b'E \n\n\xc2\xa395 \n\n\n\n\nClass L 44Q \nBook . f. 9 5 \n\n\n\nSPEECH \n\n\n\n^\xc2\xb0^-^\'^JkT \n\n\n\nHON. THOMAS EWING, \n\n\n\nCHILLICOTHE, OHIO, \n\n1 \nBefore a Republican Mass Meeting, Sep. 29th, 1\xc2\xa760. \n\n\n\nCINCINNATI: \n\nRICKEY, MALLORY & CO., 75 WEST FOURTH STREET. \n\n\n\nI860. \n\n\n\nSoJ-wv \xe2\x96\xa0i^33/;4c4^ \n\n\n\nSPEECH \n\n\n\nOF THE \n\n\n\nHON. THOMAS EWING, \n\n\n\nAT \n\n\n\nCIIILLICOTHE, OHIO, \n\n\n\nBEFORE A REPUBLICAN MASS MEETING, SEPTEMBER 29tli, 1860. \n\n\n\nCINCINNATI: \nEICKEY, MALLORY & CO., 75 WEST FOURTH STREET. \n\nI860. \n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2EfS \n\n\n\nWest. Kes. Hlat. Soc. \n\n\n\nSPEECH: \n\n\n\nMy Friends and Fellow Citizens: \n\nI am here to address you by the invitation of your \nKepublican Central Committee. I belong to no existing \nparty. I am attached to none, but to the Union \xe2\x80\x94 the \nStates \xe2\x80\x94 their liberties and laws. I come not to arouse \nyour enthusiasm in behalf of any man or any party, but \nto speak my own free thoughts, and the conclusions of \nmy own judgment, as to the condition of our country and \nthe course \xe2\x80\x94 of all that are open to us \xe2\x80\x94 which is most \nlikely to tend to its permanent prosperity and peace. I \nwill speak something of men, but more of principle and \npolicy. \n\nAnd it may be proper for me to say, in the outset, that \nI have made up my mind to vote for Abraham Lincoln. \nI know him personally, and am satisfied with him. He \nis a manofunimpeached integrity \xe2\x80\x94 sufficiently acquainted \nwith the recent history of our country, and the men and \nmeasures which have made up that history. I am satis- \nfied with the man, though I do not place him in advance \nof all his opponents. John Bell is his equal in personal \nqualities, of large experience, the elder statesman, and if \nwe could make him our President, I would consider him \na very safe choice. I know him much more intimately \nthan Mr. Lincoln. I was in counsel with him daily for \nmany months in times of trial, and besides my confidence \n\n\n\nin the statesman, I have for him a warm feeling of per- \nsonal friendship and regard. \n\nBut he can not get the vote of Ohio. His ticket is but \na disturbing element in the canvass. The contest in this \nState is between Lincoln and Douglas, and between them \nI cannot hesitate for a moment, and indeed, have no vote \nto throw away Avhen such is the contest. \n\nAs a statesman, Douglas has shown himself inconsider- \nate and recldess. The extreme agitation of the country \nfor the past six years is due to his restless impatience for \nnotoriety. He is politically answerable for all the terrible \natrocities conse:iuent upon the repeal of the Missouri \nCompromise. They were embodied in the repeal, and the \neye of a statesman could not have failed to discern them \nthere. He set a complicated machine, which he under- \nstood not, in wild and destructive motion, and his sole \nmerit, is that he attempted but knew not how to check or \ndirect its movement. Experience of the past does not \nwarrant us in believing that the Repubhc would be safe \nunder his guidance. It would-be once again Phaeton \nguiding the chariot of the sun. \n\nMr. Breckinridge I know only as a gentleman, and as \nsuch I esteem him and believe him stainless. He has no \nrecord as a statesman, at least none known to me ; and \nhe stands as the representative of an extreme sectional \nparty, whose opinions and policy tend strongly to disunion. \nBesides, Lane, the candidate for Vice President, is, I \nthink, little worthy of that honorable position. ]\\Iy \nopinion of his personal merits will be found at large in a \nspeech delivered in the Senate of the United States, Janu- \nary 7, 18-31, on the Bradbury resolutions, which, with \naccompanying documents, is in Appendix to Congressional \nGlobe, vol. 23, puges G7 and G8. \n\n\n\nThis will suffice for the personal merits and status of \nthe several candidates. The political questions involved, \nand my own relation to those questions, require a more \ncareful presentation. \n\nI view the existing contest almost from a neutral stand \npoint. I have belonged to no political party since the 22d \nday of March, 185 4 but have since that time looked upon \nthe acts and purposes of each as subjects of approval or cen- \nsure, solely and only as in my opinion their efforts might \nbe useful or injurious to the country. \n\nThe RepubUcan party arose out of the repeal of the \nMissouri Compromise. This attempt, when jBrst made, \nseemed an act of wanton childish recklessness, and took \nthe nation by surprise. The people in no section of the \nUnion desired it, or thought of it. That Compromise \nwas the settlement of a difficult and dangerous question, \nwith which thinking men of all sections were satisfied. \nThe proposed repeal was received in the South with no \napprobation. I myself heard Southern Senators speak of \nit as meddlesome and officious \xe2\x80\x94 a thing which annoyed \nthem greatly. Their ablest statesmen disapproved of it \nand would have resisted it had they not feared that dem- \nagogues at home might use it to their injury. In the \nNorth it