V 
 
 
 » ^ 
 
 
 <v 
 
 
 
 
 A U 
 
 ° " ° 
 
 
 
 
 •v ^ 
 
 k* w ^> « 
 
 
 
 1/ •*> 
 
 
 4>> « 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 **.„■* 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 
 
-. ^ 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ v 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(OS-INTERFERENCE BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 •Wert, r-66 
 
 SENATOR DOUGLAS, OF ILLINOIS, 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 15 & 16, I860,. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the r< sol 
 
 ,.■•1 by Mr. Davis on the 1st of March, relative to 
 the relations of the States, and the rfg is and 
 
 property in the Territories, and I 
 slave property in the Territories, whet . for so 
 
 doing shall exist— Mr. DOUGLAS Baid: 
 
 Mr. Prb8I©?nt: I have no taste and Very little 
 respect for that species of discussion which con- 
 sists in assaults on the personal or political posi 
 tion of Tiny Senator, i have no desire to elevate 
 \)\\ i >TI !)} attempting to pull down others, nor to 
 place any Senator in a false p<i re liis 
 
 constituency. I have no assault to make upon 
 anybody; no impeachment of the record of any 
 gentleman. I am willing that ea -shall 
 
 stand before the country and his own constituen- 
 cy on the record which he has made for himself. 
 I do not complain of so much of the speech of the 
 Senator from Mississippi (Mr, Davis) a* arraigns 
 my political position, for he seems to have deemed 
 it necessary to draw a parallel between his opin-, 
 ions and my own, as we have been actors foi' 
 many years in the same scenes, involving the 
 same issue that is now presented, he taking the 
 one side and I the other. In self defence it may 
 be necessary for me also to refer to the po 
 of that Senator at various periods — with a view 
 of illustrating my own position— by way of con- 
 trast, as we always differed on an isolated point. 
 
 ( shall not indulge to-day in the discussion of 
 any abstract theories of government, rrraoh Lags 
 in the discussion of the legal questions which have 
 lately been attempted to be forced on the Demo- 
 cratic party as political issues. On a former oc- 
 casion, when forced into a discussion by the At- 
 torney General of the United States, the law offi- 
 cer of the Government, I did amuse myself in the 
 discussion of certain legal propositions; not be- 
 cause they had anything to do with the political 
 issues before the country, but because that law 
 officer seemed to have no official duties to occupy 
 his time, and I had the leisure to reply to him. 
 
 The principal points to which I shall direct my 
 remarks to-day, and the sole cause of my making 
 any speech, will be found in certain extracts from 
 the speech of the Senator from Mississippi, a few 
 days since. I have put three extracts upon paper 
 together, and will send them to the Secretary's 
 desk, that they may beread. They ^BLconsti- 
 tute the chief text to which my remarj^kvill be 
 addressed. *™ 
 
 The Secretary read the following extracts from 
 Mr. Davis's speech of May 7 : 
 
 "It is well known to those who have been associated 
 with me in the two House; of Congress that, frpm the com- 
 mencement of the qnesfiort, I have been the determined, 
 opponent oi' what is called squatter sovereignty. I never 
 wave it countenance, :i ml I ai* now least of all disposed to 
 give it quarter. In 1 its appearance for goodt 
 
 purposes. It was ushered in by a great and good man- 
 lie brought it forward because of that distrust which he 
 had in the capacity of tire Government to bear the rude 
 shock to which it was exposed. Bis conviction, no doubt. 
 to some extent sharpened and directed hi." patriotism, and 
 his apprehension led him to a conclusion to which, I doubt 
 not. to-. lay he adheres aa tenaciously as ever; but from 
 which it was my fortune, good or ill, to dissent when his 
 letter wag read to me in manuscript; I being, together 
 with some other persons, asked whether or not it should 
 be sent. At the first blush, I believed it to be a fallacy — 
 a fallacy fraught with mischief; that it escaped an issue 
 which was upon us which it wr.s mir duty to meet; that it 
 i it by a side path, which led to danger. I thought 
 it a fallacy which would surely be exploded. I doubted 
 then, arid' still more for some time afterwards, when held 
 to a dread responsibility for the position which I occupied — 
 I doubted whether I should live to see that fallacy ex- 
 ploded. It has been. Let Kansas speak — thefirst great 
 Held on which the trial was made. What was the conse- 
 t The Federal < ' ■ thdrmcing con- 
 
 ■r.ing the contending sections, excited to the high- 
 est point upon this question, each to net d forth. iUarmy. 
 Kansas became the battle field, and Kansas the cry which 
 ! I j civil war. This teas the Jtrsttfruit. More 
 deadly than the fatal upas, its effect was not limited to the 
 mere spot of ground on which the dew fell from its leaves, 
 but it spread throughout the United States; it kindled all 
 which had b:en collected for years of inflammable mate- 
 ria'. It was owing to the strength ef our Government and 
 lire good sense of the quiet masses of the people that it did 
 not wrap our country in one widespread conflagration. 
 
 What right had Congress then, or what right has it now, 
 to abdicate any power conferred upon it as trustee of the 
 States'/" * * ******* 
 
 "In 1330, following the promulgation of this notion of 
 squatter sovereignty, we had the idea of non-intervention 
 introduced into the Senate of the United States, and it is 
 Btrange to me how that idea has expanded. It seems to 
 have been more malleable than gold, to have been ham- 
 mered out to an extent that covers boundless regions un- 
 discovered by those who proclaimed the doctrine. Noa-. . 
 intervention then meant, as the debates show, that Con- 
 gress should neither prohibit nor establish slavery in the 
 Territories. That I hold to now. Will any one suppose 
 that Congress then meant by non-intervention that Con-. 
 gress should legislate in no regard in respect to property 
 in slaves V Why, sir, the very acts which they passed at 
 the time refute it- There is the fugitive slave law, and 
 that abomination of law which assumed to confiscate the. 
 property of a citizen who should attempt to bring it into 
 ■this District with intent to remove it to sell it at some other 
 'time to some other place. Congress acted then upon the 
 subject, acted beyond the limit of its authority as I be- 
 lieved, confidently believed ; and if ever that act comes 
 before the Supreme Court, I feel satisfied that they wtl'r 
 
t'sr 
 
 -p 
 
 i* 
 
 declare it null and void." ****** 
 "By what species of legerdemain this doctrine of non- 
 intervention lias come to extend to a paralysis of the Gov- 
 ernment on the whole subject to exclude the Congress 
 from any kind of legislation whatever, I am at a 
 conceive. Certain it is, it was not the theory of that pe- 
 riod, and it was not contended lor in all the controversies 
 we had then. 1 had no faith in it ihen ; I considered it a 
 sham ; 1 considered that the duty of Congress ought to he 
 performed ; that the issue was before us, and ought to b - 
 met, the sooner the better; that truth, would prevail d' pre- 
 sented to the people; borne down to-day, it Would rise up 
 to-morrow; ami 1 stood then on the same general plea 
 which 1 am making now. The Senator from Illinois (Mr, 
 Douglas) ami myself differed at that time, as 1 presume 
 we do now. We differed radically then, lie opposed 
 every proposition which 1 made: voting against a p 
 eition to give power to a Ti rritorial Legislature to protect 
 slave property which should l>e taken there; voting against 
 a proposition to remove the obstruction of the .Mexican 
 laws; voting lor a proposition to exclude the conclusion 
 that slavery might be taken lb re; voting tor tin- proposi- 
 tion expressi) to prohibit its introduction: voting lor the 
 proposition to keep in force the laws ol Mexico which 
 prohibited it. Some of these votes, it is but just to him I 
 should say. I thin!; be gave perforce of his instructions; 
 but others of tin n 1 think it is equally fair to assert, were 
 outside ot the liuiit.s ol any instructions under which lie 
 acted. 
 
 " In 1854, advancing in this same general line of thought, 
 the Congress, in enacting territorial lulls, left out a pr vi- 
 sion which 1 1 -• i . I always before entered them, rcquirinzthe 
 Legislature ol the Territory to submit its laws to me Con- 
 gress of the Dili ted States It was sometimes assumed 
 that this was the recognition of the power of the Territor- 
 ial Legislature to exercise plenary legislation, as might 
 that of a Mate, li will be remembered that, when our 
 present form of Goveruun lit was instituted, there were 
 those who believed . Government should have 
 
 the power of revision o\ . r the laws of a Stale, It was 
 long and ably contended for in the convention which 
 formed the Constitution; and one of the compromises 
 which was made was, escaping from that, in lodge the 
 power in the Supreme Court to decide all questions of con- 
 stitutional law 
 
 "Bui did this omission of the obligation to send here'the 
 laws of the Territories w'ork this grant of power to the Ter- 
 ritorial Legislature? CcrUtiuly not; and that it did not, 
 is evinced i>y the fact that, at a subsequent peri >d, the or- 
 gani ■ act was revised, because the legislation of in.- Tvr- 
 ritory of Kansas v as offensive to the Congress ol toe I'ni- 
 ted States. Congress could not abdicate its authority ; it 
 could not abandon its trust; and when it omitted the re- 
 quirement that the laws should be s,-ni hack, it created a 
 casus win. o required it to act without the official i 
 being laid before •:, as they woul i nave been if the obli- 
 gation had existed. That was all the difference." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. With the permission of the Sen 
 ator from ll.inois, 1 wish io say, that it be had 
 BubmilU'il to me those e: bs as the text upon 
 which he wits going to [ k, ( should 1 ve made 
 some verbal corrections, which wouTd have more 
 clearly expre; eel my opinion, However, as he 
 fins joined issue with me upon ' report a r 
 stands, let it he; but, with ! I wish 
 
 to say a word in relation bo a point which will 
 riot at all affect his discourse, but which bears 
 upon another. It is with regard to a geutleraan 
 referred to there as a good and great man — and 
 I cordially believe hiui bolh ; the history of the 
 times has enabled every one to know that I re- 
 ferred to Mr. tJasA. 1 wish to Bay that tin omis- 
 sion at the close of a sentence, after the word 
 "sent," may leave the inference that the iettee 
 was submitted to know whether it was to be sent 
 to the person to whom it was addressed. It 
 would be an error if any one supposed so. It 
 ■vjtas read to certain geutk-men to ascertain, if. io 
 their view, it should be a — ;ion 
 
 of our opinions, as an exposition of tne party 
 
 creed, or the opinions of the party at that time, 
 And so, in relation to the adherence of that good 
 and great man to the opinion he then expressed, 
 it implies, what I believe, that he adheres to that 
 opinion as an abstract opinion still ; but I should 
 do great injustice to him if 1 left any one to sup- 
 pose that 1 thought that he, in defiance of the 
 decision of the Supreme Court, still adhered to 
 that opinion, and had not yielded his entire and 
 implicit acquiescence in the decision which the 
 court has given upon the point. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. ] have yielded to the Sena- 
 tor from Mississippi to make this explanation, 
 and I am gratified that he has had an opportu- 
 nity to make it. I did not. submit these extracts 
 to him, tor J took it for granted that he was cor- 
 reportvd in fhe Globe, winch 1 found on 
 our tables. 1 heird no intimation from him that 
 he had been misreporied. 
 
 Mr. DA. VIS. 1 do not say so. I never revise 
 the manuscript of the reporters. 
 
 DOUGLAS. 1 only desire now to say to 
 the Senator that, while 1 yielded to this explana- 
 tion, I shall be obliged to hhn and to all others 
 i they will allow me to go through with my re- 
 marks without interruption, (us 1 did in his ease,) 
 for the reason that 1 have a g eal deal of ground 
 to travel over to-day in this debate, which will 
 exhaust my strength, and, I fear, your patience; 
 and he will have an opportunity of replying to 
 rue when 1 shall be through. J intend to treat 
 him fairly, kindly, and courteously, in all that I 
 have to say, as ! doubt not il ever lias been his 
 tion to treat me in debate. 
 
 With this explanation, i shall proceed to re- 
 mark, that the facts stated in the copious extracts 
 i: i' the Senator's speech, which have been read, 
 conclusively show that the doctrine of squatter 
 sovereignty, or popular ao\ ereignt) , or non-inter- 
 vention, as the Senator has indifferently styled it 
 in different parts of his speech, did not originate 
 with me, in its application to the Territories of 
 the United States; that it was distinctly pro- 
 el timed by General ('ass in what is known as hie 
 Nicholson letter; that the issue waat&ien distinctly 
 presented to fhe country in the contest of 1848; 
 that General Casa became tl e nominee of the 
 Democratic party with a full know ledge of his 
 opinions upon the question of nonintervention; 
 that he was supported by the parly on that issue; 
 that the same doctrine of non-intervention was 
 incorporated into the compromise measures of 
 1850, in opposition to the views and efforts of the 
 Senator from Mississippi, ami in harmony with 
 ihe views ami efforts of myself; tlial it was reaf- 
 firmed by the Democratic party :n the Baltimore 
 convention of lS5:i; that General Pierce was 
 elected President of the United States upon this 
 same doctrine of uon intervention; tbat it was 
 again affirmed by the Congress of the United 
 states, in the Kansas-Nebraska bid of 1854; aud 
 that it had its rirsl trial, and yielded its first fruits, 
 upon the plains of Kansas in 1855 and 1856. 
 
 Those f'acis are distinctly and positively affirmed 
 by the Senator from Mississippi. These facts 
 conclusively disprove and refnr.e the charges so 
 eften mmein the Senate Chamber within the last 
 year, so erroneously aud&o unjustly made against 
 
me, that I have changed my opinions in regard to 
 this question since 1856. The Senator from Mis- 
 sissippi has done me a service: he has searched 
 the records with a view to my condemnation, and 
 the result of his researches is to produce the most 
 conclusive and incontestible evidence that this 
 charge of having changed rny opinions on this 
 question, and which was made the pretext for my 
 tvmoval from the Committee on Territories, was 
 not true. lie tells you frankly-, what the world 
 knew before, that he had always opposed this 
 doctrine of non-intervention; that he and I always 
 differed upon that point. He always regarded it 
 as a fallacy; I as a sonnd principle. He claims 
 that, after it has yielded its blighting effects upon 
 the plains of Kansas, the Supreme Court has come 
 to the rescue, and that lie now is triumphantly j 
 sustained in his opposition to this doctrine in 
 1848, 1850 and 18">t. Sir, whether we naive been 
 sustained and out consistency vindicated is not [ 
 «o material as to find out whi'-h is right in the 
 point at issue, then aiul now, btJtweeli the Seha- , 
 u>r from Mississippi and myself. 
 
 1 propose, in the first place, to invite the atten- j 
 tion of the Senate to the fact, that the doctrine i 
 of non intervention by Congress with slavery in , 
 the Territories was brought distinctly before the 
 American people, and especially before the Dem- ' 
 ocratic party, in 1847, with n view to its decision ' 
 by the convention of the party that was to a* > m 
 bie at Baltimore in 1848. The Senator has re- j 
 ferred to the letter of General Cass, known as the 
 Nicholson letter, which bears date the 24th of 
 December, 1847. He tolls the Senate, (what most ] 
 of us knew personally and privately' who were j 
 here at that day,) that that letter, in hiapui 
 was passed around among southern arid north- 
 western Democrats, to receive their sanction be- 
 fore its publication. The letter wajs prepared, 
 and in private circulation, for days and weeks 
 before the date which it now bears in its publica- 
 tion; The Senator from Mississippi informs u.8 — 
 and unquestionably with entire accuracy of re- 
 collection — that he, at the time, dissented from 
 the doctrine of nonintervention; as stated in the 
 NichoKon letter. Other southern Senators, now 
 opposed to me— at any rate, i*fter leading dis- 
 tinguished politicians, I will not RbeaTi of'Senlt 
 tors — would not be able to say that, when it was 
 Submitted to them for their approval or disap- 
 proval, they condemned it as frankly as the Sen- 
 ator from Mississippi did. During' this period, 
 while this letter was being privately circulated, 
 be s«d how far it would receive the sanction of the 
 representative men of the Democratic party, the 
 especial friend, the right bower of General Cass 
 in that great contest — Mr. Daniel S. Dielririson, of 
 New York — presented to the Senate two resohi- I! 
 tions embodying the same doctrine. I will ask my j 
 friend from Ohio to read those two resolution* 
 
 Mr. PCGII read, as follows : 
 
 " Resolved, That true policy requires the Government ' 
 •of the United States to sirenglhen ils political relations i ' 
 upon ttns continent by the annexation of eueh contiguous ', 
 territory as may conduce to that end aud can be justly j 
 obtained, and that, neither in such acquisition nor in the !, 
 territorial organization thereof, can any conditions beli 
 constitutionally imposed, or institution.? be provided for ! ' 
 or established, inconsistent with the rlghU of the people '; 
 
 thereof to form a free sovereign Stale, with the powers and 
 privileges of the original members of the Confederacy. 
 
 " Resolved, That in organizing a territorial government 
 for territory belonging to the United States, the principle* 
 of self-government, upon which our federative system 
 rests, will be best promoted, the true spirit and meaning 
 of the Constitution be observed, and the Confederacy 
 strengthened, by leaving all questions concerning the do- 
 mestic policy therein to the Legislature chosen by the 
 people thereof." — Congressional Globe, vol. 18, p. 21. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. It will be observed that these 
 resolutions of Mr. Dickinson, which were pre- 
 sented to the Senate on the 14th of December, 
 1847, assert distinctly the very doctrine which 
 the Senator from Mississippi then denounced and 
 now denounces, and which I then and ever since 
 affirmed, and now affirm. I am not aware that 
 Mr. Dickinson and General Cass has ever modified 
 their views, much less disclaimed the doctrine of 
 these resolutions and of the Nicholson letter. 
 Yet my record on this question is held up to the 
 Senate and to the country as if I stood alone in 
 the Democratic party — a heretic then, a heretic 
 now — and was therefore not entitled to fellowship 
 in the regular Democratic organization. 1 nm 
 aware, sir. that some of the people and some ©£ 
 the States of this Union now hold different doc- 
 trines from those they formerly held upon this. 
 subject of non-intervention — or squtter sovereign. - 
 tv, as the Senator is pleased to call it, for be u&W 
 them as convertible and synonymous term/ — 
 non-intervention being the shibboleth of the 
 party, and popular sovereignty, or squatter sov- 
 nty, an incident or result only, but not the 
 f political orthodoxy. 
 
 I will call attention upon this point to a resolu- 
 tion adopted by the Legislature of Florida, passed 
 in the Semite of that State on the 2*jsth of Decem- 
 ber, lx 17. and in the House of Representatives on 
 the -V'th of December, 1841, and approved by the 
 Governor on the, 30th of December of the same 
 year. 1 find these resolutions in the code of law* 
 of Florida published by authority of the Legisla- 
 ture of that State. I am aware that Florida sub- 
 sequently passed resolutions assorting doctrines 
 inconsistent with these; but I cite these resolu- 
 tions as evidence that the doctrine of non-inter- 
 vention, for which T am now arraigned, was not 
 deemed to be a political heresy at. that day. It 
 may not bo improper here to remark that during 
 of Congress, I received a letter from 
 a State Senator in Florida inclosing resolutions 
 which he had introduced ftfcr the repeal of those 
 resotnl tons, atnl denouncing the resolutions, which 
 1 will read, as being unsound, revolutionary, utir 
 constitutional, dangerous to the rights of the 
 South, and denouncing me by name as the great 
 author of all this mischief that was to strike down 
 southern rights. I will ask my friend from Ohio 
 to read the second and third resolutions, v*hich 
 bear particularly on this point — for the first osly 
 relates to the WHlm.ot proviso— in order to show 
 what the Legislature of Florida thought and said 
 in 1847 upon this subject. 
 
 Mr. FUG1T read, as foifWs: 
 
 "Sty;. •>. St it further resolved. That, :» the opinion <rf 
 this Q< neraj Assembly, a just and correct interpretation ot 
 the Constitution of the United Slates rests in the Urtkto- 
 Hal,s.n well as Ihe. State Leginhiture'f i ■rclweiw juriiclip* 
 lion over the persons of individuals wiihiu thoir res}»ectiv*i 
 limits t and that it would.be, arbitrary, unjurt^aad & uswt- 
 
pation of power on the part of Congress, to annex condi- 
 tions to the admission of a State into the Union, or Ihe 
 annexing a Territory thereto, involving the right <-f juris- 
 diction in Congress over this subject, which exclusively 
 belongs to the Territory ilselfbefbre its admission into the 
 Union, and to the State afterwards. 
 
 "Sec. 3. lie it further re olved, That it would be an ar- 
 bitrary usurpation of power on the part of Congress to 
 exclude shivery from any such territory as may hereafter 
 be acquired by the United States, either by way of indem- 
 nity, by conqui st, or by purchase; that the people of the 
 Territory alntfe have the right to determine upon this sub- 
 ject; and it is for them, while they remain a Territory and 
 for the State, when thej shajl ask to be admitted as:> State, 
 to say whether the institution of slavery shall exist within 
 the limits of such Tcrrit' ry .>r Slate; they having, by a 
 Just interpretation of the Con titution. exclusive jurisdic- 
 tion over the subject-matter within their limits." — Laws of 
 the State of Florida, 1846 to 1849, page 83. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. It will be observed that in 
 these resolutions the State of Florida declared 
 that, by a correct construction of the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, a Territorial Legisla- 
 ture, while in a territorial condition, had tl 
 elusive light to determine for itself vrl 
 slavery should or should not exist within the 
 limits of such Territory. As I have already re- 
 marked, Florida subsequently changed her policy 
 on that subject. If, however, she solemnly pro- 
 claimed that doctrine to the world, in the name 
 cf a sovereign State of this Union, telling the 
 .northern Democracy oo whal term and condi 
 ^ions Florida would hold fellowship with them, 
 and we accepted the doctrine, I should think she 
 tfou'ul forgive us for remaining faithful to hei 
 creed, if we can forgivi her for ab • 
 I ; annate n no man ; 1 much Ie°s arraign a sover- 
 eign State. She had the right to proclaim her 
 opinions; aud if subsequently I to the 
 
 coT/clxsion that they were wrong, she ought to 
 change them; but having proclaimed them 
 then Ranged them, it seems to me a little indul- 
 gence, even "quarter," should he granted by 
 Florida to those who stand by Florida's original 
 position. 
 
 Florida was not the only souther i Ptate whose 
 Dem these doctrines in 18 IT, prior to 
 
 the BOKj.ination of General Cass for the Presi- 
 dency. I find here some resolutions adopted by 
 the Democratic State convention of G orgi 
 at MiTreflgeville, in December, 184^1, I ha^ ■< il 
 • the-entii>c. proceedings. I haveseen these resolu- 
 tions in several Georgia papers recent i y, witl 
 statement of the gentleman who cither rej 
 them or •eancurred in '.heir passage, and with a 
 further statement that these resolutions were 
 copied and adopted by several Mate conventions 
 in other scuthern States at that pet iod. On that 
 newspaper authority, arid that alone, I read these 
 resolutions, so far as I find them published in the 
 papers, bearing on this question. It is p-oper to 
 etate that in the proceedings of the convention it 
 appears that, certain gentlemen, eminent for abil- 
 ity, eminent for their devotion to southern rights, 
 emiue.it for their position in the Democratic par- 
 ty, were present, and concurred in these proceed 
 tngs. Among these I find F. II. Cone, It. A. L. 
 Atkinson, Jesse Carter, W. S. Johnson, Robert 
 Griffin, Thomas Billiard, W. W. Wiggins, E. W. 
 Chastain, W. J. Lawton, S. W. Colbert, and D. 
 Phillips. I find, also, Hon. Mr. Jackson, member 
 of -Congress, and Hon. Lucius <4. C. Lnmur, now 
 
 a Representative in Congress from Mississippi, 
 but then a citizen of Newton county, Georgia. 
 1 will ask my friend from Ohio to read these 
 Georgia resolutions, whie'i were good Democra- 
 cy at that day, and were copied and adopted by 
 several other southern States in their Democratic 
 State conventions. 
 
 Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 
 
 " Rewired. That Congress possesses no power under 
 the Constitution to legislate in any way or manner in rela- 
 tion to the institution of slavery. It is the constitutional 
 right of every citizen to remove and settle with his proper- 
 ty in any of the Territories of the United States. 
 ' " Resolved, That the people of the South do not ask of 
 Congress to establish the institution of slavtry in any of 
 the Territories that may be acquired by the I 'mud States; 
 they wmpty require that the inhabitants of each 'Jerri- 
 1 in ■•(/m// lie left free to determine for themseUoes ichettier 
 "•■ institution of .slavery shall or shall not form a part 
 of their social system." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. There again, sir, we find the 
 doctrine of non-intervention distinctly defined 
 by the Democratic State convention of Georgia. 
 Two distint propositions are affirmed; one is, 
 that Congress has no constitutional power to 
 legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Ter- 
 ritories. That, I should think was pretty distinct 
 non-intervention. You cannot legislate against 
 it.; you cannot legislate for it; you cannot touch 
 the subject at all in the Territories. Now, sir. it 
 may be, and unquestionably is, t rue that some of 
 the eminent men who participated in that State 
 convention of Georgia have since changed their 
 opinions upon thi~ subject, ami now believe just 
 a> conscientiously that it is both within the pow- 
 er and the duty of Congress to legislate for the 
 protection of slavery in the Territories, as they 
 then believed it was unconstitutional for Con- 
 cress to do so. All I have to Bay of those emi- 
 nent gentlemen, for whose talents I have great 
 respect, i J , that if I can forgive them tor having 
 abandoned the very doctrine that they invited us 
 of the North to rally in support of, 1 think they 
 may pardon us for remaining faithful to that doc- 
 trine which they and we agreed to stand by. 
 
