaintiff, and a writ of inquiry awarded.

The writ, however, was not sued out and executed; s o t hat this cause, and all of the other suits against States, were swept at once from the records of the court by the amen dment of the Federal Constitution.”

Georgia treated the court with contempt in respect to thils case. Her position was, that the court had no jurisdiction of her as a party.-Georgia IRepoiot, vol. 14, page 479. The Judge proceeds to say, that ” in this position Georgia triumiphed,” and that the judgment against her i; fell dead.” The Judge next cites the case of Worcester and Butler, who had settled on the Cherokee lands in Georgia, contrary to the laws of the State, and for which offense they were sent to the penitentiary. On at writ of error, thie Sti VIRGINIA. The Court of Appeals of Virginia, in 1814, in the case of Hunter v. Mart in, de vis ee of Fairfax, entered the following unanimous opinion, after full argument: The court is unanimously of opinion that the appellate power of the Supreme Court of the United States does not extend to this court, under a sound construction of the Constitution of the United States; that so much of the twenty-fifth section of the act of Congress to establish the judicial courts of the United States as extends the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to this court is not in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States; that the writ of error in this case was improvidently al 176

Page 177 view page image

POWER OF THIE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERED. lowed under the authority of thlat act; that the proceedings thereon in the Supreme Court were corado no n Iudice in relation to this court; and that obedience to its mandate be declined by this court. In times of violent party excitement, agitating the whole nation, to expect that judges will be entirely exempt from its influence, argues a profound ignorance of mankind. Although clothed with the ermine, they are still men, and carry into the judgment seat the passions and motives common to their kind. Their decisions on party questions reflect their individual opinions, which frequently betray them unconsciously into error. To balance the judgment of a whole people by that of two or three men, no matter what may be their official elevation, is to exalt the creature of the Constitution above its creator, and to assail the found ation of our polit ical fabric-which is, that the decision of the people is infallible, from which there is no appeal but to Heaven.-&e s Bentooon’s abridgent, Vol. 6, pages 660, 661. Mahlon Dickerson, of NewJersey, said: But I must beg leave to differ from the honorable gentl e m a n (Mr. Walker, of Georgia) when he informs us that o u r independent Judiciary is the bulwark of the liberties of the people.

By which he must mean, defenders of the p e o p l e against the oppressions of the Government. F rom wha t I witnessed in the years 1798,1799, an d 1800, I never s h all, I never can, consider our Judiciary as the bulwark of the liberties of the people. The people must look out f o r other bulwarks for their liberties.-See ib., pag a 701. the Queen of Scots, the judges were instructed to condemn her, and by their sentence she came to the block. This horrid deed was covered by the cloak of judicial proceedings. When Charles I., determined to change the religion of Scotland, he made use of the Court of MHigh Commission to effect the object. By th e same judi Icial power, aoceso t dcre the advocates for the doctrines of the e formation have so often been divested of their religious privileges, a nd d oom ed to s ea l wi th thei r blo od that rieligion which bore them triumphantly through the vale ot death. The short, though splendid history of this Government furnishes nothing that can induce us to look with a very favorable eye to the Federal Judiciary as a safe depository of our liberties. When a law was enacted in viola, tion of a vital principle of the Constitution, that which was designed to secure the freedom of speech and of the press, the victims of its operation looked in vain to the judges to arrest the progress of usurpation. If this power could ever be exercised to any good purpose, it would be, on such occcasions, to declare the law unconstitutional which aims a deadly blow at the vital principles of freedom; but, so far as the transactions of that day are detailed in our public records, it appears that the Judiciary was a willing instrument of Federal usurpation. That law was executed in all the rigor of the spirit which dictated it. The turbulence of faction found no moderation there; and the people found relief only in their own power. The exercise of their elective franchise removed the evil, and this is their only safe dependence. RIICHARD M.

JOHNSON, OF KENTUCKY. Mr. Johnson, who was elected VicePresident of the United States by the Democratic party, represented Kentuckv in the United States Senate in 1822. I find in Benton’s Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, vol. 7, page 145, an elaborate speech of Mr. Johnson upon a resolution offered by him, proposing an amendment of the Constitution. His proposition was to amend the Coistitution by referring all cases in which a State may be a party to the final adjudication of the Senate. In the course of his remarks, he says: GEN. JACKSON. The following is an extract from Gen. Jacksonl’ s mess age vetoing the bill for r echartering the Bank of the United St ates. It may be found on page 438 of the Senate Journal for the first session of the Twenty-second Congress, and is in these words: If the opinion of the Su preme Court covere d t he whole ground vf t hi s act, it ought not to control t he co - ordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court, must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oatlh to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President, to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval, as it is of the supreme judges, when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress over the judges; arid, on that point, the President is independent of botlh. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such ilrfiuence as the force of their reasoning may deserve. At this time there is, unfortunately, a want of confi dence in the Federal Judiciary, in cases that involve political power; and this distrust my be carried to other cases, such as the lawyers call msesm et to hum. Courts also, like cities and villages, or like legislative bodies, will sometimes have their leaders; and it may happen, that a single individual will be the prime cause of a decision to overturn the deliberate act of a whole State, or of the Inited States; yet, we are admonished to receive their opinion s as t he ancien ts did t he responses of the Delphi oracle, o r the Jews, w ith mole I propriety, the communications from Heaven, delivered by Urim and 77
rumgim,r to the High Priest of God’s chosen people, from the sanct cm.

oeicn. Other causes of difference might be multiplied to a tedious extent; but enough has beensaid to show that judges, who, like other men, are subject to the fraities, the passions, the partialities, and antipathies, incident to human nature, should not be exempted from responsibility on account of their superior integi ty, learning, and capacity; or that their decisions shouldI be subject to revision by some competent tribunal, responsible to the people. It is believed that this is the opinion of that great and good man who penned the Declaration of Independence, and who now enjoys, in the slales of Monticello, the blessinga,s of the principles lwich it contais… It was the judgInent of a court that doomed the immortal SocMat.es to drink the jedlock. WVh-it the Rotan tyrant could no longer use a hired soldiery to immolate the victims of lhis jealousy he resorted to courts of law. When Henry VIl, of England, would exe rcise cruel despotism under the forms of a free Constitution, the army, the court, and we the Parliament, were the potent engines that susta ined him When Aary, his daughter, compelled t he Protestants to seal their testimandy at the stake, the court gave sanction to the murderous deeds.

Her sister and successor, Elizabeth, created the Court of ltighl Commission, and formally invested it with inquisito-ial power. She also supported the arbitr ary edicts of the Star Chamber. The Puritans, because obnoxious to thie free exercise of thle prerogatives of the Crown, were imprisoned and dispersed by process of law, and the judges were the supporters of her despotic power. When she would destroy her unfortunate kinswoman, 12 I I 177 TIIE OTIIER SIDE OF THE QUESTION. ,[R. WEBSTER’S

VIEWS. The, other side of this question was lucidly and ably stated by the late Daniel Webster, in a speech delivered before the U. S. Senate, on the 27th of January, 1830, in the fanious debate between Air. W. and Mr.

Ilayne, of South Carolina, on Fooes Resolution, as follows: Mr. Havne hftViDg rejoined to Nlr. Webster, especially on the constitutional question, Mr. Webster rose, and, in conclusion, said: A few words, Mr.

President, on tl)-Is constitutional argument, which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstru”t. His argument consists of two propositions and an inference. His propositions are: lst. That the Constitution is a compact between the States. 2d. That a compact between two, with authorityreserved to one to interpret its terms, would be a surrender to that one of all power wlatever, 3d. Therefore, (such is his inferences the General Government does not possess th,-, autl.-,ority to constrae its owji powers.

Page 178 view page image

178 A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOiK FOR 1860. Nosw, sir, who does not see, without the aid of exposition that they should agree. One alone could not interpret it or detection, the utter confusion of ideas involved in this conclusively; one alone could not construe it; one alone so elaborate and systematic arguent. could not modify it. Yet the gentleman’s doctrine is, that The Constitution, it is said, is a compact between States; Carolina alone may construe and interpret that compact the States, then, and the States only, are palties to the which equally binds all, and gives equal rights to all. compact. How comes the General Government itself a So, then, sir, even supposing the Constitution to be a :art.ty? Upon the honorable gentleman’s hypothesis, the compact between the States, the gentleman’s doctrine, nev(General Government is the result of the compact, the crea ertheless, is not maintainable; because, first, the General tare of the compact, not one of the parties to it. Yet the Government is not a party to that compact, but a governargument, as the gentleman has now s tated it, makes the aent established by it, and vested by it with the powers (ovcrnm.ent itself one of its own creators. It makes it a of trying and deciding doubtful questions; and secondly, party to that compact to which it owes its own existence. because, if the Constitution be regarded as a compact, not For the purpose of erecting the Constitution on the ba-one State only, but all the States, are parties to that corsis of a compact, the gentleman considers th e States as pact, and one can have no right to fix upon it her own peparties to that compact; but as soon as his compact is culiar construction. made, then he chooses to consider the General Govern-So much, sir, for the argument, even if the premises of ment, which is the offspring of that compact, not its off-the gentleman were granted, or could he proved, But, spring, but one of its parties; and so being a party, with-sir, the gentleman has failed to maintain his leading proout the power of judging on the terms of compact. Pray, position. He has not shown, it cannot be shown, that the sir, in what school is such reasoning as this taught? Constitution is a compact between State Governments. If the whole of the gentleman’s main proposition were The Cons titution itself, in its very front, refutes that idea; conceded to him, that is to say, if I admit for the sake of it declares that it is ordained and established by the peothe argument, that the Constitution is a compact between ple of the Uwitecd States. So far from saying that it is States, the inferences which he draws from that proposi-established by the governments of the several States, it tion are warranted by no just reasoning. If the Constitu-does not even say that it is established by the people of the tion be a compact between States, still that Constitution, several States; but it pronounces that it is established by or that compact, has established a government, with cer-the people of the United States, in the aggregate. The tain powers; and whether it be one of those powers, that gentleman says, it must mean no more than the people of it shall construe and interpret for itself the terms of the the several States. Doubtless, the people of the several compact, in doubtful cases, is a question which can only States, taken collectively, constitute the people of the be decided by looking to the compact, and inquiringwhat United States; but it is in this, their collective capacity, it provisions it contains on this point. Without any inconsistis as all the people of the United States, that they establish ency with natural reason, the Government even thus crea-the Constitution. So they declare; and words cannot be ted might be trusted with this power of construction. The plainer than the words used. extent of its powers, therefore, must still be sought for in When the gentlemnan says the Constitution is a comthe instrument itself. pact between the States, he uses language exactly ap If the Old Confederation had contained a clause, declar-plicable to the old Confederation. iHe speaks as if he ing that Resolutions of the Congress should be the supreme were in Congress before 1TS9. He describes fully that ltw of the land, any State law or Constitution to the con-old state of things then existing. The Confederation was, trary notwithstanding, and that a Committee of Congress, in strictness, a compact; the States, as States, were paror any other body created by it, should possess judicial ties to it. We had no other general government. But powers extending to all cases arising under resolutions of that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public Congress, then the power of ultimate decision woull have exigencies. The people were not satisfied with it, and been vested in Congress under the Confederation, although under took toestablish a better. They undertook to form that C onfederation was a compact between States; ani sfor a General Governlent, which should stand on a new this plain reason, that it would have been competent to the basis; not a confederacy, not a league, not a compact States, who alone were parties to the compact, to agree between States, but a C6olstitutioz; a popular governwho should decide in cases of dispute arising on the conminent, founded in popular election, directly responsible to struction of the compact. the people themselves, and divided into branches with For the same reason, sir, if I were now to concede to the prescribed limits of power, and prescr ibed duties. They gentleman his principal proposition, namely, thattheCon-ordained such a government, they gave it the name of stitution is a compact between States, the question would a Constita tion, an d t herein established a distribution of still be, wlhat provision is made, in this compact, to settle power between this, their General Governmet, andtheir points of disputed construction, or contested power, that several State governments. When they shall become dis shall come into controversy? And this question would satisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. Their still be answered, and conclusively answered, by the Con-own power over their own instrument remains. But un stitution itself. til they shall alter it, it must stand as their will and is Wh ile the gentleman is contending against construction, equally binding on tlhe General Government and on the lie himself is setting up the most loose and dangerous con-States. struction. The Constitution declares,that the lawsqof Con-The gentleman, sir, finds analogy where I see none. i (8ess passed ias parsuarece of the Constitation shall be He likens it to the case of a treaty, in which, the e being t ie supremee laC of/the lan(. No construction isnecessary no common superior, each party must interpret for him here. Itdeclares,also,with equalplainnessandprecision, self, under its own obligation of good faith. But this is ti(ot tIhe jusdicialpower of tIhe Untitedt States shall ex-not a treaty, but a constitution of government, with tend to every case arising under the laws qf Congress.

powers to execute itself, and fulfill its duties. This needs no construction. Here is a law, then, which is I admit, sir, that this government is a government of declared to be supreme; and here is a power established, checks and balances; that is, the House of Representatives which is to interpret that ltw. Now, sir, how has the gen-is a check upon the Senate, and the Senate is a check on tleman met this? Suppose the Constitution to be a com-the House, and the Pesident a check onboth. But I can pa t, yet here are its terms; and how does the gentleman not comprehend, or, if I do, I totally differ from him, when get rid of them?

He cannot argue the seal off the bond, he applies the notion of checks and balances to the inte’ nor the word out of the instrument. iere they are; what ference of different governments. He argues that if we answer does he give to them? None in the world, sir, ex-transgress our constitutional limits, each State, as a cept that the effect of this would be to place the States in State, has a right to check us. Does he admit the con a condition of inferiority; and that it results from the very verse of the proposition, that we have a right to check nature of things, there being no superior, that the parties the States? The gentleman’s doctrines would give us a must betheir own judges! Thus closely and cogently does strange jumble of authorities and powers, instead of thle honorable gentleman reason on the words of the Con-governments of separate and defined powers. It is the stitution. The gentleman says, if there be such a power part of wisdom, I think, to avoid this; and to keep the of final decision in the General Government, he asks for General Government and the State Government each the grant of that power. Well, sir, I show him the grant.

in its proper sphere, avoiding as carefully as possible I turn him to the very words. I show him that the laws every kind of interference. of Congress are made supreme; and that the judicial, Finally, sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the power extends, by express words, to the interpretation of States will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the these laws. Instead of answering this, he retreats into Constitution.

They will not destroy it, they will not impair the general reflection, that it must result from tiee nature it; they will only save, they will only preserve, they will of things, that the States, being parties, must judge for only strengthen it. Ah! sir, this is but the oldstory. All re themnselves. gulated governments, all free governments, have been I have admitted, that, if the Constitution were to be con-broken by similar disinterested and well disposed inter sidered as the creature of the State Governments, it might ference. It is the common pretenes. But I take leave be moitified, interpreted, or construed according to their of the subject.

pleasure. But, even in that case, it would be necessary

Page 179 view page image

GEN. CASS’ NICIIOLSON LETTER. GEN. CASS ON POI’ULAPR SOV7EIR-‘CEIGNTY. cal institutions, if I may so speak, whether they have re ference to Slavery or to any other relations, domestic or public, are left to local authority, either original or deriva tive. Congress has no right to say there shall lbe Slavery il New-Yorkl, or that there shall be no Slavery in Georgia; nor is the re a n y other human power, but the people of those States, respectively, which can change the relations existing therein; and they can say, if they will, we will have Slavery in the formner, and we will abolish it in the latter. In various respects, the Territories differ fron the States. Some of thei r rig hts are in choate, and they do not possess the peculiar attributes of sovereignty. Their relation to t he General Government is very i mp erfectly defined by the Constitution; an(
it will be found, upon exoamination, tat th at instie that instrument the only g rant of pow er c oncern ing them is conveyed in the phrase, “

Congress sh all have the power to dispose of and make all need f ul r ules and re gulations respecting the territory and other property be longing t o the United States.” Certainly t hi s phraseology is very loose, if it w ere des igned to include in t he grant the whol e power of legislation o ver persons, as well as things. The expression, the “territory and other pro perty,” fairly construed, relates to the public lands, as such; to arsenals, d ockyards, forts, ships, andl all the va rious kinds of property which the United States may and must possess. But s urely t he simple authority to dispose f ahcd regu - late these does not extend to the unlimited power of legis lation; to the pass age of all lvaic, in the most general acceptation o f the worl, which, by the b y, is carefully ex cluded fromnt the sestetce And, indeed, if this were so, it would render unnecessary another provision of the Con stitution, which gr ants to Congr ess the p owe r to legisltte, with the consent of the’ States, respectively, over all places purchased for the ” erection of forts, magazines; arsenals, lockyards,” etc. These being the”propert?/” of the United States, if the power to make “needlful rules and regulations concerning ” them includes the general power of legislation, then the gran t of au thority to regul ate ” t he territory and other property of the United States ” is uni limited, wherever subjects a re foun d for it s o perat ion, and its exercise needed no auxiliary provis ion. If, on the o ther hand, it does not include such power of legislation over ot e rp ty o th e “oatther property” of the United States, then it does not include it over their ” territory;” for the same terms mwhich grant the one grant the other. ” Territory 1” is her e classed with property, and treated as such; and the object was evidently t o enable the G eneral Govern ment, as a property-holder-wh ich, from necessity, it rluest bestoe manage, preserve and ” dispose of” such prolerty as it might possess, and which an authority is es sential ahlost to its being. Bu t th e lives and pe rsons of our citizens, with the vast vwiliety of objects connected with themi o can not be controlled by an authority which is merely cal le d into existence for the purpose of making rules and aeg y-s latiosrs for tthme te dispoaition and manageinent of pro perty. Such, it appears to me, would be the construction put upon this provision of the Con s t itution, we re this questio n now first pre sented for consi deration, and n ot controlled I by imperious circumstances. The original ordinance of - the Congress of the Confederation, passed in 1787, and t which was the only act upon this subject in force at the - adoption of the Constitution, provid ed a complete frame of government for the country north of the Ohio, while in a territorial condition, and for its even tual admission in s separate States into the Union. And the persuasion that t this ordinance contained within itself all thle necessary 1 means of execution, probably prevented any direct refer ence to the subject in the Constitution, further than veste ing in Congress the right to admit the States formed under s it into the Union. However, circumstances arose, which e required legislation, as well over the territory north of the Ohio, as over other territory, both within and without the original Union, ceded to the General Government, and, at various times, a more enlarged power has been n exercised over the Territories-meaning thereby the * different Territorial Governments than is conveyed by the limited grant referred to. IHow far an existing e necessity may have operated in producing this legislao tiol), and thus extending, by rather at violent ilmll,ica tion, powers not directly given, I know not. But cer)-thin it is that the principle of interference shouldl not be LETTER To A. O. P. NICHOLSON.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 24, 1847. DEAR SIR: I have received your letter, and shall an swer it as frankly as it is written. You ask me whether I am in favor of the acquisitiotn of Mexican territory, and what are my sentiments wi th regard to the Wilmot Proviso. I have so often and so explicitly stated my views of the first question, in the Senate, that it seems almost un necessary to repeat them here. As you request it, how ever, I shall briefly give them. I think, then, that no peace should be granted to Mex ico, till a reasonable indemnity is obtained for the inju ries which she has done us. The teoritornal extent of this indemnity is, in the first instance, a subject of Execu tive consideration There the Constitution has lplaced it, and ther e I am willing to leave it; n ot only beca use I Wave full confidence in its judicious exercise, but because, an the evee va-ying circumstan ces of a war, i t w ou ld be indiscreet, bv a public declaration, to commit thie coun try to any line of ind emni ty, wh ich mig ht otherwise be enlarged, as the obstinate injustic e of the enemy pro lonts t he co nte st wit h its loss of blood and treasure. It app ears to me, that the ki nd of metaphysical magnanimity which would reject all indennity at the close of a bloody and expensive war, brought, on by a direct attack uplon our troops by the enemy, and preceded by a succession of unjust acts for a series of years, is as unwor thy of the age in which we live, as it is revolting to the common sense and practice of mankind.

It would con duce but l ittle t o our future security, or, indeed to our present reputation, to declare that we repudiate all expectation of compensation from the Mexican Government, and titae fighting, not for any practical result, but for some vague, perhaps philanthropic object, which esca pes m y penetratio n and must be defined by those who assume this n ew principle of national intercom em fyunication. All wa,s are to be deprecated, as well by the Sstaltesman as by the philanthropist.‘T’hey are great evils; but there are greater evils than these, and sulbm.issioll to injustice is among them. The nation which shouldl refuse to defend its lights and its honor when assailed, would soon have neither to defend; and, when driven Do war, it is not by professions of disinterestedness and declarations of magnanimity that its rational objects can be best obtained, or other nations taught a lesson of forbearance-tile strongest security for permanent peace We are at war with Mexico, and its vigor-ouls prosecution is the surest mieans of its speedy termination, and ample indemnity the surest guaranty against the recurrence of such injustice as provoked it. The WVilnot Proviso has been before the country some time. It has been repeatedly discussed in Congress and by the public press. I alm str-on,gly impressed witlh the opinion, that a great change has been going on in the public mind upon this subject, in my own as well as others; and that doubts are resolving themselves into convictions, that the principle it involves should be kept out of the National legislature, and left to the people of the confederacy in their respective local governments. The whole subject is a comprehensive one, and fruitful of important consequences. It would be ill-timed to discuss it here. I shall not assume that responsible task, but shall confine myself to such general views as are necessary to the fair exhibition of my opinion. We may well regret the existence of Slavery in the Southern States, and wish they had been saved from its introduction. lBut there it is, not by the act of the present generation; and we must deal with it as a great practical question, involving the most momentous consequences. We have neither the right nor the power to touch it where it exists; and if we had both, their exercise by any means heretofore suggested, might lead to results which no wise man would willingly encounter, and which no good mian could contemplate without anxiety. The theory of our Government presupposes that its va rious members have reserved to themselves the regulation of all subjects relating to what may be termed their inter hal police. They are sovereign within their boundaries except in those cases where they have surrendered to the General Government a portion of their rights, in order tc give effect to the objects of the Union, whether these con e,ern foreign nations or the several States themselves. Lao 179 0

Page 180 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. carried beyond the necessary implication, which produces I 5 But after all, it seems to be generally conceded that It. It slou.id be limited to thy= cr-eatiol of proper this restriction, if carried into effect could, not operate governmenLts for new countries, acquired or settled, and upon any State to be formed from newly-acquired terito the necessay provisions foirtheir eve ntual admission tory. The wellknown attributes of Sovereignty, recog into the Union; leaving, in the ean tine, to the people nized by us as belonging to the State Governments, inhabiting them, to regulate thei r internal concerns in would swiveep before them any such barrier, and would their own way. They are just as capable of doing so as leave the people to express and exert their will at pleathe people of the States, and they can do so, at any rate sure. Is the object, then, of temporary exclusion as soon as their political independence is recognized by for so shoit a period as the duration of the Territorial admission into the Union. During this temporary condi Govertnents, worth the price at which it would be tion, it is hardly expedient to call int o exercise a doubt-purchased?-worth the discord it would engender, the ful and invidious authority which questions the intelli-trial to which it would expose our Union, and the evils gence of a respectable portion of our citizens, and whose that would be the certain consequence, let the trial relimitation, whatever it may be, will be rapidly approach-suit as it might? As to the course, which has been inti. ing its tei-mination-an authority which would give to mated, rather than p’oposed, of ingraftingsuch a restricCongress despotic power, uncontrolled by the Constitution upon any treaty of acquisition, I persuade myself it tion, over most important sections of our common would find but little favor in any portion of this country. country. For, if the relation of master and servant may Such an arrangement would render Mexico a party, be regulates or annihilated by its legislation, so may the having a right to interfere in our internal institutions in regulation of husband and wife, of parent and child, and questions left by the Constitution to the State Governof an y other condition which our institutions and the ments, and would inflict a serious bloy upon our fundahabits of our society recognize. What would be thought mental principles. Few, indeed, I trust, there are among if Congress should undertake to prescribe the terms of us who would thus granit to a foreign power the right to marriage in NewYork, or to regulate the authority of inquire into the constitution and conduct of the soverpa rents over their children in Pennsylvania? And yet eign States of this Union; and if there are any, I am not, it would be as vain to seek one justifying the inter-among them, nor never sltJll be.

To the people of this ference of the national legislature in the cases referred to country, under God, now and hereafter, are its destinies in the origin’l States of the Union. I speak here of the committed; and we want no foreign power to interro inhleent ptower of Congress, and do not touch the ques-gate us, treaty in hand, and to say, Why have you done tion of such contracts as may be formed with new States this, or why have you left that undone? Our own dig when admitted into the confederacy. nity and the principles of national independence pnite Of all tlhe questions which can agitate us, those which to repel such a proposition. are merely sectional in their character are the most But there is another important consideration, which dangerous, and the most to be deprecated. The warning ought not to be lost sight of, in the investigation of this voice of hi,, who from his character and services and subject. The question that presents itself is not a quesvirtue had the best right to warn us, proclaimed to his tion of the increase, but of the diffusion of Slavery.

countrymnen, in his Farewell Address-that monument of Whether its sphere be stationary or progressive, its wisdom for him, as I hope it will be of safety for them-amount will be the same. The rejection of this restrichow much we had to apprehend from measures peculiarly tion will not add one to the class of servitude, nor will affecting geographical sections of our country. The its adoption give freedom to a single being who is now grave circumstances in which we are now placed make placed therein. The same numbers will be spread over these words words of safety; for I am satisfied, from all greater territory; and, so far as compression, with less I have seen and heard here, that a successful attempt to abundance of the necessaries of life, is an evil, so far ingraft the principles of the Wilmot Proviso upon the le-will that evil be mitigated by transporting slaves to a islation of this Government, and to apply them to new new country, and giving them a larger space to occupy. territory, should new territory be acquirel, would seri-I say this in the event of the extension of Slavery over ously affect our tranquillity. I do not suffer-myself to any new acquisition. But can it gothere? This may well foresee or foretell the consequences that would ensue; be doubted. Allthe descriptions which reach us of the confor I trust and believe there is good sense and good feel-dition of the Californias and of NewMexico, to the acquiing enough in the country to avoid them, by avoiding all sition of which our efforts seem to be at present directed, occasion s which might lead to them. unite in representing those countries as agricultural regions, Briefly, then, I am opposed to the exercise of any similar in their products to our Middle States, and genej a isdiction by Congress over this matter; and I am in rally unfit for the production of the great staples which can favoi’ of leaving to the peo,ple of any Territory, which alone render slave labor valuable. If we are not grossly miay be hereafter acquired, the right to regulate it for deceived-and it is difficult to conceive how we can bethemselves, under the general principles of the Consti-the inhabitants of those regions, whether they depend up tution.

Because-on their plows or their herds, cannot be slaveholders. In 1. I do not see in the Constitution any grant of the voluntary labor, requiring the investment of large capital, requisite power to Cong’ess; and I am not disposed to can only be profitable when employed in the production ext.end a doubtful precedent beyond its necessity-the of a few favored articles confined by nature to special dis. establishment of Territorial Governmeits when needed tricts, and paying larger returns than the usual agricultu-leaving to the inhabitants all the lights compatible ral products spread overmore considerable portions of the n. earth. w the relations they bear to the confederation. earth. Wh Because I believe this measure, if adopted, would In the able letter of Mr. Buchanan upon this subject, w eaken, if not impair, the Union of the States; and not long since given to the public, he presents similar conwould sow the seeds of future discord, which would siderations with great force. “Neither,” says the distinglow up and ripen into an abundant harvest of cala-guished writer, “the soil, the climate, nor the productions mirty. of California, south of 36~ 80’, nor indeed of any portion 8. Because I believe a general conviction that such a of it, North or South, is adapted to slave labor; and beproposition would succeed, would lead to an immediate side every facility would be there afforded for the slave to ithhliolding of the supplies, and thus to a dishonorable escape from his master. Such property would be entirely termination of the war. I think no dispassionate ob-insecure in any part of California. It is morally imposserver at the seat of Governmeit can doubt this resible, therefore, that a majority of the emigrants to that stiIt. portion of the Territory south of 36~ 80’, which will be 4. If, however, in this I am under a misapprehension, chiefly composed of our citizens, will ever reestablish SlaI am under none in the practical opera ion of this re-very within its limits. striction, if adopted by Congress, upon a treaty of peace, “In regard to NewMexico, east of the Rio Grande, the making any acquisition of liexican Territory.

such a question has already been settled by the admission of tieaty would be rejected as certainly as presented to Texas into the Union. thle Senate. More t han one-tlird of that body would ” Should we acquire territory beyond the Rio Grande vote again st it, viewing such a principle as an exclu-and east of the Rocky Mountains, it is still more impossi si of the citi,zens of the slaveliolding States from a ble that a majority of the people would consent to reespa,ticipation il the benefits acquired by the treasure tsebtish Slavery. They are themselves a colored populaand exertions of all, and which should be common to tion, and among them the negro does not belong socially all. I am repeating-neither advancing nor defending to a deoraded race.” these views. That branch of the subject does not lie in With this last remar k, Mr Walker fully coincides in his my way, and I shall not turn aside to seek it. letter writt en in 18~4, upon the annexation of Texas, and In this aspect of the matter, the people of the United which everywhere pr oduced so favorable an imtiplre-sion States must choose between this restriction and the ex-upon the public mind, as to have conduced very mate itension of their territorial limits.

They cannot have ally to the accomiplishlment of thiat great ineasure.

“Beboth; and which they will surrender must depend upon yond the Del Norte,” says Mr. Walter, “Slave.‘y will no’ their representatives first, and then, if these fail them, I pass; not only because it is forbidden by law, but be upon themselves. cause the colored race there preponderates in the ratio 1,80

Page 181 view page image

MR. VAN BUREN ON SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. of ten to one over the whites; and holding, as they do, I the government and most of the offices in their possession, they will not permit the enslavement of any portion of the colored race, which makes and executes the laws of the country.”

The question, it will be therefore seen on examination, does not regard the exclusion of Slavery from a region where it now exists, but a prohibition against its introduction where it does not exist, and where, from the feelings of the inhabitants and the laws of nature, “it is morally impossible,” as Mr. Buchanan says, that it can ever reestablish itself. It augurs well for the permanence of our confederation that during more than half a century, which has elapsed since the establishment of this government, many serious questions, and some of the highest: importance, have agitated the public mind, and more than once threatened the gravest consequences; but that they have all in succession passed away, leaving our institutions unscathed, and our country advancing in numbers, power, and wealth, and in all the other elements of Iational prosperity, with a rapidity unknown in ancient or modern days n times of political excitement, when difficult and de licate question s pre sent themtselve s for solution, there is one ark of safety for us; and that is an honest ap pe al to the fu ndamental principles o f o ur Union, and a st ern dete rmi natio n to abid e their dictates. This course,{f proceeding has carried us in safety through many a trouble; and I trust will carry us safely through manyd an more, should many more b e de stined to assail us.

The Wilmot Proviso seeks to take from its legitimate tribunal a question of domestic policy, having no lelat’on to the Union, as such, and to transfer it to anothen r created by the people for a s pe ci a l p urpose, and foreign to the subject matter involved in this issue. By going back to our true principles, we go back to the road of peace and safety. Leave to the people, who will be affected by this question, to adjust it upon their own responsibility, and in their own manner, and we shall render another tribute to the original principles of our Government, and furnish another guaranty of its permanence and prosperity. I am, dear sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, LEWIS CASS. A. O. P. NICHOLSON, Esq., Nashville, Tenn. MIR. VAN BU-REN ON SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. trade by the Qiakers of Philadelphia and NewYork, and by Dr. Franklin as President of a society for the promotion of Abolition. These petitions were in the IHouse of Representatives, referred to a Committee of seven, all but one of whom were Northern members, whose report as amended in Commnittee of the Whole, affirmned ” that Congress have no power to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them within any of the States, it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulation therein which humanity and true policy might require.” The perseverance and good faith with which both branches of policy thus adopted have, until very lecently, been recognized and carried out, are highly honorable to the whole country. The peculiarity of the subject to be converted into an element of political agitation, as well in the slaveholding as i n the nonslav eholding States, may h ave led to occasional attempts so to employ it, but these efforts have been very successfully frustrated by th e good sense and good feeling of the pe opl e in e very quarter o f the Union. A detaile d accoun t of the numer ous act s of the Federal Government, sustaining and carrying into full effect the policy of its founders upon the sulbject of Slavery in the States, and its extension to the Territories, and the steps taken, in the non-slaveholhling States, to suppress or neutralize undue agitation in regard to it, would be alike instructive and honorable to the acto,‘s in them. But it will be readily perceived that this could not be given within the necessary limits of a comnmnunication like the present. It must therefore suffice to say that from 1787, the date of the ordinance for the prevention of Slavery in the Northwestern Territory, down to and including 1838, at least eleven acts of Congress have been passed, organizing Territories which have since become States, in all of which the Constitutional power of Congess to interdict the introduction of Slavery into the Territories of the United States, is either directly exercised, or clearly asserted by enactments which, as matters of authority, are tantamount to its exercise; and that at the only period when the peace of the slaveholding States was supposed to be seriously endangered by Aboli ion agitation, there was a spontaneous uprising of the people of the North of both parties, by which agitation was paralyzed, and the South reassured of our fidelity to the compromises of the Constitution. In the laws for the organization of the Territories, which now constitute the States of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinocis, Wisconsin and Iowa, Slavery was expressly prohibited. The laws for the organization of the Territories of Mississippi, New Orleans, Arkansas, Alabama and Florida, containing enactments fully equivalent in regard to the extent of power in Congress over the subject of Slavery in the Territories to the express exercise of it in other cases. These acts were approved by Presidents Washington, the elder Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson and myself, all bound by our oaths of office to withhold our respective approvals from laws which we believed unconstitutional. If in the passage of these laws during a period of half a century, and under the administration of so many Presidents, there was anything like sectional divisions, or a greater or less participation in their enactment on the part of the Represu.tati-‘s of tlio THE following letter was addressd to the N ew York City Delegates to the Utica F ree Soil Convention, of 1848, in response to a letter to Martin Van Buren, asking his opinion on the subject herein discussed: } LINDENWOLD, Jurne 20, 1848.

GENTL:…..You desire also my views in regard to the prohibition by Congress of Slavery in territories where it does not now exist, and they shall be given in a few words, and in a manner which will not, I hope’, increase, if it does not diminish the existing excitement in the public mind. The illustrious founders of our Government were not insensible to the apparent inconsistency between the perpetuation of Slavery in the United States, and the principles of the Revolution, as delineated in the Declaration of Independence; and they were too ingenuous in their dispositions to attempt to conceal the impressions by which they were embarrassed. But they knew, also, that its speedy abolition in several of the States, was impossible, and its existence in all, without fault on the part of the present generation. They were also too upright and the fraternal eelings which had carried them through the struggle for independence were too strong to permit them to deal with such a matter upon any other principles than those of liberality and justice. The policy they adopted was to guarantee to the States in which Slavery existed, an exclusive control over the subject within their respective jurisdictions, but to prevent by united efforts, its exte nsion to territories of the United States in which it did not in fact exist. On all sides tihe most expedient means to carry out this policy were adopted with alacrity and good feeling. ‘I’heir first step was to interdict the introduction of Slavery into the Northwestern Territory, now cov er ed by th e States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. This may justly be regarded, as being in the main, a Southern measure. The subject was first brought forward in Congress by Mr. Jefferson. Virginia made the cession of territory upon which the ordinance was intended to operate, and the Representatives from all the slaveholding States gave it a unanimous support. Doubts have arisen in the minds of some whether the ordinance of 17S7 was authorized by the articles of Confederation. A bill was introduced in the new Constitution, recognizing and adapting it to the new organization, and it has ever since been treated and regarded as a valid act. T oiis bill received the Constitutional approbation of P r e sident Washington, whose highest and sworn duty it was to support the Constitution under which it was enacted. Nor was the North backward in doing its part t o sustain the policy which had been wisely adopted. They assented to the insertion of provisions in the Constituti on necessary and sufficient to protect that interest in the States, and they did more. The trouble apprehended at the commencement of the Government from this source, began to show itself as early as the year 1.90, in the form of Petitions p esented to Congress upon the subject of Slavery aP:l the slave I I e 181 t

Page 182 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. slaveholding or nonslaveholding States, I am not ap-distinctly announced my opinion in favor of the power of prisedi of it I believe the plan devised by the founders Congress to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, of the Government, including the Fathers of our Political although I was, for reasons which were then, and are still Church, for the treatment of this great subject, and which satisfactory to my mind, very decidedly opposed to its has hitherto been so faithfully sustained, and which has exercise there. The question of power is certainly as proven so successful in preserving the Union of these clear in respect to the Territories as it is in regard to that States, to be not only the wisest which the wit of man District; and as to the Territories, my opinion was also couldl have devised; but the only one consistent with the made known in a still more solemn form, by giving the safety and prosperity of the whole country. I do, there-Executive approval required by the Constitution to the fore, desire to see it continued so long as Slavery exists in bill for the organization of the Territorial Government of the United States. The extent to which I have sustained Iowa, which prohibited the introduction of Slavery into it in the various public stations I have occupied is known that Territory. to the country. I was at the time well aware that I went The opiniioi from which we dissent was given in the fuirther in this respect than many of my best friends could face of, and dir ectly contrary to, the views exlpressed, in aplrove. But deeply penetrated by the conviction that forms the ost solemn and explicit, by all or nearly all Slavery was the only subject that could endanger our the nonslaveholding States, atnd we are not at liberty to blessed Union, I was determined that no effort on my suspect the sincerity of these expressions. Honest andI prt, wit hin t hle pale of the Constitution, should be want-well-meaning a.ei, as we know the masses of our politiing t o sustain its compromises, as they were then undercal friends in those States to be, are incapable of trifling stood, And it is now a source of consolation to me that I with so grave a subject. pursued tie course I then adopted. Our ancestors signalized the commencement of this The doctrine which the late Baltimore Convention has glorious Government of ours, by rescuing from subjection presented for the sanction of the nation, is, in substance, to Slavery a Territory which is now covered by five great that the laws I referred to were but so many violations of States, and peopled by more than four millions of freemen, the Constitutionthat this instrument confers no poweron in the full enjoyment of every blessing which industry Congress to exclude Slavery from the Territories, as has andI good institutions can confer. They lid this when the so often been done with the assent of all. This doctrine opinions and conduct of the world in regard to the instiis set forth in the published opinion of the highly respect-tution of Slavery were very different from what they are able nominee of that Convention, who, it is well known, now. received that distinction, because he avowed that opinion, They did so before Great Britain had even commenced and who, it is equally certain, would not have received it those gigantic efforts for the suppression of Slavery by if he had not done so. It is proposed to give this doctrine whici she has so greatly distinguished herself. After the most solemn sanction known to our political system, seventy-four years’ enjoyment of the sacred and invaluby the election of its declared advocate and supporter to able right of self-government, obtained for us by the valor the Presidency. If it receives the proposed sanction of and discretion of our ancestors, we, their descendants, the People of the United States, the result cannot be are called upon to doom, or if that is too strong a word, doubtful. The policy in regard to the extension of to expose to the inroad of Slavery, a territory capable of Slavery to the Territories of the United States into which sustaining an equal number of new States to be added to it has not yet been introduced, which has existed since our Confederacy-a territory in a great part of which the commencement of the Government, and the conse-Slavery has never existed in fact, and from the esid ue of quences of which have been so salutary, must cease, and which it has been expressly abolished by the existing Govevery act of Congress designed to carry it into effect be ernment. We are called upon to do this at a period when defeated by the Veto of the Executive. the minds of nearly all mankind have been penetrated by The Territories now owned by the United States, and a conviction of the evils of Slavery, and are united in every acquisition of territory that may hereafter be made effoirts forits suppression-at a momient, too,when the spirit to the United States, whether obtained by annexation, by of Freedom, and Reform i s everywhere far more prevalent cession for a valuable consideration, or by conquest, must, than it has ever been, and when our Republic stands as long as this opinion is held, and as far as the action of proudly forth as the great exemplar of the world in the the National Legislature is concerned, be subject to the seence of Free Government. inroads of Slavery. And this consequence is to be sub-Who can believe that a population like that which innitted to on the assumption that the framers of the habits the nonslaveholding States, probably amounting Constitution, with their attention directed to the subject, to twelve millions, who by their own acts, or by the foreand with a well understood desire to do so, have failed to sight of others, have ben exempted from the evils of clothe Congress with the necessary powers to prevent it. S avery, can at such a moment be inducedl, by considersI cannot, with my vote, contribute to this sanction. I tions of any description, to make a retrograde movement cannot do so, because I cannot concur in the opinion of a character so extraordinary and so paitful?

Sucel a whfich w e are callel upon to sustain. movement would, in my view of the matter-atid I say it The power, the existence of which is at this late day de-with unfeigned deference to the conflicting opinions of nied, i s, ill my opinion, fully granted to Congress by the Con-others-bring reproach upon the influence of free institustitution. Its language, the circumstances under which it tioies, which would delight the hearts and excite the hopes was adopted, the recorded explanations which accompanied of the advocates of arbitrary power throughout the its formation-the construction it has received from our world… highest judicial tribunals, and the very solemn and re-Accept, gentlemen, my warmest acknowledgments for peated confirmations it has derived from the measures of the obliging expressions contained in your letter, and bethe Government-leave not the shadow of a doubt in my lieve me to be nind, in regard to the authority of Congress to exercise Your friend, MARTIN VAN BUREN. the powver in question. This is not a new opinion on my part, nor the first occasion on which it has been avowed. To Messrs. Nelson J. Waterbury, David Dudley Field, and While the candidate of my friends for the Presidency, I others, New York. LAND FOPT TtIE LANI)LESS. Action of Congress on the Public Lands. THE Public Domain of the United States is ment there are now about one thousand millions still immense, notwithstanding the millions upon of acres of public lands still unentered. “What millions of acres which have been squandered shall be done with this immense domain?” is a or passed over to the hands of speculators and question which has for years occupied the monopolists, by the action of the National Go-minds of thoughtful men, who have the best vernment during the past few years. It is interests of society at heart. At length, the estimated by intelligent persons, who have great question of the proper disposition of these given their attentionl to the subject, that lying lands has become one of party, and may be stated within tlhe StLtes and Territoiies of this Governas follows: “Shall the Public Domain be open 182

Page 183 view page image

MR. GROW’S TEN YEARS’ BILL. to monopoly by speculators. leading inevitably to a landed aristocracy? or shall it be reserved for actual occupants in small quantities, at a nominal price, or without price?” TIhere would be no difficulty whatever in adjusting this question at any time and in the right way, if the Negro question, which, in the National Administration, absorbs or overrides all others, were not behind it. Although this is an old question, it had never commanded in Congress, the attention to which it is entitled, previous to the organization of the Republican party; because until that time both the great parties into which the country was divided were either controlled, or their action was modified, by the Slaveholding interest of the country. That interest, which is ever vigilant, understands that Slavery cannot well exist were small freeholds prevail, and hence it opposes, with all its great power, all Preemption and Homestead laws, knowing well that if our new States and Territories are to be occupied in quarter-seetioIis, they will be occupied by working farmers, and not by speculators and great planters. Since this question has assumed a national importance, a concise record of the proceedings and votes in Congress during the session of 1858-9, and 1859-60, upon the disposition of the Public Domain, will be of interest as a matter of record. Otn the 20th of January, 1859, (See Cosegressional Globe, p. 492,) a bill relating to preemptions, reported firom the Committee onl Public Lands, was pending before the House. The bill proposed to make somne changes in the details of existinig preeimption laws, but without affectgig the substance of the present system of disposing of the public lands. It was, however, iNn parliamentary order to propose to amend the bill so as to change the present system, and to bring the House to a direct vote uponi such pro positions. The friends of such change were prompt to avail themselves of this advantage. Mr. Grow, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend the bill by adding the following as an additiona section: Be it further enacted,, That from and after the pas sage of this act, no public land shall be exposed to sale b proclamation of the President, unless the same shall have been surveyed, and the return of such survey duly filed i the Land Office, for ten years or more before such sale. The force and effect of this amendment woul be to give the preemptors teln years the star ,of the speculators and land monopolists. Tha is to say: with the addition of Mr. Grow’, amendment to the existing laws and regulation touching the Public Lands, they would be open to pree/mption ten years before they could come within the grasp of the speculator, thus givin t the poor, industrious settler ample time t * clear up” his farm and pay for it from the pro ceeds of the soil. This was just what the South will show. D The opponents of the bill forthwith resorted to parliaistenitary tactics to avoid a direct issue upon1 M~r. Gr[Iow’s proposition. Thisir first movement was a motion to refe the bill atid amendment to the Committee of thil Whole, lamiiiarly and aptly styled “ft]e tomb o the C,~pulets.J’ If that referenlce had been cam MAINE.-

Wood-1. Co 0NcTICur.-Arnold, Bishop-2. NEw-YoaRK.-B-erroughs, Maclay, Russell, Taylor-4. NEW-JERsrs..Wortendyke-1. PENNSYLVANIA.-Ahl, Chapman, Dewart, Montgomery, ‘Morris,,itchie, White-7. MARYLA.ND.-HA]RRIS, RICAUD-2. VIRGINIA.-Bocock, Caskie, Edmundson, Faulkner, Garnett, Millson, Powell-T. NORTH CAROLINA.-Ciaige, Ruffin, Scales, WVinslow-4. SOUTH

CAROLINA.-Bbyce, Branch, Keitt, McQueen, Miles-5. GEORGIA.-Clawfold, Gartrell, Jackson, Seward, Steplhens,”RIPPE, Wright-7. FLORIDA.- 1
awkins-1. ALABAMA.-Cur-ry, Houston, Moore, Shorter-4.

MIssIssIPPI.-Barksdale, Davis, McRae-3. LOUISIANA.-EUSTIS, Sandidge, Taylor-3. TExAs.-Bryan, Reagan-2. Tr’NrSS,E.-Atkins, Jones, MAYNARD, READY, Savage, Watkins, ZOLLICOFFER-7. KENTUCKY.-Burnett, Jewett, MARSHALL, Peyton, Stevensonl, Talbott, UNDERWOOI7. MIS~OURI.-ANDERSON, Caruthers, John B. Clark, James Craig, Phelps, WOODSON-6 O1 ao. ,urns, Cockerill, Groesbeck, Harlan, Lawrence, Nrictols, Pendleton, Vall-andigiam-.-8 INDIANA.-Davis, English, Gregg, Hlughes, Niblack-5.

ILLINOiS. Marshall s, Morris, Sa, Sits-4. Total, 90. ND Be apom Durfee-2.

Mergase, Morse Marray Olsa, Palmer, Parker, pia -Bowie, Stewart-9. YEAS.

MAINE.-Foster, Gilman, Morse, Washaburn, Wood -5. NEW-HAMPSIRE.-Cragin, Pike, Tappan,* 3. VERMONT. Jforrill, Royce, WValton-S.

MuSSACHUSSTTS.-Btaffintor, Bierlingame, Chaffe, Cosnise, Davis, Dawes, Goock, IHall, Z?,app, Thayer RHOI)E ISAND.-Brayton, Durfee-2.

COsNECT5ICUT. Dean-I. NRw-Yo)RK.-Andrews, Bennett, Burrouqg7s, Clark i John Cochrane, Docdd, Fentos,, Granger, IHo,rs4, Eel 183 ed, the bill never would have been reached, ad would sever have been heard of afterward4. The vote upon the motion to refer the bill to e Committee of the Whole, was as followsle Democrats in Roman, the Republicans in alics, and the Southern AmericaIls in SMALL kPITALS: ‘irdiS.

Page 184 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. sey, Maztteson, Jforgan, 3,sorse, Jfurray, Olin, s’pMl ouer, Parkcer, Shes-maui, Spinner, Thompson-26. N

Sw-JERsEY.-Robbiris-1. PrN SYLVANIA.-Chapman, Covode, Edie, Florence, Grow, Keim,.Morris, Phillips, Parviance, 1ithie, Stewart-11.

MARYLAND.-Stewart-1. Tj:NNI:SSEE.-Atkins, Aveiy, Jones, Savage-4.

KENTUCKY.-Jewett, Stevenson, Talbott-38. Oi io .Bienaiam, Bliss, Cockerill, Giiddings, Iffarlan, IIorto?, Lawrence, Leiter, Miller, Mott, Sherman, Stantoua, 7obmpkins, WVade-14. INDIANA.-Colfeao, Kilgore Pettit, WTilson-4. 1 LLINOIS.-PFarnsworti, Kellogg, Lovejoy, Washbvrne -4.

.AIICIIGA.-I.-fo~tvard, Leach, I~albridgye, Waldron - 4.

WISCONSIN.-Biltlinghurst, Potter, Washburn-3. MINN‘1:SOTA.-Cavanaugh, Phelps-2. IOWA. Curtis, Davis 2. Misso{Ri.-Bair-1. Total, 98. NAYS.

CONNECTICUT.-Arnold-1. NEW-YORK.-Corning, Russell, Searing, Taylor-4. N.

EW-JERSEY.-Huyler.-1. PENNSYLTANIA.-Ahl, Chapman, Dewar-t, Florence Jones, Leidy, Montgomery, Phillips, White-9. D ELAWARE. Wliteley-1.

MARYLaND.-Bowie, RICAUD, Stewart-3. VIRGINIA.-Bocock, Caskie, Edmundson, Garnett, Goode, Hopkins, Millson, Powell-S8. NORTH CAROLINA.-Cl aige, GILMER, Ruffin, Scales, Shaw, VANCE, Winslow-7. SOUTH CAROLINA.-Bonham, Boyce, McQueen-. GEORGIa.- Crawford, Gartrel, Jackson, Stephens, TRIPPE, Wright-6. FLORIDA.-Hawkins-1. ALABAMA.-Cobb, Dowdell, Houston, Moore, Shorter. Stallworth-6. Mississippi.-Barksdale, Davis, McRae, Single tons-4. LoUISIANA.-Sandidge, Taylor-2. TExAss.-Bryan, Reagan-2.

ARKANSAS.-Greenwood-1. TENNrSSEE.-Atkiis Avery, Jones, MAYNARD, READY, Savage, Smith, Watkins, ZOLLICOFFER-9. KETUCCKY. Burnett, Clay, Elliott, Jewett, MARSHALL, Mason, Peyton, Stevenson, Talbott, UNDERWOOD-10.

OHlo.-Burns, Cockerill, Groesbeck, Pendleton, Val landigham-,5.

INDIANA.-Davis, Foley, Gregg, Hughes-4. ILLINOIS.-Marshall, Shaw-2.

MISSOURI.-ANDI,RSON, Caruthers, Clark, Craig, Phelps, WOODSON. Total-95.

Th e d efe at of the bi, i n con sequence of the incorporation into it of Mr. Grow’s aremendment, sho ws that a maj ority of th e House was really opposed to th at amendment, a lth ough it had been adopted by a vote o f 98 to 81. Cer tain members, who did not dare to vote directly against the amendment, joined in killing it afterward, by killing the bill, of whic h it had been made a part by their own votes. Thus Messrs. Ste wart, o f M
ar yland, Atkins, Avery, Jones and Savage, of Tennessee, and Jewett, Stephenson, and Talb ot, of Kentucky, who had voted for the amendment, voted after war d against the bill. Only one, Mr. Blair, wl md of the n ine Southe at supporters of the anendment, proved true to it i n the end, and no other So uthern member came t o its support in the final vote, saving o n ly Mr. o )avis, of Maryland, who repres en ts t he fr ee-labor interest of the city of Ba lti m ore, rather than the interest of the slaveholding, a nd lan ded aristocracy of the planting States. Afterward, o n t hesm e same day, when t hese votes upon Mr. Grows amendment w ere given, t he representatives from Minne sota, both of them members of the Democratic party, delivered speeches, in which they made no secret of their chagrin that a measure so vital to their constituency encountered the nearly unanimous opposition of their political friends. Mr. Cavanaugh, one of the members frolm Minnesota (Globe, p. 505), said: With reference to the vote on this bill to-day, with an overwhelming majority of this side of the House voting against my colleague and myself, voting against this bill, I say it frankly, I say it in sorrow, that it was to the Republican side of the House to whom we were compelled to look for support of this just and honorable measure. Gentlemen from the South, gentlemen who have broad acres and wide plantations, aided here to-day by their votes more to make Republican States in the North than by any vote which has been cast within the last two years, Theese genltlearn come hxere and ask us to support CONNECTICUT.-Arnold-1. NEW-YORK.-Russell, Searing, Taylor-3. N zw-JERsEY.-Huyler, Wortendyke-2. PENNSYLVANIA.-Alilh, Dewart, Leidy, Montgomery-4. DELAWARE -Whiteley-1. I\A RYLAND-Bowie-1.

VIRGINIA.-Bocock, Caskie, Edmundson, Garnett, Goode, Hopkinis, Millson, Powell-S. NORTH CAROLINA.-Branch, Craige, GILMER, Ruffin, Scales, Sliaw, VANCE, Winslow-S. SOUTH CAROLINa.-Bonham, Boyce, McQueen, Miles-. GEORGIA -Crawford, Gartrell, Jackson, Seward, SLepirens, TRIPPE, Wright-T. F

LORIDa.-ltawkins-1. ALABAMA.-Cobb, Curry, Dowdell, Houston, Moore, Shliorter, Stallworth-7. MIsIssIPPI.-Davis, McRae, Singleton-3, L.vISIANA.-EUSTIS, S.anldidge-2. IEXAS.-Reagan-1. TENNE,ASEE.-MAYNARD, READY, Smith, Watkins, ZOLLICOFFr:R-5. KENTUCKY.-Burnett, Elliott, UNDERWOOD-3. OHo. Burns, Cox, Hiall, Pendleton, ~allandigham  5.

INDIANA.-Davis, Foley, Gregg, Ilughes-4. ILLN,ois.-Hodges, Marshall, Shaw, Smith-4. MISSOURI.-ANDERSON, Caruthers, Clark, Craig, Phelps, WOODSON-6.

C.LIFORsNIA.cott-1. Total, 81. Upon the adoption of Mr. Growls amendment, the Republican vote, as will be seen, was unanimously in the affirmative.

Of the votes from the Slave States, all but nine were in the negative, and, as we shall presently see, there was only one of that number who was really in favor of it, this one being Mr. Blair, Republican, of Missouri.

Mrf Grow’s amendment being corporated into the bill, the next question was upon the passage of the bill, which was defeated by the following vote ~

YE,AS. M~i’.-~Foster, MVorse, Washburn, Wood 4. N aw-IIAMPsHRE.

C~ragin,.Pike, Tappan 2. ~ RMCoNT. Morrill, Royce, Walton 8.

MA,’.’:CIUSETTrS. BuafitOn, Burlingame, 61,4affee, omnies, Davis, -Dawes, Gooch, Hall, IKnapp, Thayer -10. RIIoDE IsLAND. Brayton,.Durfee 2. CoF, CTICUT.-OClark, Dean-2,. NewHYot. Ao drewd, KBe nnett, Burrougan, Clark, ~ B. Cochrane, John Co’chrane, 1)odd,.‘enton, Granger, Hitelh, H~oard, Ketsey,.Matteson,.Morgan, Jforse, .Jfrray, Olin,.Palmer,.Parlcer, 8p9inne,~ T/totalpson  21. NIIw-J ERSEY. Clawson, Robbia 2.

P.:NNSYLVANIA. Uovode, Dick, Edie, Grow,.Keim, Morris,.Purviance, Rik-hie, Stewart 9. MARYLIND. DAVIS 1. Oi l o. Bing,~am, Bliss, Cox, GiddingRs, Hall, H~arlan, ffo,rton, Leiter, Milier, -Jfott,,Sherman, Stan~ton, Tom~o ins, Waole-14. MI~icGAN. I~oardl, Leach, Walb’idge, Wa~ldron I~mxsx. Col a~, Kilgore,.Pettit, WViaoMn 4. I I I s t i e, 184

ILLTNOIS. FaPns-woth, Kellogg, Lovejoy, W(sab,u/rne-5.

WiscoNsIN.-Potter, Was7hburn-2. IOWA. Curtis,.Davis-2.

MINNESOTA.-Cavanaugh, Phelp, 2. MISSOURI.-Blair-1. Total-91. Morris, NAYS.

Page 185 view page image

MR. GROW’S HOMESTEAD BILL. the South; yet they, to a man almost, vote against the free, independent labor of the North and West. ‘ I, sir, have inherited my Democracy; have been attached to the Democratic party from my boyhood; have i believed in the great truths as enunciated by the “fathers of the faith,” and have cherished them religiously, knowing that, by their faithful application to every department of this Government, this nation has grown up from struggling colonies to prosperous, powerful, and sovereign States. But, sir, when I see Southern gentlemen come up, as I did to-day, and refuse, by their votes, to aid my constituents, refuse to place the actual tiller of the soil, the honest, industrious laborer, beyond the grasp a n d avarice of the speculator, I tell you, sir, I falter and I hesitate. The amendment of Mr. Grow, forbidding the public sales of lands for at least ten years after their survey, would secure the great bulk of the lands to preemptors, and would give them a long pay-day, and thus save them from the enormous usury they are now compelled to pay to money-lenders. It would not reduce the revenue derived by the Treasury from the public lands, but would only postpone it, and this postponement would be far less prejudicial to the Government than it would be beneficial to the settler. The Government can borrow money at four and a half per cent per annum, while the settler frequently pays five per cent.

per month for the money to enter his lands, to prevent their sale at public auction. On the first of February, the question of the Public Lands was again before the House, the pending bill (House bill No. 72) being a bill to secure Homesteads to actual settlers, and being in the words following: death of the surviving par ent, and in accordance with th e laws of the State in which suchs c hildren for the time being have their domicil, sell said land for the benefit of said infants, but for no other purpose; and the purchaser s hall a cquiret the absolute title by the pu rchase, anl be entitled t o a p ate nt from the Unite d S tates. 3. And be it further enactede, That the regis ter o f the land office shall note all such a pplications on the tr act-books and plats of his of fic e, an d keep a register of all such entries, and make a retur n ther eof to t he General Land Office, together with the proof upon which they have been founded. 4. And be it frther enacteed, That all lands ac - quired under the provisions of this act shall in no event become liable to the satisfaction of any debt or debts contracted prior to the issuing the patent therefor. 5. And, be itsfrther enacted, That if, at any time after the filing the affidavit, as required in the second section of this act, and before the expiration of the five years aforesaid, it shall be proven, after due notice to the settler, to the satisfaction of the register of the land office, that the person having filed such affidavit shall have actually changed his or her residence, or abandoned the said entry for more than six months at any time, then, and in that event, the land so entered shall revert back to the Government, and be disposed of as other public lands are now by law, subject to an appeal to the General Land Office. 6. Aend be it further enacted, That no individual shall be permitted to make more than one entry under the provisions of this act; and that the Commissioner of the General Land Office is hereby required to prepare and issue such rules and regulations, consistent with this act, as shall be necessary and proper to carry its provisions into effect; and that the registers and receivers of the several land offices shah be entitled to receive the same compensation for any lands entered under the provisions of this act that they are now entitled to receive when the same quantity of land is entered with money. onehalf to be paid by the person making the application at the time so doing, and the other half on the issue of the certificate by the person to whom it may be issued: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to impair or interfere in any manner whatever with existing preemption rights. The previous question having been ordered, the House was brought to a direct vote upoz this bill, without debate. A motion to lay the bill on the table was los -Yeas, 77; Nays, 113; and the bill was thel passed-Yeas, 120; Nays, 76. As these two votes were substantially the same, we only give the last one, which was upon the passage of the bill, and which was as follows: A BILL

TO SECURE HOMESTEADS TO ACTUAL SET TLERS ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepresentatives of the Uiited States of America in Congreys assembled, That any person who is the head of a family, or who has arrived at the age of twentyone years, and is a citizen of the United States, or who shall have filed his intention to become such, as required by the naturalization laws of the United States, shall, from and after the passage of this act, be entitled to enter-, free of cost, one quartersection of vacant and unappropriated public lands which may, at the time the application is made, be subject to private entry, at $1 25 per acre, or a quantity equal thereto, to be located in a body, in conformity with the legal subdivisions of public lands, and after the same shall have been surveyed. 2. And be it further enacted, That the person applying for the benefit of this act shall, upon application to the register of the land office in which he or she is about to make such entry, make affidavit before the said register that he or she is the head of a family, or is twentyone years ormore of age, and that such application is made for his or her exclusive use and benefit, and those specially mentioned in this act, and not either directly or indirectly for the use or benefit of any other person or persons whomsoever; and upon making the, idavit as above required, and filing the affidavit with the register, he or she shall thereupon be permitted t, enter the quantity of land already specified: Provide 1, however, That no certificate shall be given or patent issued therefor until the expiration of five years from the i(ate of such entry; and if, at the expiration of such ti e, or at any time thereafter, the person making such ent y, or, if he be dead, his widow, or, in case of her death, dis heirs or devisee, or in case of a widow making sucis entry, her heirs or devisee, in case of her death, shail prove by two creditable witnesses that he, she, or they, have con -
tinued to reside upon and cultivate such land, and still reside upon the same, and have not alienated the same, or any part thereof, then, in such case, he, sloe, or they, if at that time a citizen of the United States, shall, on payment often dollars, be entitled to a patent, as in other cases provided by for law: Aendl providledl, further, In case of the death of both father and mother, leaving an infant child or children under twentyone years of age, the right and the fee shall inure to the benefit of said infant child or children, and the executor, administrator or guardian may, at any time within two years after the 185 YEAS.