excited indignation and alarm. While the mea- \nsure was still pending in Congress \xe2\x80\x94 and it was a long time \npending \xe2\x80\x94 a convention was called to meet at Columbus, \nthe avowed object of which was to combine the elements \nof opposition to that, irrespective of all other political \nissues. This was the seed-germ of the Republican party. \n\nIt was a movement for the success of which I felt \ndeep sohcitude. I had no fears of the permanent \nestablishment of slavery in Kansas or Nebraska, but \nI foresaw the disorders to which the repeal must \n\n\n\n6 \n\ngive riso, and I greatly feared that the movement \nitself, under the guidance of extreme party leaders \nacting upon aroused public feeling, might ]je pushed \nbeyond its legitimate object, and by attempting too much, \nfail in that, and do evil and not good by the effort. I \nwished to move the rock and leave the mountain at rest \nbut I feared that our engineers would attempt both and \nftiil in both. The object of the organization is shown by \na letter of the State Central Committee, asking me to \nattend and address the Convention ; and my fears that it \nwould fail by attempting too much, or turning aside from \nits avowed purpose, are shown in an extract from my \nreply, which I take the liberty to read : \n\n\n\nLETTER OF INVITATION. \n\nColumbus, Ohio, March 2d, 1854. \nHon. Thos. Ewing, Lancaster, Ohio. \n\nYou will see by the newspapers of this city, that a \nMass Convention of the people of Ohio, without distinc- \ntion of party, has been called to meet in this city, on the \n22d day of March next. It is proposed that the Con- \nvention consist of all who are opposed to the repeal of \nthe jMissouri Compromise, and the introduction of slavery \ninto Kans IS and Nebraska. \n\nThe undersigned Committee of Correspondence ear- \nnestly invite you to attend the Convention as one of the \nspeakers on the occasion, Signed, \n\nE. K. ECKLEY. \n\n\n\nIn my reply, after a brief discussion of the ordinances \nand laws which make up the history of the division of \n\n\n\n7 \n\nour unoccupied territory between free and slave labor, I \nsay: \n\nEXTRACT FROJI ANSWER. \n\n" The free and slave territory must be separated by a \nlaw, prior to its occupation or it will at no distant day \nseparate itself in a manner greatly more injurious to the \npeace and good order of society. We can not ask our \nfree laborers to mingle and associate with slaves without \nforgetting the dignity and importance of labor as a social \nand political element in our Northern communities, \n\n" The Missouri Compromise makes this separation. It \nwas a wise and well considered measure. Its repeal would \nbe a great TNTong and a great evil. As such, we ought to \nresist and if possible, avert it. On this the people of the \nNorth, almost as a body and a goodly portion of the \nSouth wiU unite. Let us engage in it in a manner becom- \ning the subject \xe2\x80\x94 with calmness, prudence and considera- \ntion \xe2\x80\x94 and by no means suffer ourselves to be defeated in \nthis, which we all feel to be just, right and necessary, by \nblending with it, or sufiering to be involved with it, any \nother object, however desirable to many. Let us take \nthis single and alone. In any departure from the plain \nstraightforward path to the one sole object there is dan- \nger \xe2\x80\x94 danger of division, and with division defeat. We \ncan probably prevent the infliction of the anticipated \nwrong ; if not Ave can certainly in due time and by con- \nstitutional means redress it. \n\n" I have purposely confined myself to the political and \npractical view of this subject, as in my opinion, it embra- \nces the true principle of the measure which it is the object \nof the Convention to sustain. \n\n" Be kind enough to make known my concurrence in \nthe expressed objects of the Convention, and my convic- \ntion that if pursued calmly and wisely, they can not fail \nof ultimate success." lam, very respectfully yours, \n\nT. EWING. \n\nMessrs. E. K. Ecklei and others. \n\n\n\n8 \n\nIn signifying my approbation of the objects of the \nConvention, I was careful to use the qualifying term \n" expressed," as I had little doubt that many ^Yho engaged \nin the movement would attempt, and I feared successfully, \nto extend it to other and widely different purposes. My \napprehensions were realized. The Convention was com- \nposed of a large proportion of extreme anti-slavery men, \nit was led by extreme men, and it passed resolutions \nwhich in effect abandoned opposition to the repeal of the \nMissouri Compromise \xe2\x80\x94 resolutions which, indeed, could \nnot be carried out without the repeal, virtual, if not actual. \nIn short, those who composed the Convention determined \nto reject the division of territory made by the Missouri \nCompromise, and go into a fight at large \xe2\x80\x94 a kind of irre- \npressible conflict against the holders of slaves in general \n\xe2\x80\x94 while the admission of Kansas as a Free State was but \nan inconsiderable incident in the progress of their pro- \nposed action. Indeed, it must necessarily have arrested \nthat progress and defeated the ultimate object of the \nleaders of that