 In pursuing this subject, I am afraid that I 
 shall become tedious to the Senate; but still I 
 feel it my duty to present full evidence upon this 
 point, showing th.it the Democratic party, from 
 1848 to this day, have Btnod pledged, as a cardi- 
 nal article in their creed, to the doctrine of non- 
 intervention; and for that purpose I shall be 
 compelled to have various extracts, and some 
 long ones, read, and perhaps to he somewhat te- 
 dious in the exposition of the subject, 
 
 1 have already shown on high authority — 
 southern authority — that when the Baltimore 
 convention assembled in May, 1848, to nominate 
 a Democratic candidate for the Presidency, and 
 to lay down a platform for the party, the atten- 
 tion of the country, the especial attention of the 
 Democratic party of the southern States as well 
 as of the northern States, had been particularly 
 called to this doctrine of non-intervention by 
 Congress with slavery in the Territories; and 
 hence the nomination of General Cass, with his 
 opinions as expressed in the Nicholson letter, was 
 not the result of accident or inadvertence; but 
 he was chdfcen because his sentiments were the 
 sentiments of the vast majority of the Democratic 
 
party, North and South. I have looked into the 
 proceedings of the convention at Baltimore in 
 184 8, when General Cass was nominated, and 
 made an abstract of the votes. I find that, in 
 the slaveholding States, General Cass received, 
 on the first ballot for the nomination, 66 votes; 
 Mr. Buchanan, 19 votes; Mr. Woodbury, 15; 
 Mr. Calhoun. 9 ; General Worth, 6 ; Mr. Dallas, 
 3. The following are the southern States that 
 voted for General Cass on the first ballot: Dela- 
 ware, 3 votes; Maryland, 6 votes; Virginia, 17 
 votes; Mississippi, 6 votes; Louisiana, 6 votes; 
 Texas, 4 votes; Arkansas, 3 votes; Tennessee, 7 
 votes; Kentucky, 7 votes; Missouri, 7 votes. 
 These States did not then think that non-inter- 
 vention — or squatter sovereignty, as it is now 
 called in derision — was such a fatal heresy as to 
 furnish sufficient, cause for disrupting the Demo 
 cratic party, much less for dissolving the Ameri- 
 can Union. They voted for General Cass with a 
 knowledge of his opinions on this question ; and 
 he was their first choice. Old Virginia did not 
 take him then as a choice of evils. She had the 
 opportunity of voting for a southern man, illus- 
 trious for his talents, public services, and devo- 
 tion to southern rights. She had the opportnuitv 
 of voting at that time for Mr. Calhoun, of South 
 Carolina, on his platform. Old Virginia then be- 
 lieved that intervention on the subject of slavery 
 meant disunion. Hence she rejected intervention, 
 and gave her vote first, last, and all the time, for 
 General Cass, the expounder, the embodiment of 
 non-intervention. The same remark is true of 
 Mississippi, represented now so ably by the Sen- 
 ator who arraigned me the other day. He tells 
 us that he always fought this doctrine of non- 
 intervention. So he has; birt at that time he had 
 not the same power in the State of Mississippi; 
 he had not made the same impress on that peo- 
 ple, by his eminent talents and great public ser- 
 vices, as he has since ; and hence he was then 
 unable to seduce Mississippi away from the doc- 
 trine of non-intervention. Louisiana, too, then 
 true to the Democratic creed ; true to the doc- 
 trine of non-intervention ; true to the mainte 
 nance of the Union; hostile to intervention — 
 because intervention led directly to disunion- 
 rallied around General Cass as the standard- 
 bearer in 1848, first, last, and all the time. So 
 of the other States which I have named. 
 
 On the fourth ballot, (which was the last one, 
 and the one on which General Cass was nomina- 
 ted by a two-thirds vote,) in the slaveholding 
 States, General Cass received 94 votes; Mr. Bu- 
 chanan, 7 votes; Mr. Woodbury, 13 votes; Gen- 
 eral Worth, 1 ; General Butler, 3. The southern 
 States voting for General Cass were : Delaware, 
 3; Maryland, 6; Virginia, 17; North Carolina, 
 11; South Carolina, 9; Georgia, 10; Mississippi, 
 6; Louisiana, 6; Texas, 4; Arkansas, 3; Tennes- 
 see,?; Kentucky, 7; Missouri, 7. Even South 
 Carolina, when she found that her own favorite 
 had no chance of a nomination — so soon t.s she 
 found that General Cass was the choice of a ma- 
 jority of the party — wheeled into line, surren- 
 dered her preference, and declared the champion 
 of nonintervention as her next choice for ihe 
 Presidency. Then she did not think this doctrine 
 
 was sufficient cause either to dissolve the Union 
 or to disrupt the Democratic party. 
 
 On the first ballot the northern States gave 
 Cass 59; Woodbury, 39; Buchanan, 32; showing 
 that General Cass received only 59 out of 130 
 northern votes cast, New York not voting in 
 consequence of her double delegation ; and in all 
 the slaveholding States he received, on the first 
 ballot, 66 out of 118 votes, being a majority of 
 the whole number. These facts show that Gen- 
 eral Cass was not the choice of a majority of the 
 northern Democracy at that time, but was the 
 choice of a majority of the southern Democracy. 
 
 Now, I shall proceed to show that these votes 
 were cast with distinct reference to the doctrine 
 of non-intervention as now supported by myself 
 and affirmed by the Democratic party at Charles- 
 ton, and as resisted by the Senator from Missis- 
 sippi and those who seceded from the Charleston 
 convention. General Cass, on the fourth ballot, 
 received the nomination. The whole number of 
 votes cast was 257; necessary to a choice, 170. 
 Thereupon the record says: 
 
 "Lewis Cass, of Michigan, having received two thirds 
 of the whole number of votes cast, 
 
 "The chairman declared him duly nominated by the con- 
 vention as the candidate for President 
 
 " The announcement of this result by the Chair was fol- 
 lowed by enthusiastic and long-continued applause, the 
 members of the various delegations almost universally 
 springing to their feet, and uniting in one spirit-stiring 
 shout of approbation. 
 
 " Mr. Toueey, of Connecticut, rose simultaneously with 
 Mr. Bryce, of Louisiana, to move that those States whose 
 delegates had not voted for General Cass, might have an 
 opportunity of changing their vote, so that the nomination 
 might be unanimous. This motion was agreed to, and 
 the States whose votes had not been cast wholly for Mir. 
 Cass, being called " — 
 
 the other States went on to change their votes 
 and to make the nomination unanimous. They 
 were proceeding to declare General Cass nomi- 
 nated on the votes of two-thirds of the members 
 present, not two-thirds of the whole number of 
 votes in the electoral college. Here you find an 
 express decision that two-thirds of those present 
 and voting, and not two-thirds of the whole elec- 
 toral college was the rule ; New York not voting, 
 because she had a double delegation, and neither 
 would consent that the other should sit with 
 them. Then speeches were made in favor of 
 making the nomination unamimous: 
 
 " Mr. McCandless of the Pennsylvania delegation. Mi. 
 Humphreys of Maryland, Mr. Wells of New Hampshire, 
 Mr. Turne'y of Tennessee, Mr. Toueey of Connecticut, Ml. 
 Carey of Maine, Messrs Rantoul and Hallett of Massacho- 
 i, tr. Ilibbard of New Hampshire, Mr. Pearce of 
 Ruode Island, and Mr. R P. Thompson of New Jersey, 
 in brief and eloquent speeches, announced the unanimous 
 vote of their delegation for the nominee of the convention, 
 and pledging him their cordial and united support." 
 
 These gentlemen had thus far opposed General 
 Cass, because they preferred other men: but they 
 felt it their duty to withdraw their opposition, and 
 support him as the standard-bearer of the party. 
 
 Thereiipon, 
 
 " Mr. Yancey, of Alabama, stated that he desired to hare 
 the platform — on which they intended to place the candi- 
 date — erected before he would be prepared to pledge hia 
 support. 
 
 " Mr. Winston, of Alabama, pledged the people of Ala- 
 bama to sustain the nominee. 
 
 " Messrs King, <J. E. Morse, Sydenham Moore, SooU, 
 and Borden, each united in the pledge given by Mi. 
 Winston." 
 
a 
 
 Some eminent names in those days are here 
 who did not think that the doctrine of non-inter- 
 vention was such a fatal heresy as to Form a suf 
 ficient justification for disrupting the Democratic 
 party, even at the hazzard <if a dissolution of the 
 Union. Governor Winston, I believe, is well 
 known in Alabama — an eminent citizen. Tie 
 pledged Alabama for General Cass on this doe- 
 trine of non intervention, carrying the Nicholson 
 letter in his hand as the compass by which his 
 political action was to be governed. Sydenham 
 Moore is not a name unknown to "fame" — a 
 most worthy man, eminent in ability, and stand- 
 ing well in Alabama, and now represents that 
 State with ability and zeal in the House of Rep- 
 resentatives. He diil not regard this doctrine of 
 non intervention as a fatal blow at southern lights, 
 and he felt authorized to pledge Alabama to the 
 support of General Casa "Mr. Avant, of Ten- 
 nessee, and Mr. Magoffin, of Kentucy, ap< ke in 
 favor of the nominees, pledging the support of 
 their respective States ;" and the next day the 
 platform was adopted, in which the doctrine of 
 non-intervention was affirmed in the seventh res- 
 olution, which is so familiar that, perhaps, it is 
 unnecessary to read it. ["Let us hear it' 'J Let 
 it be read. 
 
 Mr. PUGII read, as follows: 
 
 "7. 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 appertaining to their own affairs. 
 not prohibited by the Constitution ; that all efforts of the 
 Abolitionists or others, made to induce ( 'ongress to inter- 
 fere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient st( ps in 
 relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the roost alarm- 
 ing and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts 
 have an inevitable tendencj to diminish the happiti 
 the people, and endanger fjhe stability and permanency of 
 the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any 
 friend of our political institution-." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. In 1848, the Democratic con- 
 vention were of the opinio-! thai, to countenance 
 any interference with slavery by Congress, Was 
 dangerous to the peace and harmony of the coun- 
 try, and tended to a dissolution of the Union; that 
 they would not permit this interference by Abo 
 litionists or others. They - ; i.| not regard the in- 
 terventionist then any better than the Abolition- 
 ist. Southern interventionists and northern in- 
 terventionists, by the fair intendment of that 
 platform, were put on an equality. Affair that 
 platform was adopted, Mr. Yancey, of Alabama, 
 feft it to be his duty to record his solemn protest 
 against this dangerous heresy of the Territorial 
 Legislatures deciding on the slavery qui 
 ?le came into the convention the next day, May 
 "iG, with an elaborate report against this <!• 
 this heresy promulgate.! by General Gasa in his 
 Nicholson letter, signed by William L. La: 
 Alabama, John C. McGehee of Florida, and J. M. 
 Commander of South Carolina, accompanied with 
 a resolution. I shall ask the Senate to listen 
 patiently to the entire report of Mr. Yancey upon 
 that occasion, for it embraces every thought, 
 every idea, every principle, every pretext as- 
 signed at Charleston for withdrawing from the 
 recent convention. In order that I may do Mr. 
 Yancey full justice, I shall ask the Senate tb lis- 
 ten to the entire report, the resolution, and the 
 
 vote thereon. It is only one column of Kilee'a 
 Register. 1 may here be permitted to remark, 
 that, by anything I have said, or may say of him 
 here, 1 mean no personal disrespect to Sir. Yan- 
 cey. We are old personal friends. We met as 
 members of Congress seventeen years ago. Our 
 social relations have always been uninterrupted. 
 1 have as much admiration as anv may living for 
 his brilliant, his surpassing ability, for bis great 
 social qualities, and for the boldness and the 
 nerve with which he avows his principles and 
 follows them to their logical consequences; al 
 though I shrink with horror from ihe conse- 
 quences to which his principles would lead this 
 Republic. I ask my friend from Ohio to read 
 that entire report. 
 
 Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 
 
 " Mr Yancey then rose and said that he approved most 
 cordially nf the resolutions, with a single exception. II* 
 then begged to present the report of ihe minority of the 
 committee, \ inch is as follows: 
 
 '•The undersigned, a minority of the committee on reso- 
 lutions, a-k leave respectfully to sudniit a minority report 
 to this convention. 
 
 " Beliei ing that the success of '.tie Democratic party will 
 depend solely upon the truth or untruth of the principles 
 avowed by this convention, and by the nominee thereof, 
 the undersigned cannot give their assent to the report of 
 the majority. The nominee of this convention is under- 
 : stood to entertain the opinion thai Congress has no right 
 to interfere with the question of slavery in the States or 
 Territories, but that the people inhabiting a Territory have 
 the exclusive right to exclude it therefrom. The majority 
 of your committee have only adopted this principle as far 
 as applicable to the States, and have 'bus refused, in the 
 avowal of the cardinal principles of the Democracy, to 
 express any opinion upon what is really the most exciting 
 and important political topic now before Ihe country, leav- 
 ing the people to find an exposition ol the views of the 
 great Democratic party of the Union; and of the probable 
 course of its Representatives In Congress in the avowed 
 opinions of their nominee for the office of President. 
 
 "This course we conceive to be fundi mentally wrong. 
 It lias ever been the pride of the Democracy that it has 
 dealt frankly and honestly wiih the people. It has scorned 
 to conceal its political opinions, it has made it a point of 
 opposition to the Whit: party, that it frequently goes before 
 the people with a mask upon its brow, and has appealed 
 to the masses to rebuke thai part) tor course ao Offensive 
 to truth, t ml so unfair to them. Our country 'a institutions 
 must find their surest support in an intelligent public opia - 
 ion. That public Opinion cannot be Intelligently formed 
 as to our views upon those in-uitulions if we refuse to avow 
 them, and dare not advocate therr.. 
 
 •• It is useless to deny that this question does not press 
 home upon as for our decision. Ten of the sovereign non- 
 slaveholding Stales have already expressed decided opin- 
 ions upon it. This has been met by counteracting opinions 
 in the South, first distinctly avowed by the Stale of Vir- 
 ginia, ami since followed up by nearly every State ia thai 
 section of Ihe Union. 
 
 " It is idle to call the question nn abstract one. If ab- 
 stract in any sense, it is only so to the scctii?:i in which 
 have originated the avowals of aggression upon the riihta 
 of a large portion of the Union, to wit : the non-stavehold • 
 ing States— they own not a dollar of properly to be affect- 
 ed by the ascendency of the principle at issue. They have 
 not a singli' political right to be curtailed With them, op- 
 position to the South on this point is purely a question of 
 moral anil political ethics. Far different io it with tho 
 South. They own the property which success of this prin- 
 ciple will prevent them from earryinsr with them to the 
 Territories. They have a common right in the Territories, 
 from which they are to be excluded, unless they choose to> 
 go there without this property. 'I hey have heretofore 
 been considered as political equals in the Union, with the 
 same power of expansion and of progress, which has here- 
 tofore distinguished ail classes in the Union, and vbich 
 has given to as all the distinctive appellation of the ' party 
 j of progress.' They own. in common with their brethren* 
 'of the North, these Territories, which are to be held by 
 ! the Federal Government, as a trustee, for common 'ise* 
 '[ and common purposes. 
 
If, therefore, you refuse to meet the issue made upon 
 the slaveholding by part of the non-slaveholding States, 
 and permit the heretofore expressed opinions of your 
 nominee to s'and impliedly as the opinions of this conven- 
 tion, you pronounce, in substance, against the political 
 equality of the people: against the community of interest 
 in the Territories, which it is contended exists in the peo- 
 ple ; against the right of one-half of the people of the 
 Union to extend those institutions which the fathers of the 
 Constitution recognized as fundamental in the framing of 
 the articles of union, and upon which rests the great and 
 leading principles upon which taxation and political 
 power are based. 
 
 In order to obviate such a construction — in order to give 
 assurance to the public mind of our entire country that 
 the Democracy of the Union will preserve the compro- 
 mises of the Constitution, not only in the States, but in 
 the Territories; that it recognizes entire political equality 
 to exist among the people, and their right to people, un- 
 molested in their rights oi property, the vaRt Territories 
 whi h the Union holds out as a trust, until sufficiently 
 populated to be erecte I into States — the undersigned have 
 agreed to present to this body, for its adoption, the follow- 
 ing resolution: 
 
 W. L. YANOKY. of Alabama. 
 
 JOHN O.'MoGEHEE, of Florida. 
 
 J. M. COMMANDEK, of South Carolina. 
 
 Rexolvfcl, That the doctrine of non-interference with 
 the rights of property of any portion of the people of this 
 Confederation, be it in the State or in the Territories, by 
 any other than the parties interested in them, is the true 
 trepublicau doctrine recognized by this body. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. It will be observed that, in 
 that report, Mr. Yancey embodied the whole ar 
 gument in favor of intervention for protection, 
 or for any other purpose, which we have heard 
 repeated over and over again for so many years. 
 I doubt whether any Senator can take his own 
 speech and find any one idea, or argument in favor 
 of that doctrine which is not embodied in the re- 
 port of Mr. Yancy. The first statement there is, 
 that it is understood that General Ca*s, the nom- 
 inee, holds that a Territorial Legislature may 
 exclude slavery from the Territory. It was not 
 denied that General Cass held that doctrine. It 
 was known that lie did; and he was nominated 
 because he did hold the doctrine that the people 
 of a Territory might either introduce or exclude, 
 protect or prohibit, slavery at pleasure. -For that 
 reason, Mr. Y&ncey and his two colleagues on the 
 committee proceeded to put their protest on re- 
 cord. The argument of the equality of the States, 
 of which we have heard so much, was urged. The 
 other argument, that the Territories are the com- 
 mon property, and, therefore, should be open to 
 all the citizens, independent of local authority, 
 was used. The argument that it is Dotcreditable 
 to the Democratic party to go before the country 
 dodging the question of the rights of the South 
 in the Territories, was brought forward, ft Bays 
 that the convention, in the platform, had refused 
 to express an opinion on the question whether the 
 Territorial Legislature could prohibit slavery or 
 not; that it was not creditable to them to avoid 
 expressing an opinion on the point; that it con- 
 victed the Democratic party of double-dealing in 
 the manner that they had charged upon the 
 Whigs, and that what rendered it necessaiy to 
 have an expression of opinion on that point was, 
 that the candidate held that a Territorial Legis- 
 lature could exclude slavery. Then he concludes 
 with a resolution, which is very adroitly written, 
 I know, but, taken in connection with the report, 
 baa a clear signification, in harmony with the 
 report; 
 
 "That the doctrine of non-interference with the rights 
 of property of any portion of the people of this Confeder- 
 ation, be it in the States or in theTerritori s, by any other 
 than the parties interested in them, is the true republican 
 doctrine recognized by this body." 
 
 That is, nobody but the owner of tbeslavemust 
 interfere with his right to hold him. Neither Con- 
 gress nor a Territorial Legislature must interfere 
 with the rights of the slaveholder in theTerri- 
 tories to manage and control his slaves. That was 
 the proposition Mr. Yancey presented. It was 
 submitted to the convention — fairly and boldly 
 met; and I will read the vote in the convention, 
 by States, rejecting Mr. Yancey's report and reso- 
 lution. Mr. Yancey enforced his report with a 
 speech, which is here reported, but which is too 
 long to quote, and then concluded: 
 
 " I now close by offering the resolution as an amend- 
 ment to the report of the committee. 
 
 "The question was taken on Mr. Yancey's resolution; 
 and it was. by States, rejected— 86 to 216; as follows: 
 
 ',' Ykas — Maryland, 1; South Carolina, 9; George, 9; 
 Florida, 3 ; Alabama, 9 ; Arkansas, 3 ; Tennessee, 1 ; Ken- 
 tucky, 1—36. 
 
 "Nays — Maine, 9; New Hampshire, 6 : Massachusetts, 
 12; Vermont. 6: Khode I?l;tnd,4; Connecticut, 6: New 
 Jersey, 7; New York, — ; Pennsylvania, 26 ; Delaware, 8; 
 Maryland. 6; Virginia, 1"; North Carolina. 11; Missis- 
 sippi, 6; Louisiana, 6; Texas, 4; Tennessee, 12; Ken- 
 tucky, 11 ; Ohio. 23; Indiana, 12; Illinois, 9; Michigan, 
 5; Iowa, 4 ; Missouri, 7; Wisconsin, 4 — 216. 
 
 Here we find Virginia, North Carolina, Ken- 
 tuck}-, Tennessee, Missouri voting against the 
 incorporation of the doctrine of intervention for 
 the protection of slavery into the platform. They 
 voted against the doctrine of Mr. Yancey's re- 
 port and resolution. Those States then had the 
 opportunity of affirming this doctrine, if they 
 thought it ought to be any portion of the Demo- 
 cratic creed. Not only the States I have named — 
 the border States — voted that way, but you will 
 rind voting against this doctrine Mississippi, 
 Louisiana. Texas — the very States that have now 
 seceded from the Charleston convention, for the 
 reason that this same doctrine was not incorpor- 
 ated into the platform. In 1848, they voted 
 against putting it into the platform; in 1860 their 
 delegates bolt the convention because it was not 
 put into the platform. The Senate and the coun- 
 try will judge who has changed on this question. 
 North Carolina, through Mr. Strange, stated her 
 reason for voting against this doctrine; which was 
 that the resolutions of the platform, as it stood, 
 covered the entire doctrine of non intervention 
 by Congress in States and Territories. That is 
 what he wanted; that Congress should not in- 
 tervene, leaving it for the Territories to do ae 
 they pleased, so that they did not violate the 
 Constitution; and the judiciary to correct their 
 triors if they did violate the Constitution. Mr. 
 McAllister, of Georgia, explained that George 
 voted for the resolution because they did not 
 think it went so far as was claimed by Mr. Yan- 
 cey in his speech ; in effect, disavowing the doc- 
 trine of intervention, which Mr. Yancey intend- 
 ed to affirm. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, I think I have shown 
 conclusively that in 1848 the Democratic creed 
 was non-intervention by Congress with slavery 
 in the Territories, either for or against it; that 
 Copgress should not interfere either to establish 
 or aboSsl it, or protect or maintain it — unquali- 
 
8 
 
 fied non-intervention. The Democratic party 
 was committed to the doctrine. It is true there 
 were individual exceptions, men who did not 
 believe in this doctrine of non-intervention, and 
 the Senator from Mississippi was one of them. 
 He supported General Cass under protest, making 
 speeches for him, and protesting against his 
 Nicholson letter and the doctrines contained in 
 it The Senator from Mississippi lias a clean 
 record, but a record outside of the Democratic 
 party — a record at war with the Democratic 
 platform — rebelling against, its principles and 
 acquiescing in its nomination. The Senator then, 
 as now, granted no quarter to squatter sover- 
 eignty, hut he made speeches for the squatter 
 sovereignty chief. 
 
 ■ I pass now. Bir, to 1850, in order to show clearly 
 by the record, as was stated by the Senator from 
 Missi-sippi, that the same doctrine of non-inter- 
 vention was incorporated into the co.i promise 
 measures of 1850, against his will, and on my 
 motion. We differed then, as we differ now; he 
 against those measures, I for them. I deem it 
 my duty, even at the risk of being a little tedi- 
 ous, to show that this doctrine was then tho- 
 roughly discussed, and that, after a deliberate 
 debate, which ran over two months, it was af- 
 firmed by a vote of nearly two to one in the 
 Senate, and incorporated into the compromise 
 measures of 1860. On the 25th of March, 1850, 
 the chairman of the Committee on Territories of 
 this body (Mr. Douglas) reported two hills— one 
 for the admission of California as a State; the 
 other, to organize the Territories of Utah and 
 New Mexico, and adjust the disputed boundary 
 with Texas. On the 19th of April, the 8 
 appointed the celebrated committee of thirteen, 
 with Mr. Clay at its head, to consider the whole 
 question. On the 8th of May, Mr. Clay, as 
 chairman of the commit fee of thirteen, rep 
 the celebrated omnibus bill to the Senate, which, 
 as your records will show, consisted of the two 
 printed hills previously reported by myself from 
 the Territorial Committee, with a wafer between 
 them, and certain amendments interlined in writ- 
 ing. One of the amendments, which was made 
 in the committee of thirteen, 1 will point out, 
 for it involves this distinct question now in im- 
 pute. The bill, as it was originally reported by 
 myself, defined the powers of the Territorial 
 Legislature in these words: 
 
 " Ansi he it further enacted. That the legislative power 
 of the Territories shall extend io all rightful subjects of 
 legislation consistent with the Constitution ortbe United 
 States and the provisions of this act; but no (aw shall be 
 passed interfering with the primary disposition of the 
 soil," &c. 
 