MAINrl.-Abbott, Foster, Gilman,.3forse,, Wa87iburn -5.

NEW-HAMPSIIIR-E.-Cragin, Pike, Ta a3. VERMONT. Jforrill, leoye, Walton-3.

MASSACHUSETTS.-B,ufflnton, Burlingame, Chafee, Comin8, Davis, Dawes, Gooch, ffall, Ettapp, Thayer -10. RHO-)E ISLAND.-Brayton,.Durfee-2.

CONNECTICUT.-Bishop, Clark, Dean-3. NEW-YORK.-Andre,ws, Barr, Burroughs, C

B. Co rane,, John Cochrane, Corning, Dodd, F-enton, Goodwin, Granger, Haskin, Hatch, Iloard, -Yel8ey, Maclay, Jfatte8on, Morgan,.Jforse,, 3furray, Olin, Palmer, Parker, Pc,ttle, Russell, Spiner, Taylor, Ward-2T.

NF,w-JF,itsF,Y.-Adrian, Clawson, leobbins, Wortendyke -4.

PENNSYLVANIA.-Covode, Dick, Florence, Grow, Hick Keim, Morris, Phillips, Purvia?bce, Reilly, Roberts, tmart, Kunk13. TENNESSEE.-JOIleS-1.

KENTUCKY.-Jewett-1. OHio.-BingAam, Bliss, Burns, Cockerill, Cox, Gidding8, Groesbec all, ffarlan, Horton, Lawrence, Leiter, Mi man, Stanton, Tompki,%, Vall pttilANA Ilaw, Davis, Foley, Gregg, Kilgore, t, W.

ILLINOIS. -Farnswora, Hodges, Kellogg, Lovejoy, Morris, Smith, Wa8Aburne,-T. MICHIGAN.-Iloward, LeacA, Walbridge, Waldron 4.

WiscoNsiN.-Billinghur8t, Potter, Wa8A&urn-8. MINNF,SOTA.-Cavanaugli, Phelps-2, lowA-Cu,rti8, -Davi6-2.

Page 186 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. tMoth of,hem conisuanding the support of the m iiajority of that body. Oil the 17th day of February, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, (Con. Globe, page 1074,) moved to post pone all prior orders and take up the Homestead bill, which had passed the House. The follow.. ing extracts from the debate upon this motion will exhibit the points made: Mr. Wade.-The Homestead bill, to which I am a good deal attached, has, I believe, twice passed the House and come to this body, but somehow it has had the go-by, and we have never had a direct vote upon it here that I know of. I do not propose to discuss it for a single moment, and I hope none of its friends will debate it, because it has been pending before Congress for several years, and I pre sume every senator is perfectly well acquainted with all its provisions, and has made up his mind as to the course he will pursue in regard to it. I have no hope that any thing I could say would win an opponent of the bill to its support; and I hope every friend of the measure will take no time in debate, but will try to get a vote upon it, for I think it is the great measure of the session.

All I want, all I ask, is to have a vote upon it. Mr. Reid, of North Carolina.-I think it is too late in the session now to take up this bill to be acted upon here, at least until we act upon other great measures upon which there is more unanimity of sentiment in the country, and a higher sense of duty upon us to pass them during the few days of the session that remain. Mr. Hunter, of Virginia.-I believe that a fortnight from to-day will take us to the 3d of March. Now, it is known that we have nearly all the important appropriation bills, and one that is unfinished, to take up. I hope there will be no effort to press this Homestead bill, so as to displace the appropriation bills. I must appeal to the Senate to consider how little of the session is now left to us, and whether we ought not to take up the appropriation bill and dispose of it. Mr. Shields, of Minnesota.-The friends of this bill de sire nothing but a vote upon it, not to waste time in de bate. Let us take it up, and have a fair vote upon it. Mr. ltunter I do not conceal the fact that I am very much opposed to it; but I suppose whenever this bill comes up, it must be the subject of debate. Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts.-I appreciate the anxiety of the senator from Virginia to take up the appropriation bill; but I would suggest to that senator that he allow us to take up this bill, and have a vote upon it. I do not suppose that anybody, who is in favor of the measure, de sires to consume the time of the Senate, at this stage of the session, by discussing Pt. It has been discussed before the nation. It is well understood. I believe it is sustained by an overwhelmning majority of the people of the country. Mr. Wade.-I have no doubt, from the business before us, that this is the last opportunity we shall have to act upon this great measure, I hope, as I said before, that every friend of it will stand by it until it is either triumph ant or defeated, and that, too, in preference to any other business that may be urged upon us. As to the appropria tion bills, I have not the least fear but that they will go through. Their gravitation carries them through. The question was then taken, and Mr. Wade’s motion was carried by the following vote, the Republicans being indicated by italics: YEAS-Mlssrs. Bright, Broderick, Chandler, Collawner, Dixeon, Doolittle, Fessenden, -Foot, Foster, CGwin, IIle, Imamlia, Harlan, Johnson, of Tennessee, King, Pugh, Rice, Seward, Shields, Siminons, Smith, Stuart, Trum bull, Wade, and Wilson-26.

NAYs-Messrs. Allen, Bayard, Benjamin, Bigler, Brown, cOhestnut, Clay, Clingman, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, Hammond, Hunter, Iverson, Lane, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Reid, Slidell, Toombs, and Ward 2. Upon an examination of this vote, it will be seen that the Republicans voted unanimously in the affirmative, and that the Slave State Seinators were all in the negative, with the solitary exception of Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee. Of the Free State Democrats, Gwin, Bright, Pugh, Rice, Shields, Smith, and Stuart, all be intg from the new States, veted for Mr. Wade’s mot ion. > Th~ Homestead bill was now up, and, so far PENNSYLVA NI A.-.L,l(dy-1. I)ELAWARE.-WA litllcy 1. MAIARYLAND.-Bowie,, D)AVIS, HARRIS, Kunkel, RICAUD, Stewart 6. YIRGINti..-Bococl, Caskie, Edmundson, Faulkner, Garnett, Goode, Hopkins, Jenkins, Letcher, Millson, Smith  II.

NORTH CAROLINA.- Branch, Craige, GILMER, Ruffin, Scales, Shaw, VANCE, Winslow-S. SOUTH CAROLINA.- Bonham, Boyce i, bu Keitt, i tcQueen, Miles 5. GEORGIA.-Crawford, Gartrell, I-II LL, Jackson, Seward, Stepiens, TRIPPE, Wright -S. ALABAM A.- Cobb, Curry, Dowdell, Houfte-dy, M o o re, Shorter, Stallworth-T. Mississippi.-Barksdale, Lamar, McRae, Singleton-4.

LOUISIANA. EUSTIS 1. TEXAS.-Reagan-1. ARKANSAS.-Greenwood-1.

TENNESSEE.-Atkins, Avery, MAYNARD, READY, Smith, Watkins, Wright, ZOLLICOFFER . KENTUCKY.-Burnett, MARSHIALL, Mason, Peyton,UNDERWOODS-5.

Omio. Yriclt ols-1. IN-IIANA.-English, Hughes, Niblack-3.

ILLINOIS.-Marshall, Shaw-2. MISSOURI.-ANDERSON, Clark, WOODSON,-3. Total, 76. Only three Southern members-Jones of Tennessee, Jewett of Kentuckliy, and Craig of Missouri-voted for the bill, thereby marking unrnistakably the sectional character of the opposition to it. The Republican vote, with a solitary exception, was given solid for the bill. Of the Northern members connected with the Democratic party, twenty-nine voted for the bill and six voted against it. Thus, of the entire Democratic party in the House, a large majority was against the bill, but even this is less important than the other fact, that the Southern wing, of the vote was almost unanimously against, it being this Southern wing which controls in the party councils, and which, when out-voted in the House, has other departments of the Government, the Senate and the President, with which it is more powerful, and by means of which it has so far rarely failed to defeat m ueasures, however popular and beneficial, which it dislikes. The Homestead bill had now passed the House by a decisive majority, but it had yet to encounter the more dangerous ordeal of the Senate, in which the Democratic majority was larger, and’ ill which the representation of the slaveholding States is proportionably greater. No direct vote upon the measure was, in fact, reached in the Senate, because the Southern managers would not permit it. There are two ways of killing off obnoxious irieasures. One is, to act upon them and vote them down. Another is, to overslaugh them whenever they are proposed, by proceeding to consider some other business. This latter method is invariably resorted to, wher e a measure, obnoxious to a majority of the Senate, is supposed to be acceptable to the people. And it was precisely by this method, and for that reason, that the Homestead bill was run over, shoved aside, evaded, and left unacted upon, by the Senate during its late session. The regular appropriation bills and the bill for the purchase of Cuba were being pressed upon the time of the Senate during the last days of the session, I I I s 186 MISSOURr.-C,ai,,- -1. CALIFOIINIA.-AlcKibbil, Scott-2. total, 120. NAYS.

Page 187 view page image

HOMESTEAD BILL IN THiE SENATE. as its friends were concerned, nothing was asked but a vote, which would not have consuiiied tenl minutes. But a vote was precisely what the Southern managers were determined to avoid.

Iiistatitly, therefore, upon the announcement of the success of Mr. Wade’s motion, which brought the bill before the Sernate, Mr. Hunter took the floor, and moved that it be set aside, so is to take up another bill, viz.: the Diploriratic and Consular Appropriation bill. No qiestion of’

order was raised upon this motion of Mr. Hunter, but it was well characterized as ” child’s play,” to move to set aside a bill, instantly after a vote to take it up. Pending some conversational debate upon Mr.

Hunter’s motion, the hour of twelve o’clock arrived, and the VicePresident decided that the Cuba bill, having been assigned for that hour, was the subject pending before the Senate. Hereupon, Mr. Wade moved to postpone the twelve o’clock order, and continue the coIisideration of the Homestead bill, and this motion prevailed by the following vote: YEAS

-Messrs. Bell, Bright, Broderick, Chandler, Cla)‘k, Collamer,.Diaon,.Doolittle, Douglas, D,?,rkee, Fessesdese, Foot, Foster, Hale, H~amlin, lHarlasel Johnson of Tennessee, King, Pugh, Rice, Seward.

Sinmnons, Smith, Stuart, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson -27. NAsS-Messrs.

Allen, Bates, Benjamin, B gler, Brown, Clay, Cliigman, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, lolamsiond, Hunter, Iversons, Johnson, of Arkansas, Lane, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Reid, Sebastian, Sli dell, Toorobs, Ward, and Yulee-26. On this vote, an additional Southern Senator, Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, ranged himself on the side of Homesteads. But this was offset by the ratting back to the negative side of Mr. G will. Th e Homestead bill was now again before the Senate, but the question, as stated by the VicePresident, was still upon Mr. Hunter’s motion to set it aside, and take up the Consular and Diplomatic Appropriation bill. Mr.

Mason, of Virginia, threatened an ” extended debate” upon the Homestead bill, if its consideration were insisted upon. He declared, at any rate, for himself that he intended to ” Wgo into it pretty largely, because he had not yet known a bill so fraughlt with mnischief, and mischief’of the most demoralizing kind.” Mr. Wade and Mr. Seward, in brief and energetic terms, exhorted the friends of the bill to stand firm. The vote was then taken upon Mr. Ilunter’s motioni, and resulted as follows: Yf’,AS.-Messr-s. Allen, Bates, Bayard, Benjamin, Bigler, Brown, Clay, Clingmran, Davis, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, ( win, Ham.mond, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Ke,nnedy, Lane, Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Reid, Sebastian, bliiiell, Toorubs, Ward, and Yulee-28. NAYS.-Messrs.

Bell, Bright, Broderick, Chag,dler, Clark, Collanier, Diawon,,.Doolittle,, Douglas,.Durkee, Fesse,nden, Fooet, Foster, Hale, IHamlin, HIarlan, Houston, Johnson of Tennessee, King, Pugh, Rice, Seward, Siummons, Smith, Stuart, Trumbull Wade, and these five, Mr. Gwin, is only a temporary re.dent of a Free State. Of the twenty-eight votes in favor of sustainin g the bill, only three are from the South, and only one of the three (Johnson of Teninessee,) is a Democrat. Two days afterward, on the 19te,of Februarv, Mr. Wade aga in m oved t o set aside all prior orders and take up the Homestead bill; but this motion was negatived by the following vote: YEAs.-Messrs. Broderick, Chandler, Clar7c, Collainer, -D]ioon, Doolittle, Darkcee, Fessendeien, Foot, Hiale tHamlin, Hlarlan, Johlison of Ten nessee, Joles, Kiez, Pugh, Rice, Seward, Shields, Simmons, Stuart, T”r,mball, Wade, and TVilso:.-24. NAYS.-lMessrs. Allen, Bates, Bayard, Benjaoiin, Bigler, Bright, Brown, CIestrnut, Clay, Cliir,ati, Critieiel, i Davis, Fitchl, Fitzpatrick, Gr-een, Harmmortl, ttolsto, Hunter, Iverson, Kennedy, Malloiy, Mason, Pearce, Polk, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell, Smitlh, Toonrbs, Ward, and Yulee -l. Upon these two days, the 17tlh and 19th of February, the question was made between the consideration of the Homestead trill and the coInsideration of the appropriati on bills, the nlecessity of passing which last bills did not tail to be insisted upon by the Democratic nialligers. At a subsequent stage of the session, as will be presently seen, the question was made between considering the Homestead bill and considering the Cuba bill. Upon the 25th day of February, upon the occasion of a motion by Mr. Slidell to postpone all prior orders and take up the bill foi the purchase of Cuba, Mr. Doolittle resisted it, and called upon the friends of Ilomesteai(s to vote it down, so that he liliiiself might subfit a imotioi to take up the Homestead bill. Mit.

Doolitle said: I think it would be better to take up this question of the Homestead bill and vote upon it, and then the Cuba bill will come up. I ask the friends of the Homestead bill now to stand by it and give it the preference. The vote was then talken, and the mot,ion to take up the Cuba bill prevailed, as follows: YEAS Messrs. Allen, Bavard, Bell, Benjamin, Biglef, Brown, Chestnut, Clay, Cliingmnan, Davis, i,tch, iitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, Ham mond, ouston, Iunte verson, Jones, Lane, Mallory, Maon, Polk, Pihli. lieid, Rice, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Soiith, Stuart, -Tooribs, Ward, Wright, and Yulee 5. NAYs Messrs. Broderick, Camneron, C/arendler, Clarrk, Collamer, Dixwon, D)oolittle, Doug,las, Dfi- /ee, Lessens den, Foot, Foster, Iale,, lii lIaIlan, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, KisA,g, Pea ce, Secewascl, Sinemmons, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-24: The Cuba bill was now tip, and the discussion uponi it protracted the session late into the ni,ght, and almost into the next morning. It was distinctly seen during the progress of this discussion that it would be without practical re sult, and that no vote could be reached before the final adjournment of Corgress. Accordingly, at tell o’clock in the evening Mr. Doolittle felt it to be his duty to reniiew the attempt to set aside the Cuba bill, the subject matter of a manifestly idle debate, so as to take up the Homestead bill. Iftis motion to that effect, and the conimericeirierit of the debate upon it, will be found on page 1351 of the Congressio nal Globe. Such extracts are made as will exhibit its general char’acter: Mr. Trumbull.-If there was any assurance that the Homestead bill could he taken up, after the Cuba question was disposed of, I should be willing to see it have the go”:,7 on the prleseult occasion; but *ve hlave sought The vote being a tie, the VicePresident, Mr. Bi-eckinridge, voted in the affirmative, and thus, after a long struggle, the Homestead bill was, f or that day, overslausghed. Of the twenity-eight votes for overslaughing it, all but five are from the South, and one of 187

Page 188 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. ~epeatedly to bring up the Homestead bill, and every movement that has been made to briing it up has been Let with a counter movement, crowding it out of the ,ray wth something else….. If the senator from Virginia will give us an aszurance that we shall have a chance to bring up the Homestead bill, and keep it befo; e the Senate until we can get a vote upon it, after the Cuba bill is through, and that he will not interpose an appropriation bill, I would join with gentlemen in asking my friend from Wisconsin to withdraw the motion he has made. Mr.

Hunter.-I certainly will press the appropriation bills. I will give no promise to vote to take up the Homestead bill. Mr. Trumbull.-That is as I expected. We now have notice that we are to be met with an appropriation bill the moment that the Cuba question is disposed of, and here we are wasting our time at this stage of the session in making long speeches, and debating about the acquisition of a country that does not belong to us, instead of providing for the settlement of the country which we own. There can be no hope of getting up the Homestead bill as against an appropriation bill. Mr. Seward.-After nine hours yielding to the discussion of the Cuba question, it is time to come back to the great question of the day and the age. The Senate may as well meet face to face the issue which is before them. It is an issue presented by the competition between these two questions. One, the Homestead bill, is a question of homes, of lands for the landless freemen of the United States.

The Cuba bill is a question of slaves for the slaveholders of the United States. Mr. Wade.-I am very glad that this question has at length come up.

I am glad, too, that it has antagonized with this nigger question.

(Laughter.) I have been trying here for nearly a month to get a straightforward vote upon this great measure of land for the landless. I glory in that measure. It is the greatest that has ever come before the American Senate, and it has now come so that there is no dodging it. The question will be, shall we give niggers to the niggerless, or lands to the landless? I moved some days ago to take up this subject. It was said then that there was an appropriation bill that stood in the way. The senator from Virginia had his appropriation bills. It was important, then, that they should be settled at once; there was danger that they would be lost, and the Government would stop in consequence; and the appeal was made to gentlemen to give this bill the go-by for the time being, at all events, and the appeal was successful. The appropriation bills lie very easy now behind this nigger operation. (Laughter.) When you come to niggers for the niggerless, all other questions sink into insignificance. Mr. Doolittle’s motion to set aside the Cuba bill for the purpose of taking up the Homestead bill, was lost, by the following vote: YEAs-lBiessrs. Broderick, Cameron, Clark, Chandler Collaner, D)oolittle, _Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale’ Hfamlin, Hiarlan, Johnson of Tennessee, King, Sewar dt ,Simmons, Trumbull, IVade, and WVilson-19. NAYs-Messrs. Allen, Benjamin, Bayard, Bigler, Brown, Chestnut, Clay, Clingman, Douglas, Fitch, Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Lane Mallory, Mason, Polk, Pugh, Reid, Rice, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Toombs, Ward and Wright-29. A BILL TO SECURE HOMESTEADS TO ACTUAL SETTLERS ON THE PUBLIC

]DOMAIN. Be it enactecd by the Senate anid Tlouse of Representatise8 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any person who is the head of a family, or who has arrived at the age of tvienty-one year s, and is a citizen of the Un ited States, or who shall have filed his intention to bec o me such, as required by the naturalization laws of the United States, shall, from and after the passag e of this act, be entitled to ent er, free of cost, one hundred and sixty acres of unappro pri ated public lands, upon which said person may have filed a preemption claim, or wh ich may, at the time the application is made, be subject to preemption at one dollar and twentyfive cents, or less, per acre; or eighty acres of such una ppropriated lands, at two dollars and fifty ce nts per acre; to be located ia en a body, in conformity to the legal subdivisions of the public lands, and after the sa me shall have b e en surveyed. ~ 2. And be it further enacted, That the person applying for the benefit of this act shall, upon application to the register of the land office in which he or she is about to make such entry, make affidavit before the said register or receiver that he or she is the head of a family, or is twentyone years or more of age, and that such application is made for his or her exclusive use and benefit, and those specially mentioned in th is act, and no t either directly or indirectly for the use or beneft of any other person or persons whomsoever; and upon filing the affidavit with the register or receiver, he or she shall thereupon be permitted to enter the quantity of land specified: Provided, however, That no certificate shall be given or patent issued therefor until the expiration of five years from the date of such entry; and if, at the expiration of such time, or at any time within two years thereafter, thle person making such entry-or if he be dead, his widow; or in case of her death, his heirs or devisee; or in case of a widow making such entry, her heirs or devisee, in case of her death-shall prove by two credible witnesses that he, she, or they have resided upon and cultivated the same for the term of five years immediately succeeding the time of filing the affidavit aforesaid; then, in such case, he, she, or they, if at that time a citizen of the United States, shall, on payment of ten dollars, be entitled to a patent, as in other cases provided for by law: And proseided,:further, That in case of the death of both father and mother, leaving an infant child, or children, under twentyone years of age, the right and fee shall inure to the benefit of said infant child, or children; and the executor, administrator, or guardian may, at any time within two years after the death of the surviving parent, and in accordance with the laws of the State in which such children for the time being have their domicil, sell said land for the benefit of said infants, but for no other purpose;and the purchaser shall acquire the absolute title by the purchase, and be entitled to a patent from the United States, on payment of the office fees and sum of money herein specified. SEc. 3.

And be it.f/rther enacted, That the register of the land office shall note all such applications on the tract-books and plats of his office, and keep a register of all such entries, and make return thereof to the General Land Office, together with the proof upon which they have been founded.

S-c. 4. And be it fqi!ther ereacted. That all lands acquired under the provisions of this act shall in no event become liable to the satisfaction of any debt or debts contracted pi’ior to the issuing of the patent therefor. SEc. 5. And be it farther enacted,‘That if, at any time after the filing of the affidavit, as required in the second section of this act, and before the expiration of the five years aforesaid, it shall be proven, after due no trice to the settler, to the satisfaction of the register of the land office, that the person having filed such affidavit shall have actually changed his or her residence, or abandoned the said entry for more than six nmontlhs at any time, then, and in that event, the land so entered shall revert to the government. SEC 6. And be it’,f,tler enacted, That no individual shall be permitted to rmake mor-e than one entry under the provisions of this act; and that the Commissioner of the General Lanld Office is hereby required to prepare and issue such rules and regulations, consistent with this act, as shall be necessarly and proper to carry its provi. This was the last attempt made to get up the Homestead bill in the Senate. It had first been overslaughed by the appropriation bills, and now by the Cuba bill, and no expectation remained of reaching it during the few remaining days of the session. T he Republ ic ans, who had endeavored to get it up in all forms and on all occasions without success, felt it to be their duty to abandon a manifestly hopeless struggle. From this review of the votes ill the Senate and House, it will be seen that the two great national parties, the on e representing the rights and interests of free labor, and the other represenlting the pretensions of Negro Slavery, have come to a well-defined issue upon this great matter of the disposition of the Public Domain. 188 1 of March, 1860, Mr. Lovejoy, froiii the Com. ittee on Public Lands, reported the followid,, I - uc 11 bill (previously introd ed by Mr. Grow), which was read twice, and committed to the Coiiimittee of the Whole. lu the House of Representatives, on the 6th

Page 189 view page image

TIlE HOMESTEAD BILL OF 1860.8 slons into eFect; and that the registers and receivers of the several land offices shall be entitled to receive the sane compensation for any lands entered under the provisions of this act tllct they are now entitled to receive when tr)e same quantity of land is entered with money, onehalf to be p aid by the person making the application at the time of so doig, and the othler half on the issue of thie certificate, by the person to whom it may be issued: Irovided, That nothing contained in this act shall be so construed as to impair or interfere in any manner whatever with existing preemption rights: And provided, further, That all persons who may have filed their ap1,lcations for a preemption right prior to the passage of this act shall be entitled to all privileges of this act. Subsequently, a motion was made by Mr.

Lovejoy, to reconsider the vote by which the bill had been referred to the Committee of the VWhole. On Monday, March 12, Mr. Lovejoy called up-this mnotion, and under the operation of the previous question, it was agreed to, 106 to 67, as follows YEAs.-Messrs. A d r a i n, Aldrich, Ashley, Babbitt, Bingham, Blake, Buffinton, Burlingame, Campbell, Carey, C atrer, C.se, Jo/Ar Cochrone, Colfax, Conkling, Cooper, Cu. wii, Co voie, Cow, James Craig, Curtis, J o h n G, D a v i s, Dawer, Delano, Duell, D)unn, Edgerton, Elliot, Flenton, Ferry, Florence, Foster,.Fouke, Frank, French, ( Goch,aa, G row, Gurley, lHale, Hall, Ha s ki n, Hlelhick, Ifoard, Ifolman, Itoward, Hutchins, Junkin, rancis W. Kellogg, William Kellogg, Kilgore, Killinger, Larr,bee, De WAitt C. Leach, Lee, Logan, Loomis, Lovej,)y, 3faclay, Marston, Charles 27. AVartin,.3cClernand, Ml,,Kean, MiKniMht, Millward, Moor head, Morrill, E(dwai.d Joy Moris, Morse, Olin, Pendleton, Perly, Porte,, Potter, Pottle, Rice, Rig g s, Christopher Robinson, Jaes (. Robitnson, Royce, S c h w a r t z, &cott, Scrant.n, Se(lgweick, Sirermluan, Somes, Spinner, Stanton, St out, Stra.iton, Tappa, T Tiayer, Tompkins, Train, Trimble, Vsttlandtighai, Vandever, Verree, Waldron, Walton, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Ellihu B Washburne, Israel WashWui ie, ells, Windom, and Woodruff-106 NAYS-Nlessrs. GREREN ADAMS.

ThomasL. Anderson, WILLIAM C. ANDERSON. Avery, Barksdale, Bocockc, Bonha(m, BRaBSON, Brancl, BRISTOW, Burch, Barnett, Clopto, C(obb, Carry, Reuben Dav)is, De Jarnette, Ed Lsiurndson, Eliglisel, ER,oiRIDGE, Garnett, CGartrell, GILcccR, Ilardeitan, J. M(ioRRISON HARRIS, IIATTIN, HILI l, lfindiran, I touston, l[rghes, Jackcson, Jenkins, Jones S Keitt. Lamar, Landrum, Leake, Love, MALLORY, Elbert S. far~tit, MIAYNARD, Afe Queen, McRae, M3iles, Millson, A~ontgomery, NELSOX, Xiblack, Xoell, Peyton, Pryor, Pugh, Reagan, Puffin, Sickles, Simms, Singleton, Willian, Snmith, WILLI AM N. H. SMITH, Ste/enso, -TOKES, Underwoocl,, VANCE, WEBSTER, Whiteley, ]oodeon, andc WrightI-6T. Republican,.s in Roman; Democrats in Italcics; American,s in S’MALL CAPS; AntiLecompton Democrats in Romian S
p a c e ld. So the motion was reconsidered, and the bill was before the House. Mr. Lovejoy moved that the bill be engrossed a nd re ad a third time. Mr. Branch (N. C.) moved to lay the bill on the table. Lost, 62 to 112, the yeas being all from the Soutl,except r Mr. Montgomery, Democrat, of Pennsylvania, and the nays all from the North, except Mr. James CraiF, Democrat, of Missouri. So the House refused to lav the bill on the table; and it was read a third time and passed. The vote was as follows-The Republicans in Roman, the Administration Democrats in Italics, the Americans in SMqALL CAPs, and the AntiLecomptoni Democrats in Roman s p a c e d: YEAS. MAINE.-Foster, French, Morse, Perry, Somes, Israel Washbu, -,-6 NEw-I I ~ MPsmIR. Marston, Tappan 2. ~EM~, ~T. Morrill, Royce, Walton-38. MxsA,:A USm:Ts. Buffinton, Dawes, Delano, Elliot Gooeh, l[,ce, Thayer, Train 8. COSN~~cuTUT-Burnham, Ferry, Loomis, Woodruff 4 RumOr:-

I sLA.ND. Christ~opher Robinson-1. NEw-Y,S.m.-Barir, BRinGs, Carter, John Cochrane Conk’inlg, Duell, Fenton, Frank, Gr aham, H a s ki n Hoar-d, ttumrphsrey, Lee, 3farlay, AMcKeaa, Olin. Pottle 8ic]~les, Spinnter, Van Wyck, Wells-21. NROw-JN.-sy.-A d 1 a i n, R i g g s, Stratton-1.

P.BNNSYLVANIA.-Babbitt, Campbell. Covode, Florenee, Grow, Hale, Hlall, Ii c k tm, a n, Junkin. Killenger, MeKnight, McPherson, Millward, E. Joy Morris, S c h w a r t z Scranton, Verree-17. OHio.-Ash ley, Binghmn, Blake, Carey, Corwin, Cox, Edgl,erton, Gurley, Helrnick, Hloward, Itutchins, Charles 1). Martiqn, Pendleton, Sh~e,‘m,an, Stanton, TomI,pkins, Trimble, Vallandighz am-l8S. AIICHIGAN -,oop)er, Francis W.

Kellogg, De Witt C. Leach, Waldron-4. INDIANA.-Case, Colfa,x, J.ohn G. Dav i s, Dunn, English, Itolin?an, Kilgore. Yiblack, Porter, Wilson il.

ILLINOIS.,Fouke, Wrli. Kellogg, Logan, Lov,-j,,y, McClernalnd, Jamnes C.

Robinson?, E. 13. Washburne-7 WISCONSiN.-Larra7)ee, Potter, C. C. Washbur, 3. IowA.-Curtis, Vandever-2. MINNESOTA.-Aldriclh, Windom-2.

CALIFORNIA.-BaJrch, Scott-2. OREGON.-StoOut-1. MISsouiR.-Ja,2nes Craig-1.

Total, 115. All from the Free States except James Craig, of Missouri.

NAYS. PHNNSYLVAVIA. fontgoineryR-1. DELAWARE.- Whiteley 1.

MARYLANWD.-IH. SMINTER DAVIS, J. M. HARRIS, Pb Ugieas, WEBSTER-1.

VILGINIA.-Bococl, De Ja-,nette, Edm?hndson, Garnett, Jenkins, Leake, EClbea t S. th artin, Vilson, Prys or, alliamuSnithr-10. NORTEa CdAROLIa.-Buancl, Ler, GILLa, 5ffn, peMrA N. H. SMITH, VANCE 5. wOUTi CAROLINA. Bonha on, eeyitmh, uc Quteen, ciles 2. GEoRGCIA.-Gtartrelol, ii RlIoEMAN, IIILL, Jackson, Jone, Lo ve, Underwo od 7.

ALABAMA.-CloptO?,, (olm b, Curr, Touston, Suydenham Moore, Ptuqh -6.

Mississsippi-Bae rk,G ale, Reumben Davis, Lanar, 3ecRe a st, Singleton-5.

LOUISIANA.-Landcrqimr l. ARKAE SAS. Hindman-1. Tb:XAs.-IaIfnilton, Reagan-2. MisSOuRI.-Roma7 s L. Anderson, m oell, lIVoodso on-8

TENNESSEE.-Aqf erky, EJTHER,IDGEf, TIATTON, MALNieRD, NILSON, STOKES, Wtrig7t T.’ KENTUCK~Y.-(REEN, ADAMS, WILLIAM C. ANDERSO1N, 3RISTOw r n e t, sne, iALLORY, Poyton, SPim Ps, Steven8on-8. Total, 65. All from Slave S
tate s except Montgoiery, DemF, of Pennsylv a nia. This bill was se nt to the Senate, where it was referred to the r Comms ittee on Public Lands, and on the 17th of April, Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, the Chairmail of that Comm ittee, repor t ed a substitute for the Hou,e bill, granting Homesteads to actual settlers, at 25 cents per acre, but not including prebniptors then occIIpying the Public Lands. Whleni this bill came before the Senate for action, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, moved to amend, bv substituting the House bill, which was lost, 26 to 31, as follows: Y~As-Messrs.

Anthony, Bingham, Cameron, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Douglas, Durkee, Foot, Foster, Grimes, llale, Hamlin, King, Rice, Seward, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Toorobs, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, and Wilson 26. NAYS-Messrs. Bayard, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Brown, Chesnut, Clay, Clingrrman, Davis, Fitclh, Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, Hammond, Iemphill, IHunter, Iverson Johnson, of Arkansas, Johnson, of Tennessee, Laine Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Polk, Powell, Pugh, Saulsbury, Sebastian, Slidell, Wigfall, and Yulee-31. Yeas, all Republicans except three, Douglas, Rice, and Toombs. Nays, all Democrats. The Senate finally, on the 10th May, passed Mr. Johnson’s bill, 44 to 8, the Nays beirng Messrs.

Bragg, Clingman, Hamlin, Hunter, Mason, Pearce, Powell and Toombs. The House refused to concur; the Senate refused to recede, and the result was a protracted conference on the part of Committees of the two Houses, which committees finally came to an agreemen*, 1.89

Page 190 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. on the 19th June, by the House accepting the pose all public lands to sale within two years after they nate bill with’ e. On shall have been surveyed, which we held would be eate bill ith slt amendments. On tatpeculiarly oppressive upon the p:onee’s who had gone day Mr. Schuyler Coit.ax reported to the Hlouse to the frontier to settle upon the publ c lands, and to s follows: which we could never have consen ed. Now, Mr. ‘*~~~ I Speaker, I desire to state, in conclusion, that the com Mr. Colfax.-I rise to a question of privilege. I am in-prmomise we have made upon the subject is not in accordstructed by the Committee of Conference on the disagree-anee with what I should desire to have passed, if I had ing votes of the two Houses on the Homestead bill, to the power to frame the bill myself; but it is the very utreport that, after twelve meetings of the three different most we could obtain from the Senate, as now constiConferences that have been appointed, they this morn-tuted.

Tlhe Senators who served with us on the Confeing finally agreed. I hold in my hand the report of the rence have been notified by me, and also by my colleague Committee, which can be read if any gentleman desires. Win dom, of Min nesota,) that we regard this as but it. But pes haps it would render the report clearer and a single step in advance toward a law which we shall demore intelligible if I should briefly state its leading fea-mand f’om the Amer ican Congress, enacting a compretures. The Senate bill all the members of the House are hensive and liberal Homestead policy.

This we have familiar with. The Conlferees upon the part of the House agreed to as mei’ely an avant cottrriier. We shall definding, after the most earnest efforts, that it would be uand it at the next session of Congress, and until it is utterly inmpossible for them to induce the Senate to agree granted; until all the public lands shall be open to all to the House bill, have been discussing what changes the people of the United States; and I state this publicly, could be made inthe Senate bill, so as to render it accep-that no one shall regard us as estopped hereafter, betable enough for the House to accept, rather than the cause we accepted this half-way measue atiher than to whole should fail. They have finally agreed upon a report allowte thole to fail. Ishoul d have added that all as follows: In the first place, I will say that the bill, as it persos, whether citizens or those who have only declared passed the Senate, provided that tle preemptors now their intentions, are allowed to go on the lands under upon the public lands might remain there two years be-this bill; but are required to perfect their naturalization fore they should be required to purchase their lands, but before the five years expire, and the I)ateit issues. I now should then pay for them at the rate of $1l 25 per acre, demand the prIvious question on concurring on the rethus removing them entirely from within the purview of port of the Committee, and passing the bill as thus the benefits which would apply to the settlers hereafter amended upon the public lands. This point the House Conferees. Farnsworth.-I desire to ask the gentleman from refused to accede to, and if persisted in, we should have Indiana whether this bll confines its benefits to those again reported a disagt.eenment. Finally, however, a who are heads of families. compromise was arranged on this point, and to protect Ml. Colfax.-It does, because we failed, despite our the preemptors now on the Government land, which was utmost efforts, in procuting its extension to all; but we to be advertised this fall for sale, we changed the Senate shall appeal to the young men to demand of those who bill so as to protect them for at least two years f rom la nd iake and who execute the laws, that the system insales, and to allow them then to secure their homes at augulated by this bill, shall be widened so as to admit oie half the Government price, namely sixty-two and themt to its benefits, and I will join them in this demand. a-half cents per acre.

I need scarcely add, that, if the Mr. Gow.-I just desire to say that we have taken this Senate could have been induced to give them the benefit bill, not because it is what we want, but on the principle of their twentyfive-cent-per-acre provision, we should tlat ” half a loaf is better than no bread.” have insisted on it inflexibly; but what I have stated is the very lowest point that could be ob tain ed. The sec ond Te iicouse agreed to the Report of the Conl - change we have made in the Senate bill is in relation to mittee, 115 to 51, as follows: the scope of land coming under the operations of the law. The House bill embraced all the Government land Yt,.As.-Messrs. Ashley, Babbitt, Barr, Bingham, Francis land,Yas. Messrs. Ashley, Babbitt, Barr, Bingham, Francis offered or unoffeled, except such as was specially re-P. Blair, Samuel S. Blair, Blake, iBraytot, lBriggs, Bultinserved. The Senate bill confined its previsions toland ton, Burch, Burlingame, Burnham, Buttefiel(l. Catpbell, subject to private entry, exclusively. As I have explain-Carey, Carter, Case, Horace F. Clark, Cobb, Colfax, Cored on a former occasion, the expression “subject to pri-win, Covode, Cox, Curtis, John G. Davis, Dawes, Delano, vate entry” eans such as are left after the lands have Duell, Dunn, Edger ton, Edwards, Elliot, Ely, Ferry, Filbeen once regularly brought into market, exposed to rence, Foster, Frank, Fre nch, Gooc, G row, Gutpublic sale, and the speculators have taken such as they ley, Ilale, Hall, Haskin, Hemick, Iloard, Wim. Howard, see fit to purchase The difference between these two Humphlrey, Hutchins, Junkin, Francis V.

Kellogg, Wm. bills seemed so radical as to be incapable of adjustment.; Kellogg, Kenyon, Killinger, DeWitt C. Leach, Lee, Longand the scope of farming land covered by the Senate bill necke, Loomis, Maclay, Marston, cKean, McKn ight, was so limited, there being but little, if any, in Minnesota McPherson, Millwald, Moorhead, Alorrill, Edward Joy Kansas, Nebraska, Callfornia, Oregon, and Washington, Mlorrs, Isaac N. Morris, Morse, Niblack, Nixon, Olin, that the House conferees declined to accept it. But on Palmer, Pendleton, Perry, Pettit, Phelps, Poiter, Potte;, this, too, we fially effected a compromise. By our re-Rice, Riggs, Christopher ItRobinson, Itoyce, Sedgwcik, port, all the land subject to private entry is included Sherman, Sorines, Spaulding, Spinner, Stanton, Nillia arid, iat addition, all the odd-nu m i nobered section s of the Stewart, Stout, Tappan, Taylor, Thayer, Tieaker, Tomp surveyed public lands, wic have not been opened to kins, Train, Timble, Vandever, Van Wyck, Ver-ee, public sale-a most materia l and beneficent enlargeent vade, Walton, Cadwalader C. Washburn, Elilu B. Waslof the Senate bill. We wereoffered, after this ag reement burne, Israel Washburn, Wells, Windom, and WoodruI whichever half of the unoffee d lands we chose, and we ce-11 took the odd-nutbered sections. The reason for this NAYS-Messrs. Green Adams, William C.

Anderson, was, that tie 16th section of a township, being reserved Ashmore, Avery, Barksdale, Bocock, Bunlhao, Boyce, for school purposes by our land laws, the four adjois, g Brabson, Branch, Burnett, Cloptonr, Burton Claige, Ciawsections to it, on the north, west, east, and south, are see-ford, Cury, De Jarnette, Gilmer, l1ardeman, J. or r itoioS 9, 15, 17, and 21, all odd-numbered sections, which son fIarris, John T. Harris, Hatton, liouston, Jenkins, are thus saved for homestead settlers, who have reserved Jones, Keitt, Landrum, James A. Leach, Leake, Love, lor them 1S
out of the 85 disposable sections in each town-Mallory, Maynard, McQueen, Miles, Millson, SydenhaT ship of six miles square. Moore, Nelson, Peyton, Quarles, Reagan, Ruffil, NVil On all these lands, actual settlers, who are heads of liam Smith, William N. 1I. Smith, Stevenson, Stokes, families, are allowed, after havi ng occupied the land for Thomas, Underwood, Vance, Webster, Winslow, VWoodfive years, to purchase at 25 cents per acre, which is son,’ and Wright-51. about the average cost price of the public lands to the The nays are all from the Slave States. Covernment. We struggled, of course, to include all young men over 21 who are not heads of families, and to The Senate agreed to the report of the Conadopt the Free Homestead principle of the House bill; ference Committee, 36 to 2-Messrs. Bratt and but on these points the Senate was inflexible, and we Pearce took what we did because it was the very best we could The get. Tise Senate bill originally provided that the Home-The following is the bill as it was finally stead settler night acquire title to his land at any time reported by the Conference Committee and by paying full Governtuent prices; but desiring to pro-passed both IRouses: * mote actual settlement, we now provide that he cannot do this till after Ite has been on the land six months. AgrACTto secore ifomessteads to actual settlers on Fhebn he stays, or his family if he deceases, the full five tlee Preblic )omain, ae./ br otf/er p~reposes. years hie obtains it at 21 cents per acre. The Senate.Be it earacted by theSe atec aesl Jiorese of’ iepreserwhave also agreed to strike out the eighth section of their tives of tife reitef States of Acae-ica nir Cocgsfress bill, which made it imperative upon the P;~ wideot So ex-assecrnelecl, That ally person who is tile head of a fattitly, 190

Page 191 view page image

THE HOMESTEAD BILL-THE VETO. and a citizen of the United States, shall, from and after the passage of this act, be entitled to enter one quartersection of vacant and unappropriated public lands, or any less quantity, to be located in a body, in conformity with the legal subdivisions of the public lands, after the saine shall have been surveyed, upon the following conditions: that the person applying for the benefi t of this act shall, upon application to the register of the land-office In which he r s he is about to make such entry, make affidlavit before the said register or receiver of said landlffice that h e or she is the head of a family, and is actually settled tn the quartersection, or other subdivision not exceeding a quartersection, proposed to be entered, and that such application is ade fo r his or her use and benefit, or for the use and benefit of those specially mentioned in this section, and not either directly or indirectly for the use or benefit,; of any other person or persons whomsoever, and that he or slie has neve r at any previous time, had the benefit of this act; and upon making the affidavit as above required, and filing the same with the-register, he or she shall ther eupon be pernmittei to enter the quantity of land already specified: Provided, however, That no final certificate shall be given, or patent issued therefor, until the expiration of five years from the date of such entry; and if, at the expiration of such time, the person making such entry, or, if he be dead, his widow, or, in case o f her death, his child or children, or in case of a widow making such entry, her child or children, in case of her death, shall prove, by two credible witnesses, that he, she, or theythat is to say, some member or members of the same family-has or have erected a dwelling-house upon said land, and continued to reside upon and cultivate the came for the termn of five years, and still reside upon the samine (and that neither the said land or any part thereof has been alienated); then, in such case, he, she, or they, upon the payment of 25 cents per acre for the quantity entered, shall be entitled to a patent, as in other cases provided by law: And providedfurther, In case of the death of both father and mother, leaving a minor chii or children, the right and the fee shall inure to the benefit tf said minor c hild or children, and the guardian shall be authorized to perfect the entry for the beneficiaries, as if there had been a continued residence of the settler for five years.

Provided, That nothing in this section shall be so construed as to embrace or in any way include any quartersection or fractional quartersection of land upon which any preemption rigit has been acquired prior to t sh e passage of this act. Aic providedftrther, That all entries made under the provisions of this section, upon lands which have not been offered for public sale, shall be confined to and upon sections designated by odd numnbers. 2. An(d be it further enacted, That the register of the Land Office shall note all such applications on the tract books and plats of his office, and keep a register of all such entries, and make return thereof to the General Land Office, together with the proof upon which they have been founded. 3. And be it f’urther enacted, That no land acquired under the provisions of this act shall in any event, becote liable to the satisfaction of any debt or debts until after the issuing of the patent therefor. 4. And be itfurtlber earacted, That if, at any time after filing the affidavit, as required in the first section of this act, and before the expiration of the five years aforesaid, it shall be proved, after due notice to the settier, to the satisfaction of the register of th e Land Office, that the person having filed such affidavi t shall have sworn falsely in any particular, or shall have voluntarily abandoned the possession and cultivation of the sa id land for more thian six months at any time, or s old his right under the entry, then, and in e ither of those events, the register shall cancel the entry, and the l and so entered shall revert to the Government, and be disposed of as other public lands are now by law, subject to an appeal to the Secretary of the Interior. And in no case shall any land, the entry whereof shall have been can celled, again be subject to occupation, or entry, or pur chase, until the same shall have been reported to th e General Land Office, and, by the direction of tihe Presi dent of the United States, again advertised and offered at public sale. 5. And r be it further enacted, That if any person, now or hereafter, a resident of any one of the States or Territories, and ncot a citizen of the United States, but who at the time of making such application for the bene fit of this act, shall /avefiled a declaration of inten tion, as required by the naturalization laws of the United States, and shall have become a citizen of the same before the issuing of the patent as provided for in this act, such person shall be entitled to all toci rights conferred lby this act. 6. A,nel be at fitrth7er ensacted, That no individual shall be permitted to enter more than o ne quarterse ction or fractional quartersection, and that in a compact body; but entries nTay be made at different times, under the provisions of this act; and that the Secr eta ry of th e Interior is hereby required to prepare and issue, fro m time to time, such rules and regulations, consistent with this act, as shall be necessary and proper to carry its provisions into effect; and that the registers and receivers of the several land offices shall be entitled t o receive, upon th e fil ing of the first affidavit, the sum of 50 cents each a nd a like susl upon the isc u!ing of the final certificate. But this shall not be construed to enlarge the maximr.um of compensation now prescribed by law for any register or receiver: Provided, That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to impair the existing preemption, donation, or graduation laws, or to embrace lands which have been reserved to be sold or entered at the price of $2 50 per acre; but no entry, under said graduation act, shiall be allovwed until after proof of actual settlement and cultivation or occupancy for at least three mnonthls, as provided for in Sec. 8 of the said act. T. Andc be it farther enacted, That each actual settler upon lands of the United States, which have not been offered at public sale, upon filing his declaration or claim, as now required by law, shall be entitled to two years from the commencement of his occupation or settlement; or, if the lands have not been surveyed, two years from the receipt of the-approved plat of such lands at the I]istrict Land Office, within which to complete the proofs of his said claim, and to enter and pay for the land so claimed, at minimum price of such lands; and where such settlements have already been made in good faith, the claimant shall be entitled to the said period of two years from and after the date of this act; Provyided, That no claim of preemption shall be allowed for more than 160 acres, or one-quarter section of land, nor shall any such claim be admitted under the provisions of this act, unless there shall have been at least three months of actual and continuous residence upon and cultivation of the land so claimed from the date of settlement, and proof thereof made according to law; Provided furthter, That any claimant under the pre6mption laws mnay take less than 160 acres by legal subdivisions; Provided further, That all persons who are pree,wptors, on the date of this act, shall, upon the ppayment to the jproper awthoirity of 6‘2) cents per acec,e, if paid zvithin two years fro,n the,passage of this act, be entitled to a patent from the Government, as now provided by the existing pre6mption laws. 8. And be it further enacted, That the bth section of the act entitled “An act in addition to an act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes,” approved the 3d of Mlarch, in the year 1857, shall extend to all oaths, affirmationss, and alfidavits required or authorized by this act. 9. Avid be it furt7her enacted, That nothing in this act shall be so construed as to prevent any person wlho has availed him or herself of the benefit of the first section of this act from paying the minimum price, or the price to which the same may have graduated, for the quantity of land so entered at any time after an actual settlement of six months, and before the expiration of the five years, and obtaining a patent therefor from the Government, as in other cases provided by law. ~ 10. And be it Jfurther enacted, That all lands lying within the limits of a State which have been subject to sale at private entry, and which remain unsold after the lapse of thirty years, shall be, and the same are hereby, ceded to the State in which the same may be situated; Provided, These cessions shall in no way invalidate any inceptive preemption right or location, or any entry under this act, nor any sale or sales Which may be made by the United States before the lands hereby ceded shall be certified to the State, as they are hereby required to be, inler such regulations as may be prescribed by’he Secret,tr) of the Interior..Ind’providedft,,rthter, Tlhat no cessions shall take effect until after the States, by legislative act, shall have assented to the same.. On the 23d, the President returned the bill to the Senlate with his veto, as t’ollowas: THE HOMESTEAD BILL. VETO

MIESShOE OF THE PRESIDENT. To the Senate of the United States. I retur n, withl my objections, to the Senate, in which2 it originated, the bill entitled ~’ An act to secure H~omesteads to actual settlers on the public domain and for other purposes,” pr esented to me onl the’Both instant. 191

Page 192 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. carefully limited, but without any limitation in respect to the public lands. But I cannot so read the words ” disposed of ” as to make them embrace the idea of “giving away.” The true mealning of words is always to be ascertained by tihe subject to which they are applied, and the known genelitl intent of the lawgiver.

Congress is trustee under the Constitution for the people of the United States to “dispose of” their public lands, and I think I may venture to assert with confidence that no case can be found in which a trustee in the position of Congress has been authorized to ” dispose of”’ property by its owner, where it has ever been held that these words authorized such trustee to give away the fund intrusted to his care. No trustee, when called upon to account for the disposition of the property placed under his management before any judicial tribunal, would venture to present such a plea in his defense. The true mean ing of these word is is clearly stated by Chief Justice Tan ey in d elivering the opinion of the Cou rt (19 Howard, p. 436). He says, in reference to th is clause of the Constitution, “It begins its enumer ation o f po wers by that of d ispo sing; in other wor d s, making sale of the lands, or raising m o ney from the m, whi ch, as we have already said, was the main object of the cession (from the States), and which is the firs t thing provided fo r in the article.” It is unnecessary to refer to the history of the times to est ablish the known fact th at th is statement of the Chief Justic e is perfectly we ll founded. That it never was intended by the framers of the Const itution that thes e lands should be given away by Congres s is man ifes t fro m the concluding portion of the same clau se. By it, Con -
gress has po we r not only “to dispose of” the territory, but of the “
other proper ty of the Un ited States.” In the language of the Chief Justice (p. 43T), “And th e same power of making ne edful r ules respe cting the territo ry is in precisely the same la nguage applied to t he other property of the United Stat es, a ssociating the power o ver the territor y, in this respect,with the power over mo vable or personal pro perty-th at is, the ships, arms, or munitions of war, which then belongmed in common to the State sovereignties.” The question is still clearer in r egard to the public land s in the States and Territories with in the Louisiana and Florida purchas es These lands were paid for out of the public Treasury from money raised by ta xation. Nowl, if Congress had no power to appropriate the money with wh ich these lands were purchased, i s it not clear that the power over th e lan ds is equally limited? The mere conversion of this money into land could not confer upon Congress new power ove r the disposition of land whi ch the y ha(l not possessed over money. If it could, t hen a trustee, by cha nging the c hara ct er of th e fund intrusted to his care f or special objects from mone y i nto land, might give the lan d away, or devote i t to any purpose he thought proper, however foreign from the trust. The inference is i rresistible th ththis lan d par takes of the very same character with the money paid for it, and can b e devoted to no ol-bjects different from t hose to which the money could have been devoted. If this wer e not the case, then, by the purchase of a new Territory from a foreign government out of the publi c Tr easury, Con gres s could enlarge their own powers, and appropriate the proc eeds of the sales of the land thus purchased, at their ow n discretion, to other and far different objects from what they co uld have applied the p ur chase money wh ich had bee n r aised by taxation. II. It will prove u nequal and unjust in its o peration among the actu al s ettlers themselves. The first settlers of a new country a re a most merito Xeious class. They brave the danger s o f savage war fare, suffer the privations of a fron tier life, and, with thle hand of toil, bring tche wilderness into cultivation. The ” olp settlers,” as they are everywhere called, are public benefactors. This class have all paid for their lands, the government piice, or $1 25 per acre. Thley have constructed roads, established schools, and laid the foundlation of prosperous Colimmonwealths. Is it just, is it equal, that, after they have accomplished all this by their lab)or, new settlers should come in among them and receive their farms at the price of twentyfive or eighteen cents per acre? Surely the old settlers, as a class, are entitled to at least equal benefits with the new. If you give the new settlers their land-s for a comparatively nominal pr ice, upon every principle of equality and justice, thou will be obliged to refund out of the common Tr easury the difference which the old have paid above the newv settlers for their land.

III. This bill will (lo great injustice to the old soldiers wlho have received land warrants for their services in fighting the battles of their country. It will greatly reduc_e the market value of these warrants.

Already t~hejirnine ha3s stunk, I or one hundred and sixty acre warrants, to sixty-seven cents per acre, under an appre. This bill gives to every citizen of the United States, “who is the head of a family,” and to every person of foreign birth residing in the country, who has declared his intention to become a citizen, though he may not be the head of a family, the privilege of appropriating to himself one hundred and sixty acres of Government land, of settling and residing upon it for five years; and should his residence continue until the end of this period, he shall then receive a patent on the payment of twentyfive cents per acre, or one-fifth of the present Governmnent price. During this period, the land is protected from all the debts of the settler. This bill also contains a cession to the States of all the public lands within their respective limits “which have been subject to sale at private entry, and which remain unsold after the lapse of thirty years.” This provision embraces a present donation to the States of twelve millions two hundred and twenty-nine thousand seven hundred and thirtyone acres, and will, from time to time, transfer to them large bodies of such lands which, from peculiar circumstances, may not be absorbed by private purchase and settlement. To the actual settler, this bill does not make an absolute donation; but the price is sc small that it can scarcely be called a sale. It is nominally twentyfive cents per acre; but considering this is not to be paid until the end of five years, it is, in fact, reduced to about eighteen cents per acre, or one-seventh of the present minimum price of the public lands. In regard to the States, it is an absolute and unqualified gift. I. Ths state of the facts ra ises the question whe ther Congress, under the Constitution, has the power to give away t he public lands, either to States or individuals. On this question, I expressed a decided opinion in my message to the House of Representatives, of the 24tii February, 1859, returning the agricultural college bill. This opi nio n remains unchanged.

The argument then used applies, as a c onstitutional objection, with the greater force to the present bill. Ther-e it had the plea of consideration, growing out of a specific beneficial purpose; here, it is an absolute gratuity to the State without the pretext of consideration. I am compelled, for want of time, in these last hours of the session, to quote largely from this message 1 p, esume the general proposition will be admitted, that Congress does not possess the powuer to make donations of money, already il the Treasury, raised by taxes on the people, either to States or individuals. But it is contended that the public lands are placed upon a different footing fi’om money raised by taxation, and that the prdoceeds arising from their sale are not subject to the limitations’

of the Constitution, but may be appropriated or given away by Congress, at its own discretion, to States, corporations, or individuals, for any purpose they may deem expedient. The advocates of this bill attempt to sustain their position upon the language of the second clause of the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which declares that “thle Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations :especting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.” They contend that, by a fair interpretation of the words “dispose of” in this clause, Congress possesses the power to make this gift of public lands to the States for purposes of education. It would require clear and strong evidence to induce the belief that the framers of the Constitution, after having limited the powers of Congress to certain, precise, and specific objects, intended, by employing the words ” dispose of,” to give that body unlimited power over the vast public domain. It would be a strange anomaly i,d(leed, to have created two funds, the one by taxation, confined to the execution of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress, and the other from the public lands, applicable to all subjects, foreign and domestic, which Congress might designate. That this fund should be ” disposed of,” not to pay the debts of the United States, nor ” to raise and support armies,” nor ” to provide and maintain a navy,” nor to accomp)lish any one of the other great objects enumerated in the Constitution, but be diverted from them to pay the debts of the States, to educate their people, and to carry into effect any other Pleasure of their domestic policy this would be to confer upon Congress a vast and irresponsible authority, lutterly at war with the wellknown jealousy of the Federal power which prevailed at the formation of the Constitution.‘The natural intendrneur would be that, as the Constitution confined Congress to wvell-definled specific powers, the funds placed at their commnand, whether in land or money, should be appropriated to the performance of the duties corresponding withl these plowers. If not, a Government has been created, wit~h all its other powers I 192 I

Page 193 view page image

MR. BUCHANAN’S VETO OF THE HOMESTEAD BILL. hension that such a measure as this might become a law. What price would they commnand, when any head of a family may take possession of a quarter section of land, and not pay for it until the end of five years, and then at the rate of only twentyfive cents per acre? The magnitude of the interest to be affected will appear in the fac that there are outstanding unsatisfied land warrants reaching back to tle last war with great Britain, and even Rievolutionaty times, amounting in round numbers, to seven aled a half millions a cres. IV. This bill will prove unequal and unjust in its opera lioe, because, from its nature, it is confined to one class of our people. It is a boon expressly conferred upon the cusltivators of the soil. While it is cheerfully admitted th tt these are the most numerous and useful class of our fellow-citizens, and eminently deserve all the advantages which our laws have already extended to them, yet there should be no niew legislation which would operate to the injury or embarrassment of the large body of respectable artisans and laborers. The mechanic who emigrates to’ thie West, and pursues his calling, must labor long before he can purchase a quartersection of land; while the tiller of the soilwho accompanies him obtains a farm at once by the bounty of the Government. The numerous body of mechanics in our large cities cannot, even by esiigrating to the West, take advantage of the provisions of this bill without entering upon a new occupation, for which their habits of life have rendered them unfit. V.

This bill is unjust to the old States of the Union in many respects; and among these States, so far as the public lands are concerned, we may enumerate every State east of the Mississippi, with the exception of Wis consin and a portion of Minnesota. It is a common belief, within their limits, that the older States of the Confederacy do not derive their propor tionate benefit from the public lands. This is not a just olpinion.

It is doubtful whether they could be rendered more beneficial to these States under any other systemn than that which at present exists. Their proceeds go into the common Treasury to accomplish the objects of the Government, and in this manner all the States are berne fited in just proportion. But to give this common inherit ance away would deprive the old States of their just proportion of this revenue, without holding out any, the least, corresponding advantage. While it is our common glory teat the new States have become so prosperous and populous, there is no good reason why the old States should offer premiums to their own citizens to emigrate from them to t he West. That l and of promis e p resents in itself sufficient allurements to our young and enterprising citizens, without any adventitious aid. The offer of free farms w ould p robably hav e a pow erful eff ect i n encourag ing emigration, especially from States like Illinois, Ten nessee, and Kentucky, to th e w est o f the Mississippi, and coul d not f ail to reduce the price of property within their limits. An individual in States ths situated would not p ay its fa ir value for land when, by crossing the Mississip pi, he could go upon the public lands, and obtain a farm almost without money and without price.

VI. This bill will open one vast field for speculation. Men will not pay $1 25 for lands, when they can pur chase them for one-fifth of that price.