body. Their speeches announced and res- \nolutions prescribed a course of political action which \ninvolved as one of its essential elements, not the restora- \ntion but the permanent abandonment of the Missouri \nCompromise- \n\nThe expressed object of the original organization \xe2\x80\x94 \nthe restoration of that compromise, had met my approba- \ntion ; I united, therefore, in its pursuit with men of widely- \ndifferent opinions on kindred subjects; but because I united \nwith them in iliis, I could, therefore, not allow them to \nprescribe for me new laws of thought and action. They \nturned to the pursuit of other objects which must, as I \nbelieved, produce mighty mischiefs in their process of \ndevelopment \xe2\x80\x94 a polic}\' which involved a long and fierce \n\n\n\nconflict, and which left the question of Freedom or Sla- \nvery in the Territories, covered by the Missouri Compro- \nmise, unsettled while the war was waged; and it left Kan- \nsas, especially, delivered over to anarchy and violence. \nThis necessarily cut off from the party many thousands \nwho had in purpose or in act united in the original object, \nand who still continued to deske and promote that object. \nIt drew a strictly sectional party Hne, which no one could \npass, and necessarily involved the selection of a party \nleader who would be nothing more or less or other than \nthe representative embodiment of the sectional party, and \nit as necessarily excluded any man of national opinion or \nreputation. Parties of many discordant opinions were to \nbe united in the canvass ; it was, therefore, essential that \ntheir leader should have no record. Hence, in 1856, Mr. \nFremont, a gentleman quito unknown in the political or \npublic history of our country, was selected as their candi- \ndate for President, and the \'party was defeated, while the \norigincd principle triumphed. For as far as public opinion \nhad potency, Kansas was virtually a Free State on the \nday Mr. Buchanan took his seat as President. \n\nThus, the original issue on which the Republican organi- \nzation was put to the country, was tried and sustained, \nwhile the partii which had abandoned it was defeated. \nAnd if Mr. Buchanan had regarded the clear indications \nof public will, and had facilitated the admission of Kan- \nsas under a constitution of her own adoption, the Bepub- \nlican party must have placed itself on national gTOund and \nsustained itself on general principles of national policy, \nor ceased at once to be a power in the land. But he and \nhis advisers seemed to be struck with judicial blindness. \nAgainst all right, and truth, and justice, and against the \n2 \n\n\n\n10 \n\nohvious sense of a large majority of the nation, they \nattempted to force a forged and false Constitution on \nKansas, which was to make it a Slave State in contempt \nof the opinions of nine-tenths of its inhabitants. They \npersevered in the wrong even after they were f lirly whip- \nped out of it. And when thus beaten beyond all possi- \nbility of recuperation, they kept the question open by \nrefusing to admit Ksnsas as a Free State under a Consti- \ntution of her own adoption. Those who organized them- \nselves under the name of the Republican party, to exclude \nSlavery fi\'om Kansas and Nebraska, virtually accomplished \ntheir object \xe2\x80\x94 it had become morally impossible for Sla- \nvery to be forced into Kansas; but Mr. Buchanan kept \nthe question open, and thus kept the Republican party \nunited, vigorous and active by intriguing to prevent full \nand immediate consummation of its victory. That party, \nthough the ultimate accomplishment of the object of its \norganization was rendered cer<^ain, had not yet actually \naccomplished it ; and it must live till it fulfilled its des- \ntiny. But, as I have said, men of differing and discord- \nant opinions in other matters, united in this: Abolition- \nists, higher law and irrepressible conflict men \xe2\x80\x94 all shades \nand degrees \xe2\x80\x94 up to and including the solid phalanx of \nWhig principles and opinion. And it happened in this \ncase, as in most others, that extreme men wore the busy, \nactive men always on the alert, little regarding the one \npurpose which united the great mass of the people, except \nin so far as it could be used as an instrument for their \nulterior objects. They called and took control of con- \nventions, and through them of many of the States. And \nthe people acted with them, for they were ostensibly pur- \nsuing the great object all had in view ; while the folly of \nthe Administration excused them in public oi)inion when \n\n\n\n11 \n\nthey departed from or tresspassed beyond that object \nBy this means the people of some of the States North \nand West were placed in a false position^ \xe2\x80\x94 misrepresented \nas to then- opinions and feelings by the public acts of their \nconstituted authorities. In Ohio, extreme men ruled and \nseemed to be the majority, but they never were so. As \nin an effervescing fluid, all seems foam to those who look \nonly on its surface, so did this element seem to be all of \nthe party opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compro- \nmise, while in truth its