 As reported from the Territorial Committee, the 
 bill was silent on the subject of slavery; the bill 
 ignored the slavery question, and conferred on the 
 Terri torial Legislature power over all rightful sub- 
 jects of legislation consistent with the Constitu- 
 tion, without excepting slavery. The committee 
 of thirteen reported this amendment to it, after 
 the clause ; "but no law shall be passed interfer- 
 ing with the primary disposition of the soil," by 
 adding "nor in respect to African slavery;" so 
 that the committee of thirteen reported against 
 the Territorial Legislature passing any law in re 
 
 spect to African slavery. Mr. Clay stated that 
 that limitation on the Territorial Legislature had 
 been incorporated into the bill against his will 
 and his judgment. General Cass, in debate, made 
 the same statement that it had been incorporated 
 against his judgment. They were in favor of 
 allowing the Territorial Legislature to act on all 
 rightful subjects of legislation consistent with the 
 Constitution, without excepting African slavery; 
 but a majority of the committee overruled them. 
 When this report came in, the Senator from Mis- 
 sissippi objected to the bill, and proposed an 
 amendment to the very section to which I refer, 
 which 1 will aid: my ftiend to read, with the ex- 
 planatory remarks of the Senator in offering it. 
 Mr. PUGH. When the bill came up for action 
 on the loth of May, Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, said: 
 
 " I offer the following amendment : to strike out in the 
 sixth line of the tenth section the words ' in respect to Af- 
 rican slavery,' and insert the words 'v it/i those rights of 
 property growing out of the vmtituti&n of African »te- 
 very as it ewints in any of the States of the Virion.'' The 
 object of Die amendment is to prevent the Territorial Le- 
 gislature from legislating against the rights of property 
 growing out of the institution ol slavery" * > ' "It 
 will leave to the Territorial Legislatures those rights and 
 powers v. hie!) are essentially necessary, not only to the 
 preservation of property, but to the peace of I he Territory. 
 It will leave the right to make such police regulations as 
 are necessary to prevent disorders, and which will be ab- 
 solutely necessary with such property as that to secure its 
 beneficial use to its owner. With this brief explanation I 
 submit the amendment." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Thus it. will be seen that the 
 Senator from Mississippi objected to the bill, be- 
 cause it did no1 contain a prohibition on the Le- 
 gislature ot the Territory against legislating in a 
 manner hostile to slavery. He wished the Ter- 
 ritorial Legislature to have the power to protect, 
 but not the power to prohibit. That was his po- 
 sition. 1 give him the credit of having been con- 
 sistent on that point. 1 wished to give the Terri- 
 torial Legislature power overall rightful subjects 
 of legislation, leaving slave property and horse 
 property and every other species of property on 
 an exact' equal footing; leaving the people to make 
 their own regulations as they pleased so that they 
 did not violate the Constitution. The Senator from 
 Mississippi desired an exception as to slavery, to 
 the effect that they might protect it, but should 
 not adopt unfriendly legislation to it, taking sla- 
 very out of the category of other property. Mr 
 Clay among other things said, in reply to the Sen- 
 ator from Mississippi, what will now be read. 
 Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 
 
 "Mr. Clay." * * * "The clause itself was intro- 
 duced into the bill by the committee for the purpose of ty- 
 ing np the hands of the Territorial Legislature in respect 
 lu leg, slating at all, one way or the other, upon the subject 
 of African slavery. It was intended to leave the legisla- 
 tion and the law of the respective Territories in the con- 
 dition in which the act will find them. I slated on a former 
 occasion that I did not, in committee, vote for the amend- 
 ment to insert the clause, though it was proposed to be in- 
 troduced by a majority of the committee. I attached very 
 little consequence to it at the time, and I attach very little 
 to it at present. It is perhaps of no particular importance 
 whatever. Now, sir, if I understand the measure propos- 
 ed by the Senator from Mississippi, it aims at the same 
 thing. I do not understand bim as proposing that if any 
 one shall carry slaves into the Territor> — although by the 
 laws of the Territory he cannot take them there— the leg- 
 islative hands of the territorial governments shouhi be so> 
 tied as to prevent it saying he shall not enjoy the fruits of 
 their labor. If the Senator from Mississippi means to ss.y 
 that 
 
9 
 
 " 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 Territory contrary 
 to the lex 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, / ccr- 
 taivlu cannot vote, for it. In doing so, I shall repeat 
 again the expression of opinion which I announced at an 
 early period of the session." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. There it will be found that 
 a distinct issue was made up between Mr. Clay 
 and the Senator from Mississippi. The Senator 
 from Mississippi insisted that the legislation of 
 Congress should be so framed as to recognize the 
 right of the slaveholder to go into the Territory 
 and hold his property in defiance of the local iaw. 
 Mr. Clay said that he would never agree to the 
 recognition of the doctrine that you could carry 
 slaves to a Territory and hold them against the 
 lex loci, in defiance of the local law. Uu this dis- 
 tinct issue it was that the Senator from Missis- 
 sippi and the illustrious Kentuokian differed. 
 Mr. Clay was against the Wilmot proviso; but 
 he was against repealing by Congress the Mexi- 
 can laws that were adverse to slavery. He was 
 against the recognition by Congress of the alleged 
 right to carry slaves there, aDd hold them in vio- 
 lation of tiie local law. lie was against any act 
 that would prevent the people of the Territories 
 from deciding for themselves whether they would 
 have slavery or not. In other words, Mr. Clay 
 supported and sustained every vote which the 
 Senator from Mississippi brings in judgment 
 against me, except one; and that one was given 
 under instructions, as the Senator from Missis- 
 sippi is well aware. 
 
 This debate shows clearly that the compromise 
 measures of 1850 were intended to assert the 
 principle of non-intervention by Congress with 
 slavery in the Territories, leaving the people to 
 do as they pleased, so that they did not violate 
 the Constitution, and leaving the courts to ascer- 
 tain whether they did violate.it or not. 
 
 Mr. GREEN. 'Will the Senator allow me ? 
 . Mr. DOUGLAS. I cannot yield for interrup- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. GREEN. Very well. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I ask my friend (Mr. Pur.n) 
 to continue the extracts -from that debate, on 
 both sides, a little further, in order to put them 
 on the record. 
 
 Mr. PUGH read as follows: 
 
 "Mr. Davis." * * * "We are giving, or proposing 
 to give, a government to a Territory, which act rests upon 
 the basis of our right to make such provision. "We sup- 
 pose 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." 
 
 To which Mr. Clay replied : 
 
 "Now, sir, I only repeat what I had occasion to say be- 
 fore, that while I am willing to stand aside and make no 
 legislative enactment one way or the other — to lay off the 
 Territories 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 in the Territories— while I am for rejecting both 
 the one and the other, I am content that the law as it ex- 
 ists shall prevail ; and if there be any diversity of opinion 
 as to what it means, I am willing that it shall be settled 
 by tl/e highest judicial authority of the country. While 
 1 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 Con- 
 cord, and that go he would ; and who, in the maintenance 
 of that right, met his death at the hands of a British sen- 
 tinel. Now, sir, if our right to carry slaves in these Ter- 
 ritories be a constitutional right, it' is our first duty to 
 maintain it." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. These extracts confirm the 
 statement that the issue was precisely as I have 
 stated it, and that the Senator from Mississippi 
 then took the ground that he now maintains; but 
 that Mr. Clay% the champion of the compromise 
 measures of 1850, took the opposite ground. Mr. 
 Clay, in that very speech, answered the objection 
 about there being two constructions of this doc- 
 trine of non-intervention. He was for non-inter- 
 vention by Congress; no restriction upon the 
 Territorial Legislature; and then leaving it to 
 the courts to decide whether the territorial enact- 
 ments were constitutional or not. That was the 
 position of Mr. Clay; that was the position of 
 the champion of those measures. 
 
 The Senator from Mississippi asserted his right 
 to go with his property, in violation of the local 
 law, and said he was going to act upon the doe- 
 i trine of the sergeant at Lexington, who said that 
 he had a right to go to Concord, and was going. 
 The Senator from Mississippi modified his amend- 
 ment so as to make the language more palatable; 
 but not to change the princir le, to wit: that the 
 Territorial Legislature might legislate to protect 
 slavery, but not legislate in hostility to it In 
 that shape, his amendment was rejected. Then 
 Mr. Chase, of Ohio, offered the counterpart, to 
 restrict the power, so that the Territorial Legis- 
 lature might prohibit slavery, but not protect or 
 tolerate it. That was rejected by precisely the 
 same number of votes as the proposition of the 
 Senator from Mississippi. By these votes, the 
 Senate showed that the object of the bill was to 
 leave the Territorial Legislature to do as it pleas- 
 ed, subject to the Constitution, with the courts 
 to ascertain when it violated it; but not to put 
 any restriction on the Territorial Legislature, 
 except that which the Constitution imposed. 
 
 Now, sir, I am compelled, in this connection, 
 to do what I dislike to do — quote from my own 
 speeches, to show that I then took the position 
 I do now in vindication of the ground taken by 
 Mr. Clay, and in opposition to that assumed by 
 the Senator from Mississippi. I will ask the Sen- 
 ator from Ohio to read that extract. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. Upon these amendments — the one 
 affirming the pro-slavery and the other the anti- 
 slavery position, in opposition to the right of 
 the people of the Territories to decide the slavery 
 question for themselves — Mr. Dougla6 said : 
 
 "The position that I have ever taken has been thai 
 this and all other questions relating to the domestic affaire 
 and domestic policy of the Territories, ought to be left to 
 the decision of the people themselves; and that we eught 
 to be content with whatever way they may decide the 
 question, because they have a much deeper interest in 
 these matters than we have, and know much better what 
 institutions suit them than we, who have never been there 
 can decide for thern. I would therefore have much piel 
 
10 
 
 : 
 rr: is : ■: 
 
 as ee jjcssnaeocai caag p a sga a te jui 
 
 in : i: : -: : : t- -rL -_ \ _r : -> r -^.i 
 
 _ . • ■ 
 
 f— ■ „ -. -. -. - .. • . i :i. . i ■■*---: : -~ i : . 
 
 • - • . • 
 
 '• . ■ • < . • -_- 1" .' . - ■ : ..'■ ; 
 
 am Wkgmr eumHtimm* oi steir mma. I 
 .ifVHel ± 5.-- 
 • '.: U: ;-r ; - • : : 1 : ■ _ ■ :- ; . -_" 
 
 ::■ • " - .-:- r*- 
 
 •i- :':; n - . : : - - : i : :;-ri:>..;:': r_ 
 ___ . __ ; _^_ - - --_.7-.__; 1 ;.___: -- ._.-t. It 
 
 P-Wcmot s___a ____>_ I take kv. I wiE a-xt ask : 
 
 — j :';•.__ : " -__._. j ■ -;' ;_.;_•-_.: .* z :ir - -- . i 
 
 «f Ge&ar-il Cassia opp«i-i__«a to ca* iiaes-im-ect 
 
 _________&*-_, sad also to _he 
 
 aw fitrTtf- isc, of uhia, ___«_ to ivror 
 
 :-:' :i- -v ;- 1 . : .-. .. _: . --.. . v __ ■ _._: _ 
 
 . - - 
 
 ___:._._-__:: ±'t__ : _ _ .- 1 ± . - _ : _ I_ : _ i i__ _ 
 
 ------ 
 
 ui " : . ... i : - : 7 -x - r . i :.<- ' - ■- ■-.- i _ 
 
 ■»-. .i- .--__.- ■/. i _. .:r ; _ _;■:_ _i- ... v - • :-.- — - 
 
 - 
 
 : 7 -_i - :•. -r. :. -=■:'. -_- -• : . 
 
 I -. . - . ■ — 11-7 ;-..__.____ 
 
 '-:—_-:. 1 JL _1_ ~-~ •'. 73 :- 1_. 
 
 • : ; . — l; "."•::■- " -■- - !-.:--■ . - 1 - — - 
 .•:=■ ' :- -7 : :_- ._._ v ::-:,r :'•■; n II -.- -- - . ._.- 
 
 — 
 - 
 ■ _ 
 
 __-___.._: :i.: __-" " _ "1-7 ------- ""- - _ 
 
 - " 
 - - • 
 i . : . - : . - .', '- - " " 7 . -. -.: _ — _ ' .- 
 
 power ad >_7__y to pr 
 the reeor: tt Mr. Dm 
 
 - set mil is the 
 .._-_: -. it --T-- " - : ". - T-? '.;.•■ -■■ .i. _ -._ ;: z.- 
 
 ■ ■ - 
 
 the C oartiUil ici 
 
 s_ : ~ -:t ':- --;-< :'• " :: ; i- . -'- ~ ••-- 
 i-.- :■:'■ ii-r i-l - "- i.: z '■-'. .-„•'.: V. i; 
 
 - 
 gar" "" ". :_ 7»3a wiH re 
 
 yaar wrtioB :o strike -Kit sLas L 
 \.- -.---': \ . . - - . ■ ■.- - - . '. 
 
 ■ ■■. -: \ -■-:. i:,'. - . ■ :' .-i " " ■ - ----- • :' ■ v 
 
 HaaqMac-T ! -rie,) sow ao more, j 
 
 ■ ete owt ; amd I Aoogia^ wB otfewgteay. I ^ 
 
 ;*i 1 "a " : - - .- 1 L* I -il .l.-r - i-Ir . : 
 
 - 
 
 ; . i ; v 7 - . . . _ . - „-„-. t . 
 
 : t a rote ; 
 
 ; ;hos re- 
 
 -- - : - ■- . . 1 7 :' :i7 j7ii: ■ - i 2 . 7 - t~ 
 " : :i: . 
 
 - 
 ■td I did differ to taat cea toA . I e*iv«eated 
 7- sioa tbe: w. He feagat 
 
 ::.-..- -7 7 7 V _ - - 7 -. - Fi; 
 
 : : 
 
 - -: ' 
 
 i-T - - ~ - - - - -- -i- ■—. _-•--.- 
 
 araed iaraedtotelj after the passage of those 
 
 t csidst of a terrifie ea 
 dk aa j. S ■ ^rtoera agitatocs had ia- 
 
 -:" 7 7.7. It i . : ---:.. - ■':..r::rv.::: 
 
 » - - 
 
 -- - - _ -: -i ■ : . - - _-t - ■ ; . :' 7 i- 
 V_-- ;1t._ ._- :i ::' :. t i.t 777 :.->7i 
 had imflliaaii 1 the passoas of the aoathera peopla 
 ._- i: -.::'::/:::. -- tt.- ■-—-.- 
 
 :-i.:.:.: 7 . - t .. . _ . 7 - - 1 - ' t ■ " I 17. 
 
 --"--j.'t -7:7 i-iii :. :_; - 7 2- •.:: 
 
 Saath, \j aarthera iaterreatioatotB aad swthera 
 
 1 - - T . : ■ 7 .i. i; i 7 - ..77 . - i 7 1 - 7 ". . 7 ... 7. 1 
 
 beea pa«fd bj the aiajorit^ — the oae repreaeBfe- 
 
 . .: . i.- " . i _. ::1t-i : ji - i. ; - . --;.- 
 
 t.-- _ i.r. :-t :_t; It -7:::. j ■ - -i.:;;- 
 
 z ,- " :_:j-- 7 ._-.!_.: ; 7_t.v 
 
 - JO 1-7 TilT 
 
 '.—-:.- :; — r. S'l"- : r_i!-:- r. " i"--i'. : 3 
 .. - . ■ . . 
 
 -v - - 7 - — - 7 ----. - — - -.. :? 
 
 to whk-Ii I tjs reeeiTial wbea I landed to Cbi- 
 
 : : V - . . : ...:.-_: I-;. A ■ hi [Jsta 
 
 : -:---- 7 :•--...:;. 1 - i : . - . s - - : j . ----- t 
 
 jiua t tto g the poliee to withheld aaj ar^ft- 
 
 aase to the exic^doo of the law. proclaims: 
 
 to be a vtotottoa of the law of God aad of the 
 
 Coast&Btioa. The staadard of rebeiisoa was 
 
 - - ... TV. 7 . . . : t i.7- :--tt.-. -: A 
 
 . 
 
 - . - ~ i.7 . - . . . : 7. . 7 ; ': ; --'-'■ - 1 1 : "■ . - : 
 
 - . .---1- -. -.--£ :•: i_t : . r: . : i : 1 .. :--'."- 
 
 "" : i : 
 
 hose people that ther had beea dee-r 
 , aboat the eharaeter ■. f those measures ; that the 
 facidve ftore law was right ; that it was as aes 
 jreqatoed bj the Coaathatioa of the conntrr, 
 1 whieh we were boaad to 3app€>rt ; that the com- 
 proniire raeasBres were, ail of than, focaded 09 
 . :::-..-. n . ?:n: : -.1 . .--. ~ - tt -- - . ;; 
 the fact that I met that infartoted 
 
 -- . - 
 
 ...... . . 
 
 -. t :■- "i -- .- --- .-77 ■ :'.:t : : :-:;'-. : : 
 
 . - - - . . 
 
 .-.--. - 7 . :' . : : -.-^7_ -.-.- 
 it :'.-.-" . 1. :-7 . i _ -- . _t ..- . m 1.; .- -. 77.: 
 
 those measBres — a speeeh made under sceh or- 
 
 . .-■.-• ;-. -7 -1 ■-■ 11 _'"--"- :':-t -7 --.■:-:.-.- " .; 
 — 
 
 - - 1 -It.: . T '. .-- ; .7: ,_T _ 
 
 : 
 
 7 -•--.--•.•-• >-T :•- . . - ■-.- r--i: '.-.;- 
 
11 
 
 "itsrnal coo- j 
 
 •apposed Jhai lb"*- 
 
 - . - 
 
 ■ 
 tindr --n& bo 
 
 reason . j K»* an j of iteir tntefii- 
 
 - 
 the ir »rrival in the <y.<n»trj\ when tber had become fami- | 
 
 i 
 - 
 
 ■ 
 law? r- rib>» 
 
 iz < ■ -■ - - - 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 sre th 
 
 
 : with : 
 
 hi -i. ■:•-.-• 
 
 - 
 
 
 edcrxrj 
 
 
 uon of liK. Iibe 
 
 
 tioo — to de»erm 
 
 
 
 - -io 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 '■- 10 eaci 
 
 i Siaie u> d« 
 
 -••-;-?- y :::e ' -:.- 
 ~eii. and I know of 
 
 r t\.- 
 
 - ; n all eases, except tfce icstaneee 
 
 - - . • 
 
 _ 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 ■ 
 were eircn] . 
 
 _ 
 
 - 
 I 
 
 > 
 
 I i 
 
 me "rr 
 
 ■ 
 real I told I 
 
 ] ocgbl 
 
 I oaes-l 
 
 ■ 
 
 sought 1 
 
 - 
 
 princ _ 
 
 er hold ri- 
 Is it fair for S 
 
 • ■ 
 
 -■--•>' 
 and r. 5 the Senators Stal 
 
 all r> kl organic;: - 'rate 
 
 shot: 
 
 TV in my appeal to my 
 
 otrn people in ; n To 
 
 the views of the Senator from II - 
 was it with liis appe:. 
 
 tri ha - _ I - • • ■ 
 
 oked to i! 
 
 . :ii£E3oai 
 
 - 
 - . 
 
 com." a* 1 
 
 _ - - 
 
 I 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 appeal to the people of li 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 18-50: the 5 . 
 
 - 
 I 
 
 ; 
 
 1 
 
 Ihere "! 
 
 I 
 
 - 
 
 i 
 
 • 
 the 
 
 ; • : 
 
 reorgia, 1 . 
 
 - 
 
 it Zr-.-cSSSTY to 
 
 - 
 1 81 1 - 
 
 - - 
 (adc- 
 
 - 
 
 the - - ; • " . 
 
 t going ■ t— 
 
 I 
 
 ■ ' 
 
 j 
 
 eorgii 
 
 t 1 '- - 
 - ' • - - 
 
 - 
 
 _-.-•■ 
 
12 
 
 he had opposed the measures as a Senator, feel- 
 ing that it was his duty to sustain the constitu- 
 ted authorities, on the other hand, led those who 
 •were in favor of acquiescing in the action of 
 Congress. And South Carolina herself decided 
 ageinst those men who were going to break up 
 parties and the Union on this question of •inter- 
 vention and non-intervention. 
 
 Mr. HAMMOND. Mr. President 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I prefer not to yield. 
 Mr. HAMMOND. One single word. 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Well. 
 
 Mr. HAMMOND. At the time of the passage 
 of the compromise measures, Mr. Rhett was not 
 in the Senate. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I know he was not. 
 
 Mr. HAMMOND. The question that arose 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I must say to my friend 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Fitzpat- 
 bjck.) Does the Senator from Illinois yield the 
 floor to the Senator from South Carolina? 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I cannot. 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from 
 South Carolina will resume his seat. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I am aware that Mr. Rhett 
 was not in the Senate at that time; but Mr. 
 Rhett's opinions were known then as well as 
 they are now; and he led the men who were not 
 willing to submit to the compromise measures of 
 1850, and was rebuked by his own people, and 
 he became a submissionist perforce. Here you 
 have the verdict of the American people, North 
 and South, in favor of the doctrine of non-inter- 
 vention. The southern interventionists, who had 
 been defeated and overthrown at home, at last 
 came to the conclusion that they, too, would sub- 
 mit, not from choice, but because they could not 
 help it; and they said then to us, "Let us reu- 
 nite the Democratic party, and present a united 
 front against the Abolitionists of the North." 
 We said to them: "Gentlemen, although you 
 have erred; although you have erred egregi- 
 ously on this question, in resisting non-interven- 
 tion, we will forgive you, if you will come up 
 to Baltimore and acquiesce in a resolution estab- 
 lishing non-intervention for the future." We re- 
 ceived the Senator from Mississippi on the terms, 
 as we supposed, of acquiescence in the compro- 
 mise measures of 1850, and the affirmance of non- 
 intervention as the rule of the party in the fu- 
 ture. We granted him "quarter" after he had 
 been condemned, and was ready for execution — 
 Mr. DAVIS. I scorned it then, and scorn it 
 now. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir; as I scorned his 
 threat not to grant " quarter" the other day. I 
 like the spirit that animates him to scorn "quar- 
 ter." But, sir, the convention at Baltimore, 
 nevertheless, did ratify and confirm these com- 
 promise measures as containing the rule of action 
 of the party. He will not deny that the conven- 
 tion, by a unanimous vote, decided in favor of 
 the compromise measures; that General Pierce 
 was nominated for President on that issue; that 
 he was elected on that issue and none other; that 
 he never would have been elected but for that 
 issue; and the Senator from Mississippi became 
 Secretary of War by virtue of the same issue. 
 
 These are stubborn facts. He never could have 
 been Secretary of War if the Democratic nomi- 
 nee had Dot been elected. General Pierce could 
 never have been elected or nominated if he had 
 not stood upon the issue of non intervention by 
 Congress with slavery in States and Territories. 
 When the party came together, we, the friends 
 of the compromise measures of 1850; we, the 
 friends of non-intervention, were magnanimous 
 and tolerant. We made no issues upon those 
 who had differed with us ; we were generous and 
 forgiving ; we did not remind them of their faults, 
 nor of their humiliation. We recognized them 
 as our equals. We never expected to be told 
 that we were to be pursued to the death ; and 
 that "no quarter" was to be granted to us when- 
 ever you got the accidental power to jnflict re- 
 venge. We are tolerant. If we succeed now, 
 we do not propose to proscribe anybody because 
 of a difference of opinion, so long as he remains 
 in the Democratic organization and supports ita 
 nominees. 
 
 Mr. President, having shown that General 
 Pierce was nominated and elected on this princi- 
 ple of non-intervention ; that he stood pledged by 
 every dictate of honor and fidelity to carry it out 
 in good faith, I will now proceed to show how it 
 was carried out in the enactment of the Kansas- 
 Nebraska bill. At that time the Senate of the 
 United States had a chairman of the Committee 
 on Territories who did unquestionably reflect the 
 sentiments of the body, and of the Democratic 
 party in the body. It having become necessary 
 to organize the Territories of Kansas and Ne- 
 braska, the Committee on Territories, through me, 
 as its chairman, on the 4th of January, 1854, 
 made a report to this body, accompanied by a bill. 
 In this report we set forth distinctly the princi- 
 ples upon which it was proposed to organize these 
 Territories. I will ask my friend from Ohio to 
 read an extract from that report, to show what 
 were those principles. 
 
 Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 
 
 " [n the judgment of your committee, those measures ftha 
 compromise measures of 1850J were intended to liave a far 
 more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere ad- 
 justment of the difficulties arising out of the recent, acquisition 
 of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certaiD 
 great principles, which would not only furnish adequate reme- 
 dies for existing evils, hut, in all time lo come, avoid the perils 
 of a similar agitation, by withdrawing the question of slavery 
 from the Halls of Congress and the political arena, and com- 
 mitting it to the arbitrament of those who weie immediately in- 
 terested in, and alone responsible for, its consequences. With 
 a view of conforming their action to the settled policy of the 
 Govern men I, sanctioned by the approving voice of the American 
 people, your committee have deemed it'heir duty to incorporate 
 and perpetuate, in their territorial bill, the principles and spirit 
 of those measures." 
 
 After presenting and reviewing certain provi- 
 sions of the bill, the committee conclude as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 " From these provisions it is appaient that the compromise 
 measures of IH50 affirm and rest upon the following propositions- 
 
 " First. That all questions pertaining to slavery in ihe Ter 
 ritories, ami in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to 
 be left to the de-ision of the people residing therein, by their 
 appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that pur- 
 pose, 
 
 " Second. That all cases involving title to slaves, and ques- 
 tions of personal freedom, are referred to the adjudication of 
 the local tribunals; with the right of appeal to the Supreme 
 Court of the United States. 
 
 " Thud. That the provision of the Constitution of the United. 
 
13 
 
 States in resppp.t to fugitivps from service is to be carried into 
 faithful execution in all the organized Terriloriesthe same as in 
 the States. The substitute for the bill which yonr committee 
 have prepared, anil which is commended to the favorable action 
 of the Senate, proposes to cany these propositions and princi- 
 ples into practical operation, in the precise language of the 
 compromise measures of ii50." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. It appears, from these ex-. 
 tracts from the report of the Committee on Terri- 
 tories, that we did not propose to mislead any 
 man, or to permit any man to he misled, in re- 
 gard to the principle on which the proposed ter- 
 ritorial actum was to he based. The principles 
 were distinctly set forth: first, that the slavery 
 question was to be banished forever from the 
 Halls of Congress, and remanded to the people of 
 the Territories who were immediately interested : 
 secondly, that all questions involving the title to 
 slaves, and matters of personal freedom, were re- 
 ferred to the adjudication of the local tribunals, 
 with a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of 
 the United States. Here non-intervention was 
 established as an invariable rule of action; the 
 Territories were to legisla'e as they pleased, so 
 that they did not violate the Constitution; and if 
 they passed any law impairing, or injurious to, 
 the rights of property in slaves, suit should be 
 brought in the local court of the Territory, with 
 a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the 
 United States; and that we would abide the result 
 of such decisions. Then the fugitive slave law 
 was to be faithfully executed and carried into ef- 
 fect. Can any man have an excuse for not know- 
 ing that the true intent and meaning of the Kan- 
 sas-Nebraska act was, that Congress renounced 
 forever all right or pretext for interfering with 
 slavery in the Territories, either to establish, pro 
 hibit, or protect? Remember, the questions to be 
 referred to the courts were such questions as 
 should arise under the territorial enactments, and 
 the cases all were to go into the local courts, with 
 a night of appeal. Certainly, if gentlemen did 
 not understand the provisions of the bill, it was 
 not the fault of the committee that reported it. 
 