Large numbers of actual settlers will be carri ed out by capitalists upon agreements to giv e them half t hthe lan d for the improve ment of the other half. This cannot be avoided. Secret agreements of this kind will be numerous. In the entry of graduated lands, the experience of the Land Office justifies this objection. VII. We ought ever to maintain the most perfect equality between native and naturalized citizens. They are equal, and ought always to remain equal, before the laws. Our laws welcome foreigners to our shores, and their rights will ever be respected. While these are the sentiments on which I have acted through life, it is not, in my opinion, expedient to proclaim to all the nations of the earth that whoever shall arrive in this country from a foreign shore, and declare his intention to become a citizen, shall receive a farm of 160 acres, at a cost of 25 or 20 cents per acre, if he will only reside on it and cultivate it. The invitation extends to all; and if this bill becomes a law, we may have numerous actual settlers fromu China, and other Eastern nations, enjoying its beneftis on the great Pacifice slope. The bill makes a distinction in favor of such persons over native and nasuralized citizens. When applied to such citizens, it is confined to suchA as are the heads of families;* but when applicable to persons of foreign birth recently arrived ou our shores, there is no such restriction. Such persons need not be the heads of families, provided they have filed a declar~ation of intention to become citizens. Perhaps this dis tinction was an inadvertence; but, it is, nevertheless, a part of the bill. VIII. The bill creates an unjust distinctio n between persons claiming he benefit of the p ree mption laws. Whi le it r educes t he price of t he land to exi sting premp. tors to 62t cents per acre, and gives th em a credit on this sum for two years from the present date, no matter how long they may have hitherto enjoyed the land, futu e preemptors will be compelled to pay double thi s ph ice per ac re. There is no re a s on or justice in thi s discriesl nation. IX. The effect of this b ill on the p ublic revenue must be appar ent to all. Should it become a law, the r educ - tion of thep r ie price of lands to actual settle rs to 25 cents per acre with a credit of five years, and the reduc tion of its price to existing preemptors to 621 cents per acre, with a credi t of two years wil l so d iminish the sale of o ther public lands as to render the expectation o f futu re revenue from that source beyond t he expens es of survey and management illusory. The Sec retary of the Inter i or estimated the r evenue from the public land s for the next fiscal year at $4,000,000 on the presumpti on that the present land system would remain unchanged. Should this bill become a law, he does not believe that $1,000,4 00 will be derived from this so u rce. This bill lays the ax at the root of our pres en t admirable land system. The p ublic land is an inhe ritance of vast value to us a nd to our descendan ts. It is a resource to which we can resort in the hour of difficulty and dange r. It has been managed heretofor e wit h the greatest wisdom, under existing laws. In this m an ag ement, the rights of actual settlers have been conciliated with the int er est s of the Government. The price to all ha s b een reduced from $2 per acre to $1

25 for fresh lands, and the claims o f actual settler s h av e been secured by our preemption laws. Any man can now acquire a title in fee-simple to a homestead of 80 acres, at the minimum price of $1 25 per acre for $100. Should the pre sen t system remain, we shall derive a reve nue from the publi c lands o f $10,000,000 per annum, when the bounty land warrants are satisfied, without oppression to any human being. In the time of war, when all other sources of revenue alre seriously impaired, this will remain intact. It mllay be come the best security for public loans hereafter, in times of difficulty and danger, as it has been heretofore Why should we impair or destroy this system at tle Ipr e sent moment? What necessity’exists for it? The people of the United States have advanced with steady but rapid strides to their present condition tf power and prosperity. They have been guided in their progress by the fixed principle of protecting the equal rights of all, whether they be rich or poor. No ag,‘arian sentiment has ever prevailed among them. The honest poor man, by frugality and industry can, in any part of our country, acquire a competence for himself and his family, and in doing this he feels that he eats the br-ead of independence. He desires no charity, either from the government or from his neighbors. This bill,which proposes to give him land at an almost nominal price, out of the property of the government, will go far to demoralize the people, and repress this noble spirit of independence. It may introduce among us those pernicious social theories which have proved so disastrous in other coun tries. JAMES BUCHANAN.

WASH/INGTON, Jucne 22, 1860. In the Senate the question, Shall this bill pass notwithstanding the objections of the Pre. sident? was put and lost, as follows: YEAs-Messrs. Anthony, Browen, Chandler, Clark, Doolittle, Durkee, Fessenden, P”itck, Foot, Foster, Gwimn Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, King, Lane,‘Latlam, Nii chol,3on, Polk, Pugh, Pice, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, and Wilson. Republicans in Roman, 19; Democrats in italics, 9. Total, 28. NAYs Messrs. Bragg, Chesnut, CRITTENDEN, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Green, Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson (Tenn.), Johnson (Alrk.), Mallory, Mason, Pearce, Powell, Sebastian, Wigfall, Yulee-l8. All from the South, and all Democrats, except Mlr. Crittenden (Am.), of Kentucky. Several Senators were paired, which accounts for the light vote.

So the bill failed, not hay. in< received the requisite twothirds vote necessary to pass it over the Executive Veto. 13 I 1 913

Page 194 view page image

‘9 POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM, ADOPTED BY THE

UNITED STATES SENATE. pursuance of it, are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in their effect. On the 8th May following, Mr. Clingman, of North Carolina, addressed the Senate at length on these resolutions, maintaininlg the position that the Constitution does guarantee the right of holding slaves in the Territories of the United States, but that the enforcing of’ that right, by Congressionial action, was inexpedient, and would be of no practical value to the Slave States; also, that the South waived that right in agreeing to the Compromises of 1850 and the KansasNebraska Act (repeal of the Missouri Compromise) of 1854. Mr. C. also reviewed the proceedings of the National Convention at Charleston, and concluded as follows: Entertaining these views, I have been disposed to abstain as much as possible from the discussion of these questions, and I really hope that we shall not press them. I think no advantage can grow out of it. I greatly fear that I have occupied more of the valuable time of the Senate than I intended. I felt, however, that from me, in my position, some explanation was necessary. I think that the gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber have given us a platform already. We shall have to fight them; we had better make up our minds to go into the contest, and meet them on the great issue they tender us. In ten days, we shall probably have their declaration of war from Chicago, anrd the clash of arms will commence very soon. It is time for us to close our ranks. I am ready to fight under any flag and any standardbearer that may be given us. I can adopt any of those platforms that were presented at Charleston. I leave all that to our political friends assenmbled in convention. I know that they will present a platform, and present a man less objectionable to me than the candidate on the other side. I regard them as the deadly political enemies of my section; as the enemies of the Constitution of the United States. I want to embark in the contest and fight them with closed and serried ranks on our side. I have spoken only in behalf of the Democratic party, of the Constitut tion, and the country. MR. BENJAMIN ON POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY.

Senator Benjamin, of Louisiana, followed: nMr. Benjamin. Mr. President, I had no intention of joining in this debate, or of uttering one word on the re solutions Dow before the Senate; but, sir, I have listened with intense surprise to wh at has falle n fro m the Senator from North C aroli na this morning, and I cannot remain qui esc ent and by silence a ppear to give consent to what he has said in relation to the actio n of cer tain Southern delegates in the recent Convention at Charleston. Tile Senator from North Caolinath Chinks t hat p olitical races can best be run without the load of principles. The Senator from North Carolina thinks that the best way to get success in a political contest is not to bother yourself with the baggage of principle, but let yo ur ca ndi date run wi th nothing on his back, and, probably in that way ihe may run the faster and reach the goal the sooner. And again, the honorable Senator th minks t hat, beca use the Cincinnati plat form wa s acc eptable to the whole Dexno cracy in 1S56, there is and can be no reason why De mocrats who stood on that platform at that time should be dissatisfied with it now. Mr. President, let us look a little back, behind 1856, in relation to that platform, and to the living issue on wihich we are separated as regards that platform.

We all re member, sir no man can forget-that, in the exciting contest which took place on the KansasNebraska bill, those who were the firmest supporters of the bill differed in principle on that one point which now threatens to di vide the Democratic party. They differed openly; they avowed their differences; they provided for the final settlement of those differences. Sir, u,hsr we maet in ON the first of March, 1860, Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, submitted to the Senate the following Resolutions: 1.

Tesolved, that in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States adopting the same acted severally as free and independent sovereignties, delegating a port.ion of their powers to be exercised by the Federal Government for the increased security of each against dangers, domestic as well as foreign; and that a ny intermeddling by any one or more States, or by a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions of the others, on any pretext whatever, political, moral, or religious, with a view to their disturbance or subversion, is in violation of the Constitution, insulting to the States so interfered with, endangers their domestic peace and tranquillity-objects for which the Constitution was formed and by necessary consequence, tends to weaken and destroy the Union itself. 2. Resoltoed, That negro Slavery, as it exists in fifteen States of this Union, composes an important portion of their domestic institutions,s, herited from their ancestors, and exis ting at the adoption of the Constitution, by which it is recognized as constituting an important element in the appor tionment of powers among the States; and that n o chang e of opinion or feeling on the part of the non-siaveholding States of the Union, in relation to this institutio n, can justify t he m, or their citizens, in open or covert at tacks thereon,with a vi ew to its overthrow; an d that all such att acks are in manifest violation of the mutual and solemn pledge to protect and defen d each o th er, given by the States respectively on enteving int o the constitutional compact which formed the Uni on, an d are a manifest breach of faith, and a violation of the most solemn obligations. 8. Resotlved, That t he U nion of these States rests on the equality of rights and privileges among its members; arnd th at it i s espec i ally the duty of the dSto he enate, which re presents the States in their sovereign capacity, t o reshist a ll a ttempts to discr iminate either in relation to persons or property in the Territories, which are the common possessions of the United States, so as to give advantages to the citizens of one State which are not equally assured to those of every other State. 4. ]Iesolv:edc, That neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature, whether by direct legislation or legislation of an indirect and unfriendly character, possess power to annul or impair the constitutional right of any citizen of the United states to take his slave property into the common Territories, and there hold and enjoy the same while the Teirritorial condition remains. 5.

P,e,s,eed, That if experience should at any time plove that the judicial and executive authority do not possess means to insure adequate protection to consti tutionial lights in a Territory, and if the Territorial Gov ernmen,t should fail or refuse to provide the necessary rem.edies for thlat purpose, it will be the duty of Congress to supply such deticiency.

6. lc,ol^veled,‘Tlhat the inhabitants of a Territory of the United States, when they rightfully form a con st itution’ to be admitted as a State into the Union, may then. for the filst time, like the people of a State when fo mling a new Constitution, decide for themselves wieth~er Slave y, as a domestic institution, shall be mainta.ned or prohibited within their jurisdiction; and ” they shall be received into the Union with or without Slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at the time of thler admission.” 7. Resolved, That the provision of the Constitu tion for the rendition of fugitives from service or labor, without the adoption of which the Union could not have been fo-rmed, and that the laws of 1798 and 1850, which were enacted to secure its execution, and the main fear tilles of which, being similar, bear the impress of nearly seventy ye’ars of sanction by the highest judicial author ity, should be honestly and faithfully observed and mainltained by all who enjoy the benefits of our com pact of Union; and that all acts of individuals or of !St;,ie Legislatures to defeat the purpose or nullify the requirements of that provision, and tile laws made in 194 ‘k, ,r7 I

Page 195 view page image

MR. BENJAMIN’S ANTI-DOUGLAS SPEECH. guide and a pole star by which the Democratic party could guide the ship of State, a sudden and alarming heresy sprung up in the North, and something was said about the right of the Legislature of the Territories not to destroy Slavery; not to abolish it; not to confiscate by direct legislation the rights of the citizens of the South who might find themselves in the Territories with their property, but, by a side blow, by indirection, and by failure to perform duty, by “unfriendly legislation,” to do that which constitutionally they had no power to do by any direct effort of legislative will. Now, sir, the Cincinnati platform, with which the gentleman from North Carolina seems to be so much in love, and which he thinks is sufficient for the constitutional rights of the South, would be sufficient for that purpose, is sufficient for that purpose properly construed V but when the delegates of a great party, assembled together from all portions of the Confederacy, recently met, and the proposition was made to them to adopt the Cincinnati platform, it was made under what circumstances, and with what view? It woas made with a knowledge of every man in that Convention that two distinct/ly op)posite interpretations were put upon thatplatfos-in -one at the South, and thle other at thle,orth. Mr. Clingman.-The Senator will allow me to ask him if these two opinions were not upon whether a Territorial Legislature could legislate for or against Slavery? Are those the opinions to which he refers? Mr. Benjamin.-The opposite constructions are put in several points. One point is, whether thte Territorial Legislature has a right to abolish Slavery in the Territories or not, before forming a State Constitution; and another is, whether or not it is the duty of the Federal Governmeni to protect the rights of the people of the South in the Territories. Upon those two points opposite interpretations and opposite principles exist, and were developed in the Charleston Convention. Mr. Clingman.-I will answer the gentleman when he is through. Mr. Pugh.-Do I understand the gentleman to say that every member of the Convention agreed that the platform had received two interpretations, or that it was susceptible of it? Mr. Benjamin.-I understantd that opposite interpre tations were plainly and openly given to that platbfore in Convention, by iisen whose good faith no larn has eve, yet disputed to ny knowl e dge. Mer. Pugh.-I do not think t hat wa s the ground of the difference of opinion at all. I said there never were two interpretations that could be fairly given to i t; that the p latform pur posely, in the la n gu age of the Senator from North Carolina, referred tha t question to judicial tribunals; that the difference of opinion arose upon th e judicial question; it did not arise upon the platfo rm; and that co n se quent ly it was a false accusation. I say that certainly in no unkind spirit to the Senator; but I say the platform is n ot susceptible of two interpretations; t hat it referred a co nt r ove rs y t o a rbitration. There might be a difference of opinion as to the particular arbitration of it, but there was none as to the terms of submission. Mr. Benjamin.-I re ad, Mr. P reside nt, with as much atten tion as I was capa ble of, everythi ng that o ccurred in that convention, and I saw the statement o ve r a nd ove r again made in the co nvention, and no t c ontr overt ed, th at different opin ions were put upon that platform in different p arts of the country. Mr. Pugh.-I certainly controverted it for one. I do not reco llect who els e m ay have stated it. It may have been repeated a great many times; bu t I di d controvert it. Mr. Benjamin.-Now, sir, I say, in relation t o t ha t Cincinnati platform, which the Senator from North C ar olin a seems t o think ought to have amply sufficed the South, a nd to have s ufficed the Democratic p arty, these two opposite interpretations were known to be, intended to be given to it. Further, I say this: I say it was avowed at Charleston, over and over a gain, that if a const ruction was gi ven to tha t platform by which it should be clearly stat ed that the people of the South were entitled to have their slaves pro. tect ed in the Territories against an y direct in terference, either by Congressional or Territorial legislation; if that was avowed; if the doctrine of the party was asserted to be that the Legislat ure of the Territory, whilst a Territ ory existed in its inchoate organization, had no right to interfere with Slavery, then it was said, again and again, that no northern State could be carried upon that ground. Mr. Clingman.-On the question as to whether a Territorial Legislature could legislate against Slavery or for it, I ask the Senator whether that would not necessarily be a question which a court must determine, that if the Legislature legislated or acted in any way, could we, by our opinions, settle it;* or is it not, from necessity, a judicial questions’? Mir. Benjamin. The Senator Is directing me entirely ‘out of the line of my awrgumenlt. Imust beg his to allow. csaucs, under the lead of the honorable Serator from Illinois, who introduced the Kansas-Arebrapska bill, it wa rfout4nd that the fDerorate f,om the Nortt and the De Corats front tile South coUid not agree inth artnciple. The Democrats from the South then took the position that the Constit ution of t he Unite d States was pla in and clear. The rights of the people of the South were p,laced upon that instrument. I agree with the Senator from Mississi ppi (Nrr. Davis) that w e have nothinkgto do in this controversy with natural rights or natural principl es. Thos e rights and those principles, which lie at the roundati on of social organization and civil government, waere proper subjects of examinatio n and consideration with the fathers. They did th ke them into conside ration. They decided them.

They have g ive n u s a chart by which now w e are bountd ai to di rect our course; and that chart is the Constitution of our country Resting the rig. ts of the Sout n upon that Const itution, when the discussios arose upon the K ansasNebraska bill, the Senators fi’om the South who met in caucus, or in convention, or in prim ar y meeting, if you choose so to say, all agreed, without a dissenting voice, that, by the true co nstruction of t he Con sti tution of the United States, th e Territories belo n ging to the Un ited St ates were the common property of all; that each State had equal rights in those Territories; that amongst those riiglts was the right of the citizens of thle different States to emigrate to those Territiories with their property of every nature and kind; and, when t here, we contende d that the re was no power und er heav en that c ould dnive us out-of those Territori es, or deprive us therein of the protection of the Constitution and the lanes, un til the people of the Territory should wake a constitution and for.i a State. The Senator from Illinois did not agree with us in that. He has been consistent. The Seniator from Illinois held that there was a power in the people of a Territory; he believed in Popular Sovereignty; he believed in some inherent right in the people when assembled, even in the original inchoate shape in which they come as emigtsants to the Territories, to pass laws to govern themselves; to miiold their own Institutions, as he phrased it, and i,rettidedi in that power the right to act against Slavery. We could not agree. Morning after morning we met for the purpose of coming to some understanding upo. that very point; andl it was finally understood by all, agreed to by all, made the basis of a compromise by ail the supporters of that bill, that the Territories should be organized with a delegation by Congress of all the power of Congress in the Territories, and tl.at the extent of the power of Congress should be determ.in,ed by the courts. Firm it our belief of our rights, Conscious that in the Constitution we had guaranty enough; knowing that it was impossible for a judicial tribun,al to make other than onie decision, we s aid that we would stand by that decision when made; and if it should be determined by the Supreme Court of the United States that there was a power in this Governmient to deprive the people of the South of their fair share of the common Territories of the Union, if that power in this Gover nment existed in Congress, and if Congress delegated all its power to the Territories, we would stand by the decision and agz’ee that we asserted a right that found no warrant in the Constitution; and, on the other hand, our brother Democrats of the North, and the Senator from Illinois at their head, agreed that if the Supreme C,,urt of the United States should determine that the Congress of the United States had no power to interfere with Southern rights in the Territories, if, consequently, we had had not tihe power that we could delegate at all, then the Democrats of the North would join us in showing respect and obedience to that decision, and stand with us on the principle that we advocated as the true one. None of us supposed at the time that the decision would come so quick. None of us knew of the existence of a controversy then pending in the federal courts that would lead almost immediately to the decision of that question. We provided in the Kansas act itself; we introdluced an express clause having for its avowed object to bt’ing that question before the courts for decision, Well, sir, the question did come before the courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States, ia the decision in the Dred Scott case, has determined-gentlemen say it is no decision as doctrine, or as opinion, or in some way has declared that the Congress of the United States has no power so to legislate as to destroy the rights of the people of the South ill their slave property in the Territories, and the judges have said as a proposition, so clear that it required no argument, that the Congress possessing no such power, it was plain that it could give none to the Territorial Legislature I do not understand that the gentlemen from the North, the mnesubers of the D~emocratic party, controvert that. Bat At a title wheii we supposed that we all at lengfth z~oo I upon one corenonor platform; that we had at last a I I 195

Page 196 view page image

196 A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. me to proceed in my line. That is not at all what I am as he said, had erred mere through ignorance than de. at.

It has no reference at all to my line of argument. sign. Mr. Benjamin then defended the Democratic Sena I say this: I say that distinctly opposite interpreta-tors from the charge of having undertaken to dictate to tations, or distinctly opposite principles, if you choose, in the Charleston Convention what sort of platform it relation to Southern rights under the Constitution, were should make. When the Kansas bill was before the avowed at Charleston, by men professing all t-o be Demo-Senate, the Senator from Illinois called a caucus of crats; and that, in my judgmnent, it is a brand upon the Democratic Senators every morning to decide on their good faith of the Democratic party, it is an imputation action for the day. The late Senatorial caucus had done upon their honor, it is unworthy of them, and unworthy no more than that.. Yet for this it had been charged of us all, that we should go before the people of this with seeking to diminish the Senator’s chance for success. Country and ask their votes in favor of one party or an-Mr. Benjamin next examined Mr.

Douglas’s charge that other, with the avowed purpose of presenting opposite seventeen Democ’atic States had adopted a platform interpretations or opposite sets of principles in the two looking to the dissolution of the Union, and had placed sections of the Confederacy, as being the principles of a themselves under the lead of Mr. Yancey, an avowed common party, and forming a common party creed. I disunionist. His State had voted for that platform, and say that I will never be a party to any such contest as he should vote for the Senate resolutions, and he denied that. If I go into an electoral contest, I want to know that the Senator from Illinois had correctly stated the the principles of the party with which I act, and I want, meaning of either. Nobody here wanted to make a slave before the people of my State, before the people of the code, a slang term which Mr. Douglas had picked up country, to declare those principles, to stand by them, to from the Republicans, nor to force Slavery on an unfind them written in letters of light, so that no man can willing people. The attacks upon the Democratic Senadare misconstrue them, and by them to stand, and with tors were wanton and unprovoked, and he should repel them, if need be, fall. them. The Senator had defended his consistency at That I understand to have been the position of the dele-great length, which was not the issue between them. gation of Louisiana at Charleston. Taking that position, The issue was that the Senator from Illinois had made a determined that they would not patter to public preju-bargain and had violated it. To prove this he should dices by using words in any double sense; that all they not go further back than 1857, up to which time the Senadid and all they said must go forth to the country inca-tor from Illinois was looked upon by the Democratic pable of misconstruction; when they found it impossible party with pride and favor.

Why was it that a Senator to have the principles upon which alone they could go who had thus been treated with favor should now be into the Presidential contest, stated thus clearly and thus separated from his former associates? That he had plainly, they withdrew, rightly withdrew, honorably with-passed over in his speech, and he (Benjamin) would supdrew. I applaud them; I approve them; I stand by ply the deficiency.

them. I think they did as became high-minded and hon-Mr. Benjamin then went into a history of the Kansas orable citizens. I think the State will show itself grateful act, pointing out the differences between Democrats and to them for their act… Republicans and Douglas Democrats. At that time Now, the honorable Senator says he is willing to go the Democrats being unable to agree as to the power of with Democrats upon almost any platform; that almost the people of the Territories, it was agreed to refer the any one that we can elect would be preferable to the ad-subject to the Courts and to abide by the decision. He versa.ries against whom we are to be opposed. never had attacked the Senator’s consistency. It was his Mr. Clingman.-I said any of those proposed. I alluded consistency that constituted his great crime-adhering to those proposed in the Convention.

still to views which he had agreed to abandon when the Mr. Benjamin.-I suppose so. Now, Mr. President, I Court decided the question, and which the Court had am not willing to go for any man, I do not care whether decided against him. This he charged was bad faith. The his name has been proposed or not, who is not willing to Senator no longer worshipped at the Democratic shrine, stand upon a platform of principle, of constitutional prin-but had wandered forth after strange gods. The Senator ciple. I am willing to go for any man, whether named from Illinois had admitted that he made this bargain, and or not, who will pledge his honor to stand faithfully and yet he had been engaged since 1S57 in trying to explain squarely upon a platform of sound principles; and when away, in conjunction with the Republicans, the decision a platform of sound constitutional principles shall be of the Court, and to render it useless in case it should be adopted by a Democratic Convention, satisfactory to me, affirmed. He quoted from the Dred Scott decision to show with my views of constitutional right, and satisfactory to that the principle of right to slave property in the Termy people-principles satisfactory to my people, I say; ritories was decided by it. On this point he argued at I care not for men-then you may put upon that platform great length to show that Congress had full power over any man who can stand upon it honorably, and I will the Territories within the limits of its constitutional vote for him; I will maintain him; I will canvass my power; that the Constitution forbid the prohibition of State in his behalf; I will spend all my time and all my Slavery in the Territories by Congress; and as the Territobreath in his cause, wherever, whenever, and however, I rial Government derived all its powers from Congress, the may be asked by his friends. That far, sir, I am willing Territorial Legislature could not do more than Congress to go; but I have no stomach for a fight in which I am to could. No sooner was this decision made than it was have my choice between a man who denies me all my attacked by the Republicans, and the Chief-Justice rights openly arid fairly and a man who admits my rights assailed as having colluded with the President of the but intends to filch them. I have no choice there. United States. The Senator from Illinois got over his bar B:NJAMN ON DOUGLAS. gain by saying that he did not agree to abide by tlhe BNAMNON DOUGL. decision in the Dred Scott case; btut when the case was After Mr. Douglas’s famous speech of May 15th carried up from the Territorial Courts to the Supreme and 16th, on these resolutions, Mr.

Benjamin Court, he would obey that. This was an afterthought, addressed the Senate again, speaking of Mr. first announced in the canvass of 1858, when pressed by Mr. Lincoln for a seat in the Senate. To save himself Douglas as follows: from defeat, he introduced his theory as to the power of M. Benjamin said, when we met here in December, the people in the Territories. [Mr. Benjamin then read the public mind was greatly disturbed by the irruption of from the discussions between Messrs. Lincoln and Douglas a band of fanatics into a State of the Union, with the to show that the former was much more candid in his aus. avowed intent to liberate the slaves. A large number of wers than the latter, and he confessed he was not such an resolutions have been offered, all relating to the relation ultra Anti-Slavery man as he supposed.] Mr. Douglas of the General Government to Slavery in the States and told us here that he would abide the decision of the Court, Territories. The large number and variety of these re-but at horne he turns his back on his promise, repudiates solutions, required that those who professed to belonging his words, and tells his people that he has so arranged the to the same party should meet, in order to harmonize Kansas bill that in spite of the decision the people of the and act in concert. A meeting of Democratic Senators Territories can keep slaves out. To be twice deceived was therefore held to accomplish this purpose. The by the same man would be to make them dupes and fools. Senator from Illinois, in a speech occupying two days, Even Mr. Lincoln was shocked at his profligacy, aud had presented the extraordinary spectacle of advocating charged him with bad faith. The election came off, and his own claims to the Presidency, and denouncing those though Mr. Douglas was successful by the arrangement who had dared to express their views on subjects before of the Legislative Districts, Mr. Lincoln beat him 4,01)0 on the Senate. The Senator from Illinois assumed that he the popular vote. [Mr. Benjamin next read from Ml-. was the embodiment of the Democratic party, and that Douglas’s Harper’s Magazine article, to show that he had all who opposed him were rebels. He arraigned other absolutely copied Mr. Lincoln’s arguments of 1858, and Senators, and charged them and the representatives of claimed them as discoveries of his own. Mr. Beojaseventeen States at Charleston as being on the high road min warned Mr. Douglas that the tendencies of his,lotte disunion. After having thus assailed everybody, he trines were to drive him back, step by step, to tie Black announced that he had only spoken in self-defense, and I Republican camp.] We already find hitr using tihe arguwith princely magnanimity agreed te forgive those who, i nents and quoting tile language if the Republiceri parly. 11 -4 .f

Page 197 view page image

EDWARD BATES TO THE REPUBLICANS OF MISSOURI. NAYs.-Messrs. Bingti.t.., Chandller, Clark, Collamer Dixon,, Doolittle, Fcsse,.Iel., Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, Simmtons, Surttec, [en Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-18. Yeas all Democrats, except Crittenden and Kennedy; nays all Republicans The fourth resolution was adopted, 35 to 21, the negatives being all Republicans, except Mr. Pugh, Dem., of Ohio. Mr. Clingmian offered an amendment, in the form of the following resolution, to follow the 4th of Mr. Davis’s series: Resolved, That the exi tir g condition of the Territories of the United States not require the intervention of Congress for the protect it’l of propelrty in slaves. The amendment was debated at considerable length; but, without taking the question, the Senate adjourned. On the following dav, the amendment was adopted, 26 to 23, as follows: YEAs. Messrs. Bigler, Bingham, Bragg, Chandler, Clark, Clingman, Collarner, Crittenden, Dixon, Doolittle, Foot, Grimes, Hale, Ilamlin, larl,n, Johnson of Tenness ee, Kennedy, Lathamt, Polk, Pugh, Simmons, Ten Eyck, Toomobs, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-26. NAYS.-Messrs.

Be,jamin, Bright, B-rown, Chesnut, Clay, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Green, Hammond, Hunter-, Iverson, Lane, Mallo,y, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Powell, Rice, Saulsbury, Sebastian, Slidell, Wigfall, and Yulee23. Yeas all Republicans, except Messrs. Bigler, Bragg, Clingman, Crittenden, Johnson (Tenn.), Kennedy, Latham, Polk, Pugh, and Toombs; Nays all Democrats. The fifth resolution of the series was then adopted, 35 to 2, ilamlin and Trumbull, the Yeas being all Democrats, except Crittenden and Kennedy. The seventh and last of the series was then adopted, 36 to 6, Mr.

Ten Eyck, Rep., of New Jersey, voting Yea On the 24th flay, the vote was taken on the first of Mr. Davis’s series of resolutions, which w,as adopted, 36 to 19, the yeas being all Denlocrats, except Messrs.

Crittenden, of Kv., and Kennedy, of Md., Americans. The nays were all Republicans. The second resolution was ‘lien read, when Mr. Harlan’ (Rep., of Iowa) offered to add the following as an amendment: But the free discussion of the morality and expediency of Slavery should never be interfered with by the laws of any State, or of the United States; and the freedomi of speech and of the press, on this arid every other subject of domestic and national policy, should be maintained inwiolate to all the States, This amendment was rejected, 20 to 36, as follows: YEAS. Messrs.

Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Collaner, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimnes, Hale, lIamlin, Harlan, King, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-2). NAYS. Messrs. Benjamin, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Brown, Chesnr.ut, Clay, Clingman, Crittenden, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, liace ond, Hemphi ll, Hunter, Iversou, Johns o rsohon of Akansas, Jhnson )f Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latoha, Mallo-y, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Slidell, Thomson, Toornbs, Wigfall, and Yulee 6. Yeas all Republicans; nays all Democrats, except Crittenden and Kennedy, Americans. The second resolution was then adopted, 36 to 20, the vote being exactly the reverse of that on M[r.

Harlan’s amendment. The third resolution of the series was adopted, 36 to 18, as follows: YEAS.-Messrs. Be,,jami~, Bigle-, Bragg, Bright, Brown Chesnut, Clay, Clingm.an, Crittenden, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin., H4am.mond, Hemphill, Hunter, lverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham, Mallory, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Slidell, Thomson, Toonrbs, ‘Vxgfall, and Yulee-6. JUDGE BATES’S PLATFORM. IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE. LETTER FROM

JUDGE BATES ON THE POLITICAL QUESTIONS OF THE DAY, refuse to answer the following interrogatories, which, in our judgment, involve all the issues pending between the two political parties of the country. ST. Louis, Starch, 1860. The Hor. EDWARD BATrS-Sir: As you may have learned from the public prints, the Republicans of Missouri met in Convention, in this city, on Saturday, the 10th instant, to make a declaration of their principles, elect delegates to the National Republican Convention. and complete a State organization. All of this the Convention executed, in a manner wholly satisfactory to its members. It also commended you, by resolution, to the National Republican party, as one well worthy to be the standardbearer of that party in the coming Presidential election. This fact the undersigned have pride and pleasure in communicating to you, knowing that throughout your life you have carried out, as far as a private citizen might, the sentiments contained in’the resolutions adopted on Saturday, and a copy of which we inclose. But as you have voluntarily remained in private life for many years, your political opinions are consequently not so well understood by the Republican party at large as by the Republicans of Missouri. Itnasmuch as the delegation from this State to the Chicago Convention intend to present your name to that body as a candidate for the Presidency, we, in common with many other Republicans of Missouri, desire to procure from you an exposition of your views on the engrossing political questions of the time. WVe hope that notwithstanding your wellknown relucta ice to appear before the public in the light of a Presidential aspirant, you will not Iat. Are you opposed to the extension of Slavery 2d. Does the Constitution of the United States carry Slavery into the Territories, and, as subsidiary to this, what is the legal effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case? 3d. Are you in favor of the colonization of the free colored population in Central America? 4th. Do you recognize any inequality of rights among citizens of the Unitedh States, and do you hold that it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect American citizens at home and abroad in the enjoyment of all their constitutional and legal rights, privileges, and immunities? 5th. Are you in favor of the construction of a railroad from t he Valley of the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean, under the auspi ce s of the Gener al IGovernment? 6th. Are you in favor of the measure known as the Homestead bill? i th. Are you in favor of the immediate admission of Kansas, under the Constitution adopted at Wyandot? Yours, respectfully, etc., PETER L. Fo,Y, CHAS. L. BERNAYS, HENRY T. BLOW, JNo. M. RICHARDSOIN, F. A. DICK, O. D. FILLEY, STEPHEN IIOYT, Wm. MCKER, G. W. F’SHl3ACK, BARTOlN ABLY, J. B. SITrtON. .197 4.

Page 198 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. EThe Territories, whether acquired by conquest o? peaceable purchase, are subject and subordinate; not; sovereign like the States. The nation is supreme over them, and the Nattonal Government has power to peruit o r forbid Slavery, within them.

Entertaining theie views, I am opposed to tle extension of Slavery, andt!}

my opinion, the spirit and policy of the Gove neit ought to be against its extension. 2. Does the Constitution carry Slavery into the Territories 1 I answer no. The Constitution of the United States does not carry Slavery into the Te,rito;‘ies. With much more show of reason may it be said that it car ies Slavery into all the S ates. But it does not carry Slavery anywhere. It only acts upon it, where it finds it estab lished by the local law. In connection with this point, I am asked to state my views of the Dred Scott case, and what was really determined by the Supreme Court in that case. It is my opinion, carefully considered, that the Court deter mined one single point of law only, that is, that Scott, the plaintiff, being a negro of African descent (not necessarily a slave), could not be a citizen of Missouri, and therefore could not sue in the Federal Court; and that for this reason, and this alone, the Circuit Court hadl no jurisdict ion of the cause, and no power to give judgment be tween th e parties. The only jurisdiction which the Supreme Court had of the cause was for the purpose of correcting the error of the Circuit Court, in a ssumin g the power to decide upon the merits of the ca se. This power the Supreme Court did exercise, by setting aside the judgment of the Circuit Court upon the merits, and by dismissing the suit, without any judgment for or against either party. This is all that the Supreme Court did, and all that it had lawful power to do. I consider it a great public misfortune that several of the learned judges should have thought that their duty required them to discuss and give opinions upon various questions outside of the case, as the case was actually disposed of by the court. All such opinions are extra judicial and of no authority. But beside this, it appears to me that several of the questions so discussed by the judges are political questions, and therefore beyond tlhe cognizance of the judiciary, and proper only to be considere d and disposed of by the political departments. If I am right in this, and it seems to me plain, the precedent is most unfortunate, because it may lead to a dangerous conflict of authority among the coordinate branchies of the Government. 3. As to the colonization of the free blacks. For many years I have been connected with the Amnerican Colonization Society, of which the rising young State of Liberia is the first fruit. I consider the object both humane and wise, beneficent alike to the free blacks who emigrate, and to the whites whom they leave behind. But Afirica is distant, and presents so many obstacles to rapid settlement, that we cannot indulge the hope of draining off in that direction the growing numbers of our free black population. The tropical regions of America, I thinuk, offer a far better prospect both for us and for them. 4. As to any inequality of rights among American ci.izens I recognize no distinctions among American citizens bus such as are expressly laid down in the Constitution. An’i I hold that our Government is bound to protect all the citizens in the enjoyment of all their rights, everywhere and against all assailants. And as to all these rights, there is no difference between citizens born and citizens made such by law. 5. Am I in favor of the con,struction of a railroad frown the Valley of the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean, under the als pie,s of the General Government? Yes, strongly. I not only believe such a road of vast importance as the means of increasing the population, wealth and power of this great valley, but necessary as the means of national defence, and of preserving the integrity of the Union. 6. Am I in favor of the measure called the IHomestead bil? Yes; I am for guarding the public lands, as well as possible, from the danger of becoming the subject of com mon trade and speculation for keeping them for the actual use of the people and for granting tracts of suitable size to those who will actually inhabit and imlprove them. 7. Am I in favor of the immediate admission of Kansa~s under the Wyanldot Gonls’itutiton? I think that Kansas oulght to be admitted without delay, leaving her, like all the other States, the sole judge of her own Constitution. Thus, gentlemen, I believe I have answered all you, inquiries in a plain, intellig:ible mannler, and, I h~pte, t& RESPONSE OF JUDGE BATES. ST. Louis, SMarch 1T, 1560. ToSMessrs. P.I T. For, Editor of The Missougt Demo?rat; Dr. BERNAYS, EditiDor of the Anzeiger; and other gentlemen: FIRS: B. Gratz Brown, Esq., as President of the Mlissouri State Convention, which sat in St. Louis on the tenth of this month, has officially made known to me the proceedings of that body, and by them I am enabled to know some of you as Delegates to the Chicago Co nvention, representing the Republican party of Missouri. I have received your letter propounding to me certain questions (seven in number) which you suppose will cover most, if not all, the grounds of controversy, in the approaching Presidential election. With pleasure I will answer your questions. But before doing so, allow me to glance at the peculiar circumstances in which I am placed, and the strangeness of the fact that I, a mere private man, am called upon to make avowals and explanations, with any view to take me from the shades of private life and place me at the head of the nation. I came to this frontier in my youth, and settled in St. Louis when it was a village. All my manhood has been spent in Missouri, and during all that time I have followed a profession which left my character and conduct open to the observation of society.

And while it has been my constant habit freely to express my opinion of public measures and public men, the people of Missouri, of all parties, will bear me witness that I have never obtrusively thrust myself forward in pursuit ofiaion aveno pos official honors. I have held no political office, and sought n on e, for more tha n twent y-fiv e years. Under these circumstances, I confess the gratification w hich I f eel in receiving the recent’manifestations of the respect a nd confi dence of my f ellow-citizens. First, the Opposition m embers of the Missouri Legislature declared t hei r pr efer e nce for me as a candidate; then followed my nom i na tion by a Conv ention compo sed of all the elements of the Opposition in this State; and, now, the Republicans o f Missouri, in the ir se par ate Conv ention, just held in St. Louis, have reaffirmed the nomination, and propos e d, by their delegates, to present me to the National Convention rqi, soon to be held at Chicago, as a canl dwate for the first office in the nation. These various dem onstrat ions in my on m wState are doubly gratifying to mhe, b ecaus e t hey afford the s trongest proof that my name has bee n out forwaird only in a spi rit of harmony and peace, a nd wi th the hope of preventing all division and controversy a mong th ose w ho, fo r their own safety and the public good, ought to be united in the’r action. F or all this I am deeply grateful, and, as far as conc ern s m e pe r sonally, I must declare in simple truth, that if t he m ovement g o no further and produce no national results, still I aa paid and overpaid for a life of labor, and for whatever of zealous effort and patient watching I have been able to b est ow in su pport of a line of governmental policy which I believe to be for the present and permanen t g ood of the country. And n ow, gentlemen, I proceed to answer your questions, briefly indeed, but fully, plainly, and with all possible frankness. And I do this the more willingly because I have received from individuals many letters (too many to be separately answered), and have seen in many public journals articles making urgent calls upon me for such a statement of views. 1. Slavery-Its extensi on in the Territories. On this subject, in the States and in the Territories, I ha ve no new opinions-no opinions formed in relasion to the present array of parties. I am coeval with the Missouri question of 1819-20, having begun my political life in the midst of that struggle. At that time my position required me to seek all the means of knowledge within my reach, and to study the principles involved with all the powers of my mind; and I arrived at conclusions then which no subsequent events have induced me to change. The existence of neg,‘o Slavery in our country had its beginning in the ea.-ly time of the Colonies, and was imposed by the mother country against the will of most of the colonists. At the time of the Revolution, and long after, it was commonly regarded as an evil, temporary in its nature, and likely to disappear in the course of time, yet, while it continued, a misfortune to the country, socially and politically. Thus was I taught, by those who made our Government, and neither the new light of modern civilization, nor the discovery of a new system of constitutional law and social philosophy, has enabled me to detect the errlor of their teaching.

Slave~‘y is ” a social relation “ma domestic institu tlon. XWithin the Sitates, it exists by the local law, and h Federal Governlment has no control ove,. it there. i98 i -q 4 Al I

Page 199 view page image

JUDGE BATES’S LETTER RESPECTING MR. LINCOLN. your satisf(ction. I have not attempted to support my answers by argument, for that could not be done in a short letter; and, restraining myself from going into general politics, 1 have confined my remarks to the particular subjects upon which you requested me to write. Your obliged fellow-citizen, EDWARD BATES.

corrupted itself and perverted the principles of the Cversnment; has set itself openly against tie great home interests of the people, by neglecting to protect theil industry, and by refusing to improve and keep in order the highwiays and depots of commerce; anl d ve now is urging a nmeasu e in Congress to bdicate the constitutional power and du ty to regula te commerce among the States, and to grant to the States the discretionary power to l evy tonnage duties upon all our coymer e, under the pretense o f improving harbors, rivers, aitd lakes; has changed the status of the negro slave by making him no longer mere property, but a politician, an antagonist power in the State, a power to which all other powers are required to yield, unde r penalty of a dissolution of the Union; has dicected i ts en ergies to t he grat ification of its lusts of foreign domnain, as manifested in its persistent efforts to seize upon tropical legions, not ibe’cause those countries and their incongruous people alre necessary, or eve n desirable, to be incorporated into ur nation, but for the miere purpose of iaking Slave States, in order to advance the political power of the par ty ir the Sena te ands i n th e choice o f the President, swl as effectually to transfer the chief powers of the Goveratrenlt from the many to the few; has in various instances endangered the equality of the coolrdinate branches of the Government, by urgent efforts to enlarge the powers of the Executive at the expense of tie Legislative depart,nment; has attempted to discredit and degrade the Judiciary, by affecting to make it, at first, the arbiter of party quarrX
els, to become soon and inevitably the passive registrar of a party decree. In most, if not all these particulars, I understand the Republican party (judging it by its acts and by the known opinions of many of its leading men) to be the exact opposite of the Democratic party; and that is the ground of my preference of the one party over the other. And that alone would be a sufficient reason, if I had no other good reasons, for supporting Mr. Lincoln against any man who may be put forward by the Democratic party, as the exponent of its principles and the agent to work out., in practice, its dangerous policies. The third party, which, by its formation, has destroyed the organization of the American and Whig parties, has nominated two mnost excellent men. I know them well, as sound statesmen and true patriots. More than thir ty years ago I served with them both in Congress, and from that time to this I have always held them in respect and honor. But what can the third party do toward the ele~ tion of even such worthy men as these against the two great parties which are now in actual contest for the power to rule the nation? It is made up entirely of por tions of the disintegrated elements of the late WVhig and American parties-good materials, in the main, I admit, but quite too weak to elect any man or establish an5 principle. The most it can do is, here and there in par ticular localities, to make a diversion in favor of the Democrats. In 1856, the Whig and American parties (not forming a new party, but united as allies), with en tire unanimity and some zeal, supported Mr. Fillmore for the Presidency, and with what results,? We made a miserable failure, carrying no State but gallant little Maryland. And, surely, the united Whigs and Ameri cans of that day had a far greater show of strength and far better prospects of success than any which belong to the Constitutional Union party nlow. In fact, I see no possiblity of success for the third party, except in one contingency-the Destruction of the Democratic party. That is a contigency not likely to happen this year, for, badly as I think of many of the acts and policies of that party, its cup is not yet full-the day has not yet come when it must dissolve in its own corruptions. But the day is coming, and is not far off. The party has made itself entirely sectional, it has concentrated its very be ing into one single idea negro Slavery has control of all its faculties, and it can see and hear nothing else-” one stern, tyrannic thought, that makes all other thoughts its slaves!” But the Democratic party still lives, and while it lives, it and the Republican party are the only real antagonistic powers in the nation, and for the present, I must choose between them. I choose the latter, as wiser, purer, younger and less corrupted by time and self-indulgence. The candidates nominated at Chicago are both men who, as individuals and politicians, rank with the foremost of the country. I have heard no objection to Mr. Hamlin personally, but only to his geographical position, which is thought to be too far North and East to allow his personal good qualities to exercise their proper influence over the nation at large. But the nomination for the Presidency is the great controlling act. Mr. Lincoln, his character, talents, opinions and history will be criticised byr thou sands? while the candidate for thte VicePresidency will be passed over in comparative silence. JUDGE BATES’S LETTER IN

SUPPORT OF LINCOLY. ST. Louis, Jane 11, 1860. O. 1. IBROWNING, Esq., Quincy, Ill. DEAR SIR: When I received your letter of May 22d, I had no thought that the answer would be so long delayed; but, waiving all excuses, I proceed to answer it now. Under the circumstances of the case it ought no’ to have been doubted that I would give Mr. Lincoln’s nomination a cordial and hearty support. But in declaring my intention to do so, it is due to myself to state some of the facts and reasons which have a controlling influence over my mind, and which I think ought to be persuasive arguments with some other men, whose political opinions and antecedents are, in some important particulars, like my own. There was no good ground for supposing that I felt any pique or dissatisfaction because the Chicago Convention failed to nominate me. I had no such feeling. On party grounds, I had no right to expect the nomination. I had no claims upon the Republicans as a party, for I have never been a member of any party, so as to be bound by its dogmas, and subject to its discipline, except only the Whig party, which is nowv broken up, and its materials, for the most part, absorbed in other organizations. And thus I am left, alone and powerless, indeed, but perfectly free to follow the dictates of my own judgment, and to take such part in current politics as my own sense of duty and patriotism may require. Many Republicans, and among them, I think, some of the most moderate and patriotic of that party, honored me with their confidence and desired to make me their candidate. For this favor I was indebted to the fact that between them and me there was a coincidence of opin ion upon certain important questions of government.

They and I agreed in believing that the National Government has sovereign power over the Territories, and that it would be impolitic and unwise to use that power for the propagation of negro Slavery by planting it in Free Territory. Some of them believed also that my nomina tion, while it would teL!.‘a soften the tone of the Repub lican party, without any abandonment of its principles, might tend also to generalize its character and attract the friendship and support of many, especially in the border States, who, like me, had never been members of their party, but concurred with them in opinion about the government of the Territories. These are the grounds, and I think the only grounds, upon which I was sup ported at all at Chicago. As to the platform put forth by the Chicago Conven tion, I have little to say, because, whether good or bal, that will not constitute the ground of my support of Mr. Lincoln. I have no great respect for party Iplatforms in general. They are commonly itadle in times of high ex citement, under a pressure of circumstances, and with the view to conciliate present support, rather than to esta blish a permanent system of principles and line of policy for the future good government of country. The Conventions which form them ar e tr ansien t in their nature; their power and influence are consu med in the using, leaving no continuing obligation upon their re spective parties. And hence we need not wonder,tlat platforms so mde are hardly ever acted upon in prac tice.

I shall not discuss their relative m erits, but con tent myself with saying that this Republican platform though in several particulars it does not conform to my views, is still far better than any published creed, past or present, of the Democrats. And as to the new party, it has not chosen to promulgate any platform at all, except two or three broad generalities which are common to the professions of faith of all parties in the country. No party, indeed, dare ask the confidence of the nation, while openly denying the obligation to support the Union and the Contstitution and to enforce the laws. That is a common duty, binding upon every citizen, and the failure to perform it is a crime. T o me it is plain that the approaching contest must be between the Democratic and the Republican parties; and, between tihem, I prefer the latter. The Deocratic p ar ty, by the long po ssession and abuse of power, has grown wanton and reckless; hsas I I I iio

Page 200 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. holding them up to the public as the leadidg doctrines of the person assailed, and drawing from them their own uncharitable inferences. That line of attack betrays a little mind conscious of its weakness, for the falsity of its logic is not mor-e apparent than the injustice of its de SigDS. No public man can stand that ordeal, and, how ever willing men may be to see it applied to their adver saries, all flinch from the torture when applied to them selves. In fact, the man who never said a foolish thing, will hardly be able to prove that he ever said many wise ones. I consider Mr. Lincoln a sound, safe, national man. lie could not be sectio nal if he tried. Ills birth, elucatiodn, the habit s of his life, and his ge ographical position, (, pel him to be n ati onal. All his feeligs and intelIest ae identified with the great valley of the Mississippi, ne,,i whose centre he has spent his whole life. The valley is not a section, but, conspicuously, the body of the nation, and, large as it is, it is not capable of being divided into se ctions, fo r the gr eat river canno t be divided. It is one and indiv i sible, and the Nor th a nd the South are alike necessary to its comfort and prosperity. Its people, too, in all their interests and affections, are as broad and general as the regions they inhabit. They are emigrants, a mixed multitude, coming from every State in the Union, and from most countries in Europe; they are unwilling, therefore, to submit to any one petty local standard. They love the nation as a whole, and they love all its parts, for they are bound to them all, not only by a feel ing of common interest and mutual dependence, but also by the recollections of childhood and youth, by blood and friendship, and by all those social and domestic charities which sweeten life, and make this world worth living in. The valley is beginning to feel its power, and will soon be strong enough to dictate the law of the land. Whenever that state of things shall come to pass, it will be most fortunate for the nation to find the powers of Government lodged in the hands of men whose habits of thought} whose position and surrounding circumstances, constrain them to use those powers for general and not sectional ends. I give my opinion freely in favor of Mr. Lincoln, and I hope that for the good of the whole country, he may be elected. But it is not my intention to take any active part in the canvass. For many years past, I have had little to do with public affairs, and have aspired to no political office; and now, in view of the mad excitement which convulses the country, and the general disruption and disorder of parties and the elements which compose them, I am more than ever assured that for me, personally, there is no political future, and I accept the condition with cheerful satisfaction. Still, I cannot discharge myself from the lifelong duty to watch the conduct of men in power, and to resist, so far as a mere private man may, the fearful progress of official corruption, which for several years past has sadly marred and defiled the fair fabric of our Government. If Mr. Lincoln should be elected, coming in as a new man at the head of a young party never before in power, he may render a great service to his country, which no Democrat could render. He can march straight forward in the discharge of his high duties, guided only by his own good judgment and honest purposes, without any necessity to temporize with established abuses, to wink at the delinquencies of old party friends, or to unlearn and discard the bad official habits that have grown up under the mis-government of his Democratic predecessors. In short, he can be an honest and bold reformer on easier and cheaper terms than any Democratic President can be for, in proceeding in the good work of cleansing and purifying the administrative departments, he will have no occasion to expose the vices, assail the interests, or thwart the ambition of his political friends. Begging your pardon for the length of this letter, I remain, with great respect, your friend and obedient servant, EDWARD BATE& Mr. Lincoln’s nomination took the public by surprise, because, until just befo re the event, it was unexpected. But really it ought not to have excited any surprise, for such unforeseen nominations are comnmon in our political history. Polk and Pierce, by the Democra ts, and Harri son and Taylor. by the Whigs, were all nom inated in this extempolraneous manner-all of them were elected. I have known Mr. Lincoln for more than twenty years, and tlh’efore have a right to speak of him with some confi d,ence. As an ildividual, he has earned a high reputation for truth, courage, candor, morals, and amiability; so that, as a man, he is most trustworthy. And in this particular, he is more entitled to our esteem than some other men, his equals, who had far better opportunities and aids in early life. Itis talents, and the will to use them to the best ad vantage, are unquestionable; and the proof is found in the fact that, in every position in life, from his humble begin ning to his present wvell-earned elevation, he has more than fulfilled the best hopes of his friends. And now, in the full vigor of his manhood, and in the honest pride of having made himself what he is, he is the peer of the first man of the nation, well able to sustain himself and advance his cause, against any adversary, and in any field, where mind and knowledge are the weapons used. In politics he has but acted out the principle of his own moral and intellectual character.

He has not con cealed his thoughts nor hidden his light under a bushel.

With the boldness of conscious rectitude and the frank ness of downright honesty, he has not failed to avow his opinions of public affairs upon all fitting occasions. This I know may subject him to the carping censure of that class of politicians who mistake cunning for wis dom and falsehood for ingenuity; but such men as Lin coln must act in keeping with their own characters, and hope for success only by advancing the truth prudently and maintaining it bravely. All his old political ante cedents are, in nmy judgment, exactly right, being square up to the old Whig standard. And as to his views about “the pestilent negro question,” I am not aware that he has gone one step beyond the doctrines publicly and habitually avowed by the great lights of the Whig party, Clay, Webster, and their fellows, and indeed sustained and carried out by the Democrats themselves, in their wiser and better days. The following, I suppose, are in brief his opinions upon that subject: 1. Slavery is a domestic institution within the States which choose to have it, and it exists within those States beyond the control of Congress. 2. Congress has supreme legislative power over all the Territories, and may, at its discretion, allow or forbid the existence of Slavery within them. 8. Congress, in wisdom and sound policy, ought not so to exercise its power, directly or indirectly, as to plant and establish Slavery in any Territory theretofore free. 4. And, that it is unwise and impolitic in the Government of the United States, to acquire tropical regions for the mere purpose of converting them into Slave States. These, I believe, are Mr. Lincoln’s opinions upon the matter of Slavery in the Territories, and I concur in them. They are no new inventions, made to suit the exigencies of the hour, but have come down to us, as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have, sanctioned by the venerable authority of the wise and good men who established our institutions. They are conformable to law, principle and wise policy, and their utility is proven in practice by the as yet unbroken current of our political history. They will prevail, not only because they are right in themselves, but also because a great and still growing majority of the people believe them to be right; and the sooner they are allowed to prevail in peace and harmony, the better for all concerned, as well those who are against them as those who are for them. I am aware that smalll partisans, in their little warfare against opposing leaders, do sometimes assail them by the trick of tearing from their contexts some particular objectionable phrases, penned, perhaps, in the hurry of composition, or spoken in the heat of oral debate, and .”* 200 ,q .4

Page 201 view page image

LEGISLATIVE RESOLVES FOR FREE TERRITORY. TIIE MONRIOE DOCTRINE. and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration, and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the Unitedl States. In the war between these new governments and Spain, we declar ed our neutrality at the time of th-,eir recognition, and -to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur, which in the judgment of the competent authorities of this Government, shall cnake a correspon d i ng change on the part of the United States indispensable to their s ecur it y. ” The late events in Spain and Portugal shov that Europe is still unsettled. Of this important fact no stronger proof can be adduced th ththat the allied p ower s should have thought it proper, on a principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interpose d by force in the internal concerns of Spain. To what exten t such interposi tion may be carried, on the same principle, is a question to which all independent powers, whose governments differ from theirs, are interested-even those most remote, and surely none more so than the United States. Our policy in regard to. Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the Government, de facto, as the legitimate Government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy; meeting, in all instances, the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to these continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangerin,g our peace and happiness; nor can any one believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the Unlitedl States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course.” So much has been wildly said of what is termed the ” Monroe Doctrine,” in regard to the * influence of European Powers on this continent, that we publish exactly what President Monroe said on the subject. We copy from the Seventh Annual Message of Mr. Monroe, dated Deceo wber ‘2, 1823: ” It was stated, at the commencement of the last session, that a great effort was then making in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and that it appeared to be conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that the resuit has been, so far, very different firom what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter of the globe, with which we have so much intercourse, and from which we derive our origin, we have always been anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish ser, timents the most fiendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic. I the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political systemi of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, andl matured by the wisdom of their most enlightenedl citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. W e owe it, tiher-efor e, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare, that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and Shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence, STATES AND STATESMEN ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION. WISCONSIN FOR

FREE SOIL. cept as a punishment for crime, of which the party shall have been duly convicted according to law. THE following resolutions were adopted by Resolve(d, That His Excellency the Governor is herethe Wisconsin (Democratic) Legislature ill 1848 by requested immediately to forward a copy of the fore witho e Wdiscoensin ( eoct i)egslanthe ie nate’

going resolutions to each of our Senators and Represenwith only three dissen ting vote s in the Senate tatives, to be by them laid before Congress. and five in the House: Whereas, Slavery is an evil of the first magnitude, TIHE DEMOCRACY OF MAINE FOR THIE WILMOT morally and politically, and whatever may be the PROVISO. consequences, it is our duty to prohibit its extension in Resolutions adopted by a Couvention of the all cases where such prohibition is allowed by the Con-stitutiun: Therefore, stitution: Therefore, Democratic party of Maine, in June, 1849: Resolved, By the Senate and Assembly of the State of Resolveed, That the institution of human Slavery is at Wisconsin, that tie introduction of Slavery into this variance with the theory of our government, abhorrent country is to be deeply deplored; that its extension to the common sentiments of mankind, and fraught withl ought to be prohibited.by every constitutional barrier danger to all who come within the sphere of its influence, within the power of Congress; that in the admission of that tfe Federal Government possesses adequate power new territory into the Union, there ought to be an in-to inhibit its existence in the Territories of the Union; hibitou-y provision against its introduction, unless clearly and that we enjoin upon our Senators and Representaand unequivocally admitted by the Constitution-inas- tives in Congress to make every exertion and employ all much as in all cases of doubtful construction, the Rights their influence So procure the passage of a law forever of Man and the cause of Liberty ought to prevail. excluding Slavery from the Telritories of California and Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be, and they NewMexico. are hereby, instructed, and our Representatives are requested to use their influence to inisert into the organic DELAWARE FOR

FREE TERRITOY. act for the government of any new territory already The following preamble and resolution were acquired or he eafter to be acquired, that is now free, an adopted by the Legislature of D-laware iu ordisiatice forever prohibiting the introduction of ]d lavery or involuntary servitude into said territory ex-1847: t 8 e I 201 0 a o _

Page 202 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1360. Ivhereas, A crisis has arrived in the public affairs of the Nation, whicl requires the free and full expression of the p)eop!e tIt-ough their legal repiresentatives; anii iWher-eas, The Un ited States is at war pwil the blepulolic of MexicL, occasio)ned bay tAnnexation of Texas, with a view to the adldlitiorf of’Sla-e Territory to our country, ad tle extending of Slave power in out Union; aid n Whereas, In the opini n of the General Assembly, such acqtisition.s are hostile to the spirit of our Free Insti tut ins, and contraiy to sound morality; therefore be it iResolved, By the Senate and House of Repr esentatives of tile State of Delaware in General Assembly met, That (,,, Senatt,rs and Representatives in Congress are hereby r q,te-tedl to vote against the annexation of arfy Te rritory .,e) our Union,, which shall not thereafter be forever free fi om Slavery. MIASSACHUSETTS 4GAINST SLAVERY. The following resolution was passed by the Legislature of Massachusetts in 1847, in connection with others on the subject of the Mexican war.

Resolved, That our attention is directed anew to the wrong and’- Mormity”

of Slavery, and to the tyranny and usurpation of the ” Slave Power,” a~
displayed in the history of our country, particularly in the annexation of Texas, and the present war with Mexico, and that we are impressed with the unalterable condition, that a regard for the fair fame of our country, for the principle of morals, and for that righteousness that exalteth a nation, sanctions and requires all constitutional efforts for the destruction of the unjust influence of the Slave power, and for the abolition of Slavery within the limits of the United States. MIR. WEBSTER

AGAINST SLAVERY EXTENSION. Il tile Urin ited States Sena te, in Ad,., 1848. ndr. Wep i)ster, in speaking on the bill to orgnacize the be r’ritorv of Oregoti wi th a clause prohibitin] Slavery, said: The question now is, whether it is not competent tb Congress, in the exerie ofi f a fai and just discretion, to say that, cons,dering that there have been five slaveholding States (Louisiana, Florida, Alrkansas, Missouri and Texas) added to the Union out of foreign acquisitions, and as yet only one Free State, whether, under this state of things, it is unreasonable and unjust in the slightest degree to limit their farther extensi..n? Thiat is the question. I see no injustice in it. As to the power of Congress I have nothing to add to what I said th( other day. I have said that Ishall consent to no Eo tension of the area of Slavery on this Continent, s,oe a~ny increase of Sla~ve Representationv in tile other House of Congress.

MILLA.RD FILLMORE’S VIEWS. His Buffalo Letter of 1838. BUFFALO, Oct. 17, 1838. SIR: Your communication of the 13th inst., as chairman of the ommittee appointed by ” The Anti-Slavery Society of the County of Erie,”

has just come to hand. You solicie my answer to the following interrogatories: Ist. Do you believe that petitions to Congress, on the subjec t of Slaver y and the Sl av e-tr ade, ough t to b e re ceived, read, and respectfully considered by the rep.-csen tatives of the people?

2d. Are you opp os ed to th e ann ex ation o f Texas tc this U nion under any circumstances, so long as slaves are held therein? 8d. Are you in favor of Congress exercising all the powe r it possesses to abolish the Internal Slav e-trade be tween the States? 4th. Are you in fa vor of immediate legislation fo r the Abolition of Sla very in the District of Columbia? Answer.-I am much engaged, and have no time to etqnt enter into argument, or explain at length my reasons for my opinions. I shall therefore content myself, for the present, by answering all your interrogatories in the affir mative, and le ave for some future oc casi on a more ex tended discussion on the subject. I would, however, take this occasion to say, that in thus frankly giving my opinion, I w ou l d not desir e to have it understood in th e nat ure o f a pledge. At the same time that I seek no disguise, buS freely give my sentiments on any subject of interest to those for whose suffrages I am a candidate, I am opposed to giving any pledge that shall deprive me hereafter of all discretionary power. My own character must be the guaranty for the general correct ness of my legislative deportment. On every important subject I am bound to deliberate before I act, and espe’ cially as a legislator, to possess myself of all the informa tion, and listen to every argument that can be adduced by my associates, before I give a final vote. If I stand pledged to a particular course of action, I cease to be a responsible agent, but I become a mere machine. Should subsequent events show, beyond all doubt, that the course I had become pledged to pursue was ruinous to my con stituents and disgraceful to myself, I have no alternative, no opportunity for repentance, and there is no power to absolve me from my obligation.

Htence the impropriety, not to say absurdity, in my view, of giving a pledge. I am aware that you have not asked my pledge, and i believe I know yur sound judgment and good sense too well to think you desire any such thing. It was, however, to prevent any misrepresentation on the part of others, that I have felt it my Oduty thus much on this subject. I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, MILL A RD FILLMORF_. W. MTills, Esq., chairman. MR. FILLMORElS ALBANY SPEECH OF 1856. The following is Mr.