strength lay in the calm, conser- \nvative Whig mass, which remained inactive below. As \nexamples in our own State, of extreme party action, wit- \nness the attack last year upon the independence of the \nJudiciary in the person of Judge Swan \xe2\x80\x94 the refusal of \nthe Legislature last winter, when the subject was before \nthem, to pass a law to prohibit the forming or fitting out \nin Ohio the marauding expeditions against our sister States, \nThe bill in form and substance being as nearly as possible \nidentical with a law of the United States, as to nations \nwith whom we are at peace ; and, which indeed, modern civ- \nilization has introduced into the codes of nearly all nations \nnot piratical ; and the refusal of our Executive to surren- \nder fugitives fi\'om justice \xe2\x80\x94 pursuant to the requirements of \nthe Constitution* all which indicated that this party was \n\n\n\n*This, I find, is a heresy of some ten years standing, a fact which had \nescaped me, as I was too busily engaged in organizing a new department \nat Washington, at the time it arose, to give much attention to passing \nevents. Our present Governor, however, is not responsible for it, but \nit is not the less a heresy, and highly injurious, especially in the connec- \ntion in which I have placed it. It is said, in the opinion of the Attorney \nGeneral of that day, that this provision of the Constitution ought not to be \nextended, 1st. To cases not within the rule observed by the comity of \nnations; or 2nd. The cases designated in our treaties with foreign nations; \n3d. Or crimes known to the common law ; 4th. Or such as are recognized \nas crimes in the State called on to surrender the fugitive. Now, neither \n\n\n\n12 \n\nengaged in a conflict which must be, in fact and deed \nirrcpressihh so long as it and the Union both endured ; \nand that the organic law of the republic had been super- \nseded by a higher or lo^vcr law \xe2\x80\x94 namely, the individual \nwill, dominant in the minds of excited men. Such was \nthe condition of things which caused me to stand aloof \nfrom the party, the objects of whose original organization \nI approved, and to advance which objects I labored after- \nwards out of the party earnestly, and, I have reason to \nbelieve, efiectively. \n\nBut I looked for a reaction, and it has come. Conser- \nvative men, law-loving and law-abiding men, could not \nsuffer the excesses of the time to go abroad under their \napparent sanction and remain inactive. The reaction pre- \n\none or all of these criteria will serve as a test, for 1st. There is no comity \n\nof nations as to extradition of criminals, as such. 2nd. Our treaties desig- \nnate the special crimes, and among them are not to be found the highest, \nnamely treason, nor one half of the high crimes known to the laws of every \ncivilized state and country, as burglary, larceny, rape, higamy, incest, perjury, \netc., etc., etc. 3rd. The common law omits, of course, all crimes having \ntheir origin in the present changed condition of society, such as the mali- \ncious destruction of canal locks, reservoirs, etc., and the maliciously \nplacing obstructions on railroads with intent to destroy life; and the \nfourth test, namely, that it must be a crime by the law of the State called \non to make the surrender, would be subject to the last named difficulty, \nfor Florida, Arkansas and Oregon could not surrender a fugitive who \nshould be charged capitally with a crime against the canals, or railroads \nof other States. But the conclusive objection is, that the constitution \ngives no possible pretext for any such limited construction. The crime \nmust be committed in the State making the demand, by a person actually \nwithin it; the laws of that State, therefore, must govern it; and as to the \ndegree of the crime, the enumeration by the Constitution is in the descend- \ning series, \xe2\x80\x94 "Treason, felony, or other crime." That is, lesser cv\'imQ. \n\nAs to what is said of trivial offenses, it seems to me clear that it is for \nthe State whose laws declare the crime, to judge. The Constitution might \nwell presume that no State would make an act criminal out of mere wan- \ntonness or folly. Nor can it be supposed that an oflFender would flee, or \nthe executive of a State demand a fugitive except in cases where the \noffense was great, or greatly injurious to society. \n\n\n\n13 \n\nsented itself in a two-fold aspect. Out of the party, by \nthe Union organization in the North \xe2\x80\x94 in the party, by \nthe rejection of extreme party leaders and the nomination \nof a sound conservative man for President at the late Chi- \ncago Convention. \n\nThe resolutions of the Chicago Convention \xe2\x80\x94 the plat- \nform \xe2\x80\x94 is better than we have been accustomed to, in \nspeeches and resolves, for four or five years past \xe2\x80\x94 better \nin its positions, much better in tone and temper. It quite \nrejects the heresy that any law applicable to the civil \ngovernment of our Union is higher than the Constitution \nof the United States. It condemns in strong terms the \norganization of marauding expeditions in any of the \nStates to attack the people or the institutions