 I insist that the terms of the bill are still more 
 explicit on this point. Having given notice, in 
 the report, of what we intended to do, and how 
 we intended to do it, and for what purpose we 
 put the provision in the bill itself in language so 
 plain that he who runs may read, there can be 
 no excuse for not understanding it. In the four- 
 teenth section of the bill we provided: 
 
 "That the Constitution and all laws of the Unitpd States 
 which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force 
 and eff.-ct within the said Territory as elsewhere within the 
 United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory 
 to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 
 ti. 1820, which being inconsistent with the principle of non-in 
 tervention by Congress with slavei \ in the Slates and Territories, 
 as recognized by tin- legislation of 1850, commonly called the 
 'compromise measures,' i- hereby declared inoperative and void ; 
 it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate 
 slavery into any Teniiory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, 
 but to leave ihe people thereof perfectly free to foim and regu- 
 late their domestic institutions in their own way, subject onl\ 
 lo the Constitution of the United States." 
 
 There you find several distinct propositions 
 affirmed in the body of the bill — that is the pro- 
 vision of the bill which the late Colonel Benton 
 denounced as being a mere stump speech ; because 
 the drafter of the bill was careful enough to in- 
 corporate the distinct propositions which it was 
 
 intended to carry out. We did not mean to leave 
 it in doubt. In the first place, the principle an- 
 nounced was, that we repealed the Missouri com- 
 promise because it was inconsistent with the prin- 
 ciple of non-intervention by Congress with slavery 
 in the States and Territories, as affirmed in the 
 compromise measures of 1850. There is the as- 
 sertion, that the compromise measures were in- 
 consistent with intervention for any purpose; that 
 it was necessary to establish non-intervention, 
 without any exception or any qualification, in 
 order to carry out the principle of the compromise 
 measures of 1850; and we repealed the Missouri 
 compromise merely for the purpose of applying 
 that principle and banishing the slavery question 
 from Congress, and remanding it to the people of 
 the Territories. That was the object, the only- 
 object, for which we ever repealed it. Every 
 Senator who voted for the Kansas-Nebraska bill 
 declared by his vote that non intervention was the 
 rule in the compromise measures of 1850. He is 
 estopped from denying it; and it was well un- 
 derstood, at the time, that we were making an 
 indorsement of the principle of the compromise 
 measures of 1850; and we insisted that we would 
 never repeal the Missouri restriction until we had 
 that recognition. I remember well that when 
 southern Senators, who had opposed the compro- 
 mise measures of 1850, came to me and asked me 
 to strike out the words "being inconsistent with 
 the principle of non-intervention by Congress 
 with slavery in the States and Territories, as 
 recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly 
 called the compromise measures," I asked them 
 why ? They told me they had voted against the 
 measures of 1850, and this seemed to stultify 
 them, by compelling them to affirm them. I said, 
 in these consultations, "You have agreed to with- 
 draw your opposition and acquiesce, and I must 
 have it inserted in the bill, that we repeal the 
 Missouri restriction only for the purpose of car- 
 rying out the principle of non intervention;" and 
 there are men within the hearing of my voice to 
 whom these reasons were given. It was con- 
 sidered as rather a bitter pill to those who had 
 opposed the compromise measures of 1850; but 
 we insisted that they should swallow it as the 
 only condition on which we would pass such a 
 bill. We had the recognition of the principle 
 and we had the pledge of honor of every Senator 
 who voted for the Kansas Nebraska act, that he 
 would stand by the doctrine of non intervention 
 in all time to come. The Journal shows it. We 
 took his bond, and recorded it on the Journal; it 
 still exists, and will be imperishable. 
 
 What else is asserted? 
 
 " It being the trrje intent and meaning of this act not to' 
 legislate slavery into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it 
 thtrefrom " 
 
 That does not tell what the intent was, but what 
 was not the intent. What was the intent? 
 
 " 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." 
 
 That was the intent. Every man who voted 
 for the bill declared, on his oath, that that was the 
 intent: non-intervention by Congress; the people 
 left free to do as they pleased, so that they did 
 
M 
 
 not violate the Consti ad the courts to' 
 
 find ont whether they violated the ponstitnUon ef 
 the United States or nut ; ; .•; to 
 
 interfere in any case. That is the way we ag 
 to this bilL The record shows it. 1 ha\ e bo con- 
 troversy with any in. »n who was pot a mei 
 of the body at the time the bill pas >ed, nor with 
 any man who has changed his opinions since ami 
 will avow the change; but 1 assert that, beyond 
 cavil, beyond dispute, beyond pretext, the object 
 was, as avowed iu the bill itself — non interven- 
 tion by Congress with slavery in the 
 (Territories; and I cannot permit it to be 
 without reply, thai non-intorvei : only 
 
 that Congress should not • >r prohibit 
 
 slavery, and did not mean that it should a< 
 tcct it. Sir, the record shows that it did i 
 that Congress should tt< ?er interfere ''"ran} 
 pose, either to protect, prohibit, or abolish. 
 
 That wvy question was raised by a Senator 
 from Michigan, Mr, Stewart, while the bil 
 
 Sending, after this proposition which 1 have 
 ad been voted in. lie Baid that while we had 
 stated the principle co 
 the bill would be, by i 
 
 promise, to revive the old French lawB protecting 
 slavery, and that thus we should have intei 
 io the very act of non inter 'eoiog, b' 
 a law for the prol ■ :' slavery. Thai 
 
 hifl opinion. Jlr. Stuart laid down the pr< 
 tion as a lawyer that, to repeal a repeal) 
 revived the former act; and hence, when we] r- - 
 pealed the Missonri compromise we revived the 
 French law that had become void when that 
 compromise was established. That eminent law- 
 yer and jurist, Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, 
 replied that Mr. Stewart had properlj 
 common law rule on I el ; hut that the 
 
 civil law rule was different, that, where ever the 
 civil law existed, if you repealed a repeal it • 
 it did not revive the former act, and bene* 
 an amendment was necee arj on thai point. Alter 
 consultation, an amendment was prepared, which 
 is known to the eountry as the Badger amend- 
 ment, the object of which was to declare that 
 Congress should not protect slavery itself, nor do 
 any act by which it should be protected, con? | 
 trary to the will of the people; that Cot 
 would not only not protect it, but would not do 
 anything that would cense a revival of any law 
 that would protect it, the object being to leave 
 the Territories a white sheet of papier, wilh no- 
 thing but the Constitution upon it, ami to sav to 
 the people, "Go and write on it what you p] 
 slavery, if you want it; and no slavery, if you do 
 not want it." It was to be, in the classic lan- 
 guage of that day, a clean tabula rasa. The way ', 
 we understood it. the way the people understood 
 it, was the way it reads now. Let me call v<nir 
 attention to the Badger amendment, to show that 
 that proviso was put in for the express ipnrpo 
 declaring that Congress would not even permit 
 any old law which would protect slavery to be 
 revived. That amendment first, was in the very ; 
 language that it should not revive any law which 
 would protect or establish slavery. It was mod- 
 ified so as to read in these words: 
 
 " Provided, That nothing herein contained (.hall be con 
 
 -.tru'it to revive or )>nt in force nnv la» or regulation whirh 
 may have cm led nxioi to the act of ibe (iih oi' March, If2*, 
 either protecting, establishing, or abolishing ilavi-iy." 
 
 That is t gresa will do neither; eaefc 
 
 is inconsistent with non intervention, These 
 bill. I well remem- 
 ber the historj of the Badger amendment When 
 I found it aeeeesary to put it in, to satisfy the 
 ilea of some men as to whether the repeal ef 
 the Mi fiction would not revive the old 
 
 French law, 1, as chairman of the committer', 
 having charge of the bill, went be every Senator 
 in the endly to the measure, who was 
 
 then present, to know whether it was sati-fae- 
 and that, too, after the debate; and .-very 
 single "lorth and Souih, who was then 
 
 it and friendly to the bill, agreed to that 
 in those precise word- I remember 
 
 the ia«.t one wIp-Iii 1 Bftiwultedi I saw Mr. IbidL 1 ' r 
 entering from the door uf the cloak room at the 
 comer, lie had been ont| and 1 went to consult 
 him. He said, ' jht." I suggested to 
 
 him thai I -very Senator, going over 
 
 all th • ho W«S friendlv to the bill, and 
 
 , to it, " Cei iainly," said 
 
 •• Now," said I, "who shall offer it?" Said 
 
 - Ht horn man. A 
 
 northern man bronght Forward the repeal, and a 
 
 southern m in ought to bring forward the proviso 
 
 - the old laws for the protection 
 
 91 ." i asked lum i! he wtnrld do i' I 
 
 tjeinlyi sir," seed be. He walked right to 
 
 hie desk an Pending the vote on the 
 
 • nth. rn Senatois e:.nie 
 
 in, who were not aware oi the agreement snd 
 retive; and those were 1 1 • 
 only negati' ding to mv recollec- 
 
 tion, against the Badger intendment I Bay, then, 
 the Badger hum ndment was put in for the pur» 
 
 I ■ nly pnTpoee, of declaring that, 
 
 while > would not interfere, it would not 
 
 permit ; >^ ■ eonsequei of its act any law to 
 
 be revived thai would either protect or abolish 
 slavery, or deprive the people of the light to do 
 as llo j d that question, 
 
 Mr the record ie eo full, so explicit 
 
 on th:- . it there is no room for miscon- 
 
 struction. The only point on which anybody 
 differed, so far as 1 know, was the simple one of 
 the extent of the limitation imposed by the Con- 
 stitution on the Territorial Legislature, That was 
 the point referred to the courts. Slavery was 
 banished forever from Congress; the people wert 
 to d i as they pleased, so that they did not vio- 
 late the Constitution ; and, if they did, the courts 
 were to determine the extent of the limitations 
 d by the Constitution on their action. 
 That was atated to be the object in the report 
 accompanying the bill. That is shown to be the 
 object, in the judiciary clause ol the bill; giving 
 jurisdiction to the territorial courts in all eases 
 touching the title to slaves, or personal freedom 
 without regard to the amount involved in con- 
 troversy, as in other coses, I could take up the 
 debate* and show that it was understood at that 
 time, ami by eminent southern men, that that 
 was the only point referred to the courts. I will 
 trouble the Senate only with one authority on 
 
15 
 
 that point, and I quote him simply because of 
 his eminent character and the respect this body 
 and the country have for him — I mean Mr. Hun- 
 tkr, of Virginia. 
 
 Mr. I'UGII read the following extract from 
 Mr. Hunter's speech of February 24, 1854: 
 
 ••Tlieliill provides that the Legislatures of (fce*e Territories 
 ■hall have power tn legislate over all rightful subject! "i legisla- 
 tion consistently with the Constitution. And, it' thej should 
 a-sume powers which are thought tn lie inconsistent wiih the 
 Constitution, the conrfs will decide that question wherever it 
 mav he raised. There is a difference of opinion among the 
 friends oj this measure as to the extent qj the limits which 
 the Constitution imposes upon the Territorial Legislatures 
 This bill proposes to Iran- these differences to the decision of 
 the courts. To tliat tribunal I una willing to leave Ibis d vision. 
 a.-, it was once before proposed to be lefl by the celebrated com 
 promise of the Senator limn Delaware, (Mr. Clayton)— a 
 measure which, according '" my understanding, was the best 
 compromise, which was ottered upon this subject of slavery. I 
 say, then, thai I am willinsto leave this momiI. upon which the 
 friend* of the bill ureal difference to the decision of the courts " 
 Jlppemliz to Congressional Globe, first session Thirty third 
 Congress, cot 29, p. 384. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. There Mr. TIuntku states the 
 object of the bill as explicitly and as clearly us 
 it i- possible for any man holding my opinions to 
 state it. The only point referred to the courts 
 was the extent of the limitation imposed by the 
 Constitution on the authority of (lie Territorial 
 Legislature. 1 could cite more than half the 
 body, perhaps, to this one point, but it would 
 only be multiplying authority on a point that, is 
 too clear to be disputed. 
 
 I have been quoting thus far only senatorial 
 authority as to the meaning of this net, I wish 
 to show now that the people of the country — yea, 
 the southern people — understood the Kansas- 
 Nebraska bill at that time as I do now. and as 1 
 explained it then. I will quote the resolutions 
 of one sovereign State, the empire State of the 
 South, a State that took the lead in 1850-51 in 
 putting down the heresy o^ congressional inter 
 vention for the protection of slavery. I will ask 
 my friend from Ohio to read the resolutions of 
 the Legislature' of Georgia approving of the prin- 
 ciples contained in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
 relative to the subject of slavery. 
 
 Mr. PUGH read as follows: 
 
 Resolution in rel iiiou lo this Territory of Nebraska. 
 
 The State of Georgia, in sol' mn convention, having firmly 
 fixed herself upon the principle of the compromise measures ol 
 1850, relating to tic subject of sfaver'y in l he Territories of the 
 United Stairs, as a final settlement of the agitation of that ques- 
 tion, its withdrawal from the Halls of Congress and the politii al 
 arena and its reference to the people of the Territories inter 
 ested therein: and distinctly recognizing in those compromise 
 measures the doctrine that it is not competent for Congress to 
 impose any restrictions as to the existence of slavery among 
 them, unon the citizens movins into and settling upon the Ter 
 ritories of the Union, acquired, or to be hereafter acquired, but 
 that the question whether slavery shall or shall not form a part 
 of their domestic institutions, is for Ihem alone to determine for 
 themselves; anil Iter present Executive halving reiterated and 
 affirmed the same tixed policy in his inaugural address : 
 
 llr it resolped hy the Smote and House of Representatives 
 of the State of Georgia in General Assembly met. That the 
 legislature of Georgia a-s the representatives of the people, 
 speaking their will, and expressing their feelings, have had their 
 confidence strengthened in the settled determination of the great 
 body of the northern people, to carry out, in "ood faith, those 
 principles in the practical application of them to the bills report- 
 ed by Mr. Douglas, from the Committeeon Territories, in the 
 United States Senate, at the present session, proposing the 
 organization of a territorial government for the Territory of 
 Nebraska 
 
 And be it. further resolved. Thai our Senators in Congress 
 6e. and they are hereby, instructed, and dut Representatives 
 requested, to vote for and support those principles, and to use 
 
 all proper means in their power for carrying them out. either as 
 applied to the government of the Territory of Nebraska, or in 
 any other bill for territorial government which may come before 
 them. 
 
 Resolved further. That his excellency the Governor be re- 
 queste I lo transmit a copy of these resolutions to each of our 
 Senators and Representatives in Congress. 
 
 JOHN E. WARD. 
 Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
 JOHN D. ST ELL, 
 I' resident of the Senate. 
 In Senate, agreed to, February 17, Kit. 
 
 HUGH M. MOORK. 
 Secretary of the Sen at f, 
 Tn House of Representatives, com lined in. February 17, 
 1K.4. 
 
 WILLIAM T WOr-FOKO. 
 <■'..'. of House of Representatives, 
 Approved, February I'D. 1- ~t 
 
 HERSCUEL V. JOHNSON, 
 
 (i ncrnor. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. These resolutions were adopt- 
 ed by the State of Georgia pending the Kansas- 
 Nebraska bill in the Senate when its provisions 
 were well known, its features well understood; 
 and the Legislature then stated, in the preamble, 
 the principles which are embodied in the bill, 
 and which were embodied in the compromise 
 measures of 1850. They give a construction to 
 the celebrated Georgia platform, which was the 
 withdrawal of the question of slavery from the 
 Halls of Congress and the political arena, and its 
 reference to the people of the Territories inter- 
 ested therein— almost the precise language of my 
 report as chairman of the Committee on Territo- 
 ries when the bill was introduced. Georgia ap- 
 proved of the policy of withdrawing the question 
 from the Halls of Congress, and referring it to the 
 people of the Territories. She approved of that 
 provision which distinctly recognized the com- 
 promise measures of 1850, and provided that the 
 question whether slavery should, or should not, 
 form a part of their domestic institutions, was for 
 them alone to determine for themselves. Georgia 
 having stated that these principles were affirmed 
 by the compromise measures of 1850 — that slue 
 approves of these principles — instructs her Sen- 
 ators to vote for the Kansas-Nebraska bill intro- 
 duced by myself, as chairman of the Committee 
 on Territories. It is undeniable that Georgia 
 understood the Kansas-Nebraska bill as I under- 
 stand it. She understood the compromise meas- 
 ures of 1850 as I understand them. These Geor- 
 gia resolutions are as good a platform as I want. 
 I am willing to take the preamble and resolutions 
 adopted by the State of Georgia in 1854, without 
 the dotting of an i, or the crossing of a t, and de- 
 clare them to be the Democratic platform. I hear 
 men behind me say they are not I am. I will 
 take the Georgia platform with its own interpre- 
 tation, not mine. I could not use language to 
 express my own opinions more clearly and une- 
 quivocally than I find them standing on the 
 statute-book of Georgia at this day as instructions 
 to her Senators. 
 
 The country then understood this measure as 
 I now explain it; and I will show you that the 
 House of Representatives, as well as the Senate, 
 understood it in the same way. It will be recol- 
 lected that Colonel Richardson, of Illinois, was 
 chairman of the Committee on Territories, and, 
 as such, reported the Kansas-Nebraska bill in the 
 
16 
 
 House of Representatives. Be explained it then 
 
 as I do now. The reputation that he mad.- dur- 
 tag that session in the • :neae- 1 
 
 ore, so commendi d hi 
 
 that when the nextC i they pre- 
 
 sented hi^ Dime as th mdidate for; 
 
 Speaker, against the R< pul didate, Mr. 
 
 Banks, of -Mi achusetts. Pendfng th . 
 for Speaker, the southern Oppe 
 charged Mr. Richardson with not b.-imj round 
 oa the slavery question, because he beld to this 
 odious doctrine of non-intervention, 01 
 sovereignty, as polil • are in the habit 
 
 of terming it. General Zollicoffer p 
 questions f I i dates for -Speaker to an 
 
 swer. These q read fr<>;ii the 
 
 Clerk's table, and .Mr. 
 
 other candidates, proceed I to a 1 will 
 
 ask my friend to read the answer of Governor, 
 Richard 
 
 Mr. l'i'i rH r< ad, as follows: 
 
 Mr. RlOHARDSOX. Tl. - not. in ni) 
 
 opinion, carry the Terri- 
 
 tories; tint it Bffor ! 
 totiona of one - 
 
 is as much entitled. In the common territory, to the pro- 
 tection of hi< property, coder the Constitution, 
 citizen of Illinois ; b enrlent npon tl 
 
 of the territorial government lor lav - to protect their prop- 
 erty, of whatever kind It may t>e. Thus It Will ' 
 that though there maybe upon Lhit 
 heorctically— im •< ii < ms fiw jndiclal decision— 
 
 yei there is none, pr etlcally, ri ng tl • Wends of nnn- 
 InterventloD ' mil i« to place 
 
 the decision of the quest! 'ii in the baa ■ ho are 
 
 nHwtdeenH Interested In Its sol 
 
 of the Territory, who have made it their homo, and w boss 
 interests are newt deeply Involved In the character of the 
 institutions under n bicb they are to lit 
 Globe, vol 83, j-urt 1, p. 222. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS equently, but on the 
 
 same day. Januan 12, L856, in r plj bo a 
 tion by Mr. Bingham, Colon* 1 Richardson Bald : 
 
 "I said in my remarks this morning, that, in m> opin- 
 ion, the people of a Territory h; 
 
 tabllsh or prohibit African slavery. I think that is an 
 answer to the gentleman 'e 
 
 That was the answer of Colonel Richardson 
 ■when a candidate for Speaker, and questi 
 by southern a- well as northern men, a- to his 
 opinions on this very question. 1 was nol here 
 at the time. I was prostrate upon a rirjfc b 
 Indiana, with very httle pi ever seeing 
 
 the Capitol again, When Colonel Richard 
 answer was read to me, I was I h'-ar 
 
 that lie had given a clear and explicit explana- 
 tion of the true meaning oi is-Neoraska 
 bill, as we understood it. The Journals show 
 that, upon this answer being given, the ii 
 on the same day, proceeded l<> the one hundred 
 and eighth ballot for Speaker, and 1 ash my friend 
 from Ohio to read the names of the men \ 
 for Mr. Richardson after this answer was made: 
 
 Mr. PUGH read, as follows; 
 
 u For 3fr. Tti&hardnon — Messrs. Aiken. Allen, Barclay, 
 Barksdale, Bell, Hendley S. Bei nett, IS >e.ock, Bowie. 
 Boyce, Branch, Burnett, Oadwatader, Carulhers, Caskie. 
 Clingman, Howell Cobb, W. E. W. Cobb, Craige, David- 
 eon, Denver, D >wdell, Edftiundson, Elliot, English. Faulk- 
 ner, Florence. Thomas .1. 1). Fuller, G-node, Greenwood, 
 Aagnstus Hall. Sampson W. Harris, Thomas L Harris, 
 Herbert, Hickman, Houston, Jewett. George W. Jones, 
 Keltt, Kelly. Kidwell, Letcher, Lumpkin, S. 8. Marshall, 
 Maxwell, McMullin, McQueen, Smith Miller, Millson, 
 Mordecai, Oliver, Orr, Tuck, Phelps, Powell, Quitman, 
 
 I Ruftln, Rust, Sandidge, Savage, Samuel A. Smith, William 
 Smith. Bteph - Talbott, Vail, Warner, Wat- 
 
 kins. WlnalOW, I>:in'nl !'.. Wright, and John V. Wright" 
 ttsional Otobe, vol. 84, |>art 1. ■ 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. The conn try will not heai- 
 
 distinguished names on that list 
 
 i ni the habit, of regarding 
 
 I r and confidence. Every southern 
 
 [Democrat, without exception, as shown by»the 
 
 '. his v.>te for ' rovemor Richard- 
 
 . ter thai explanation of the Kan- 
 
 If my memory serves i 
 
 distinguished gentleman from South Carolina, 
 
 and o present, bad refused to vote for 
 
 Ricbat . 'lis explanation was made, 
 
 and this explanatipn, declaring himself in favor 
 
 I of no ion, in favor of the rights of the 
 
 ■ • do »s they pl< 
 
 nbers from 
 ilina and other southern States, that 
 til voted for him on the next ballot (Laugh 
 ter, and applause in bh< 
 \V 1 1 
 
 that day, you would find tl sanu gen- 
 
 a man because he 
 
 held the id * hicb were then 
 
 Iron I am aboul as sound on this 
 
 r Richards >n. He and I 
 
 '!•■! ion of the act. 1 [a 
 
 hi of the Territi mittee 
 
 in om 1 1 in the other; aid less than 
 
 on affirmed, either that you ap- 
 
 pt-ovi d of Richa ' ion, or that hi* 
 
 to him. Who has changed since thai timet I 
 it I, who dou avi w the principles 1 did then; or 
 
 n bo now denounce me for hold;' 
 opini h< v then - motion by 
 
 their votes! I • tea. If 
 
 they have honestly changed their opinions Bines 
 time, they Bhould frankly avow the change. 
 No man should cherish such a pri nsist- 
 
 - to cling to error one moment after be is 
 convinoed of il ; but a man, whenever be cl 
 his opinions*, ought to avow it, and give the 
 for the change, so as to remove the - 
 from our eyes also. If I can forgive all I 
 honor for having changed tbeii 
 
 positio ing too much of therm to forgive 
 
 me for my Ii lelity to principles of action to which 
 and I were solemnly committed within -so 
 a period I 
 But, Mr. Pi. si lent, I want to add a little more 
 authority on this point. It will be remembered 
 that iii 1848 Alabama took the l< ad at bhe Ualti- 
 ■onvention in asserting the doctrine of con- 
 mal intervention in the Territories. It will 
 be remembered thai in Is.'m; she took the lead in 
 demanding of the Cincinnati convention, as an 
 ultimatum, the repudiation of the doctrine of 
 I intervention, and the adoption in its place of the 
 doctrine of non-intervention. The Alabama Slate 
 I convention which appointed delegates to Cincin- 
 nati in 1856, happened to be in session when the 
 contest for Speaker took place between Colonel 
 Richardson and Mr. Bants. The Democracy of 
 Alabama were looking to Washington for the re- 
 sult of that contest with intense anxiety, Theie 
 i stood the gallant Richardson, the author of thu 
 
17 
 
 Kansas-Nebrasba bill so for as the House was 
 concerned, the nominee of liis party, proclaiming 
 to the world in bold language its true meaning"; 
 and every Democrat in Alabama heartily sympa- 
 thized with him, and hoped that Richardson, the | 
 defender of sonthern rights, might be elected 
 ar. The Slate convention, then in session, 
 representing the Democracy of Alabama, felt so 
 deeply upon this subject, that they deemed it 
 their duty to go out of the usual routine, and 
 pass a resolution of approval. I ask my friend 
 to read that resolution. 
 
 Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 
 
 " Resolved, Thnt the conrsp pursued !>v the gallant metf of 
 the South ami North, 
 
 he eleel of Mr Richard 
 
 »on as Speaker, receives oir hearty approval They hai 
 
 wisely i i hoi ■•" the fanatical ma 
 
 jority 10 force a Fi ic Soil n enni7.ati< n upon them; that in | 
 
 their lian la we can safel 
 
 trao prib ive nationality, with the co 
 
 that I hey will n ivei abari Ion them in any trial, c \fn amidst the 
 
 oonfusioa and tenors of disorganization 
 
 Mr, DOUGLAS. Mr. Pre ve only to 
 
 say upon th's p >int thai it seems the Alt 
 State convection, in 1856, did not regard Colo- 
 nel Richardson's construction of the Kansa 
 
 , | i monstrous a beresy as to dis- 
 
 qualify every man for office who held bis 
 ions. o from the fact that they indorsed 
 
 the gallant Richardson and the faithful southern- 
 ers who voted for him. This inference is con- 
 firmed by the fact that the same convention 
 instructed their delegates to the Cincinnati con- 
 vention to insist upon the express recognition of 
 the doctrine of non-intervention by Con 
 with slavery in the Territories as the onl 
 dition upon which Alabama would consent to be 
 represented at Cincinnati Tuis was the ultima- 
 tum of the Alabama Democracy in L856. I ask 
 ray friend from Ohio to read that part of the 
 resolutions 
 
 Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 
 
 " {5. That it is expedient that we itedinthe 
 
 Democratic national convention, upou such conditions as are 
 in at 
 
 "9. That the delejra'e.? to the Democratic national eonven- 
 tion, to nominate a President and V ' hereby 
 
 expressly insl I thai the said convention >hall a>loi«t 
 
 aplatfo the basis of a national organization, 
 
 prior to the nomination of candidates, unequivocal!) a; 
 in substance, the following propositions: I. The recognition 
 and approval of the principles ot non intervention by ( 
 npon the subject ofslaverj in the Territories. ■-. Thai no 
 tion or prohibition of slavery, in any Territory, shall h 
 be made by any acl of Congi ss. 3. That no 
 refused admission into the Union because of the existence of 
 slavery therein. 4. The faithful execution and maintenance 
 of the fugitive slave law. 
 