Fillmore’s speech, do livered at Albany, in July, 1856: -)fr. Mayor and -Felloiv-Citizens: This overwhelming demonstration of congratulation and welcome almost de prives me of the power of speech. Here, nea.‘ly thirty years ago, I commenced nay political career. In this building I first saw a legislative body in session; but at that time it never,entered into the aspirations of my heart that I ever should receive such a welcome as this in the capital of my native State. I You have been pleased, sir, to allude to my former services and my probable course if I should again be THE

WJHIGS OF MASSACHUSETTS AGAINST SLAVERY. The Massachusetts State Convention, held at Springfield, in the latter part of the month of September, 1847, and at which Daniel Webster was nominated as a candidate for the Presidelcy, passed the following among other resolutions:.

Re,solved, That the war with Mexico-the predicted, if not the legitimate offspring, of the annexation of Texasbegun ill a palpable violation of the Constitution, and the usurpation of the powers of Congress by the President, andl carried on in reckless indifference and disregard of the blood and treasure of the Nation-can have no object which can be effected by the acquisition of Mexi3an territory, under the circumstance of the countryunless under adequate securities for the protection of human liberty-canhave no other probable result than the ultimate advancement of the sectional supremacy of the Slave Power. After recommending “Peace with Mexico, without dismemberment,” and ” No addition of Mexican Territories to the American Union,” the Convention r Resolteed, That if this course should be rejected and the war shall be prosecuted to the final subjection or dismemberment of Mexico, the Whigs of Massachusetts now declare, and put tilis declaration of purpose on record, that Massachusetts will never consent that Mexican Territory, however acquired, shall become a part of the American Union, unless on the unalterable condition that’ there shall be neither Slavery nor Involuntary Servitude therein, otherwise than in the punishment of crime.” RBesolved, That in making this declaration of her purpose, Massachusetts announces no new principle of action in regard.to her sister States, and makes no new g)plication of principles already acknowledged. Siteimerely states the great American principle embodied in our Declaration of Independence-the political equality of persons in the civil state; the principles adopted in thy legislation of the States under the Confederation, and sometimes by the Constitution-in the admission of all the new States formed fr om the only Territory belonging to the Union at the adoption of the Conoitution-it is, in short, the imperishable principle set forth in the ever menmorable Ordinance of 1787, which has for more than half a century been the fundamental law of human liberty in the great valley of the Lakes, the Ohio, and th e Mi ssissiippi, with wh eat b rillia nt success, and with what unparalleled results, let the great and growing States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, answer and declare. I I I t e 0,. 0 0 0. 202 I -4

I 0

Page 203 view page image

S MR. R ~0 0 EE MR. FILLMORE’S ALBANY SP]EECF, ETC. called to the position of Chief Magistrate of the nation. I think we would submit to it?

No,!ot for a moment. It is not pleasant to speak of one’s self, yet I trust that Aid do you believe that your Southern brethren are less the occasion will justify me in briefly alluding to one or sensitive on this subject than you are, or less jealous of two eve nts connected with iiy administration. You all their rights& If you do, let me tell you that you are know that when I was called to the Executive chair by a mistaken. And, therefore, you must see that if this seebereavement which shrouded a nation in mourning, that tiona.l party succeeds, it letds inevitably to the destructhe country was unfortunately agitated from one end to tion of this beautiful fabric reared by our forefathers, cethe other upon the all-exciting subject of Slavery. It melted by their blood, and btqueathed to us as a pricewas then, si, that I felt it my duty to rise above every less ine’itart,c. Sectional prejudice, and look to the welItre of the whole I tell you my fiends, that I feel deeply, and therenation. I was compelled to a-certain extent to overcome fore 1 speak earnestly on this subject (cL-ies of’you’re long-cherishlied prejudices, and disregard party claims. right!”) for I feel that you are in danger. I am deterBut in doing this, sir, I did no more than was done by mined to make a clean breast of it. I will wash my many abler and better men than myself. I wae by no hands oh the consequences, whatever they may be; and mieans the sole in strument, under Providence, in har-I tell you that we are treading upon the brink of a volmonizing these difficulties. There were At that time cano, that is liable at any moment to burst forth and noble, independent, high-souled men in both Houses of overwhelm the nation. I might, by soft words, inspire Cong,ess, belonging to both the great political parties of delusive hopes, and thereby win votes. But I can never the country-Whigs and Democrats-who spurned the consenit to be one thing to the North and auotier to the, dictation of selfish party leaders, and rallied around my South. I should despise myself, if I could be guilty of adminiistrat.on in support of the great measures which such duplicity. For my conscience would exclaim, with restored peace to an agitated and distracted country.

the dramatic poet: Some of these have gone to their eternal rest, with the a “Is there not some chosen curse blessings of their country on their heads, but others yet Some hidden thunder i he stores o h.ave, survive deserving the benediction sand honors of a Itd vth wrth, grateful people.

By the blessings of D).vine Providence, WLo o s hs reatess to his couitry’

rsi?” our efforts were crowned with signal success, anrid when In the language of the lamented, *out immortal Clay: I left the Presidential chair, the whole nation was pros- “I h~d rather be right than be President!” pe.-ous and contented, and our relations with all foreign It seems to me impossible that those engaged in this and ~ I ours t me imposseble tha tose engaged in this nations were of the most amicable kind. The cloud that can have contemplated the awful consequences of suc p5100 relatio~~ cns rh all forin t emplated the awful consequensces of suehung upon the horizon was dissipated But where are cess. If it breaks asunder the bonds of our Union, and we now? Alas! threatened at home with civil war. and spreads anarchy and civil war through the land, what is from abroad with a rupture of our peaceful relations. I it less than moral treason? Law and commion sense shall not seek to trace the causes of this chang. These hold a man responsible fo; the natural consequence of are the facts, and it is for you to ponder upon them Of his acts, and must not those whose acts tend to the dethe present Administration I have nothing to say, for I struction of the Government, be equally hell respons.know and can appreciate the difficulties of administering ble? this government, and if the present Executive and his And let me also add, that when this Union is dissolved, supporters have with good intentions and honest hearts itwill not be divided into two republics, or twoi monmade a mistake, I hope God may forgive them as I freely archies, but be broken into firagments, and at war with do. But, if there be those who have brought these cal-each - the-. amities upon the country for selfish or ambitious objects, it is youi duty, fellow-citizens, to hold them tcoa strict I FILL

S LETT TO A EW-oR UNON responsibility. MEETING IN 1859. The agitation which disturbed the peace of the country in 1650, was unavoidable. It was brought upon us The llow g is an extract from a letter Of by the acquisition of new territory, for the government Mr. Fillmnore, (dated Dec. 16, 1859), in reply to of which itwasnecessary to provide territorialoan-an invittion to attend a Uilioit ie-titi’ at zation. But it is for you to say whether the present agi- * Ti N tation, which distracts the country and threate*s us with Cooper nstitute, NewYork.

civil war, has not been recklessly and wantonly pro-But it seems to me that if my opinions are of any imduced, by the adoption of a measure to aid personal ad-po’tance to my countrymnen, they now have tlremn in a vancement rather than in any public good. much more responsible and satisfactory formn than I S.r, you have been pleased to say, that I have the could give them by participating in the proceedings of Union of these States at heart; this, sir, is most true, for any meeting. My sentiments on this unfortunate quesif there be one object dearer to me than any other, it is tion of slavery, and the constitutional rights of tle Loith the unity, prosperity, and glory of this great republic; in regard to it, have not charnged since they weie made and I confess frankly, sir, that I fear it is in danger. I manifest to the whole country by the performance of a say nothing of any particular section, much less of the painful duty in airprovinrg and enforcing the Fugitive several candidates before the people. I presume they Vlave Law. What the Constitution gives I would cotr are all honorable men. But, sir, what do we see? An cede at every sacrifice. I would not seek to enjoy its exasperated feeling between the North and the South, on benefits without shlarinrg its burdens and its responsibilithe most exciting of all topics, resulting in bloodshed ties.

I know of no other rule of political rgigt or exp6ediand organized military array. envy. Those were my sentiments then-they ale my But this is not all, sir-. We see a political party presentiments now. I stand by the Constitution of my senting candidates for the Presidency and VicePresi- country at every hazai-d, and ais prepared to mlaintain dency, selected for the first time from the Fr ee States it at every sacrifice.

alone, with the avowed purpose of electing these candi-Here I might stop; but since I have yielded to the irmdates by suffrages of one part of the Union only, to rule pulse to write, I will ot hesitate to express, very b iefly, over the whole United States. Can it be possible that my views on one or two events which have occurred those who are engaged in such a measure can have seri-since I re ired from office, and which, in all probability, ously reflected upon the consequences which mus t inevi-have given rise to your meeting. This I cannot do inteltably follow, in case of success? Can they have the ligibly, withoutoa brief reference to some events which madness or the folly to believe that our Southern brelh-occurred during my administratio n. ren would submit to be governed by such a Chief Mag is-All must remember that in 1S49 and 1850, the cluntry trate? Would he be required to followth e same ule was sevei-ely agitated on this disturbing question of prescribed by those who elected him, in waking his ap-Slaery. That contest grew out of the acquisition pointments? If a man living south of Mason and Dixon’s of new territory from Mexico, and a c ontest between the line be not worthy to be President or VicePres’dent, North and South as to whether Slavery should be toltrwould it be proper to select one from the same quarter ated in any partof that Territory. Mixed up with this, as one of his cabinet council or-to represent.the nation was a claim on the part of the slaveholding States, that in a for eign country? Or, indeed, to collect the revenue, the provision of the Constitution for the rendtion of or admimster the laws of the United States? If not, fu gitives from service should~be made available, {S the what new rule i s the P’esident to adopt in selecting men law of 1793 on that subject, wh ch depended chiefly on for’ ofluce that the people themselves discard in selecting, State officers Or it s execution, had become inopeo’ative, him? These are serious, but practical questions, and il because State officers were not obliged to p0ctlbil’

that oglder to alppr eciate them fully, it is only rnecessarsy to duty.

turn the tailies upon ourselves. Suppose that the S outh, After a severe st:’ uggle, which threatened the integrity having a maijOrity of the electoral votes, should declare of the Union, Congress finally passed laws set0t in these that ti,ey would only’ have slaveholders for Proesident questions; anti the Government and the people for a and Vicoe-e.:sidlerit, andi should elect such by their ex-titSe.ieettet to icrluiese in that t, itvCo):r’eoirtseO as astiral ciuO;ivC s’arii’ageo to ritle over us at tie No;‘tit. Dro yoa seOtlolierii of this excitiir question; and iris exceditngly o 203

Page 204 view page image

eQ A POLITICAL EtXT-BOOK FOR 1860. to be regretted that mistaken ambition or the hope of promoting a party triumph should have tempted any ine to raise this question again. But in an evil hour this Pandora’s box of Slavery was again opened by what I conceive to be an unjustifiable attempt to force Slavery Into Kansas by a repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the floods of evils now swelling and threatening to overthrow the Constitution, ad sweep away the foundation of the Government itself, and deluge this land with fraternal blood, may all be traced to this unfortunate act. Whatever miiglt have been the motive, few acts have ever been so barren of good, and so fruitful of evil. EDWARD EVERETT’S OPINIONS

ON SLAVERY. Tnp. following is an extract of a speech of Mr. Everett, delivered in the House of Representatives, March 9, 1826. (See Benton’s Abridgment of Congressional Debates, vol. 8, page 711.) c ‘sMR.

CAMBRELENG’S VIEWS. Churchill C. Cambreleng, of N. Y., (formerly of N. C.) -The gentleman from Massachusetts has gone too far. He has expressed opinions which ought not to escape without animadversion. I heard them with equal surprise and regret. I was astonished to hear him declare that Slavery -domestic Slavery-say what you will, is a condition of life, as well as any other, to be justified by morality, religion, and international law; and when at the close of his opinion he solemnly declared that this was his confession of faith, I la mented, sincerely lamented, t hat “Star-eyed Science shoiuld have wandered thee c To bring us back the message o f despair.” If, sir, among the wild visions of German philosophy I had ever reached concl u sions like this; if in the Aule of Gottingen I had ever persuaded myself to adopt a political maxim so hostile to liberal institutions and the rights of mankind, I would ha ve lo cked it up forever in the darkest chambers of my mind. Or if my zeal had been too ardent for my discreti on, this place, a t l east, should never have been the theatre of my eloquence. No, sir, if such had been my doctrines I would have turned my back forever on my native land. Following the course of “the dark rolling Danube,” and cutting my way across the Euxine, I would have visited a wellknown market of Constantinople, and there preached my doctrine amidst the rattling chains of the wretched captives. Na y, sir, I would have gone from thence, and laid my forehead upon the footstool of the Sultan, and besought him to set his foot upon my nleck, as the recreant citizen of a recreant Republic. Having touched upon this point, I ought, perhaps, to add that, if there are any members in this House of that class of politicians to whom the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Saunders) alluded, as having the disposition, though not tht power, to disturb the compromise con ta in ed in the Constitution on this point, I am not of the number. Neither am I one of those citizens of the North, to whom another honorable gentleman referred, in a publication to which his name was subscribed, who would think it immoral and irreligious to join in putting down a servile insurrection at the South: I am no soldier, sir; my habits and education are very unmilitary, but there is no cause in which I would sooner buckle a knapsack to my back, and put a musket on my shoulder, than that. I would c ede t h e whole continent to any one who would take itto England, to France, to Spain; I would see it sunk in the b ot tom of the oc e an before I would see any part of this fa ir Am erica converted into a continental Hayti, by that awful process of bloodshed and desolation, by which alone su(ch a cat astrophe could b e b rough t on. The gr e at relation olf servitude, in some form or other, with greater or les s depa rtur e fr om e the theoretic equality of man, is inseparable from our nature. I know of no way by which the form if this servitude shall be fixed, but p oli tical institu tion. D omest ic Sl avery-though, I c onfess, not that form of servitude which seems to be the mo st beneficial to t he m aster-cert ainl y n ot that which is most b en eficia l to the servant-is not, in my judgment, to be set down as an immoral and irreligious relation. I cannot admit that religion has but one voice t o the slave, and that this voice is, ” Rise agains t y our Master.” No, sir; the New Testame ntsays, “Slaves, obey your Masters ” a nd, though I know full well that, in t he benignant op er ation of Christianity, which gathered master an d slav e a r ound the same c ommun ion-table, thi s un fortunate institution disappeared in Europe, yet I c annot admit that, while it subsists, and where it subsists, it s d uties are not p resupposed and sancto e iioned by re ligion. I certainly am not called upon to meet the charges brought again st thi s institution, yet truth obliges me to say a word more o n th e subject. I k now the condition of working classes in othe r countries; I am intimately acquainted with it in some other countries, and I have no hesitation in saying that I believe the slaves in this country are better clo thed and fed, and les s h ardly worked, than the peasantry of some of the most prosperous States of the continent of Europe. Consider the checks on population. What keeps population down? Poverty, want, starvation, disease, and all the ills of life; it is these that check population all over the world. Now, the slave population of the United States increases faster than the white, masters included. What is the inference as to the physical condition of the two clatsses of society? These, are opinions I have long entertained, and long since publicly professed on this subject, and which I here repeat in answer to the intimations to which I have already alluded. But, sir, when Slavery comes to 4enter into the Constitution as a political element-when it comes to affect the distribution of power amongst the States of the Union, that is a matter of agreement. If I make an agreement on this subject, I will adhere to it like a man; but I will protest against any inferences being made from it like that which was mlde by the honorable mover of these resolutions. I will protest against popularity, as well as votes, being increased by the rat!i of three-fifths Df the Slaves. EDWARD EVERETT ON GEOGRAPHICAL

PARTIES. But, sir, I am not prepared to admit that geographical parties are the greatest evil this country has to fear. Party of all kinds, in its excess, is certainly the bane of our institutions; and I will not take up the time of this Committee by disputing which is most deleterious, arsenic or laudanum. It is en ough tha t they are bo t h fatal. The evil of geographical parties is, that they tend to sever the Union. The evil of dom estic parties is, that they render the Union not worth having, I remember the t i me, sir, though I was but a boy, when under the influence of do mestic parties, near neighbors did not speak; when old acquaintances glared at each other a s they passedl in tleth stre e ts; when you might wreak on a man all the bitterness of your personal an d private enmity, and grind him into the dust, if you had the power, and sa y, h e is a Democrat, he is a Federalist; he des erves i t. Y es, sir, when partyaspirit pursued it s victim from the ha lls of legislati on, fromn the forum, from the marke t-place, to what shhouGll be the sanctuary of the fireside, a n d f illed hea rts that would have bled to spare each other a pang, with coldness and es trangement. Talk not to me of your geograpl-ical pa,rties. There does not live the man, I thank God, on earth, to ward whom I have an unkind emotion one whose lriglts I would invade, whose feelings I would wound. But if there ever should be a man to whom I should stand in that miserable relation, I pray that mountains may rise, that rivers may roll between us that he may never cross my path, nor I his, to turn the sweetness of human nature into bitterness and gall in both our bosoms. Sepeeck in the tIou se of?fepresentativeg, 1826.-Be,7iton,‘8 D bates, vol. 8, p. 713. M MR. EVERETT’S VIEWS IN 1837
and 39. Oct. 14th, 1837, Hon. Wm. Jackson, of New ton, Mass., wrote to Mr.

Everett a longl letter containing the following questions: ~ Do justice, humanity, and sound policy, alike re. quire that the slaves of this count.y should be einancipated? Is it the right and duty of the citizens of the nonslaveholding States to requir e of the General Govern. trent the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columibia? O cR. MITCHELL’S VIEWS.

Mr. MNitchell, of Tennessee.-Sir, I do not go the length of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and hold that the existence of Slavery in this country is alnost a blessing On the contrary, I am firmly settled in the opinion that it I I I tO4 is a great curse-one of the greatest evils that could have been interwoven into our sy!item. I, Air. Chairman, am one of those whom these poor wretches call master; I do not task them; I feed and clothe then well; but yet, alas! sir, they are slaves, and Slavery is a curse in any shape. it i, no doubt, true that there are persons in Europe far more degraded than our slaves, worse fed, worse clothed, etc.; but, sir, this is far from prOViDg that negroes ought to be slaves. John Randolph, of Virginia.-‘,,ir, I envy neither the head nor heart of that man from the North who rises here to defend Slavery upon principle.

Page 205 view page image

EDWARD EVERETT’S VIEWS ON SLAVERY. Is it just oI safe, with regard to our foreign relations it. I will only say, that if, at this moment, when an alland domestic compact, to admit Texas into the Union? important experiment is in train, to abolish Slavery by Ipeaceful and legal means in the British West Indies, MR. EvERE-rT’S RE,PLY. I the United States, instead of imitating their example, or 1BOSTON, 181t October,. even awaiting the result, should rush into a policy of OSTON, 81t Octo br 18.

gvng an indefinite extension to Slavery over a vast SiR: I have duly received your commun.‘cation of the legion incorporated into their Union, we should stand 14th inst., in which you desire to be furnished with my condemned before the civilized world. It would be vain views on certain questions therein propounded. Under to expect to gain credit for any further professions of a other circumstances, I should deem it proper to preface willingness to be rid of Slavery as soon as possible. No my answer with some preliminary remarks, but my enl-extenuation of its existence, on the ground of its having gagements at the present time compel me to reply as I been forced upon the country in its colonial state, would concisely as possible. any longer avail us. It would be thought, and thought In answer to the first question, I observe, that Slavery justly, that lust of power and lust of gold had made us being, by universal admission, a social, political, and deaf to the voice of humanity and justice. We should moral evil of the first magnitude, it is required by jus-be self-convicted of the enormous crime of having votice, humanity, and sound policy that the slaves should luntasily given the greatest possible enlargement to an be emancipated by those having constitutionally the evil, which, in concert with the rest of mankind, we power to effect that object, as soon as it can be done had affected to deplore, and that at a time when the peacefully, and in a manner to better the condition of public sentiment of the civilized world, more than at the emancipated. I believe the most considerate por-any former period, is aroused to its magnitude. tion of the people of the United States, in every quarter, There are other objections to the measure dr-awn from unite in this sentiment; and you are aware that the its bearing on our foreign relations; but it is unnecesmost eminent Southern names can be cited in its sup-sary to discuss them. port. I am, sir, respectfully, In reply to the second question, I would remark, that Your obedient servant, all the considerations in favor of emancipation in the EDWARD EVEaETT. States, apply with equal force to the District of Co-HON. WILLIAM JACKSON.

lumbia. My opinions on this subject are fully expressed in the resolution adopted by the legislature last winter, In 1839, the following questions were put to with a near approach to unanimity, in the following Mr Everett by Hon A. Borden of sss uterms: ” Resolved, That Congress having exclusive legis- * lation in the District of Columbia, possesses the right to setts: abolish Slavery in the said District, and that its exercise 1. Are you in favor of immediate abolition by law of should only be restrained by regard to the public Slavery in the District of Columbia and of the slave traffic good.”. between the States of this Union? I know that the slavetrade is carried on to a shocking 2. Are you opposed to the admission into the Union of extent in the District of Columbia. There is no part of any new States the constitutions of which tolerate domesthe South, where it is reputable to be engaged in this tic Slavery? traffic; and no Southern State, I am persuaded, would pIermit its existence in its own capital, as it exists at the The following was Mr. Everett’s reply: national capital.

The South and the North ought to WASHINGTON, OtL 24,1839. unite in prohibiting it, by act of Congress-which is the DEAR SIR: On Saturday last I only received your let local legislature of the District. This has been loudly called for, from the District itself. 1 have before me a ter of the 18th, propounding to me certain interrogatocalled for, from the District itself. I have before me arisaneanslreusigaealanwrYoar opyof a petition, couched in very strong language, ries, and earnestly requesting an early answer. You are aacopyns of Saverytan, tuheslv-rd in ver stron g lnug,aware that several resolves on the subject of these inagainst both Slavery and the slavetrade in the District quiries and their kindred topics, accompanied by a re….. a~~~~~~~~~uiries and their kindred topics. accompanied by a reof Columbia, which was presented to Congress in 1824, port, were introduced into the Senate of the Common signr b nerly eve hunredand ift nams oport, were introduced into the Senate of the Commonsigned by nearly seven hundred and fifty names of citizens of Washington, several of whom were known to wealth, year before last, by a joint committee of the two ‘citizens of Washington, several of whom were known ~ohue,o hc h aeteMr lordwscar me to be of the first consideration. I may observe in houses, of which the lamented Mr. Aord was cair man. this connection, that at the same session, I voted in the Those resolves, a fter having been somewhat enlarged by negative on a motion to lay upon the table the petition a ee, er at b tel elare y of the American Anti-Slavery Society for the abolition of amendment, were adopted by the legislature They ap Slavery in the District of Columbia, and on two other pear to cover the whole ground of your two interroga Slavery in the District of Columbia, and on two oth. ois lvn herflycpeaeintepsaeo motions, intended, in like manner, to deprive this class tores aving cheerfully coperated in the passage ro of petitions of a respectful reception and considera-the resolves, and concurring in the general reasoning by of petitions of a respectful reception and considera-w tion. which they are sustained in the powerful report of the The last question propounded by you refers to the chairman of the committee, I respond to both your in The last question propounded by you refers to the qureci h afimtv. annexation of Texas. It presents the subject of Sla-quiries in the affirmative. imstoitbve ary, in most of the three subjects in your inquiry is the very, in most of its bearings, in a Dew light. Intheonly one of them which came before Congress while I States, its introduction was the result of a legislation was a member. I voted in the negative on thie motion forced upon the colonies, and in many cases, in despite t a e t the eti on the mti of acts passed by their legislators, for the prohibition to lay upon the able the petition of the American Anti of the slavetrade, and regulated by the crown. Its ex-Slavery Society for the abolition of Slavery in the Dis of the slavetrade, and regulated by the crown. Its ex-tito ouba rdo te oin ftelk hr istence is recognized by the Constitution of the United trict of Columbia, and on other motion of the like char States. The rights of property growing out of, it ar,‘inofpttos States. The rights of property growing out of it are in acter introduced to cast off the consideration of this class some degree protected by law in the non-slaveholling of petltlonsu States (see the opinion of Chief Justice Shaw in the I am, dear sr, very respectfully, your friend and ser case of the Commonwealth vs.

Aves-an opinion in the vant. EWA IE ETT. doctrines and principles of which I fully concur); and Eo TN A aE HoN. NATHANIEL A. BORDECN. morality and religion frown on all attempts to put an end to it by violence and bloodshed. But none of these The “several resolves ” to which Mr. Everett principles countenance a voluntary extension of Slavery; and as the question of annexing Texas is one of volun-refers in the above letter, in the passage of tary, and almost boundless extension, it presents the which he “cheerfully cooperated,” as Governor subject, as I have said, in a new light. It has been offi-of Massachusetts are as follows: cially stated by the Texan Envoy that the region so called contains two hundred thousand square miles. In Resolvec, That Congress has, by the Constitution, other words, it might form twentyfive States as power to abolish Slavery and the slavetrade in the Dis large as Massachusetts. In this vast region, Slavery trict of Columbia, and that there is nothing in the terms was prohibited by Mexico; it has been restored, and is or circumstances of the acts of cession by Virginia and rapidly spreading itself under the new government; Maryland, or otherwise, enforcing any legal or moral and no one denies, that if the independence of Texas is restraint on its existence. sustained, Slavery will be indefinitely extended through-Resolved, That Congress ought to take measures to out its ample borders.

effect the abolition of Slavery in the District of Coluimibia. The Executive Government of the United States has Resolved, That the rights of humanity, the claims vf pvsomptly recognized this independence. and by so doing, justice, and the common good alike, demand the sup has discharged the whole duty that could be required by pression by Congress of the slavetrade carried on ill the law of nations. Whatever step we take toward an-and through the District of Columbia. nexation is gratuitous.

This whole subject has been so JResolved, That Congress has, by the Constitution, ably discussed by Dr. Channing, in his recent letter to power to abolish Slavery in the Territories of the UJinited No. Clay, that it would be superfluous to enlarge upon States. 205

Page 206 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. a fusion of the Republicans with the other Opposition elcments in the campaign of 1860, has been received.

Massachusetts is a sovereign and independent State, and I have no right to advise her in her policy. Yet, if any one is desirous to draw a conclusion as to what I would do, from what she has done, I may speak without impropriety. I say, then, that so far as I understand the Massachusetts provision, I am against its adoption, not only in Illinois, but in every other place in which I have the right to oppose it. As I understand the spirit of our institutions, it is designed to promote the elevation of men. I am, therefore, hostile to anything that tends to their lebasement.

It is well known that I deplore the oppressed condition of the blacks; and it would, therefore, be very inconsistent for me to look with approval upon any measures that infringes upon the inalienable rights of white men, whether or not they are born in another land, or speak a different language from my own. In respect to a fusion, I am in favor of it whenever it can be effected on Republican principles, but upon n0 other condttion.

A fusion upon any other platform would be as insane as unprincipled. It would thereby lose the whole North, while the common enemy would still have the support of the entire South. The question in relation to men is different. There are good and patriotic men and able statesmen in the South, whom I woull willingly support if they would place themselves on Republican ground; but I shall oppose the lowering of the Republican standard even by a hair’s bread/h. I have written in haste, but I believe that I have ainswered your questions substantially. Respectfully yours, ABRAHAM LINCOLN. [For later views of Mr. Everett, see his letter accepting the nomination for the VicePresidency in 1860.] ABRAHAM LINCOLN ON THOMAS

JEFFERSON. Mir. Linicoln having been invited by the Re publicans of Boston, to attend a Festival in honor of the anniversary of Jefferson’s birthday, on the 13thl of April, 1859, replied a s follows: SPRINGFIELD, Ill., April 6, 1859. GENTLEMF.: Your kind note, inviting me to attend a festival in Boston, on the 13thl inst., in honor of the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, was duly received. My engage ments are sucel that I cannot attend. Bearing in mind that about seventy years ago two great political parties were first formed in this country; that Thomas Jefferson was the shea al of one of thet and Boston the h eadquart er s of the other, it is both curious and interesting that those suppose d to descend politically from th e p ar ty opposed to Jefferson, shoul d n ow be c elebrating his birthday in theira ow n orig inal s ea t of empire, while thos e claiming political descent from him have nearly ceased to breathe his name everyw here. Retmemt bering, too, that the J eff erso n par ty was f ormed upon its supposed superior devotion to the persontal rigeits of men, holtilng th e r ights of property to be seconlauy only, antd grea tly inferior; and then asscimi,g at that tiae so-called Democracy of to.dlay are the Jeffersoo, and their oppodetAts the anti-Jefferson par ties, i t will be equally interesting to note how completely the two have changed ground as to the principle upon which the y wer e origin ally supposed to be divioded. The Denocrac y of f,o-day ho ld the liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, wllhen in conflict with another tlan’s right ofproperty. Republicans. o n the cont rary, ale blotl for the an r an(d th e dollar, but in case of conflic t the tan bef or e the dollar I ger being once much amused at seeing two partiallly intoxicated men engaged in a fight with their great-coats on, which fight, after a long and lather mha mless c ontest, ended in each having fought himself out of hi s own coat and into that of th e other. If the two leading parties of this day a re really identical with the two in tile days of Jefferson and Adam s, they have performle d t he same fea t as the two drunken men. But sobeprly, it is now n o child’s play to save the p rinciples of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation. One would state with great confidence that lhe could convince any satne child that the simpler propositions of E1uelid are true; but nevertheless, he wo,uld fail, with one wlho sihoul(t deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are thle definitions ard axioms of free society. And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them “glittering generalities.” Another bluntly styles the,. selfevi(dent lies.” Anid others insidiously argue that they apply only to “1 superior races.” These exp,‘essions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect the supplanting the principles of free governmnen.t, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads plotting against the people. They are the vanguar-d, the sappers and miners, of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us. This is a-world of compensations; and he who would be no slave must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it. All honor to Jefferson-to the nan who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity, to introduce into a merely revolutionary document an abstract truth, applicable to all mern and all times, and so to embaln it there, that to-day and in all coming days it shall be a rebuke and a stumnblinlg-block to the harbinigers of reappearing tyranny and oppression. Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN.

M,ssrs. If. L. PIERCE, and otters, etc. NE W-YORK FOR THE WILMOT PROVISO.

In January, 1847, Col. Samuel Young introduced the following resolve into the New-.York State Senate, and on the 27th of that month it was adopted by a vote of 22 to 6: R~e,sol~ved, That if any Territory is hereafter acquired] by the United States, or annexed thereto, the act by width such Territory is acquired or annexed, whatever such atmnay be, should con,tain an unalterable, fundatme,t,d r-, ticle or provision whereby Sl’avery or involuntary soer-vitude, except as a punishbiteint for criute, shall be forever excluded from the Territory acquired or annexed. This resolve subsequently passed the Assenlbly by a vote which was almost unaninmous.

The following preamble and resolutions were adopted by the Assembly of the State of NewYork on the 10th day of January, 1848, by a vote of 108 to 5, and by the Senate, a few days later, by a majority nearly as emphatic as that of the Assembly: Whereas, The President of the United States, in hlis last annual message, has recommended the establishliment by Congress of territorial government over the conquertel provinces of New Mexico, and the Califottias, atid the retention thereof as an indemnity, in which said Territories the institution of Slavery does not now exist, therefore P,esolved (if the Senate concur), That our Senatots in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives lrequested, to use their best efforts to insertt into any act or ordinance, establishing any or all such provisional or ter ritorial government or governments, a tundamen^l article or provision, which shall provide, dclare, and( guaranty, that Slavery or involuntary servitude, excelpt as a punishmnent for crime, whereof the party shall hlave been first duly convicted, shall be prohibited thelehi, so long as the same shall remain a Territor-y.

Resolvedl, That the President of the Senate, ant the Speaker of the Assembly, be reqei’ ted to transminit a copy of the foregoing resolutionis and preamble to each of I ie said Senators and Representatives. ABRAHAM

LINCOLN ON NATURALIZATION. NEW-YORK AGAIN FOR FREE.TERRITORIES IN 1849.

The following preamble and resolves were introduced into the NewYork Senate on the -d of January, 1849, passe d that bodw er y a urreadiiiious vote on the 4th, and were conurred iL DR. TIHEODOR CANISIUS: DEAR SIR-Your letter, in which you inquire on your own account, and in behalf of certain other German citzens, whether I approve or oppose the constitutional provision in relation to naturalized citizens which was lately enacted in Massachusetts, and whether I favor or oppose I I 206 NEW-YORK FOR

FREEDO’.NF lN 185S. SPRiNr.FIELD, M-Y 17, 1859.

Page 207 view page image

NEW-YORK ON SLAVERY. by the Assembly two days later, on the 6th of January: I Whereas, The people of the State of NewMexico have petitioned Congress for the establishm ent of a Territorial Government which shall protect them against the institution of domestic Slavery while they remain a territory of the Un,ted States, and have also petitioned Congress for protection against the unfounded c laims o f the State of Texas to a large portion of their territory lying east of the Rio Grande; and, whereas. it w ould be unJust to the people of NewMexico and California, and revolting to the spirit of the age, to perm it d omestic Slavery-an institution from which they a r e now freeto be introduced among them: and, wiereas, since the acquisition of New Mexico by the United States the peo - ple thereof have a right to expect the protection of the General Government, and should be secured in the full possession and enjoyment of their Territory: therefore Resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be requested to use their best efforts to procure the passage of laws for the establishment of governments for the Territories acquired by the treaty of peace with Mexico, and that by such laws involuntary servitude, except for crime, be excluded from such Territories. Resolved, That the territory lying between the Nueces and the Rio Grande is the common property of the United States, and that our Senators and Representatives in Congress be requested to use their best efforts to preserve the same as such common property, and protect it from the unfounded claim of the State of Texas, and prohibit the extension over it of the laws of Texas, or the institution of domestic Slavery. Resolvecd, That the existence of prisons for the confinement and marts for the sale of slaves, at the seat of the National Government, is viewed by this legislature with deep regret and mortification; that such prisons and marts ought forthwith to be abolished; therefore be it further Resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be requested to use their strenuous efforts to procure the passage of a law that shall protect slaves from unjust imprisonment, and shall effectually put an end to the slavetrade in the District of Columbia. R, solved, That the Governor be requested to forward copies of the p eceding resolutions to each Senator and Representative in Congress from this State. following are extracts from the address then adopted: FELLOW-CITIZENS: Hitherto when we have assembled in Convention, the ere were wel l kno wn a nd w ell recognized bounds to our coun try, but now that the spirit of conques t has been let loose, who can tell where is his country, whthethe r o n the Rio Grande, the S.erra Nevada, the Rio Gila or the Gulf of California, or whether part Spanish, much Indian, and some Negro, San ta Fe an o r Cali - fornian may not be as good an American citizen as himself? Our flag is borne, with fixed bayonets to surround it, and unmuzzled grape-shot to clear the way, in the co nquer in g footsteps of Cortes-byo the base of the snowy peaksfP teoE of Popoeatapetl, to the Eten a l city of the Aztecs-and Mexicans of every color, and every breed, sprung from commingling Moor and straight-haired Aft’ican, as well as f:‘om Castile and Leon, are made American citizens, or prepared for being made so, by the gentle logic of red-mouthed artillery, thundering froi the bristling heights of Cerro Gordo to the bloody plains of Contrer-as and Churubusco. Wherever that flag is, with its stars and stripes, the emblem of our Nationality, there our hearts are; but woe! woe! to the men, we cry, who have dispatched it upon its mission of Conquest, and what is yet worse, the conversion of a Free ilnLO
a Slaveholding Territory. F,ellow-citizens, disguise the Mexican war as sophistry may, the great truth cannot be put, down, that it exists because of the annexation of Texas; that from such a cause we predicted such a consequence would follow. and that, but for that cause, no war would have existed at all. Disguise its intent, purposes and consequences as sophistry ally struggle to do, the further great truth ,-annot be hiidden, that its main object is the conquest of a Market for Slaves, and that tile flag our victorious legions rally around, fighet under, anl fall for, is to be desecrated from its holy character of Liberty andl E~iua,ncipatioin into an errant of Bondage and Slavery. In obedience to the laws, and in a due and f.ithfal su bmission to tile regularly constituted governm,uenlt of our country, we will rally by and defend ouri fl;ag oin wlatever soil or whatever sea it is unfurled; but before lhigh Heaven we p;,otest against the mission on whichl it is sent, and we demand its recall to the true and proper bounds of out’ country, as soon a,s in honor it can be brought home. We protest, too, in thle nam,e of the rights of Man, and of Liberty, against the further extension of Slavery in No,‘th Am.e~ica. Tlhe curse which our mother country inflicted upon us, in spite of our ficthers’ rem.onstrances, we deimanld shiall never blight the vir-gini soil of tihe North Pacific….. We will not pour out the blood of our countrymen, if we can help it, to turn a Fret) into a Slgave soil. We will not spend from fifty to a hundred millions of dollars per year to mliake a Slave Market for any portion of our countrymen. We will never, for such a purpose, consent to run up an untold National debt, andl saddle our posterity with Fund ongers, Tax-B-okers, Tax-gttherers, layinlg an excise or an imilpost ton everytlinlg they taste, touch fir live by. The U,i,n as it is, the wlolet Union, and,lotiting but the Union, we will stailnl by to the last-but_fvo L.ore Terri tor-y i. our watch-word,unless it be Froe,.

MR. DIX FOR SLAVERY PROHIBITION. These resolutions were presented in the U. S. Senate by the Hon. John A. Dix (now, 1860,) Postmaster of NewYork, and defended by him in an elaborate and able speech. On the first resolution, he said: This resolution was in sentiment, if not in words identical with those which have been passed by fifteen of the thirty States of the Union. With a single exception, all the nonslaveholding and one of the slaveholdlng States have declared themselves opposed to the extension of Slavery into territory now free. Sir, I fully concur in the propriety of this declaration. I believe that Congress has the power to prohibit Slavery in California and New Mexico; that it is our duty to exercise the power, and that it should be exercised now. I am always for acting when the proper time for action has come. I am utterly opposed to any course which shall cast upon others the responsibility which belongs to ourselves. The resolution looks to the exclusion of Slavery from New Mexico and California during their territorial condition only. It does not look beyond that condition with a view to control the people when they shall have come into the Union. It contemplates no invasion of State sovereignty. In this view of the subject, one of the NewYork presses which has resisted all interference with Slavery, even in the Territories, pronounced these resolutions conciliatory in their character. I do not know that I should call them either conciliatory or the reverse. They take firmly the ground that NewYork has always taken, that Slavery shall by no act of hers be furthe r ex - tended. She believes it to be the ground of principle, of justice, and of right and I do not hesitate to say she will never abandon it-never, never. THE NEW-YORK WHIGS FOR FREEDOM IN 1847. At the Whig State Convention held at Syracuse, October 6, 1847, the Hon.

James Brooks reported a brief address to the Whigs of the State, which was unanimously adopted. The RESOLV’ElS. Among the R2esolutions unanimously adopted by this Convention was the following: e8ol/ved, That while the Whig Freemen of NewYork, represented in this Convention, will faithfully adhere to all the compromi,;ses of the Constitution, and jealously maintain all the reserved rights of the States, they declare-since the crisis has arrived when the question must be mset-their uncompromising hostility to the Extension of Slavery into any Territory now Free, or which may be hereafter acquired by any action of the Government of our Union. FREE DEM-AOCRACY OF NEW-YORK CITY AGAINST SLAVERY EXTENSION. At a Free Democratic Meeting held in the Park at NewYork, October 9, 1848, at which Henry Everson presided, and S. J. Tilden, John Van BureLv, and John Cochrane spoke, Mr. Cochrane introduced the following Resolves, which were adopted: Resol)e(d, That the politics of the times indicate precisely to whom remain the principles of the Democracy; that the absence from the field of discussion of the finalecial and conunercial questions which formerly defined 207

Page 208 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. single tot of soil where it is not now authorized by law. political differences, permits that other party tests than those which, even if demanding attention, still as but questions of expediency, should be, as they have been, postponed to the consideration of that one of vital im portance, tihe freedom of our lanctd. Resolted, that we think contemptuously of the mind which discovers in the extension of the area of Freedom cause for the degyadation of the South. Could nature so belie herself thatIhe preservation of their “inalienable riglhts”- to any portion of mankind, must be attended by prolpo! tionate violation of those of any other portion, we say, perish those rights dependent on the Slave,‘y of others, rather than one tittle of those be injured that are consistent with the rights of all-that our Constitution and our federal history speak to us through the voices of the Jeffergi’ps, the Pinckneys, the Lees and thle Ran dolphs of the South, against this miserable, false pre tense. It is not so!‘I’he success of the free principles for which we contend, will reestablish the lost equality of the States-lost in the insidious increase of the Slave States from six, their orig’ial and constitutional number, to fifteen, the present aggressive a nd unc ons titutional number-lost in the twentyone voices and vote FwbiOh Southern chattel slaves possess among the repetatives of a free people at Washington-lost in thelimited wealth, in the low intelligence, and in the inferior civilization of the South. We would restore this lost equality, and, so far from degrading anyportion of the Union, we mean to elevate the whole to the possession of that Freedom %hich alone should be the National characteristic. Resolved, That our senses reject the audacious assertion that the Extension of Slave Territory at the South will abate the evil at the North. Aside from the absurdity which it involves, that an evil declines in proportion to and expires with the substacce which it procures, experience has taught, and the history of the ” Peculiar Institut on” itself manifests, that the slaveowner of the ” Old Donminion”

breeds an increasing gang, and amasses an accumulating hoard, just as the demand for slaves increases with the diffusioxi of Slavery over free territory at the South. In the year T1790, when Alabama, Mlississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Florida, were free soil, the slave populationi was 697,896. In the year 1840, when Slavery had sl i.ead over this free soil, it numbered 2,487,8355, beng an iicri ease in fifty years of 1,78T,457 slaves. Tile extension of Slavery to new territory, instead of abating the evil ill Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, where it numbiered i.n the year 1 510, 590,000 slaves, has multiplied them to 776,000, in the year 1840, showing an increase it thirty years of 185,000 slaves. The existence of Slavery depends on its diffusiob. N’:W-HAMPSHIRE FOR THE WILMOT PROVISO. The legislature (then Democratic) of NewHampshire, in June, 1847, passed the following resolution: eResoled, That in all territory which shall hereafter be added to or acquired by the United States, where bilavery does not exist at the time of such addition,or acquiremeut, neither Slavery or involuntary servitude, except for the punishment of crime, whereof the party has been duly convicted, ought ever to exist, but the same should ever remain free; and we are opposed to the extension of Slavery over every such Territory-and that we also approve the vote of our Senators andl Representatives in Congress in favor of the Wil,mlot Proviso. OHIO FOR

FREE SOIL. In the Ohio House of Representatives (session of 1847-8) the following resolution was passed by a vote of 43 to 12: Besolved, By the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, that the Senators andl Representatives from this State in the Congress of the United States be and they are hereby requested, to procure the passage of measures in the National Legislature, providing for the exclusion of Slavery from the Territory of Oregon, and also friom any other Territory that now is, or hereafter may be, annexed to the United States. ILLINOIS FOR FREE SOIL.

The following Resolutions were adopted by the Senate of Illinois on the 8th of January 1849, and the House of Representatives on the following day. The Legislature was taa-gely Democratic in both branches at the time: Resolved by the Senate of the,gtate of Illinois, t7i.e Ilowe of Representatives conc”rring, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested, to use all honorable means in their power to procure the enactment of such laws by Congress for the government of the countries and ternitor-ies of the United States acquired by the treaty of peace, friendship, liimlits and settlement with the Republic of Mexico, concluded Febr uary 2, 1848, as shall contain the express declaration “that there shall be neitherSlavery nor inqvoluq, tary servitiude in saied territories otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” Resolved by the Ifouse of Representatives, the Senate coc?urrein herein, That the Governor be respectfully requestedo o transmit to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress a copy of the joint resolution of the Senate, concurred in by the House on the 9th inst., for the exclusion of Slavery from the new territories aoqui,,ed by our late treaty with the Republic of Mexico. In a letter dated July 15th, 1848, Mr. Bronson, after declining an invitation to attend a political meeting, says: Slavery cannot exist where there is no positive law to uphold it. It is not necessary that it should ie forbiIden; it is enough that it is not specially authorized. If the owner of slaves removes with or sends the i, into aly country, State or Territory, where Slavery does not exist by law, they will fromn thiat moment become free mnen, and will have as good a right to command the iiaster, as he will have to command them. State laws have no extraterritorial authority; and a law of Vir ginia which makes a man a slave there, cannot make him a slave in NewYork, nor beyond the Rocky lMountains. Entertaining no doubt upon that question, I can see no occasion for asking Congress to legislate against the extension of Slavery into free territory, and, as a question of policy, I think it h ad bette r be let alone. If our Southern brethren wish to carry their slaves to Oregon, NewMexico or California, they will be under th e necessity of asking a law to warrant it; and it will then be in time for the Free Statos to resist the measure, as I cannot doubt they would, with unwavering firmness. I would not needlessly move this question, as it is one of art exciting nature, which tends to sectional division, and may do us harm as a people. I would leave it to the Slaveholding States to decide for themselves, and on their own responsibility, when, if ever, the matter shall be agitated in Congress. It may be that they will act wisely, and never move at all; especially as it seems pretty generally agreed that neither Oregon, NewMexico, nor California, are well adapted to slave labor. But if our Southern brethren should make the question, we shall have no choice but to meet it; and then, whatever consequences may follow, I trust the people of the Free Statesm will give a united voice against allowing Slavery on a SOUTH CAROLINA FOR THE Fd a fREIGN SLAVETRAD,e. IN
the aniiial miessage of Governor Adamiis, of Soutt~ Carolit ma, for the vear 1856, lie proceeded to argue ill favor of the reopeniing of the slave-t-ria(ld,, As follows: It is apprehended that the opening of this trade will lessen the value of slaves, and ultimately destroy the institution. It is a sufficient answer to point to the fact that unrestricted immigration has not diminished the value of labor in the northwestern Confederacy. The cry there is the want of labor, notwithstanding capital has the pauperism of the old world to press into the grinding service. If we cannot supply the demand for slave labor, then we must expect to supply with a species of labor we do not want, and which is, from the very nature of things, antagonistic to our institutions. It is much better that our drays should be driven by slaves, that our factories should be worked by slaves, that our hotels should be served by slaves, that our locomotives should be managed by slaves, than that we should be exposed to the introduction from any quarter of a population alien to us by birth, training, and education, and which in the process of time must lead to the conflict between capital anl labor. which makes it so difficult to maintain free institutions in all wealthy and civilized nations where such institutions as 208 I am, very respectfully, your obelient se,-vant,. GREENE C. BRONSON. o iessrs. J. COCHRAIIB, and others, Committee. C. BRONSON’S OPINION IN 1848.

Page 209 view page image

tHE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 209 necessary to a continuance of our monopoly in plantation products. I believe that they are necessary to the full development of our whole round of agricultural and mechanical resources; that they are necessary to the restoration of the South to an equality of power in the Federal Government, perhaps to the very integrity of slav society, disturbed as it has been by causes which have introduced an undue proportion of the.ruling race. To us have been committed the fortunes of this peculiar form of society resulting from the union of unequal races.

It has vindicated its claim to the approbation of an enlightened humanity; it has civilized and christianized the African; it has exalted the white race to higher hopes and purposes, and it is perhaps of the most sacred obligation that we should give it the means of expansion, and that we should press it forward to a perpetuity of progress. do not exist. I n all slaveholding Stat es t ru e p olicy dictates that the superior race should direct, and the inferior perform all menial service. Competition between the white and black man for am service may not disturb Northern sensibility, but does not exactly suit our latitude. Irrespective, however, of interest, the act of Congress declaring the slavetrade piracy is a brand upon us which I think it important to remove. If the trade be piracy, the slaves must be plunder, and no ingenuity can avoid the logical necessity of such a conclusion. My hopes and fortunes are indissolubly associated with this form of society. I feel that I would be wanting in duty if I did not urge you to withdraw your assent to an act which is itself a direct condemnation of your institutions. But we have interests to enforce a course of selfrespect. I believe, as I have already stated, that more slaves are -MR. HAMLIN RENOUNCES THE DEMOCRATIC PAETY. That Senators might have voted for that measure under the belief then expressed and the predictions to which I have alluded, I can well understand. But how Senators can now defend that measure amid all its evils, which are overwhelming the land, if not threatening it with a con flagration, is what I do not comprehend. The whole of the disturbed state of the country has its rise in, and is attributable to that act alone-nothing else. It lies at the foundation of all our misfortunes and commotions. There would have been no incursions by Missouri border ers into Kansas, either to establish Slavery, or to control elections. There would have been no necessity, either, for others to have gone there partially to aid in preserv ing the country in its then condition. All would have been peace there. Had it not been done, that re pose and quiet which pervaded the public mind then, would hold it in tranquillity to-day. Instead of startling events we should have quiet and peace within our bor ders, and that fraternal feeling which ought to animate the citizens of every part of the Union toward those of all other sections. Sir, the events that are taking place around us are indeed startling. They challenge the public mind and appeal to the public judgment; they thrill the public nerve as electrity imparts a tremulous motion to the tele graphic wire. It is a period when all good men should unite in applying the proper remedy to secure peace and harmony to the country. Is this to be done by any of us, by remaining associated with those who have been instrumental in producing these results, and Who now justify them? I do not see my duty lying in that direction. I have, while temporarily acquiescing, stated here and at home, everywhere, uniformly, that when the test of those measures was applied to me as one of party fidelity, I would sunder them as flax is sundered at the touch of fire. I do it now. The occasion involves ah question of moral duty; and selfrespect allows me no other line of duty but to follow the dictates of my own judgment and the impulses of my own heart. A just man may cheerfully submit to many enforced humiliations; but a self-degraded man has ceased to be worthy to be deemed a man at all.

Sir, what has the recent Democratic Convention at Cincinnati done? It has indorsed the measure I have condemned, and has sanctioned its destructive and ruinou s effects. It has done more-vastly more. That prin. ciple or policy of Territorial Sovereignty which once had, and which I suppose now has, its advocates within these walls, is stricken-down; and there is an absolute denial of it in the resolutions of the Convention, if I can draw right conclusions-a denial equally to Congress, and even to the people of the Territories, of the right to settle the question of Slavery therein.

On the contrary, the Convention has actually incorporated into the platform of the Democratic party that doctrine which, only a few years ago, met nothing but ridicule and contempt here and elsewhere, namely: that the flag of the Federal Union, under the Constitution of the United States, carries Slavery wherever it floats. If this baleful principle be true, then that National Ode which inspires us always as on a battle-field, should be re-written by Drake, and should read thus: “Forever float that standard sheet; Where breathes the foe but falls before us, With S$avewM’ soil beneath our feet, And S/avery’s banner streaming o’er us?” Now, sir, what is the precise condition in which this matter is left by the Cincinnati Convention? I do not ON the 12th of June, 1856, Mr. Iamlin rose in his place in the Senate, and spoke as follows: Mr. Hamlin.-Mr. President, I rise for a purpose purely personal, such as I have never before risen for in the Senate. I desire to explain some matters personal to myself and to my own future course in public life.

Several Senators.-Go on. Mr. Hamlin.-I ask the Sen ate to excuse me from fur ther servic e as Chairm an of the Committee on Comme rce. I do so because I feel that my relations hereafter will be of such a character as to rend er it proper that I should no longer hold that position. I owe this act to the dominant majority in the Senate. When I cease to harmonize with the majority, or t ests are appl ied b y that party with which I have acted to which I cannot submit, I feel that I ought nolonger to hold that respectable position. I propose t o stat e br iefly the reas ons which have brought me to that conclusion. During nine years of service in the Senate, I have preferr ed rather to be a working than a talking member; and so I have been almost a silent one. On the subjects which have so much agitated the country, Senators know that I have rarely uttered a word. I love my country more than I love my party. I love my country above my.love for any interest that can too deeply agitate or disturb its harmony. I saw, in all the exciting scenes and debates through which we have passed, no particular good that would result from my active intermingling in them.

My heart has often been full, and the impulses of that heart have often been felt upon my lips; but I have repressed them there. Sir, I hold that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was a gross moral and political wrong, unequaled in the annals of the legislation of this country, and hardly equaled in the annals of any other free country. Still, sir, with a desire to promote harmony and concord and brotherly feeling, I was a quiet man under all the exciting debates which led to that fatal result. I believed it wrong then; I can see that wrong lying broadcast all around us now. As a wrong, I opposed that measurenot, indeed, by my voice, but with consistent and steady and uniform votes. I so resisted it in obedience to the dictates of my own judgment. I did it also cheerfully, in compliance with the instructions of the legislature of Maine, which were passed by a vote almost unanimous. In the House of Representatives of Maine, consisting of one hundred and fifty-one members, only six, I think, dissented; and in the Senate, consisting of thirtyone members, only one member non-concurred. But the Missouri restriction was abrogated. The portentous evils that were predicted have followed, and are yet following, along in its train. It was done, sir, in violation of the pledges of that party with which I have always acted, and with which I have always voted.

It was done in violation of solemn pledges of the President of the United States, made in his Inaugural Address. Still, sir, I was disposed to suffer the wrong,,while I should see that no evil results were flowing from it. We were told, by almost every Senator who addressed us upon that occasion, that no evil results would follow; that no practical difference in the settlement of the country, and In the character of the future State, would take place, whether the act were done or not. I have waited calmly and patiently to see the fulfillment of that prediction; and I am grieved, sir, to say now that they have at least been mistaken in their predictions and promises. They hlave all signally failed. 14 MR. HAMLIN

AGAINST T

Page 210 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. design to trespass many moments on the Senate; but allow me to read and offer a very few comments upon some portions of the Democratic platform. The first resolution that treats upon the subject is in these wordsI read just so much of it as is applicable to my present remarks: “That Congress has no power under the Constitution to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, asd that all such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not prohibited by the Constitution.” I take it that this language, thus far, is language which meets a willing and ready response from every Senator here-certainly it does from me. But in the following resolution I find these words: ” Resolved, That the foregoing proposition covers, and was intended to embrace, the whole subject of Slavery agitation in Congress.” I The first resolution which I read was adopted years ago in Democratic Conventions. The second resolution which I read was adopted in subsequent years, when a different state of things had arisen, and it became necessary to apply an abstract proposition relating to the States, to the Territories. Hence the adoption of the language contained in the second Resolution which I have read. Now, sir, I deny the position thus assumed by the Cincinnati Convention. In the language of the Senator from Kentucky (M.-. Crittenden), so ably and so appropriately used on Tuesday last, I hold that the entire and unqualified sovereignty of the Territories is in Congress. That is my judgment; but this resolution brings the Territories precisely within the same limitations which are applied to the States in the resolution which I first read. The two taken together deny to Congress any power of legis lation in the Territories. Follow on, and let us see what remains. Adopted as a part of the present platform, and as necessary to a new state of things, and to meet an emergency now existing, the Convention says: “The American Democracy recognize and adopt the princi ples contained in the organic law establishing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the Slavery question, upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose, in its de termined conservatism of the Union-non-interference by Con gress with Slavery in the States and Territories.” Then follows the last resolution: “, Resolved, That we recognize the right of the people of all the Territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the fai ly-expressed will of the majority of actual residents, . and whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a constitution, with or without domestic Slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States.” Take all these resolutions toget her, an d the deducti on which we must necessarily draw from them i s a denial to Congress of any power whatever to legislate upon the subjec t of Slavery. The last resolu tion den ies to the people of the Territories any power over that subject, save whe n they shall have a sufficient number to form a cons titution and b ec ome a St ate, an d also denies that Congress has any power over the subject; and so the resolutions hold that this power is atle astn in abe yance while the Territory is in a Territorial ciodition. That is the o nly co nclusio n which you can draw from these resolutions. Ala s! for short-lived Territorial Sovereignty! It came to its dea th in th he house of its friends; it was buried by the same hands which had given it baptism! But, sir, I did not rise for the purpose of discussing these resolutions, but o nly to re ad them, and state the action which I propose to take in view of them. I may -I probably shall-take some subsequent occasion, when I shall endeavor to present to the Senate and the coun try a fair account of what is the true issue presented to the people f or the ir conside rat ion a nd d eci sion. My object now is to show only that the C incinnati Con vention has indorsed and approved of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, from which so many evils have already flowed-from which, I fear, more and worse evils must yet be anticipated. It would of course, be ex pected that the Presidential nominee of that Convention would accept, cordially and cheerfully, theplatform pre pared for him by his party friends. No persoin can ob ject to that. There is no equivocation on his part about the matter. I beg leave to read a short extract from a speech of that gentleman, made at his own home, within the last few days. In reply to the Keystone Club, which paid him a visit there, Mr. Buchanan said: ” Gentlemen, two weeks since I should have made you a longer speech; but now I have been placed on a platform of which I most heartll approve, and that can speal’m. Being the representati of the great Democratic party, and not simply James Buchanan, I must square my conduct ao cording to the platform of the party, and insert no new plank, nor take one from it.” These events leave to me only one unpleasant duty, which is to declare here that I can maintain political associations with no party that insists upon such doc trines; that I can support no man for President who avows and recognizes them; and that the little of that power with which God has endowed me shall be em.

ployed to battle manfully, firmly, and consistently for his defeat, demanded as it is by the highest interests of the country which owns all my allegiance. The President.-The question is on the motion of the Senator from Maine to be excused from further service on the Committee on Commerce. The motion was agreed to. ACCEPTANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES.

EPHRAIM MARSit, of NewJersey, GIDEON WELLS, of Connecticut, D. K. CARTER, of Ohio, CARL SCHURZ, of Wisconsin, JAMES F. SIMMONS, of Rhode Island#

JOHN W. NORTH, of Minnesota, GEo. D. BLAKEY, of Kentucky, PETER T.

WASHBURN, of Vermont, A; C. WI,ER, of Kansas, EDWAARD H. ROLLINS, of New -eampshirei FRANcIS S. COR]KAN, of Maryland, NORMAN B. JUDD, of Illinois, N. B. SMITHERS, of Delaware, Wet. H. MCCRILLIS, of Maine, ALFRED CALDWELL, of Virginia, CALEB B. SMITH, of Indiana, AUSTIN BLAIR, of Michigan, WM. P.

CLARKE, of Iowa, B. GRATZ BRoWs, of Missouri, F. P. TRACY, of California, E. D. WEBSTER, of Nebraska, G. A. HALL, of District of Columbia, JOHN A.

ANDREW, of Massachusetts, A. H. RESDER, of Pennsylvania. SPRINGFILD, ILL., May 2?, 1860. HON. GEORGR ASHMUN, Pres8ident of the Repubiean Vatonal Consvention. SIR: I accept thie nomination tendered me by the Convention over which you presided, and of which I air MESSRS. LINCOLN AND HAMLIN

ACCEPT. THE following is the correspondence between the officers of the Republican National Convention and the candidates thereof for President and VicePresident: CHICAGO, May 18,1860, To the HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, of Illinois. SIR: The representatives of the Republican Party of the United States, assembled in Convention at Chicago, have this day, by a unanimous vote, selected you as the Republican candidate for the office of President of the United States to be supported at the next election; and the undersigned were appointed a Committee of the Convention to apprise you of this nomination, and respectfully to request that you will accept it. A declaration of the principles and sentiments adopted by the Convention accompanies this communication. In the performance of this agreeable duty we take leave to add our confident assurance that the nomination of the Chicago Convention will be ratified by the suffrages of the people. We have the honor to be, with great respect and regard, your friends and fellow-citizens. GORGs ASHMUN, of Massachusetts President of the Convention. WM. M. EVARTS, of NewYork, JOEL BuPrLINQ.&fic of Oregon, 210
too.