of neigh- \nboring States, (a thing which the Ohio Legislature had so \nrecently refused to declare unlawful ;) and in its whole \ntone and temper counsels, peace and mutual respect of \neach other\'s rights between States, instead of the mainte- \nnance of a continual and irrepressible conflict. It also \nhas discovered and declares that the nation has a mission \nother than that of perpetual war over Slavery. And \nespecially it advances sound old Whig doctrine as to the \nfostering care which Government owes to the industry of \nits people. This suits me well. It is a recurrence to first \nprinciples- \xe2\x80\x94 a strong assurance that the party, as it now \nexists, intends to build up and preserve, and not pull down \nand destroy. \n\nBut I do not think the adoption of a portion of the \nDeclaration of Independence in very good taste, and such \nindeed seemed to be the opinion of a majority of the Con- \nvention; but beyond that it is quite unimportant. The \nclause adopted is true in the vague and general sense in \nwhich it was used by the framers of the Declaration, who \n\n\n\n14 \n\nwere three-fourths of them slaveholders. And in that \nsense it seems to have been taken by the Convention; for \nif not, it would be inconsistent with their other resolves, \nwhich assert in express terms the absolute right of States \nslave and free, over their domestic institutions. \n\nI object to the eighth resolution. The proposition \n" that the normal condition of all the territory of the Uni- \nted States is that of freedom," is not true in point of fact \nThe rule, the norma, which is announced by the proposi- \ntion, must apply if it has any meaning, to the territory as \nit stood at the time of the formation of the Constitution, \nwhen slavery existed under and by the law of nearly all \nthe States and in all the Territories, except the territory \nnorthwest of the river Ohio ; and as to the after acquired \nterritory, the norma or rule must be apphed to its condi- \ntion at the moment it became the property of the United \nStates. And Louisiana, all that is now in question, was \ntlicn slave territory. \n\nThe framers of the Constitution had no conception of \nthis ^^ normal condition.\'\'\'\' When they willed that the \nNorth-Western territory should be free, it was so declared \nby the adoption of the ordinance of 1787, with its pro- \nhibitory clauvse as binding under the Constitution. The \nSouth- Western Territory was left to slavery just where \nthe laws of North Carolina and Georgia had held it. \nThe ships sailing under the flag and carrying papers \nunder the seal of the United States, attesting their nation- \nality, are wherever they may sail on the high seas, part \nand parcel of the territory of the United States, and \nunder the dominion, pure and unmixed, of her Constitu- \ntion and laws : and who would be bold enough to contend \nthat prior to the year 1808, while the Constitution forbade \nthe abohtiou of the slave trade, that the " normal condi- \n\n\n\n15 \n\ntion " of the ships which hore the slaves was " that of \nfreedom ?" Surely they had no condition ivhcdevcr except \nthat which the Constitution, and the laws passed under it, \ncreated. I feel it clear to a demonstration that the prop- \nosition as to the " normal condition " of the territories of \nthe United States in its most general or more restricted \nsense can not be maintained. \n\nThe other branch of the resolution, namely the propo- \nsition, that Congress has but a limited power over slavery \nin the Territories, though advanced by the Chicago Con- \nvention in this eighth resolution, \xe2\x80\x94 by the Breckinridge \nConvention in their second resolution, and sustained by \nthe Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of \nDred Scott vs. Sandford, does not command the assent of \nmy judgment. But if the proposition that the power of \nCongress over the Territories is limited in that particular \nbe true, the Breckinridge Convention and the Supreme \nCourt of the United States have the best of argument, to \nsay nothing of authority. But, with all my habitual def- \nerence and respect for that Court, and I think it second \nto none in the world for the qualities which give weight \nand dignity to a judicial tribunal, I can not divest myself \nof the opinion that it erred on this point, which Avas quite \nunnecessary to the decision of the case. \n\nTheir error, in my judgment, consists in considering \nslaves as property merely ; instead of considering master \nand slave as relations, which in our artificial system, man \nholds to man. The latter is the view taken of it in the \nConstitution of the United Stftes. Slaves in th;it instru- \nment are not treated as property, any more than minor \nchildren, apprentices, or men bound by contract to perform \nlabor. Under the Constitution, property is not repre- \nsented \xe2\x80\x94 persons owing service are. If property escape \n\n\n\n16 \n\nfrom one State and go into another, the Constitution does \nnot direct that it shall be delivered up. If persons owing \nservice escape, it does so direct. Congress is empowered \nto regulate commerce between the States. Commerce has \nto do with property. But the States