 " 10. That if said national convention shall refuse to a<lo;it 
 the propositions embraced in the preceding resolution, our 
 delegates to said convention ar.' hereby positively instructed to 
 withdraw therefrom." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. There is some very sound 
 and wholesome doctrine contained in these 'in- 
 structions. The Alabama delegates were to de- 
 mand that the platform be made first, and that 
 the platform should expressly affirm the doctrine 
 of non-intervention. The Cincinnati convention 
 acceded to the demands of the Alabama Democ- 
 racy. I indorsed those propositions; I am will- 
 ing' to abide by them now. They are a fair ex- 
 position of the Kansas- Nebraska bill. They are 
 identical with the Cincinnati platform. The 
 
 Charleston convention" indorsed those identical 
 propositions, and Alabama seceded because the 
 .ion did bo] Alabama went into the 1 Cin- 
 cinnati convention demanding non intervention 
 as the condition <>n which she would remain. 
 She got it. she went into the Charleston con- 
 vention demanding the reverse of non-interven- 
 tion as the only condition on which she would 
 remain. She did not get it, and she went out. 
 Alabama led th ■ bolt at Charleston solely for 
 the re. the majority of the convention 
 
 adopted the Alabama ultimatum of 18561 I re- 
 bhe right of the Democracy of Alabama 
 D ' a their opinions just as often as they 
 Very few men live who have not changed 
 many opinions. Men who have more regard for 
 truth than will change whenever con- 
 
 vinced of their error. B ei ice 1 do not condemn 
 Alabama for bolting now for the very reason that 
 ; in the Cincinnati conven- 
 tion in 1856; but it is not to be expected that 
 we who accepted her ultimatum then, and have 
 ever since ol in good faith, should be 
 
 satisfied to be lenounced as enemies to the 
 South, for holding fast to the same principles 
 which she then proclaimed. 
 
 ! r p at, thai I am willing now to stand by 
 ■ terms and conditions that Alabama pre- 
 scribed as her ultimatum in 1856 I must do this 
 I emocracy of Alabama: 1 do not 
 
 believe the Democracy of that state indorse or 
 approve of this attempt to break up the Demo- 
 cratic party of the Union because the party 
 would not change the platform. 1 believe the 
 : as much attached to 
 the principles of the Democratic party, as they 
 understood them themselves and proclaimed 
 i them to the world, as they were in 1856. I do 
 \ notb> Alabama will follow Mr. Yancey 
 
 now in his mad scheme to break up the Demo- 
 cratic party in quest of Congressional interven- 
 tion any more than she did in 1848, when he 
 ipted the same thing. 
 At this point, the honorable Senator yielded 
 to a motion to adjourn. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1860. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I feel that it 
 to the Senate to .express my sincere thanks 
 for the courtesy they extended to me yesterday, 
 knoning the remainder.of, my remarks until 
 to da}', when it was evident that I was physically 
 exhausted. I fear that I shall be under the ne- 
 cessity of claiming the indulgence of the body 
 also for the desultory manner in which I shall 
 present my views to day, and possibly for my in- 
 ability to say all that 1 would like to have pre- 
 sented to the Senate on this question. A recur- 
 rence of a severe disease of the throat, which I 
 contracted some years ago, in discussions in the 
 open air in vindication of the principle of non- 
 intervention against the assaults of the Republi- 
 can party, has severe!}* affected my voice and 
 impaired my physical strength. However, I will 
 proceed as 'best I may, to conclude what I have 
 to say upon the question. 
 
 In'the first place, I will answer some objections 
 
18 
 
 that have been made to my course, and some of 
 the evidence* that have Iteeo adduced to convict 
 me of having given a wrong construction to the 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill. Tlie firs! one is the action 
 of the Senate, my own vote included, upon what 
 was known as the < lhase amendment to the Ivan 
 sas- Nebraska aet, at the time of its passage. It 
 will be recollected that after the Senate had 
 adopted the provision in the fourteenth section 
 of the bill, which declared the true intent and 
 meaning of the acl to be "not to legislate slavery 
 into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it 
 therefrom, but to leave the people thereof per 
 fectly free to form and regulate their domestic 
 institutions in their own way, Bubjecl only lo the 
 Constitution of the United states," Mr. Chase, of 
 Ohio, offered the following additional amendment, 
 to insert the words: 
 
 " Under which tin* |w>nple or the Territory, through their 
 appropriate representatives, may, if they tee fit, prohibit ihe 
 existence of slavery therein " 
 
 It wi.'l be observed that that amendment was 
 
 precisely the same in its legal effect as the one 
 which Mr. Chase submitted to the compromise 
 measures of 1850, by which the people of a Ter 
 ritory should have the power to prohibit slavery 
 but not the power to introduce and protect it. j 
 The amendment which he offered to the Kai 
 Nebraska hill was intended to have precisely the 
 same effect, and was the counterpart of the propo- 
 sition of the Senator from Mis issippi, offered as 
 an amendment to the compromise measures of 
 1850, that the Territorial Legislature should 
 have the power to protect, but not to exclude or i 
 prohibit slavery. When this amendment was' 
 offered by Mr. Chase it stood in the position of 
 an amendment to an amendment. The n 
 shows that Mr. Pratt, of Maryland, appealed to 
 Governor Chase to accept an additional amend- 
 ment, by inserting the words "or introduce" 
 after the word "prohibit," so that it would read 
 that the people of a Territory might prohibit or 
 introduce slavery. Governor Chase's amendment 
 being an amendnmet to an amendment, the propo- 
 sition of Mr. Pratt was out of order. Mr. Si:w- 
 ard, of New York, made the point of order, 
 which was sustained by the Chair, and conse- 
 quently Governor Chase having refused to a scepl 
 the words "or introduce," it was not in order to 
 move the amendment. I will have an extract 
 read from the speech of Governor Pratt, of 
 Maryland, on that occasion, showing what was 
 the understanding at the time of the object of 
 Mr. Chase's amendment. 
 
 Mr. PUGII read, as follows: 
 
 " Mr. Pratt >aid : Mr. President, the principle which Ihe 
 Senator from < Moo adopt* a; the principle of his amendment is, 
 that the question shall he left entirely and exclusively lo the 
 people, whether they will prohibit slavery or not. Now, for 
 the purpose of testing the sincerity of the Senator, ami lor the 
 purpose of deducing the principle ol his amendment con. :\ . 
 I propose to am -nd it by inserting after the word ' prohibit ' the 
 words ' or introduce;' so that, it my amendment be adopted, 
 and the amendment of the .Senator from Ohio, as so amended, 
 be introduced as a part, of the bill, the principle which he says 
 he desires to have letted will be inserted in the bill — that the 
 people of the Territories shall have power to prohibit or intro 
 duce slavery as they may see proper. I suppose the question 
 will he taken on the amendment which I offer to the amend 
 ment." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. As I remarked, Mr. Seward, 
 of New York, objected to Governor Pratt's amend- 
 
 ment to insert the words "or introduce," by which 
 he was deprived of the opportunity of having a 
 rote on it; and Governor Chase having refused 
 
 to accept that amendment, it left the Senate to 
 vote simply on the question whether they would 
 so amend the bill as to give the power to pro- 
 hibit without the power to introduce and protect 
 
 slavery. That amendment was rejected because 
 
 the words offered by Governor Pratt were not ac- 
 cepted. And yet, sir. in the face of these facts, 
 my vote against this Chase amendment has bet n 
 cited a thai I myself was unwilling to 
 
 allow the people to aet either for or against 
 slavery in the Territories. The debate on this 
 dmeot shows clearly and conclusively that 
 the understanding of the fj-araers of the bill was, 
 
 that We Were to allow the people to act as they 
 
 pldased, so that thej did not violate the Consti- 
 tution, linel Blaveryaa they choose; and 
 if tit sir territorial enactments were inconsistent 
 with the Constitution, the coi rts were to apply 
 the remedy, but not Congress. The record shows 
 that Mr. Sh rue appealed to 
 Governor Chase to aocepl of the amendment of 
 Mr. Pratt. Mr. Shields Baid: 
 
 " If the honorable Senator will permit, I will suggest to him, 
 if he wishes to rest that proposition lo pot the convene a- '«<;- 
 
 vested by the I orable Senator from Maryland, and then it 
 
 will be a fair proposition. Let 'he Senatoi from Ohio accept 
 ml ment of Ihe Senator from Maryland lor the purpose 
 of testing the question.'' 
 
 I will ask my friend from Ohio also to read 
 what Mr. Senator I North Carolina, then 
 
 said in respect to this Chase amendment. 
 
 Mr. PUGB read as follows: 
 
 "Mr, ' have understood, I find, correctly, th« 
 
 purport of the offered by thi Senator 
 
 i the nmendmenl and the effect of 
 
 the amendment, if adopted by l lie Sena e, and standing as u 
 
 does, are clear and obvious, '/'la ijfirt of <h mm ii I mint, and 
 
 ■■■ mr mi, I subvert 'he 
 
 hi introduced into the bill upon the motion of 
 
 Mr DtUOLAS I 
 
 [s not that clear T i- it Btands, ia on unre 
 
 ertnee in the territorial authori 
 
 ties, or the p* - lo determine upon the question 
 
 of slavery; and, therefoie, b n* as well at by the 
 
 meaning and legal operations ol thai amendment, fof 
 
 Mr Pratt,] TO KNABLI THKM KITHKR TO KXCLI Dl "K TO 
 INTRODUCE, oil. TO ALLOW SLAVERY. If, therefore, the 
 amendment proposed by the Senator iron Ohio were appended 
 to the bill in the connection in which he introduces it, the ne- 
 cessary and inevitable effect of il would be to control ami limit 
 i unirc uzhirh the Senate hasjiisl put >>nu tin bill, and 
 to give it this construction ; that though Congress leaves them 
 to regulate their own domestic institutions as ih ■> please, yet, 
 in regard to the subject matter of slavery, llu power is confined 
 to the exclusion or p it I ~.u this is both the 
 
 legal effect ami the mahifesl design of the amendment. The 
 legal etti upon the statem nt ; the design is obvious 
 
 upon the refusal of the gentleman to incorporate in hi* amend- 
 ment what was unggeste I by my honorable friend from Mary- 
 laud, the propriety and fairness of which were instantly seen by 
 my friend from Illinois ( Mr. Shield*. J 
 ********* 
 
 " I have no hesitation, therefore, in saying that I shall vote 
 against the amendment of the Senator from Ohio The clause 
 as it stands is ample. It submits the whole authority to the 
 Territory to determine for itself That, in my judgment, is the 
 place where it ought to be put. If the people of these Territories 
 choose in exclude slavery, so far froth considering it a wrong 
 dour to me. or to m>i constituents, I shall not complain of it. 
 It ts their own business." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I now ask that the vote on 
 
 rejecting the Chase amendment, for the reasons 
 assigned in the debate which I have quoted, may 
 be read. 
 
19 
 
 Mr. 1'CGII read as follows: 
 
 '• The question being taken by veas and nays.on the amend- 
 ment of Mr. Ohase, it i suited— yeas 10, nay- -i 1 '. 
 
 " Yeas — Messrs. Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Fessenden, 
 Fish. Foote. Hamlin, Seward, Smith, Sumner, and Wad< — 10. 
 
 " Nayf — Messrs. Adams, Atchison. Badger, Be.'l, Benja- 
 min, Brodhead, Brown. Butler, Clav. Clayton, Dawson. Dixon. 
 Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Evans, Fi'zpatrick, Gwin, ElonslQn, 
 Hunter, Johnson. Jon of Iowa, .'ones of Tenne see Mason, 
 JMoiton, No riv Pettit, Pratt Rusk Sebastian, Shields, Slidell. 
 Stuart, Toucey, Wal and Williams— 36\ 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Thus il will be seen, from 
 the record, that the Chase amendment was re 
 jected because it did not leave the people fn B to 
 act on the subject, either for or against slav< ry, 
 to introduce, protect, or prohibit, as they saw 
 proper; and that .these reasons were assigned at 
 the time by southern men — Pratt of Maryland, 
 Badger of North Carolina, and others — for voting 
 against the Chase amendment, [f those whoctted 
 this amendment, and my votes upon it, against 
 me, had read the debate as well as the amend- 
 ment itself, they would have found that it proved 
 precisely the reverse of that fot which it was 
 cited against me. 
 
 The amendment offered by my Colleague, in 
 1856, to the Toombs bill, and my vote againet it, 
 have been cited as evidence thirt it was not the 
 intention or the understanding of any of u j , when 
 the Kansas-Nebraska bill passed, to allow tin- 
 people to aet on this quesiion. I will ask that 
 the Trumbull amendment be also read. The bill 
 to which that amendment was offered was a bill 
 known as the Toombs bill, to authorize the peo- 
 ple of Kansas to form a constitution and come 
 into the Union as a State, It was not offered as 
 an amendment to a territorial bill, but to a State 
 bill; and, as an amendment to a State bill; was 
 fixing a construction to a territorial bill which 
 •'was to cease to operate by the admission of a 
 State under the bill which we were then passing. 
 
 Mr. PUGH read as follows: 
 
 " ,'lnd be it -further enacted. That the provision in 
 ' to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska,' which 
 declares it to be ' the true- i-;t»-nt and meaning of said acl not to 
 legislate slavery into any Territory or State, or to es 
 therefrom; bnl to leave the o form 
 
 and< regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, sub 
 jeet only to the Constil ution of the United States ' teas inU n I 
 ed to and does confer upon or leave to the people of the Tt rri 
 tnry of Kinsas full power at any time through its Ten 
 Legislature to exclude slavery from said Territory, or to 
 recognize or regulate it tharein."' 
 
 Mr. DOU( i LAS. Thus it will be seen that the 
 amendment of 'my colleague was lo declare, in 
 
 tbe bill for the admission of a State into the 
 Union, that it was the intent of the aet of Con- 
 gress organizing that. Territory, to allow the 
 people of the Territory either to introduce or ex 
 elude slavery, as they saw proper. This amend- 
 ment was* rejected by the Senate on two grounds 
 One was, that it was irrelevant to append it to a 
 State bill, when it was declaring the intent of a 
 territorial bill. The other ground was, that it 
 was an act of usurpation for the Congress of the 
 United States to attempt to adjudicate the mean- 
 ing of that tei ritorial bill ; that the question what 
 its true intent and meaning was after it passed, 
 belonged to the courts, and not to the Senate or 
 House of Representatives; and the attempt of 
 Congress thus to expound it was an act of usur- 
 pation. To prove that such was the case, I will 
 
 ask to have read brief extracts from various 
 speeches which I have collected, showing tbe 
 grounds on which the Trumbull amendment was 
 opposed. I will remark, that no man intimated, 
 pending that debate, that the Trumbull amend- 
 ment did not contain the true meaning of the 
 bill; but they said, we will net by act of Con- 
 gress attempt to expound a territorial act. 
 
 Mi-. PUGH read as follows: 
 
 '■ Mr <"\ss said : Now. in res(i"et to myself. I suppose the 
 Senate knows clearly my views I believe the original act {rave 
 the Territorial Legislature of Kansas full power to exclude or 
 allow slavery" * * * * "This being 
 
 my vipw. I shall vole against (he amendment. 
 
 'Mr Doi'OLAS said: The reading of the amendment io- 
 
 mj mind to the belief that, in its legal effect, it is pre- 
 
 • with ihe original act, and almost in the words 
 
 of tiia' aet llcmv. I should have no hesitancy in voting for 
 
 it. except that it is putting on this bill a matter that does not 
 
 belong to it." ****** 
 
 "Mr. BlGLER said: Now. sir. 1 am nut prepared to say 
 whal the intention oftlie Congress of Id54 was, because I was 
 no' a member of that Congress I will not vole on this amend- 
 ment, because I should not know that, my vote was expressing 
 the truth I agree, too, with fit m Michigan [Mr. 
 
 Cass] and the Senator; from [llinois [Mr. Douglas, J that this 
 is substantially the law as it now e\i-K." 
 
 " .Mr. Toi ' iv said : Now. I object to this amendment as 
 : worse than that, as jiviiiL' "rounds for 
 
 misrepresentation. I: where it is left 
 
 in tie- Kansas Nebraska bill " * * * * 
 
 " .Mr B •. ,'Cii- -aid : 1 have n-> objection to the amendment 
 
 proposed by the honorable Senator from lllinoi ,[Mr. Truh- 
 
 iii it | whirl) to me would be perfectly sufficient, independent 
 
 of any o'her ; nntl that is, it is nothing more or /is< than on 
 
 ' to gire a judicial exposition by the Congress of tke 
 
 itntfis to the Constitution ; and I hold that tlicy havt 
 
 no right to usurp judicial power. 1 ' 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I will ask the reading of the 
 vote o;i the reasons assigned in debate for giving 
 the vote. 
 
 Mr. PU.GH read as follows: 
 
 " The question being taken by yeas and nnvs on the amend- 
 ment, resulted — yea* II, nays 34, as fi 
 
 '• Y BAH— Messrs. All.n. Bell of New Hampshire, Collamer, 
 len, Foote, Foster, Hf.le, Seward, Trumbull, 
 and Wade— II. 
 
 " Nay< — Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Benjamin, Biggs, I'igler, 
 Bright, Brodhead. Brown. Cass, Clay, Crittenden, Dodge, 
 Douglas Evans Fit z pa trick, Geyeri Hunter. Iverson, Johnson, 
 Jones of Iowa, Mallory Mason, Pratt, Pu'gh Reiti, Sebastian, 
 Stuart, Tlioninson of Kentucky, Toombs, Toucey, 
 Weller, Wright, and Vulee— 34. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Thus it appears from the 
 record that all who voted for the Trumbull amend- 
 ment declared by their votes that it was the true 
 intent and meaning of the act. not to legislate 
 slavery into a Territory or out of it, but to leave 
 the people thereof to do as they pleased, subject 
 I to the Constitution. It appears from the debates, 
 however, that all who voted against it assigned 
 as a reason for tbe negative vote either that it was 
 irrelevant, or that it was a usurpation of judicial 
 power; but no one of them intimated or pretended 
 it was not a true explanation of the bill. Mr. 
 Bayard said in his remarks that — 
 
 " It is nithin:: more or less than an attempt to give a jndi- 
 iiial exposition, by the Congress of the United States, to the 
 Constitution ; and I hold that they have no right to usurp ju- 
 dicial power." 
 
 Now what act was it that was to be a usurpa- 
 tion of judicial power ? It was the proposition of 
 Congress to declare that, under the Nebraska bill, 
 and the Constitution of the United States, the 
 people of the Territory had the power to intro- 
 duce or exclude slavery. Mr. Bayard said that 
 was an act of usurpation, an act beyond the con- 
 
20 
 
 stitutional authority of the Senate; and yet we 
 have resolutions now under debate, by which the 
 Senate is called upon to adjudicate that identical 
 question. The resolutions on your table provide 
 that neither Congress nor a Territorial Legisla- 
 ture have a right to exclude slavery from a ter- 
 ritory. That is the substance of them. The 
 object of these resolutions is to ask the Senate to 
 decide this very judicial question, which Mr. 
 Bayaud, in 1856, denounced as beyond your con 
 stitutional authority to do. lie denounced il as 
 an act of attempted usurpation, and every one of 
 you stood here silent, and heard Mr. Bayard 
 that denunciation to the proposition to expound 
 the meaning of the Constitution on this question 
 by an act of the Senate. You are now called 
 upon by these resolutions to perform that very 
 act of usurpation, and decide that very judicial 
 question which, by the Kansas-Nebraska act, was 
 to be referred to the courts and banished from 
 Congress forever ; and which you pledged your- 
 selves by that act never to decide in Congress. 
 There is the record. 1 hold you to your pledges 
 that you will leave this question to the courts, 
 where the Constitution leaves it, where vou 
 agreed to leave it, and banish it from the Halls 
 of Congress, as you agreed to banish it, forever. 
 
 The Senator from Virginia. (Mr. Hunter,) it 
 will be remembered, in the extract that I read 
 yesterday, declared that the understanding of the 
 Nebraska bill was that one point was referred to 
 courts, and that was the exteni of the limitations 
 of the Constitution on the authority of a Terri- 
 torial Legislature. That was the point, the only 
 point that was agreed to b* left to the courts. 
 The Senator from Virginia not only made that 
 speech in 1854 on the Nebraska bill when it was 
 pending, but last year, when a debate arose be 
 tween the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Brown) 
 and myself, on the 23d of February, the Senator 
 from Virginia arose and made an explanation, and 
 quoted that very extract as a true exposition of 
 the meaning of the bill, and reaffirmed it as his 
 existing sentiments. Now the Senate is called 
 upon, in violation of the meaning and pledges of 
 the Nebraska act, as defined by the Senator from 
 Virginia, to decide that very- question by resolu- 
 tions of the Senate, which was to be referred to 
 the courts and banished from Congress forever. 
 I submit whether this is carrying out the true in- 
 tent and meaning of that act. I submit whether 
 this is banishing the subject from the Halls of 
 Congress; whether it is referring it to the people 
 immediately interested in it, subject to the limita- 
 tions of the Constitution, and leaving the court 
 to ascertain the extent of those limitations. 
 
 In the debate growing out of this Toombs bill, 
 my colleague put the question to me after it had 
 been answered over and over again in previous 
 speeches, whether or not aTerritorial Legislature 
 had the power to exclude slavery. He had heard 
 my opinion on that question over and over again. 
 I did not choose to answer a question that had 
 been so often responded to, but referred him to 
 the judiciary to ascertain whether the power ex- 
 isted. I believe the power existed; others be- 
 lieved otherwise; we agreed to differ ; we agreed 
 to refer it to the judiciary ; we agreed to abide by 
 
 their decision ; and I, true to my agreement, 
 I referred my colleague to the courts to find out 
 whether the power existed or not. The fact that 
 i I referred him to the courts has been cited as evi- 
 dence thai I did not think individually that the 
 power existed in aTerritorial Legislature. After 
 the evidences I produced yesterday, and the de- 
 I bate just, read upon the Trumbull amendment, 
 | no man who was an actor in those scenes has an 
 I excuse to be at a loss as to what niv opinion was. 
 But it was not my opinion that was to govern; it 
 was the opinion of the court on the question arising 
 under a territorial law after the territory should 
 have passed a law upon the subject. Bear in 
 mind that the report introducing the bill was that 
 these questions touching the right of property in 
 slaves were referred to the local courts, to the 
 territorial courts, with a right of appeal to the 
 Supreme Court of the United Staies. When that 
 dase shall arise, and the court shall pronounce its 
 judgment, it will be binding on me, on you, sir, 
 and on every good citizen. It must be carried 
 out in good faith; ami all the power of this Gov- 
 ernment — the Army, the Navy, and the militia — 
 all that we have — must be exerted to carry the 
 decision into effect in good faith, if there be resist- 
 ance. Do not bring the question back here for 
 Congress to review the decision of the court, nor 
 fir Congress to explain the decision of the court 
 The court is competent to construe its own deci- 
 sions, and issue its own decrees to carry its deci- 
 sions into effect. 
 
 We are told that the court has already decided 
 the question. If so, there is an end of the con- 
 troversy. You agreed to abide by it; I did. If 
 it bas decided it, let the decision go into effect; 
 there is an end of it; what are we quarreling 
 about? Will resolutions of the Senate give any 
 additional authority to the decision of the Su- 
 preme Court of the United States? Does it need 
 an indorsement by the Charleston convention to 
 give it validity? If the decision is made, it is the 
 law of the land, and we are all bound by it. If 
 the decision is not made, then what right have 
 you to pass resolutions here prejudging the ques- 
 tion, with a view of influencing the views of the 
 court? If there is a dispute as to the true inter- 
 pretation and meaning of the decision of the court 
 who can settle the true construction except the 
 court itself, when it arises in another case? Can 
 you determine by resolutions here what the de- 
 cision of the court is, or what it ought to be, or 
 what it will be? It belongs to that tribunal. The 
 Constitution has wisely separated the political 
 from the judicial department of the Government. 
 The Constitution has wisely ma.de the courts a 
 coordinate branch of the Government, as inde- 
 pendent of us as we are of them. Sir, you have 
 no right to instruct that court how they 6hall 
 decide this question in dispute. You have no' 
 right to define their decision for them. When 
 that decision is made, they will issue the proper 
 process for carrying it into effect; and the Exe- 
 cutive is clothed with the Army, the Navy, and 
 the militia, the whole power of the Government, 
 to execute that decree. All 1 ask, therefore, of 
 you is non-iutervention ; hands off. In the lan- 
 guage of the Georgia resolutions, let the subject 
 
21 
 
 be banished forever from the Halls of Congress 
 or the political arena, and referred to the Terri- 
 tories, with a right of appeal to the courts ; and 
 there is an end to the controversy. 
 
 Having shown conclusively what the under- 
 standing of Congress was upon this question of 
 the compromise measures of 1850, and the Kan- 
 sas-Nebraska bill, I will proceed now to show 
 how the President of the United Slates who 
 signed the bill understood it. I will ask to have 
 read an extract Irom the message of President 
 Pierce of December, 1855. 
 
 Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 
 
 " The scope and effect of the language of repeal were not 
 left in doubt. It was declared, in teims, to he the ' true intent 
 and meaning of tit is act not lo legislate slavery into any Terri- 
 tory or State, do' exclude it therefrom, hut to leave the people 
 thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic iflsti- 
 tntions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of 
 the United States.' 
 
 " The measure could not he withstood upon its merits alone. 
 It was attacked with violence, on the false or delusive pretext 
 that it constituted a breach of faith. Never was objection moie 
 utterly destitute of substantial justification. When, before, 
 was it imagined by sensible men, that a regulative or declarative 
 statute, whether enacted ten or forty years ago, is irrepealable; 
 that an act of Congress is above the Constitution ? If, indeed, 
 there were in the facts any cause to impute had faith, it would 
 attach to those only who have never ceased, lioin the time ol 
 the enactment of the restrictive provision lo the present day, 
 to denounce and condemn it; who have constant!) refused to 
 complete it by needful supplementary legislation ; who have 
 spared no exertion to deprive it of moral force; who have 
 themselves, again and again, attempted its repeal. by the enact- 
 ment of incompatible provisions; and who, by the inevita- 
 ble reactionary effect of thetr own violence on - .he subject, 
 awakened the country lo perception of the true constitutional 
 principle of leaving the matter involved to the discretion oi the 
 people of 'iie respective existing or ENCIPTBNT States " 
 
 " It is not pretented that this principle, or any other, pre- 
 cludes the possibility of evils in practice, disturbed ps political 
 action is liable to be by human passions. No form of govern- 
 ment is exempt from inconveniences; but in this case they are 
 the result of the abuse, and not of the. legitimate exeici.-e, of 
 the powers reset ved or conferred in the organization of a Teiri- 
 tory. They are not to be charged to the great principle of pap- 
 ular sovereignty; on the contrary, they disappear before the 
 intelligence and patriotism of the people, exerting through the 
 ballot box their peaceful and silent but irresistible power." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. There you willfind that Presi- 
 dent Pierce, who signed the Kansas-Nebraska 
 act, speaks of it as adopting the great principle of 
 "popular sovereignty" in the States, and also in 
 the "incipient" States. What did he mean by 
 the word "incipient" States? Not the States 
 that were then in the Union. He unquestionably 
 referred to the Territories as "incipient States," 
 and, as such, were entitled to the benefits of the 
 principles of self-government in respect to their 
 domestic concerns. Hence you find the word 
 " incipient" States, and the words " popular sov- 
 «reignty," as embracing the rights of the people 
 in those incipient States, or Territories, as we are 
 in the habit of designating them. 
 
 Here I must be permitted to comment upon a 
 remark of the Senator from Mississippi, in his 
 arraignment of this doctrine of non-intervention, 
 which he chose to call squatter sovereignty. He 
 said that this doctrine had its first trial on the 
 plains of Kansas; that it bore its first fruits on 
 the plains of Kansas; and he described its le- 
 gitimate fruits as resulting in anarchy, violence, 
 bloodshed, and every imaginable evil. President 
 Pierce, in this message, says that those acts were 
 abuses of the principle of popular sovereignty, 
 in violation of the principle of the act; and that 
 
 the principle itself is by no means responsible 
 for those abuses. I answer that allegation of the 
 Senator Irom Mississippi by the authority of his 
 own chief, the President of the United States, 
 under whom he held the high and distinguished 
 office of Secretary of War. Nor is it improper 
 here for me to express my amazement that the 
 Senator from Mississippi would cite the abuses, 
 the acts of violence, and of fraud, that occurred 
 in violation of this principle under the Adminis- 
 tration of which he was a ruling spirit, as evi- 
 dences that the principle that brought that Ad- 
 ministration into existence was a vicious and dan- 
 gerous principle. 1 had supposed that the Sena- 
 tor from Mississippi had given in his adhesion to 
 this doctrine of non-intervention. I had sup- 
 posed that he looked with pleasure upon the pas- 
 sage of the Kansas-Nebraska act. 1 had sup- 
 posed that he considered that as a great measure 
 of relief to the southern States of this Union, 
 and that he would have been the first to defend 
 it, as in duty hound, having held office under the 
 Administration that glories in the passage of the 
 act. Now we find he takes pleasure in citing 
 those very abuses in justification of his course 
 ] when he fought the principle, and as a verifica- 
 j tiou of what lie told us before the southern States 
 I agreed to acquiesce in the principle. I was not 
 | prepared to hear this from the gentleman from 
 Mississippi. 
 
 Mr. DAVIS. You do not pretend to quote it? 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. 1 do not pretend to quote 
 the language. 1 pretend only to say that, in sub- 
 I stance, he did declare that this principle had its 
 first trial on the plains of Kansas, and bore its 
 first fruits upon the plains of Kansas; that it was 
 accompanied with unmitigated and untold evils, 
 and produced all sorts of mischief; and the in- 
 ference was that these results justified him in his 
 original opposition to the principle. 
 
 1 now pass to the next chapter in the history 
 of this principle of non-intervention, which you 
 will find in the proceedings of the national con- 
 vention, held at Cincinnati, in 1856. You all 
 remember that Alabama sent her delegates to 
 Cincinnati, demanding that the usages of the 
 party should be reversed, and that a platform 
 should be first, made, and then furnishing the ul- 
 timatum which, if not acceded to, must be the 
 cause for an instant withdrawal of the Alabama 
 delegates from that convention. That ultimatum 
 was that the convention, in its platform, should 
 recognize the principle of non intervention by 
 Congress with slavery in the Territories. The 
 convention yielded to the Alabama ultimatum. 
 The convention incorporated that principle into 
 the platform in language so explicit that no one 
 can misunderstand it. I ask to have so much of 
 the Cincinnati platform read as announced this 
 doctriue of non-intervention. 
 Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 
 
 " The American Democracy recognize and adopt the prin- 
 ciples contained in the organic laws 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 determined conservatism of the Union— non intkrfkr- 
 
 RNtCK BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVKRY IN THE Sl'ATK AND 
 TERRITORY, OR IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.. 
 
22 
 
 "Tliit this was rha lia-U of (lie cool promise of 18S0, con 
 firm c I • Democratic an il \Vhis |iarties in nar-ona! 
 
 convention, ratified by i'ie people in the election of ' 
 Kghtt\ ap|>lieil to - ition of Territories in l--"it. 
 
 ''That h>. the uniform application of this Democrat 
 eiple lothc organization of Tenirories. and to the admission of 
 ir withonl domestic slavery, as the) naj 
 I intact— 
 •heorig | nerl inviolate— 
 
 and the pe , inftnsion of this Union insured lo it» 
 
 inmost i . peace and harmon ■ 
 
 future State that may be consti'Ol 
 lican form of poverhmi nt." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. There it will be found (hat 
 the Democratic party affirmed, at Cincinnati, io 
 language it to admit of any p 
 
 misconstruction ihe 
 
 by Congress with slavery in th - Terri- 
 
 tories, and in the District of Columbia, I only 
 call attention t< i far as relates to non- 
 
 intervention in Ihet 
 
 declared that th incipleofnon interven- 
 
 tion wa m in ied by both parties at Baltimore, in 
 1852; showing that the.D • tr.ty under- 
 
 stood in i the convention which nomi- 
 
 nated General Pierce — upon which nomination 
 Genen —did affirm 
 
 this doctrine of nonintervention. 
 that I _ and Democratic) had 
 
 affirmed th<> doctrine, Il declared, also, thai 
 this prim i| • w is correctly applied in tb< 
 sas-Nebraska bill; and that it. was th 
 serva! i aloi i the peaci 
 
 and perpetuity of t! 'lined. 
 
 I wish i: . . i thai the plal - 
 
 form of principles was declared at Cincinnati 
 unanimous! 
 
 evevy deh ate in the ! 
 
 was unanimous in its vote in favor of the | 
 pie. The me man in Mississippi 
 
 protesting againsl it; no one man in Alabama 
 protesting n ai ist it; no one man in South ( aro- 
 lina protesting against it; none in Georgia; none 
 in any southern State of this Union. Are we 
 now to be told that a platform adopted by the 
 unanimous vote of every delegation, from every 
 State in the Union, in 1856, iseo unsound and so 
 rotten four years after, as to justify the very 
 States who . it then in breaking up the 
 
 party, bee i ist upon adhering to it, now : 
 
 But, sir, not only did the party unanimously 
 affirm this doctrjne in lS5t'., but your cand 
 nominated a that time accepted the nomination 
 on that plat f orm, with a construction which bbi v 
 then put upon it for themselves. I wffl now 
 show you that they then put upon that pla 
 the identical construction which I have ever 
 placed upuii it. I ask to have read an extract 
 from the letter of acceptance of Mr. Buchanan, 
 on the 16th of June, 1856. 
 Mr. PUGU read, as follows: 
 
 "The agitation nn the question of domestic slavery has 
 too lonjr distracted ami divided the people of this Union, 
 and alienated their affections from each other. Tills agi- 
 tation h.-is assumed many firms since its commencement, 
 but it now seems to be directed chiefly to the Territories; 
 and judging from its present character, I think we may 
 safely anticipate that it is rapidly approaching; -a finality.' 
 The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic 
 slavery, derived, as it has been.' from the original and pure 
 fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the ma- 
 jority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous excite- 
 ment. This legislation is founded upon principles as an- 
 
 cient as free government itself; and in accordance with 
 
 them has simply declared that the people of a Territory, 
 
 like those ol p State, shall decide tor themst Ives whether 
 
 Shall nr shall not exist within their limits." 
 
 Mr. DO! GLAS. Mr. Buchanan not only ae- 
 d th. Cincinnati platform, but he was kind 
 enough to bell the people of the United States 
 what it meant, and that it mean! that the people 
 territory, like those of a State, should de- 
 lves whether slavery should or 
 should not exist within their limits. There is 
 nothing equivocal in this language. It. is Bquat- 
 ite I roadest sense 1 , as the Sen- 
 fi om Mississippi uses thai term. The people 
 of a Territory, like those of a State, shall decide 
 for themseh es whether slavery shall exist or not 
 Mr. Buohai the people that slavery could 
 
 not exist in a Territory unless > f ft 
 
 i ; it should exist if they said so, 
 Mr Buchanan was elected 
 on that construction of the platform. I do not 
 i-i. tint you shall now give it that construction. 
 I only ask that you readopt the plat form, and 
 itself. But Mr. Buchanan was 
 ctly sound on that platform in 1856, with a 
 ii identical with that which is now 
 denounced as a heresy. The distinguished gem- 
 m who was nominated arid elected Vice 
 • 1 1 on the same ticket with Mr. Buchanan, 
 rstood the platform io the Barne way that 
 Mr. Buchanan did. After his nomination at CJn- 
 innati, he returned to his home in Lexington, 
 and his neighbors assembled, as might have been 
 ■ they had euch devotion to their 
 1 fellow-citizen, and congratulated 
 h - good fortune in receivi ig the noma- 
 I Mr. Breckinridge, in reply to that 
 atulation, made them a speech, which was 
 bed at the time, from winch 1 will present 
 Bhowing you how he understood the 
 braska bill and the Cincinnati plat- 
 form. 
 
 Mr. IT Oil read as follow-: 
 
 ling qnestion of domestic slavery, their 
 position is clear. The whole power of (he Democratic orgatu- 
 d to the following propositions : thai Congrats 
 shall n.r on thin subject in the States, in the Terri- 
 
 er in the District ol Columbia; that the people of each 
 . ne ilre qnestion for themselves, rind l>« 
 on a pon a tooting of perl Ij with 
 
 'lie original States, wi| hoot discrimination on account of the 
 rr prohibition of slavery." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. It seems that the Demo- 
 
 v, in its whole organization, was 
 
 proposition of non-intervention 
 
 I referring the question to the 
 
 I pie of the Territories. That is the way I 
 
 understand it. I stand upon that platform now. 
 I have great difficulty With my political friends 
 in harmonizing upon platforms, and have ten- 
 dered them various propositions, 1 have ten- 
 dered them the Florida platform of 1817, and 
 they would not take it; the Georgia platform of 
 1854, and they would not take it; the Alabama 
 ultimatum of 1856, and they would not take it. 
 I tender them now Mr. Buchanan's letter of ac- 
 ceptance in 1850; let it construe itself, and see 
 tf*we cannot harmonize on that; or I tender Mr. 
 Breckinridge's speech of acceptance in Lexing- 
 ton, in 185G, and let it construe itself. I will not 
 
23 
 
 dot an i or cross ft t. Gentlemen, will you take 
 your own langiitige when you accepted and con- 
 strued the platform? 1 am willing to be accom- 
 modating. 1 do not insist on a platform from 
 my speeches or my writings. I can pick one up 
 all over the Senate, all over the country, from 
 the speeches and writings of those who now ar- 
 raign me as not being sound on the slavery ques- 
 tion. (Applause in the galleries.) 
 
 Even alter the election in 1856, the same prin- 
 ciple was emphatically announced and affirmed; 
 for in Mr. Buchanan's inaugural address, he de- 
 clared : 
 
 " VVp have recently passed through a presidential contest, in 
 which th« passions of oar fellow citizens were excited to the 
 highest degree by questions of deep and vital importance ; hut 
 when the people proclaimed their will, the lean (test al once sub- 
 sided, and all was calm. 
 
 "The voice of the majority, speaking in the manner pre 
 scribed by the Constitution, was heard, and instant submission 
 followed. Our own country could alone have exhibited so 
 grand and striking a spectacle of the capacity of man for self- 
 government. 
 
 " What a happy conception, then, was it for Congress to ap 
 ply this simple rnl< — thai the will of the majontj shall govern — 
 to the settlement of the question of domestic slavery in the 
 Territories ! Congress is neither to ' legislate, slavery into any 
 Territory or Slate, nor to exclude it therefrom ; but to leave Un- 
 people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate then domestic 
 institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution 
 of the United States.' As' a natmal consequence, Congress 
 has also prescribed that, when the Territory of Kansas shall be 
 admitted as a Stale. ' it shall be received into the 1 'nion, with 
 or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the 
 time of their admission.' 
 
 " A ilith renee of opinion has arisen in regard to the point ot 
 time when the people of a Teiriiorv siiail decide this question 
 for themselves. This is happily a matter of hut little practical 
 importance." 
 
 "What a happy conception," he Bays, "for 
 Congress to apply this simple rule — that the will 
 of a majority snail govern — to the settlement of 
 the question of domestic slavery in the Territo- 
 ries!" And, having applied it to the Territories, 
 he says, that, "as a natural consequence, Con- 
 gress has prescribed that when the Territory of 
 Kansas shall be admitted as a State, it shall be 
 received into the Union, with or without slavery, 
 as their constitution may prescribe at the time of 
 their admission !" So it seems that the right of 
 the people to decide the slavery question at the 
 time of admission was " a natural consequence" 
 of the right of the people to decide the same 
 question in their territorial condition. "The 
 point of time" when the people of a Territory 
 should decide the slavery question was deemed 
 of "but little practical importance" by Mr. Bu- 
 chanan. Yet, the very point uf time which was 
 deemed of little practical importance, is now 
 urged by his professed friends as sufficient for 
 breaking up the Democratic party, and endan- 
 gering the existence of the Union! 
 
 I speak of these, things with entire respect. I 
 do not bring them up for the purpose of condem- 
 nation, or to place any man in a false position. 
 If these gentlemen stand now where they did in 
 1856, I am with them. If they do not, the ques- 
 tion arises, who has changed? If they have 
 changed, I do not complain of them for it. If 
 they have had new light, if they have studied 
 the subject more maturely, and have honestly 
 come to the conclusion that they were then in 
 error, they were bound as honest men to change. 
 But if that be the case, I think I have the right 
 
 to ask that they will furnish me with those argu- 
 ments and reasons which induced the change in 
 their minds, in order that I may correct my er- 
 rors too, if indeed I am in error. 1 do not think 
 there is any wisdom in the declaration that you 
 have never changed an opinion. While 1 claim 
 a very consistent record as a public man, I have 
 often had occasion to say that ! have modified 
 my opinions on many questions, and lake more 
 pleasure in retracting an error than in persever- 
 ing in it. All I ask is, if it be true that gentle- 
 men have taken a step in advance or a step backs 
 ward, that they will excuse me for not following 
 them until they convince me that they ought to 
 have taken that step. 
 
 The country has been informed that 1 was re- 
 moved from the post of chairman "f the Com- 
 mittee on Territories, in 1858, because I uttered 
 at Freeport, Illinois, the identical sentiments 
 contained in the speeches ami letters of accep- 
 tance of Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Breckinridge in 
 1850. My heresy consisted in uttering the same 
 sentiment then that the Senator from Mississippi 
 bears testimony that I held and uttered in 1850; 
 thai it lias been shown that I uttered, during the 
 debate on the Kansas-Nebraska i ill, in 1854, an3 
 in the debates of 1856, and which i was known 
 to have held formany years. 1 do not complain 
 of my removal from the committee. I acknowl- 
 edge that, if it be true that my opinions were so 
 heretical, that I did not fairly and honestly rep- 
 resent the sentiments of the Senate <>n these 
 great questions, it was right to displace me, and 
 put a man there who did. 1 have no complaints 
 to make. But wheu you displace me for that 
 reason, do not charge that 1 have changed* when 
 the fact is, that you have changed your own 
 opinions. You did elect me chairman of that 
 committee, in 18-17, with a knowledge of my 
 opinions. You re-elected me each yeai for eleven 
 years, by a unanimous vote in caucus, with a full 
 knowledge of those opinions. At, the end of 
 eleven years, you removed me for holding the 
 identical opinions that I held when you had 
 unanimously selected me. I do not complain of 
 this; but Tdo think that fairness requires that 
 the facts should have been stated truly; and you 
 should have said, "We have got tired of this 
 doctrine of non-intervention ; it, does not work 
 to suit us; it has not yielded such practical 
 fruits on the plains of Kansas as we anticipated; 
 we have concluded to abandon it all, and go 
 back to the old doctrine proclaimed by Yancey, 
 at Baltimore, in 1848, and rejected by the con- 
 vention by an almost unanimous vote." 
 
 Now, sir, there is a difference of opinion, it 
 seems, on this question, between me and a ma- 
 jority of the Democratic Senators. 1 regret that 
 difference. It would have afforded me sincere 
 and genuine satisfaction if I could have continued 
 to hold the same relations on this question that I 
 did formerly. It was painful to me to find that 
 this difference of opinion had grown up, and that 
 they had determined to make this new test by 
 which my orthodoxy was to be questioned, and I 
 was to be branded as a heretic. While I regret- 
 ted that determination on the part of some politi- 
 cal friends here, I cannot recognize, and do not 
 
24 
 
 now recognize, the right of acaueusof the Senate, 
 or of the House, to prescribe new test? for the 
 Democratic party. Senators are not, chosen For 
 the purpose of making party platforms. That h 
 no part of their duty. Under our political sys- 
 tem there has grown up an organization known 
 as a national convention, composed of deh 
 elected fresh from the people, to assemble once in 
 four years to establish a platform for the | 
 and select its nominees. The Cincinnati platform 
 was the only authoritative exposition of Demo- 
 cratic faith until the Charleston convention i 
 I have stood firmly, faithfully by the Cinch na'i 
 platform, and have looked confidently to the 
 Charleston convention to find it reaffirmed. Y< a 
 gentlemen who differ with me, agreed to appe il 
 to Charleston as the grand council tldde 
 
 cide all differences of political opinion between 
 you and me. I agreed, also, to look toll 
 ton convention as the representative sof the party 
 assembled from every State in t 1 • d af- 
 
 ter great deliberation, three days' debate in com- 
 mittee, and a very elaborate and able deb: I 
 full convention, the party determined, by an ovi r- 
 whelming majority, in favor of the readoption of 
 the Cincinnati platform. 
 
 I have told vou all the time durin ■• 
 enee of these differences of opinion, thai I •■ 
 favor of the Cincinnati platform without th< 
 ting of an i, or the crossing of a t. Th 
 ton convention affirmed the same plal form. 1 am 
 no longer a heretic. I am no longer an outlaw 
 from the Democratic party. I am no Ion 
 rebel against the Democratic organization. 
 Charleston convention repudiated this new 
 contained in the Senate caucus resolutions, by a 
 majority of t 'entyseven, and affirme 
 cinnafi platform in lieu of it Then, solar, 
 platform is concerned, I am sustained bj the party 
 
 — the only authority on earth whi sh, a 
 
 to Democratic usages, can determine the Demo- 
 cratic creed. The question now is whether my 
 friend from Mississippi will again acquiesce in 
 the decisions of his party upon the platform 
 which they have adopted, or is he going to r 
 from the party, bolt its nominations, break it up, 
 because the party has concluded not to eh 
 from its position of 1856. Are my friends around 
 me here going to desert the party because the 
 party has not changed as suddenly as they have? 
 
 The country has often been told that land my 
 friends in Illinois were not acting in bar 
 with the Democratic organization. We have said, 
 in reply to .that accusation, " We will appeal to the 
 rational convention at Charleston and ascertain 
 who constitute the Democratic party in Illinois, 
 whether it be the regular organization that sus- 
 tains me, or the Federal officeholders that acted, 
 with the Republicans, against me." The Federal 
 officeholders sent their delegates to Charleston. 
 The regular Democratic organization, known as 
 the Douglas organization — the same organization 
 that returned me to the Senate; the same organi- 
 zation that beat the Republicans and the Federal 
 officeholders combined in 1858 — sent their dele- 
 gates to Charleston, aud the convention proceed- 
 ed with great deliberation and impartiality aud 
 integrity to decide between them, and decided, 
 
 by a unanimous vote, that the Federal officehold- 
 not belong to the Democratic 
 —«(laughter) — rejected them by a unani- 
 mous vote. So far. therefore, as these "national 
 " of Illinois, who, in Order to carry out 
 Democratic principles, sustained the Abolition 
 oed, the party has unani- 
 at Charleston, that" they do not 
 j to the party. 
 The it Charleston also, by a ma- 
 
 jority of the whole electoral college, that I was 
 of th i Democratic party of America 
 y of the United States, giving 
 me a majority of fifty votes over all the other 
 candidates combined; and yet m\ Democracy is 
 ioned (Laughter.) So far as I am indi- 
 lly concerned, 1 want no further or higher 
 i. I have arraigned r:o man. I have 
 to proscribe no man for differing with 
 me in opinion. I have nt. all times said "that I 
 was willing to appeal tp th incil of the 
 
 partj i iu national convention, to de- 
 
 cide I of opinion. They have 
 
 I cided in my favor on all points 
 — the platform, the organization, and. least of all, 
 the indivi lual. That is the leasl of all ; for my 
 friends who know me best, know that I had no 
 ■ wish for the moraination; know 
 r a seat in the Senate for six years to 
 if I could have the nomination 
 and be elected by acclamation ; and know that 
 '"V na would have been presented at 
 
 Char! pt for the attempt to proscribe 
 
 too unsound to be the chairman 
 f this body, where I have held 
 ' for so msny years without a suspicion rest- 
 ing on ■ A fidelity. 
 
 I was forced to allow my name' to go there in 
 self-def ; • ; a id I will now say that had any 
 gentleman, friend or foe, received a majority of 
 thai convention over me, the lightning would 
 have carried a message withdrawing my name 
 from the convention. I have not lust enough 
 for office to desire to be the nominee against the 
 known wishes and first choice of a majority of 
 my party. In 1852, the instant Franklin Pierce 
 had a majority vote, the telegraph carried my 
 ngratulating him as the choice of the 
 party; and it was read in the convention before 
 the vote was announced. In 1856, the instant 
 Mr. Buchanan received a majority vote, the light- 
 ning carried my message that James Buchanan, 
 having received a majority of the votes .of the 
 party, in my opinion, was entitled to the nomi- 
 nation, and that I hoped my friends would give 
 him the requisite two-thirds, and then make the 
 vote unanimous. Sir, I would scorn to be the 
 standard-bearer of my party when I was not the 
 choice of the party. All the honors that a na- 
 tional couvention can confer are embraced in the 
 declaration that I am the first choice of the par- 
 as their standard-bearer, repeated on fifty-seven 
 ballots. I ask nothing more. The party will 
 go on and do what its own interest and its own 
 integrity may require. 
 
 But, sir, I do rejoice that this good old Demo- 
 cratic party, the only organization now left suffi- 
 ciently national and conservative in its principles 
 
25 
 
 and great in its numbers to preserve this Union, |j Legislatures, and statesmen. I have no time to enlarge, but to 
 has determined to adhere to the great principle |j su fn7iLTe7 yours &e., 
 
 of non-intervention by tlie Federal Government, 
 with the domestic affairs of distant Territories 
 wnd provinces. It is a pleasing duly to me to de- 
 fend this glorious old party against those who 
 would destroy it because the party will not 
 change its platform to suit their purposes. The 
 leadership at Charleston, in this attempt to di- 
 vide and destroy the Democratic party, was in- 
 trusted to appropriate hands. No man possessed 
 the ability, or the courage, or the sincerity in his 
 object, for such a mission, in a higher degree, 
 than the gifted Yancey. lie has a right to fee! 
 proud of his achievements at Charleston. In 
 1848, at Baltimore, he proclaimed the same doc- 
 trine, and failed to get a State to stand by him li 
 
 VV. L. YANCEY. 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. That letter, it is due to Mr. 
 Yancey to state, was intended as a private letter 
 to his friend, Mr. Slaughter, and was published 
 without his authority. Having been republished 
 and severely commented upon by the editor of 
 the Richmond South, Mr. Yancey addressed a 
 letter of explanation to Mr. Prtoe, in which he 
 declared that it was a private letter, written in 
 the freedom and carelessness of private confi- 
 dence, and was subject to hostile criticism. 
 Therefore, he proceeded to explain more fully 
 what his views were upon the question. I have 
 endeavored to obtain an entire and perfect copy 
 of this letter to Mr. Peyor, without success. I 
 
 find, however, a long extract, embodying proba- 
 I bly the whole of its material parts, in the Na- 
 tional Intelligencer of September 4, 1858, which, 
 I have no doubt, gives a fair representation of 
 
 P 
 
 candidate, in 1856. But very soon he oarrte to 
 the conclusion that this great Democratic party 
 was not competent to preserve and maintain 
 the rights of the South under the Constitution. 
 He came to the conclusion that it was time to 
 institute some other organization for the main- 
 tenance of southern rights. That he was con- 
 scientious and sincere in his views, I do not doubt ; 
 but that they lead dil ; /, to a dis- 
 
 solution of the Union, and the formation of a 
 southern confederacy, if carried out, I think is 
 beyond all question. Doubtless many Senators 
 have seen the letter of Mr. Yancey to Mr. Slaugh- 
 ter, of the date of Juue 15, 185S, upon the sub- 
 ject Of "r-KKCIPtTATIXG THE COTTON STATES INTO 
 
 revolution." In order that the Senate and the 
 country may see that I do Mr. Yancey full justice, 
 I shall have the whole letter read. 
 Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 
 
 Montgomery, June 15, 1858. 
 