Page 211 view page image

ACCEPTANCE OF LINCOLNT, HAMLIN AND BRECKINRIDGE. formally apprised in the letter of yourself and others, acting as a Committee of tile Convention for that pur pose. The declaration of principles and sentiments, which accompanies your letter, meets my approval; and it shall be my caie not to violate, or disregard it, in any part. Imploring the assistance of Divine Providence, and with due iegard to the views and feelings of all who were represented in tie Convention; to the rights of all the States, and Territories, and people of the nation; to the inviolability of the Constitution, and the perpetual union, harmony and prosperity of all, I am most happy to coopet ate for the practical success of the principles declared by the Convention. Your obliged friend and fellow-citizen, ABRAHlAM LINCOLN. A similar letter was sent to the nominee for the VicePresidency, to which the following is the reply. as just and necessary to the preservation of the National organization and the sacred right of representation, the action of the Convention over which you continued to preside; and thus approving it, and having resolved to sustain it, I feel that it does not become me to selecethe . position I shall occupy, nor to shrink from the responsi bilities of the post to which I have been assigned. Accordingly, I accept the nomination from a sense of public duty, and, as I thin k, uninfluenced in any de gree by the allurem ents of ambiti o n. I avail myself of this occasion to say that the con fiden ce In my personal and public character implied by the action f the Convention, will always be g ratefully remembered; and it is but just, also, to my own feelings, to express my gratifica tion at the association of my name with tha t,f my friend Geen. Lane, a patriot and a soldier, whose great services in the field and in council entitle him to the gratitude and confidence of his countrymen. The resolutions adopte d by the Convent ion have my cordia oal approval. They are just to all part s of t he Union, to all ou r citizens, n ati ve nd an d naturalized and they form a no ble policyray for any administration. The questions touching the ri ghts o f persons and pro perty, which have of late been much discussed, find in these resolution s a constitutional solution. Our Union is a Confedera c y of equal s overeign States, for the purposes e numerated in the Federal Constitution. Whatever the common Government holds in t rust fo r all th e States must be enjoyed equa lly by ea ch. It controls t he Ter ritories in trust for all the States. Nothin g less than sovereignty can destroy or impair the rights of persons or property. The Territorial Governments are subordinate and t em po rary, and not sovereign; he n ce they cannot destroy or impair the rights of persons o r property. While the y continue to be Territories they are unde r th e control of Congress, but the Constitution now her e confers on any branch of te Cneto. the F ederal Govenment the power to discrimi n a te against the rights of the States or the property of their citizens in the Territories. I t follows that the citi zens of all the States may enter the Territories of the Union with their proper ty, of whateve r kind, and enjoy it during the te rritorial condition without let or hindrance, either by Congress or by the subordinate Territ or ia l Governments. The s e pr inciples flow direc tly from the absence of sovereignt y in the Territorial Governments, and fro m the equality of the States. Indeed, they a re e ssential to that equality, which is, and ever has been, the vital principle of our Constitutional Union. They have been settled legislatively-settled judiciously, and are sustained by right reason. The y rest on the rock of the Constitution they will prese rve the Union. It is idle to attempt to smother these great issues, or to misr epr esent them by the use of partisan phsases, which are mi s le ading and delusive Th e p eo ple will look bo neath such expressions as m Intervention e it Congrei s ional Slave Code,” and the like, and will penetrate to the real questions involved. Tfhe f, iends of Constitutional equality do not and never did demand a ” Congr es siona l Slave Code,” nor any other co de in regard to propert y i n the Territories. wThey hold the doctrine of non-,nterven tion by Congress, or by a Ter ritorial Legislatu, e, either to e sta blish o r prohibit Sla very; but the y assert (for tifi ed by the highest judicial tribunal in the Unions the plain duty of the Federal (Government, in all its departments, to secure, when necessary, to the citizens of all the States, the enjoyment of their property in the common Territories, as everywhere else within its jurisdiction. The only logical answer to this would seem to be to claim sovereign power for the Territories, or to deny that the Constitution recognizes property in the services of negro slaves, or to deny that such property can exist.

Inexorable logic, which works its steady way through clouds and passion, compels the country to meet the issue. There is no evasive middle ground.

Already the signs multiply of a fanatical and growing party, which denies that under the Constitution, or by any other law, slave property can exist; and ultimately the struggle must come between this party and the National Demo cracy, sustained by all the other conservative elements in the Union. I think it will be impossible for a candid mind to discover hostility to the’Union or a taint of sectionalism in the lresolutions adapted by the Convention. The Constitution and thle Union repose on the equality of the States, which lies like a broad foundation underneath our whole political structure. As I construe them, the resolutions simply assert this equality. They demand nothing for any State or section that is oslo cheerfully conceded to all the rest. It is well to remember that the chief disorders which have afflicted our countr y have gr own out of the violation of State equality, and that as long aws this great principle has beens respected W ASHINGTON,.May 80, 1860. GENTLEMEN: Your official communication of the 18thl instant, infl,irming me that the representatives of tihe Republican party of the United States, assetibled at Cli cago, ont that day, had, by a unanimous vote, selected me as their candidate for the office of VicePresident of the United S8ates, hlas been received, together with the resolutions adopted by the Convention as its declaration of principles. Those resolutions enunciate clearly and forcibly the principles which unite us, and the objects proposed to be accomnplishted. They address themselves to all, and there is neither necessity nor propriety in my entering upon a discussion of any of them.

They have the atipproval of my judgment, and in Iny actionll of minte will be faith fully and cordially sustained. I am profoundly grateful to those with whom it is my pride antl pleasure politically to cooperate, to-the nomi nation so unexpectedly conferred; and I desire to tender through you, to the members of the Convention, my sini cere thanks for the confidence thus replosed in me. Should the nomination, which I now accept, be ratified by the people, and the duties devolve upon me of presiding over the Senate of the United States, it will be my earnest endeavor faithfully to discharge them with a just regard for the righlts of all. It is to be observed, in connection with the doings of the Republican Convention, that a paramount object with us is to preserve the normal condition of our Teririto torial Domain as homes for Free len. the able advocate and defender of Republican principles, whom you have nominated for the highest place that can gratify the ambition of man, co.nes from a State which has been made what it is, by special action, in that respect, of the wise and good men who foun ded our institutions. The rights of free labor have there been vindicated and maintained. The thrift and enterprise which so distin guish Illinois, one of the mosf fiurishing States of the glorious West, we would see secured to all t he Terr itories of the Union; and restore peace and harmony to the whole country, by bringing back the Government to what it was under the wise and patriotic mene who created it. If the Republicans shall succeed in that object, as they hope to, they will be held in grateful remembrance by the busy and teeming millions of future ages. I am, very truly yours, at. HAMLIN. The Hon. GEORGE AsiEmu’N, President of the Convention, and others of the Convention. MR.

BRECKINRIDGE ACCEPTS. WASnMNGTON CITY, JUIY 6, 1860. DEAR SIR: I have your letter of the 23d ultimo, by which I am officially informed of my nomination for the office of President of the United States by the Democratic National Convention-lately assembled at Baltimore. The circumstances of this nomination will justify me in referring to its personal aspect. I have not sought nor desired to be placed before the country for the office of President. When my name was presented to the Convention at Charleston, it was withdrawn by a friend in obedience to my expressed wishes. My views had not changed when the Convention reassembled at Baltimore, and when I heard of the differences which occurred there, my indisposition to be connected prominently with the cant4s was confirmed and expressed to many friends. Without discussing the occurrences which preceded the nominations, and which are or soon will be well understood by the country, I have only to say that I approved, I I b 211

Page 212 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. we have been blessed with harmony and peace. Nor willa it be easy to persuade the country that resolutions are I sectional which command the support of a majority of I V~ States, and are approved by the bone and body of t 6 old Democracy, and by a vast mass of conservative opinion everywhere, without regard to party. IIt has been necessary more than once in our history, to pause and solemnly assert the true character of this Government. A memorable instance occurred in the struggle which ended in the civil revolution of 1800. The Republicans of that day, like the Democracy of this, were stigmatized as disunionists, but they nobly conducted the contest under the Constitution, and saved our political system. By a little constitutional struggle it is intended to assert and establish the equality of the States, as the only basis of union and peace. When this object, so national, so constitutional, so just, stiall be accomplished, the last cloud will disappear from the American sky, and with common hands and hearts the States and the people will unite to develop the resources of the whole country, to bind it together with the bonds of intercourse and brotherhood, and to impel it onward in its great career. The Constitution and the Eqnality of the States! These art symbols of everlasting Union. Let these be the rallying cries of the people. I trust that this canvass will be conducted without rancor, and that temperate arguments will take the place of hot words and passionate accusations. Above all, I venture humbly to hope that Divine Providence, to whom we owe our origin, our growth, and all our prosperity,‘will continue to protect our beloved country against all danger, foreign and domestic. I am, wi th great respect, your friend, JOHN

C. BRECKINRIDGE. The Hion. C. C USHXliG, President of the Democratic National Convention. and no more shall we be troubled with the agitation of this dangerous question, because it will be removed as well from the Territorial legislatures as from the halls of Congress-when we shall be free to turn our attention to more useful issues, promotive of our growth i n national greatness. Our Union must be preserved! But this can only b~
done by maintaining the Constitution inviolate in all its, provisions and guaranties. The Judicial authority, a,, provided by the Constitution, must be maintained, and its decisions implicitly obeyed, as well in regard to the rights of property in the Territories as in all other matters. Hoping for success, and trusting in the truth and justice of the principles of our party, and in that Divine Providence that has watched over us and made us one of the great nations of the earth, and that we may continue to merit Divine protection, I cheerfully accept the nomination so unanimously conferred on me, and cordially in. dorse the platform adopted by the Convention. I have the honor to be, sir, with much respect, Your friend and obedient servant, JOSrPHi LANE,. MR. DOUGLAS ACCEPTS. WASHI.IGTON, Fridety,,Tune, 29, 1860. GENTLEMEN: In accordance with the verbal assurance which I gave you when you placed in my hands the authentic evidence of my nomination for the Presidency bj’ the National Convention of the Democratic party, I now send you my formal acceptance. Upon a careful examination of the platform and principles adopted at Charleston and reaffirmed at Baltimore, with an additional resolution which is in perfect harmony with the others, I find it to be a faithful embodiment of the time-honored principles of the Democratic party, as the same were proclaimed and understood by all parties in the Presidential contest of 1848, lS52, and 1856. Ulpon looking into the proceedings of the Convention also, I find that the nomination was made with great unanimity, in the presence and with the concurrence of more than twothirds f the whole number of delegates, and in accordance with the long-established usages of the pa r ty, My inflexible purpose not to be a ca ndidate, n o r accept the nomination under any conti ng ency, excep t a s th e regular nominee of t h e National Democratic party and in that case only upon the condition th at the usages, as well as the principles of th e party, should be strictly adhered to, had been proclaimed for a long time and become well known to th,e country. These conditions having all been complied with by the free and voluntary action of the Democratic masses and their faithful representatives, without any agency, interference, or procurement, on rr.,y part, I feel bound in honor and duty to accept the nomination. In taking this step, I am not unmindful of the responsibilities it imposes, but with firm reliance upon Divine Providence I have the faith that the people will comprehend the true nature of the issues involve(l, and eventually mai~ntain the right. The peace of tile country and the perpetuity of the Uniion have been put in jeopardy by attempts to interfere with and control the domestic affair.- of the people in the Territories, through the agency of the Federal Government. If the power and the duty of Federal interference is to be conceded, two hostile sect-icn~al parties must be the inevitable result the one infiamir)g the passions and ambitions of the North, the other of the South, and each struggling to use the Federal yower snd authority for the aggrandizement of its own section, at the expense of the equal rights of the other, and;n derogation of those fundamental principles of self-government which were firmly established in this country by the American Revolution, as the basis of our-entire republican system. During the memorable period of our poli.tecal history, when the advocates of Federal intervention upon the sub ject of Slavery in the Territories had well-nigh~ ” precipitated the country into revolution,” the Northern Interventionists demanding the Wilmot Proviso for the prohibition of Slavery, and the Southern interventionists, then few in number, and without a single Representative in either House of Congress, insisting upon Congressional le,gislation for the protection of Slavery in opposition to the wishes of tl: - people in either case, it will be remembered that it required all the wisdom, power and influence of a Clay and a Webster and a Cass, supported by the conser vative and patriotic men of the Whig and Democratic par ties of that day, to devise and carry out a line of policy which would restore peace to the country and stability to the Union. The essential living principle of that policy, as applied in the legislation of 1850, was, and now is, non intervention by eCn,gressw~ia,81alvery in~ te Territo ries. The fair application of this just and equitable prin ciple restored harmony and fraternity to a distracted court GEN. LANE’S ACCEPTANCE. WrASHINGTO.N, J.1n.e 30, 1M0. HoN. CALEB CUSHING, PRESIDENT OF THE DEMOCRATIC NA TIONAL

CONVENTION: SIR  have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the communication you make in behalf of the Democratic National Convention, in which you inform me tlat, on the’ 23d inst., I was unanimously nominated by that party for the office of VicePresident of the United States, with the request that I shall accept the nomination. The platform adopted, and of whioh you inclose me a copy, meets with my hearty approval, as it embodies what I have been contending for as the only means of stopping sectional agitation, by securing to all equality and constitutional rights, the denial of which has led to the present unhappy condition of public affairs. .Compromises of constitutional principles are ever dangerouis, and I am rejoiced that the true Democracy has seen fit to plant a firm foot on the rock of truth, and to give the people an opportunity to vindicate their love of justice and fraternal regard for each other’s rights. Nonintervention on the subject of Slavery, I may emphatically say, is that cardinal maxim of the Democracy -nonintervention by Congress and nonintervention by Territorial Legislatures, as is fully stated in the first resolution of the adopted platform. In vain should we declare the former without insisting upon the latter; because, to permit Territorial legislatures to prohibit or establish Slavery, or by unfriendly legislation to invalidate property, would be granting powers to the creature or agent, which, it is admitted, do not appertain to the principal, or the power that creates; besides which, it would be fostering an element of agitation in the Territory that must necessarily extend to Congress and the people of all the States. If the Constitution establishes the right of every citizen to enter the common territory:,ith whatever property he legally possesses, it necessarily devolves on the Federal Government the duty to protect this right of the citizen whenever and wherever assailed or infringed. The Democratic party honestly meets this agitating question, which is threatening to sever and destroy this brotherhood of States. It does not propose to legislate for the extension of Slavery, nor for its restriction, but to give to each State and to every citizen all that our forefathers proposed to give-namely, perfect equality of rights, and then to commit to the people, to climate, and to soil, the determination as to the kind of institution best fitted to their requirements in their constitutional limits, and declaring as a fundamental maxim, that the people of a Territory can only establish or prohibit Slavery when they come to form a constitution, preparatory to their admission as a State into the Union. If, happily, our principles shall prevail, an era of peace and harmony will be restored to our distracted country, 212

Page 213 view page image

FITZPATRICK DECLINES-BELL ACCEPTS. try. If we now depart from that wise and just policy which produced these happy results, and permit the country to be again distracted; if precipitated into revolution by a sectional contest between ProSlavery and Anti-Slavery interventionists, where shall we look for another Clay, another Webster, or another Cass to pilot the ship of State over the breakers into a haven of peace and safety? The Federal Union must be preserved. The Constitution must be maintained inviolate in all its parts. Every tight guaranteed by the Constitution must be protected by law in all cases where legislation is necessary to its enjoyment. The judicial authority, as provided in the Constitution, must be sustained, and its decisions implicitly obeyed and faithfully executed. The laws must be administered and the constituted authorities upheld, and all unlawful resistance to these things must be put down with firmness, impartiality and fidelity, if we expect to enjoy and transmit unimpaired to our posterity, that blessed inheritance which we have received in trust from the patriots and sages of the Revolution. With sincere thanks for the kind and agreeable manner in which you have made known to me the action of the Convention, I have the honor to be, Your friend and fellow citizen, S. A. DOUGLAS. Hon. Wm. H. LUDLOW, of NewYork; R. P. DICK, of North Carolina; P. C. WICKLIFF, of Louisiana, and others of Committee. the pr o priety of acting in so gra ve a m atter w ith greater delibera tion, I c oncluded, as I informed you at the time by a private note, to d-fer a formal a cceptan ce unt il after my arrival at home. Now that I have had a11 the leisure I could desire for re - flection upon the circumstances un de r which the nomluntion was made, the purity of the mo tiv es a nd th e lfty spirit o f patrio tism by which the Convention was animated, as evinced in all its proceedings, I.can appreciate more justly the hon or don e me by the n omination; and though it mi ght have b ee n m ore f ortunate for the country had it fallen upon some one of the many distinguished statesmen whose names were brought to the no tice of the Convention, r ather than myself, I acc e pt it, with a l i t s possible responsibilities. What ever may be the issue of the ensuing canvass, as for myself, I shall ever regard it as a proud distinction-on e worth a lifelong effort to attainto be pronounced worthy to receive the highest offic e in t h e Gove rnment a t such a time as t h e e present, and by such a Convention as t hat whi ch r ecent ly m et in Baltimore-a Convention far less imposing by the number of it s members, lar ge a s it wa s, than by t heir high chara cter. In it were men venerable alike f or their age and their public s ervices, who could not have been called f rom their voluntary retirement from publ ic life, but by the s tron gest sense of patrio tic duty; others, though still in t he prime of lif e, ranking with the first men of the country by honors and d i stinctions already acquired in high officia l positi on s, State and national, many of them statesmen worthy to fill the highest office in the government; a still greater number occupying the highest rank in their respective professional pursuits; o t he rs distinguished by their intelligence and well-earned influence in various walks of private life, and all animated and united by one spirit and one purpose-the result of a strong con vic tion that o ur poli tical system, under the opera tion o f a complication of disorders, is rapidly approachi ng a crisis when a sp eedy c han ge must take place, indicating, as in diseases of the p hys ical body, recovery or death. The Convention, in discardin g th e use of platforms, exact no pledge from th ose whom they deem wort hy of the highest trusts under the Government; wisely considering that the surest guaranty of a man’s future usefulness and fidelity to th e great interests of the c ount ry, in any official station to which he may be c hos en, is to be found in his past history connected with the public service. The pledge impli ed in my accept ance of the nom ina tion of the Nati o nal Union Convention is, tha t sho uld I be elect ed, I will not depart from th e spirit and tenor of my past course; and the obligation to keep th is pl edge deri ve s a doublre force f rom the consideration that none is required from me. You, sir, in your letter cont aining the official announce ment of my nomination, ha ve been pleased t6 ascribe to m e the merit of moderation and justice in my past public , career. You ha ve l ikewise givn m e credit for a uni form support of all wise and beneficent measures of legis lation, for a firm resistance to all measures calculated to engender sectional dis cord, and for a lifelong devotion to the Union, har mony, and prosper ity of these State& Whether your personal partiality has led you to over state my merits as a public man or not in your enumera tion of them, you have pre sent ed a summary-a basis of all sound Amer ican statesmanship. It may be objected that nothing i s said in thi s summa ry, in express terms,of the obli gations imposed by the Constitution; but the duty to respect and observe them is clearly implied, for without due observance in the conduct of the Govern ment of the Constitution, its restrictions, and require ments, fairly interpreted in accordan ce with its spirit and objects, there can be no end to secti onal d iscord-no security for the harmony of the Union. I have not the vanity to assume that in my past con nection with the public service I have exemplified the course of a sound American statesman; but if I have deserved the favorable view taken of it in your letter, I may hope, by a faithful adherence to the maxims by which I have heretofore been guided, not altogether to dis appoint the confidence and expectations of those who have placed me in my present relation to the public;, and if, under Providence, I should be called to preside over the affairs of this great country as the Executive Chiefof the Government, the only further pledge I feel calned upon to make is, that the utmost of my ability, and with what ever strength of will I can command, all the powers and influence belonging to my official station,shall be employed and directed for the promotion of all the great objects for which the Government was instituted, but more espe cially for the maintenance of the Constitution and the Union against all imposing influences and tendencies.

I cannot conclude this letter without expressing my highs gratification at the nomination to the second office under the Government, of the eminently-gifted and di MR. FITZPATRICK DECLINES. WASHINGTON, Ju.e 25, 1860. GENTLEMEN: Your letter of to-day, informing me that I “have been unanimously nominated by the National Convention of the Democratic party, which met at Charleston on the 23d day of April last, and adjourned to meet at Baltimore on the 18th day of June, as their candidate for the office of VicePresident,” was duly received. Acknowledging with the liveliest sensibility this distinguished mark of your confidence and regard, it is with no ordinary feelings of regret that considerations, the recital of which I will not impose upon you, constrain me to decline the nomination so flatteringly tendered. My designation as a candidate for this high position would have been more gratifying to me if it had proceeded from the united Democracy-united both as to principles and men.

The distracting differences at present existing in the ranks of the Democratic party were strikingly exemplified both at Charleston and at Baltimore, and, in my humble opinion, distinctly admonish me that I should in no way contribute to these unfortunate divisions. The Black Republicans have harmoniously (at least in Conve ntion) presented their c andidates for the Presidency a nd VicePres idency. So have the Con stitutional Union party (as it is termed). Each party is already engaged in the contest. In the presence of such organizations we still, unfortunately, exhibit a divided camp. What a melancholy spectacle! It is calculated to cause every Democratic citizen who cherishes the Constitution of his country to despor.d, if not to despair, of the durability of the Union.

Desirous, as far as I am capable of exercising any influence, to remove every obstacle which may prevent a restoration of the peace, harmony, and perfect concord of that glorious old party to which I have been inflexibly devoted from early manhood-a party which, in my deliberate opinion, is the only real and reliable ligament which binds the South, the North, the East, and the West together upon constitutional principles-no alternative was left to me but that which I have herein most respectfully communicated to you. For-the agreeable manner in which you have conveyed to me the action of the Convention, accept my sincere thanks. Very truly your friend and obedient servant, B. FITZPATRICK. To WM. H. LUDLOW, of NewYork, And others. The Democratic National Committee subsequently nominated the Hon.

Herschel V. JohnsoD, of Georgia, who accepted the position. MR. BELL

ACCEPTS. NASHVILLE, May 21, 1860. DEAR SIR: Official information of my nomination to the Presidency by the National Union Convention, of which you were the presiding officer, was communicated to me by your letter of the 11th inst., at Philadelphia, on the eve of my departure with my family for my place of residence in Tennessee; and diffident as I was of my worthiness, I did not hesitate to signify my intention to accept the position assigned to me by that distinguished and patriotic body. But for convenience, and under a sense of 213 0

Page 214 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. tinguished statesman of Massachusetts, Edward Everett, ing a single eye to that meritorious object. As far asthe a gentlemen held by general consent to be altogether purchase of Mount Vernon is concerned, that object has worthy of the first. been effected, under the judicious and efficient man Tendering my grateful acknowledgments for the kind agement of the Rlegent and Vice-Regents of the Assoand complimentary manner in which you were pleased clation, with the aid of their intelligent and active assisttoaccompany the communication of my nomination, I ants throughout the Union. But a sum of money equal am, dear sir-, with the highest respect, to that already raised is still wanting for the repair of Your obedient servaut, JoHN

BELL. the Mansion, the inclosure of the land purchased, the To the Hon.

WASHINGTON iHUNT. restoration of the house and grounds, as far as practi cable, to their condition in 1800, and the establishment MR. EVERETT’S

ACCEPTAN’CE. of a permanent fund for their conservation. I own that I am desirous still to enjoy the privilege of coope BOSTON, May 29,1860. rating in this noble work, which, however, it will be im MT DWAR SIR: I have duly received your letter of the possible for me to do to any advantage, whatever may llth, in which you inform me officially, that the National be the result of the present canvass, if I am drawn into Union Convention, recently in session at Baltimore, had the vortex of a strenuously contested election. There done me the honor to nominate me as its candidate for are many parts of the country which I have not yet the office of VicePresident of the United States. visited. I had promised myself a rich harvest from the I am deeply impressed with this manifestation of the patriotic liberality of the States on the Gulf of Mexico, favorable opinion of the Convention, comprising as it did and of those on the Mississippi River (which I have not among its members so many persons distinguished for yet been able to visit, with the exception of Missouri, public service, patriotism and intelligence; and fairly through often kindly invited), and I confess that it is representing a considerable portion of the conservative very painful to me to withdraw from that broad field feeling of the country. For the great cordiality with of congenial labor to tread the thorny and atakle88ss which, as you inform me, my name was proposed and paths of politics. received, my warmest thanks are due. Apart from the pecuniary aspects of the case, which, The grateful acceptance of such a nomination would, however, are of considerable importance, I will candidly under ordinary circumstances, be a matter of course; say that in holding up to the admiring veneration of the but it has unavoidably been with me the subject of long American people the peerless name of Washington, and anxious hesitation. The grounds of this hesitation I (almost the only bond of fraternal sentiment which the owe it to the Convention which has honored me with bitterness of our sectional controversies has left us), I this mark of its confidence, and to myself, to explain; feel as if I was doing more good, as far as I am able to loath as I am to dwell on matters of personal interest do any good, and contributing more to revive the kindly of no importance to the public. feeling which once existed between North and South, It is generally known that I have, for some years and which is now, I grieve to say, nearly extinct, than I past, retired from active participation in political life, could possibly do by engaging in the wretched scramble not, as I hope I have shown, from indolence or want of for office-which is one great source of the dangers that sympathy with my fellow-citizens in the pursuit of the threaten the country. great objects of social life. The reasons of my retire-These considerations, and others of a still more personal ment have been more than once publicly stated, and I nature, have necessarily occasioned me to reflect long and beg to repeat them here from my speech at the Union anxiously, before accepting the nomination with which meeting in Faneuil Hall last December: the Union Convention has honored me. In yielding at “I did not suppose that anything could occur which length to the earnest solicitations which have been adwould make me think it my duty to appear again on this dressed to me, from the most respectable sources in almost platform, on any occasion of a political character; and every part of the Union, I make a painful sacrifice ot had this meeting been of a party nature, or designed to inclination to what I am led to believe a public duty. It promote any party purposes, I should not have been has been urged upon me, and I cannot deny that such is here.

When compelled, by the prostration of my health, my own feelings, that we have fallen upon times that call five years ago, to resign the distinguished place which I upon all good citizens, at whatever cost of personal conthen filled in the public service,it was with no expectation, venience, to contribute their share, however humble, to no wish, and no intention of ever again mingling in the the public service. scenes of public life. I have, accordingly, with the par-I suppose it to be the almost universal impression-it is tial restoration of my health, abstained from all partici-certainly mine-that the existing state of affairs is expation in political action of any kind; partly because I tremely critical. Our political controversies have subhave found a more congenial, and, as I venture to think, stantially assumed an almost purely sectional charactera more useful occupation, in seeking to rally the affec-that of a fearful struggle between the North and the tions of my countrymen, North and South, to that great South. It would not be difficult to show at length the name and precious memory which are left almost alone perilous nature and tendency of this struggle, but I can of all the numerous kindly associations which once only say, on this occasion, that, in my opinion, it cannot bound the different sections of the country together, and be much longer kept up, without rending the Union. I also because, between the extremes of opinion that have do not mean that either of the great parties in the country long distracted and now threaten to convulse the coun-desires or aims at a separation of the States as a final try, I find no middle ground of practical usefulness, on object, although there are extremists in considerable which a friend of moderate counsels can stand.”

numbers who have that object in view. While a potent It having been suggested to me, notwithstanding these and a baleful influence is exercised by men of this class, avowals, that I might be thought of, at the Union Con-in both sections of the Union, a portion of the conservavention, as a candidate for the Presidency, I requested, tive masses are insensibly and gradually goaded into conby telegraphic message and by letter, that my name, if currence with opinions and sentiments with which, in the brought forward, might be withdrawn. It is true that in outset, they had no sympathy. Meantime, almost wholly these communications I had only in view a nomination neglecting the main public interests, our political controto the Presidency, none other having been suggested to versies turn more and more on questions, in reference to me; but all the reasons above indicated, which led me which, as abstract formulae, the great sections of the in advance to decline such a nomination, apply with country differ irreconcilably, though there is nothing equal force to the VicePresidency. These reasons, of practically important at stake which requires the discuscourse, still exist in unimpaired force, and I cannot now sion to be kept up. - These controversies are carried on take an active part in politics without abandoning a with steadily increasing bitterness and exasperation. The deliberately formed purpose, and even exposing myself passions thus kindled have already led to acts of violence to the suspicion of insincerity in its persistent avowal. and bloodshed, approaching to civil war in the Territories, Without dwelling upon these considerations, of which, and attempted servile insurrection in the States. The however, I am sure the weight will be admitted, I beg great religious and philanthropic associations of the counleave to advert for a moment to my connection with the try are sundered, and the kindly social relations of North movement for the purchase of Mount Vernon, to which and South seriously impaired. The national House of your letter alludes in such obliging terms. The favor Representatives, hovering on the verge of anarchy, rewhich has attended my exertions in that cause (if I may quires weeks to effect an organization, which ought to be without indelicacy say anything on that subject) has been the work of an hour, and it holds its sessions (many of its mainly the result of my known and recognized discon-members, I am told, armed with concealed weapons), on nection from party politics. If it could have been even the crust of a volcano. The candidates for the Presidency plausibly insinuated that I was, or intended to become, representing respectively the dominant sectional ideas, a candidate for high political honors, I should, in my will, at the ensuing election, in all probability, be supvarious excursions in aid of that fund, have laid myself ported by a purely geographical vote. In other words, open to the imputation of speaking one word for Mount we are already brought to a pass, at which North and Vernon and two for myself.

As it is, the people through South cannot and will not cooperate in the periodical out the Union have generously given me credit for hav-reorganization of the Government. 21.4 I

Page 215 view page image

EVERETT ON SUMNER, AND GEORGIA ON EVERETT. blood of an unarmed, defenceless man, and he a Senator of Massa c huse tt s * i f b y layin g down my life this hour, I could undo what has been done the last two years (beginning with the disastrous repeal of the Missouri Compromise) to embitter the different parts of the country against each other, and weaken the ties which unite them, I would willingly, cheerfully, make the sacrifice. In a letter, written subsequently, in explanation ofthese remarks, Mr. Everett said I have condemned from the outset, and still most decidedly condemn the policy of the late Administration towards Kansas. I opposed the KansasNebraska bill in the Territorial Committee, of which I was a member. Ii voted against the amendment to the bill by which the Missouri Compromise was repealed. I opposed the bill to the best of my ability, in a speech delivered in the Senate on the 8th of February, 1854, of which I send you a copy; and I should have voted against it on its passage (as I stated in my place at the next meeting of the Senate) had not severe illness compelled me, at 31 o’clock in the morning, to leave the Senate chamber before the vote was taken. I informed my Southern political friends, when the bill was brought in, that it ought to be entitled a bill to ” annihilate all conservative feeling in the nonslaveholding States.” With these views of the subject, though, as I trust, for reasons higher than any effect on party politics, Ifally eoncurred in the main ine, of arguimex in Ms. Sy/rer’s speech. Abstaining, however, habitually myself from all personalities in debate, and believing that they always irritate and never persuade nor convince I could not of course bestow my ” unqualified approbation” on the manner in which lie treated the subject. Can such a state of things long continue, especially with the ever-present risk of new causes of exasperation? I own it seems to me impossible, unless some healing course is adopted, that the catastrophe, which the mass of good citizens deprecate, should be much longer delayed. A spirit of patriotic moderation must be called into action throughout the Union, or it will assuredly be broken up. Unless the warfare of inflammatory speeches and incendiary publications is abandoned, and good citizens, as in 1776 and 177, North and South, will agree to deal with the same elements of discord (for they existed then as now), as our Fathers dealt with them, we shall but for a very few years longer be even nominally brethren of one family. The suggestion that the Union can be maintained by the numerical predominance and military prowess of one section, exerted to coerce the other into submission, is, in my judgment, as self-contradictory as it is dangerous. It comes loaded with the death smell from fields wet with brothers’ blood. If the vital principle of all republican government “is the consent of the governed,” much more does a union of coequal sovereign States require, as its basis, the harmony of its members and their voluntary cooperation in its organic functions.

Believing, for these reasons, that healing counsels must be listened to, if we are much longer to remain one people, I regard the late National Union Convention as a movement in the right direction. I could wish that it had been earlier assembled; with less exclusive reference to official nominations, and with a more comprehensive representation, if possible, of the conflicting opinions of the country. On general principles and in ordinary times, I admit that third parties are objectionable, but in the existing state of affairs, if there is to be any escape from the present illomened conflict, it would seem that a commencement must be nmade with such a meeting as that of the 9th and 10th, at Baltimore. It was a fair representation of the conservative opinion of the country; and the calmness, gravity and good feeling with which its proceedings were conducted, cannot be too highly praised. In adopting as its platform the Constitution without note or comment, the Convention, as it seems to me, pursued a wise and patriotic course. No other course was thought of in the earlier days of the Republic. Electioneering platforms are almost without exception equivacal and delusive. It is objected that men differ as to the meaniqg of the fundamental law; but they differ not less as to afiy gloss or commentary. The Constitution, in its fair and natural interpretation, is the only basis on which good citiz’ns in every part of the country can now unite; and any attempt to go further will usually have no other effect than to cause those who agree on great practical principles to differ on metaphysical subtleties, or to bring together, by artfully constructed phrases and from selfish motives, those who have nothing else in common.

The candidate for the Presidency, presented by the Union Convention, is every way worthy of confidence and support. I speak from personal knowledge and long association with him in the public service. His distinguished talent, large experience in public affairs, proved integrity and sterling patriotism furnish the amplest pledge for an h onest and e ffici ent admini stra tion o f the government at home and abroad. A c itizen of the South, and loyal to her constitutional rights, his impartial and conciliatory course as a public man affords a ground on which he can be supported in either section of the country, without dereliction of principle, and by men of all parties, without a painful sacrifice of former preferences. Deeply regretting that the Convention has not put it in my power to pay an equally cordial and emphatic tribute to soime worthy candidate for the VicePresidency, but feeling it a duty to give the desired proof of sympathy with their patriotic efforts to restore the happy days of brotherly concord between the different sections of our beloved country. I remain, dear sir, sincerely yours, EDWARD EVEReTT.

GEORGIA ON EVERETT. On the accession of Gen. Har ris on to the Presidency, in 1840, he nominated the Hon. Edward Everett as minister to Eng,land, and this nomination was resiste d with gre at pertinacity by the entire force of the Democratic party in the Senate, on the ground of Mr. Everett’s Anti-Slavery sentiments, already quoted. The Whigs having a maj ority in the Senate, the nomination, after a seve r e strugglet was c on fi rmed.

Amono th ose voting for the Co nfirmation was the Hon. James McPherson Berrien, of Georgmia; but h is vote on this occa - sio n was so distaste ful to the people of Georgia th at the legislature of that State adopted the following resolve: Reso~evd, That the opinions publicly proclaimed by Edward Everett, now mirister to England, of the power and obligation of Congress to abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, to interdict the slavetrade between the States, and to refuse the admission into the Union of any Territory tolerating Slavery, are unconstitutional in their character, subversive of the rights of the South, and if carried out, will destroy this Union; and that the Hon. John McPherson Berrien, in sustaining for an important appointment, an individual holding such obnoxious sentiments, has omitted a proper occasion to give an efficient check to such sentiments, and in so doing has not truly represented the opinions or wishes of the people of Georgia, of either political party.

The vote of the legislature on the adoption pf this resolve was: In the Senate, Ayes 40; Nays 0. In the House, Ayes 101; Nays 40. JUDGE DOUGLAS ON

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. In a speech delivered at Springfield, Ill., in 1849, Senator Douglas, in speaking of the M]is. souri Compromise, said: It has received the sanction of all parties in every section of the Union. It had its origin in the hearts of all patriotic men who desired to preserve and perpetuate the blessings of our glorious Union-an origin akin to that of the Constitution of the United States, conceivdl in the same spirit of fraternal affection, and calculated to remove forever the only dangs er w hich seemed to threaten at some distant day to sever the sacred bond of Union. All the evidences of public opinion seem to indicate that this Compromise has become canonized in the hearts of the American people as a sacred thing, which no ruthless hand would be reckless enough to disturb.

MR. EVERETT ON SUMNER. Soon after the brutal assault on Charles Sumner, in 1856, Mr. Everett, iii some remarks delivered at Taunton, Mass., referred to the subject as follows: The civil war, with its horrid train of pillage, fire, and slaughter, carried on, wvithout the slightest provocation, against the infant settlements of our brethren on the frontier of the Union; the worse than civil war which has for months raged unrebuked at the Capital of the Union, and has at length, by an art of lawless violence, of which I know no parallel in the histor y of Const itutional Government, stained the floor of the Senate chamber with the I 21

Page 216 view page image

POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. D!C~ I mq M3_ 1856. 1852. 1848. 1844. 1840.

COUNTIES..o, 9 c 0O 0 0i.11c 0 S D. c’ 5~ Androscoggin… 8888 1699 186 Un organi zed. Aroostook…. 837 795 8 724 787 80 431 868 106 898 907 24 289

480 Cumberland… 8211 5258 605 4471 6504 1379 4797 5989 1744 4483 6367

695’ 6790 6488 franklin……. 2529 1858 21 997 1810 596 886 1431 810 1182

1609 392 1848 2058 Hancock…….3667 2142 161 1809 2619 214 2075 2818 247

1849 2608 105’ 2434 2509 Kennebec….. 7320 2487 840 4489 2708 954 5056

2634 1656 5893 8535 561t 6905 8521 Lincoln…….. 4935 8598 892 5224 5168

563 5316 4670 967 4566 5854 461, 6286 5188 Oxford……… 4364 8116 28

1560 4049 697 1531 3601 1201 1887 4895 8971 2932 4800 Penobscot….. 7861

8798 841 8132 4513 1015 8916 4591 1528 8376 4898 695 4833 4445

Piscataquis…. 1734 915 97 698 851 881 937 1168 432 1047 1136 228 1275

1136 Sagadahoc….. 2956 934 897 Un organized. Somerset……. 4283 1926

417 2894 2019 457 2445 2085 1008 2840 2530 435 8684 2597 Waldo………

5159 3138 114 1379 8126 757 1768 8382 1107 1829 4661 816 2694 5069

Washington.. 3299 2867 64 2278 2690 211 2501 2446 449 2329 2605 771 2357

2285 York………. 6636 5054 154 8393 5270 726 3466 4697 841 8216 5117

453, 4785 5725 Total……..639 39080 3253 41609 8 03 0 35125 39880 12096

4378 9 436 46612 46201 Tt.|673791 89080…..82 8254$ 41609 8030t 35125

39880| 12096 84378 45719 86 62460 Fremont over Buchanan, 28,299; Pierce over Scott, 9,066; Cass over Taylor, 4,755; Polk over Clay, 11,841; Harrison over Yan Buren, 411. Mr. James G. Birney received 194 votes in this State, in 1840. N:E - AI PS IEE COUNTIES. Rep. tDem.. Am.. W7lig.

Dem. F. Soil. Whiq. Dem. FreeD. Whig. Dem. Albo. Whig. Dem. Frem’t Bluc’a: Fill’re. Scott. Pierce. Hale. Taylor. Cass. Van B. Clay. Polk.’ Birney.

Ha’son Van B. Belknap……. 2062 2220 21 787 1887 262 610 1769 834 864

1701 248 Unorg anized Carroll…….. 2185 2511 17 491 1825 850 589 1885

625 782 1816 233 Unorg anized Cheshire…… 8910 2269 56i 2068 2264 698

1881 2076 945 2358 2070 374 3688 2309 Coos………. 1200 1508 21 376 1491

167 230 1282 219 848 1364 108 525 1841 Grafton……. 5029 4620 89i 2043

4286 771 1927 4060 1104 2566 4046 631 8691 4978 Hillsboro’ 7081 5326 85

2985 4855 1447 2799 4773 1257 8124 4583 675 4084 5072 Merrimac….. 4949

4730 4’ 1627 4628 1001 1245 4218 1076 1589 8821 628 2755 5080

Rockingham… 5914 4915 lll 2506 4502 1071 2710 8972 982 2830 4007 584

4102 4984 Strafford…… 8566 2683 20: 2003 2250 498 1664 1912 495 1702

1808 830 5280 6755 Sullivan……. 2449 2007 28 1316 2059 430 1176 1866

523 1553 1944 850 2088 2299 Tota l……..38345 32789 422 16147 2999 6695

141 27763 756 0 1786 4161 1 2616 8261 …I…I Fremont over Buchanan, 5,556; Pierce over Scott, 18,850; Cass over Taylor, 12,982; Polk over Clay, 9,294; Van Buren over Harrison, 6,598. Mr. Birney received 126 votes in 1840. :R X OD I S L A N D. COUNTIES. Rep.. h. Dem. F. Wi Wq. hiQ Dem.

rieeD. Whig. Dem. Alo. Whig. Dem. Frem’t Buc’an Fill’re. Scott. Pierce.

Hlale. Tay6or. Cass. Van B. Clay. Polk. Birney. IHa’son Van B.

Bristol………603 337 21 8 628 367 21 590 131 18 589 109…… 476 136

Kent………. 1260 566 15 889‘748 83 690 818 52 786 881…… 669 872

Newport…… 1258 750 659 1249 1005 48 1207 232 113, 1229 478…… 914

417 Providence…. 6903 4482 3831 8888 5529 4831 8542 2515 8983 8751

3192…….2482 1711 Washington… 1443 595 452 1022:086 80 750 450 149

967 712 737 665 Total……..11467 6680 1675 7626 8735 644 6779 3646 730

7322 4867 107 5278 8801 Fremont over Buchanan, 4,787; Pierce over Scott, 1,109; Taylor over Cass, 3,133; Clay over Polk, 2,455; Harrison veV Van Buren, 1,977. Mr. Birney received 42 votes in 1840.

Page 217 view page image

Co~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, Co ~~~Co~o~Co~o ~………..o Co …….*..

_____ I _____________________~~~~~~1 Coo Co~~ ~~.. ~ Co Coo~~o~~ 0 __ Co __ Co ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 4 .,., ” . - . 3

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Col I~~~~o~~~o~~~o~Co~~o~~~o~Co~~o~~~oI 11 I I ~Co~oooo~o~o Co o~o~o~Co h Cq~o~ - ~~~~~Co Co~~~~~~ ~~~Co~~~o Co~~~~~~o ~~~~~ Co~~ I~oN ~~~~ Co~~~ EI i pq ,, 2 m ‘S i p co N p p g I E e 7; k; - F. .j Z i 1;2 :E 16 W4 Ez 0’ Q

Page 218 view page image

…..~~~~~m~~….. I o m -4 -~nY - H Co Co -4

Co ~~~~~~~~I ………. …. ”C’’ 0’:~:‘o…..0’…..C:’:...

.”’’” -~ ~.. m - . o. ~. -o =o-‘ >CC-cs vco~~~C cCoa~oo Co-tCot tC~o -ootCC-oCov i enooocnc-ooCCo~o Xo: CI CoQ-CCC r1 r1 t1 r 4 C CI1 CoCt~ 0l HCC~oo-C~oo Co]~~~~ ICr12 > oo oIoC~~oo-C Cow-oCI~tonoo CDU>CoHo~o o OO CO C coeCo&;Cotvt oic1<OoC-ocooo 2C -

CIoaCIoolCICIo~oumotzo ooc  o CICI o~C CCCI COtH~t~;oCIo~cIaCo 4CIC -o CoC-CoC - - Co Co CoCI-IOCoCCoHCO-Coo C hCI C3oXC-CQCC oo t C& oZCoC

HCIACIOCI AHC~ C]~ CICCI o oc~8X>contos C-MvCIt t o CoX~mtno ce CIC I -

Cos G- - H > C~COX ~ c >X H > t H X H X m H n Q. CI Qo C LO-oosCC

CosI-C~~ CIs CIsoI soo-CCC~oCC , t< C

-CsoIO>;5>>4sacrD~aXs>oo,0,^t~~o~XOo~~O * > 0L~~:~:30CQO^<eD;elO1:C

0O:…-: *: COO:Cf *. a o:3;tHo\ctoco>s~loc:t -C Sr C-C CH C]HHC] CH -
e CH C H C C C S X OP CH XCo - C]H - C -H > r1 CC~ort t C HPC]H HQ H H*H >

XC t4 - G C OX C - - -CH

Page 219 view page image

~: ……. 0~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -1 -1 -k 1 00

Coo~~oCoo~~o 41 ~~~~~~~~~~…….. t.,W- — - Co~~~~~ … 1
o C1 o ~ CooC oC~C C~ C o ‘o ~ — -C.,” ~.” W.,”oo. 1, -I Co Co CoCoCo CoCoCoCoCoCo NJ)’ CoCoCoCoCoCoCoCo 0 Co CoCoCo Co Co cm Co CoCoCo CoCoCoCo - Co CoCo CoCoCo 0 ~~ ~ . w Co ~ -o - ~c II- “…….C
o oC o o ~ C C C o o C .C.oC.. Co CoCoCoCo 0 0 Co CoCoCo Co CoCoCoCoCoCo CoCoCoCo CoCoCoCoCoCoCo CoCoCoCoCoCoCoCo Co CoCo CoCoCoCo CoCoCo Co CoCoCoCoCoCoCo - CoCoCoCoCoCoCo CoCoCoCoCoCoCoCoCoCoCoCoCoCo CoCoCoCoCoCoCoCo Co CoCo CoCo CoCoCoCoCoCoCoCocm Co Co CoCoCoCoCoCoCoCoCoCo CoCoCoCoCo CoCos Co: I C.~C C.i -.. t ” 0= “C1C~~11C
w ___oo,~o0oC,oo~0o “oC C. -.,. C Co 1010CoCo101010 Co CoZ

CoCoCoCo10CoCoCo Co I10Co CoCoCoCoCoCoCoCo Co - 10 CoCoCo10Co10Co 10 10Co CoCoCoCo10 CoCo 10 CoCooCo10Co Co10 Co Iq 11 E.

Page 220 view page image

Franklin…… Fulton…….. Gallatin……. Greene…….. Grundy…….

Hamilton…… Hancock…… Hardin……… Henderson…. Henry……..

Iroquois……. Jackson…….. Jasper……. Jefferson……

Jersey…….. Jo Daviess…. Johnson…….. Kane…….. Kankakee……

Kendall……. Knox…….. Lake………. La Salle……. Lawrence…..

Lee……….. Livingston….. Logan……… Macon……… Macoupin…..

Madison……. Marion…….. Marshall…… Mason…….. Massac……..

M’Donough…. M’Henry…… M’Lean……. Menard……. Mercer………

Monroe……. Montgomery. Morgan…….. Moultrie…… Ogle……….

Peoria…….. Perry……… Piatt……….. Pike……….

Pope……….. Pulaski…….. Putnam……. Randolph….. Richland……

Rock Island… Saline……… Sangamon….. Schuyler……

Scott……….. I L2 :) I v; 2021 24 s2a 9 112( g 751 1924 75C 14 32~ 6C

881 211C 857C 188( 1622 2851 2.34~ 3721 8C 58t 635~ 50( 82~ 111] 15( 100~

267 59~ 2869 1983 109 1141 844 162 96~ 154 2469 2082 20( 8~ 1053 1 1 21

532 709 89 1439 4 1174 88~ 1051 2724 764 1565 618 1135 2011 832 610 876

460 1056 679 12T8 702 1509 1144 912 258 834 1490 558 2665 729 601 480 823

821 1778 1451 1150 834 73? 630 1870 945 1517 854 769 900 992 1656 432 784

2459 671 810 2.t68 855 473 807 1222 786 1114 1004 2475 1369 843 251 898

423 719 6 162 999 229 158 4Ti 108, 822 158 426 530 44 74 29 60 13 277~ 10

121 583 82 72 484 898 1010] 1658! 413 1151 553 251 864 43 560 668 140 518

686 885 805 289 891 433 850 1010 2141 166 115 546 440 276 229 1612 570 536

196 1848 824 864 249 223 1286 244 547 857 378 847 258 895 651 1481 185

1160 Urn 515 1080 697 1204 510 478 164 568 855 841 15 285 546 561 268 840

5866 256 644 575 294 415 1397 292 899 1556 277 192 1745 820 112 800 575

174 764 209 2125 84 730 2192 592 1297 888 754 1466 212 4124 475 1466 512
rD8l 461 865 564 1425 751 1808 organi 582 1119 812 1894 589 573 214 489

486 1196 1715 762 579 621 449 838 1199 1058 698 498 1125 655 1411 263 755

1805 564 161 1762 439 246 248 814 109 686 633 1606 980 .708 298 12 64 84

84 91 22 89 122 642 ~ed. 252 891 519 552 77 12 74 81 28 61 5 -9 645 40 1

92 9 158 294 252 59 84 2.30 220 96 22 16 8 189 1685 285 858 128 125 1087

284 408 188 268 177 154 280 580 1772 67 855 892 880 821 86‘2. 464 300 82

465 258 710 1820 227 804 891 204 489 618 758 605 486 855 382 18T2 248 682

1237 289 182 1609 224 84 266 580 821 583 122 1943 807 798 469 1684 58?

1128 207 478 1074 287 291 822 248 22S 60~ 454 1892 290 783 878 727 446

1283 86~ 18( 867 86g 89~ 1503 689 822 403 308 416 528 626 488 815 546 538

1309 191 480 1161 844 188 1636 284 141 185 689 281 481 812 1336 804 649

871 6 86 68 67 65 228 28 5 2 98 18,4 1220 547 892 1088 873 185 102 1484

406 ‘800 49 125 747 186 42~ 142 204 185 14~ 22q 55f 1514 744 35] 74~ 88~

42] 42q 244 6d 81( 22] 64] 165q 18~ 231 28 25~ 165 45~ 498 586 897 410 804

855 1443 196 505 846 219 8l 1411 201 * 90 237 713 289 466 Un 1837 610 6T0
uv3 1530 124f 91 53 139 16: 294 16f 281 84 27T 86 45E 1581 885 104f 457

168 629 61] 611 81 1C 84i] 25~ 828 97 149 t 72~ 2{ 2 89E 492 661 47S 87&

821 74C 661 1421 254 883 1169 47 120 1421 848 208 228 771 822 897 organi 1371 74 610 - 7 1 % 48 14 299 142 162 181 126 48 6 12 6 41 74 22 12 89 95

55 22 11 140 114 zed. 71 1258 500 870 Unorg 126 181.8 154 Unorg 162 154

210 78 210 517 1079 109 810 Unorg 740 281 1080 676 241 85 260 250 632 1704

174 209 Unorg Unorg 472 846 688 484 815 870 811 1538 Unorg 491 744 174

Unorg 1149 891 Unorg 259 715 Unorg 426 2000 732 685 542 1847 1286 1175
anized 557 661 182 arized 86 175 837 178 727 860 680 440 774 anized 541

267 1688 i 597 280 i 78 16T 37T 812 1186 578 183 anized anized 427 271 5gl 874 198 563 520 1293 anized 266 767 881 anized 1087 268 anized 151 817
anized 224 1249 611 575 96 16~ 1 2~ 1016 94 1 90 lfi 139 189 4‘18 368 44

159 299 800 96 47 34 15

Page 221 view page image

P..-..c…. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~………… P-P- 0CD-I 0-0-CD I 0 OP-OP- 0

0 OP-0 0 I P-P- P-P- P-P- P-PSOP- P N~P-~~ ~ P-. P-‘ N P-P

-4 ~C P-!-, P-P-!-, P, - WE-P- -, f 11 0-0 00 - 0-0 - 0-i1 ~ — Z2 1.

0 0-0 .-100 C.” II- - t-0 1 .~0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~110 C. G

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l m 0 0 0 Iz  ~ 0-00  — O0-~ — 0 

PP  ~ 10 - 00~00 - – ,ww ~~- Wm0~0 010- -000 - 0-

0-~~0-~-1010 ~~~ 0-10~~ 0-~~0-0-I -I 0-0-0-~~~~~~~~~ 0-” — 0 -1’ 0-~-j~

~~~~~~~~~ t 0-0- 0 0-a 000~0-00 :, 0-0  w w 10-1010 I n 0 t? li tt I to p 1 5’ 1115 p I 0 Ic 0 F I tt 6 ,* 0. w P. Es E.:tw -w v tt

Page 222 view page image

Fulton…….. Gibson……. Grant……… Greene…….. Hamiltor…….

Hancock…… I-arrison…… Hendricks….. HJenry……… Howard…….

Huntington….. Jackson…… Jasper…….. Jay………..

JeLfferson…… Jennings…… Johnson……. Knox…….. Kosciusko…..

La Grange….. Lake………. Laporte……. Lawrence….. Madison…….

Marion…….. Marshall…… Martio…….. Miamni………. Monroe……

Montgomery… Mforgan……. Noble……… Ohio………. Orange……..

Owen……… Parke……… Perry……… Pike………. Porter………

Posey……… Pulaski…….. Putnam……. Randolph….. Ripley……..

Rush……….. Scott………. Shelby…….. Spencer…….

Starke……. Steuben……. St. Joseph….. Sullivan…….

*ewitzerland…. Tippecanoe…. Tipton…….. Union……….

Vanderburgh.. ermih.ion…… Vigo………. 30 810 423 909 766 736 1144

844 1100: 81( 104~ 175 852 142] 669 115 821 b55 45] 20~ 831 108~ 854 1634

25( 51( 51 111~ 1521 107~ 43~ 16~ 1036 88~ 1829 839 491 80~ 115 12 1367

809 90O 136~ 441 1384 496 803 683 1221 1006 1551 119 672 556 762 365 1286

766 942 1127 20 860 802 15 &5681 8 78 59 581 1127 836 944 901 1002 1278

980 1226 526 888 1188 847 500 2201 1104 1883 1003 988 67T 834 1468 1113

1282 2599 511 519 1196 1085 1852 1181 807 455 1022 1060 1084 659 688 527

1433 388 1.466 993 1386 1480 559 1627 710 122 543 1052 1203 1142 2446 461

626 181T 788 1155 241 78~ 470 7O4 972 721 128t 119( 165 8 14~ 68C 7~ 289

1674 90~ 631 1017 49( 891 11f 1069 989 911 163( 154 81] 81’ 71f 141’ 101, 24] Unor~ 70~ 56( 1836 56C 47z 22C 70( 5~ 157T 106~ 100( 152( 39~ 1016 5&9

809 4.1 10~ 150~ Unor~ 76C 62& 847 1511 835 1286 1035 1129 1185 1348 1681

1378 1229 686 1181 1700 548 880 1936 1159 1608 1512 1075 640 846 2239 1126

1603 8788 1089 ~769 1513 1191 208 1528 1198 505 1207 1239 1283 1066 772

614 1819 557 1882 1253 1661 1685 l6sx5 693 207O5 1260 155 53 1509 1650

1121 2307 738 710 188V 824 1808 I I I 2 3 1 5 6 7 5 5 1 0 2 9 4 1 6 6 8 7

1 3 9 8 7 0 4 9 3 9 1 6 0 7 8 2 4 1 2 7 6 3 822 865 1395 379 1748 962 873

1680 2741 1057 1232 299 633 888 2814 12‘93 1095 557 1662 1406 923 2532 480

1809 8696 927 76 1390 498 1910 1573 125T 104 49 487 1494 96 80 847 806 841

1345 2042 1425 1644 278 1510 285 112 1215 1812 257 228 2778 546 763 g72

866 1165 9 6 B 3 5 3 53 3 B 5 ) 2 3 3 76 24 74 49 &3 58 5$16 68 54 425 172

15‘13 585 13 6 8 45 660 54 205 850 88 892 142 68 48 879 606 586 192 632

574 10 625 27 428 59 184 83 264 142 808 87 19 6 397 1040 45 14 19 840 80

883 559 942 599 SS4 971 828 1284 1252 1559 589 706 614 857 875 2016 998

896 116T 1045 667 236 1357 1054 1004 2158 843 877 994 622 1559 1109 606

432 74T 901 1812 684 538 444 784 210 1712 900 1119 1507 518 1286 685 66

487 998 529 1184 1918 840 584 945 852 1694 428 860 325 918 809 665 1277

11.58 1216 Un 457 632 86 276 2075 926 676 10~4 797 629 188 1027 1070 824

1877 305 342 781 780 1501 986 49T 489 760 882 1398 599 519 348 763 1.3

164T 631 1114 1142 488 1121 681 Un 8i5 81T 465 10~3 1269 183 526 584 880

40 8O 62 92 80 80: 104 10o, organ 46 107 19 39 160 7s, 74 67 63 20 87 108

99 178 42 49 77 108 154 102 61 45 96 95 131 8 51 40 122 22 130 78 98, 139

44 141 4T organ 25 66 1141 110~ 15 68 66 77 85’, 39 1: 859 85t 317 4( 173

45e zed. 46 142 167 96 46 19~ 138 26 18i 108 594 864 684 688 537 861 652

889 177 7T87 95 265 1026 503 948 658 829 225 125 640 898 625 1279 194 866

244 943 1222 815 228 anized 879 221 948 221 318 194 965 60 1049 553 628

1170 861 1070 824 176 444 1014 735 1200 anized 614 870 668 588 20 845 4

401~ 40 156 456 165 88 88 135 286 59 20 26 117 58 136 14 88 110 56 5 76 87

100 182 79 2 3 2( 105 3 88 1 22 213 119 11 27 1 90 i74 7 148 7 149 6 4 8

844 796 853 762 859 719 1252 1262 1458 277 662 128 331 1835 BS2 659 1079

623 590 114 1009 1019 815 171~ 199 7 569 721 145 102~ 89( 193 70 75~ 1387

564 459 811 6T8 12~ 1540 81~ 106C 158{ 481 1197 586 828 868 464 961 1550

1010 682 675 787 1515 8 1 8 32 50 14 15 1 5 98 51 53 201 25 .54 12 8 24 8

1! 2 14 266 89 42 42~ 81 87 _ I 60 1 i 69 114 18c 22~ 1 109 9 7 I 10 12 5, 1 I1 1( 528 178 87 zed. 194 832 44 405 3 208 22 51

Page 223 view page image

POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. INDIAYA-(-Co tined.) 1856. 1852. 1848. 1844.

1840. COUNTIES.. -.._ :Rep. D~em. Am. BWWg. Dem.. FSoil. TVhig. Dem.

FreeD. Whiq. Dem. Abo. Whii. De.,. F.m’t Buc’a Fill’re. Scott. Pierce.

Hale. Taylor. Cass. Van B. Clay. Polk. Sirney. Ba’.on Van B. Wabash…….

1785 1096 108 1145 959 91 847 739 140 601 575 19 807 198 Warren…….

1167 767 76 850 552 56 708 460 68 779 470 10 737 847 Warric k……… 107

1 506 4 80 487 1 63 4 81 457 8 62 2 1 894 850 - 8,55 662 Washington… 881

1778 691 1098 1618 11 1126 1643 22’ 1149 1660 5 1188 1881 Wayne………

8688 1958 100 2304 1874 786 2085 1432 839 2821 1436 818 2869 1253

Wells……… 726 931 16 415 710 23 252 416 183 185 806 8 131 140

White………..70 7 46 42 510 5 36 13 206 805 84 259 218 - 206 144

Whitley……… 797 851 57 497 568 11 818 878 21 222 2-37 2 144 141

Total……..943751186T0 22386 80901 95340 6929 6990T 74745 8100 67867

70131 2106 6532 51604 Buchanan over Fremont, 24,295; Pierce over Scott, 14,439; Cass over Taylor, 4,838; Polk over Clay, 2,264; Harrison over Van Buren, 18,698. C O N N C T I a TJ W. COUNTIES. Rep. Dem. Am. W7tig. Dem.

F. SoiL Wltqig. Dem. FreeD. Whig. Dm. Abo. Whigq. Dm. * Frem’t Bttc’an Fill’re. Scott. Pierce. Hlale. Taylor. Cass. Van B. Clay. Polk. lrcy. Ia’o Van B. ,. Fairfield……. 6233 5589 928 4814 5155 167 5036 4064 462

5368 4599 142i 4871 3862 Hartford……. 8416 7087 809 6329 6689 461 6000

5845 810 6259 5624 2871 6216 4496 Litchfield…… 5481 8986 150 3946’

4082 413 8918 3674 800 4668 4%85 868 4542 8806 Middlesex….. 2887 2964

188 2065 2734 288 2136 2152 861 2824 2345 180 2276 2275 New Haven…..

7976 7315 604 6046 6097 424 5278 4516 806 5546 4726 229 5100 4012 New London… 5402 8958 350 8361 4079 637 4020 8421 776 4081 8709 804 8815

8148 Tolland……. 2407 1958 35 1703 2015 202 1665 1612 191 1964 1950 120

1991 1509 W’mdham….. 3913 2248 56 2095 2448 618 2266 2262 799 2620 2544

863 2790 2188 Total…….. 42715 34995 2615 30859 33249 3160 30814 27046

5005 82832 29841 1943 81601 25296 Fremont over Buchanan, 7,720; Pierce over Scott, 2,890; Taylor over Cass, 8,.68; Clay over Polk, 2,991; Harrison over Van Buren, 6,305. Mr. Birney received 174 votes in 1840.

:PEB NN S Y lV AN I A Dem. Am. 1Whig. Demn. F. Soil. Whig. Dem. Bucn’ae Fill’re. Scott. Pierce. Hale. Taylor. Cass. COUNTIES. P,.p. Adams……..

1120 Allegheny……1 1 86Tl Armstrong….. 2963 Beaver…….. 2658

Bedford……. 806 Berks……… 1087 Blair………. 4 45 Bradford……

6938 Bucks……… 4682 Butler……… 8401 Cambria…… 804

Carbon…….. 692 Centre………. 89 Chester……… 530 5

Clarion…….. 786 Clairfield….1.. 7 19 Clinton……… 618

Columbia…….1239 Crawford…….. 5863 Cumberland… 1472

Dauphin…….. 1612 Delaware…….. 159( Elk……….. 2T

Erie………. 5156 Fayette……. 2089 Franklin…… 2446 Fulton……..

14 5 Greene…….. 1823 Huntingdon.. 92 2 Indiana……… 3612

Jefferson…… 1063 Juniata………. 48( Lancaster….. 6608

Lawrence….. 8065 Lebanon…… 2414 Lehigh………. 82381

Luzerne…….4 4 85 Lyconming…..1 2 98 McKean……. 812 t 2 1 4 2 0 s 8 8 8 9 2 5 0 5 6 6 1 6 2 8 4 7 2 i I I i6 8 I I 1 8 8 0 7 i i I i i I I i I ii I i i’ 6 1 1 1 5 0 1 8 2 8 9 1 5 6 4 22, F,,-e D. Whig. Va. B. cl.y.

25i 2609 779 8083 141 1453 530! 2792 1 3147 51 4000 41 With 1780! 3235

1631 4862 173’ 224T 12 996 1 531 4 1860 50T 6070 8T 814 23 i 788 29 1738

621 2636 25 8092 34 8285 84 2090 16 101 3,5 T 8621 73 2804 4 8901 zed. .52

1418 25 4086 204 2200 19 591 1 1089 163 10295 er and Mere 2 2636 8 2553

176 2699 91 2012 221 840 A. TThq. D,-m. i,.ey. i ti.l.o. V.. B I 263T 9062

2680 1905 2458 11272 2069 231 651 264 298 186 289 633 27 197 148 288 3391

342 809 200 5T 258 85 34 97 2T4 21 176 14 13 878 122 251 442 679 83 52

1249 148 18 1 23 93 858 245 101 73 6 96 46 195 144 95 6 68 21 15T 243 101

5 28 11T 123 56 28 1 26 61 74 459 9 43 12 86 177 2T2 . 961 209 iso 227 491

259 852 492 283 146 74 191 5TO 121 99 99 116 27 287 867 20S 16 401 803 890

72 15 251 238 ill 5.5 1163 19 810 299 333 208 40 201 722 243 194 231 950

193 393 5T6 253 203 131 299 552 264 173 131 210 842 318 267 173 42 2T3 886
m 83 260 204 182 1 8 65T 10 211 849 53 279 59 81 965 142 861 5i 5 2811 us!

166, 15 838 1 28i 24i’ 2 996 - 1 29i lTi 14 611 i - 3i 1! i 36 2; 2T9: 22

614 1 1 2 79i ol 78,i 25T6 10112 2080 -2655 2886 5082 2476 82T2 5140 2505

1233 889 1856 5949 l3T2 761 911 2268 2204 8242 8To5 2194 134 3418 8045

4006 Un 14T6 2590 2410 887 850 11390 With 2996 29T8 8516 1992 36T 1762

6591 12126 2803 2816 9484 14’ 1889 5364 224T 1386 1181 2611 5360 2306 1168

96T 1 8396 2748 8lT8 2254 154T . 242 2022 8441 8199 organi 2379 1922 1544

992 856 6080 Beav 1862 8199 8991 22” 418 P.1k. 1891 5748 1983 2lT2 2989

86T4 Hunt! 8 81 5251 1 2 1123 905 2425 5550 1883 8T4 ST5 ‘3TO 8334 3155

2401 1466 128 2226 3429 8298 23,41 25T51 1448 T31 62 5943 ‘er. I T91 2811

0 2629 9 2453 7619 1260 3143 2910 8582 2631 4TO 210 811 Unorg 1448 564 6-8

490 63 132 2469 2T91 31 1 2081 Unorg I S636 2T55 8586 1350 3826 1953 % 476

966 96T8 23T 240 277 150 2 1628 45T3 1744 lTlO 2446 742,5 2SU 4488 1804’

920 nlzed 2242 4882 1366 812 649 2829 2908 2695 21ST 1835 nized 2061 3035

2892 2010 2266 1209 592 1043 674,0 1402 245C 4119 2181 i76 435 38 270 5 8
ngdon 1 63 2 185 2 7 10 7 1 139 16 15 9 74 85 is I - 80 5 21 2 19

Page 224 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. PE.‘N’SYL YA.NIA (Conoaieed). 1856. 1852.

1848. 1844. 1840. COUNTIES. Rep. Dem. Am. WTig. Dem. F. Soil. Whig. Dem.

Free D. Whig. Dem. Abo. Wtiq. Dem. Frem’t Boc’ao Fill’re. Scott. Pierce.

Hale. Taylor. Ca.. Van B. Clay. Polk. Birney H.’… Va. l Mercer………

3686 2699 118 2211 2693{ 769 2977 8094 1080 2840 2869 604 8247 2336

Miflin……… 216 1491 1050 1392 1620 - 1545 1586 26 1518 1519 9 1226

1269 Monroe……. 560 2275 69 418 2098 - 518 1830 3 414 1806 1 345 1447

Montgomery… 2845 7134 2265 4791 5767 160 5040 5627 251 4491 5596 49 4068

4869 Montour…… 666 1271 149 866 1455 - With Colum bia. Northampton..

1168 5260 1838 2978 4403 16 3191 4203 88 2776 3870 - 2846 8838

Northumberland 566 8059 1340 1619 2451 4 1765 2258 8 1547 2446 7 1351 2187

Perry……….521 2135 1407 1413 2159 - 1562 2295 5 1370 2821 - 1072 1970

Phladel phia. 7993 88222 24084 24566 26022 626 31229 21508 877 23289 18851

228 17844 18077 Pike………. 270 862 15 202 834 - 216 799 8 151 769 -

135 524 Potter………. 1264 667 6 263 661 825 226 468 248 240 554 50 180

863 Schuylkill….. 2188 7085 2682 4128 4758 10 4808 3490 85 2571 8404 3

1881 2184 Somerset…… 1458 1763 1405 2986 1203 28 3018 1127 21 2660

1035 6 2501 765 Snyder…….. 443 1255 1064 Un organi zed. Susquehanna…

8861 2548 51 2035 8046 215 1853 2563 301 1802 2697 93 1560 2022 Sullivan.

309 538 48 177 426 59 129 803 19 Un organi zed. Tioga……… 4541 1386

27 1564 2614 79 1264 1344 1039 1159 2193 23 895 1721 Union………. 1429

1092 186 3081 1994 - 8129 1656 25 2788 1765 18’ 2423 1518 Venango……

2041 2157 72 1164 1899 204 1061 1538 164 966 1877 65’ 855 1276

Warren……..2091 1231 49 1138 1433 243 948 1088 136 899 1149 17 827 929

Washington… 4237 4288 265 3810 4064 870 8898 8820 468 3872 3973 296, 4149 8611 Wayne…….. 2172 2259 118 1232 2362 21 997 1642 202 899 1657

15! 675 1188 Westmoreland. 4091 5172 299 8203 5509 119 3124 5197 122 2672

4978 711 2778 4704 Wyoming…… 1138 1171 74 807 1258 19 861 892 37 814

899 1] Unorg anized York………. 511 6876 4301 4700 5585 11 4838 5151 4

4237 5071 1 3792 4382 Total…….. 147510230710 82175 179174 198568 8525

135513 171 1126 161203 167585 813 8 144021 143672 Buchanan over Fremont, 83,200; do. over Fremont and Fillmore, 1,025; Pierce over Scott, 19,394; Taylor over Cass, 14,337; Polk over Clay, 6,332; Harrison over Van Buren, 349. Mr. Birney received 343 votes in 1840. L C;OUNTIES. A.em. De p..

Vhig. Dem. F. Soil. Whig. Dem. F eeD. Whpq. Dem. Abo. W7i,~. Dem. Scott.

Pierce. Hale. Taylor. Caes. VanB. Clay. Polk. Birney lla’soo Van B

Alleghany….. 1938 2248…… 1454 1976…… 1579 1620…… 1424

1491…… 1271 1093 Anne krundel.. 1043 927…… 834 889…… 1693

1486…… 1777 1503…… 1604 1384 Baltimore City. 16900 9882…… 9558

14035…… 10474 10995…… 8413 8866…… 7296 7326 Baltimore Co…

3504 3155…… 1946 8001…… 2527 2669…… 2301 2716…… 1941 262(: Calvert…….. 401 356…… 358 852…… 431 335…… 451 44…… 494

325 Caroline……. 638 743 555 500…… 492 580…… 680 552…… 687

535 Carroll…….. 2846 2099[……1702 1920…… 1763 1672…… 1784

1694……. 1554 1610 Cecil………. 1884 1845…… 1494 1550…… 1504

1444…… 1527 1504…… 1448 1814 Charles…….. 461 758…… 657

411…… 769 898…… 785 519…… 841 502 Dorchester…. 1292

979…… 1289 933…… 1867 820…….1377 903……. 1381 839

Frederick…… 8724 8304…… 3204 8342…… 8158 298,8…… 8190

2994…… 2958 2623 Harford…… 2074 1405…… 1353 1378…… 1521

1253…… 1517 1847…… 1542 1248 Howard……. 899 683…… 570

625…… With Anne Arund el. Kent……….. 833 550…… 662 551……

645 447 728 527…… 679 476 Montgomery… 1208 1126…….1061

842…….1057 771…… 1124 852…… 1099 665 Prince George.. 881 983

915 724…….1051 733…… 1054 666…… 1017 609 Queen Anne’s.. 904

741 723 735…… 725 612…… 749 722…… 778 661 Somerset 1593 1321

1443 1115…… 1413 1005!…… 1449 902…… 1516 844 St. Mary’s 247

1052 681 440…….78 422…… 783 468 895 415 Talbot……..749 9100

9……40 6 719 795 682 ~~~~~~~~749906…7076… 712{. 749 68

Washington… 2717 2670……. 2669 2723. 2688 2434…….2633 2565……

2484 2290 Worcester 1224 1428…… 1253 1182…….1351 1458

909…….1494 691 11T0a…..4 Total……..47460 39115’ 281 35066 54

87702~34528 125 85984 82676…….33528 2875% Fillmore over Buchanan, 8,345; Pierce over Scott, 4,954; Taylor over Cass, 8,174; Clay over Polk, 3,308; Harrison over Vim Buren, 4,776. :D.. COUNTIES. Rep. Dem. Am. Whiq.

Dem. F. Soil. Whig. Dem. FreeD. Whig. Dem. Abo. W7ip. Dem. FillPre. Bnc’ao Frem’t Scott. Pierce. Hale. Taylor. Cas. VanB. Clay. Polk. Birney. Hla’lso Van B. Kent……….. 1580 2083 - 1591 1422 - 1497 1336 1 1573 1416 -

1598 1096 Newcaeble….. 2625 8577 - 2768 8038 62 8090 2717 79 2816 2678 -

2821 2195 Sussex…….. 2020 2344 - 1934 1858 - 1834 1845 - 1869 1877 -

2058 1593 Tctal………6175 8004 380 6293 8318 62 6421 588 80 62,58 6971

- 5967 4884 Buchanan over Fillmore, 1,829; Pierce over Scott, 25; Taylor over Casn, 523; Clay over Polk, 287; Hlarrdon over Van Buren, 1,083. 224

Page 225 view page image

POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. OUTH OCAROLI-YA CHOOSES ELTOBRS BY

L~GISLATURE. 0:R I A_ 1856. 1852. 1848. 1844. 1840. Am. Dem. Whiq. Dem.

Whhi. D.. WhWhig. De. Fillmore. Buch’an. SCOtt. Pierce. Taylor. Cas. Clay.

Polk. [Harrison. Vn B. Appling……………96 2_8 13. 77 144 108 152 142

93 61 Appling………… Baker…………… Baldwin…………….

Berrien………….. Bibb…………….. Bryan……………

Bulloch…………. Burke…………… Butts…………….

Calhoun………… Camden…………. Campbell…………

Carroll………….. Catoosa………….. Cass……………..

Coffee…………. Chatham………… Chattahoochee…….

Chattooga…………. Cherokee………… Charlton…………..

Clarke…………… Clay…………….. Clinch……………

Cobb……………. Colquitt………… Columbia…………

Coweta………….. Crawford………… Decatur…………. De Kalb…………. Dade……………. Doherty………….

Dooley………….. Early…………… Effingham…………

Elbert…………… Emanuel…………. Fannin…………..

Fayette………….. Floyd………….. Forsyth…………..

Franklin…………. Fulton……………. Gilmer…………..

Glynn…………… Gordon………….. Greene…………..

Gwinnett………… Habersham……….. HalL……………..

Hancock…………. Haralson………… Harris……………

Hart……………. Heard………….. Henry……………

Houston…………. Irwin…………….. Jackson………….

Jasper…………… Jefferson…………. Jones…………….

Laurens…………. Lee…………….. Liberty…………..

Lincoln…………. Lowndes…………. Lumpkin…………

Macon…………… Mfadison…………. Marion…………..

McIntosh………… Merriwether…….. Miller……………

Monroe…………… Montgomery……… Morgan…………..

Murray………….. Muscogee………… 77 680 2T2 nized. 780 66 m. 28T

177 434 nized, .211 838 850 nized. 654 nized. 1175 nized. 816 660 nized.

226 nized. 48 975 nized. 259 650 867 295 1016 126 nized. 474 ‘ 874 64 107

174 nized. 582 494 589 485 nized. 89 40 584 172 42T 59 186 Return. ,rized.

839 nized. 410 526 503 192 108 872 93, 840 68 223 183 155 290 285 886 69

425 90 684 nized. 681 85 286 823 8T5 15 225 96 175 266 79 774 94 84 183

283 56 28 448 455 846 751 16 971 231 886 566 88 603 188 137 764 75 842 584

228 454 458 155 197 200 149 189 854 259 152 455 812 458 183 911 191 91 593

576 749 256 451 427 66 753 152 418 759 ti76 8O 453 882 876 135 406 229 18

212 292 468 885 215 495 49 648 20 656 201 268 240 983 268 453 8OO 220 959

183 460 940 887 251 186 754 1176 865 1205 16 1445 820 506 1146, 129 487

2T9 171 1251 106 456 882 878 896 665 24,0 266 419 299 171 524 273 571 724

847 798 972 882 820 119 890 283 1092 858 696 806 272 528 610 516 591 6O4

155 773 418 858 808 70 250 191 219 448 736 274 415 494 155 708 153 505 26

234 56T 710 13 101 177 Unorga 818 60 15 11 Unorga 81 158 18& Unorga 268

Unorga 805 Unorga 114 81 Unorga 189 Unorga 4 807 Unorga 110 215 161 220

565 65 Unorga T75 129 18 159 5 Unorga 267 867 106 66 Unorga 116 29 264 811

61 9:8 64 ,No Unorga 468 Unorga 258 428 273 12 45 132 91 166 ‘6T 189 D8 18

22 178 296 28 851 16 823 Unorga 879 14 189 287 , 651 144 841 382 705 123

43 598 269 106 281 475 988 843 402 660 624 Unorga 862 519 822 402 493 799

102_ 849 200 183 991 155 521 680 629 863 402 182 Unorga 827 745 425 521

478 870 415 989 697 86 561 409’ . 607 404 567 288 171 238 50T 652 888 836

510 11T 717 791 281 467 799 lBS0 108 634 822 806i 60 BOT 877 215 420 220

582 884 1518 741 898 983 495 nized. 1261 250 662 434 850 1097 258 571 505

99 161 207 717 673 747 ‘965 855 22 nized. 139 635 778 664 283 4O3 478 824

674 855 688 512 111 415 25 181 132 120 897 1097 271 826 477 98 768 ~ 664

24 8OO 1072 856 1152 223 706 103 17 556 244 104 205 855 655 817’ 284 517

596 142 606 307 862 72 410 411 435 218 543 768 1189 831 . 824 813 420 93

182 731 768 8o 25 593 185 166 168 276 561 590 186 869 617 61 204 748 22

884 208 889 191 427 487 T05 647 201 416 818 658 492 777 877 888 580 46 269

211 193 999 107 412 850 451 876 219 92 780 779 822 489 515 845 293 858 659

21 492 438 579 897 686 885 1T9 286 427 665 831 847 517 12T 688 ‘798 238

442 803 1190 943 807 644 454 846 967 247 ,0t 419 86 186 241 705 425 735

1058 511 23 182 763 964 696 830 463 486 819 723 223 664 586 108 455 15 121

190 179 862 1254 245 827 -256 114 926 7Q8 34 848 669 980 428 470 792 485

432 665 8 226 258 158 957 80 887 275 848 853 127 88 889 745 290 445 481

853 815 981 667 59 572 495 458 461 5156 304 144 817 422 855 869 857 404

119 755 796 167 478 278 1044 I 658 228 168 458 208 759 168 296 293 55 105

118 542 267 457’ 581 164 14 126 624 761 504 244 292 852 793 572 121 542

495 89 852 4 77 78 128 90 786 808 286 198 185 702 67T5 8 280 452 811

Page 226 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. IEORIA (Ctied.) 185;6. 1852. 1848. 1844.

1840. COUNTIES. Am. Dem. Whiq. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig. Dem.

Fillmore. Buch’an. Scott. Pierce. Taylor. Cass. Clay. Polk. Harrison. Vall II. Newton……………. 910 844 836 886 1045 502 1025 553 988 851

Oglethorpe……….. 894 451 60 179 636 193 626 241 654 127

Paulding…………. 191 776 44 827 852 420 218 394 227 207

Pike…………….. 491 630 184 509 828 892 659 877 560 624

Pickens……………198 425 Unorga nized. Pulaski…………… 240 417

83 281 820 423 247 457 241 275 Putnam………….. 294 853 229 284 899

294 430 851 468 810 Polk…………….. 871 259 119 147T Unorga nized.

Rabun……………. 72 407 4 144 55 207 84 258 80 212

Randolph………… 450 656 862 677 780 724 606 735 509 519

Richmond………… 1143 890 411 625 908 595 903 647 939 407

Scriven………….. 167 268 8 171 265 223 256 278 180 199

Stewart…………… 598 558 826 491 926 686 892 818 882 639

Sumpter………….. 855 701 825 452 733 587 650 444 449 176

Spaulding………… 540 545 856 377 Unorga nized. Talbot……………

547 442 430 441 819 788 855 912 912 807 Tallaferro………… 109 288 19

76 888 55 394 67 431 47 Tatnal………….. 186 19t 121 55 861 44 888 64

258 28 Telfair…………… 121 110 47 88 160 150 177 198 203 53

Tirrell…………… 813 238 Unorga nized. Thomas…………… 833 463

89 259 526 250 848 267 426 60 Taylor…………… 312 429 105 264 Unorga nized. Towns…………… 60 265 Unorga nized. Troup…………… 1005

412 596 422 1122 884 1055 487 1071 880 Twiggs…………… 178 287 113

267 881 414 889 467 411 873 Union…………… 261 454 97 228 412 641

237 554 107 860 Upson…………… 617 805 855 888 657 844 648 884 632

298 ‘Walker………….. 565 824 872 786 784 965 447 686 887 541

‘Walton………….. 460 684 111 899 544 741 555 763 516 619

Ware…………….. 6 125 1 36 193 161 187 125 215 85

Warren…………… 250 589 25 806 614 860 641 868 552 243

Washington……….. 699 564 286 451 692 626 629 595 593 453

Wayne…………… 39 181 10 65 58 69 138 95 74 51 WVebster………….

263 213 Unorga nized. Wilkes…………… 279 428 12 198 452 298 430 889

438 852 Wilkinson………… 282 531 94 502 473 498 387 560 428 474

Whitfield………… 598 733 298 644 Unorga nized. ‘Worth……………

83 227 Unorga nized. Total………….. 42228 56578 16660 84705 47544

44802 42100 44177 40261 81921 Buchanan over Fillmore, 14,850; Pierce over Scott, 18,045; Taylor over Cass, 2,742; Polk over Clay, 2,077; Hlarrison over Van Buren, 8,340. In 1852 a Webster Ticket received 5324, and an Independent Pierce Ticket, 5,811. V I J C, I’r I. . 1 Accomac………….

Albemarle……….. Alexandria………. Alleghany………..

Amelia………….. Amherst…………. Appomattox………

Augusta…………. Barbour…………. Bath……………..

Bedford………….. Berkley………….. Boone……………

Botetourt………… Braxton…………. Brooke…………..

Brunswick………. Buckingham……… Cabell……………

Calhoun…………. Campbell………… Caroline………….

Carroll………….. Charles City……… Charlotte…………

Chesterfield………. Clarke…………… Craig…………….

Culpepper……….. Cumberland………. Di.,widdie……….. a 226 830

1026 946 183 150 449 152 1904 825 180 1044 846 113 841 494 261 131 . 320

896 2T 1065 414 260 190 247 850 225 108 480 184 140 821 1092 677 883 276

431 1499 938 258 1015 99T 273 904 260 451 566 463 598 116 896 51T 68T 106

463 845 404 850 512 274 8,51 576 1163 ‘iS4 93 145 450 192 1664 824 157

1189 751 11T 421 887 281 18T 438 451 Unorga 1101 443 213 176 83T 409 . 863

92 44T 1 256 819 564 1106 57T 206 23T 559 852 1388 592 179 965 924 212 738

990 460 462 b3o 424 nized. ST9 621 488 89 869 854 886 238 461 252 1 304 5”

833 539 104 163 . 416 190 1354 287 152 . 886 608 68 462 73m 227 213 11 844

. 28T 794 367 179 142 290 296 209 Unorga &)4 235 282 295 619 225 149 198

413 822 723 484 124 534 544 128 683 ai 276 337 861 233 425 26T 58 803 t5o5

201 nized. 818 162 i2s 566 91T Part of 114 159 451 Unorga 1398 221 196 941

663 Unorga 394 186 42T 194 us 28T 833 4T6 121 202 83T 838 199 ‘896 2T4 210

472 702 Dist. C. iso 274 461 nized. 665 468 250 639 539 nized. 695 156 “3

408 596 846 656 463 268 43 846 604 220 298 207 818 739 ‘714 84 166 8T2

1204 203 919 599 40T With 350 261 475 481 718 899 Unorg 173 - . 818 298

174 ‘351 262 802 . 239 51T - 171 . 240 829 454 218 558 1 87.2 575 ewis 16

. 880 t)20 436 48T 1 467 .!zed. 80 82T 580 191 295 228 285

Page 227 view page image

POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. VIRGIXIA-(Congd.) 1856. 1852. 1848. 1844.

1840. COUNTIES Am. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig. De.er Whig. Dem. Whig. Dem.

Fillmore. 13uch’al. Scott. Pierce. Taylor. Cass. Clay. Polk. Varrison. a B. Doddridge……….. Elizabeth City…….. Essex…………….

Fairfax………….. Fauquier…………. Fayette…………..

Floyd…………….2 Fluvanna………… Franklin………….

Frederick……….. Giles…………….. Gilmer……………

Gloucester……….. Goochland……….. Grayson………….

Greenbrier……….. Greene………….. Greensville……….

Halifax………….. Hampshire……….. Hanover………….

Hancock…………. Hardy……………. Harrison………….

Henrico………….. Henry……………. Highland………… Isle of Wight……… Jackson…………. James City………..

Jefferson…………. Kanawha………… King George……… King William…….. King and Queen…… Lancaster…………

Lee……………… Lewis……………. Logan……………

Loudon………….. Louisa…………….. Lunenburg………..

Madison…………. Marion…………. Marshall………….

Mason…………… Mathews…………. Mecklenburg……….

Mercer………….. Middlesex…………. Monongalia……….

Monroe………….. Montgomery………. Morgan………….

Nansemond………. Nelson…………… New Kent…………

Nicholas…………. Norfolk City……… Norfolk County……

Northampton…….. Northumberland…… Nottoway………….

Ohio…………….. Orange………….. Page……………..

Patrick………….. Pendleton………… Petersburgh……….

Pittsylvania………. Pleasants………… Pocahontas……..

Powhattan……….. Preston………….. Princess Ann……… Prince Edward……. Prince George…….. Prince William…….

Pulaski………….. Putnam………….. Raleigh……………

Randolph………… Rappahannock……. i ai I a a 227 ed. 123 186 891

607 163 29T 244 6T4 SST 850 nized. 220 819 831 851 800 146 1041 694 482
nized. 272 760 405 258 nized. 470 804 89 624 442 117 88T 828 99 578 684

ITT 4T4 535 8313 til2 677 863 222 618 ITT 118 780 460 845 216 244 291 177

12T 403 591 116 276 182 402 288 628 886 ,D52 886 635 22T 210 504 251 877

226 -457 174 nked. 199 ITS 184 m 650 884 818 2TI 268 609 898 275 12T 268

198 266 792 5T b4 829 747 315 190 842 840 755 391 23T 142 488 122 845 1149

12T 73 .168 150 888 299 60 1979 24T 117 5T 4TO 981 708 186 2TI 214 128 609

731 468 829 ,445 520 169 866, 787 1008 835 249 140 1464 28T 5T 385 424 6T2

122T ITS 115 92 719 893. 74 233 200 891 228 218 441 190 298 72T 1081 869

483 809 1163 1351 439 267 37T 562 658 472 207 1173 1168 615 820 63T 1221

709 505 479 644 605 5T 946 658 206 274 438 160 916 712 411 858 632 486 750

1632 931 561 270 86T 492 249 144T 74T 653 319 416 418 193 298 644 1230 256

840 203 1632 43T 1034 594 500 836 1355 303 41T 244 1,232 397 429 806, 709

33t 896 141 441 86 iti6 2T3 608 928 265 384 440 620 1024 287 114 267 195

222 644 8T 67 405 649 450 241 8.58 601 646 830 170 171 439 9T 958 1226 132

99 169 136 403 224 173 1813 356 159 IOT 560 743 536 177 304 268 95 688 497

.501 270 500 591 IT4 252 767 921 298 208 122 1452 290 110 489 375 864 152

116 122 64T 409 227 91 190 174 128 801 285M 211 238 606 104.5 243 801 878

802 1421 850 824 872 896 26T 498 416 168 1096 1115 554 849 r)32 992 w 832

431 645 459 45 898 7T6 166 246 849 122 773 ti66 308 788 503 374 646 119T

721 476 2.% 680 2s9, 157 1308 499 490 259 462 444 -148 16T 792 1224 144

279 185 1186 m STO 899 881 759 877 237 240 243 92 842 302 282 534 223 8TO

63 887 ai 109, 120 135 820 503 184 225 190 606 884 842 178 19T 254 200 m 270 130 848 65T 427 216 271 611 893 251 288 893 283 81 594 272 112 284

2158 IOT b2l 522 117 420 441 272 486 669 52T 2T4 189 49T 184 125 809 469

806 201 280 229 101 90 448 650 95 234 143 418 281 595 272 809 833 689 d.

212 202 52T 299 253 215 412 141 183 nized. 213 Unorga n 133 229 410 761

240 216 805 619 so 26T’ Unorga 288 165 150 709 66 83 844 675 558 Unorga 538 479 678 806 Unorga 93 24T 103 725 983 16,5 109 250 189 23T 329 123

1506 864 196 e5 286 524 415 172 276 ITS 131 893 425 864 183 861 443 198

170 634 627 24,0 185 18T 89T 239 50 869 409 876 838 81 21ti 882 829 264

139 159 166 ‘Unorg 20T 133 186 489 685 25T 271 271 608 795 274 7T 185 168

198 658 63 79 895 581 410 161 52,5 443 t)92 815 101 105 239 99 788 742 149

93 224 18T 824 831 99 1453 30T 169 69 824 558 849 186 842 191 116 434 488

840 188 811 894 167 213 652 629 170 161 117 9TT 296 69 38T 285 ‘892 884

Unc,rga 106 154 460 373 211 127 20T 131 192 Unorga 201 804 141 241 866 683

199 I” 334 t)69 7b5 226 24T 120 455 568 62 110 422 729 450 497 828 445 811

89 258 141 667 82T 168 115 282 ITO 275 202 136 1269 875 228 58 406 180 819

146 101 681 408 838 179 383 404 198 173 529 561 834 183 182 922 231 45 842

889 245 ST6 10T 176 896 402 268 124 16T 142 85 125 221 533 183 279 153 515

743 293 lT9 833 5s9 808 230 156 964 605 462 230 1341 398 191 ti83 211 9
b92 324 129 806 305 87 489 109 189 381 475 302 532 4.62 804 220 b6l 124

128 1286 420 261 145 259 237 156 120 298 478 24 800 190 287 235 528 274

468 262 616 210 464 2T4 301 237 161 450 - 821 818 KO

Page 228 view page image

Wayne………….. Westmoreland……. Wetzel…………..

Wirt…………….. Wise……………. Williamsburgh…….

Wood……………. Wyoming………… Wythe…………….

York……………. York……………..194 114 129 90 118 86 118 109

192 12 60310 89706 58572 73858 45124 46586 Buchanan over Fillmore, 29,896; ]ierce over Scott, 15,286; Cass over Taylor, 1,462; Polk over Clay, 5,893; Van Buren over Harrison, 1,392. Fremont received 291 votes in this State, in 1856; and Van Buren 9, in 1840. A I A B A A _ COUNTIES. Am. Dem. Whigq.

Dem. Whi7. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig. Dem. Fillmore. Buch’an. Scott. Pierce.

Tayior. Cass. Clay. Polk. Harrison. Van B. Autauga…………..475 621

196 822 558 471 475 638 591

574~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Autauga………….. Barbour…………. Benton…………..

Bibb……………. Baldwin………….. Blount…………….

Butler…………… Covington………… Chambers…………

Cherokee………… Clark……………. Coosa…………….

Choctaw………….. Conecuh…………. Coffee……………

Dale…………….. Dallas…………… De Kalb………….

Franklin…………. Fayette……………. Greene…………..

Henry…………… Hancock…………. Jackson………….

Jefferson…………. Lawrence………… Lauderdale……….

Liuestone……….. Lowndes…………. Marengo………….

Morgan…………. Madison…………. Monroe……………

Marion………….. Marshall…………. I i 280 102 222 Unorga 87 645

42 883 129 I v 5; 206 83 488 288 nized. 68 60T 29 615 90 105 249 89 Unorga 47 480 Unorga 847 118 il;7 60 818 nized. 84 825 nized. 836 86 19Ol 184 805

6T Unorga nized. 66 50 583 830 809 553 118 109 Unorga nized. 286 81 296

439 80 191 42 56 753 81 531 194 862 181 704 822 i8 57 875 116 887 114 83

518 279 192 7 892 474 12 Total………….. 4867T { 49570 42501 43893 475

85T 443 479 219 87 792 288 967 455 222 802 404 408 801 419 676 130 711 440

784 471 14 9T 196 681 555 281 708 567 222 401 469 198 89 196 297 74 288 62

55 845 52 668 242 98 294 227 216 113 162 886 136 462 81 694 94 9 83 114

512 441 227 126 450 208 854 264 118 111 475 1113 873 450 149 84 666 148

1158 856 232 400 441 142 209 864 207 498 153 1090 867 87 264 469 474 825

710 726 271 857 567 120 162 683 860 1382 596 120 774 405 139 936 955 631

796 277 814 1 616 722 700 1079 796 819 1751 585 783 919 965 678 634 682

1720 859 638 875 591 1028 482 583 137 105 710 188 1089 87T 130 816 541 86T

1024 157 63T 203 1366 325 57 815 649 645 856 896 842 858 393 646 196 142

574 642 1248 478 118 720 2T4 65 678 759 596 539 209 672 689 771 903 819

788 391 214T 582 782 987 897 522 595 804 1985 861 535 924 621 1445 168T

589 144 770 77T7 804 1141 1537 754 1167 643 425 703 945 831 900 1056 799

694 966 221 1790 697 699 1141 790 699 789 808 1476 604 70C 888 822 809 918

846 72 422 251 117 616 785 479 709 834 287 239 406 440 501 993 516 555 184

65 1154 839 588 803 662 186 526 482 1800 260 46T 568 553 1205 566 474 100

134 772 248 1823 630 120 626 Unorga 426 192 868 860 257 50 272 1088 504

Unorga 186 288 663 695 874 761 789 861 465 479 1 198 246 471 614 1272 416

183 526 277 92 689 921 827 883 nized. 231 174 555 618 650 795 841 712 496
nlzed. 1589 885 656 772 833 434 553 835 1385 216 514 708

Page 229 view page image

I 8ISS XSSI P PI_ Am,. D-e. Whiq. Dem. W7li. Dem. Wdg. Dem. Whig. Dem.

Fillmore. Buch’an. Scott. Pierc. Taylor. Cass.. lay. Polk. Harrison. Van B. A msF. 5. 880 514 4_ Adams…………… Attala……………

AmitY……………. Bolivar…………… Carroll…………..

Claiborne………… Coahoma………… Copiah…………..

Clark……………. Choctaw………….. Chickasaw………..

Covington………… Calhoun………… De Soto……………

Franklin…………. Greene………….. Hinds…………….

Holmes………….. Harrison…………. Hancock………….

Isaquena………… Itawamba………… Jasper……………

Jackson…………. Jefferson…………. Jones…………….

Kemper…………. Lawrence………… Lowndes…………..

Leake…………… Lauderdale………. Lafayette…………

Marshall………….. Madison…………. Monroe…………..

Marion………….. Noxubee………….. Neshoba………….

Newton…………. Octibbeha……….. Perry…………….

Pike……………… Pinoia…………… Pontotoc………….

PRankin………….. Sunflower………… Simpson………….

Smith……………. Scott……………. Tallahatchie………

Tishemingo………. Tunica…………… i i I i i i i i 11 880 928 864

106 988 887 111 781 522 1127 861 887 840 1159 842 return. 751 585 414 186

76 1239 599 826 856 236 655 604 801 615 868 975 1465 541 1065 285 601 464

427 595 185 561 1892 546 89 841 438 442 2T6 1862 5O5 501 440 168 846 837

226 415 890 589 629 88 268 709 216 No 1122 50o 182 109 114 715 872 60 808

70 489 129 553 846 889 529 1250 575 612 69 476 16T 207 268 113 279 607

1121 409 120 187 825 66 176 983 44 514 818 325 67 528 27O 159 272 187 882

478 97 216 781 158 61 975 419 156 44 48 402 248 18 202 88 817 9T 499 198

810 401 1078 440 467 48 877 51 107 211 94 148 427 475 274 85 159 85 98 143

760 20 442 678 264 88 783 858 115 607 881 606 718 803 46T 888 254 114 889

484 276 112 54 1014 422 213 817 114 511 895 745 885 688 689 1304 497 971

20T 413 248 217 844 112 412 883 1080 851 48 244 270 2,17 186 1812 34 648

480 426 89 885 464 189 491 211 642 846 185 Unorga 886 226 184 1206 643 165

157 85 567 84.3 82 882 95 416 145 801 828 474 730 1306 614 921 99 617 241

184 888 148 277 578 757 856 83 2g6 210 152 206 840 51 865 653 809 49 921

858 130 587 282 743 948 846 nized. 723 249 79 822 b2o 172 116 58 880 808

166 290 185 450 488 780 2&9 66T 760 1844 497 1062 162 667 254 197 424 69

898 344 999 870 22 264 287 273 219 1190 25 755 276 429 55 678 484 143 447

115 426 836 98 671 172 62 1199 578 108 57 Unorga 868 210 17 864 72 291 94

644 190 2,56 542 1035 612 549 68 519 156 .148 241 125 232 439 854 811 7

178 94 112 179 480 36 452 805 851 61 742 429 162 649 858 624 682 808 709

220 175 915 498 169 127 nized. 825 408 216 388 117 515 U54 850 285 681 632

1184 486 911 254 577 236 270 886 71 444 408 709 406 14 800 249 259 218

1004 24 862 272 500 62 711 538 181 571 124 888 142 116 871 186 91 1207 556

281 170 289 25 412 56 826 128 620 145 289 882 1006 691 452 186 514 118 109

195 110 814 832 23T 881 201 89 41 186 821 76 488 8O6 294 44 527 890 109

545 288 480 204 283 849 183 125 6.58 818 107 894 268 172 229 106 40 458

620 182 % 444 866 814 812 487 175 872 164 194 219 94 87i6 206 89 262 219

179 108 124 5,Q 58

Page 230 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. MISSISSIPPI-( Continuged.) 1848. Whig.

Dem. Taylor. Cas… 981 1236 455 291 97 5i2 890 478 179 71 807 425 641 497

843 846 25922 26537 COUNTIES. Tippah………….. Wilkinson………..

Wayne………….. Warren…………. Washington……….

Winston…………. Yazoo…………… Yallobusha……….. Buchanan over Fillmore, 11,251; Pierce over Scott, 9,828; Cass over Taylor, 615; Polk over Clay, 5,920; Harrison over Van Buren, 2,528. NO R T Hii CA R O L

I N COUNTIES Am. A. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig. Dem.. r7h igq. Dem. Whqig. Dem.

Fillmore. Bulch’an. Scott. Pierce. Tay lor. (ass. Clay. P’olk. Harrison.

Van B. A nc. 1 45 Wit Orne Unrg nized Alamance…………

Alexander………… Anson:………….. Ashe…………….

B3eaufort…………. Bertie…………… Bladen…………..

Brunswick………. Burke…………… Buncombe………..

Cabarrus………… Caldwell…………. Camden………….

Carteret…………. Caswell………….. Catawba…………..

Chatham………… Cherokee………… Chowan…………

Cleveland………… Columbus…………. Craven……………

Cumberland………. Currituck………… Davidson…………

Davie………….. Duplin………….. Edgecombe……….

Forsyth………… Franklin…………. Gaston…………..

Gates……………. Granville………… Greene…………..

Guilford…………. Halifax………….. Haywood…………

Henderson………… Hertford…………. Hyde……………

Iredell…………… Jackson…………. Johnston………….

Jones………….. Lenoir…………… Lincoln………….

Macon…………… Madison…………. Martin……………

Mecklenberg………… McI)owell………… Montgomery………

Moore…………… Nash……………. New Hanover……..

Northampton……. Onslow…………… Orange…………..

Pasquotank………. Perquimans………. 1194 578 761 496 346 85O 1628

1436 891 Fr. Bulrke 612 454 276 1124 414 380 From and Rut 204 666 612 142

1441 687 25 185 834 878 988 297 2380 604 431 In Bun 896 481 1780 597 248

No 1000 438 291 1000 Unorga ~1186 529 78 293 550 143 1689 693 596 I 230

1856. A.. D.. Fill..,,,. B.chl.,. 816 601 812 400 No return. 890 44T 148

185 301 TT6 . 735 608 716 w 24195 35446 Whq. D-,. tt. Pj,!,e. 569 1232 271

865 71 61 723 494 129 90 218 448 453 559 549; 633 17548 26876 1844.

Whi.17-D’.. cl.. P.1k. 692 11-70 441 855 102 95 922, 507 209 108 201 475

5TS 1530 719 893 19206 25126 1840. lvhq. Dn. V.. B. 681 5% 663 1148 94 8T

1006 422 162 64 262 283 561 860 1 739 64a 1 19518 16995

Total…………….. 452 822 723 617 796 bil 86T 884 811 731 594 874 4T4

889 212 168 787 522 212 71 212 475 76’i 128 964 47T 11T 151 7T2 255 53 805

756 218 1515 509 191 406 375 898 1241 65 61,9 15T 226 SOS 182 573 2T4 546

489 61 577 466 145 74T 532 846 With 219 992 558 910 498 8Tl 852 761 557

642 493 503 414 226 With 1008 ,534 225 211 lT8 bs3 811 134 1019 414 186 89

With m With 868 991 325 1552 49T 814 493 290 835 909 With Ha 708 19t 282

621 809 With 289, 680 With 620 .546’ 88 383 455 IT5 1441 639 824 Orange.

98 869 896 5T4 444 5s2 301 3s9 376 371 146 107 3ss 931 Lincoln. 725 290

219 494 857 694 1488 490 49T 259 930 1454 Stokes. 704 Lincoln. 368 945 326

345 424 302 210 236 227 280 ywood. 8TO 201 39T 1418 240 Yancey. 56T 1115

Burke. 132 484 1030 1400 530 59T 1307 316 2TO Unorga Unorga 1084 660 923

524 280 319 1210 996 7156 503 493 4-T4 293 Unorga 1033 549 295 814 169 696

812 193 108T 448 318 143 Unorga 341 Unorga 879 959 818 1714 582 418 541

816 495 113T Unorga 646 242 282 828 42T Unorga 361 775 559 583 588 113 464

493 211 1667 570 434 seized. nized. 359 m 463 302 341 23T 286 434 3TT 96

TO 31T 10ST nized. .519 lT5 171 421 274 616 1191 466 ,520 251 939 1335
nized. 658 nized. 289 831 23T 373 446 213 1.16 144 236 211 seized. 746 136

334 1593 201 nized. 545 945 161 82 406 798 1255 488 686 1585 244 253 71T

814 311 531 525 453 463 864 8T8 778 865 364 89 463 91T 653 761 443 255 796

527 595 125T 538 634 279 1173 1581 1043 793 59T 388 1060 ST5 413 683 413

434 801 248 802 404 958 211 424 514 24T 460 725 1031 380 108 440 1068 1472

621 6,133 909 299 254 1012 522 932 475 280 351 1234 961 718 598 556 434

283 1136 390 805 866 135 682 703 15T 1091 529 223 126 336 355 936 302 2134

592 342 555 309 318 1582 595 - 203 225 790 3T4 810 909 With 658 540 74 882

519 194 1686 663 440 481 47T 52T 439 486 283 228 412 874 219 101 815 1182

729 225 166 6241 863, 222 1101 551 610 282 936 1508 760 855 942 2T6 515

456 26T 141 253 164 830 650 142 356 IT36 224 580 1201 Burke. 139 500 894

1122 364 71T 1589 232 22.3 395 460 309 385 414 230 809 4,1)2 &1)4 & Wilk..

106 186 1169 563 113 158 Lincoln herford. 315 540 950 468 890 225 SOT 1314

689 823 TT8 215 414 356 221 combe. 199 89 828 540 1.32, return. 1959 169

596 1246 nized. 105 495 791 1042 383 690 1448 149 134

Page 231 view page image

POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. NORTf CUAROLINA-(Continuted.) 1856. 1852.

1848. 1844. 1840. COUNTIES. Am. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig. Demr. Whig. Dem.

Whiq. Dem. Fillmore. Buch’an. Scott. Pierce. Taylor. Ca. C. Clay. Polk.

Harrison. Van B. Person…………… 543 279 263 471 846 518 275 649 214

597 Pitt…………….. 780 570 679 602 636 479 684 476 627 891

Polk……………… 156 124 Unorga nized. Randolph……….. 836 1025

1036 27T 1196 225 1171 812 1844 269 Richmond………… 176 500 678 146

699 71 802 117 820 102 Robeson…………. 673 566 660 732 688 545 559

599 579 506 Rockingham…….. 1001 859 842 823 880 766 480 1022 547 905

Rowan………….. 779 865 886 672 859 560 833 586 942 502

Rutherford……….. 576 412 761 801 958 126 1810 296 1802 540

Sampson………… 927 858 604 867 612 741 583 878 553 741

Stanly…………… 108 781 714 58 725 14 530 48 In Mont gomery.

Stokes…………… 658 881 1081 1287 1014 912 1084 1153 1212 1061

Surry……………. 706 862 1046 987 1182 852 996 880 1191 812

Tyrrel…………… 92 277 286 87 300 96 283’ 92 880 83

Union…………… 655 286 With Me cklenb’g 775 945 Unorga nized.

Wake………….. 1472 789 1082 1857 1028 1247 1044 1874 1026 1149

Warren…………… 841 78 167 691 156 667 128 810 105 754

Watauga……….. 148 868 With Ashe. Unorga nized. Washington………..

286 864 802 210 873 149 829 124 482 54 Wayne…………… 1172 208. 286

1067 258 903 254 911 806 781 Wilkes…………… 880 992 1078 242 1060

121 1208 181 1450 114 Yadkin………….. 488 694 With Surry. Unorga nized. Yancy……………. 616 208 286 85T 81m aj. 88 427 415 290

Totai………..836886 48246 89058, 89744 48550 84869 48232 89287 46376

83782 Total…………. 6886 48246 I89058, 8944 485932 89287 4676 -8782

Buchanan over Fillmore, 11,860; Pierce over Scott, 686; Taylor over Cass, 8,681; Clay over Polk, 8,945; Harrison over Yan Buren, 12,594. Mr. Hale received 59 votes in this State, in 1852, and Mr. Van Buren 85, in 1848.

T,O N Wm S S m M CONIS Am e. Jhg e. Wi. Dm hg e. Wi. Dm Fillmore. Bnch’ao.

Scott. Pierce. Taylor. Cass. Clay. Polk. llariiooo. Van 13.

Anderson………… Bledsoe…………… Blount……………

Bradley………….. Bedford………… Benton……………

Campbell………… Carter…………… Cheatham…………

Claiborne………… Cocke…………… Cannon……………

Coffee…………. Carroll………….. Cumberland……….

Davidson………… De Kalb…………. Dickson………….

Decatur…………. Dyer……………. Fentress………….

Franklin…………. Fayette………….. Granger………….

Greene………….. Giles……………. Grundy…………..

Gibson………….. Hawkins………….. Hamilton…………

Hancock…………. Hardin…………. Hickman…………

Humphreys………. Hardeman……….. Henderson…………

Henry…………… Haywood………… Jefferson………….

Johnson………… Jackson………… Knox…………..

Lawrence…………. Lewis……………. Lincoln…………..

Lauderdale………. McMinn…………. Meigs……………. i, 231 22T

202 640 791 2156 301 828 99 733 so nized. seized. 852 12T4 nized. 658 206

823 1:461 902 449 1559 124,2. 418 1251 478 r)sl 952 833 860 27T IOT9 576

181 49 591 314 372 2581 nhed. 89T 5., 649 &1)4 1246 658 155T 453 728 423 m 795 428 30T itio 243 8259 554 8s2 453 666 118 331 1082 111T 880 1236 28

1832 916 1064 241 748 238 280 691 1313 89T 842 1571 459 1261 2551 514 25

431 89.5 9TO 12t 348 271 623 1078 1378 632 434 228 4 ‘ 735 439 809 990 863

261 2074 795 816 495 599 533 142T 1080 736 1852 1584 425 1284 1144 1.051

525 905 1086 695 im 805 182T 920 56T 178 1180 838 876 242 26TO 411 1059 m 602 464 827 54T 1390 340 313 585 TJnorga 503 743 453 205 1498 Unorga 2623

559 1013 400 508 153 330 1006 852 780 1303 44 1570 778 774 241 643 241 263

716 1193 899 790 1170 865 1118 1863 549 43 666 230 796 141 26T 209 566 778

1356 485 252 140 nized. 519 196 72T 722 649 seized. 2059 588 769 315 411

414 1133 1034 47T 130T 144T 32T 901 831 648 336 808 839 4TI 1024 511 1516

732 812 93 703 565 583 186 229T 27T 866 44,2 602 508 965 760 149T 892 4T3

745 700 815 469 832 1493 2698 5TI 386 Unorga 883 113 390 121T 1094 963

1389 Unorga 1423 1252 685 Unorga 621 801 809 723 1286 860 800 1468 382

1269 2140 596 Unorga 660 279 960 150 250 229 663 927 1381 459 279 129 744

189 82T 943 560 1976 1573 674 nized. 211 432 120T 1060 489 1483 1511
nized. 688 1243 684 nized. 770 988 482 1016 460 1349 6T2 215 66 801 439

544 nized. 2584 274 1024 534 620 529 1046 572 1455 292 831 739 578 844 818

280 1856 2266 488 839 856 60 858 1205 998 1031 1301 1320 1173 644 505 2

801 689 1209 83.5 756 im 870 1211 2015 489 658 286 8T3 120 825 259 735 958

1526 481 318 17T 8.5T 18T 761 1000 ti24 1683 491 706 272 456 1123 1151
t548 1701 13ST 611 1388 624 732 1034 523 IOTT 492 1312 668 24T 79 SOT ,DOT

54T 2494 211 1061 620 1 625 644 1198 46T Isis 259 481 83T 631 91T Unorga ‘LTnorga 186f 1960 Unorga 896 446 140 645 1140 1095 1032 1190 12T2 1053

606 562 293 191 6T6 1318 862 SOT 1811 890 1302 2096 53T 831 Unorga 1022

119

Page 232 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. 1856. 1852. 1848. 1844. 1840. COUNTIES.

Am. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig. Dem. Fillmoore. Buch’an.

Scott. Pierce. Taylor. Cass. Clay. Polk. iarnigo. Van B.

Marion………….. 523 444 453 292 562 886 508 881 503 868

Monroe………….. 867 1041 105 847 962 960 859‘1086 923 928

Morgan………….. 162 263 240 222 229 187 211 282 211 161

Maury……………1816 1823 1824 1799 1516 1970 1292 1.988 1497 2025

Montgomery……… 1868 944 1260 993 1288 969 1271 1029 1101 790

Marshall………….. 649 1278 666 1340 730 1408 635 1898 Unorga nized. M
acon……………559 523 616 874 Unorganized. MeNairy………… 969

1125 956 967 989 786 773 741 906 477 Madison………….1561 981 1426 819

1562 787 1357 768 1312 587 Overton 822 1505 845 1089 467 1112 336 1145 829

988 Obion……………533 950 431 644 857 487 282 536 267 857 Polk. 402

798 272 470 867 517 260 488 Unorga nized. Perry……………. 862 525

825 814 433 287 744 513 781 848 R hea……………. 11 448 800 807 298

824 282 868 209 883 Rhoane…………..1028 829 820 678 998 611 900 785

1047 545 Robertson……….. 1089 928 1013 769 1236 889 1193 871 1167 650

Rutherford………..1469 1868 1495 1313 1754 1439 1780 1500 1706 1475 Sev ier…………… 921 164 621 80 787 57 738 78 926 45

Scott……………. 156 224 804 100 Unorga nized. Sullivan………….

548 1477 260 1114 486 1875 850 1583 827 1886 Smith…………… 1596 729

1742 520 2380 719 2828 788 2657 688 Stewart……………606 895 823 607

574 705 519 704 457 642 Sumner……………859 1894 825 1563 922 1994

881 2017 794 1788 Shelby……………2114 2044 1824 1628 1828 1607 1625

1852 950 681 Tipton……………424 663 857 565 852 482 860 502 573 588

Van Buren……….. 103 265 107 165 180 198 116 190 Unorga nized.

Washington………. 828 1884 565 858 862 1016 881 1225 892 1083

Warren………….. 411 1180 844 922 407 1161 885 1190 513 1944

Wayne………….. 714 563 666 3880 673 886 665 446 760 266

White…………… 808 740 949 518 1064 503 857 468 1201 886

Williamson………..1646 775 1588 763 1883 793 1986 859 2017 681

Wilson………….. 2186 1184 2248 923 2517 998 2607 1042 2550 870

Weakley…………. 859 1628 783 1149 669 1080 560 1084 528 728

Total………….66178 763858898 57018 6405 58419 60080 59917 60391 4289

Buchanan over Fillmore, 7,460; Scott over Pierce, 1,880; Taylor over Cass, 6,286; Clay over Polk, 113; Harrison over Van Buren, 12,102. L 0 T I S I A. Whig. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig. Dem. Scott. Pierce. Taylor.

Cass. Clay. Polk. Harrison. Van B. Ascension…………

Assumption………. Avoyelles………… Bienville………….

Bossier………….. Caddo…………… Calcasieu…………

Caldwell…………. Claiborne………… Carroll…………..

Catahoula……….. Concordia………… De Soto………….. E. Baton Rouge…… E. Feliciana………. Franklin………….

Iberville…………. Jackson…………. Jefferson…………

Lafayette………… La Fourche………. Livingston………..

Madison…………. Morehouse………… Natchitoches………

Orleans…………… Orleans R. B……… Ouachita………….

Plaquemine………. Pt. Coupee……….. Rapides…………..

Sabine……………. St. Bernard………. St. Landry……… St.

Helena……….. St. Tammany…….. 232 TEN.%-ESSEE-(Continued).

COUNTIES. Am. Ful.0’e. 2T6 195 823 296 202 493 25 102 6TS . 288 411 155

296 540 846 183 265 3ST 93T 128 800 231 239 851 4!tO 5858 194 260 205 266

5S4 189 123 . SOT 309 304 D’.. B.hl -. 4T9 83T ti84 7016 4T5 458 296 808

852 441 448 135 510 ti93 464 264 51T b38 .122 4ti3 753 891 210 332 588

24T5 151 390 248 521 T63 849 12P, . 1103 272 22T 296 till 800 172 180 844

84 54 830 219 280 121 241 484 342 110 818 IT4 928 11T 676 159 171 196 289

4663 6T 190 151 242 401 23T 130 692 209 254 860 553 887 813 248 - 342 221

158 506 261 810 86 288 485 443 192 426 841 943 2TT 135 8-IT 14T 13T 40T

4682 161 240 372 864 623 251 120 56S 246 2’)S 288 469 299 114 IT 281 41 90

221 268 820 iss 149 400 849 124 429 12T TIT 108 739 144 283 178 5551

Unorga 168 18T 288 383 246 124 754 169 275 236 286 859 189 1 800 181 149

823 m 886 96 21T 406 894 162 29b 193 660 220 161 243 192 101 495 4579
nized. lT6 350 870 543 271 89 8T6 188 183 239 285 189 . Unwa 210 42 69 196

190 m iss 52 825 829 134 253 Unorga 434 193 . 471 100 206 10.1 452 8026

106 3T 174 419 255 185 789 154 169 264 - 2T9 864 seized. 103 155 128 194

875 221 804 95 150 899 419 158 235 nized. 403 899 181 229 198 81 650 2612

206 IOOT 175 586 883 84 406 222 199 218 289 250 Unorga With Na With No No 96 259 269 Unorga 824 860 Unorga 204 252 No r)38 12T 14T Unorg 66’r 2681

243 40 14T 476 Unorga 179 m 172 2-04 218 840 225 ized. tchitoles Landry.

return. return. 114 231 lis niz,ed. 808 480 nized, 182 86 return. 44 201

III 1748 130 250 139 882 nized. 91 434 288 so

Page 233 view page image

Am. Dem. Whig. Pem. Wig. Dem.. Fillmore. Buch’an. Scot. Pierce. Taylor.

Case. Adair…………….455 1033 457 597 563 549 548 639 223 404

Adair……………. Allen…………….. Anderson…………

Ballard………….. Barren………….. Bath…………….

Boone…………… Bourbon…………. Boyle…………….

Bracken…………. Breathitt…………. Breckenridge………

Bullitt…………… Butler……………. Caldwell…………..

Calloway………… Campbell………… Carroll……………

Carter…………… Casey…………… Christian…………

Clark…………… Clay…………….. Clinton…………..

Crittenden……….. Cumberland………. Daviess……………

Edmonson……….. Estill……………. Fayette……………

Fleming…………. Floyd……………. Franklin………….

Fulton…………… Gallatin………. Garrard………..

Grant…………. Graves………… Grayson………..

Green………….. Greenup………….. Hancock………….

Hardin………….. Harlan………….. Harrison………….

Hart…………… Henderson……….. Henry……………

Hickman………… Hopkins…………. Jefferson………….

Jessamine……….. Johnson…………. Kenton…………..

Knox………….. Larue…………… I I COUNTIES. D7,ig. Dem. Clay.

Polk. 455 537 299 823 1561 642 937 957 676 876 112 1008 545 571 463 206

906 439 298 601 1880 946 421 261 506 635 954 161 474 1404 949 85 883 840

810 866 689 475 47T 408 866 425 1226 881 965 . 509 865 727 244 857 4982

614 14 1246 588 1033 713 737 655 1232 1028 818 601 862 742 502 628 561 451

607 1209 1219 511 787 415 1098 418 869 522 664 835 965 421 548 1006 848

939 794 460 269 423 676 1380 651 639 865 407 932 264 1095 816 76T 1050 631

1183 2972 553 708 1643 271 489 457 280 292 260 1119 557 800 978 603 638 96

842 403 812 731 189 577 446 180 474 973 842 278 27t 896 501 1027 208 858

1376 888 165 883 152 872 863 437 446 433 422 637 249 1007 327 802 455 616

744 155 787 8665 556 64 975 487 41T 59T 454 606 828 967 785 769 528 823

517 234 440 446 269 874 815 1098 478 497 230 806 822 185 848 486 157 711

218 822 809 698 222 759 2g8 411 286 572 9t1 894 487 660 205 619 65 947 578

685 983 879 809 8791 476 299 1884 164 84 568 423 834 27T 1462 724 985 1172

773 795 143 1006 499 849 826 227 511 483 243 529 1182 1046 377 286 842 642

986 249 485 1541 1159 260 926 UTnorg~ 860 1187 485 468 507 517 640 804

1239 8&9 891 586 781 827 169 796 1161 6S2 106 985 648 478 549 553 547 281

1048 782 769 486 84T 472 151 422 899 204 841 664 814 428 510 196 786 819

125 294 899 153 605 209 238 781 700 225 664 nized. 868 191 529 772 512 516

166 681 56 896 528 559 1022 ‘ 53 766 970 439 214 1228 159 849 548 401 281

282 1806 611 888 1208 617 753 120 924 528 851 780 204 858 832 148 468 1122

996 885 262 284 690 808 174 892 1695 1143 190 816 848 1128 896 886 482 827

693 277 1095 3834 859 579 719 708 804 701 1092 616 85 6S? 589 382 689 635

552 400 1108 783 712 521 852 443 231 464 436 290 966 772 618 870 508 214

825 814 92 815 899 167 622 251 216 824 771 840 634 851 229 493 884 886

1042 885 213 702 75 975 558 638 1044 740 814 1042 469 252 920 1(;4 833

Wf9.’, Dem. larrison. Van B. 223 404 201 878 181 875 Unorga nized. 78T m 485 4T0 580 488 992 416 486 275 Unorga nized. 755 176 - 209 819 134 184

802 497 99 730 484 1026 Unorga nized. Unorgalnized. 176 220 670 470 888

226 202 158 No return. 804 144 445 844 122 144 No return. 1266 689 898 464

80 549 509 560 4S83 525 814 218 24T 225 158 8 268 15 274 800 857 266 152

72 698 $26 174 &3 445 714 216 887 864 860 627 794 198 521 403 881 610 584

513 3 UIiorga nized. Unorgalnized. 8O,9 I 95

Page 234 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. 1856. 1852. 1848. 1 1844. 1840. 184.![ 184

COUNTIES. Am. Dem. Whiq. Dem. W7hig. Dem. WAiq. Dem. Wh.ig. Dem. Fillmore.

Buch’an. Scott. Pierce. Taylor. Cass. i Cliy. Polk. Harrison. Vat B.

Lare……….0.6 8. 18 48 14 88 12 17 0 Laurel…………… La wrence………… Letcher…………… Lew is…………….

Lincoln………….. Li vingston……….. Logan……………

Lyon……………. Madison…………. Mari on………….. Mars hall………….. Mason……………. Mc Cracken………. M
cLean…………. Meade…………… Mercer………….. Mo ntgomery……… Monroe…………… Morgan…………..

Muhlenburg………. Nelson…………… Nicholas………….

Ohio…………….. Oldham………….. Owen…………….

Owsley………….. Pendleton………… Perry…………….

Pike……………… Powell…………… Pulaski………….. Rock Castle………. Rowan………….. Russell…………..

Scott……………. Shelby…………… Simpson………….

Spencer………….. Taylor………….. Todd…………….

Trigg……………. Trimble…………. Union……………

Warren………….. Washington……… Wayne…………..

Whitley………….. Woodford………… WoIr…..62 40 0 41 778 887 750

478 5 82 67141l 49T20 61255 51988 58439 Buchanan over Fillmore, 7,226; Scott over Pierce, 8,262; Taylor over Cass, 17,421; Clay over Polk, 9,267; Harri son over Van Buren, 25,87T3. A I~t XA N SA. S. COUNTIES. Am. Dem.

Whig. Dem. Whig. Dem. TVhiq. Dem. Whig. Dm Fillmore. Boch’ao. Scott.

Pierce. Taylor. Caes. Clan. Polk. Liarritos. Van B. Arkansas…………

Ashley…………… Benton………….. Bradley………….

Calhoun…………. Carroll………….. Chicot……………

Clark……………. Columbia………… Conway…………..

Crawford………… Crittenden……….. Dallas……………

Desha…………… Drew……………. Franklin………….

Fulton……………. Greene………….. Hempstead………. Hot Springs………. 68 191 119 I7T 835 95 173. Vote rojec formlity maj. for V 18 210 55 I 11 I - i I a a 234 KENTUCKY-(aMinued.) 408 466 79 586 796

4,57 1613 253 IOST 418 104 1308 660 404 714 615 546 561 289 733 793 666

813 387 554 8315 746 173 161 16T 956 417 106 448 674 1262 437 391 31T 762

581 275 653 1354 441 515 5T2 6T2 865 4T8 28T 631 4,59 8T2 506 890 832 1154

943 994 505 4T6 402 1121 451 661 1068 74T 1041 T09 901 528 15T9 401 T32

295 T06 17T 1336 184 23T 429 1049 T73 537 484 6T2 573 859 599 925 695 1145

699 338 420 8T2 885 63 400 6T4 812 1294 Unorga 976 782 91 133T 885 Unorga 647 594 518 8TT 816 814 958 592 701 888 505 294 262 130 221 ill TOT 826

Unorga 43T 729 1184 389 831 264 652 560 300 499 982 637 463 No 706 187.

862 78 503 838 26T 384 nized. 541 763 425 896 416 nized. 230 914 889 850

509 553 487 721 624 486 1186 826 5TO TT 194 133 622 97 nized. 195 888 753

380 340 52T 422 629. 491 612 600 680 342 return. 410 488 414 No 521 882

403 1402 1313 765 120 1631 407 713 734 688 586 413 746 1149 673 718 476

533 830 8T5 No 225 Unorga 947 491 519 ‘t 9T 14-34 448 460 TJnorga 808 588

861 501 1226 721 689 584 778 145 818 return. 566 825 265 858 564 629 496

953 808 225 1088 548 379 490 43T 464 704 ,542 488 sio 248 599 return. 140
nized. T34 95 180 734 716 428 351 nized. 409 682 486 458 603 678 405 93

83T 884 34T 29 506 769 424 1407 1202 715 94 1608 256 650 . 55T 6T3 451 24T

65T 1826 678 601 426 485 165 28T 113 - 251 72T 451 431 803 1441 455 469

784 55T 268 50T 1132 660 6.35 431 750 124 845 161 t$43 m 82T ST4 633 73T

600 799 195 223 985 t)9T 473 512 439 608 703 513 625 93T 129 530 84 238

708 73 IT8 938 796 418 508 406 651 50T 584 68T 709 .342 99 473 ill 68

Unorga 345 613 225 902 972 No 1231 149 839 739 522 Unorga 5T 344 765 428

313 354 174 Unorga 133 83 24 514 400 226 544 132T 32T 292 550 271 Unorga 205 763 253 383 269 615 100 20T nized. 802 817 361 289 420 return. 5m 10,6

128 938 &38 nized. 835 22T 425 489 247 500 649 nized. 842 172 218 443 158

12T 993 586 25T 84,1 212 359 nized. 266 441 636 849 80 825

Total…………… 67416 74642 57068 53806 82616 224 No, 75 56 184 15T

192 504 14T 161, No 218 225 192 116 51 No 415 131 226 return. ‘153 898 291

6155 165 528 676 408 8TI return 335 834 8TT 449 210 return. 610 418 120 88

91 188 . 52 124 85 136 Unorga 110 153 95 150 185 118 106 13 94 29S 121 140

146 334 180 151 833 118 205 nized. 259 236 97 194 199 135 224 TT 211 860

269 so Unorg 90 22T T.Tnorg 139 146 193 149 m 104 203 208 198 Returns 52
is 875 141 74 nized. 290 124 nized. 261 110 223 IT1 45T 68 265 149 249
ejected. 93 46 830 178 so 96 144 No 210 174 16T 885 109 Unorga 12T Unorga 146 No ST 814 120 98 851 154 return 158 21T 288 565 129 nized. 55 nixed. 1

2611 return. 206 859 23T 120 78 72 245 228 43 8T 201 847 Ti 78 t.d f., f It “. Go B.,.. 105 251 1043

Page 235 view page image

POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. ABKAN]SAS(Continued.) 1856. 1852. 1848. 1844.

1840. COUNTIES Am. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig. De. Whi. Dem. rhiq. Dem.

Fillmore. Buch’al. Scott. Pierce. Taylor. Cass. Clay. Polk. Harrison. Van 1. Independence…….. 612 860 452 612 422 408 278 835 870 198

Izard……………. 94 495 69 226 No return. 79 174 Jackson………….

436 591 292 835 194 235 124 184 107 143 Jefferson…………. 881 515 224

806 195 177 180 147 173 109 Johnson…………. 113 453 193 884 194 850

141 431 160 824 Lafayette………… 120 176 148 170 85 98 81 70 48 25

Lawrence…………..282 717 299 417 239 291 112 267 138 214

Madison…………. 79 649 76 274 87 214 63 866 185 253

Marion………….. 126 398 40 187 49 49 No return. 21 112

Mississippi……….. 121 188 44 88 118 110 No return. 90 73

Monroe…………… 129 233 57 92 113 98 92 73 124 44

Montgomery……… 45 853 28 111 Returns rejected. With Hotspring.

Newton……………. 82 132 8 79 2 54 16 140 Ouachita…………. 501

701 452 496 571 428 220 184 Perry……………. 44 125 15 33 29 80 33 65

Phillips………….. 464 526 883 873 No return. 280 276 238 247

Pike…………… 47 296 40 168 67 133 No return. 23 87

Poinsett………….. 73 248 48 182 44 116 29 171 4 180

Polk……………. No return. 17 94 17 59 No return.

Pope……………. 163 568 183 825 240 292 241 808 188 263

Prairie…………… 229 893 78 170 41 111 Unorga nized.

Pulaski………….. 566 739 285 419 438 455 438 528 606 499

Randolph………… 67 416 82 95 50 129 59 851 45 252

Saline…………… 213 404 137 277 147 244 130 219 142 135

Scott……………. 98 215 23 88 61 180 85 167 82 112

Searcy…………… 61 803 75 197 No return. maj. 50

Sebastian………….. 892 802 180 283 Sevier…………… 286 523 50

125 108 195 114 801 76 197 St. Francis………… 808 498 172 807 208 260

99 269 82 246 Union…………… 516 626 884 531 553 635 214 409 124 173

Van Buren……….. 78 805 No return. 95 186 46 121 28 151

Washington………. 867 917 826 495 877 480 878 729 422 620

White…………… 201 403 97 189 48 60 95 123 82 46

Yell…………….. 147 883 166 825 137 186 80 249 Total………….

10787 21910 7404 12173 7588 19800 5504 9546 560 6766 Buchanan over Fillmore, 11,123; Pierce over Scott, 4,769; Cass over Taylor, 1,712; Polk over Clay, 4,042; Van Buren over Harrison, 1,606. NC I S S 0 T-3F. I_

COUNTIES. Am. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig. Dem. Fillmore.

Buch’an. Scott. Pierce. Taylor. Cass. Clay. Polk. HarriSon. Vas B.

Adair……………. 23 1 1 0 9 5 nranzd Adair…………….

Andrew………….. Atchison…………. Audrain………….

Barry…………… Barton…………… Bates……………..

Benton………….. Boll inger………… Boone……….

Buchanan……….. Butler…………… Caldwell………….

Calloway………… Camden………. Cape Girardeau……

Carroll………….. Cass……………… Cedar……………

Chariton………….. Clark…………….. Clay……………..

Clinton………….. Cole……………… Cooper…………..

Crawford………… Dade……………. Dallas……………

Daviess…………… Dent…………….. De Kalb………….

Dunklin…………. Dodge…………… Franklin………….

qaconade……….. 235 283 428 182 565 148 53 2,55 159 199 1329 84 28T

1095 210 664 399 596 163 440 721 756 406 259 TST 460 833 182 7T 1 172 101

No 1531 220 410 889 “5 521 488 64 409 46T 413 958 1036 143 295 805 269 898

659 561 391 559 58T 6T5 39T rz2 TT8 434 418 454 572 896 886 14T return.

846 03 113 466 106 200 72 Unorga 104 167 28 1112 712 16 157 670 67 828 239

228 65 825 626 283 216 645 240 175 102 296 74 66 No 81 27T 89 201 784 150

160 253 nized. 116 828 112 613 85T 26 209 493 109 48T 286 83T 162 498 2S9

406 290 462 535 278 276 8” 951 96 16T return. 85 619 804 294 884 ljnorga 175 142 206 252 1190 599 129 940 TO 518 242 25T Unorga 3Tl 225 765 810 418

901 23T 255 76 816 Unorga Unorga 889 71 450 941 nized. 163 478 80T 664 602

1162 212 793 24T 914 811 448 nized. 602 220 1552 567 1122 783 86T 690 -

845 446 nized. nized. 796 826 -Unorga Unorga 132 98 T-Tnorga 150 1112 840

133 881 T-T.norga 455 112 Unorga 246 240 457 13T 848 778 240 Unorga Unorga 170 nized. nized. 122 486 nized. 501 500 1128 154 626 nized. 764 182
nized. 1 891 206 649 268 962 694 264 seized. seized. 264 884 TT 185 55 146

208 Unorga 1102 704 Unorga 128 849 155 485 266 No 116 41T 284 626 290 27T

813 263 166 105 269 Unorga 87 42 Unorga 339 8T 689 136 166 21T 186 382
nized. 588 1055 nized. 168 631 282, 709 298 return. 271 5!T 242 418 286

531 6.33 2T5 806 283 858 nhed. 146 42 nized. 680 849 855 rZ2 136 636

Page 236 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. MISSO URI-(Costittued). 1856. 1852. 1848.

1844. 1840. COUNTIES. Am. Demn. Wh. Dem. Whig. Dem. Whig, Dm. Whig. Dem.

Fillmore. inchl’an. Scott. Pieree. Taylor. Cass. Clay. Polk. Harrison. Van B. sentry……………896 757 133 3 1, 36 Unor. Gentry…………..

Green…………… Grundy…………. Harrison………….

Henry…………… Hickory…………. Holt……………..

Howard…………. Jackson…………. Jasper…………….

Jefferson…………. Johnson…………. Knox…………….

Laclede………….. Lafayette…………. Lawronce………….

Lewis……………. Lincoln………….. Linn……………..

Livingston……….. McDonald……….. Macon……………

Madison…………. Maries…………… Marion…………..

Mercer………….. Miller…………… Mississippi………..

Moniteau………… Monroe………….. Montgomery………

Morgan………….. New Madrid……… Newton……………

Nodaway………… Osage…………… Oregon…………..

Ozark…………… Pemiscott………… Perry…………….

Pettis…………… Pike……………… Platte……………

Polk…………….. Pulaski………….. Putnam…………..

Rolls……………. Randolph………… Ray……………..

Reynolds………… Ripley……………. St. Charles………… St.

Clair…………. St. Francois………. St. Genevieve…….. St.

Louis…………. Saline…………… Schuyler………….

Scotland………….. Scott……………. Shannom………….

Shelby…………… Stoddard………… Stone…………….

Sullivan…………. Taney…………… Texas……………

Vernon………….. Warren…………… Washington………..

Wayne………….. Webster…………. Wright………….. Wrgt…….6

26 5 17 7 8 8 nranzd Toa……..82 586 298 385 8267 407 15 16 27 96

Buchanan over Fillmore, 9,640; Pierce over Scott, 8,869; Cass over Taylor, 7,406; Polk over Clay, 10,118; Van Buren over Harrison, 6,788. I I 236 896

1003 850 818 402 130 240 798 894 294 523 8” 891 225 1293 358 642 572 883

430 61 435 355 6T 1321 41T 108 81T; SST 1012 603 22T 295 236 183 2t9 3T

20’t 432 1131 1040 412 68 25T 534 606 744 82 41 583 210 401 808 6834 853

287 352 m 14 432 260 34 91 172 878 4ST 100 189 64 757 1029 835 495 869 833

409 867 1168 898 88T 540 471 821 654 5T4 761 846 400 t5ol 299 984 418 246

727 450 224 82T 42T 762 365 403 234 528 438 412 824 149 119 586 819 1113

1263 662 268 488 869 595 8T4 114 806 772 847 541 856 5584 599 472 632 222

40 8T3 815 13T .553 888 479 802 869 578 287 468 26T 133 484 215 ill 266 76

189 676 728 169 172 360 210 71 803 168 898 440 249 251 63 855 11T Unorga 894 186 62 IIT 189 760 886 133 93 107 61 143 11 32 15T 171 245 803 910 260

89 104 841 476 483 5 16 STS 149 250 122 4298 ,514 177 216 ti9 207 116 1T

12T 11 95 63 801 860 Unorg 95 233 920 184 164 245 194 291 762 858 355 310

456 255 184 t532 390 408 587 282 821 194 473 259 ed. 751 186 279 168 853

611 265 278 32 823 ill 8T2 911, U)i 84 213 801 758 1060 504 169 121 278

502 618 98 83 t)98 225 599 16,1, 5826 443 222 283 9T 9 328 17T 94 27T 168

16T 153 801 834 144 ized. 16T 152 401 225 63 274 98 148 801 695 161 246

334 196 Unorga 915 170 479 t$66 230 195 Unorga 860 231 1046 144 76 138 161

807 379 .167 323 161 43 92 Unorga 69 Unorga 322 230 793 ilo2 231 124 74

397 607 tio9 21 14 471 148 285 l42 4 8.), 7 536 204 131 147 35 175 9 T

Unorga 154 b4 82 Unorga 851 473 91 72 Unorg-, 851 846, Unorga 280 Unorga 185 1018 614 115 827 86T Unorga 820 Unorga 880 t57s 269 198 827 183 1017

Unorga 74 Unorga Unorga 792 859 262 298 189 Uno,ga 120 228 861 900 273 86

Unorga 422 696 599 Unorga 81 480 17T 801 193 3688 591 Unorga 317 258 5T

244 115 Unorga 86 TJnorga 864 613 86 nized. SIT 365 nized. 283 nized. 878

969 852 242 349 till nized. 5T6 nized. 403 683 494 851 457 399 721 nized.

869 nized. seized. 578 232 544 208 665 nized. 434 208 463 319 809 13S6 636

325 seized. 832 1571 T34 nized. 266 r)03 842 234 245 3329 446 seized. 442

480 2TI 209 823 nized. 29T nized. 841 bss 866 486 896 825 18T 144 239 224

248 888 954 294 Bil 451 19T nized. 585 3T4 479 696 29T 873 nized. 4TO 87T

79T ls3 3T3 181 466 661 186 842 168 461 148 312 nized. 113 nized. 889 265

784 1494 516 241 120 299 508 626 148 154 ti69 263 2T4 168 47T8 438 192 240

21T 54 263 196 nized. 2,50 32,5 185 nized. 836 423 245 181 171 Unorga 299

Unorga 753 45T Unorga 298 225 432 nized,i 421 nized. 901 711 nized. 321

874 Unorga 542 462 93 249 874 152 82T 21 ized. 602 543 .236 481 500 2Z bu 81T 815 16T 363 ITS 618 262 494 194 coo Unorga Unorga 156 732 459 241 196

400 515 432 15 586 Unorga 221 170 2515 375 Unorga 284 Unorga 233 69 nized.

nized. 262 746 968 sco 729 835 405 563 825 4W nized. 199 2,22 1874 822
nized. nized 600 1 i26 808 41 258 842 479 5T Unorg m til4 211 nized,, 826TI 4007T 81251 41369 229T2 29760 Total………….. 48524 58164 29984

S&%3

Page 237 view page image

POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. wI S C O N I N_ 1852. Scott. Pierce |Hale 111

86 - No re turn. 826 515 - Uno rg’d. Uno rg’d. 149 245 - Uno rg’d. 1183

1288 381 m,1. 42 1004 2138 288 1205 2264 429 Uno rg’d. Uno rg’d. Uno rg’d.

I 1065 1685 408! 1841 1379 129 659 865 186 895 948- - Uno rg’d. 1208 1698

859 Uno rg’d. n 483 590 636 5 28 - 260 825 10 850 1889 - No re turn. 209

874 9 No re turn. maj. 800 1 2019 8640 527 Uno rg’d. 71 101 - Uno rg’d.

145 429 44 Uno rg’d. Uno rg’d. No re turn. 848 1308 776 166 166 -! 1509

1691 928 511 595 156 Uno rg’d. 662 1815 376 maj. 62 IUno rg’d. 965 1141 14

83 1156 2850 188 989 1582 1186 No re turn. 147 174 116 707 949 5t75 Uno rg’d. 22O6 8 22240.83658 8814 1856. Frem. Bueh…I. 1848. Tayl’r I Ca.,, Uno’rg’d. Uno rg’d. 2881 309 With Cra’f 651 79 3802 145 1091 215

7241 7’,7 527 797 446i 488 16491 1148 479i 891 884’ 848 718’ 840 Ulno rg’d. Uno rg’d. Uno rg’d. 9211 1001 No re turn. 77i 150 Uno rg’d. 214 174

1189 2151 Uno rg’d. Unorgl’d. Frm Bah iLSeLPec ecTy’ e.Fei ah iLSot ireHl alcCe Adams…. Bad Ax…. Brown….. Buffalo…. Chippewa… Calumet….

Clarke… Columbia… Crawford.. Dane……. Dodge…. Door…… Dou g las… Dunn…… Fond du Lac Grant…… Greene….. Iowa……

Jackson… Jefferson.. Juneau…. Kenosha… Kewaunee. La Crosse..

Lafayette.. Lapointe.. Manitowoc. Marathon… Marquette.. Milwaukee.

Monroe…. Oconto…. Ozaukee… Outagamie. Pierce….. Polk……

Portage… Racine…. Richland.. Rock……. Sauk…… Shawanaw..

Sheboygan. St. Croix… Trempeleau Walworth… Washington Waukesha.

Waupacca.. Waushara. Winnebago Wood….. Total…. Scott. Pieree No re turn. No re turn. 247 8385 142 123 Uno rg’ d. 80 89 No re turn. 40 84 nUno rg’d. Uno rg’d. 128 148 838 854 No re turn. 20 82 Uno rg’d. No re turn.

278 836 47 1 461 Uno rg’d. Uno rg’d. 592 614 55 138 79 89 288 204 984 1154

600 1150 95 96 167 117 No re turn. Uno rg’d. No re turn. 7 39 Uno rg’d. No re turn. No re turn. 832 513 Uno rg’d. 112 101 554 789 160 118 757 796 415

531 266 838 826 403 Uno rg’d. 1379 1708 522 592 46S 868 80 85 No re turn.

411 489 108 150 599 541 81 52 No re turn. 204 295 No re turn. 42 91 562

605 401 439 111 182 29 40 61 45 Uno rg’d. No re turn. 517 641 No re turn.

Uno rg’d. No re turn. _ 9 No re turn. 981 1028 683 762 95 82 63 59 4T3 869

No re turn. 68 68 Uno rg’d. .“_.17. Fremont over Buchanan, 18,247; Pierce over Scott, 11,418; Cass over Taylor, 1,254. In 1848, Mr. Van Buren received 10,418 votes in this State. C:L I o O I OA COUNTIES.

Alameda……. Amador……. Butte……… Calaveras……

Colusi……… Contra Costa… Del Norte….. E1 Dorado…..

Fresno…….. Humboldt….. Klamath…… Los Angeles… Marin……..

Mariposa….. Wright…. 91 24 - Uno rg’d.Merced……..11 30 8 14 13

Tot.~~~~~~~~~~~~l~~… 49467.9815517610118103enoio…..Wit..on.ma Merced……. Monterey…. Napa……… Nevada…….. Frov,nt over Buchanan, 7,784; Pierce over Scott, 1,907 T Cass o, *- Taylor, 1,009. In 1848, Mr. Van Burea received ,1 26 votes in this State. I i 1. i i i i I i i i I T 5 2 5 T 6 2 0 2 8 1 5 6 0 9 5 8 5 8 6 3 1 6 I 237 I 0 lvr , 1848.

T.yll, C… COUNI,IES. 1856. COUN’TIES. H.I. Fill F,. 1591 .597 499 68 No re 4S6 73 2950 .521 399ti 8455 No re No re 890 8292 2809 2004 1497 806

3290 With 1508 89 98T 1415 No re 1177 269 2518 2798 722 No re 360 602 414

95 680 2299 882 4707 2015 68 1891 417 190 3518 813 2875’ 1636 1292 2T69

260 66090 B.,,h. 625 231 1004 163 rn 40 37 12,89 ,29 8443 2TS4 urn. urn.

119 2511 1419 1087 14T4 144 3434 Ada 831 206 541 1722 urn 190 207 1032

7188 254 rn. 2032 753 106 54 861 1688 455 1965 993 21 1921 2.52 45 1297

2641 2020 75 215 1415 95 2843 Fill. 9 21 1 7 1 6 15 Adair Adams….

Appanoose Allamakee. Audubon.. Benton…. Black Hawk Boone…… Bremer…

Butler…… Buchanan.. Cedar….. Chickasaw. Clarke…. Calhoun…

Cass…… Clinton….. Clayton… Cerro G’rdo Crawford.. Davis…..

)Decatur.. ]Dallas…… I)elaware… Desmoines.. Dubuque.. Fremont…

Fayette… Floyd….. Franklin… Greene…. Guthrie…. Grundy…

Hardin…. Harrison.. Henry….. Howard… Iowa…… Jackson…

Jasper…. Jefferson Johnson Jones Keokuk Kossuth… Lee……. Linn……

Louisa…. Lucas….. Menona… Marion…. Madison…. Mahaska Marshall Mitchell… Monroe…. Montgomly Mills…… Muscatine. Polk……

Potawatolle Page…… Poweshiek. Ringgold.. Shelby… Scott……

Story…… Sao……. Tama….. Taylor…. Union…., Van Buren. Wapello Warren Wayne…. Washington Wel)ster Wii,neshiek Wright Tot.,tl 72 113 191

630 23 558 566 203 827 223 709 1016 851 346 9 132 1245 1420 101 36 201 243

487 801 1338 1322 166 1043 224 120 73 196 65 583 170 1767 207 492 1163 878

1188 1215 964 895 85 1780 1652 993 288 41 No re 580 1284 531 314 622 63

287 1091 1065 259 100 459 92 62 1675 232 25 470 119 102 1092 1093 855 133

1188 3S9 770 91 43954 2 78 854 500 31 426 282 319 172 141 w 701 -102 838

14 84 839 754 40 8 1014 583 319 500 1413 242T 203 452 124 33 11T 20 19 12

76 6 82 133 4 102 9 66 83 1 215 9Tl 64 85 .5 turn. 51 94 19 13 60 5 89 88

353 171 255 t)2 19 1119 272 8 29 is 121 139 11 51 36 629 209 209 2 86170 4

8 487 28 4 123 33 66 48 29 21 176 82 7T 142 6T I 7,52 133 20 149 522 256

103 114 14 12 is 9 808 79 276 83 206 282 10 197 650 273 200 IT6 13 61 268

104 1 93 IT 102 82 91 84 189 8T 64 829 79 90 31 17 3241 252, 102 170, 403

31 13 ,9180 102 8 25 186 32 27 6 MS. 25 19 1 19 25, 6;, 1 11 1 13 6 8TI 10

4 15 1 4 7 8 6 20 i 5T9 12 is 80 6 21 T.yll, C… Uno rgld Uno rg’d 44 1
iS Uno rg’d. 22 43 Uno rgld. Uno rgld. 21 87 205 276 Uno rgld. Uno rgld.

Uno rgld. 168 207 184 188 364 375 Uno rg’d. 80 26 IOT 104 955 1070 865 764

Uno rgld - Uno rgld’ Uno rgld. Uno rgld. Uno rgld. Uno rgld. Uno rg’d. 655

459 25 59 89T 559 66 69 63T 789 286 859 154 20T 231 855 1189 1614 293 883

428 286 Uno rg’d. Uno rg’d - 27T 806 Uno rgld’ 402 400 Uno rgld. Uno rgld.

ill 195 Uno rgld. Uno rgld. 395 3TT 185 234 Uno rgld. Uno rgld. 20 20 TTno rg’d. m 866 Uno rg’d. Uno rL-‘d. Uno ri’d Uno rg’d 926 98 570 584 Uno U,.Irg’d. rg’d. 840 295 Uno rgld. Uno rg’d. 223 1 12 8 97 88 22 42 201 so 105 8 13 39 36 30 13 216 ; 907 With 1.300 149 3T2 No re 804 . 855 806 Uno ‘LTno 300 ‘13747 225 63-Iowa 491 158 442 turn. 550 1720 961 rg’d. rgld.

222 15001 1856. 1852. F..It. 723 657 744 562 is iss Uno 1391 1 103 82 521

151 165 With 14 220 15T 1462 B.h’.. 729 1784 2501 2615 289 457 rgld. 4048

218 204 832 721 850 1254 Bono 249 26T 444 8500 Fill.’, 213 . 155T 1702

1504 805 288 2958 123 191 440 185 82 772 124 169 841 2238 s.tt. Uno Uno 1478 2290 225 413 5146 Uno Un 217 498 145 854 U,no 54 208 2618 pi.”,. 9’d.

9’d. 1741 2848 232 590 6106 9’d. ‘d. 210 574 137 1292 ‘d. 273 270 2856

H.1, 48 20 13 181 16

Page 238 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. CALIFORNIA-(COntiued.) 1856. Fill.’.

Buch’n. 505 5)65 77 292 238 580 170 400 188 892 88 98 79 186 Uno rg’d. 99

185 49 109 63 191 119 108 Uno rg’d. Uno rg’d. 235 555 61 77 116 160 235

887 103 180 119 101 Uno rg’d. 23 55 Uno rg’d. 201 293 125 113 43 111 Uno rg’d. 39 136 196 211 163 179 182 55T 88 188 210 300 maj. 128 60 73 Uno rg’d. 185 458 Uno rg’d. 71 285 No re turn. 235 288 37 88 96 222 659 1157

80 118 72 182 maj. 49 21 48 77 309 870 810 17 874 92 490 25T7 502 . 46T

551 100 161 No re turn. 255 683 22 18 48 228 117 141 843 88T 481 654 maj.

882 40 76 240 807 11 67 124 885 11 89 15639 81169 COUNTIES. Placer……..

Plumas……. Sacramento… San Bernardi’o San Diego…. San Francisco.

San Joaquin.. San Luis Obispo San Mateo…. Santa Barbara Santa Clara…

Canta Cruz…. Shasta…….. Sierra…….. Siskiyou…… Solano……..

Sonoma…… Stanislaus…. Sutter…….. Tehama…… Trinity…….

Tulare and Buena Vista.. Tuolumne…. Yolo……… Yuba………

Total……. COUNTIES. Harrison…… Henderson… Hopkins…..

Houston….. Hunt…….. Jackson…… Johnson….. Jack………

Jasper…….. Jefferson….. Kaufman…. Karnes…… Kerr………

Kinney…… Lamar…….. Lapassas….. Lavacca….. Leon……..

Liberty…… Limestone…. Live Oak….. Llano……… McCullock…

McLennan… Madison….. Matagor da…. Maverich…. AMedina……

Milam……. Montgomery.. Nacogdoches. Newton…… Navarro…..

Nueces…… Ora nge…… Palo Pinto… Panola……. Parker…….

Polk…….. Presideo….. Red River…. Refugio…… Robertsou….

Rusk…….. Sabine……. San Augustine San Patricio.. San Saba….

Shelby…….. Smith…….. Starr……. Tarrant…… Titus……..

Travis……. Trinity……. Tyler……. Upshur…… Uvalde…… Van Zandt… Victoria…… Walker…… Washington.. Webb……. Wharton….

Williamson…. Wise……… Wood……… Young……. Total…… Buc hanan over Fremont, 82,674; Pierce over Scott, 5,219. Anderson….

Angelina….. Atascosa…… Austin…… Bowie…….. Bandera……

Bastrop……. Bell………. Bexar……. Bosque…… Brazoria…..

Brazos……. Br own……. Burleson….. Burnett…… Camanche…

Cass……… Cherokee…. Collin…….. Cooke……. Caldwell…..

Calhoun….. Cameron….. Colorado…… Comal…….. Coryell……

Dallas……. Denton…… De Witt…… Ellis……… El Paso, Earth Fannin…… Falls……… Fayette……. Fort Bend…. Freestone…

Galveston….. Gillespie….. Goliad……. Gonzales….. Grimes……

Guadaloupe… Grayson….. Harris……. Hays…….. Hidalgo……

Hill………. Fannin…….238 557 68 208uchan8 over Tota….1563 3 169

4995 Pierce 4509 Scott 7 Buchanan over Fillmore, 15,530; Pierce over Scott, 85,557; Cass over Taylor, 6,159. THE vote of this State, in 1856, was: For Fillmore, 4,838; for Buchanan, 6,858; m,j. for Buchanan, 1,525.

In 1852, Scott received 2,875; Pire, 4,818; maj. for Pierce, 1,443. In 1848, Taylor received 8,116; Cass, 1,847; maj. foi Taylor, 1,269. 1856.

1852. - 1848. I 238 TEXAS-(CL,ntinued.) 1856. B.eh’.. 2808 1124 8438 814

173 5332 1285 83 282 IT6 576 320 . 153T 2506 2OT3 799 1515 436 491 436

1011 248 2936 653 .8451 53365 1852 Pi.- 1 2831 rg’d. 3280 rg’d. 105 4241

1198 11 rg’d. 104 799 806 971 1619 492 365 474 rgld. 205 rgld. 785 40 8132

350 2199 40626 1852. s.tt. pi.,… 288 402 23 74 29 116 46 125 19 121 83

90 Uno rg’d. 80 121 Uno rgld. Uno rg’d. Uno rgld. 1848. T.yl.,. I C., 864

3si 42 6s TO 22T 24 161 11 66 13 - 64 F,..It. 992 217 . 9-41 93 18 5089

548 107 238 183 809 196 169 693 464 189 382 21 92 7 44 iss 23 056 130 650’

0691 Fill.’. 2096 865 3386 T 38 1598 1040 15 113 lo 6’i‘3 288 1083 2205

1791 634 498 228 347 811 882 139 2112 583 20SI 36165 S”.tt. 2295 Uno 8644

Uno 107 4167 1159 .112 Uno 78 186 757 1348 459 308 .26T Uno 214 Uno 6S3 32

2541 400 2077 85407 H.I. 53 113 5T lJn 33 48 40 38 Uno 5 Uno o 2 56 74 79

16 89 21 23 Uno 75 Uno 86 Uno 53 242 13 29 Uno 19 68 11 100 118 8 5 18T

Uno 5 9 72 121 16 1T 62 Uno 15 Uno 4995 189 rgld. 85 124 87 176 rg’d. 45
rg’d. 74 42 119 120 312 ill 220 52 39 rgld. 157 rg’d. 233 rgld. 95 .590 81

158 30 rg’d. 106 76 61 240 370 17 ti2 361 rgld. 43 96 228 til9 11T 59 143
rgld. 42 rgld. 13552 186 13 26 68 40 358 34 142 144 154 Uno 69 38 59 9T 20

44 66 Uno 43 rgld. 79 45 119 163 813 56 124 56 rg’d. 194 100 wm2cs_ 83 29

45 42 Uno 189 83 9 Uno 107 110 43 2T Tl 4 20 14 5T T 16 Uno 88 229 52 175

191 rgld. 332 IT2 1 83 64 rg’d. 228 802 99 99 76 68 105 209 46 81 rgid.

245 66 10T 17T 344 5 5T 202 455 38 181 TO 234 5 26 99 336 tiT 1 144 Uno rgld. 123 1 296 21 1 219 Uno g Id. 26 63 ST so . 119 20T 123 3T3 Uno rg’d.

26 51 - 16 41 Uno rg’d. 1 4509 1 10668 825 No re 58 120 88 12 230 151 818

20 74 74 Uno 168 76 11 852 514 802 196 maj. 123 133 26 69 245 132 108 lT6
maj. 238 ‘14. 899 136 144 814 25 185 863 260 258 182 449 128 181 612 turn.

ST 858 ITI 9 403 812 74T 64 225 56 rgld. 261 141 40 test 845 564 58 895 85

492 253 284 118 603 308 253 239 1022 55T 158 ti67 196 841 481 115’ 93 510, 823 859 415 645 130 169 IT5 150 28 Uno 7 Uno Uno 94 26 299 Uno 43 9 19 Uno 30 248 tis 5 84 94 242 30 6 Uno 122 43 Ur-to 68 Uno 165 81 8 141 2 120 53

68 58 195 21, 48 Uno 412 56 rg’d. 22 rgld. rg’d. 243 15T 804 rg’d. 143 84

103 21 rgld. 75 696 135 14 235 125 329 92 112 rg’d. - 283 3T 90 rg’d. .

208 rg’d. 341 1 86 138 824 .74 209 142,i 154 198 468 55 119 rg’d. 92 39

Uno 71 2T 58 53 81 -4T 289 i uno I lT5 185 rgld, 76 84 92 186 72 134 443

143

Page 239 view page image

VOTE FOR PRESIDENT, BY STATES. 1856. 1852. 1848. 1844. 1840. 1836. 1832.i 1828. 1824.: STATES. Eli 1is i is i - s s s Alabama;….- 46739 28552

15038 26881 — 80482 31363 — 260841 8T740’- 28471 33991 — 1563. 19068

Noo.Jsn198118 2194810 Arkansas… — 21910 10T87 7404 12173 — 7588 9300

— 55041 9546 — 5160 6766 – 1238

2400…………………………………….0. California… 20691

53365 86165 85407 40626 100……………………… Connecticut 42715.

34995 2615 80357 33249 8160 80314 2T046 5005 32832 29841 1943 31601 25296

174 18466 19234 177 11269 19929 498 Delaware.. 308 8004 6175 6293 6:318 62

6421 5898 80’ 62781 5996 - 5967 4884 - 4738 4155 4276 4110 4769 4849 By Legisature Florida… - 6358 4833 2875 4318 - 8116 1847

-………………… Georgia…. - 56578 42228 16660 84705 - 47544 44802

- 42100 44177 - 40261 31921 - 4930 22126 - 20750 - 1879.By Lcgtsl ature Illinois… 96189 105348 37444 64934 80597 9966 53047 56300 15774 455281

57920 3570 45537 47476 149 14983 18097 5429 14147 1581 6763 1542 1901 219

1047 Indiana…. 94375 118670 22386 80901 95340 6929 69907 74745 8100~

678671 70181 2106 65302 51604 - 41281 32480 15472 31552 17052 22237 3095

7343 - 5315 Iowa.43954 86 170 91 80 l 56 17763 1604 11084 12093

1126………………………………………….. Kentucky… 814

74642 67416 57068 53806 - 67141 49720 - 61255 51988 - 58489 382616 36955

33435 43.96 96247 91172 3904 - 453  16782 Louisiana… - 22164 20709

17255 18647 - 18217 15370 - [ 30S3 18782 - 11296 7616 3383 3653 2528 4049

4097 4605 By Legislature Mahie…… 67379 89080 8325 32543 41609 8930

35125 39880 12096, 35478 45719 4836 46612 46201 194 15239 22300 27204

33291 20773 13927 6870 2330 - - Maryland.. 281 89115 47460 85066 40020 54

37702 84528 125: 35984 32676 - 33528 28752 - 25852 22167 19160 19156 25759

24578 14632 14523 3646 695 Massachu’s. 108190 89240 19626 52683 44569

28023 61070 35281 88058 67418 5284610860 72874 519441621 41093 33501 33003

14545 29836 6019 30687 - 6616 - Michigan.. 71762 52136 1660 33859 41842

7237 23940 80687 10389 24:337T 27759 3632 22933 211.31 321 4000

7360………….. Mississippi.. - 35446 24195 17548 26876 - 25922 26537 -

19206 25126 - 19518 16195 -0 9638 9979 -T 599 15.1 6763 1694 3294 119 -

Missouri - 58164 48524 29984 38353 - 32671 43)77 - 31251! 41369 - 229721

29760 - 8337 10995 maj 5192 3422 8232 311 987  1401 NewHamp. 89345 82789

422 16147 29997 6695 1478t 27763 7560 17866 27160 4161 26156 32761 126

6228 18722 19010 25486 24076 20692 4107 648 - - NewJersey 28.388 46943

24115 8S556 44305 850 40015’ 36901 829, 38318 37495 131 33351 31034 69

26892 26347 23393 23836 23758 21950 9110 10985 1196 - NewYork.. 276007

195878.124604 234882 262083 25329 218603’ 114318‘120510 232482 237588

15812 225817 212527 2798 138543 166815 154896168497 135413,140763

ByLegisature N. Carolina o. 14 824 86 126 3 69058 139744 - 43550 348691 -

43232 39287 - 46376 33782 - 23626 26910 4563 24862 13918 37857 - 20415

15621 - Ohio…… 1497 1708T4] 28126 152526 169220 31682 13,%60! 154775

85354! 155057 149117 8050 1481571 124782 903 105405 96948 76539 81246

63396 67597 12280 18457 -19255 Pennsylv’a. 147510 230710 82175 179174

198568 8525’ 185513 171176 11263 161203 167535 3138 144021 143672 343

87111 91475 56716 90983 50848101652 5440 36100 4206 1609 Rhode Isl’d 11467‘6680 1675 7626 8735 644’ 6779 3646 730 7322 4867 107 5278T 3301 42

2710 2964 2810 2126 2754 321 2145 - 200 - S. Carolina. Elect ors Cho sen by-Legisl ature. m Tennessee.. - 73638 66178 58898 57018 - 64705 58419, -! 60030 59917 - 60391] 48289 8-5962, 26120 1436 28740 2240 216 20197 812

Texas 3 1169 15639 499 5 13552 - 4509 10668 -………………:……..

I……………………… Vermont… 89561 10569 545 22173 130(44 8621

23122 10948 13837 26770 18041 3954 32440 18018 319 20991 14037 11152 7970

24794.9205 By Legisature Virginia… 291 89706 60310 58572 738581 — 45124

46586! 9 43677, 49570 - 42501” 43893 - 23365i 80261 11451 33609 12101

26752 8189 2861 8489 416 Wisconsin.. 66090 52843 5791 22240 33658 88141

13747 15001! 10418………………………… Total….

1341264IL1838l69‘874534‘1386580‘1601274155825i‘1360099 1220544

291263;1299062 1337243 6230‘012 1122912 7059 786656 761549 530189’ 687502

509097,647231‘105321 155872 4428246387 Buchanan over Fremont, 496,905; Fremont and Fillmore over Buchanan, 377,629; Pierce over Scott, 214,694; over Scott and Hale, 58,869; Tyo vrCs,1955 aeadVnBrnoe Taylor, 151,708’; Polk over Clay, 38,181; Clay and Birney over Polk, 24,119; Harrison over Van Buren, 145,999; over Van Buren and Birney,1394;VnBrnoeHarsnadalohr)i 1836, 24,893;,Jackson over Clay, hin 183 2, 157,313; Jackson over Adams, in 1828, 138,134; Jackson over Adams, in 1824” 50,551; all others over Jcsn 038 * The Oppositiso vote was divided between Gen. Willila H.

Harrison, ef Ohio, Hugh L. White, of Tennessee Willie P. M.,g.m, of North Caroilna and Daniel Webster of Massacbusett. t William Wit, of Maryland, ran as an Anti-Maesnic Caudidate, in 112, receiving a considsrable vote in New-England, NewYork, and Feussyasia. which is added to that of Mr. Clay in onr Table. Mr. Wtrt received tP. d Electoral Vote of Vormont. I Neither Candidato received a majsrity of the Electoral Vote and the House of Represeutatilves elected Mr. John Quincy Adama. POPULAR 0 ci “4 0 be COo

Page 240 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. LATEST ELECTION RETURNS. ma achusetts-1859. GOVERNOR. Counties. Rep. Dem. Am. Bank Butler. Briggs.

Barnstable 1457 760 138 Berkshire. 3276 2605 337 Bristol… 8360 1831 2017

Dukes…. 227 195 94 Essex…. 8049 4532 188T37 Franklin.. 2672 1470 200

Hampden. 3303 2646 458 Hampshire 2659 734 886 Middlesex 10688 6488 2609

Nantucket 249 107 93 Norfolk… 4478 2988 1911 Plymouth. 3284 1548 899

Suffolk… 5473 4484 2165 Worcester. 9605 4999 1221 Yok…606 54 - .___

Total.. 58780 8588414365 Banks over Butler, 23,446. 11 R BR BeSEC. STATE.

COMPTROLLER. PRISON IESP. Maine-1859. GOVERNOR. Counties. Renp D~em. Mor ril. Smith. Androscoggin 8090 2261 Aroostook… 740 808 Cumberland. 6876

5851 Franklin….. 2331 1949 Hancock….. 290T 1955 Kennebec…. 5293 8288

Lincoln…… 8868 4180 Oxford…… 4113 8848 Penobscot..:. 6285 4569

Piscataquis. 1488 996 Sagadahoc… 1885 996 Somerset….. 8902 2812

Waldo…….. 4429 8141 Washington.. 8168 2772 York…….. 6036 5447

Total…… 66361 44373 Maj. for Morrill, 11,988. Albany……

Allegasny….. Broome…… Cattaraugus.. Cayuga…… Chautauqua..

Chemung…. Chenango…. Clinton…… Columbia…. Cortland…..

Delaware…. Dutchess….. Erie…….. Essex…….. Frankli n…..

Fulton……. Genesee….. Greene…… Hamilton…. Herkimer…

Jefferson…. Kings…….. Lewis……… Livingston… Madison…..

Monroe…… Montgomery.. NewYork… Niagara…… Oneida……

Onondaga…. Ontario…… Orange…… Orleans…… Oswego……

Otsego……. Putnam…… Queens…… Rensselaer… Richland…..

Rockland…. Saratoga….. Schenectady. Schoharie…. Schuyler…..

Seneca……. Steuben…… St. Lawence.. Suffolk……. Sullivan…..

Tioga……… Tompkins…. Ulster…… Warren……. Washington…

Wayne…… Westchester.. Wyoming…. Yates……… Total…….

Connecticut-1860. By Congressional District s. GOVERNOR. Districts. Bep.

Dem. I. Buckingham. Seymour. Hartford…. 8758 8972 Tolland…… 2558

2210 Total… 11811 11182 Maj. for Buckingham, 129. II Buck. Sy Middlesex… 2942 3490 New-Haven.. 8709 9765 Total…… 11651 1B255 Maj for Seymour, 1,604. IlL Buck. Sey. New-London. 5672 5102 Windham… 8700

2586 Total….. 9872 7688 Maj. for Buckingham, 1,684 IV. Buck. Sey.

Fairfield….. 6921 7136 Litchfield…. 5203 4656 Total….. 12124 11792

Maj. for Buckingbam, 332. Buckingham’s majority in the State, 541. Rho de Island-1-860. GOVERNOR. Counties. Rtep. ~rnion. Padelford. Spraguo.

Bristol……. 622 644 Kent…….. 1012 1460 Newport….. 1547 1542

Providenrice.. 6007 7237 Washington.. 1647 1412 Total…… 10835 122 95

Maj. for Sprague, 1,460. The opposition to Mr. Padelford was composed of Democrats, Americans, and disaffected Republicans, calling themselves Conservatives. Delaware-1858. GOVERNOR. Counties. Opp. Dem. Buckniaster.

Burton. Kent…….. 185T 2024 New Castle.. 845T 3416 Sussex…… 2240

2318 Total…… 7554 7758 Burton’s maj., 204. Rep. Dem. Forreat, Eldker’

kin. 7391 9033 4766 2186 8489 2916 8970 2888 6072 8631 5583 8219 2431 2438

4482 8611 8228 3206 8977 4085 8017 2082 8604 8476 5247 5058 7582 9882 2897

1517 2292 2296 2672 2437 8809 2038 2500 8250 218 396 4483 2648 6859 5006

7910 12950 2346 1921 8220 2668 4585 2691 7108 4742 2779 8030 18381 88276

8697 8282 10322 7284 8742 6202 8571 8098 4048 4985 2914 2160 7006 48 5472

4903 1029 1198 1385 8464 4950 7902 747 1558 782 1746 4860 4389 2244 1311

2508 8596 1940 1796 1919 2842 5758 4848 7701 8464 1706 2625 1679 8088 8015

2586 8284 2512 4040 5622 2182 1685 4787 2969 4660 8210 43,48 6522 8115

1816 2231 1209 251784 251194 Vermont-1859. By Con g ressional Districts.

GOVERNOR. ~Di~stricts. Re. Dern. I. Halq. Saxe. Addison….. 8042 543

Bennington…. 1866 1253 Rutland….. 8006 10T0 Washington.. 2997 16T6

Total…… 10911 4542 II. Hall Saxe. Caledonia… 221T 1837 Orange……

8052 2185 Windham…. 818T 950 Windsor…… 8428 1880 Total…… 11834

5802 III. Hall. Saxe. Chittenden.. 253T 819 Essex…… 541 428

Franklin….. 2022 1280 Grand Isle… 294 245 Lamollle….. 1518 546

Orleans…… 1715 887 Total…. 8622 4155 Total State 31867 14499 Maj.

for Hall, 16,868. Calednia.. 221 1337 The opositon toMr. ote aj. 251139; 252589ns 279522348 25rret’s,5190. ‘Jones’ maj., 1450; Denniston’s, 48648; Forrest’s, 590. AGGR EG ATE VOTE FOR OTHER STATE OFFICERS. s Treasurer…Dersheimer,* 275,587; Vanderpoel, 226,755 48,32 Att’y Gen’l..My ers,….276,792; Tremain, -…227,34-49,447 State Eng’r.

Storey,…… 250,880 Richmond,*.252,312-1,432 Canal Com..Chapin,….

251,449; Skinner,*..251,77-328 JdgexofAp. I)avies,..i….272,275; Johnson….227, 171-45,104 Clerk of Ap.Hughes,*….275,286; Lewis,……27,3547,931 The above are the actual returns sent from the various counties of the State to the State Department at Albany; but In consequence of informality in some of the returns, the officially declared result, on a number of candidates, varies from the actual. The vote for Forrest is declared at 243,430; Elderkin, 237,579; Storey, 246,041; Richmond 250,247; dhapin, 245,976; Davies, 265,568; Johnson, 223,525; Lewis, 221,084. TNominate8d and supported by the American, or Balance of Poew paty. I I i I 240 NewYork-1859. 7253 9216 4771 2133 8491 2915 3973

2900 6180 8541 5590 8211 2452 2414 4482 3614 8252 8184 8946 4123 8018 2084

8600 8484 .523T 5070 7466 9416 2395 1519 2292 2294 2669 2446 8309 2042

2,500 8253 213 896 4426 2661 6860.5004 7971 13042’ 2359 1918 821.5 2676

4676 2805 7065 4793 2690 8069 18272 88462 8688 8303 10288 7306 8833 6082

8571 8104 4056 4988 2 2230 7004 4850 ti469 4912 1018’.210 1315 3540 5002

7933 678 16,1,9 749 1751 4352 4417 17T9 1780 2563 8605 l 1821 1903 2363

5759 4850 7846 8347 1694 2682 1670 3102 8023 2580 8280 2514 4034 5596 2183

1683 4735 2974 4658 3210 4,530, 6W 31281 1812 2236 i 1208 51139 252589

8371 4886 859T 4044 6410 6241 2432 4706 8332 4554 8120 4148 W4 9666 2443

2344 2782 3588 2691 213 4510 6902 9446 2359 8591 4925 69TO 8013 22088 4128

10400 903T 43TT 4381 2859 6976 5502 1088 190T 7424 1002 1051 4752 1981

2TO2 2143 2240 6089 8009 2110 2463 8147 8501 tio39 21ST 6135 4804 5lT2

8148 224T 75952 8057 2022 2811 2196 3311 2559 2381 8393 3104 8513 19T8

2934 46T5 7204 14Tl 2243 23T4 1750 8058 896 25T2 4948 11431 1920 2299 2552

4882 2800 84554 2839 7209 589T 2298 4618 2196 4869 4ST9 1141 2937 5516

1300 1429 401T 1577 8402 1590 2026 4-516 8186 2221 2304 2458 2296 461T

1680 2569 3057 5690 ITST 1195 221304 NewHampshire-1859. GOVERNOR.

]3elknap…… 1724 1850 Carroll…… 2248 2330 Rockingham. bT99 5055

Strafford…. 3498 2679 Total…… 13269 11914 Maj. for Goodwin, 1,355.

IL Go,,dwi.. C.t,,. ilillsborough.. 64T6 5461 Alerrimae…. 4835 4788

Total…… 11811 Maj. for Goodwin, 1,062. IIL G’.dwi.. C.t”

Cheshir,,…… 3448 2263 Coos….-….. 1256 1472 Grafton 479T 4T39

Sullivan….. 2245 2165 Total…… 1IT46 10639 Maj. for Goodwin, 1,107.

Page 241 view page image

ELECTION RETURNS-N. JERSEY, PENN., MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA. 241

New4ersey-1859. P~SFL PAPA. PENSFL NiA. Ky1aud1859. .P.ENN bS YL VrA NbIA.

CONGRESS (Conti.n.)ed. C iDistrirts. Un,ion. Demn. IV. Millward.

Phillips. Ward 13…. 1691 846 1 84…. 1940 864 C 15…. 1976 1828 ” 19
part 506 750 ” 20… 1820 1129 ” 21 part 820 240 ” 23 part 405 816 “

24…. 1091 978 Total….. 9749 6451 ]Broom, Am., 253. Mlilw’d over Ph1l’s, 3,298. V. Wood. Jenes. Ward 21 part 923 660 “22…. l54 777 “23
part 1203 768 Montg’ry Co. 6032 5004 Maj. for Wood, 2,492. SL Br2imall.

Mnliy. Chester….. 2388 4021 Delaware… 2288 1164 Mui. fo Wrigh, 516.

Total….46T6 5185Hntndn 215 16 IV DisHaisn Hickman, A.Z. 1).D 6,786.

Hick’n over Manley 1,601. VIL Lengneeker. Robertsh Bucks…… 5235 5122

Lehigh -…. 8089 2954 Total….. 8324 8076 Maj. for Longnecker, 248. VIIL

Sehwartza J.o ne. Berks……. 7821 7802 Maj. for Schwartz, 19. X IX.

Stevens. H6pkins. Lancaster… 9513 6341 Maj. for Stevens, 3,172. M.

Killinger. Weidle. Dauphin… 825 2281 Lebanon… 27l2 1460 Union…….

1818 787 North’ld, pt. 160 27 Snyder….. 1452 1034 Total….. 8591 5589

Maj. for KOliI ger, 8,308. XL Campbell Dewart. Northumb’ld 1602 1825

Schuylkill… 551 8035 Total 7153 4860 Coke, A D., 8,141. B Caml1 over Dewart, 2,766. XII. Scranton. MeReyn’s. Columbia…. 190T 1442 Luze rne…. 6193 8262 M ontour…. 990 584 Wyoming… 983 898 Maj. for Scranton, 8,837. XIIL Shoemaker. Dhimtk. Carbon….1538 1126 Monroe….

783 1261 Northampton 2275 2992 Pike…….. 179 491 Wayne….. 1191 2189

Total….. 656 8009o on Maj. for DGmro ck, 1,8e3, XIV. Grow. PWkh e rst.

Bradford…. 47T4 920 Susquehanna 8180 1859 PENNSf~ YL TrA NirA. CO NG R

ESS-(-( oni.~d.) Districts. Union. Dem. xV. R.Ie. White. Sullivan…. 8 14

48 9 Potter…… 1048 48 8 Total……9575 7849 Maj. for Hale, 1,889.

XVI. Oen. W. FiThe r. Cumberland 2560 2768 Per ry…… 1948 1488

York…..4138 4349 Maj. for Junkin, 46. XVII. MDPhearon. Reilly.

Adams….. 2 295 2 169 Bedford…. 1859 19T4 Franklin…. 8384 8060

Fulton…… 575 713 Juniata….. 1235 1165 NTotal…..1 968 902 1 Maj.

for McPherson, 257. XVIIL Blair. Pershing. Blair……. 2798 156T

Cambria… 1700 2237 Huntingdon. 2115 1261 Somerset… 2501 l 5T 8

Tota1…18 80- -;6T 9 Maj. for Blair, 2,435. xIx. Coyode, Foste., Armstr-ng.. 2425 2001 Indiana…. 8035 1585 WestmoreOPd 8 T9T 4629

Total… 19 l. 67 81 65 Maj. for Coyode, 1,092. xx. Kight.Motoy Fayette…. 127 829 Greene….781 2156 Washington. 8792 8799 Total…..

5798 9254 Maj. for Montgo’ry, 8,456. XXL Moorhea. Brke.. Allegheny, pt.

6539 4879 Maj. for Moorhead. 1,660. XXIL McKnlght. Birmi’-. Allegheny, pt.

298,5 21T Butler…….. 2508 285 Tota…… t4 - 502 Williams, Anti-Tam, 8903. McK. over Wins., 1,535. XXIIL Stewart. M.Gnftt. Beaver…..

I871 1126 Lawrence…1951 615 Mercer….. 2899 2086 Total….. 6721 8 Maj.

for 9tewart, 2,944. XXIV. Hall. Gill!s. Clarion….. 158 2019

,Clearfeied… 1028 10445 Elk…….. 895 479 Forrest…. No return.

Jefferson… 1871 1049 McKean… 885 4T9 Venango’… 1958 1671

Warren…1765 969 Maj. for Hall,, 794, Xxv. Babbitt. Marshall.

Crawford…. 8140 2033 Erie…….. 8220 2080 NewJersey 1859. GOVERNOR.

Dish lts-d. Opp Dem.. L Olden. Wright. Atlantic….. 853 740 Camden…

2824 2339 Cape Mayi.. 530 497 Cumber land. 1830 16 35 Gloucester.. 147T

1206 Salem…… 2051 1981 Total….. 9105 8898 Majority for Olden, 707.

II’ Olden. Wright, Burlington.. 4748 8392 Mercer….. 858T 2981 Monmouth..

8005 8451 Ocean…… 1841 780 Total….. 1681 10561 Maj. for Olden, 2,120. IIL Olden. Wright. Hunterdon… 2T26 3445 Middlesex.. 8253 249T

Somerset…2011 1838 Warren…2116 2842 Total… 10106 10622 Maj.fo~r Wright, 516. IV. Old… Wright. Bergen….. 1262 1518 Mlorris…… 8076 8

138 Passaic…… 2463 IS70 Sussex…… 1842 2528 Total….. 8648 9054

Mlaj. for Wright, 411. V. Old… Wright. Essex……. 7883 7454

Ifludson…. 8131 8726 Union…… 1766 1899 Total….. 12780 13OT9  Maj.

for Wright, 299. enn RyanTia-1858. CONGRESS. Ward 1….. 1527 1431 “2…..

1481 1414 “8’.. 878 1027 “4….. 720 1387 “5 part 812 449 “7….. 1574

1115 T otal….. 6492 6s82  Nebinger,.An~ti.ecompto.De~m., 2,442.

Florence over Ryan, 331. IL Morris. Martin. Ward 5 part 618 637 “6…926

817 “8….. 1184 878 9…. 1162 896 JO0.:… 1818 802 Total….. 565.9

4080 Maj. for Mtorris, 1,623. HI. Verree Landy. Ward 11…. 987 872

“12…. 1132 881 “16…. 1284 1126 “17…. 934 1836 “18…. 1667 973 “19
part 973 696 T otal…..~ 69TT51 Re!ed,.An., 52. Verree over Landy, 1,143.

Maryland 1859. CONGRESS. Caroline…… 814 798 Dorchester.. 1182 1220

Queen Anne’s 901 96T Somerset…. 1500 1426 Talbot……. 709 989

Worcester… 1278 152,4 Total…… 6384 6934 Maj. for Stewart, 550.

ILWebster. McHenry Bait. Co., pt.. 1690 176 Carroll……. 2433 229T

Cecil…….. 2044 1970 Harford…… 2095 1647 Ke~nt…….. 836 769 T
ota…… 9098 Maj. for Webster,6. Ill. Harris. Preston. Bait. City, pt.

8026 2554 Bait. Co., pt..- 1591 1672 Toa…… 961T 422 Maj. for Harris, 5,891. I.Davis. Hrrison. Balt. City, pt.10168 2796 Maj. for Davis, 7,872.

V. Hoff…. Kunkel. Alleghany… 2201 2289 Frederick…. 8673 3T18

Washington. 2842 2842 Total…… 816 84 Maj. for Kunkel, 133. VL Hagne.

Hughes. Anne Arundel 1107 1082 Calvert…… 439 442 Charles…….575 632

Howard….. 762 84 Montgomery. 117T 1304 Prince Geo.’.s 842 985 St.

Mary’s…. -452 1014 Total…… 5354 6802 Maj. for Hughes, 948.

LEGISLATURE IS5T. SENATE..Amer.,15; Dem., 7 HousE…Amer., 44; Dem.: 29

!TOTAL VOTE OF STATE. Olden,………. 53,815 Wright,….. 51,714 Maj. for Olden,.. 1,601 ~irgi i-1859. GOVERNOR. Di,tricts. Opp.. Dem I’ f. Letche., Accomac….o. 675 Elizabeth City 214 164 Essex……. 32,5 270

Gloucester… 88 8ff James City.. 111 81 King and Queen 271 429

Lancaster… 156 107 Matthews…. 815 253 Middlesex…. 170 214 New Kent… 239 132 N lorthampton. 227 153 Northumber’d 108 194 RiRchmond Co.

296 261 Warwick…. 60 81 Westmoreland 444 146’ Williamsburg. 40 55

Yor’k………171 102 Total…… 480T 3582 Maj. for Goggin, 725. Muscoe H. R. Garnett, De~m., elected to Congren without opposition. IL Goggin.

Lecher. Charles City.. 245 66 Greensville.. 93 142 Isle of Wi~ght. 148 582

Nansemond.. 462 271 NorfolIk City.. - 86 527

Page 242 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. ~IR GIINIA..rORBTH CAROLZY.A. GOVERNOR

(Continued.) tCONGRESS (Continued.) Di’tricti. Opp. Dem. Distdris Opp.

Den. XI. Goggin. Lateher. II Scattering. RuBma Wirt……. 136 802

Beaufort…..140 887 Wood…….. 836 660 Carteret….. -6 202 c Craven…… 80 875 Total…..6928 9115 Edgecomb… 4 867 Maj. for Letcher, 2,187. Greene…… 50 28 Elbert G. Jenkins,.Dem., Hyde……. 16

183 elected to Congress by 1,838 Jones……. 59 140 majority over Laidley, Opp. Lenoir……. 17 810 TotalI 440 4038 Total 18 7oggin.

Leteher. Onslow…… 88 397 Alleghany… 210 355 Pitt………. 61 509 Bo one……. 150 292 Wayne…… 11 827 Botetourt…. 486 714 Clay……..

90 49 Total…… 476 4382 Craig……. 92 256 Maj. for Ruffin, 3,906.

Fayette….. 846 885 ) III. #MeDuffl. Winslow. Floyd……. 522 839

Bladen…… 192 883 Giles…….. 463 252 Brunswick… No return.

Greenbrier.. 859 779 Columbus…. 9227 Logan…….. 94 480 Cumberland..

404 109 Mercer…… 557 429 Duplin……67 780 Monroe…… 845 672

New-Hanover 90 Montgomery. 615 888 Richmond… No return Nicholas….. 864

303 Robeson…..- 825 Pocahontas… 134 419 Sampson…..104 598

Raleigh…… 381 148. Roanoke….. 283 409> Total 949 4186 Wayne…..,,.

269 320 Maj. for Winslow, 3,287. Wyoming…. 170 78 Idp~etD.,t Total…..

6960 7167 IV. Sanders. Branch. Maj. for Letcher, 207. Franklin….. 232

626 No opposition to H. A. Granville…. 290 675 Edmundson, Dem., for Con-Johnson….. 546 860 are ss. - Nash…….. 66 879 XIIL Goggin. Letehefr.

Orange…… 572 729 Buchanan… 73 164 Wake…….. 696 1405

Carroll…… 461 344,> Warren 57 053 Grayson….. 884 4T Lee……… 688

624 Total….. 2459 5827 McDowell…. 115 s3 Maj. for Branch, 8,868.

Pulaski…… 814 239 Gil.,, Willi-. Russell…… 751 404 Alamance. 576

689 Scott…….. 600 559 Caswell.. 183 836 Smyth……. 598 454>

Chatham…. 983 832 Ma.oLtce. Tazewell…..541 621 Guilford…… 2047 468

WilamsJhndington. 966 870 Montgomery.. 639 179 Wise…….. 208 226 Moore.

529 559 D.MrGoeb Wythe…….743 775 Person…… 201 502 To…… 6442

5810 Randolph…. 1203 427 Maj. for Goggin, 632. Total…..6361 4512

Elbert S. Martin, Ind. Maj. for Gilmer, 1,849. Dem., elected to Congress V

,h c by 803 majority over Floyd, VI. Leach. Scale.. tion of Roger ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A.lPror,dee.Brooe….21 5t3h~9.,3Dve 681 37 rk. 11 8 ng a 6

9 regular.D~er. Allegany…. 147 883 TOTAL VOTE OF STATE. Ashe……..789

452 Op~pooiti.o. Davidson…. 1470 793 Governor..nfoggin.. 71,543”,Dve….

8 7 t v 1 0 r 5A’ e..Preston.. 64,368 Forsyth…… 955 1061 - -

Tyler…..289 460 ~~~~ Demoerats. Iredell…. 1583 472

GoTvernor..Letcher.. 77,112 Rocklngha13. 402 Rockni~am..4021417 Att’y Gen..Tucker… 73,124 Stokes…… 517 768 Maj. for Letcher, 5,569; Surry…….601 926 do. for Tucker, 8,756. Yadkin…… 932 697 North Carolina-1859 Total…..8566 7664 CONGRESS. ~Maj. for Leach, 902. Amhrst 73 68 X GanLtchr.Ditricts D-. VII. Walkep. Cra. BP4th. Anson……. 7653 -

7 L sm~li. Sha. uBertie……. 665 506 Cabarrus…. 517 358 Camden….. 38

109l Catawba….. 181 688 Chowan….. 294 286 Cleveland…. 106 729

Currituck…. 236 658 Gaston……. 96 703 Gates…….452 406

Lincoln…… 192 439 Halifax…… 562 759 Mecklenburg. 411 777 Total.545

4549 Jckson….388 510Hertford…479 293 Rowan…….756 849 Maj. or Gggin,886. Kanaha…113 467Martin……3852 750> Stanly……. 771 65

Shelon F Leks, ~. Lwis…..259 649Northampton. 599 758) Union……. 280

627 ~y 1550 aj. verPowel, Ptna…..451 427Perquimans. 431 280

Total……4075 549 Vrl. eggi. Lether.Bitcie…..13 422Washiington. 471

255 VIII, Vinnee. Celemns. Alexandria.. 874 620Boane…….302

261Buncombe… 833 858 Culpepe.497 45 Tucke……17 176 Total……6045

5531 Burke…. 559 414 Firrf,~ax. 69~. 77 Upshur 292 422 Maj. for Smith, 514.?,Caidwell;…. 529 225 FIB GII.rA. VIRG INIA. GOVERNOR-(Cbntinned.) GOVERNOR-Continaed.) uDiasmtri 56 43 R ck. 5MOrr. foet.c t. On. 2 I L. G
oggi n. L e tche r. W m. S m i t h, e., C9M R 3 Norfolk Coa…..591 881

Fauqier… 931 1020 Portsmouth… 678 537 King George. 205 196 Prince George 384 267 Orange…. 426 8T9 P rincess Anne 86T 864 Prince Wm… 251

7 12 Southampton 536 493 Rappahjnock. T509 463 Burry…….. 114 167

Spottsylvania 498 5C r SP i.ex…… 12T 291 Stafford.. g.. 299 507

Total…… 4404 4088 Total…… 5181 567T Maj. for Goggin, 866.

Shackelford, Ind Dm. John S. Mflison, Dem., received 430 votes for Conelected to Congress without gress. opposition. Maj. for LetcheL, 496.

IIL Gggtn. Letchor. Wm. Smith, Dem., elected Caroline….. 619 502 t o Congress by 802 P aj. Chesterfield.. 22581 779 Goochland… 284 259VIL

GW.Lt,. Hanover…. 572 89Berkeley…. 8315 Henrico….. 1248, 850_ King William. 148 818 Fr~ederick…. 888 1124 ]Louisa……. 496 87Hampshire..

7o 063 Richm’d City. 2043 158Jefferson…. 85T7 7 Loudoun…. 1798 722

Maj. for Goggin, 559. Page…….. 130 960 Daniel 0. Dejarnette,.Ind.

Warn21 5 -Dem., elected to Congress, Total…… 9868 ,over John S.

Caskie, regular Maj. for Letcher, 891. Dem., by 100 majority.AlxR.BtlrOP.

IV. Coggin. Letchef. elected to Congress by 167 Amelia…… 203 204
majority. Bgrunswick…. 188 482TX Go.Le,h,r Charlotte…. 406 403

Cumberland.. 252 204i Augusta…… 2170 10 Dinwidie… 23

26iBath……… 2,30 231 Lunenburgh.. 179 433 Hardy…… 771 854

Mecklenburg. 884 606 Highland…. 229 478 Nottoway…. 195 17

Pendleton…. 883 411 Petersburg… 19544 1 Rockbridge.. 1280. 10

Peterburg.. 944636 Rciga,020 Powhattan… 130 132Shnnoh.2311 Brrce Edward 211 816 ~~~~~~~Total..38.86.Tta 5986 8398 ~~~~~~~~Maj. for Letcher, 2441.

~~~~~~~~Maj. for Letcher,,412. Willam 0 Gooe, Dm.,John T. Harris, Ind.

Dem., ,elected over Flournoy, Ind.elcetoCnrs,oe Dem.Mr.

oodediedbe-Skinner, regular Dem., by fore taking his seat, and his 931
majority. place was filled by the elec-X. Gaggln. Letohe., tion of Roger A. Pryor, Dem. Brooke…… -213 869 V. Goggin. Letche., Hancock…. 144

804 Appomattox. 263 470 Marion….468 119T ,Campbell…. 1385 1129

Marshall…. 828 683 Franklin…. 1010 884 Monongalia.. 641 9T5

Halifax…… 858 758 Ohio…….. 1323 1030 Henry……. 576 419

Pleasants…. 76 146 Patrick…… 503 593 Preston…… 505’ 8]0

‘Pittsylvania.. 1396 110T Taylor…… 530 551 . Tyler……… 289 460

Total…….5491’ 5360 WetzeL…… 65 809 Maj. for Goggin, 131. Ttl…

0278 Thomas S. Bocock, De/m, Mj o ece,222 reelected to Congress, with4mr opposition. Sherrard Clemens, Dem., VL Go~-. L~khe,reelected to Congress, withAlbemarle… 1803 931Ouopoiin Amherst….. 732 654 XL Goggn. Letcher.

Bedford….. 1386 815 ]Barbour…… 42.6 81T Buckingham.. 5835 46T

Braxton….. 849 1 FPluvanna…. 482 826 Cabell……. 413 504

Greene…… 126 887 Calhoun….26 27T MIadison….. 132 586 Doddridge…

104 609 -Nelson…… 739 888 Gilmer,.60. 825 Harrison…780 1092 242

Page 243 view page image

ELECTION RETURNS-GEORGIA, LOUISIANA AND TEXAS. NORTHi CAR OLINA. GEORGIA.

CONGRESS (Coti.ned.) CONGRESS (otinue4i).) Dir-i. Opp. Dem. Districts.

OP.D,m. VIIL Vance. Coleman. IL D.g Crawford. Cherokee…. 675 398

Webster….. 275 216 Haywood…. 307 449 Wilcox…… 8 259 Henderson…

631 514 Worth……. 109 272 Jackson…… 245 8 S6 Macon…… 489 8J9

Total…… 643T 8279 Madison…..84 425 Bethune, Ind., received McDowell… 476 351 417 votes for Congress. Polk……… 157 180

Rutherford.. 767 643 1T8421 Watauga…. 321 191 Wilkes……. 1190 359 IIL

Hardeman. Spoor. Yancy……. 463 616 Bibb……..908 879 Butts……..

825 881 Total…… 8026 6331 Crawford…. 248 896 Maj. for Vance, 1,695.

Harris……. 683 453 TOTAL VOTE OF THE STATE. Monr……63 556

Monroe…… 63 580 Opposition. Pike…….. 423 618

CTog,‘59….Opp….86957 Spaulding. 445 474 Goe’nor,‘58…McRae, 39965

Talbot……. 564 492 Deno,,ra. Taylor……. 820 862 Cong., 159….Dem.,.. 43928 Upson……. 553 292 Gov’~,‘58E,,… 56222 Total…..

5636 5488 Dem. maj. on Congress, Maj. for Hardeman, 153. 6,971; Ellis, 16,257. IV. Wright. Garttell. Campbell…. 889 777 Carroll…… 443 1169’

Georgi~18,59.Clayton…… 288 857’ CONGRESS. Cobb…….. 552 1180T

CONGRESS. ~~Coweta……4T T Districts. ~Ipp. DLem. De Kalb…..363 703. L

Mcin 3t7y Love. Fayette 315 544….. Appling….. 17 448 Fulton…….399

1221’ Berrien…… 16584Her…. T Brooks…… 289 300 Henry……. 25449

Bryan…….128 152 Henry. 651. 398 Bulloch…… 21 569 Tr o up…… 50

672 Camden….. 43 137 Troup….H.. 2314 Chatham….. 649

696Charlton……11 190 Total. 6353 8877 Clinch……. 105 261 Maj. for Gartrell, 2,824. Coffee……. 41 279 V. Shaekelford. Underw’d.

Colquitt…… 84 144 Cass……… 151 1236 Echols……..49 182

Cateosa…… 80 628 Effingham…. 254 170 Chattoogsa.. 5. 223 o514

Emanuel….. 131 465 Cherokee…. 109 1121 Glynn……. 41 176

Dade…….. 13 824 Irwin…….. 9 200 Fannin…… 839 415 Johnson…..

146 180 Floyd……. 127 989 Laurens….. 187 235 Gilmer…… 77 982

Liberty…… 115 218 Gordon. 25T 740 Lowndes…. 216 236 Haralson…. 28

866 McIntosh…. 72 144 Milton…… 182 890 Montgomery.. 259 55

Murray…… 118 712 Pierce……. 19 199 Paulding.. 43 871 Tattnall…..

176 291 Pickensi….. 72 751 Telfair…… 140 192 Polk……..4 48 4 3 1

Thomas….. 428 477 Walker…… 190 740 Ware……. 44 231 Whitfield..

155 1129 Wayne…… 22 125 Total….3881 724T Total Di.86 59Hrio……N

21621283 Maj. for Love, 8,866. Majority for Underwood, IL Donglas.

Crawford. 10,17. Baker…….92 20 VL Lytl.. aeks.. Calhoun….. 102 299

Banks 6 504.. Chattahoochee 242 838 Clarke……232 511 Clay…….. 25
awson 65 52 r e……. Decatur….. 517 511 Forsyth……24 98 Dooley….

250 544 Franklin 65 851 Total…. Dougherty… 197 299 Gwinnett 283

699…. ‘Early……. 98 268 Habersham 885 831 Lee………. 209 215

Hall……… 2 68T Macon…… 885 284 Hart…….. 73 N68 Marion……

818 887 Jackson 880 702….. Miller…..48 201 Lumpkin 7 73 Cocrl…..-

19Pnl….7 3 Mitchell….97 353 Madlson 15 6.BtnRue28 65Pl……..4 3

Muscogee…. 682 749 Rabun 1 54 H.Fecan 25 45 ReRie…..1 88

Pulaski….,.. 148 406Ton 19 22Irvle…- 44Rk….18 17 Quitman. 5 19 no 8

67Lvnso…..- 437 Saie99..2 4 Randolph…. 544 488 Walton, 41 8
aio…….1 26SnAgsie.1 6 8$chley…..217 218 White….9 86 on ope -

55Seb……..5 3 Sumter’. 59 ~ oa…..85 9645.Tmay 4 92 Tiu……7 95

Terrell…..878 274?Maj. for Jackson, 6,893. Tnss… - 25 Trny….9 37 .L

0 UISIA NA. CO NG RESS ( C.,i.,..d.) Districts. Opp. De. IIIe Ca…82

3D9id2 o n. Washington…. 60 420) W. Baton Rouge — 162 W. Feliciana…

22 26 Total…….. 726 6288 Maj. for Davidson, 5,562. IV. Jones. Landum Belnville……. 127 799 Bossier…..130 5 84 Caddo……… 320 822

Calcasieu…… Rejected., Caldwell……. 55‘198 Claiborne…… 90 95T

De Soto…….. 33 643 Franklin……. 326 202 Jackson……. 150 754

Lafayette….. 8 278 Morehouse….. 803 412 Nachitoches… 440 7,08

Ouachita…… 103 429 Rapides……. 562 889 Sabine…….. Rejected. St.

Landry….. Rejected. Union……… 892 T68 Vermillion….. Rejected.

Winn………. 186 880 Total…….. 8220 8828 Maj. for Landrum,,5,603.

TOTAL VOTE OFr THE~ STATIL Go~vernor,. ell’s.’.. 1558 Lt. Govy….Ray….

1604T See. State.. Blake… 15156 Go~vernwr… Moore.. 24484 Lt.

Gov…..Hyams3.. 24913 Se.S-tate.. Hardy.. 2514,2 GEORBGIA. CO NG RESS

(Co~tinM. ) DIt,Id. O0~[ Dem. VIL 3ri~i.Harper Baldwin….. 813 885

Greene….. d. 629 24 Hancock…. 891 269 Jasper…… 449 888

Jones…….. 189 282 Morgan…… 882 189 Newton.. 723 745 Putnam…283

832 Twiggs……. 167 325 W asigton.. 578 639 Wilkinson…. 39.3 557 T
ota…… 4492 43 Maj. for Hill, 139. VIIL Wright. Jone.. Burke……. 851

514 Columbia…. 417 40T Elbert…….. 418 518 Gladcock…. 64 282

Jefferson.. “O45 39 Lincoln….. 186 220 Oglethorpe… 875 458

Richmond..1103 920 Scriven…… 259 282 TaUiaferro..211 188 Warren…..

84 442 Wilkes……. 829 892 Total…… 4912W Maj. for Jones, 405. TOTAL

VOTE OF THE STAT]R Oppos~ition. Go~vernor. Akin….. 421.95 Congress..

Opposition36419 (7over,nor. Brown…..68806 Congress..Dem.,…. 61184

Majori’s.-Brown, 21,611; Congress, 24,715. 245 Louisiana 1859. CONGRESS.

Districts. Opp. Dem. Orleans, Rt. B3k. 1i9T 128 “2d Dist. 999 708 ” 8d Dist. 904 493 Plaquemines… 67 814 St. Bernard…. 48 153 Total….2215

1796 Maj. for Bouligny, 419. Bienvenu received 497 votes for Congress. IL

Wichols. Taylor. Ascension….. 835 418 Assumption…. 215 569

Jefferson…… 410 558 Lafourche….. 269 693 Orleans, let Dis. 1289 999

“1 4th Dis. 856 559 St. Charles…. 65 197 St. James….. 278 244 St. John Baptiste 175 185 St. Mary…… 169 501 St. Mar,tin….. 4T6 664

Terrebonne…. 42T 421 Total……. 4459 5908 Maj. for Taylor, 1,449. IIL

Cannon. David.-.. Avoyelles…… — 654 ‘Carroll…….. — 753

Oatahoula…..  51.3 Concordia….. — 179 E. Baton Rouge 28 675 E.

Fellclans.., 8 450 lberville……. — 404 Livingston -… 43T

Madison……. 11 256 Point Coupee.. - - 575 St. Helena…… Rejected.

St. Tammany… 4,5 292 Tensaa……..  250 Texas-1859. This State elected State Officers and Congressmen in 1859. The Congressional vote was as follows: CONGRESS. Dis,tricts. id. Don. I. O,.hiltree. 1.Anderson……

214 84 Angelin…… 50 801 Bowie…….. 10 870 Case………. 252 756

Chambers 88 99 Cherokee…… 284 1165 Colin………. 3 Il Cooke……14!7 Dallas……… TO 894 Denton…….. 12 628

Fannin…….. 26 1118 Grayson….. 25 938 Harrison……. No return.

Henderson….. No return. Hopkins……. 53 991I Houston……. 87 681

Hunt………. 18 796 Jack………. 3 115 Jasper…..17 &,5

Jefferson……. 24 98. Kaufman…… 91 514 Lamar…….. 25 996

Liberty…….. 52 2T5 Nacogdoches… 2.26 638 Newton……. 20 218

Orange…….. 46 109 Panola…….. 74 68 Polk……… 49 584 Red River….. 18 835 Rusk………. 173 1476 Sabine…….. 62 14T San Augustine.. 13 865 Shelby…….. 50 635 Smith…….. 23:3 903

Titus………. 5T’ 956 Trinity…….. 94 ST4

Page 244 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. TENNESSEE. TENNESS~E.

CONGRESS-(Continned.) TOTAL VOTE OF THE STATFL Dieiri~~~. Led Dern.

Di.~~Distrcts. le. Dn. Ddteo Opp. Dem. Opposition. I. Oclititrea Reagan II Hamilten. Want. IV. Stokes. v. okv…Netheriand..68218 Coffee……… 447

909 Cong….Opposition..60921 De Kalb……. 825, 753 Democrats.

Grundy……. 66.885 Gov…..Harris……76226 Jackson…….1426 1043

Cong….Democratic..78079 Macon…….. 556 437 MaotisHars808

Smith………1598 674 Majorities.-arris, 8,008; Van Buren….. 1566 Dem.

maj. on Cong., 12,158. Warren……. 528 1048 LEGISLATUR1859.

White………1084 750 SENATE… Opp., 11; Dem., 14 m – HousE….0pp., 34; Dem.,41 TEXAS. CO NG RESS ( bnti.ued. ) Tyler……… 30 525

Upshur…….. 162 730 Van Zandtt….. 36 840 Wise…….0… S 239

Wood………. 76 558 Young……… - 93 Total…….. 8464 239 77 Maj.

for Reagan, 20,13; do. for Houston, inde3endg ent candidate for Governor, 4,8.54 IL-Hamilton. Waul. Atascosa…… 172 90 Austin……… 855 ti33

]Bandera……. 18 26 Bastrop 8….. S 424 ‘Bee……….. No return.

Bell……….. 818 274 ]Bexar……… 766 991, Blanco…….. 118 42

Boque…….. 12T 58 Brazoria……. 118 809 Brazos…….. 118 82

Brown……… 27 1 Burleson…… 873 289 Burnett……. 255 93

Caldwell……. 295 802 Calhoun……. 146 179 Cameron…… 4 418

Colorado…… 857T 273 Comal……… 86 89 VComanche…..10 25, Coryell…….. 208 101 De Witt……. W4 281 Ellis………. 308 271 El Paso…….. 57 20T Earth………. 209 23 Falls………. 218 112

Fayette…..566 551 Fort Bend….. 178 172 Freestone….. 250 805 .

Galveston..83T’ 400 ‘Gillespie……. 69 147 ‘Goliad……… 198 183

Gonzales…… 450 421’ Grimes…….. 419 254 Guadaloupe…. 229 818

Hamilton…… 43? Harris…….. 836 598 Hays……No return.

Iidalg……. 3 227 Hill..go’:…… 216 170 Jackson……. 141 57

Johnson…… 949 134 Karneis…….. 150 Si Kerr………. 81 82

Lapassas…… 212 64 Lavacca……. 829 830 Leon………. 374 879

Limestone::…21 835 Live Oak….86 60 Llano………. 81 76 McLennan…..

848 228 Madison……. 168 93 Mason…….. No return. Matagorda….. 63

168 Medina…….. 58 199 Milam………. 81T 208 Montague….. — -

Montgomery… 262 177 Navarro……. 870 801 Nueces…….. 225 189 Palo Pinto….. 151 28 Parker……… 495 198 Presideo……. No return.

Refugio…….. No return. do. fr Houton,Indepnd-Hmiltn ranas aninde Tota. - - HOUSE…. Opp.,384; Dem.,41 Total……..6633 6160 Maj. for Stokes, 413. Ir. Hmilte. Wai. Deocratc Cadidat for V. Hatton. *Rsady.

Xuuk-89 V. Htt.. -R.d ~ Kentucky-1859. Cannon……. 520 860

Rutherford…. 1452 1531 CONGRESS. Sumner…….. 810 1642 Districts. Opp.

Den. Williamson….1609 728 I. Morrew. Burse,t. Wilson………2328 1083

Ballard…….. 97 718 __.- Caldwell……. 180 681 Total……..6719 5844

Calloway…… 118 1221 Crittenden….. 234 7M~ Maj. for Hatton, 875.

Fulton………140 Bosdque12 53pp o.Clarkt.d by8 t Graves…….. 277 1429

Bemora1a Hickman…… 45 671 Hopkins……1 66 1816 VI. Themas.

Livingston…..251 426 Bedford……. 1450 Lyon………4 4

Franklin……. 1540 Marshall……….16 I.M a shll….34 916

Laincoln…….. 2393 McCracken…. 217 699 Marshall….. 1472

Trigg…….. 123 978 Maury……… 2168 Union……..818 857 r-) Total…….Z 9023 Total…..2248 Dem. maj. for Gov., 4,278. Maj. for Burnett,.9,292. VIL Gibbs. Wri IL Jaeksnn. Peyton. l80 7Benton……..29

882 Breckinridge… 921 708 Decatur……. 229 512 Butler………. 509

555 Giles………. 259 1569 Christian…… 987 1057 Hardin……. 889

958 Daviess……..1242 1448 Hickman…… 89 1119 Grayson…… 565 590

Humphreys…. 204 735 Hancock…… 421 474 Lawrence…… 258 949

Henderson…. 878 896 Lewis……… 5 253 McLean…… No return.

McNairy….. 831 1170 Mechlenburg.. 883 1070 Perry……..208 555

Ohio……….. 793 1141 Wayne…….. 210 678 T - -. Grimes. 419 254

Jefferson.1602 654 ~ - – Total…….7199 7989 Total……..2711 9380

Maj. for Peyton, 740. Maj. for Wright, 6,669. IlL Briatow. Sals VIIL.

Quarle. Menses. Allen…….. 547 709 Cheatham-with Davidson.

Barren……1697 Ne86 Davidson……8388 2462 Ed Dickson……44T 83T

Hart……….459 73 Montgomery…1870 1015 Logan………145 464

Robertson…..1243 1120 Monroe…….663 581 Stewart…….. 551 802

Simpson……40 56 __sas.21 64CapbiTodd……….. 726 426

Total……..6994 6236 Warren……..1212 789 Maj. for Quarles, 758.

Total……7164 5575 Ix. Etheridge. Atkins. Maj. for Bristow, 1,589.

Carroll……..1720 1023 IV. Anderon. Chrisman. Dyer………. 736 665

Adair.. 547 1097 Gibson………1967 1385 Boyle………789 30

Henry………1019 1844 Casey……..696 448 Henderson…..1815 799

Clinton……… 812 578 Lauderdale…. 464 419 Cumberland… 652 868

Obion………. 682 1072/Greene…482 68 Tipton…….8T5 60T

Lincoln…….93 440 Weakley……1159 1616 Pulaskic…….. 13 7 aro.80

31 Bl t 12 7Russell……..479 48 Total……9437 9430 Taylor……..5T

648 Maj. for Etheridge, 7. Wayne…….. 741 831 x. Sneed. Avery’/

Fayette……921 929 Total.. 7204 7201 Hardeman….. 600 1108), Maj. for Anderson, 8. Haywood…… 778 903) V Jswtt * Madison…..1862 876

Anderson……594 47 Shelby………1987 2138 Bullitt………809 509 arn.

48 Hae. 04 9-Hardin……732 965 Total……. 548 5954 Lare…….. 493

86 1 Maj. for Avery, 806. Marion…….. 540 965 Currin, Ind., received 236 Meade……..88T No votes for Congress. * Iadependent D-omo,: TEXA,G.

C O NG RESS -( otinud.) Washington… 641 678 Webb…….. 116 86

Wharton…… 82 119 Williamson….. H458 2 04 Zapata…….. 42 130

Totalr…… 17198 1600 d Maj. for Hamilton, 1,191; de. for Houston, 4,873. Hamilton ran as an independent Democrat. Hardin R. Runnells was the regular Democratic Candidate for Governor. Runnells beat Houston, for the same office, two years before, by 9,806 majority. TOTAL VOTH OF THE STATE.

Gove,r~nor.. Houston, 8622T Lt. Goyv…..Clark,…’ 81458 ,C. LldO~ee Crosby… 288t28 CFlres… Indep’nt 20662 Democrts. Governor..Runnelis, 27500 L.Gv..Lubbock, 80325 C. L’d Office,White… - 83308

Congress…Dem.,… 89984 Major’s. Houston, 8,727; Clark, 1,183; White, 4,915; Tenn edsoe.M-1859. CONGRESS. Distric&,l. Opp. Dem. Carter………

812 Cocke……… 945 58T Greene…….. 1062 2026 Hancock…… 86T 641

Hawkins……. - ]74 Jefferson……. 1602 654 Johnson…….. 54? 218

Sevier………. 1058 261 Sullivan……. 542 11589 Washington…. 996

1885 Total……..~7981 ~‘82T Maj. for Nelson, 104. IL M.ynad. Ramsyi Anderson……!889 844 Campbell…… 451 540 Claiborne…… 775 67‘6

Fentress…….. No return. Grainger…..,..1206 743 Knox……… 2593

916 Morgan……. 248 280 Overton……. 864 11431 Scott………. No return. Total……… 6476 4980 Maj. for Maynard, 1,1546. IIL Brabson.

Smith. Bledaoe…….. 492 830 Blount…….. 1273 723 Bradley……. 795

11028 Cumberland with Bledsoe. Hamilton….1284 918 Marion…..481 393

Meigs…….. 150 610 Monroe…….. 943 1106T McMinn……. 1054 1094

Polk……….. 879 742 Rhea……….. 848 431 Roane……… 1044 889

Sequatchie….. 179 138 Total…….. 8372 8818 Maj. for Brabson, 59. 24-4

Page 245 view page image

ELECTION RETURNS-KENTUCKY, MISSOURI AND OHIO. Missouri-1858. CONGRESS.

Distritst. Rep. Dem. I. Blair. Ba rrett. St. Lotulis…..5 6631 7057

Breckinridge, Am., 5668. Barrett over Blair, 426.* # Contested by Frank Blir, who Mfinally obtained the seat; but resigned and referred the matter back to the People. Districts. Opp. Dan. II. Henderson. Anderson.

Audrain…… 412 599 Boone…….. 481 1856 Calloway…. 867 1696

Lincoln…… 462 1038 Marion……. 956 1068 Mo nr oe…… 526 1240

Montgomery.. 441 601 Pike……… 1122..2338 Ralls…….. 873 5692 St.

Charlesr… 659.. 902 Warren….. 290 571 Total….. 910902 Maj. for Anderson, 4,813. In the Third District, John B. Clark, De 5m, was elected without opposition. IV. Adams. Craig. Andrew…..598 1021 Atchison…..

153 511 Buchanan…. 20 1997 Calde ll 2 de….. 270 888 Clay 9…….. 993

826 Clinton 504……. 545 Daviess…… 504 843 De Kalb….. 195 51 12

Gentry 4……. 464 1266 Harrison 9… 594 852 Holt……… 460 550

Nodawayn2….. 162 825 Platte……. 1128 1412 Rayp0………. 1066 891

Total 924….2 2 12489 Maj. for Craig, 4,615. V. Reld. Woodson.

Benton…… 502 2538 Cass-……. 449 617 Cole…….. 744 116

Cooper…… 727 853 Henry2……. 221 762 Jackson….. 144T7 05 Johnson 515 850 Lafayette… 840 8.. 936 Miller…… 450 176 Moniteau…. 891 649

Morgan….. 2 85 868 Pettis……. 20T 455 Saline……. 669 832 Total 697…… 694 Smith, Ind., 2,038. Woodson over Reid, 995. VL Richardson.

Phelps. Bates…. 10 826 Barton…… 59 193 Barry…… 232 687

Camden….. 241 242 Cedar 220 628 Dade…….. 218 652 Dallas……. 462

272 Gasconade… 541 245 Greene…… 1185 1029 Hickory….. 168 850

Howell…… 156 97 Jasper…… 844 434 Laclede…… 855…878

Lawrence…… 508 5..666 Maries…… 86…472 McDonald….. 1583.. 846

Newlton…….* 410…779 Oregon……. 137…189 Osage……. 427.. 451

Douglas. } 240 8 MIgSO URI. CONGRESS-(Continued.) Districs. Opp. Dem. VI.

Richardson. Phelps. Polk…….. 672 630 Pulaski…… 118 255 St.

Clair….. 114 721 Stone……. 118 173 Taney……. 206 486 Texas…….

124 573 Vernon…… 41 409 Webster….. 526 579 Wright…… 84 889

Total….. 8050 18424 Maj. for Phelps, 5,8374. VIL Zeigler. Noell.

Bollinger…. 186 528 Butler……. 98 211 Cape Girard’u 734 548

Crawford…. 150 423 Dent…….. 52 468 Dunklin… 883 58 Franklin. *1012

767 Iron…….. 853 174 Jefferson…… 864 620 Madison…… 81 554

Mississippi… 126 877T New-Madrid. 227 827 Pemiscot……55 268

Perry……. 150 759 Phelps…… 71 498 Reynolds…. 178 18T Ripley……

66 412 Scott…….. 298 892 Shannon….. 12 197 St. Genevieve 278 897 T

St. Francois. 849 608 Stoddard……. 217 472 Washington - 273 702

Wayne…… 200 458 Total. 5808 10404 Maj. for Noell, 4,596. At the same election a vote was taken for Superintendent of Public Schools, at which Starke, Dem. was chosen over Provines, An. by 83,384 majority. OHIO.

GOVERNOR-(Coninued.) Districts. Rep. Den. VI. Dennison. Ranney.

Adams…… 1405 1753 Brown……. 165 Clermont…. 2689. 988

Highland’….. 2168 2175 Total…… 7919 9191 Maj. for Ranney, 1,272. VIL

Den. R.n. Clinton…. 1721 1019 Fayette…. 1093 761 Greene…. 2466 1862

Madison…… 1018 929 Warren…… 2689 1615 Total…… 8987 5686 Maj.

for Dennison, 8,801. VIIL Den. Ran. Champaign.. 1732 1612 Clarke……

2249 1574 Delaware…. 2358.1776 Logan……. 1650 1288 Union…….. 1241

910 otal. 9280.7110 Maj. for Dennison, 2,120. IX Den. RPn. Crawford….

1550 2258 Hardin……. 1152 112T Marion…… 1888 1891 Ottaway….. 828

578 Sandusky…. 147T 1822 Seneca…… 2461 2661 Wyandotte.. 1295 1890

Total…. 959T 1122T Maj. for Ranney, 1,630. X. Den. Ran. Gallia….. 1365

185T Jackson….. 1198 1289 Lawrence…. 1450 1246 Pike…….. 669 1085

Ross……. 2587.T 2688 Scioto…:… 1608 1424 Total…… 8877 9089 Maj.

for Ranney, 162. XL Den. RaAthens…. 1843 1287 Fairfield….. 1394 2821

Hocking…… 976 1897 Meigs….. 1912 1487 Perry……. 1898 2281

Vinton…… 979 1049 Total…… 9002 10222 Maj. for Ranney, 1,220. XIL

Den. Ram Franklin….. 8762 4634 Licking…. 8030 8488 Pickaway… 1710

214T Total…… 8502 10219 Maj. for Ranney, 1,717. XIIL Den. Ran.

Erie…….. 1983 1M5 Huron……. 2924 1568 Morrow….. 1919 1770

Richland…. 2735 2952 Total…… 9561 782 Maj. for Dennison, 1,736. XIV.

Den. R.. Ashland….. 1834 1914 Lorain…… 8391 1689 Medina…… 2413

1457 Wayne…… 2944 8285 Total….10582 8385 XV. D~en. Ran.

Coshocton…… 2198 2461 IIolmes…….. ]241 1964 Knox…….. 2608 2588

Tuscarawaa.. 2831 2778 Total,*….. 85?3‘97a~ M Zaj. for Ranney; 868.

KENTUCKY. CONGRESS-(Continued.) Distritds. Opp. Der. V. Jewett. Brown.

Mercer……. 858 1168 Nelson…….. 497.. 999 5 Spencer……. 806 880

Washington…… 900 609 Total…….. 5066 6927T Maj. for Brown, 1,861.

VI. Adams. Garrard. Breathitt…… 299 894 Clay……. 41… 418 511

Estill………. 556 493 Floyd…….. 427 673 f Garrard……. 812 370

Harlan……. 490 213 Jackson……. 170 132 Johnson……. 54 760

Knox……. 807SO 814 Laurel…….. 429 874 Letcher……. 223 227

Madison……. 1267 943 Owsley…….. 456 814 Perry……… 265 270

Pike………. 277 664 Rock Castle…. 499 246 Whitley……. 715 843

Total…….. 8164 7241 Maj. for Adams, 923. VIL Mallory. Holt.

Henry…… 646 1029 Jefferson…… 4256 8324 Oldham……. 8 53 586

Shelby…….. 1161 786 Total…… 6416 5675 Maj. for Mallory, 741. VIIL

Harlan. Simms. Bourbon……. 965 684 Fayette……1410 986

Franklin……. 863 819 Harrison…… 926 1817T Jessamine….. 598 587

Nicholas……. 73T 1009 Scott……….. 732 1062 Woodford….. 634 468

Total……. 6865 6932 Maj. for Smms, 67. LT. J.W. IX. Moore, Moore.

Bath………. 743 1040 Carter……… 484 832 Clarke……. 935 412

Fleming…….. 952 928 Greenup……. 1163 854 Lawrence…… 809 496

Lewis……… 664 731 Mason…….. 1274 3 875 Montgomery… 587 502

Morgan……. 562 1147 Powell…….. 190 166 Rowan…….. 142 244

Total…….. 8505 8227 Maj. for L. T. Moore, 278. X Jones. Stevenson.

Bracken……. 754 773 Boone………. 826 970 Campbell……. 689 1242

Carroll…….. 366 528 Gallatin……. 882 492 Grant……… 663 800

Kenton…….. 950 1706 Owen………. 415 1489 Pendleton. 615 871

Trimble……. 179 474 Total…..5889 9295’ Maj. for Stevenson, 8,456.

TOTAL VOTE OF STATE. Oppostion. ,erqn,or..Bell….. 67,271 Gono’ress…

Opp.,…. 64,670’ Dem*c, alt.~. a o~veror.. Magoffin 76,181’

~orsss…Dem.,,.. 76,o52 Ohio-1859. GOVERNOR. Districts. Rep. Dem. I. & I L Dennison. R.an ne y. Hamilton….18285 41T8 Maj. for Ramsey, 898. IIL

Den. Ran. Butler…. 2… 2238 8479 Montgomery. 4747 4615 Preble…….

2261 1496 Total…… 9246 9590 Maj. for Ranney, 844. IV. Den. Ran.

Allen…….. 1574 1656 Auglaize…. 696 1277 Darke……. 2241 2454

Mercer……. 540 1057 Miami……. 2722 1839 Shelby…… 1352 1517

Total…… 9085 9800 Maj. for Ranney, 715. V. Den.- R.n. Defiance…..

778 1083 Fulton……. 1037 707 Hancock…. 1674 1796 Henry……. 670 841

Lucas……. 2225 2073 Paulding…. 441 826 Putnam….. 735 1087 Van Wart…. 837 865 Williams….. 1191 1013 ‘Wood……. 1429 1021

Total…..1101T 10812 Maj. for Dennison, 205. 245

Page 246 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. , OHIO. - MICHIGANr. GOVERNOR-(Continued.) CHIEF JUSTICE-(Conti’d.) Dist,‘id,. Rep. Dem. Ditricts. Rep. Dent.i XVLI.

Dennison.Ranney…. R n e. XIn. ainelh. Morgan…..1835 1808 Kalamazoo..

2326 1518 Muskingum… 8604 8467 Kent……. 8199 24483 Wishington.. 2198

1781 Mason…….3 3 7 8.. 82 Montcalm… 469‘814 Total…… 7687 6556

Newago….. 28T 245 Maj. for Dennison, 1,081. Oceana…… 124 182 XVIL

R-. ~~Ottawa…… 1643 1[076 XVIan Den. Ran1 Belmont….2280 259i Van Buren… 1598 10 Guernsey… 2103 1663 T o ta l… 2517339 Monroe……

757 1585 Total.2204 178 n…. 8. 7 5 Noble…… 1448 1855 Maj. for Martin, 5,467. =- - IV. Martin. Fele.h. Total….. 6588 7194 Alpena…….

88 - Ma. for Ranney, 606. Bay……… 145 184 Cheboygan.. I ill XVIIL

Den. Ran. Chippewa…. 140 86 Portage….. 2620 2038 mhippeat 4 6 2To Starke…… 8T25 40 Starke…..3725 4005 Emmett……21 147 < Summit….

2560 74Genesee 2122 1576… Gr’d Traverse 285 137 Total……8905 7777

Houghton.’ 152 878 Maj. for Dennison, 1,128. Ingham *1861 1719 Iosco….43

4 XIX. Den. Ran. Isabella…… 42 25 Cuyahoga… 5834 4115 Lapeer…..

1476 1098 Geauga….. 1881 529 Mackinac…. 27 1585 Lake……. 1807 538

Macomb……1932 1671 –— - Manistee….. 82 47 Total…..9522 5182

Manitou……14 28 Maj. for Dennison, 4,340. Marquette…. 120 159

Midland….. 123 16 XX. D… R.n. Oakland……. 8479 3396 Ashtabula…

8737 1049 Ontonagon.. 154 141 Mahoning… 2424 2041 Saginaw….. 989 911

Trumbull…..8143 1791 Sanilac……. 90 8 817 T -tl - -’ Shiawasse…

1150 1089 Total…… 9804 4881 St. Clair…. 1982 15683 Maj. for Dennison, 4,428. Tuscola…… 621 299 XXL. Den. Ran. - -..

Carroll…..1600 1255 Total……17707 15100 Columbiana… 8125 2285 Maj.

for Martin, 2,607. Harrison…. 1764 1884 Jefferson…. 2294 1822 TOTAL

VOT OF THE STATE. Martin, Rep……. 65,916 Total… 8783. 6696 Felch, Dem.,.. 53,681 Maj. for Dennison, 2,087- $ Maj. for Martin,.. 12,235, TOTAL VOTE OF THE STATE. Dennison, Rep.,….184,502 Ranney, Dem….171,266

INDIA,VA. CONGRESS-(Continued.) Distr icts.’ Rep. Dem. IIL Dunn. Hughes.

Lawrence…. 1095 880 Monroe….4.. 1075.964 Switzerland.. 11-21 1083

Total…… 9363 8385 Ctarr A. L. Dem., 1,482. Dunn over Hughes, 978. .IV.

Hckleman. Holman. Dearborn…… 1472 2835 Decatur….. 1672 1444

Franklin….. 1264 2185 Ohio…….. 424 492 Ripley……. 1881 1464

Rush……. 1643 1555 Total…… 7856 94125 Maj. for Holman, 1,569. V.

Kilgore. Devlin. Delawar e….. 1293 718 Fayette…… 106 9 o 988

-Henry……. 1956 912 Randolph…. 1572 1053 aUnion…….. 748…. 640

Wayne…… 2750….1665 Total……. 988 5921 Maj. for Kilgore, 6,462. VL

Port er. R ty. Hancoclk….. 875 1040 Hfendricks…. 1662 114 Tt 74

Johnson p….. 1114 e 1415 Marion…… 8956 8054 Morgan….. 1590….

1402 Shelby…… 1 57 9.. 168 1 Total….. 10776 9716 Maj. for Porter, 1060. VIL *Davis. Serest. Clay….. 8… 842 709 Greene…… 12663 1112

Owen……. 1190 7T59 Parke……… 1795 50T Putnam.8 2….1454 1656

Sullivan….. 1122 1100 Vermillion….. 907 T 515 V~igo……. 1951 2 W122

6 Total….. 10893 7584 Maj. for Davis, 3,309. VIIL Wilson. Blake.

Boone….. 1500 1880 ‘Carroll…… 1885 1882 Clinton……. 13 184 1346

Fountain…. 1580 1626 Montgomery.. 1936 1989 Tippecanoe.. 2441 2021

Warren…… 1002 643 Total…. 11028 10887 Maj. for Wilson, 641. IX.

Colfax. Walker. Benton…… 279 204 Cass……. 1527 147T Fulton…….

888 927 Jasper…… 643 488 Lake…….. 1068 550 Laporte….. 2789 2224

Marshall….. 1215 1122 Miami……. 1551 1519 Porter……. 1146 1025

Pulaski…… 420 552 St. Joseph… 206T 1586 Starke……. 144 185

White……. 809 -756 Tot~al….. 14541 12610 ‘Maj. for Colfax, 1,931. X.

Case. Dawson. Allen…….. 1949 2707 De Kalb…… 1047 1157

‘Elkrhart……. 9l97 1649< ,Kosciusco…… 1584 1057 La Grange……

1062 460 A INDIANbA. CONGRESS-(Co ntinwd.) 5 Districts. ]ep. Dem. X. Case.

Da.son. Noble…….. 1278 1080 Steuben….. 1118 441 Whitley….. 776 866

Total….. 10780 9417 Maj. for Case, 1,363. XL Pettit. Coffroth.

Adams……. 474 842 Blackford…. 251 879 Grant…….. 1297 978

Hamilton….. 1471 1008 Howard….. 1009 622 Huntington.. 1218 1895

Jay……… 84T 772 Madison….. 1209 1451 Tipton……. b05 627

Wabash….. 1797 1126 Wells…….. 670 848 Total… 10748 10088 Maj. for Pettit, 710. AGGREGATE VOTE OF STATX Re,eublieans. gSec. State..

Peelle..104828 .Aud itor…. Lange…105498 Y’eas8rer.. Harper..105416

.Att’y Gen.. Otto…..1057T5 S.Pb. Ins. Young,..105014 .Dem ocr’ats. Sec.

Stat…McClure,10T409 Auditor.. Dodd….107242 Treas2urer.Cun’g’m.107684

Att’y Gen..McDon’diO7291 S. Pu’b. Ins.Rugg…107910 * AntiLecompton 13emocrate Illinois-1858. CONGRESS. 5 Dietricts. Rep. Doug. I. Wasshburne.

~Briggt. Boone…….. 1704.. 28 6 Carroll……. 1187 256 Jo Daviess…

1988 1476 Lake…….. 1677 620 McHenry…… 2224 1081 Ogle…….. 2092

815 Stephenson.. 2140 1489 Winnebago.. 2899 484 Total…… 15811 7

Jackson, A.L.D., 870. Washburne over Bright, 9,854. IL Farnsworth. De,.

Cobk.10108…8 De Kalb….. 206T 612 Du Page….. 1280 496 Kane……..

8172 1121 Lee……… 168 689 Rock Island.. 1542:1802 Whiteside…. 1990

700 Total…… 11 198 Blackman, A.L.D., 701. F’worth over Dyer, 8,599.

lIL Lovejoy. Armtrong. Bureau 2546.607 Champaign.. 1271 900 De Witt…..

992 755 Grundy…… 999 7!5 Iroquois….. 1199 744 Kankakee… 1866 8/52

Kendall….. 1423 405 La Salle…… 4040 8488 Livingston…. 986 794

M’Lean….. 2570 215a Putnam….. 582 299 Vermillion…. 1661 112e Will……… 2678 2198 Total…… 22818 14988 Le Roy, A.L.D., 1,828.

L’joy over Armst’g, 7,826. Indiana-1858. CONGRESS. Didrict. 2Rep. Dem. L

*Hovey. iblaek. Daviess…… 784 1082 Dubois…… 191 1117 Gibson……

1072 1021 Knox…….. 1042 1206 Martin…… 441 865 ,Pike……… 569

612 Posey……… 12 9 9 1309 Spencer s….. 1210 907 Vanderburgh. 1846

1168 Warrick….. 542 1097 Total…… 8946 10829 Maj. for Niblack, 1,853.

IL Wilson. Englti.h. Clark……. 1129 1496 Crawford…. 533 716

Floyd……. 153 1429 Harrison….. 1867 1493 Orange….. 611 994

Perry……. 601 985 Scott…….. 556 708 Washington.. 1102 1522

Total……7. 9293 Maj. for English, 1,859. IIL Dunn. Hughes. Bartholomew.

1340 1227 Brown……. 2 548 Jackson….. 778 1249 Jefferson…. 2378 1491

Jennings…. 1323 94’ ~-246 Xichigan 859. CHIEF JUSTICE. Districts. Rep.

Dem. L Martin. Felch. Jackson….. 2702 2321 Livingston… 1718 1810

Washtenaw.. 8281 8 $088 Wayne…. 8894 4212 Total……- 11540 Maj. for Martin, 109. IL Martin. Fe1,h. Branch…… 2191 1221 ,Can……. 1518

1276 Hillsdale…. 2648 1501 Lenawee…. 8865 2537 Monroe…… 1714 1850

St. Joseph… 1934 1428 Total…… 18865 9813 Maj. for Martin, 4,052. IIL

Martin. Felh. Allagan….. 1298 1396 Barry……. 1585 948 Berrien……

1816 1941 Calhoun….. 2915 2068 Clinton…… 1432 1181 Eaton……. 1758

1332 Gratiot….. 449 241 Inia…….. 1887 1223

Page 247 view page image

ELECTION RETURNS-ILLINOIS, WISCONSIN, OREGONT AND IOWA. 247 ILLINOIS.

ILLINOIS. WISCONSIN. CONGRESS-(Coatisiaud.) CONGRESS (Coninued.) GOVERNOR-(Cos tinued.) Dtricts.ie. -Rep. Distriicots Rep. Dem. Disticts.

Rep. Dem.R IV. Kellogg. Davidson. IX rhillips. Logan. IL Randall Hobart.

Fulton……2980 3224 Hardin……. 46 856 Dunn…….. 192 175

Henry……. 2242 1101 Jackson….. 79 1225 Eau Claire… 820 233

Knox………2965 1820 Johnson….. 7 1157 Grant…….. 2496 1715

Marshall…. 1203 1054 Massac…… 15 750 Green…….. 1726 1141

Mason……. 822 1038 Perry……. 474 798 Iowa…….. 1454 1320

Mlercer…… 1419 898 Pope…….. 18 774 Jackson….. 493 293

Peoria……. 2601 2623 Pulaski…… 67 589 Juneau……. 1060 874

Stark…….. 929 584 Saline……. 3 1143 La Crosse…. 1219 1034

Tazewell…. 1783 1960 Union……. 65 819 Lafayette…. 1102 1514

Warren….. 1732 1406 Wabash….. 896 623 Lapointe…. 72 109 Woodford…

811 1152 White……. 611 1250 Marathon….. 206 509 -~ - Williamson. 48

1554 Monroe…… 939 578 Total….. 19487 16860 Wayne…… 804 1195

Pepin……. 432 255 Gale, A.L D., 553. - Pierce…… 506 805 Kellogg over D’son, 2,627. Total….. 2796 15878 Polk…….. 161 141 Parish, A.L.D., 144. Portage……743 582 Vdams……3004 3C208100 Logan over Phillips, 13,082. Richland…. 745 647 Brown…….. 590 849 For Superin’t of Public Hock….. 516 239 Calhoun….. 171 507 Instruction, Bateman, Rep., Stu…..516 59 69 Hancock….. 2054 2234 received 124,556
votes;………4 Henderson.. 1001 755 French, Dour., 122 18 T..366…..65

29 McDonald… 1774 1944 Reynolds, Bach., 5,173. Pike……… 1991 2471

For Treas’r, Miller, Rep., Total….27191 21080 Schuyler….. 1063 1489
received 125,430; Fondey, Maj. for Randall, 6,111. Douglas Dem., 121,609; Total…. 11648 13529 Dougherty, Ba’,oIn Dem., III. Rand11. Hobtrt. Davis, A.L.D., 504. 5,071. Brown……. 423 1066 Morris over G’shaw, 1,881.

Calumet….. 518 678 THE VOTE FOR Columbia…. 2595 1646 VL. Mathes.y.

IDodge……. 3492 3856 Cass…….. 743 1068 LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS.

Door…….. 72 78 Christian…. 591 923 Greene…… 765 151T At this election, Messrs. FondduLac.. 3214 Jersey……. 574 1059 Lincoln and Douglas can-Green Lake.. 1453 662 Macoupin…. 1615 2093 vassed the State for U. S. Jefferson…. 232T 2512 Menard…..780 851 Senator, to be chosen by the Kewaunee… 167 567 Morgan…… 1781 2054 Legislature then elected-Manitowoc… 704 2134W ~~~~~~~~~~~~Moran…o… 1704 2054

Montgomery.. 786 1222 and while Mr. Douglas car-Marquette…. 586 792

Sangamon… 2813 8010 rned a majority of the Legis-Oconto…… 852 446

Scott…….. 650 1002 lature, Mr. Lincoln had the Ozaukee…..627 1574

Shelby…….550 1894 popular vote. The aggre-Outagamie… 494 733 gate vote of the State for Shawanaw…. 105 87 Total….. 11646 16193 members of the Legislature Sheboygan… 1772 1839 McConnell, A.L D., 277. was as follows: Washington.. 684 2106 Mc~~onnell, A.L D., 277. ~~~~~~Waupacca….

116T 624 Harris over Math’y, 4,547. Lincoln, Rep.,… 124,698 Waushara…

1126 680 VIL Ogleoby. Robisoon. Douglas, Dem.,.. 121,190 Winnebago.. 2235

1570 Clay…… 424 712.Buck. Dem., and - Clark…….. 1076 1405

Scattering,…. 4,683 Total….. 24113 25883 Coles…….. 1859 1578

Lincoln over Douglas, 8,508. Maj. for Hobart, 1,770. Cumberland.. 488 696

TOTAL VOTE OF THE STATE. Crawford…. 693 922 In Five Districts of the Edgar……. 1446 1431 State there were no Repub-Randall, Rep…….

63465 Effingham…. 214 803 lican Candidates for the Hobart, Dem…….

59508 Fayette….. 605 842 Legislature. In these five Jasper…… 459 619

Districts, the Republican Maj. for Randall,.. 8957 Lawrence…. 455 662

State Ticket received 577 Logan……1315 1174 votes, which, added to the - C Macon…… 1168 939 vote of Mr. Lincoln (to which Moultrie….. 513

570 they clearly belong), makes Oio n C t. 1 19 Platt…….. 546 480 his majority in this State, Richland…. 499 755 over Douglas, 4,085.

CONGRESS. Total….. 11760 13588 Counties. Rep. De.D Baldwin, A. L..D., 36. Logan. Sto.ut. R’son over Oglesby, 1,828. Wisconsin-1859.

Benton……222 422 Clackamas 880 8T9 VIIL Baker. Fo,,ke. GOVERNOR.

Clotsop…… 54 84 Bond…….. 731 700 Diotris Rep. Dem. Columbia 60

72…..2 Clinton…… 377 883 I. Randall Hobart. Coos……..52 63

Jefferson…. 288 1193 Kenosha….. 1821 906 Curry…….54 87

Madison….. 2054 2185 Milwaukee… 2811 6251 Douglass —.-.8 39 495

Marion…… 575 1142 Racine…… 2111 1634 Jackson….. 218 663

Monroe…… 569 1149 Walworth… 3133 14,59 Josephine… 211 411

Randolph…. 917 1090 Waukesha.. 2785 2295 Lane……… 332 255 St.

Clair….. 2464 2058 Linn……… 602 723 Washington.. 435 1090

Total….. 12161 12545 Marion……1062 296 — Maj. for Hobart, 884.

Multnomah.. 568 484Ioa.. 76 54 Total……8410 11490 Rnal oat ok….5 8
ako…23 17 Hope, A.L.D., 198 Foue oer ake, 8080 Adams….. 594 290

Tillamook… 10 5Jono..162 19 … 95 619Umpqua….. 132 403 oe….11 15

IX. Pilp.LgnBuffalo……64 414 Wasco……11. 5 ost 5 8 Alexander..Phi1s 078 Chippewa…. 156 2489 ahntn.86 21Lu….71 14 Edwards. 0..95 267

Clarke…….71 42 Yambill. 42 88Mrhl…..75. 4 Franklin……19 1000

Crawford…. 619 748 - - Mthl. 1 0 Gallatin….207 815 Dane……. 727

8880 Total….5681 5670Mooa.. 10 0 Hamilton…. 6 1155 Douglas…4 6 Ma.

rStu,8. Mucts… 147436 Iowa 1859. GOVERNON.. Dis,tricts.’~ep. Dem I.

KirkT w od. dge. Adair……. 120 16 Adams…… 17T 122’ Audubon…. 58

60 Appanoose.. 627. 985 Cass…….. 179 152 Clarke…… 462. 851

Dallas.. 38……50 49 Davis……. 717 1142 Decatur….. 890 771

Desuaoines…. 1704 1923 Fremont….. 293 504 Guthrie…… 25T 260~

Harrison…. 29T’ 851 Henry……. 1596 998 Jasper…… 946 705

Jefferson…. 1282 1192 Keokuk….. 1025 1043 Lee……… 2159 2392

Louisa…… 956 6T9 Lucas……. 521 457 Madison…… 651 729

Mahaska…. 1212 118T Marion…… 1256 1438 Mills…….. 262 245

Monroe…… 749 665 Montgomery.. 125 115 Page…….. 877 88 Polk……..

1078 1,048 Potawatomie. 295 600 ‘~Poweshiek… 595 411 Ringgold…. 260

125 Shelby…… 78 96 Taylor…… 304 257 Union…… 151 193 Van Buren… 139T 1402 Wapello….. 1016 1260 Warren….. 93T 609 Washington..

1203 946 Wayne…… 416 535 Total….. 26663 26755 Maj. for Dodge, 92.

ILKirlwood. D.0~ Allamakee… 743 1 Benton…… 914 73fl Black Hawk.. 815

550 Boone…….. 293 413 Bremer….. 41T 438 Buchanan…. 816 570 Buena Vista.. 2 6 Butler…….. 474 246 Calhoun….. 17 IT Carroll…… 80 80

Cedar….1152 1002 Cerro Gordo..~ I17 72 Cherokee….. 12 7 Chickasaw…

4-39 808 Clay……… 3 9 Clayton….. 1630 1429 Clinton….1605 1521, Crawford…. 45 55 Delaware….. 844 894 Dickinson…. 31 15

Dubuque….’.751 8158 ‘Emmet,…… 18 5 Fayette……102 849 Floyd…….

495 281 Franklin….. 201l 51 Greene…… 126 146 Grundy….. 110 17

Hamilton…. 192 105 Hancock….. 19 14 Hardin…… 645 458 Howard…..

336 279 Humboldt… 49 29 Ida……… 4 3

Page 248 view page image

A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. IW f INrES 0 TA. GOVERNOR-(Continued.) Districts. Rep. Dem. Ramsey. Becker. Rice…….. 1045 828 Scott……..

552 917 Sherburne… 181 68 Sibley……. 8C8 526 Stearns…… 875 660

Steele……. 448 178 Todd…….. No return. Wabashaw… 798 512.. t Waseca….. 859 254 Washington.. 958 707 Winona…..1209 814 Wright……

579 265 Carlton, St. Louis, 81… 88 119 Lake, Total… 215 7588 Maj. for Ramsey, 8,752. LEGISLATURE. SENATE.Rep., 23; Dem., 13; Independent, 1.

HousB..Rep., 58; Dem., 22. IOWA. GOVERNOR-(Continued.) Disritst. Rep.

D;em. IL irkwood. Dodge. Palo Alto…. 3 44 Plymouth……. 24 11

Pocahontas.. 16 Lk17 Sac……… 28 37 Scott…….. 2208 1625

S;ory…….. 895 358 Tama……. 500 295 Webster….. 252 383 Winnebago..

11 24 Winneshiek.. 1022 77t Woodbury… 132 163 Worth……. 98 26

Wright…… 80 52 Total..,.. 29741 26556 Maj. for Kirkwood, 3,185. TOTAL

VOTE OQ THE STATE. Kirkwood, Re,p.,…. 56404 Dodge, Dem…….. 53811, Maj. for Kirkwood, 8093 Miunesota-1859. GOVERNOR. Counties. Rep. Dem.

Ramsey. Becker. Anoka……. 883 165 Benton…… 143 94 Blue Earth.. 734

560 Brown…… 843 800 Carver…… 473 524 Cass……… No return.

Chisago….. 284 156 Crow Wing… 8 55 Dakota…… 1007 1056 Dodge…….

593 444 Farlibault… 210 109 Fillmore…… 1399 1171 Freeborn…. 438

227 Goodhue….. 1220 706 Hennepin… 2013 1117 Houston…… 675 716

IaantL…… No return. Jackson….. 21 18 Kannabec… 9 6 Kandlyohi… 19

8 Le Sueur…. 57T 625 Manomin…. No return. Martin…… 18 10

McLeod….. 197 95 Meeker…… 147 108 Mille Lac…. No return.

Monongalia.. 47 80 Morrison….. 88 115 Mower…… 412 488 Nicolett…..

424 227 Olmsted….. 1119 777 Pine…….. 6 28 Pembina….. No return.

Ramsey…… 1485 1773 Renvile….. 8 8T CALIsFORs 2 cI.

GOVERNOR-(Continued.) Counties. Rep. Dem. A.L.D. Stanford. Latham. Currey.

Siskiyou.. 43 2159 1808 Solano…. 88 1172 827 Sonoma… 64 1981 1148

Stanislaus. 13 889 106 Sutter…. 87 695 159 Tehama.. 85 770 92 Trinity…

4 1285 829 Tulare and }11 821 63 B’na Vista Tuolumne 969 8723 737 Yolo….

66 757 568 Yuba….. 43T 2442 1471 Total..10110 62255 31298 Latham over C’rey, 80957; over both, 20847. Mississippi. An Election was held in this State for Governor, State Officers, and Congressmen, in 185i9, which resulted in the success of the Democracy by more than three to one, Pettus, Dem., for Gover no r, receiving 84,559 votes to 10,308 for Walter, Independent. The Democratic Candidates for other State Officers ran ahead of Mr. Pettus. For Congress there was hardly a show of opposition to the Democratic candidates. AGGREGATE VOTE ON OTHER STATE OFFICERS.

2~epubhlieans. Lt. Go…. Kennedy, 11148 Conogress..Baker,… 41488 “

Sibley,… 801 Sup. Court.Shafter.. 11799 IDemocrats. Lt. Goa…. Downey,.

59051 Congress..Burch… 57665 se eE ” Scott…. 56998 8 1.. Court.

Cope…. 59897 Antdi-Lecomptn Democroot.. Lt. 8or…. Conness.. 81051

Congress..Booker-.. 2969 ” McKibben43474 S’up. C’ourt.Sprague.. 80978

Baker, Rep., was generally supported by the Anti-Le compton Democrats, and McKibben by the Republicans. California-1859. GOVERNOR. Countie,,. Rep.

Dem. A.L.D. Stanford. Latham. Currey. Alameda.. 299 1066 664 Amador… 232

2028 985 Butte….. 854 1915 1666 Calaveras. 85 8275 1891 Colusa… 15 541

166 Con’a Costa 41 805 878 Del Norte. 18 892 126 El Dorado. 408 3096 2413

Fresno…. 1 359 11 Humboldt 83 897 872 Klamath.. 1 607 120 Los Ang’ls 220

1916 49 Marin…. 67 467 75 Mariposa. 8 1462 212 Mendocino 11 780 85

Merced…. 1 231 82 Monterey.. 46 495 175 Napa….. 14 810 905 Nevada…

581 8185 2534 Placer…. 896 8226 1117 Plumas… 193 8S2 649 Sacram’to.

228 3526 2678 San Bern’o 89 532 6 San Diego. 17 259 1 San Fran’o8027 4747

29483 San Joa’in 209 1806 878 S. Luis Ob’o 80 284 80 San Mateo 105 420 418

Santa B’ra 85 481 - Santa Clara 626 1407 867 Santa Cruz 150 499 451

Shasta…. 8 1456 432 Sie rra…. 295 2814 1666 248 ALABAMA. grounds of greater demotion to the interests of the South, but exhibited only a feeble show of strength, Andrew B. Moore, regular Dem., being relected Governor over Wm. F. Samford, Independent, by about 20,000 majority. The Regulars also carried the entire Delegation in Congress; the only close contest being in the Third (Montgomery) Dist., where Clopton, Regular Dem., beat Judge, Independent, by 214 majority. Florida. The last general Electior in this State was for Congress, in 1858, when both candidates were Democrats. Hawkins, the regular Demo-. crat rec.eiving 6,465 votes, and Westcott, Independent Dem., 4,070. South Caroliua. There is no opposition to what is termed the Regular Democracy in this State, and no officers are elected by the entire vote of the State, the Governor and State officers, as well as the Presidential Electors, being chosen by the Legislature. Alabama. An Election was held In this State in 1859, for Govemor, Congressmen and Legislature, in which the opposition to the regular Democracy claimed the sufzages of the people, on the Arkansas.

There is not sufficlei opposition to the Regula Democracy in this State t-, create the slightest intereit in the elections. At the la-e election for Congr”“‘nle” I858) in the First Di-tri ndman, Dem., r,,,,ei”e 1S,255
votes, to 2,853 for Crosby, Independent; and, in the Second District, Rust, Dem., received 16,302 to 8,114 for Jones, and 8,452 for Drew, Indepeiadent canclidates.

Powered by DLXS

To comment or inquire about content, contact moa-feedback@umich.edu To report errors, contact umdl-help@umich.edu Reprint Information for this collection