exercise the sole \npower of admitting or prohibiting the importation from \nother States of persons owing service \xe2\x80\x94 in this their laws \ntreat them not as property. Congress has the express \npower to regulate foreign commerce, but is denied the \npower until the year 1808 to prohibit the imigration or \nimportation into any of the States now existing, of such \npersons as the said State shall think proper to admit. \nThis implies the power to prohibit their importation into \nany new State or into any Territory, and the argument \nalso involves this dilemma : If slaves are propcrtij merely, \nunder the Constitution, Congress can prohibit their impor- \ntation into any Territory by virtue of its power to regu* \nlate commerce between the States. If they be not prop- \nerty, but persons, the power of the sovereign (which the \nSupreme Court says Congress is) to regulate and fix the \nrelations of man to man in the Territory is \\vithout any \nhmitation, expressed or imphed. Congress has, in this \npoint of view, the same power to prohibit slavery, so far \nas property exists in the labor of the slave, as it would \nhave to make the son free at twenty, instead of twenty- \none, thus depriving the father of one year of his labor. \nAnd I have so much confidence in the high character and \nelevated feeling and sense of justice of the Court, that I \ndo not doubt the question wflil be re-considered when a new \ncase arises, if it ever do arise, which shall require its ap- \npHcation. \n\nBut, if we admit, with the eighth resolution of the Chi- \ncago Convention, that the power of Congress is limited \n\n\n\n17 \n\nin the Territories over that one special subject matter \xe2\x80\x94 I \nknow not where to find an argument potent enough to \nresist the conclusion of the Supreme Court, sustained as \nit is by its high judicial authority. \n\nNo vague generalities will avail anything on either \nside. No general purpose of gradual emancipation strong \nenough to affect the question can be found Avritten down \nin the Constitution \xe2\x80\x94 none to satisfy the legal mind that \nit was intended to deny Congress the power to admit \nslavery in the territories, when such generality, if any \nbear that aspect, is found side by side with the clause \nforbidding Congress to prohibit the slave trade for twenty \nyears. The Declaration of Independence is cited, but it \ncontains nothing, which upon sound legal construction \ncould sustain the position even if all its language were in- \nserted in the Constitution. But this Declaration was \nwritten about fourteen years before the Constitution, and \nthe common construction requires us to admit, that all \nin the former insti^ument, not consistent with the latter \nwas reconsidered and rejected. Nor do I think it safe \nto infer from other generalities equally vague, touching \nthe rights of property, which, in the language of the Con- \nstitution, slaves are not, that Congress is denied the pow- \ner to exclude slavery from the territories, when such gen- \nerality is found side by side with an implication quite as \npotent as a direct enactment, which authorizes Con- \ngress at once to prohibit the importation of slaves any- \nwhere except into States exising at the time of the forma- \ntion of the Constitution. I would that the eighth \nresolution of the Chicago Convention were not in its \nplatform. It seems to be there for no other purpose \nthan to give opponents advantage in the argument. It \n\n\n\n18 \n\nis an abstraction, unless in every practical sense, as it is \nfalse in fact and logic. \n\nI know of but one case in which the normal question \ncan arise, namely : in a registered American ship at sea. \nShe sails or steams from Baltimore to New Orleans. Is \na slave on board this ship free as soon as he is beyond \nthe jurisdiction of any of the States ? And if he be, may \nCongress change this rule by law ? Here is the normal \ncondition, with its attendant consequences, and here is \nthe only place in which I can conceive that the irrepres- \nsible conflict can be kept up. It must be fought out on \nshipboard \xe2\x80\x94 it can not live on land. Still I can consent \nto let this abstract fallacy pass \xe2\x80\x94 reject the resolution and \nsupport the nomination, for I have no doubt that Mr. \nLincoln, himself a sound lawyer, will esteem the Consti- \ntution of the United States superior to this section of the \nplatform. It is impossible, without assumption, which \ncan be made on one side as well as the other, to rest the \nadmission or rejection of slavery in our present Territo- \nries on any other ground than that of its status when it \nbecame part of the United States, or the subsequent Acts \nof Congress, or territorial law afiecting it. Forced as- \nsumptions and bold assertions will not avail \xe2\x80\x94 they con- \nvince nobody that reasons \xe2\x80\x94 and the Constitution, which \nspeaks intelhgible language, and the law of nations \nleave the question where I have found it. The status or \nnormal condition of Louisiana was that of a slave terri- \ntory. The Missouri Compromise gave all of it north of \n3G degrees 30 minutes to Freedom. The re[)eal of that \ncom[)romise left it subject to the laws of the territories \nuntil they arc negatived by Congress. Hence the import- \nance of the original formation of the Republican party, \n\n\n\n19 \n\nand its maintenance on its original ground, and for its \noriginal objects, until those objects shall be accomplished \n\xe2\x80\x94 until it shall have fulfilled its destiny. Admitting \nthat the institution of slavery is equal for the welfare of a \nState with that of freedom, which I do not think it is, \n(others do, and I have no right to force my opinion on \nthem,) admitting this, we all know that the free and slave \nlabor will not mingle. The free white man will not work \nwith the negro slave in the same shop, or in the same \nfield, because in his opinion it degrades him. Labor \nceases to be honorable when it is especially the vo- \ncation of slaves. Hence emigration goes only from a \nfree State, to a free state or territory. The new \nslave States and Territories are, therefore, shut out \nfrom immigration of free laborers as fuUy as the free \nState and Territories from the slave. The lines are pass- \ned by a few, but such is the general fact. \n\nLouisiana was the general property of the Union. Its \nnormal condition was that of slave territory, but it was \nnot right that it should all remain so. The different sec- \ntions of the Union could not use and enjoy it together \xe2\x80\x94 \nit was therefore, just, and wise, and proper, that it should \nbe divided between them so that each should enjoy his \npart to the best advantage ; and the repeal of the Missouri \nCompromise broke up this just and well considered parti- \ntion, which it is the mission of the Republican party ac- \ntually or virtually to restore. The slave States have \ntheir share of the Territory \xe2\x80\x94 it is most ample for their \nwants. The free States must also have theirs. They \nmust have it, not because they are the stronger, and can \nhold it \xe2\x80\x94 not because their institutions are better than \nthose of the South, and therefore the one and not the \n\n\n\n20 \n\nother ought to be extended \xe2\x80\x94 for to claim this in attempt- \ning a peaceful adjustment, were arrogance which would \nollend \xe2\x80\x94 not argument that would convince. But we are \nentitled to it by original right as our just partition \xe2\x80\x94 we \nare entitled to it by compromise and mutual agreement. \nAnd our rights asserted firmly, with dignified courtesy, \nwill be much more readily conceded than if we mingled \nwith their assertion, contumely and reproach. This dis- \nposed of \xe2\x80\x94 and I think we shall dispose of it amicably \xe2\x80\x94 \nthe irrepressible conflict will be repressed, for there will \nbe nothing remaining for which a conflict can be main- \ntained. \n\nHaving fulfilled this its mission, the Republican party \ncan not possibly maintain itself as a general Anti-Slavery \nparty. The whole North was aroused to resist or redress \na wrong. Old Whigs, old Democrats \xe2\x80\x94 men almost with- \nout respect to previous party distinctions, united in this, \nand their united effort and full success was only prevented \nby the fears of some that they meditated an opposite \nwrong while redressing this. But when the end is attain- \ned, and the cause ceases, the organization must cease with \nit, or it must be placed on some other and more perma- \nnent basis. \n\nBut as I have said, it cannot have success as a general \nanti-slavery party. The anti-slavery feeling in the North \nis strong enough and universal \xe2\x80\x94 no man wants slavery \nwith us or near us \xe2\x80\x94 but it is a feeling of resistance \xe2\x80\x94 \nnot of attack. We must be satisfied that there is an \nattempt meditated to obtrude slavery upon our li-ee Terri- \ntories in order to call that feeling into action, and make \nit control the opinion and conduct of the mass of our \npeople. That the actual conflict is ended, I have no \ndoubt. Indeed the attempt to extend slaver}- into Kan- \n\n\n\n21 \n\nsas, even if it had been possible to effect it, was as unwise \nas it was unjust. Slavery as an existing thing, can not \nbe taken into new Territories, without losing its hold on \nborder States, \xe2\x80\x94 and its extension into Kansas must have \ngreatly hastened emancipation in Missouri, which is only \na question of time. It was recently said by Stevens, of \nGeorgia, in a speech delivered in Augusta, that Slavery \ncan not be extended judiciously, to new Territories, with- \nout re-opening the Slave Trade, to Avhich he declared him- \nself opposed. The same opinion was also expressed, \nthough I do not now recollect the occasion, by Mr. Ham- \nmond, of South Carolina. That impression is becoming gen- \neral in the South \xe2\x80\x94 it was therefore not their wise men who \ndevised the extension of Slavery into Kansas. I have \nhence a right to conclude that the conflict is ended, so \nfar as it depends upon Southern aggression. I conclude \nalso, that the Republican party will within the present or \nearly part of the coming year have fulfilled its original \ndestiny, and must end also, or place itself on a basis of \nsnbstantial national policy. An effort to this effect is \nmade in the platform of the Chicago Convention, and \ngenerally I like the direction to which it points. It contains, \nhowever, one element useful perhaps for the present year, \nbut fatal if made to hold its place in the future \xe2\x80\x94 an incor- \nporation of the general anti-slavery element in connection \nwith its many sound principles of national policy. This will \ndo while the attempt to force slavery upon a territory free \nby contract is continued ; but when that is past, settled, \nsigned and sealed, it will then make it sectional. The \nleaders of the party claim for it a dominion of twenty \nyears ; something more than one pohtical generation. They \nare mistaken if they fasten to it this sectional fallacy \xe2\x80\x94 an \nabstraction, false, useless, pregnant with evil \xe2\x80\x94 an apple of \n\n\n\n22 \n\ndiscord and disunion. It cuts off all possible support \nfrom tlie Southern States and all the conservative support \nin the North and West. Erase it \xe2\x80\x94 wipe it out, and the \nparty may live its twenty years ; retain it and it will but \njust survive the election of its President. \n\nI have little doubt of the election of INIr. Lincoln. He \nis an old Whig. He has had his poUtical training in a \nhighly conservative party, of which he was a calm, con- \nsiderate and reasoning member. And though he has \npassed through a fierce conflict \xe2\x80\x94 in which the aggression \nof slavery was the subject of attack and defense \xe2\x80\x94 which \nwould naturally tend to deflect both expression and \nopinion, and in which he has probably said some things not \nstrictly canonical, I doubt not that the feeling which that \nconflict excited has passed away, and that from the first \nto the last \xe2\x80\x94 in his inaugural address in which words will \nbe things, and in his final message he will show hunself \nthe President of the nation, not of a section or a party^ \nThen if misfortune come upon the country, he and all of \nus may feel that no uncalled for word or inconsiderate act \nof his will have caused it. Portunately, he will not be \nthrown upon an extreme party for support. The conser- \nvative interest nominated, and that also will elect him. \n\nMr. Bell, if I mistake not, will have but small support \nin the Northwestern States \xe2\x80\x94 not because he is less wor- \nthy than Mr. Lincoln, but because he enters the canvass \nwith no prospect of success before the people ; and it is \nthe part of wisdom to attempt the good that is practica- \nble \xe2\x80\x94 not that which is impossible. Indeed, it were wise \nfor the especial liiends of jNIr. Bell to support Mr. Lincoln \nhere ; and show him that the conservative interest on \nwhich he may rely is strong. But especially a contest \nagainst him is unwise on their part. If the election go \n\n\n\n23 \n\nto the House, the chance of Mr. Bell for success \nthere were greatly improved, by the fact that he has \nfriends and well wishers among the supporters of Mr. Lin- \ncoln. \n\nSuch, fellow citizens, are some of the views which I \nentertain of the condition of our country, and the coming \npoHtical contest. Much has been said and done on both \nsides of the Hne to educate our people for disunion \xe2\x80\x94 to \ncultivate that mutual hatred and distrust which sets \nnations to war against each other, dissolves States and \nbreaks up families. Of this we have everywhere too much, \nbut it is becoming less and less to the public taste. Still \nI can not hope it will cease, for it is an inconceivably easy \nmode of being virtuous ourselves to forget our own \nfaults, and attack and abhor the imputed vices of our \nneighbors. There are, indeed, many on both sides of the \nline who cry aloud for disunion ; but they are in all cases, \nas far as I know, a safe distance from the hne of contest. \nThey are brave men who can, with unshaken nerves look \nupon, or rather read of, the strife and bloodshed and ruin \nand misery which such a conflict, if they can excite it, \nmust bring upon the more exposed portions of our people. \nSome talk of a peaceful dissolution of the Union ; but \nwith a people such as ours, perhaps with any people, that \nis impossible. The late terrible scenes in Kansas prove \nit We are of a noble race, possessed in a high degree of \n"vigor and energy and courage ; but once freed from the \nrestraints of law and social order, as fierce and cruel as \nhons\' whelps that have tasted blood. And if disunion \nshould come, it would not be peaceful, but bloody, and all \nthat is fierce and cruel in the land would meet in mutual \nvengeance and rapine on the line of conflict. \n\nBut in my opinion the late imminent danger to \n\n\n\n\' ^ \n\n\n\n24 \n\nthe Republic is passed. I feel that the subject of \ncontroversy, all that is worthy of a statesman\'s regard \nhas passed and is about to pass away. Still, angry \nfeelings will exist; popular declaimers can not spare \na subject on which it is so easy to be eloquent \nand on which all can be eloquent alike ; but that mutual \ndistrust and hatred which, more than all else, endangers \nthe union, will gradually subside, if the people elect their \nPresident, and if wisdom and prudence control his official \nactions. \n\n\n\n'