 Dear 9ir : Your kind letter of the 15th is received. 
 
 I hardly agree with you that a general movement can he 
 made that will clear out the Augean stable If the Democracy 
 were overthrown, it would result in giving place to a gieater 
 and hungrier swarm oi' flies. 
 
 The remedy of the South is not in such a process. It is in a 
 diligent organization of her true men for the prompt re 
 to the next aggression. It mast come in the nature of things. 
 No national paity can save us ; no sectional party can ever do 
 it. But if we could do as our fathers did — organise " commit 
 tees of safety " all over the cotton Plates (and it is only in therh 
 that we can hope for any effective movement) — we shall tire 
 the southern heart, instruct the southern mind, giv,? tjonrage to 
 each oVher, and, at the proper moment, hy one organized, con 
 certed action, we can precipitate the cotton States into a revo- 
 lution. 
 
 i'lie idea has been shadowed forth in the South by Mr. Rof- 
 fin-; has been taken up and recommended by the Advertiser, 
 ahder the name of "League of United Southerners. " who, 
 keeping up their old party relations on all other questions, will 
 bold the southern issue paramount, ami will influence parties. 
 
 in seceding; there his doctrines were repudiated. 
 Boldly and fearlessly he put his protest on record 
 against the doctrine of non intervention, and 
 withheld his assent to the support of the nomi- ., 
 
 nee, because he conscientiously believed that the !l Mr - 5 ancey s opinions, finding it in the Intelh- 
 South ought to insist on the doctrii newspaper so proverb^l lot- its accu- 
 
 tion by Congress- in support of slavery in I < J "''l iL " &}™esa, t.4°ubt not that the extract 
 
 Territories when the people did not want ful1 justice to the writer In .the forepart 
 
 Overruled by five or ten to one in Baltimore in of the letter Mr. Yancey proceeds to say that, "to 
 1848, overruled unanimously at Baltimore- in be candid, I place tffit littie trust in. such States 
 1852, in 1856 he concluded that perhaps he would as , L ?" 1:i ' VHre ;, M T * r y land . ietmessee, Kentucky, 
 make a virtue of necessity, and submit to non- ! a ° J Missouri. lie has but little. confidence in 
 intervention; and he go1 favoi tU '"" He then proceeds tq gi ve his reasons why 
 
 of non-interv.ntion. and succeeded in l ' u " a '} ,liem - Delaware he regards as 
 
 in the platform, before the nomination of the ""-'"tally a slave fetal-, but substantially antfr 
 
 Blavery. On that he diners in opinion from the 
 distinguished Senator from Delaware, (Mr. Bay- 
 akl>,) who thinks that Delaware has such an in- 
 terest i:i slavery that it is worth while to break 
 up the Democratic party on account of slavery. 
 (Laughter.) But Mr. Yancey has not much faith 
 in Delaware and Maryland. He cannot trust 
 Maryland because, he says, she keeps Abolition- 
 ists ii. Congress. Then, he says, he cannot trust 
 Missouri, because she, for a long time, sustained 
 a Free-Soiler in the Senate, and afterwards in the 
 House of Representatives — alluding to Colonel 
 Benton. Then, he says, he cannot trust Tennes- 
 see, because she kept an Abolitionist here in the 
 Senate so long, and reelected him ; and besides, he 
 says Tennessee never had his confidence since; a 
 Methodist conference refused to expunge certain 
 anti-slavery opinions which John Wesley had 
 inserted into the ritual. He cannot trust Ken- 
 tucky, because Kentucky, for so many years, 
 sustained such Free-Soilers as Clay and CaiTTEy- 
 den! (Laughter.) He then says: 
 
 " I did not name Virginia. It is tro^ I did not discriminate 
 between Virginia and the other border States. My purpose did 
 not call for it." 
 
 After giving his reasons why he could not trust 
 the border slaveholding States which I have 
 named, and why he proposed to plunge the cot- 
 ton States into revolution, separating them from 
 the border slave States, he proceeds as follows: 
 
 Mr. PUGH read the following: 
 
 " It is equally true that I do not ( xpect Virginia to lake any 
 initiative sieps towards a dissolution of the Union, when that 
 exigency shall be forced upon the South. Her position as a 
 border Sta'e, and a well considered southern policy, (a policy 
 which has been digested and understood, and approve 1 by the 
 ablest men in Virginia, as you yourself mnst be aware,) would 
 seem to demand that, when such movement takes place by any 
 
26 
 
 con-id- rahle nnmher cf southern Stutes, Vi sin'a and the or her 
 border States should remain in the Union, where, bv their posi 
 
 tion and tatir i n.els, thev con 1(1 prove more effective friends, 
 
 thai In moving out of the Union, and tim> giving to the sonth 
 em confederacy a long abolition hostile border io watch. In 
 the event ol the movement being anccefsfol, in time. Virginia, 
 and the other liorder States that desired it. could join Hie -on'li 
 ern confederacy, and be protected by the power of ita arms and 
 its rii ilomacy. 
 
 •• \ oii> charge thai I designed to, and did. impeach the fideli 
 ty 01 Virginia,, in on roe however ipQch of troth there may be in 
 it with reference to those border States that I have named." 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. So it seems (hat, in 1858, a 
 well-digested plait had been matured and ap- 
 proved i»y many of the ablest men of the South, 
 and even in Virginia; and that by that plan it 
 was not expected that Virginia, and these other 
 unsound border States, were to go out of the 
 Union when the Sooth was forced to dissolve — 
 using the word "forced." One would suppose 
 t'n,". if there was any such injustice to tlie slave- 
 holding Mates as to force the South out, in de- 
 fence of Iter constitutional rights, Virginia would 
 be expected to he as tenacious of them as any 
 other .Mate; but he did not expect that Vir- 
 ginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, 
 and Delaware, were expected, by that, plan, to 
 remain in the Union, for the reason that, by so re 
 mainiug, they could render more service to those 
 who went (nit than they could it they went out 
 ■with them. A very enviable position Mr. Yancey 
 puis tlte old Dominion in! He wishes to retire 
 front you, and asks you to remain with us, in or- 
 d r that you may annoy and distract and betraj 
 us. for the benefit of those that go out ; and be 
 holds out i In- assurance that, in the course of 
 time, perhaps, Virginia and Maryland, and Ken- 
 tucky and Tennessee, and Missouri, may become 
 sound enough to be admitted into the southern 
 confederacy, lie is going to keep you on proba 
 tion 1 awhile, guarding a long abolition frontier, 
 for the hen. tit of the cotton States; and after 
 awhile, perhaps, if you do good service, and so 
 acta- to be entitled to his respect and confidence, 
 then he will admit you into this southern con- 
 federacy of the cotton States! 
 
 Mr. Yancy tells us of the "well-digested 
 plan." It was not to be executed at once; ai.d 
 in the mean time all the men in the plan must 
 preserve their relations in the Democratic party, 
 so as to influence public men and public measures, 
 and ihns he ready to have more influence in pre- 
 cipitating.this result on the party, and breaking 
 it up. Part of the plan was to pretend still to 
 be members, keep in the party, go into fellowship 
 with us, seem anxious to preserve the organiza- 
 tion and at the proper time plunge the cotton 
 States into revolution. What was the proper 
 time, to which he alluded? Wa3 it at the 
 Charleston convention? Was that to be the au- 
 pieious moment J The history of the event 
 shows that Mr. Yancey there acted up to his 
 programme announced in his letters to Slaughter 
 and Prtor. ile preserved his relations with his 
 
 {>arty with a view of exercising influence on pub- 
 ic men and measures, over northern as well as 
 southern men, and finally proposed an interven- 
 tion platform, reversing the - ereed of ths party, 
 and " at the propi r lime" he did precipitate the 
 cotton SlaUjs into revolution, an^ led them out 
 
 of the convention. The programme was carried 
 out to the letter; and he did leave in the conven- 
 tion those unsound States that he could not trust, 
 such as Virginia and Tennessee and Kentucky 
 and Missouri and North Carolina and Delaware 
 and Maryland. Part of Delawaie, I believe, fol- 
 lowed him; but they came to the conclusion that 
 Delaware was not big enough to divide. (Laugh- 
 ter.) Her champion returned back into the north- 
 ern confederacy. Was it to keep watch, and 
 guard an abolition frontier for the benefit of 
 the cotton States ? Is Delaware to be received 
 into Mr. Yancey's southern confederacy after a 
 while? Will he consent to allow Virginia to 
 come? Will North Carolina be accepted By him? 
 Will Tennessee be permitted to come in, now 
 that she has got rid of her Free-Soil Senator? 
 Will he allow Kentucky to join, when such Abo- 
 litionists as Clay and Crittenden have ceased to 
 represent her? 1 beg the pardon of the Senator 
 from Kentucky for repeating his name in this 
 connection. The gallant Senator from Kentucky 
 an Abolitionist I A Free Soilerl A man whose 
 fame is as wide as civilization, whose patriotism, 
 whose loyalty to the Constitution was never 
 questioned by men of any party! (Applause iu 
 the galleries.) Oh, with what devotion could I 
 thank God if every man in America was just 
 such an Abolitionist as TJenry Clay and John J. 
 Crittenden 1 (Renewed applause.) 
 
 The PRhSiDIXG OFFICER, (Mr. Foot.)— 
 Order I 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I wish to Cod that, the whole 
 American people were just such Abolitionists as 
 Clav and Crittenden. ( A pplausc in the galleries.) 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER, The^Chair is 
 obliged to say that a repetition of the offence 
 from the galleries must be followed by an order 
 for the clearance of the galleries forthwith. The 
 Chair gives this notice to all persons occupying 
 seats in the galleries on the assumed authority 
 and direction of the Senate itself. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. I do not say that Mr. Yancey 
 and his associates at Charleston mean disunion. 
 I have no authority for saying any more than 
 appears in the publication of his matured plan. 
 Sir, it was said with truth that the order of bat- 
 tle issued at Cerro Gordo by General Scott a day 
 before the battle, was a complete history of the 
 triumph after the battle was over, so perfect 
 were his arrangements, so exact was the compli- 
 ance with his orders. The programme of Mr. 
 Yancey, published two years ago, is a truthful 
 history of the secession movement at Charleston. 
 1 have not the slightest idea that all those whe 
 came under bis influence in maturing bis meas- 
 ures, concurred in the ends to which these meas- 
 ures inevitably led; but what were Mr. Yan- 
 (.■ey's measures? He proposed to insist upon a 
 platform identical in every feature with the cau- 
 cus resolutions which we are now asked to adopt. 
 The Yancey platform at Charleston, known as 
 the majority report from the committee on reso- 
 lutions, in substance and spirit and legal effect, 
 was the same as the Senate caucus resolutions; 
 the same as the resolutions now under discus- 
 sion, and upon which the Senate io called upon, 
 to vote. 
 
27 
 
 I do not suppose that any gentleman advocat- 
 ing this platform in the Senate, means or desires 
 disunion. I acquit each and every man of such 
 a purpose; but I believe, in my conscience, that 
 such a platform of principles, insisted upon, will 
 lead directly and inevitably to a dissolution of 
 the Union. This platform demands congressional 
 intervention for slavery in the Territories in cer- 
 tain event?. What are these events? In the 
 event that the people of a Territory do not want 
 slavery, and will not provide by law for ii^ in- 
 troduction and protection, and that fart shall be 
 ascertained judicially, then Congress is to pledge 
 itself to pass laws to "for.ee the Territories to have 
 it. Is this the non intervention to which the 
 Democratic party pledged itself at Baltimore and 
 Cincinnati ? So long as the people of a Tei ritory 
 want slavery, and s*ay so in their legislation, the I 
 advocates of the caucus platform are willing to ' 
 let them have it, and to act. upon the principle 
 that Congress shall not interfere. They are foi; 
 non-interference so long as the people want sla- 
 very, so long as they will provide by law for its 
 introduction and protection; but th 
 the people say they do not want it, and w ill not 
 have it, then Congress must intervene and 
 the institution on an unwilling people. On the 
 other hand, the Republican party is also for u 
 intervention in certain contingencies. '. .'■ 
 publicans are for non-intervention just so loi 
 the people of the Territories do not want sla\ ry, 
 and say so by their laws. So long a* the p< 
 of a Territory prohibit slavery, the Abolitionists 
 are for non-intervention, and will not interfere 
 at all; but whenever the people of the Territo- 
 ries say by their legislation that they do want 
 it, and provide by law lor its introduction and 
 protection, then the Republicans are for inter- 
 vening and for depriving them of it. Each of 
 you is for intervention for your own section, and 
 against it when non-intervention operates for 
 your section. There is no difference in principle 
 between intervention North and intervention 
 South," Each asserts the power and duty of the 
 Federal Government to force institutions upon 
 an unwilling people. Each denies the right of 
 self government to the people of the Territory 
 over their internal and domestic concerns. Each 
 appeals to the passions, prejudices, and ambition 
 of his own section, against the peace and harmony 
 of the whole country. 
 
 Sir, let this doctrine of intervention North and 
 intervention South become the rallying point of 
 two great parties, and you will find that you 
 have two sectional parties, divided by that line 
 that separates the free from the slaveholding 
 States. Whenever this shall become the doctrine 
 of the two parties, you will rind a southern inter- 
 vention party for slavery, and a northern inter- 
 vention party against slavery; and then will 
 come the "irrepressible conflict" of which we 
 have heard so much. We have had an illustra- 
 tion of what kind of intervention you will get 
 whenever you recognize the right, of Congress to 
 intervene on this subject. The House of Repre- 
 sentatives sent us a bill, the other day, repealing 
 the slave, code which was unanimously adopted 
 by the Legislature of New Mexico, and fastening 
 
 the Wilmot proviso upon that Territory against 
 the will of that people. That bill is now pend- 
 ing on your table, and awaiting the action of 
 this body, side by side with a resolution of one 
 of the Senators from Mississippi (Mr. Brown) 
 to repeal the prohibition of slavery in Kansas 
 Territory, with a view to force them to have 
 the institution, whether they want it or not. I 
 tell you that the doctrine of the Democratic 
 party, as proclaimed in 1848 and in 1852 at Bal- 
 timore, in 1E5G ut Cincinnati, and in 1S60 at 
 Charleston, is that we must resist, with all our 
 energies, both these propositions for interven- 
 tion.^ So long as the people of Kansas do not. 
 want slavery, you shall never force- it on them 
 by any act of Congress, if I can prevent it. So 
 long as the people of New Mexico do want sla- 
 very, you on the other side of the Chamber shall 
 never deprive them of it, if i can prevent it 
 You, gentlemen in the Northeast or in the North- 
 west, do not know what kind of laws and insti- 
 tutions the people of Xew . ire as well 
 ey do themselves. Your people in the Gulf 
 . or in those cotton States that are to be 
 2 >d into revolution, do not know what kind 
 oi' la «vs and institutions are adapted to the wants 
 and interests and happiness of the people of Ne- 
 braska, so well as the ■ > that Territory 
 do. Our doctrine — the doctrine of the Demo- 
 cratic party as proclaimed at Charleston — is non- 
 interference by the Federal Government with 
 the local concerns and domestic affairs of the 
 people, either in the States or in the Territories.' 
 
 But, we are told that the necessary result of 
 this doctrine of non-intervention, which gentle- 
 men, by way of throwing ridicule upon, call 
 squatter sovereignty, is to deprive the South of 
 all participation in' what they call the common 
 Territories of the United States. That was the 
 ground on which the Senator from Mississippi 
 (Mr. Davis) predicated his opposition to the 
 compromise measures of 1850. He regarded a 
 I to repeal the Mexican law as equivalent 
 to the Wilmot proviso; a refusal to recognize by 
 an act of Congress the right to carry a slave 
 there as equivalent to tlio Wilmot proviso; a 
 refusal to deny to the Territorial Legislature the 
 right to exclude slavery as equivalent to an ex- 
 clusion. He believed at that time that this doc- 
 trine did amount to a denial of southern rights; 
 and he told the people of Mississippi so; but 
 they doubted it. Now, let us see how far his 
 predictions and suppositions have been verified. 
 t infer that he told the people of Mississippi so, 
 for as he makes it a charge in his bill of indict- 
 ment against me, that I am hostile to southern 
 rights, because I gave those votes. 
 
 Now, what has been the result? My views 
 were incorporated into the compromise measures 
 of 18S0, and his were rejected. Has the South 
 been excluded from all the territory acquired 
 from Mexico? What says the bill from the House 
 of Representatives now on your table, repealing 
 the slave code in New Mexico established by the 
 people themselves? It is part of the history of 
 the country that under this doctrine of non in- 
 tervention* this doctrine that you delight to call 
 squatter sovereignty, the people ct New Mexico 
 
28 
 
 have introduced and protected slavery in the 
 -whole of that Territory. Under this 'doctrine, 
 they have converted a tract of free territory into 
 slave territory, more than five times the size of 
 the State of New York. Under this doctrine, 
 slavery bas been extended from the Rio Grande 
 to the Gulf of California, and from the line of 
 the Kepublic of Mexico, not only up to 36° 30', 
 but up to 38° — giving you a degree and a half 
 more slavery territory than you ever claimed. 
 In 1848 and 184l> and 1850 you only asked to 
 have the line of 3(1° 30'. The Nashville conven- 
 tion fixed that as its ultimatum. I offered it in 
 the Senate in August, IS 18. and it was adopted 
 here but rejected in the House of Representa- 
 tives. You asked only up to 86° 30', and non- 
 intervention has given you slave territory unto 
 38°, a degree and a half more than you asked ; 
 and yet you gay that that is a sacrifice of south 
 era rights! 
 
 These are ill" fruits of this principle, which the 
 Senator from Mississippi regards as hostile to the 
 rights of the South, where did you ever g< t 
 any other fruits that were more palatable to your 
 taste, or more refreshing to your strength? "What 
 other inch of free territory has been converted 
 into slave territory on the American continent, 
 <■>. ■ • the Revolution, except in New Mexici 
 Arizona, under the principle of non interv. i 
 affirmed at Charleston? If it be true that this 
 principle of non-intervention has conferred dpon 
 yon all that immense Territory; has protected 
 slavery in that comparatively northern and cold 
 region where you did not expect it to go, cannot 
 you trust the same principle further South when 
 you come to acquire additional territory from 
 Mexico? If it he true that this principle of non- 
 intervention has given to slavery all New Mex- 
 ico which was surrounded on nearly every side 
 by tree Territory, will not the same principle 
 protect you in the northern States of Mexico 
 when they are acquired, since they are now sur- 
 rounded by slave territory; are several hun- 
 dred miles further South ; have many degrees of 
 greater heat; and have a climate and soil adapted 
 to southern products? Are yon not satisfied with 
 these practical results? Do you desire to appeal 
 from the people of the Territories to the Congress 
 of the United States to settle this question in the 
 Territories? When yon distrust the people and 
 appeal to Congress, -with both Houses largely 
 against you on this question, what sort of pro- 
 tection will you get? Whenever you ask a slave 
 code from Congress to protect your institutions 
 in a Territory where the people do not. want it, 
 you will get that sort of protection which the 
 wolf gives to the lamb; you will get that sort 
 of friendly hug that the grizzly bear gives to the 
 infant. Appealing to an anti-slavery Congress 
 to pass laws of protection, with a view of forc- 
 ing slavery on an unwilling and hostile people! 
 Sir, of ail the mad schemes that ever could be 
 devised by the South or by the enemies of the 
 the South, that which recognizes the right of 
 Congress to touch the institution of slavery either 
 in States or Territories, beyond the single case 
 s - tvided in trie Constitution for the rendition of 
 fugitive slaves, is the most fataL 
 
 Mr. President, this morning, before I started 
 for the Senate Chamber, I received a newspaper 
 containing a letter written by one of Georgia's 
 gifted sons upon this question of non-interven- 
 tion. I allude to one of the brightest intellects 
 that this nation has ever produced; one of the 
 most useful public men ; one whose retirement 
 from among us created universal regret through- 
 out the whole country. You will recognize at 
 once that I mean Alexander H. Stephens, of 
 Georgia. Since the adjournment of the Charles- 
 tor, convention, Mr. Stephens has responded to a 
 letter from his friends, giving his counsel — the 
 counsel of n patriot — to the party and the coun- 
 try in this emergency. In the letter he reviews 
 the doctrine of non-intervention, and shows that 
 Jie was originally opposed to it, but submitted to 
 it because the South demanded it; that it had a 
 southern origin ; is a southern doctrine; was dic- 
 tated to the North by the South ; and he accepted 
 it because the South required it. lie shows that 
 the same doctrine was incorporated in the Kan- 
 febraska bill, that it formed a compact of 
 honor between northern and southern men by 
 which we were all bound to stand. He gives a 
 history of the Kansas-Nebraska bill identical with 
 the one I gave t you yesterday, without know- 
 ing that he had written such a letter. Mr. Ste- 
 phens has a right to speak as to the meaning of 
 the Kansas Nebraska bill. No man in the House 
 of Representatives exerted more power and in- 
 fluence in securing its passage than Alexander EL 
 Stephens. I ask that the whole of his letter, long 
 as it is, be rend, for it covers the entire ground, 
 and upeaks in the voice of patriotism, counseling 
 the only course that can preserve the Democratic 
 party and perpetuate the union of these States. 
 
 Mr. PUGH read, as follows: 
 
 Crawfordvillk, Georgia, May 9, 1860. 
 
 Gentlemen : Your letter of the 5th instant was received 
 last night, and I promptly respond to jour call as clearly 
 and fully as a heavy press of business engagements win 
 permit. I Bhaff endeavor to be no less pointed and ex- 
 plicit than candid. You do not, in my judgment, over- 
 estimate the importance of the questions now pressing 
 upon the public mind, growing out of the disruption or 
 the Charleston convention. While I was not greatly sur- 
 prised at that result, considerinc the elements of its com- 
 position, and the general distemper of the times— still, I 
 deeply regret it, and with >;ou, look with intense interest 
 to the consequences. What is done, cannot be undone or 
 amended ; that must remain irrevocable. It would, there- 
 fore, be as useless, as ungracious, to indulge in any reflec- 
 tions as to whose fault the rupture was owing to. Terhaps, 
 and most probably, undue excitement and heat of passion, 
 in pursuit of particular ends, connected with the elevation 
 or overthrow of particular rivals lor preferment, more 
 than any strong desire, guided by cool judgment, so ne- 
 cessary on such occasions to advance the public good, was 
 the real cause of the rupture. Be that as it may, however, 
 what is now to be done, and what is the proper course to 
 be taken y To my mind, the course seems to be clear. 
 
 A State convention should be called at an early day— and 
 that convention should consider the whole subject calmly 
 and dispassionately, with " the sober second thought," and 
 determine whether to send a representation to Richmond 
 or to Baltimore. The correct determination of this ques- 
 tion, as I view it, will depend upon another; and that is, 
 whether the doctrine of non-intervention by Congress with 
 slavery in the Territories ought to be adhered to or aban- 
 doned by the South. This is a very grave and serious 
 question, and ought not to be decided rashly or intemper- 
 ately. No such small matters as the promotion of this or 
 that individual, however worthy or unworthy, ought to 
 enter into its consideration. It is a great subject of pub- 
 lic policy, affecting the vast interests of the present and 
 
29 
 
 the future. It may be unnecessary, and entirely useless, 
 for me to obtrude my views upon this question in advance 
 of the meeting of such convention, upon whom its decis- 
 ion may primarily devolve. I cannot, however, comply 
 with your request without doing so to a limited extent, at 
 least. This 1 shall do. In the first place, then, 1 assume, 
 as an unquestioned and unquestionable fact, that non-in- 
 tervention, as stated, has been for many years received, 
 recognized, and acted upon, as the settled doctrine of the 
 South. By n<m-intervention, I mean the principle that 
 Congress shall pass no law upon the subject of slavery in 
 the Territories, etttai r for or against it, in any way— that 
 they shall not interfere or act upon it at all— or, in the ex- 
 press words of Mr. Calhoun, the great southern leader, 
 that Congress shall "leu ve the whole subject where the 
 Constitution and the great principles of self-government 
 place it." This has been eminently a southern doctrine. 
 It was announced by Mr. Calhoun in his speech in the 
 Senate on the 27th of June, 1S48; and, after two years ol 
 discussion, it was adopted as the basis of the adjustment 
 finally made in 1S50. It was the demand of the South, put 
 forth by the South, and, since its establishment, has been 
 again ami again affirmed and reaffirmed as the settled 
 policy of the South, by party conventions and State Legis- 
 latures, in every form that a people can give authoritative 
 expression to their will and wishes. This cannot now be 
 a matter of dispute. It is history, as indelibly fixed upon 
 the record as the fact that the colony of Georgia was set- 
 tled under the auspices of Oglethorpe, or that the war of 
 the American Revolution was fought in resistance to the 
 unjust claim of power on the part of the British Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 I refer to this matter of history connected with the sub- 
 ject under consideration, barely as a starting point — to 
 show how we stand in relation to it. It is not a new ques- 
 tion. It has been up before, and whether rightly or wrong- 
 ly, it has been decided — decided and settled just as the 
 South asked that it should be — not, however, without 
 great effort and a prolonged struggle. The question now 
 is: shall the South abandon her own position in that de- 
 cision and settlement? This is the question virtually pr'i - 
 sented by the action of the seeeders from the Charleston 
 convention, and the grounds upon which they based their 
 action; or. stated in other words, it amounts to this: 
 ■whether the southern States, after all that has taken place 
 on the subject, should now reverse their previous course, 
 and demand congressional intervention for the protection 
 of slavery in the Territories, as a condition of their re- 
 maining longer in the Union? For I take it for granted 
 that it would be considered by all as the most mischievous 
 folly to make the demand, unless we intend to push the 
 issue to its Ultimate and legitimate results. Shall the 
 South, then, make this demand of Congress, and when 
 made, in case of failure to obtain it, shall she secede from 
 the Union, as a p rliou of her delegates (some under in- 
 structions, and some trom their own free will) seceded 
 from the convention, on their failure to get it granted 
 there ? 
 
 Thus stands the naked question, as I understand it, pre- 
 sented by the action of the seeeders, in its full dimensions 
 — its length, breadth, and depth, in all its magnitude. 
 
 It is present:-. 1. not to the Democratic party alone; it is 
 true a convention of that party may first act on it, but it is 
 presented to the country, to thAvhole people of the South, 
 of all parties. And men of all parties should duly and 
 timely consider it, for they may all have to take sides on 
 it, sooner or later. 
 
 It rises in importance high above any party organiza- 
 tion of the present day, a' d it may, and ought to, if need 
 be, sweep them all from the board. My judgment is 
 against the demand. If it were a new question, presented 
 in its present litrht for the first time, my views upon i' 
 might be different from what they are. It is known to 
 you and the country that the policy of non-intervention, 
 as established at the instance of the South, was no favor- 
 ite one ol mine. As to my position upon it, and the doc- 
 trine now revived, when tin*y were original and open 
 questions, as well as my present views, I will cite you to 
 an extract of a speech made by me in Augusta, in July 
 last, on taking final leave of my constituents. I could not 
 rt state tli-em more clearly or more briefly. In speaking of, 
 and reviewing this matter, 1 then said : 
 
 " And, as you all know, tt(non- / interventio?i)ca.me, short 
 of what I wished. It was, in my view, not the full meas- 
 ure of our rights — that required, in my judgment, the 
 enactment by Congress of all needful laws for the protec- 
 tion of sla\e pi", e,,y .n the Territories, so long as the ter- 
 ritorial condition lasted. 
 
 "But fijj overwhelming majority of the South was 
 
 against that position. It was said that we who maintained 
 it, yieided the whole question by yielding the jurisdiction 
 — and that, if we conceded the power to protect, we neces- 
 sarily conceded with it the power to prohibit. This by no 
 means followed, in my judgment. But such was the pre- 
 vailing opinion. And it was not until it was well ascer- 
 tained that a large majority of the South would not ask 
 for, or even vote for, congressional protection, that those of 
 us who were for it yielded to non-intervention, because, 
 though it came short of our wishes, ye', it contained no 
 sacrifice of principle, had nothing aggressive in it, and se- 
 cured, for all practical purposes, what was wanted, that 
 is, the unrestricted right of ex ansion over the common 
 public domain, as inclination, convenience, or necessity 
 may require on the part of our people." * * * 
 
 "Thus the settlement was made; thus the record 
 stands, and by it I am still willing to stand, as it was ful- 
 ly up to the demands of the South, through her representa- 
 tives at the time, though not up to my own; and, as by 
 it, the right of expansion to the extent of population and 
 capacity is amply secured." 
 
 In this you clearly perceive what I think of the proper 
 course now to be taken on the same Bubjeet. While in the 
 beginning of this controversy I was not favorable to the 
 policy adopted, vet 1 fin:iliy yielded my assent. It was 
 yielded to the South— to the prevailing sentiment of my 
 own section. But it never would bave been yielded if I 
 had seen that any of our important rights, or any principle 
 essential to our safety or security, could, by possibility, 
 result from its operation. Nor would 1 now be willing to 
 abide by it, if I saw in its practical workings any serious 
 injury to the South likely to arise from it. All parties in 
 the South, after the settlement was made, gave it the sanc- 
 tion of their acquiesence, if not cordial approval. What, 
 then, has occurred since to cause us to change our posi- 
 tion in relation to it? Is it that those of the North who 
 stood by us in the struggle from IMS to 1850,.did after- 
 wards stand nobly by us in 1854, in taking off the old con- 
 gressional restriction of 1820* so as to have complete non- 
 intervention throughout the length and breadth of the 
 common public domain ? Was this heroism on their part, 
 in adhering to principle, at the hazard and peril of their 
 political live sand fortunes, the cause of present complaint? 
 This cannot be; for never was an act of Congress so gen- 
 erally and so unanimously hailed with delight at the South 
 as this one was— I mean the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1864? 
 It was not only indorsed by all partus in G-eorgia, bnt 
 every one who did not agree to its just provisions, upon 
 the subject of slavery, was declared to be unfit to hold 
 party associations with any party not hostile to the inter- 
 ests of the South. What, then, is the cause of complaint 
 now? Wherein has this policy worked any injury to the 
 South, or wherein is it likely lo work any? 
 
 The only cause of complaint I have heard is, that non- 
 intervention, as established in 1850, and carried out in 
 1S54, is not understood at the North as it is at the South ; 
 that, while we hold that, in leaving "the whole subject 
 where the Constitution and the great principles of self- 
 government place it," the common Territories are to re- 
 main open for settlement by southern people, with their 
 slaves, until otherwise provided by a State constitution. 
 The friends and supporters of the same doctrine at the 
 North maintain that, under it. the people of an organized 
 Territory can protect or exclude slave uroperty before the 
 formation of a State constitution. Th" opinion or con- 
 struction of theirs is what is commonly dubbed "squatter 
 sovereignty " Upon this point of difference in construc- 
 tion of what are '^the great principles of self-government^" 
 under the Constitution of the United States, a great deal 
 has been said and written. We have heard it in the social 
 circle, in the forum, on the hustings, and in the halls of 
 legislation. The newspapers have literally groaned with 
 dissertations on it. Pamphlets have been published for 
 and agajnat the respective sides. Congress has spent 
 months in its discussion, and may spend as many years as 
 they have months, without arriving at any more definite 
 or satisfactory conclusion in relation to it than Milton's 
 perplexed spirits did upon the abstruse questions on which 
 they held such high and prolonged debate when they rea- 
 soned — 
 
 "Of Providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate — 
 Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledgt absolute — 
 And found no end, in wandering mazes lost." 
 It is not my purpose now to enter the list of these dis- 
 putants. My own opinions upon the subject are known; 
 and it is equally known that ibis difference of opini< a. or 
 construction, is" no new thing in the history of this subject 
 Those who hold the doctrine that the people of the Terri- 
 
30 
 
 tories, according to the gnat principles of self-govern- 
 ment, under the Constitution of the United Stab 
 exclude slavery by territorial law, and regulate .-lave pro- 
 perty as all other property, held the same views thej now 
 do, when we agreed with them to stand on those terms. 
 This fact is also historical. The Smith held that, under 
 the Constitution, ihe Territorial Legislatures could not 
 exclude slavery— -that this required an act of sovereignty 
 to do. Some gentlemen of the North held, as they now 
 do, that the Territorial Legislatures could control slave 
 properly as absolutely a- tl,-y could any o frier kind of pro- 
 perty, ami by a system of laws could' virtually exclude 
 slavery Iroiu amongst them, or prevent its introduction, if 
 they chose. 
 
 That point of difference it was agreed, by both sides, to 
 leave to Ihe courts to settle. There was'HO Chi al. or swin- 
 dle, or fraud, or don-blt-deallng in it. ll was a lair, hon- 
 orable, and constitutional adjustment of the difference. 
 No assertion or declaration by Congress, one way or the 
 other, could bave.-affected ihequestion in the least degree; 
 for, if the people, according to "the great principles of 
 self-government" under the Constitution, have the right 
 contended for by those who espouse (bat side of the argu- 
 ment, then Congress could not and cannot deprive them 
 ol it. Ami, if Colign 89 did not have, or does not have, the 
 
 power to exclude slavery from a Territory, as thos n our 
 
 side contended, and still contend Ihej hat e Dot, then they 
 could not and did not confer it upon the Territorial Legis- 
 latures. We ol the Soul i held Ul 
 
 power to exclude, ami could not delegate a power lh< y did 
 not possess— also, that the people hail not ibe power to 
 exclude under the Constitution, and therefore the mutual 
 agreement was to take the subject out of Congress, and 
 leave ihe question of the power of the people where the 
 Constitution had placed it— with the courts. This is the 
 whole of it. The question In dispute la a judicial one, and 
 no act of Congress, nor any resolution of anv party con- 
 vention can in any way affeOt it, uuh'ss we first al 
 the position t>f non-intervention by Col ji 
 
 But it seems exceedingly strange to me. that Ihe people 
 of the South should, at this late day. begin to find fault 
 with this northern construction, a- it i- termed— especially 
 since ihe decision of the Supreme Court in the case ol 
 Dred Scott. In Ibis connection 1 may be permitted 
 that I have read with deep inti n -i ibe debates of the 
 Charleston eon \ en i ion, and particularly the able, logh al. 
 and eloquent speech of Hon. William L. Yancej . ol .'.:■; 
 bama. It was, decidedly, the strongest argument I have 
 seen on his Bide of the question. But its greatest power 
 was shown in its complete answer to Itself. Never did a 
 man with greater clearness demonstrate thai "squatter 
 sovereignty." the bugbear of ihe day. i- not in the !■ 
 bill, all that has been .-.aid to the contrary notw ilh-t nding. 
 This he put beyond the power of refutation. But he stop- 
 ped not there ; he went on, and by reference to the decision 
 of the Supreme Court allude. I to, he showed conclusively, 
 in a most pointed and thrilling climax-, that this most 
 frightful doctrine could not, bv possibility, be in it, or in 
 any other territorial bill— that it is a constitutional impossi- 
 bility. Willi the same master-band he showed that the 
 doctrine of -'squatter sovereignty " is not in tin- Cincinnati 
 platform; then, why should we of the South now com- 
 plain of non-ifiiejiiention, or ask a change of platform? 
 
 What else have we to do but to insist upon our allies to 
 stand to their agreement v Would it not have been much 
 more natural to look for flinching on their Bide than on 
 ours? Why should we desire or want any other platform 
 of principles than that adopted at Cincinnati? If those 
 who stood with us on it. in the contest of 1856, are willing 
 still to stand on it. why should we not be equally willing? 
 For my lib- 1 cannot see. unless we are determined to 
 have a quarrel with the North anyhow on general account 
 If so. in behalf of common sense, let us put it upon more 
 tenable grounds! These are abundant, For our own 
 character's sake, let us tgake it upon the aggres-ive acts 
 of our enemies, rather than any supposed shortcomings of 
 our friends, who have stood by us so steadfastly in so 
 many constitutional struggles. In the name of patriotism 
 and honor, let us not make it upon a point which may so 
 directly subject us to the charge of breach of plighted faith. 
 "Whatever may befall us, let us ever be found, by friend 
 or foe, as good as our word. These are my views, frankly 
 and earnest!; niven. 
 
 The great question then is, shall we stand by our prin- 
 ciples, or shall we. cutting loose front our moorings, where 
 we have been safely anchored so many years, launch out 
 again into unknown seas, upon new ami perilous adven- 
 tures, under the guide and pilo age of those who prove 
 themselves to have no more, fixedness of purpose, or sta- 
 
 bility as to objects or policy, than the shifting winds by 
 which we shall be driven? Let this question be decided 
 by the Convention, and decided with that Wisdom, cool- 
 ings, and forecast which become Statesmen and patriots. 
 As for myself, I can say, whatever may be the course of 
 future events, m) judgment in this criss is, tint we should 
 stand by our principles •• through woe " as well as " through 
 weal," and maintain Ihem ill good faith, now ami always, 
 
 be, until they, we, an 1 the Republic perish tog 
 in a common ruin. I see no injur} that can possibly ari-o 
 to us from tbem-r.net even if the constitutional impossi- 
 bility of their containing • squatter sovereignty" did not 
 exist, as has been concTusivel) demonstrated For, if it 
 did exist in them, and were all that it most ardent advo- 
 cates claim tor it, no s, r io;is practical danger to us could 
 result from it. 
 
 Even according to their doctrine, we have the unre- 
 Btricted right of expansion to the extent of population. 
 They hold i li: t slaver] can and will go, under its op 
 lion, wherever the people want ii. Squatters cani d it to 
 T< m.t Bsee, K< nlucky, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, and 
 Arkansas, without any law to protect it. and to Texas 
 against a la^ prohibiting it, and thej will carry it to all 
 countries w here climate, soil, i roduoiion, and population 
 
 will allow. The-, are the natural lav.n thai will regulate 
 
 it under non-interi cording to tle-ir conslimo- 
 
 tion; and no act of Congress can carry it into an} Terri- 
 tory against these laws. an\ more than it could make tho 
 run to Hi,- mountains, instead of the sea. If wo 
 h ive not enough of the right sort of population to oom|)< to 
 rth in lie colonization of ne:w Terri- 
 tories and Stales, this deficiency en never be supplied by 
 any such act of Congress as that now asked for. The at- 
 tain as that oi Xerxes to control the 
 wat< r- oi tiu- Hellespont b} w hipping them in his rage. 
 
 The tii i intimate, do iudeed portend evil. lint 
 
 I have no fears lor the institution of slavery, either in the 
 Union or out of it, if our people are but true to them- 
 . and loyal to fixed principles and set- 
 tied policy ; and if lie v are iiol thus true. 1 have lilllo 
 
 hope of anything good, whether the present Union lasts 
 oranev ted. There is, in my judgment, noth- 
 
 ing to t le confliot," of which wo 
 
 i much. Slavery r< eat truths, which eon 
 
 never)' on or argument. It 
 
 has grown Slrongi r in the Uliods ol men the more it has 
 been discussi d, and it will still grow stronger as the dis- 
 nd lime ro|;> on. Truth is omnipo- 
 tent, ami mu -t prevail. We have only to maintain the 
 truth with firmness, and wield it aright Our system nests 
 upon an impregnable basis, thai can and will defy all as- 
 saults from without My greatest apprehension is from 
 within— there lie:! the greatest danger. We- have 
 grown luxuriant in tin- exhubi lanees of our well-being 
 ami unparalh led pros] 
 
 Theri icj Everywhere, not only at the. North, 
 
 but at thj o strife, dissension, disorder, and an- 
 
 archy. It is against this tendency that the sober-minded 
 ami reflecting men even where should now be called upon 
 to guard. 
 
 My opinion, then, is. that delegates ought to be sent to 
 the adjourned convention at Baltimore. The demand 
 made at Charleston bj tin- seceders ought not to be insist- 
 ed upon. Harmony beingjpstort d on ibis point, a nomi- 
 nation can doubtless be made of some man whom tho 
 pari} even win re Can support, with the same zeal and tho 
 same ardor with which they entered and waged the eon- 
 test in 1856, when the same principles were involved. 
 ■ If, in this, there be a failure, let the responsibility not 
 rest anon US, Let our lends be clear of all blame. Let 
 there be no cause for easting censure at our door. If. in 
 the end, the great national Democratic party — the strong 
 ligament, whieh has SO long bound and held the Union to- 
 gether, shaped us policy and controlled its destinies, and 
 to which we inn e so often looked w ith a hope t,hnt seldom 
 failed, a.s the. only party North on w liich to rely in the most 
 trying hours when constitutional rights were in peril, goes 
 down— iet it not be said to us, in the midst of the disasters, 
 that may ensue, "you did it!"' In any and every event, 
 let not the reproach of Tunic faith rest upon our name. 
 If everything else has to go down, let our untarnished 
 honor, at least, survive the wreck. 
 
 ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. Stephens has given a true, 
 veritable history of the compromise measures of 
 1850 and of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, as under- 
 stood by the supporters of the measures when they 
 
31 
 
 ere passed. He has stated (airly and truly the 
 tints of difference between us, which points were 
 
 be left to ' he courts to decide ; and he lias said, 
 hat I think he was bound to say as a patriot and 
 
 Democrat, that the Cincinnati platform is all 
 tat the (South ought to ask or has a right to ask, or 
 tat her interests require in this emergency. On 
 lat platform tile party can remain a unit, and 
 resent an invincible and irresistible front to the 
 epublican or Abolition phalanx at the North, 
 o certain as von abandon non-intervention and 
 institute, intervention, just so certain you yield a 
 ower into their hands that will sweep the Demo- 
 catic party from the face of the globe. 
 
 Sir, I believe that the safety, the peace, the 
 ighest interests of this country require the pres- 
 rvat.ion in tact, of the Democratic party on its old 
 reed and its old platform. Whenever you depart 
 rom that platform, which was adopted unani- 
 lously, you never will get unanimity in the form- 
 ,tion of another. The only objection I have 
 ieard urged against that platform is that it is 
 usceptibic of two const ructions, when, in point 
 •f fact, there are no two constructions — there can 
 >e none on any one of the. political issues con- 
 ained in it. The only difference of opinion nris 
 ng out of that platform is on the judicial ques- 
 tion, about which wo agreed to differ — which we 
 lever did decide; because, under the ConstitU- 
 ion, no tribunal on earth but the Supreme Court 
 sould decide it. We differ only as to what the 
 lecision of the court will be; not as to whether 
 sve will obey it when made. How can you de- 
 termine that, question by a platform? It has 
 been suggested that this difficulty was all to be 
 reconciled by the adoption of a resolution which 
 [ fiud in the papers under the title of the Tennes- 
 see platform. Will my friend read it? 
 Mr. 1'UGII read, as follows: 
 
 *' Resolved, Thai all citizens of the United Slates have an 
 equal right lo settle with iheit property in the Territories, and 
 that iiuder the decisions of the Supreme Court, which we re 
 cognize as an oxpo<ition of the Constitution, neither their rights 
 of person or property can be destroyed or impaired by congres- 
 sional or territorial legislation 
 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. We have had predictions 
 that the party was to be reunited by the adoption 
 of that resolution. The only objection that I 
 have to it is that it is liable to two constructions, 
 and certainly and inevitably will receive two, 
 directly the opposite of each other, and each will 
 be maintained with equal pertinacity. The res- 
 olution contains, in my opinion, two trueisms, 
 and, fairly considered, no man can question them. 
 They are: first, that every citizen of the United 
 States has an equal right in the Territories; that 
 whatever right the citizen of one. State has, may 
 be enjoyed by the citizens of all the States; that 
 whatever property the citizen of one State may 
 carry there, the citizens of all the States may 
 carry ; and on whatever terms the citizens of one 
 State can hold it and have it protected, the citi- 
 zen* of all States can hold it and have it protect- 
 ed, without deciding what the right is, which still 
 remains for decision. The second proposition is, 
 that, a right of person or property secured by the 
 Constitution caunot be taken away either by net 
 of Congress or of the Territorial Legislature. 
 Who ever dreuuied that either Congress or a Ter- 
 
 ritorial Legislature, or any other legislative body 
 on earth, could destroy or impair any light guar- 
 antied or secured by the Constitution'? No man 
 that I know of. This resolution leaves the same 
 point open that remains open for the courts under 
 the Cincinnati platform, and under the Kansas- 
 Nebraska bill. My objection is that it hears upon 
 its lace the evidence that it is to be construed in 
 two opposite ways in the different sections of the 
 Union. I want no double dealing or double con- 
 struction. 1 am willing to stand on the Cincin- 
 nati platform, as you agreed to it, ami as it was 
 reenacted at Charleston. I will .rive it the same 
 construction 1 have always given to if ; you may 
 give it yours. We differ only on. a law point; 
 let the court decide that, and 1 only ask that you 
 will bow to the decision of the court with the 
 -ante submission that I shall, and carry it out 
 with the same good faith. I want no new issue. 
 [ want no new test. 1 will make none on you, 
 and I will permit you to make none on me. 
 
 We are told that the party must be preserved. 
 I agree that the best interests of the country re- • 
 quire that it, should be preserved in its integrity. 
 How can that, be done, except by abiding by its 
 decisions? The party has pronounced its author- 
 itative voice on the very points a1 ween 
 you and me. The party rejected your caucus 
 platform by twenty-seven majority on a fair vote. 
 The party affirm* d the Cincinnati platform almost 
 unanimously. Hence it becomes the duty of 
 every Democrat, every man who expects to re- 
 main a Democrat, to acquiesce in the decision of 
 the party, and support its nomination when it 
 shall be made. In no other way can the pAYty 
 be united or preserved. Can you preserve the 
 party by allowing a minority to overrule and 
 dictate to the majority ? Is the party to be pre- 
 served by abandoning the fundamental articles^ 
 of its creed, and adopting intervention in lieu c r 
 non intervention? Shall the majority surrender 
 to the minority? Will that re tore harmony*? 
 Will that produce fraternity ? Suppose that the 
 majority should stirrer. der to you, the minority — 
 should justify the seceders and bolters — will that 
 reunite «B? You tell us that if we do this, you will 
 grant, no quarter or, the point in dispute. The test 
 is to be kept, up by the minority against the major- 
 ity ; by bolters against the regular organization; 
 by seceders against those whose political fidelity 
 would not permit them to bolt; and the regular 
 organization is required to surrender at discre- 
 tion to the seceders, with notice se : ved, that no 
 " quarter" is to be granted. That is the concilia- 
 tion that is tendered! That, is the olive branch 
 that is extended to us!. You will permit us to 
 vote for your candidate, if we will only allow a 
 minority to nominate him! You will permit us 
 to vote for a candidate on a platform that the mi- 
 nority dictates and the majority has rejected! 
 
 Suppose the minority should get their platform 
 and candidate, and they should go before the 
 country appealing to the Democratic masses to 
 rally in their majesty around the Democratic or- 
 ganization, and support its nominations — a mi- 
 nority candidate forced on the majority, asking 
 our votes, with notice, " if you vote for me i will 
 grant no quarter, 1 will put you to the sword; 
 
32 
 
 there is not a man of you that is fit to be chair- ! involved in this discussion involves the fate of 
 man of a committee, or a member of a Cabinet, 1 the American Union. Whenever you incorp 
 or a collector of a port, a postmaster, a light- ; intervention by Congress into the Demoi 
 house-keeper!" These are the terms of concila- |! creed, as it has become the cardinal principle of 
 ti on extended by a minority to the regular or- [ | the Republican creed, you will Drake twosection- 
 
 ganization of the party. Grant no quarter! Bi 
 talk for seceders, after- they have been overruled" 
 What man would desire year nomination on 
 such terms? Who would be mean enough to ask 
 and expect the support of men that he had mark- 
 ed as victims of vengeance so sooti as the knife 
 was put in hid hands by them? Who would de- 
 grade himself so low as to ask or accept votes on 
 term? so disreputable ?- 
 
 On the contrary, sir, we, the Democratic par- 
 ty, speaking through its regular organization, 
 and by authority of the party, say to you. erring 
 men as you are, that we will grant quarter; we 
 submit to no test, and make none; we are willing 
 to right the baltle now on the same principles 
 and the same terms that we have fought it on 
 since 1848; on the same p] nd with the 
 
 • same fraternal feeling. If you diffe? from us, we 
 recognize your right to differ without impairing 
 your political standing, so long as you remain in 
 the regular organization* and support the nomi- 
 nees. I care not whether you agree or differ 
 with me on the points of law thatriiave divided 
 us. If you should happen to be right, and I 
 wrong, it would not prove that you were a bet- 
 
 iil parties, hostile to each other, divided by the 
 line that separates (lie free from the slftvehol 
 States, and present a coirfKot that will be irre- 
 pressible, and will never cease until the one shall 
 subdue the other, or tiny shall agree to divide, 
 in order that they may live in peace. God grant 
 that there shall never be another sectional party 
 in the United Slates. Why cannot we live to- 
 gether in peace on the terms that have bound 
 and held us together so long! Why cannot we 
 agree on this great principle 1 of non-intervention 
 by the Federal Government will) the local and 
 domestic affairs of the Territories, excluding 
 slavery and all other irritating questions, anil 
 leaving the people to govern themselves, so far 
 as the Constitution of the United States imposes" 
 no limitation upon their authority. Upon that 
 princi ui be peace. Upon tl 
 
 pie you can have slavery in 
 you want it, and abolish it whenever you are 
 tired of it. On that principle we can have it or 
 not, as our interests, our prosperity, ou* own 
 sense of what is due to ourselves, shall 
 On that principle, you on the Pacific 
 shape your own institutions go that they will be 
 
 ter Democrat than I; but that you were abetter ' adapted to your own people. On thai 
 lawyer than I am, so far as that one branch of there can be. peace and harmony and frati 
 
 law is concerned. I should not have much pride 
 of opinion on the point of law, but for the fact 
 that you have got in the habit of calling me 
 "Judge," (laughter;) having among my youthful 
 indiscretions, accepted that office and acquired 
 the title; and 1 do claim that, with that title, I 
 have a right to think as I please on a point of 
 law until the court decides that, I am wi 
 
 Mr. President, I owe an apology to the Senate 
 for detaining them so long. I present my pro- 
 found acknowledgments for the courtesy and 
 kindness that have beeu extended to me. 1 
 would not have claimed so much of your time 
 but for the fact that I believe that the* principle 
 
 between the North and the South, the ' 
 the West, the Pacific and the Atlantic Why 
 cannot we now reaffirm that principle as v, 
 in 1852? Then, the Whig party adopted it as a 
 cardinal article in their creed, and so did the Do 
 mocracy. Let your Whigs, your Democrats — all 
 conservative men who will not be abolitionized 
 oi- sectiojialized — rally under the good old ban- 
 ner of non-intervention, so that tin- Constitution 
 may be maintained inviolate, and the Union last 
 forever. Intervention, North or South, mean* 
 disunion; non-intervention promises peace, fra- 
 ternity, and perpetuity to the Union, and to all 
 our cherished institutions. 
 
 Printed by Lkm. Towebs, Washington, D. C, at $2 per hundred copies. 
 
 
V 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -