.S85 
 
O' 
 
 7>^ * o , ' .^^ O , 
 
 ^^^^ 
 
 
 .^^ 
 
 
 .0- 
 
 o > 
 
 
 ■iy^ t^^'f^.'* 
 
 
 .^ "^^'>^^:V \'-??f;>v' "^'^-V^ X"- 
 
 '^^^ 
 
 
 
 O > 
 
 
 

 >>""' 
 
 /?> 
 
 <^^ 
 
 ' 
 
 ) 
 
 » ""^^^ 
 
 
 
 ^ s 
 
 
 o « = '^ 
 
 i 
 
 ^^ 
 
 -^ 
 
 c 
 
 ^^^'-o,". ^ 
 
 
 
 ^^' 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ^m 
 
 
 #,^ . '^'' 
 
 
 '.'■ A 
 
 
 
 "^b 
 
 >p 
 
 -^^^ "fl 
 
 
 ^ '^ ; 
 
 
 <p\ 
 
 s ** 
 
 ^-v 
 
 
3 
 
 
 A<^. 
 
^o 
 
 «• ^ 
 
 ■■■i 
 
m^mttmf 
 
 SPEECH ' 'y- ^ 
 
 ..^■j^ 
 
 OS/ 
 
 / 
 
 HON. J. W. STEVENS 
 
 OF KENTUCKY, 
 
 ON 
 
 THE STATE OF THE UNION. 
 
 DELIVEKED IN THE HOUSE OF EEPEE3ENTATIVES, JANUARY 30, ISGl. 
 
 The House having under consideration the report from the select committee of thirty- 
 three, Mr. STEVENSON said; 
 
 Mr. Speaker: Kentucky is one of the central States of this Confederacy, 
 and sympathizes with no feeling, North or South, which looks to a disruption 
 of her confederate ties. Her big and loyal heart is now palpitating with anxiety 
 at the gloom and dangers which have been so suddenly thrown over and now 
 enshroud this hitherto united and happy people. Though she has sufiered 
 most and suffered longest from the infraction of her guarantied rio;h^ under 
 that compact which recognizes her as a cosovereignty in this Union, i/' has still 
 fondly looked for some beaming light of returning justice in the North, to recog- 
 nize those rights, and to uphold that equality. If the speech just delivered by 
 the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conkling) be a faithful reflection of north- 
 ern sentiments, then that hope would he forever extinguished. 
 
 We stand, sir, in the midst of momentous and stunning events. For the 
 first time in the history of our country, the fear which has sometimes agitated 
 the patriotic heart, that the links of the Confederacy might be sundered, is to- 
 da^ a stern and sad reality. Six sovereign Stetes have, through State conven- 
 tions regularly called, resumed the powers delegated to the Federal Govern- 
 ment by their respective ratifications of the Federal Constitution, and thus 
 sundered the ties of their Feileral allegiance. Their gallant and distinguished 
 Representatives, bound to us by so many ties of official intercourse and personal 
 regard, and who met with us in this Hall on the Ist of last December, have, by 
 the mandate of their respective States, ceased to be our peers. I pause not 
 now to inquire, whether the act of withdrawal by a State from our Federal 
 sphere, be constitutional secession or merely revolution. The solution of the 
 question cannot lessen our responsiWlity in meeting it as a pregnant fact of 
 actual dismemberment, or diminish its influence on the peace, happiness, and 
 prosperity of the remaining States of the Confe<leracy. 
 
 To apply the remedy, we should ascertain clearly the extent and character 
 of the disease. Various prajets, looking to un;*^ an'-V- 'te, are before the Sen- 
 ate and this House. The senior Senator from ±2l. ■■^'aj, now, I believe, the 
 *if?ther of the Senate, full of years, and full of honor, proposed, at an early day 
 /■• the session, certain amendments to the Constitution /hich, if they had been 
 adopted, would, it is confidently believed, have afforded the basis of a satisfio- 
 
 Printed by Lemuel Towera, afc $1 §0 per hundred copies. 
 
E440 
 2 ."^l^ 
 
 %^\\^^^^ 
 
 tory adjustment. Had Republicans received them at once, in the spirit in 
 •which they were oftered, and promptly adopted them, five States now out of 
 the Union would have been probably still with us engaged in the generous 
 work of winning back the only pleiad, then missed from our national galaxy. 
 Jubilant in tone, defiant in triumph, and indifi'erent to the pending crisis, the 
 Republicans have, for seven long weeks, refused even a vote upon them. They 
 have met with no better success in this Hall. Approved warmly in the border 
 States, indorsed by immense petitions in the free States, where they seemed to 
 have struck a responsive chord in the popular heart, eminently just to the free 
 States as a basis of settlement, the greater portion of the Republican party have 
 witnessed State by State sever the bonds of their Federal allegiance, without 
 concession, and with seeming and stolid indifl'erence. 
 
 The position of the leader of the dominant party in a country like ours upon 
 this floor, and at a period like this, is, I grant you, sir, a distingnished honor. 
 It attaches to its distinction, however, proportionate and perilous responsibility. 
 I confess I listened, therefore, with deep-felt anxiety to hear with what favor the 
 Crittenden propositions would be received by the distingnished chairman of 
 Ways and Means. I was pained to hear him announce, and that, too, it seemed 
 to me, as a representative man, that the proposed amendments could never re- 
 ceive his support. Indeed, he went further, and told us frankly that he could 
 never sustain the "border-State proposUions," err any other, that recognized sla- 
 very as the existing sta^i/s of any of the Territories. Many leading Republicans 
 upon this floor have gone further. One (Mr. Wasiibukn, of Wisconsin,) boldly 
 told us, he was against all compromise, and would never, himself, vote for the 
 admission of another slave State. 
 
 If such doctrines had prevailed in the earlier days of our history, no one will 
 assert, that the Constitution could ever have been adopted, or the Union formed. 
 If the dominant party intend to attempt to administer the Government upon 
 any such basis, it must divide and separate the sections forever. Such opinions, 
 and such a policy, when rendered practical, are at war with the fundamental 
 principles on which the Government was constructed, and which must forever 
 constitute the basis of its perpetuation. It has been wisely said, " that the fre- 
 quent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the preservation of 
 liberty." In a Government, duplicate in its form like ours, if we would prevent 
 antagonisms between the State and General Government, we cannot too often 
 recur to the respective orbits, which the illustrious framers of that matchless in- 
 strument, our Federal Constitution, intended and prescribed for the revolution 
 of each. 
 
 No one will deny, that the States were equal, sovereign, and independent, 
 when the General Government was formed, by the adoption of the Federal Con- 
 stitution. This tact was proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and 
 by the second clause of the Articles of Confederation, in 1777, each State ex- 
 pressly, "retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence." By the treaty 
 of peace with Great Britain, in 1783, the States are named, and each State ex- 
 pressly recognized as equal, sovereign, and independent. As free, equal, and 
 sovereign States, they formed a Federal Government; and, as States, framed 
 and ratified the Federal Constitution. The convention which framed that in- 
 strument, did not emanate from, and was not called by nny vote of the people. 
 The old Congress of the Confederation recommended the appointment of dele- 
 gates by State Legislatures to form such a Constitution ; and when formed, it 
 was ratified, not by the people of the States, or of the United States, but by 
 each State in convention respectively called for that purpose. The Constitution, 
 by its own terms, required a ratification of it by nine States. Had six States 
 refused to call conventions for the purpose of passing on its adojition, the Con- 
 stitution would have failed, without even a consideration of its merits. It was 
 
 3*:^ 
 
 ~'««», 
 
in tills way the Constitution was formed, and the General Government erected. 
 
 What were its objects, and what considerations induced its formation ? Cer- 
 tainly not the annihilation of the States or State ejovernments. Its declared 
 objects were "to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic 
 tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and 
 secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity." Certain powers and 
 duties, which, for the public defence and general interest of all the States, could 
 be better performed by the Federal Government, were confided to it, and it be- 
 came the agent of all the States for such purposes. The exclusive powers ne- 
 cessary for the execution of such trusts were delegated to it by the States, as 
 well as others, to be exercised by it in conjunction with the States, and which 
 are set out in the Constitution. Two governments, each representatives of the 
 separate and independent States, were thus created, and to which, within their 
 respective delegated spheres, obedience was due. The States, with their State 
 governments existing prior to the adoption of the Federal Government, clearly 
 parted with no more of their sovereignty than was essential to carry out the ob- 
 jects of their confederation, and which was expressed in the Federal Constitution. 
 All power not conferred, was expressly reserved to the States, or the people. The 
 power thus parted with, was delegated to be exercised by the Federal Govern- 
 ment, as the joint agent of all the States, for their common protection and ben- 
 efit. It was partly Federal, and, in some particulars, national ; but, as the term 
 Federal- Union clearly indicates, it was a Confederation of sovereignties, and not 
 a popular consolidated Government. The origin, formation, andobjects of the 
 Federal Government, not less than the express and implied limitations on its 
 power, as set out in the Federal Constitution, abundantly establish that, while 
 popular sovereignty was the base on which the respective State governments 
 rested, it did not, and could not underlie the substratum on whichthe Federal 
 Government rests. As each government was intended as the instrument for 
 the accomplishment of separate and distinct ends, so the powers and limitations 
 of each were peculiar and distinct. They were, in some instances, to be mutual 
 and dependent, revolving in separate orbits. So long as they were kept within 
 their prescribed and designed spheres, the danger of collision was prevented, 
 and the great objects intended by the Federal Government were signally and 
 successful ly carried out. 
 
 Equality underlaid the whole Federal structure ; and protection to persons 
 and property, within the Federal jurisdiction, was the price of the allegiance of 
 the States to such General Government, as delegated and prescribed in the Con- 
 stitution. Wherever the American banner floated, upon sea or land, all beneath 
 it was entitled to the protection of that flag. 
 
 For the first time in our history, a political party has acquired possession of 
 the Government, whose acknowledged policy, if carried into practice, must up- 
 turn the foundation of our Federal structure by destroying this recognized 
 equality of the States. The Chicago platform proposes to exclude slavery from 
 all territory now held, or hereafter to be acquired ; and we are defiantly in- 
 formed, that this policy is not only to be firmly carried out, but slavery is to be 
 abolished in our dockyards, arsenals, and in the District of Columbia. 
 
 On what basis does tliis doctrine of occlusion of slave property from our public 
 domain rest? It is at war with the spirit and letter of the Constitution, as ex- 
 pounded by the Supreme Court of the United States. It saps and underminds 
 the theory of the Constitution, and would, if it had been insisted on in the ear- 
 lier days of the Government, have prevented the formation of the Union. It 
 presupposes an antagonism between the free and slave States, which is denied 
 by the past experience of our common progress and renown, and wbith would 
 cast an undeserved opprobrium on the memory of the illustrious founders of 
 this matchless system of free institutions. We are met with the dogma, that 
 
the normal condition of our Territories is always freedom ; and from this mis- 
 chievous heresy, flow the dangerous and sectional corollaries which hare so long 
 disturbed our peace, and now dangerously threaten, the subversion of the Gov- 
 ernment. I publicly repudiate it, as totally unsound in theory, and destructive 
 in practice. 
 
 The Federal Government, as the agent of all the States, can only acquire ter- 
 ritory, s^lb modo, under the limitations of the Constitution. The moment terri- 
 tory is acquired, all public law, and the political impress of any foreign nation 
 upon the territory thus acquired, would, at the moment of acquisition, eo in- 
 stanti, give way to the genius and character of our own institutions. This 
 distinction between public political rights and mere municipal ones, which are 
 always ui)held after acquisition, are so well established by the law of nations as 
 to require no comment. Is it doubted, that if we acquired territory from any 
 nation recognizing Church and State, that at the instant of acquisition, it would 
 give way to the religious freedom stamped upon our institutions? So, too, if 
 we acquired Canada, with the impress of freedom upon it, can it be questioned 
 that the Federal Government, as the trustee of slave States and free Slates 
 equally, would, at the moment of acquisition, hold it free from such impress, 
 and as the joint property of each and every State, to be settled equally by the 
 people of ail the States? 
 
 Again : if this position be denied, still, if we keep constantly before us, the true 
 federative character of our Government, as contradistinguished from a social 
 consoli<lated nation, as already pointed out by me, I think we can have no ditfi- 
 culty in a safe solution of this question of slavery in the Territories. The emi- 
 grants to our Territories go generally from our various States, slave and free. 
 Each State is equal, but each has its own municipal law. These systems of law, 
 difter in many of the States, and are often in direct antagonism. The early 
 pioneers to the Territories from the varjous States, are supposed to carry with 
 them the law of the State, from which they emigrate, together with every species 
 of property, sanctioned by it. The emigrant from the free State, with his chat- 
 tels, meets his brother from the slave State, with his property, on the public do- 
 main of a common country, and there they retain the law, usages, and customs 
 of their respective States, until a new form of government is ordained for that 
 Territory, by the law-making power of the General Government. Why should 
 not the same communion and fraternal regard bind these early settlers and emi- 
 grants from sister States into these Territories which bound their common ances- 
 try, when they fled from despotism, and cast their lot together in the wilderness, 
 to vindicate the right of man's capacity to govern himself? Is any right of per- 
 son, or property, invaded by such a fellowship? 
 
 Besides, sir, when the Constitution was adopted, there were twelve slave States, 
 and but one free State. If the Territories were, from analogy, to become im- 
 pressed, wholly with the features of slavery or freedom, looking exclusively to 
 the States, to which domain belonged, that impress would have been slavery, 
 and not freedom. This is not, however, true, and has never been claimed by 
 any slave State. When the slaveocraoy, as we are now contemptuously styled, 
 by those, toward whom we have always fulfilled our covenant vows of Federal 
 fealty, controlled the Government,- they stood then, as they stand now, on the 
 broad basis of justice and equality. The Federal Government, under their ad- 
 ministration, was the agent equally of all the States. The Territories were 
 equally open to emigration, from free and slave States. The broad basis of 
 equality, on which our fathers placed this Federal Government, was jealously 
 watched, and fiithfully preserved. Under such administration, we have made 
 matchless progress in the race of nations. It is only when a party, whose 
 avowed policy is to war upon this equality, culminates into power, that our 
 fedepative system totters and declines. 
 
It is insisted upon the other side, tliat this institution of slavery is against 
 humanity; proscribed by Christendom ; denounced by the law of nations ; and 
 that we are asking the free States to surrender their religious opinions, and moral 
 convictions, to our peculiar instiiution. 
 
 Republicans, are you better than your fathers? When did you become so? 
 Where do you adduce your ethereal views of religion and morality, that you 
 cannot respect the rights of the descendants of those who, as slaveholders, with 
 your fathers, sundered, through " a red baptism of blood," the fetters of des- 
 potism ; and, with their garments yet wet, upon the altar of that common 
 country, erected the noblest Government ever blessed by God ? Will you sutler 
 your fanaticism to become the instrument of its destruction ? 
 
 It pained me, to hear the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Stanton,) for whom I 
 I entertain the highest respect, both as a lawyer and a man, assert that slavery, 
 was never sanctioned by the common law, or law of nations, but was the creature 
 of local law. Sir, I differ with him, toto cgbIo. Where can he show me a statute, 
 in any State, establishing slavery ? Our ancestors brought the common law with 
 them, and it is an admitted historical fact, that African slavery existed in the 
 thirteen original States. Now, if the common law does not sanction slavery, 
 and no statute can be found establishing it, how was it recognized, and how did 
 it originally find a footing in the free States ? Whence the necessity of statutes 
 for its abolition ? Why did not the pernicious thing perish in the pure atmos- 
 phere of puritanism of New England, denounced by the common law, and un- 
 supported by any statute? Yet it continued for years; and strange to say, op- 
 position to the abolition of the slave trade, insisted on by southern men, came 
 from the ancestors of Republicans who wish us now to become their pupils in 
 the school of morals. Nay, more, Mr. Speaker: I doubt not even at this day, 
 in New England, that a note given in New Orleans for the price of a slave, and 
 transferred to some Boston merchant, could be recovered before a Republican 
 jury, with a plea impeaching its consideration as vicious. If so, then slavery 
 is not contrary to the law of nature, or of morals, since, " ex turpi causa^ non 
 oritur aclio^'' and I would cite Republican action against Republican theory. 
 
 Mr. S/ieaker, I deny that slavery is the creature of municipal law. It is one 
 of the erroneous corollaries which has been deduced from a loose noxious obiter 
 dictum of Lord Mansfield in Somerset's case; and which, I regret to say, but 
 frankly admit, has crept into the opinions of many able judges in our American 
 couits. I may l)e pardoned for saying, it is, nevertheless, a legal heresy. After 
 the lucid exposition of Senator Benjamin on this subject, three years ago, I am 
 spared the necessity of any lengthened notice of the error that the common law 
 does not sanction slavery. I cannot, however, forbear making England herself, 
 well known to be no apologist for slavery, a witness against the position of the 
 gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Stanton,) on this point. He is, I know, familiar 
 with the case of the slave Grace, decided by Lord Stowel!, and reported in 2 
 Hazzard's reports, page 94. The facts of that case were, that Mrs. Allen, of 
 Antigua, came to England in 1822, bringing her female slave Grace. She re- 
 mained with her mistress until 1823, when she retuined with her voluntarily to 
 Antigua. She continued as a domestic slave with Mrs. Allen until 1825, when 
 she was seized by the waiter of the customs at Antigua, as forfeited to the King, 
 on having been illegally imported in 1823. The vice admiralty court of An- 
 tigua decreed the slave to her owner, Mrs. Allen, from which an appeal was 
 prayed. 
 
 Lord Stowell affirmed the judgment, in a learned, lengthy, and able opinion. 
 I commend it to the gentleman from Ohio. In it, he reviews Lord Mansfield's 
 opinion in the Somersett case, with a spice of ironical satire. Lord Stowell says : 
 
 "The real and sole question -which the case of Somersett broiight before Lord Mans- 
 field, was, whether a slave could be taken from this country in irons and carried back 
 
6 
 
 to the West Indies to be restored to the dominion of his master? And all the arrewer, 
 perhaps, which that question required was, that the party, who was a slave, could not be 
 Bent out of England in such a manner and for such a purpose, stating the reasons of that 
 illegalily. It is certainly true that Lord Mansfield, in his final judgment, amplifies the 
 subject largely. He extends his observations to the foundation of the whole system of 
 the slavery code; for in one passage he says, 'that slavery is so odious that it cannot be 
 establislied without positive law.' 
 
 "Far be the presumption of questioning any obiter dictum that fell from that great man 
 on that occasion ; but 1 trust I do not depart from the modesty that belongs to my situa- 
 tion, and, I hope, to my character, when I observe that ancient custom is generally recog- 
 nized as a just foundation for all law ; that villenage of both kinds, which is said by 
 some to be the prototype of slavery, had no other origin than ancient custom; that a 
 great part of the common law itself, in all its relations, has little other foundation than 
 the same custom ; and that the practice of slavery, as it exists in Antigua and several 
 other of our colonies, though regulated by law, has been, in many instances, founded 
 upon a similar authority." 
 
 Lord Stowell adds, iu regard to the suggestion in tlie Somraerset case, that 
 the air of the island was too pure for slavery. 
 
 "How far this air was used for the common purposes of respiration during the many 
 centuries in which the two systems of villenage maintained their sway in this country, 
 history has not recorded." 
 
 Again, he says, as to the revival of slavery in the colonies: 
 
 " I have first to observe, that it (slavery) returns upon the slave by same title by which 
 it grew up original. It never was in Antigua the creature of law, but of that custom, 
 which operates with the force of law ; and when it is cried out, that 7nalus usus aholen- 
 dus eif, it is first to be proved that, even in the consideration of England, the use of slavery 
 is considered as a nialus usus in the colonies." 
 
 Here is a direct authority as to the usage and common law of England in 
 tolerating slavery, and from a most eminent English jurist. This opinion, if I 
 am not mistaken, was commended by the late Justice Story. 
 
 Allow me to read another short opinion by the same distinguished judge, in 
 the case of Demarara and its dependencies. (G Admiralty Reports.) The 
 question arose as to the character of slaves in the arsenals and forts of Dema- 
 rara, on the 31st September, 1803, when it surrendered to Great Britain : 
 
 "The slaves are in number three hundred and ninety -nine, of whom two hundred are 
 no longer the subject of contest, but are now admitted to have belonged to the estate on 
 which they were employed as glebce. ascrlpt'dii : they were attached to tlie soil as part 
 and parcel of the realty, and upon that account, the question with respect to them has 
 very properly been given up by the captors." 
 
 * 
 "The first question is, whether slaves are at all given to the captors by the prize act, 
 
 that is, whether they pass by words 'stores of war, goods, merchandize, or treasure,' 
 which, bj- the third section of the statute, are to be deemed prize, and to be aj^portioned 
 by his majesty between the Armj' and Navy, when acting in conjunction. Now, the fact 
 is, that slaves have generally been considered as personal property. The word mancipia, 
 as it has been well observed, signifies qure manu capiunter. This is unquestionably the 
 meaning of the word according to the civil law. In our West India colonies, where sla- 
 very is continued, and is likely to continue longer than in any of the countries of Eu 
 rope, slaves have been for some purposes considered as realproperty ; but I apprehend 
 that, where the country is not shown, the general character and description of them is, 
 that they are personal propert}', and I see no reason in the present case for saying that 
 they are not within the general rule, and consequently that they are not to be considered 
 ' as goods or merchandise.' They are liable to be transferred bj- pui-chasc and sale, and 
 although the owner may choose to employ them on his own works, instead of transferring 
 them for a valuable consideration, they are not, I apprehend, the less 'goods and mer- 
 chandise' on that account. The vei'^^ same observation applies to all other cases of per- 
 sonal property, for all such property, if salable, is merchandise, although the person ia 
 possession may not be a merchant, or mean to dispose of it by sale." 
 
 Once more: in the case of Le Louis (G Admiralty Reports) Lord Stowell is 
 still more emphatic on the subject of the recognition by the law of nations of 
 
the African slave, if recognized as lawful by the country whose bottoms are en- 
 gaged in it. He says : 
 
 "It (the court) must look to the legal standard of morality; and upon a question of 
 this nature, that standard must be found in the law of nations, as fixed and evideticed by 
 general and ancient and admitted practice, by treaties, and bj the general tenor of the 
 laws and ordinances, and the formal transactions of civilized States; and looking to those 
 authorities, I find a difficulty in maintaining that the traffic is legally crimnal. 
 
 "Let me not be misunderstood, or misapprehended, as a professed apologist for this 
 practice, when I state facts which no man can deny, that personal slavery arising out of 
 forcible captivity is coeval with the earliest periods of the history of mankind; that it 
 is found existing — and, as far as appears, without animadversion — in the earliest and most 
 authentic records of the human race; that it is recognized by the codes of the most pol- 
 ished nations of antiquity; that, under the light'of "Christianity itself, the possession of 
 persons so acquired has been in every civilized country invested with the character of 
 property, and secured as such by all the pri)tections of law ; that solemn treaties have 
 been framed and national monopolies eagerly sought, to facilitate and extend the com- 
 merce in this asserted property; and all this, with all the sanctions of law, public and 
 municipal, and without any opposition, except the protests of a few private moralists, 
 little heard and less attended to, in every country, till within these very few years, in 
 this particular country. If the matter rested here, I fear it would have been deemed a 
 most extravagant as-^umption in any court of the law of nations to pronounce that this 
 practice, the tolerated, the approved, the encouraged object of law ever since man became 
 subject to law, was prohibited by that law, and was legallj' criminal. But the matter 
 does not rest here. Within these few years a considerable change of opinion has taken 
 place, particularly in this country. Formal declarations have been made, and laws en- 
 acted, in reprobation of this practice; and pains, ably and zealously conducted, have 
 been taken to induce other countries to follow the example, but at present with insufficient 
 effect; for there are nations which adhere to the practice under all the encouragement 
 which their own laws can give it. What is the doctrine of our courts, of the law of na- 
 tions, relative to them? Why, that their practice is to be respected; that their slaves, 
 if taken, are to be i-estored to them; and if not taken under innocent mistake, are to be 
 restored with costs and damages. All this, surely, upon the ground that such conduct 
 on the part of any State is no departure from the law of nations; because if it were, no 
 such respect could be allowed to it upon an exemption of its own making, for no nation 
 can privilege itself to commit a crime against the law of nations by a mere municipal 
 regulation of its own. And if our understanding and administration of the law of na- 
 tions be, that every nation, independently of treaties, retains a legal right to carry on 
 this traffic, and that the trade carried on under that authority is to be respected by all 
 tribunals, foreign as well as domestic, it is not easy to find any consistent grounds on 
 which to maintain that the traffic, according to our views of that law, is criminal." — 
 English Admiralty Reports, voL 2. 
 
 Need I refer to the case of the Antelope, in which the distinguished and 
 lamented Chief Justice Marshall held that — 
 
 "The African slave trade had been sanctioned in modern times by the laws of all na- 
 tions who possess diatont colonies, each of whom has engaged in it as a common commer- 
 cial business which iro other could rightfully interrupt. It has claimed all the sanction 
 which could be derived from long usage and general acquiescence." 
 
 The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stanton) will surely not contend that these 
 decisions sustain his position, that African slavery is a local institution, created 
 exclusively by State laws, or that the common law did not recognize property 
 in a person. Sir, upon what ground could we have ever obtained indemnity, as 
 we have often done for the loss of our slaves on the high seas, if this doctrine 
 were true? The otHcial correspondence of our ministers abroad abounds in 
 claims of this character, and many have been successful ; but if foreign nations 
 bad followed the doctrines of the Republican party, our claims in every instance 
 would have been igtiored. 
 
 The gentleman from Ohio, however, greatly surprised me in his positions 
 against the right of transit with our slaves through the free States. The objec- 
 tions urged were not new ; but I was pained to hear them used by my friend 
 from Ohio. His known conservatism led me to expect a more liberal policy 
 
towards tlie slave States. What are bis objections to this right of transit ? He ' 
 says : 
 
 "But if the Constitution recognizes the slave as property, and as sueli he is taken by 
 his master into a slave State, he goes there subject to all tlie incidents and liahilities of 
 property. He is liable to be seized on execution or alt«ehment for the payment of his 
 master's debts. lie may, of course, be sold at public auction, to the higliest bidder. And 
 if the sale be legal, and the purchaser require a good title, is there any reason why a 
 person domiciled in the free States when the sale is made, may not become the purchaser, 
 and hold the title? But if the master should die in a free State, having hi? slaves with 
 him, and leaving debts unpaid, the slaves must go to the administrator as assets for' the 
 payment of his debts, and for distribution to his heirs." 
 
 It is difficult to perceive how the free States could be injured by any of these 
 objections. Their occurrence is very improbable ; but if they occurred, as stated 
 by the gentleman, what injury occurs to the people of the free States? 
 
 Every State can prevent the seizure of a slave, by providing that slaves are 
 exempt from execution. That is the case in some of the slave States now. 
 This done, the objections fall. Does the gentleman not know that debts are often 
 recovered in Ohio, on notes given for the sale of slaves and assigned to the 
 citizens of his State? Suppose the master die while in transitu with slaves, 
 can they not be taken back to his domicil and there distributed ? If the negroes 
 should escape and become free, so far from an injury to the free States, it would 
 gladden the hearts of thousands of its anti-slavery inhabitants. 
 
 My friend supposes a case of resistance, or killing of the slave by the master, 
 in resistance of the former to the latter, in transitu, and says it would not be 
 murder, because the law of the State from whence they came would make the 
 murder justifiable homicide. I deny both the fact and the conclusion. The 
 free States can punish all offenses as they please within their own jurisdiction; 
 and the unjustifiable killing of a slave by his master is punishable as murder or 
 manslaughter in the slave States. There is, therefore, nothing valid in these 
 objections against this right of transit as claimed ; and it seems to me it is due, 
 and should be yet demanded, as a constitutional guarantee between the States, 
 as an amendment to the Constitution, 
 
 Mr. Speaker, it is time that the Representatives from the various sections 
 should distinctly face each other, and meet the dangers that are upon us. The 
 Chicago platform cannot be carried out, and the Confederacy preserved. We 
 question not the right of any party to elect its candidates under the regular 
 organic forms of our Government. Mr. Lincoln has been thus elected, I readily 
 admit. But the slave States have a light to rcdst the execution of a policy at 
 war with their interests, destructive of their peace, injurious to their rights, and 
 subversive of the ends and objects for which the Union was formed. No party 
 can be allowed to array section against section, with the jj^ltimate pui'pose of 
 destroying the property and rights of the weaker section ; and such must be 
 the inevitable tendency of the distinct avowal in tlie Republican creed, of "no 
 more slave territory." To exclude slavery forever from present or future ac- 
 quired territory, is publicly to announce that another slave State can never enter 
 into the bond of our common Union. No slave State can ever apply for a<l- 
 mission, if slave labor is forever excluded from our public domain. 
 
 The result of such a policy was clearly predicted during the late canvass. 
 Kentucky preferred, and hoped to make the contest against the inauguration of 
 such doctrines within the Union. That gallant old Commonwealth trusted to 
 the political power of the slave States in Congress to check, by constitutional 
 restraints — in withholding supplies, rejection of improper nominations, and a 
 non-concurrence in measures of .sectional policy — to protect her honor and 
 rights, with those of her sister slaveholding States, from danger and assault. 
 Her influence and voice were exerted towards such a policy. Other sovereign 
 States, having equal interests at s'ake, and the exclusive right to decide their 
 
d 
 
 own actiou, have determined to pursue, and have already followed, a different 
 policy. Kentucky's voice, ere the sad work of disraembermeTit was begun, ad- 
 dressed itself to the dominant party for compromise and peace. She asked 
 from that party no concession, but only a construction of our covenant as judi- 
 cially construed, and iis eternal protection from unhallowed touch in any quarter. 
 Her voice was unheeded by the dominant party, and the work of withdrawal 
 went on. Is this Government to go down ; and if so, is our separation to be 
 in peace or in war? The solution of this fearful question rests vrith the Repub- 
 licans. Your policy and assault upon the constitutional rights of our section 
 have raised the whirlwind ; on you must forever rest the vast responsibility of 
 its results. 
 
 Our country has passed through many dark and trying crises ; but theie have 
 been, hitherto, under providential guidance, always found statesmanship pro- 
 found enough, and patriotism deep enough, to disarm them of danger and mis- 
 chief. 
 
 Do you remember the stern remonstrance of Kentucky, in 1794, because the 
 free navigation of the Mississippi had not been secured. Uer Legislature an- 
 nounced in calm, but strong language, that God and nature had given that right, 
 and they would remain in no Union where it was not forever guarantied. George 
 Washington was then President, and he uttered no menaces against that jealous 
 Commonwealth, in a spirit of compromise and patriotism, he recommended a 
 respectful reply to her remonstrance ; the facts were laid before the Legislature, 
 and the free navigation of the " father of waters," was secured. 
 
 What next? In 1807, a storm raged in New England at the passage of the 
 embargo act. The proud spirit of that people rebelled against the alleged enor- 
 . mitiesand injustice of the operation of that act upon its immediate section. 
 The legislative records of New England, at that period, will show that even 
 they were prepared to outstrip Carolina in her purpose to break the ligaments 
 that bound them to the Union, unless that law was repealed. The embargo act 
 had been a favorite measure with Mr. Jefferson ; but when he saw the discord 
 which it kindled, and the danger which it produced in the New England States, 
 with a breast filled with patriotism, as broad as his whole country, he surrendered 
 his cherished policy, and the embargo was repealed. 
 
 Again: in 1820, when the Union was rocked to its center, and the brazen 
 head of the anti-slavery serpent, reared itself in open rebellion to the equality 
 and rights of the States, compromise and concession brought healing on its 
 wings, and the country was saved. » 
 
 In 1832, when South Carolina, stung by the oppressive e?iactious of the tarifl, 
 determined to resist its operation, and prepared herself for an issue with the 
 Federal authority ; in that dark hour, when civil war seemed inevitable, Virginia 
 threw herself in the breach between the Federal Government and her jealous 
 but defiant sister, until Kentucky, in the person of her g-ieat commoner, could 
 pour oil on the troubled waters by a modification of the obnoxious statute. How 
 necessitous, how urgent, did the perils of that dark period demand the spirit 
 of compromise ? How magnificently beneficent the lofty patriotism of the great 
 actors in that political drama, which could bid party down for the presei'vation 
 and peace of a noble Confederacy ! It will forever stand out in boM relief 
 among the epochs of our country as the oblation of sublime patriotism to free 
 institutions. The great author and defender of the Ameri('an system, uniting 
 ■with him who had boldly announced "that the Federal Union must be pre- 
 served" for the peace of the common country 1 
 
 Again: in 1849, when the increasing and aggressive power of anti-slavery 
 sentiment upon our coostitutional rights, overleaped the compromise of 1820, re- 
 fusing to allow the Missouri line to be extended to the Pacific in our Hewly-ac- 
 quired territory, the country was convulsed, and the Union threatened. But 
 
10 
 
 again, under God's providence, the patriotic wisdom of a noble triumvirate, now 
 passed away, but whose precepts and virtues speak to us from the grave, with 
 noble followers, saved aud restored peace to a distracted country. 
 
 That noble country bleeds once more; and our American Republic is being 
 dismembered. Kentucky again presents her olive branch of peace, and asks 
 you, why will you not take wisdom of the past, and hearken unto her concilia- 
 tory whisperings ? 
 
 We are defiantly told by the other side, that they cannot listen to traitors; 
 and rebfllion must be ^rut doivn. Was that the reply of Washington, Jefferson, 
 Clay, Webster, Calhoun and Cass, in our trials of the past, and in former na- 
 tional exigencies ? Was that the course of slaveholding Presidents, when the 
 free States rebelled against the Government of the United States? We have 
 been refreshed with expletives of denunciation against the treason and rebellion 
 of South Carolina, by gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Massa- 
 chusetts ; but are the skirts of their own States free from what they term these 
 "damnable heresies P^ Did not Pennsylvania openly rebel against the United 
 States in the Ohnstead case? Did not the Legislature of that venerated old 
 Commonwealth, in 1809, impose upon her Governor the responsibih'ty of call- 
 ing out the entire militia, to resist the execution of a judgment of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States? Did not Massachusetts openly rebel against the 
 requisition of the United States for troops in 1812? When the war against 
 Great P>ritjin was declared in that year, and the motto of "free trade and sail- 
 ors' rights" was unfurled upon our standard; when many a brave heart trem- 
 bled at the apprehended havoc upon the ocean which would follow a collision 
 with the prowess, superior armament, and boundless resources of the then ac- 
 knowledged mistress of the sea, how did Massachusetts act? How did Connec- 
 ticut act? God forbid that I should leproach either State! My heart is big 
 enough and national enough to take in all New England as a part of my coun- 
 try, and exult in all that is bright and glorious in her annals. 
 
 When, however, I heard the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. Ferry,) and 
 
 the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr, ,) hurling their thunderbolts 
 
 against the treason and rebellion of the South, it occurred to me they were ob- 
 livious of the fact, that both their States, had, in their history, set South Caro- 
 lina memorable examples of resistance to the Federal Government, which was 
 practical in its character, and was claimed by Massachusetts to be ''one of the 
 reserved rights of the Stated What are the facts? On the 12th of April, 
 1812, a requisition was made on the several States for one hundred thousand 
 volunteers, and to be apportioned in a certain ratio among the States, for the 
 purposes of the war. Under this requisition of the War Department, General 
 Dearborn made a requisition upon Connecticut and Massachusetts for their ratio. 
 Caleb Strong was then Governor of Massachusetts. When the re(]uisition was 
 made on him by General Dearborn, under the act of Congress, to furnish troops, 
 he sent a letter to Mr. Eustis, the then Secretary of War, claiming that the 
 President of the United States was not authorized, under the Federal Constitu- 
 tion, to judge of the exigencies in which the militia should be called out ; that 
 be had consulted the supreme court of Massachusetts, and that that court con- 
 curred with him in opinion; that Massachusetts had, under the reserved rights 
 in the amendments to the Federal Constitution, a right to resist the Federal 
 Government ; that she had determined to do so, and that to yield an acquies- 
 cence, would be to make this a grand military despotism, to which she never in- 
 tended to submit, but would resist at all hazards. For the sake of histor}-, I 
 propose now to read what these judges said ; and I would remark here, that no 
 Representative from liie State of Massachusetts can say, that South Carolina has 
 ever gone further, in the claim of resistance under the reserved rights of the 
 States, to nullify or abrogate the ties that bind her to this Confederacy. 
 
11 
 
 I will read first the opinion of the judges of the supreme court cf Massachu- 
 setts given to the Governor : 
 
 To Ins Excdlency the Governor and the honorable the Council of the Commornvealth of 
 
 Maxmchusetts : 
 The undersigned, justices of the supreme judicial court, Iiave considered the questions 
 propoaed by your Excellency and honors for their opinion : 
 
 By the constitution of this State, the authority of commanding the militia of the Com- 
 monwealth is vested exclusively in the Governor, who has all the powers incident to the 
 office of comrnauder-iDchief, and is to exercise them personally, or by subordinate officers 
 iinder his command, agreeaijly to the rules and regulations of the Constitution and the 
 laws of the land. 
 
 While the Governor of the Commonwealth remained in the exercise of these powers, 
 the Federal Constitution was ratified, by which was vested in the Congress a power to 
 provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrec- 
 tions, and repel invasions, and to provide for governing such parts of them as may be em- 
 ployed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States, respectively, the ap- 
 pointment of the officers. 
 
 Tiie Federal Constitution further provides that the President shall be commander-in- 
 chief of the Army of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when 
 called into the actual service of the United States. 
 
 On the construction of the Federal and State constitutions must depend the answers to 
 the several questions proposed. As the militia of tiie several States may be employed in 
 the service of the United States, for the three specific purposes of executing the laws of 
 the Union, of suppressing insurrections, and of repelling invasions, the o]>inion of the 
 judges is requested whether the commanders-in-chief of the militia of the several States 
 have a right to determine whetlier any of the exigencies aforesaid exist, so as to require 
 them to place the militia, or any part of it, in the service of the United States, at the re- 
 quest of the President, to be commanded by him pursuant to acts of Congress. 
 
 It is the opinion of the undersigned that this right is vested in the commanders-in-chief 
 of the militia of the several States. 
 
 The Federal Constitution provides that, whenever either of these exigencies exist, the 
 militia may be employed, pursuant to some act of Congress, in the service of the United 
 States; but no power is given, eitlier to the President or to the Congress, to determine 
 that either of the said exigencies do in fact exist. As this power is not delegated to the 
 United States, by the Federal Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, it is re- 
 served to the States, respectively; and, from the nature of the power, it must be exercised 
 by those with whom the States have, respectively^ intrusted the chief command of the 
 militia. 
 
 It is the duty of these commanders to execute this important trust agreeably to the 
 laws of their several States, respectively, without reference to the laws or officers of the 
 United States, in all cases except those specially provided in the Federal Coustitution. 
 They must, therefore, determine when either of the special cases exist, obliging them to 
 relinquish the execution of this trust, and to render themselves, and the militia, subject 
 to the command of the President. A ditferent construction, giving to Congress the right 
 to determine when these special cases exist, authorizing them to call forth the whole of 
 the militia, and taking them from the commanders-in-chief of the several States, and sub- 
 jecting them to the command of the President, would place all the militia, in effect, at 
 the will of Congress, and produce a military consolidation of the States, without any 
 constitutional remedy, against the intentions of the people when ratifying the Constitu- 
 tion. Indeed, since passing the act of Congress, of February 28, 1705, chap. 101, vesting 
 in the President the powei'of calling foith the militia, when the exigencies mentioned in 
 the Constitutiuu shall exist, if the President has the power of determining when those ex- 
 igencies exist, the militia of the several States is, in effect, at his command, and subject to 
 his control. 
 
 Ko inconveniences can reasonably be presumed to result from the construction which 
 vests the commanders-in-chief of the militia of the several States the right of determin- 
 ing when the exigencies exist, obliging them to place the militia in the service of the 
 United States. These exigencies are of such a nature that the existence of them can be 
 easily ascertained by, or made known to, the commander-in-chief of tiie militia, and, 
 when ascertained, the public interest will produce prompt obedience to the acts of Con- 
 gress. 
 
 Another question proposed to the consideration of the judges is, whether, when eitlier 
 of the exigencies exist authorizing the employing of the militia in the service of the 
 United States, the militia thus employed can be lawfully commanded by any officer but 
 of the militia, except by the President of the United States? 
 
12 
 
 The Federal Constitution declares that the President shall be commander in-chief of 
 the Army of the United States. He may undoubtedly exercise this conmiand by officers 
 of the Army of the United States, by him commissioned according to law. The Presi- 
 dent is also declared to be the comnianderinchief of the militia of the several States, 
 ■when called into the actual service of the United States. The officers of the militia are 
 to be appointed by the States ; and the President may exercise his command of the militia 
 by officers of the militia duly appointed. 
 
 But we know of no constitutional i)rovision authorizing any officer of the Army of the 
 United States to command the militia, or authorizing any officer of the militia to com- 
 mand th.c Army of the United States. Tiie Congress may provide laws for the govern- 
 ment of the militia, when in actual service, but to extend this power to the placing them 
 under tlie command of an officer, not of the militia, except the President, would render 
 nugatory the provision, that the militia are to have officers appointed by the States. 
 
 The iinion of the militia in the actual service of the United States with troops of the 
 United States, so far as to form one army, seems to be a case not provided for or contem- 
 plated in the Constitution. It is, therefore, not within our department to determine on 
 ■whom the command would devolve on such an emergency, in the absence of the Presi- 
 dent; whether one officer, either of the militia, or of the Army of the United States, to 
 be settled according to military rank, should command the whole; whether the corps 
 must be commanded by their respective officers, acting in concert as allied forces; or what 
 other expedient should be adopted, are questions to be answered by others. 
 
 The undersigned regret that the distance of the other justices of the supreme judicial 
 court renders it impracticable to obtain their opinions, seasonably, upon the questions 
 submitted. THEUPHiLUS PARSONS, 
 
 SAMUEL SEWALL, 
 ISAAC PARKER. 
 
 Now, sir, that is the opinion of the. juflges of the Supreme Court. Here is 
 the answer of the Governor, acting on that opinion, deeh'ning to furnish the 
 quota of men of Massachusetts, which quota never was furnished during the 
 ientire war. Wliat does he say ? 
 
 "Although manj' of the most important attributes of sovereignty are given by the 
 Constitution to the Government of the United States, j'et, th<?re are some which still be- 
 long to the State governments. Of these, one of the most essential is the entire control 
 of the militia; except in the emergencies above mentioned, this has not been delegated 
 to the United States. It is therefore reserved to the States resj^ectively ; and whenever 
 it shall be taken from them, and a consolidation of the military force of the States shall 
 be effected, the security of the State gorernments will be lost, and they will wholly de- 
 pend for their existence upon the moderation and forbearance of the national Government. 
 
 " I have been fully disposed to comply with the requirements of the Constitution of 
 the United States, and the laws made in pursuance of it, and sincerely regretted that any 
 request could be made by an officer of the national Government to which I could not 
 constitutionally conform. But it appears to me that the requisition aforesaid was of that 
 character; and I was under the same obligation to maintain the riglits of the State as to 
 support the Constitution of the United States. If the demand was not warranted by the 
 Constitution, I should have violated my duty in a most inq^oi-tant point, if I had attempted 
 to enforce it, and had thereby assisted in withdrawing the militia from the rightful au- 
 thority of the State." — Nile's Register, vol. 3, p. 117. 
 
 I hope the Representatives from New England will therefore find, in the sol- 
 emn adjudications of the supreme court of Massachusetts, and in the answer of 
 her Governor to the Government of tlie United States, in a time of war with a 
 foreign nation, that if Massachusetts and Connecticut were sensitively jealous of 
 the rights reserved to the States, slaveholding Representatives on this floor, 
 with threats of coercion, and United States troops guarding the District, with 
 prepared force bills, (fee, must be excused for exhibiting at least as much sensi- 
 tive jealousy for our respective States in times like these. Where are now the 
 comjiuiictions of conscience of New England, when the attempt is made to strike 
 down State rights and deny either a revolutionary right or a constitutional right 
 of secession — the despotic heresy boldly claimed by some, of a right to force 
 States into the Union at the point of the bayonet. We heard of none of these 
 threats of force from Mr. Madison against Massachusetts and Connecticut, al- 
 though they never did obey the re(juisition. Republican Representatives, this 
 
13 
 
 is all wrong. This spirit of force dishonors your ancestry and ours, who looked 
 to popular Jove, popular necessity, and popular safety as the basis of their Union. 
 Let the spirit of love and forbearance which animated them inspire us. Let 
 us accept the Crittenden propositions; let us compromise these questions now 
 and forever. Then, sir, we shall prove ourselves worthy of this great heritage. 
 
 But I am told that the Republican party cannot take these propositions, be- 
 cause your platform will not permit you. Gentlemen, burn on yuur country's 
 altars, all allegiance to party platforms; and if you still have the same sort of 
 pride that inspires South Carolina to reject all efforts to bring her back, let the 
 peace congress, which is soon to assemble here, adopt these amendments as a 
 common basis of settlement, in which North and South can meet without a 
 sacrifice of j)ride or principle. Let this ultimatum be presented in the spiilt of 
 a genuine fidelity to the Constitution and the Union; and let us all meet again 
 around a common altar, and devoutly praise God, and rejoice'at our preservation. 
 
 But I am told, that to recognize and adopt these amendments would open all 
 Mexico to fiilibustering, and that the whole of Mexico would be ultimately 
 brought in as slave States. Let me beg you to add another amendment to the 
 propositions of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky. Its adoption would 
 obviate every difliculty. Let the Senate be divided into two classes, one from 
 the slave States, and the other from the free States. Whenever five States de- 
 mand a vote by classes, on measures involving the acquisition of territory, or the 
 status of slavery, let a majority of both classes be required for the passage of 
 the measure. Then you check one class with the other; then there can be no 
 imposition, no injustice. Then we shall stop all fanaticism, all force, in our 
 Territories, because no injustice can be done, no matter who people the Terri- 
 tory first. There will be no indecent legislation with the view of an increase 
 of political power. We shall have a mutual confidence in each other; and by 
 the amendments to the Constitution, we will have a mutual check on each other. 
 Then we shall go on in this noble race of freedom, and perfoim our high duties 
 to God, ourselves, and our country. 
 
 If, Republicans, you turn a deaf ear to all arguments; if you turn your back 
 on every popositiou looking to the preservation of this Constitution, which is 
 the only bond of our Union, then you have but one resort left. It matters not 
 whether secession be constitutional, or whether it be revolutionary, I tell you 
 plainly, for the border States, that they know their own honor and their own 
 equality, and that they will maintain it at every hazard and at every sacrifice. 
 Suppose you declare war, and force us to the ultima ratio rec/um : what then ? 
 The gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Sherman,) a^ked me the other day in regard to a 
 gallant Kentuckian, who saw his fiag lowered at Fort Moultrie, how I could recon- 
 cile it to myself to see such an indignity. I can answer the gentleman, that it sad- 
 dens my heart, and grieves the heart of every true man in Kentucky, to see star 
 by star eclipsed even for a moment from that American ensign ; but unless Re- 
 publican warfare on our rights relents; unless his party meet us in the spirit of 
 compromise which gave birth to the Union, they will not be in temporary 
 eclipse, but they will be extinguished forever; and in place of the twinkling 
 and bright representatives of sovereign and united States, " distinct as the waves, 
 yet one as the sea," republicanism will supply the great central sun of a con- 
 solidated despotism, whose burning rays will absorb everything like State rights, 
 State equality, State sovereignty. Kentucky loves the Union with all the early 
 and increasing affection of one of its first daughters. In her armorial ensigo, 
 amid the clustering and frescoed emblems of State sovereignty above us, is re- 
 flected her devotion to its perpetuation — "united, we stand ; divided, we fall !" 
 It is ever above us and before us ; it stamps every commission Kentucky be- 
 stows, and is the signet seal of sovereignty to every official paper which ema- 
 nates from her archives. But it is a Union of equals that claims her allegiance, 
 
14 
 
 and commands her regard. War upon that equality, wliicb the American Con- 
 stitution ordained, the Ameiican Union was designed to perpetuate, and of 
 which the stars and stripes are the glorious and gladdening emblems, and you ' 
 multiply the guilt of your crime, in usurping and prostituting the x\mericaa 
 standard sheet of all the States as the flag of so unnatural a strife of one sectioa 
 against the other. Attempt so unnatural a purpose, and the clustering associa- 
 tions of past fellowship, common devotion, fraternal love, will but increase the 
 intensity of our antagonisms. 
 
 "But few shall part where many meet; 
 The snow shall be tlieir winding sheet, 
 And every turf beneath their feet 
 fehall be a soldier's sepuleher." 
 
 Remember, ray friends, if that sad hour of blood ever comes, that it will not 
 be a war of our making. I am authorized to say, what I believe I can say, that 
 you cannot find a disunionist, perse,\u Kentucky. She has never been disloyal 
 to any comixict. She has sutlered at the rate of ^200,000 per annum in the 
 loss ot her slave property. She has gone in highly sectional times into the free 
 State of Ohio to break bread, and endeavor, if possible, by personal communion, 
 to attempt to wake her to the nobler ft-elings which a recollection of the late 
 war ought to kindle; and she has received in return, an absolute denial of her 
 constitutional rights in the refusal by the Governor of Ohio to return a fugitive, 
 whose surrender Kentucky had a right to demand, under the letter and spirit of 
 our Federal compact. And even now, with disunion upon us, with the tocsin 
 of war almost sounding in our ears, she has taken no step to rupture her bonds 
 with the North or the South; but she looks to the faithful perpetuation of the 
 Constitution and the Union. She is willing to throw herself once more into the 
 breach, and use her mediatorial ofBce to bring back her erring sisters of the 
 South, if their rights and hers can, by proper guarantees, be recognized and pro- 
 tected. Kentucky comes not as a mendicant for your favor ; but in the name of 
 a common country, she appeals to you to give her a message, by which she can 
 attempt to make that appeal practicable. Will you hearken to her, or will you 
 prefer to attempt, at the cannon's mouth, to reduce her to the position of ser- 
 vile degradation ? 
 
 Gentlemen, reverse the picture, and look at it yourselves. Ask yourselves, 
 what you would think, if the slave States were to attempt to deny to you the 
 right to any species of property recognized by the Constitution, and sustained 
 by the decisions of the court of last resort. What would you do under such 
 circumstances ? Why, you would do even more than we have done. You 
 would be alarmed at the infraction of your rights. If you were told by the 
 dominant party of the country, that no free State should be admitted into the 
 Union, would yoH not consider that determination a casus belli? Would you 
 not spurn with contempt, every attempt to keep you in a confederacy where you 
 were spit upon as unworthy of being treated as equals? 
 
 Mr. Dunn, (in his seat.) No. 
 
 Mr. Stevenson. One genteman answers no. Then, sir, the people of the 
 free States, have not the spirit that I gave them credit for. 
 
 Mr. Dunn. If the gentleman wdl allow me for a moment, for fear my remark 
 might be misunderstood, I desire to explain that my answer "no" was to the 
 question I understood the gentleman to ask, whether the Republican party would 
 refuse admission into the Union to a slave State? I am a liepublican, and I 
 have pledged myself to my people, upon all occasions, that it would not be a 
 BufEcient objection to my mind for voting against the admission of a State, that 
 its constitution was pro-slavery. The Republican party, in its platform adopted 
 at Chicago, recognizes the right of each State to regulate its own domestic 
 matters for itself. 
 
 %■ 
 
15 
 
 Mr. Stevenson. There can be no slave States that will ever knock at the 
 Federal door for admission into its covenant, if the Territories are to remain 
 perpetually free while they remain in their territorial condition, and such is the 
 Chicago platform on which my friend stands. 
 
 Mr. Stanton, Will the gentleman from Kentucky permit me for a moment? 
 
 Mr. Stevenson. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Stanton. I understand the question in reference to the Territories to be 
 simply this: the Territory of New Mexico is, under the compromise measures 
 of 1850, entitled to admission into the Union with or without slavery. I under- 
 stand that the four additional States to be carved out of Texas are to come into 
 the Union with or without slavery, as they may elect; so that, so far as those 
 questions are concerned, no party looks to the ultimate exclusion of any State 
 which is likely to desire slavery. Now, with the consent of the gentleman from 
 Kentucky, I desire to ask him if Kentucky will accept the proposition that there 
 shall be no future acquisition of Territory except by an amendment to the Con- 
 stitution and a two-tb'irds vote of Congress? That is the bone of contention 
 between us. 
 
 Mr. Stevenson. I will answer my friend, with all frankness, that Kentucky 
 will speak for herself whenever that question comes up. I have no doubt that 
 Kentucky would take a fair division under this line, making all north of it free 
 and all south of it slave territory, until it shall come in as a State, and then to 
 admit it with or without slavery, as the people may determine. 
 
 Mr. Curtis. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him? 
 
 Mr. Stevenson. The gentlemen must excuse me. I would give way to hira 
 with great pleasure, if 1 had the time. The inexorable hour rule forbids it. I 
 have not time to discuss several of the topics that demand my time. 
 
 Mr. McClernand. I ask the gentleman from Kentucky to permit me to ask 
 the gentleman from Ohio a question. I ask him if he will take the Crittenden 
 plan with that amendment? 
 
 Mr. Stanton. I will say to the gentleman from Illinois, in all frankness, that 
 I will not take anything that by law establishes slavery in any part of the ter- 
 ritory Qf the United States; but I am willing to establish the line, and allow 
 the people south of it to have slavery or not, as they please. 
 
 Mr. Stevenson. Mr. Speaker, I appeal to gentlemen to rise above their 
 party platforms. Let us leap over all party prejudice, and put this matter be- 
 yond all the power of extremists — if there be any who hate this Union as ori- 
 ginally framed, or any who wish, in either section of our country, to disturb 
 our peace, or rend the confederate links of the model Republic of Christendom. 
 I implore and beseech, in the name of a con:imon humanity, that the Republi- 
 can party will desist from their unholy warfare against the intrenchments of 
 civil liberty, erected by their fathers and ours, for the peace and happiness of a 
 common posterity. Take warning from history. Let not a fanaticism upon 
 the subject of negro slavery delude you into depths of destruction from which 
 there is no escape. Listen to the eloquent warning of Georo-e Cannin;^ in the 
 British Parliament, on the emancipation of Jamaica, when he was sustaining 
 reason and right against fully and fanaticism. That distinguished statesman 
 said : 
 
 "Sir, we nansfc remember that we are dealing with a being, possessing the form and 
 strength of a man, but the intellect only of a child. To turn him loose m tlie manhood 
 of his physical strength, in the maturity of his physical passions, but' in the infancv of 
 his uninstructed reason, would be to raise up a creature resembling the splendid fietioa 
 of romance; the hero of which can sketch a human form, with all the .coiporeal capa- 
 bilities of a man, and with the thews and sinews of a giant; but being unable 1o impart 
 to the work of his jiaiids a perception of right and wrong, he finds too late tliat he has 
 only created a more tlian mortal power of doing mischief, and himself recoils from the 
 monster of his owu creation." 
 
 ^ 
 
16 
 
 So we say to you to- day, in the hour of our national need — in tbis day of 
 tliirst for that broad and catholic statesmanship, that shall look to the Federal 
 Government as tlie agent of equal, sovereign States, and construe the Constitu- 
 tion and administer the Government in a spirit of exact justice to all sections, 
 with their separate institutions, and with especial favor to none; pause ere the 
 cords which were woven by our fathers, are forever unloosed. Admit South 
 Carolina to bave been rash, precipitate, and imprudent; all this cannot enlarge 
 your powers under the Constitution. No violence on the part of one or more 
 States, can upturn the foundation stones of the Government and supply the 
 place of popular aflection with bristling bayonets. Kentucky still hopes that 
 the cup of conciliation is not yet drained to its dregs. Sbe looks to the con- 
 federate Union of these States in the bonds of a ConstitutTon, faithfully execu' 
 ted, as bearing to one another the relation of the limbs and senses to the hu- 
 man body. As each organ is healtby and free in its organic sphere, so will the 
 perfect maturity of the whole be developed. Maim or destroy one, and to that 
 extent you impair the whole. Far better, however, lop ofi" one or more which 
 become gangrenous, than permit the whole to perish. 
 
 Republicans, you must meet us in the spirit of peace, or our relations are 
 forever changed. Do not deceive yourself in regard to the border States. They 
 can take nothing which ignores their equaHtyj or fails to "secure justice and 
 peace. They should take nothing, that would^not allow them to become suc- 
 cessful mediators in bringing back the seceding States. Will you allow the ark 
 of our past political safety to be shipwrecked on the shoals of a wild fanaticism? 
 You have to determine it. My humble career in this House will show that I 
 have been no sectionalist. I have the honor to represent in part, a common'- 
 wealth which has proved itself faithful among the faithless. Upon the dark 
 and bloody ground Kentucky has won her title of equality in this Union of 
 States. She may well maintain that equality iu the Union or independence out 
 of it.. When the Federal bayonets are turned against her southern sisters, the 
 Federal soldiers will never peacefully cross her border. Do not be deceived. 
 The loyalty and prudence which marks her course now, will only iuciease her 
 wrath, when you despise her proposals, and mock at her entreaties. May the 
 sad h'our never come, when we shall cease to be brothei's, and cease to be friends. 
 If it does, remember that a common interest and common rights with those 
 attempied to be subdued, will make a common resistance inevitable. The 
 threatening braggarts, who have attempted by their speeches to incite war, will 
 find on that dark day in the Kentucky people, foemen v.'ortliy of their steel. 
 Everything for the cause— nothing to fanaticism and folly ! We can never sac- 
 rifice our /qudity or rights. If you force us to resistance, yours the responsi- 
 bility, ours the defence. My loyalty is due to my adopted State. Where she 
 leads, it will be my pleasure to follow. She will speak as befits her, whenever 
 you force her to decide between two confederacies. Meet us where you will 
 with your hosts, and you vt-ill never find our backs upon the foe ! Downstricken 
 we may be — yoir may cast those vestures of flesh to your vultures of fanaticism ; 
 but the spirits which animate them, can never be enslaved. 
 
 RB 9J^ 
 
€2 
 
 "^^ 
 
V 
 
 t ' a ^ 
 
 O » 
 
 
 •^^s^ 
 
 .v^.. 
 
 
 '^^ 
 
 
 .O'^ .'-^ ^^> 
 
 ^\> >;■-■ ///?. 
 
 " o ,i> 
 
 V 
 
 .^' 
 
 
 
 
 :^Ui/-^'^ <,^' 
 
 .^ . , . 
 
 > 
 
 V 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 ;^: <j5^ 
 
 ' ^ -;^^^^ - «> V •"«^ 
 
 ^^--^^ 
 
 -^ 
 
 i: 
 
 
 .:^. 4'' % ^:yi^<^ ,'y^ 
 
 > 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 ^\; "^^J^ 
 
 
 ^^■ 
 
 ^^-;^ 
 
 u-'i- 
 
 <* 
 
 iO V, 
 
 
 
 ■A 
 
 C' 
 
 -"^o 
 
 ^v .^-^ V 
 
 
 . < " ,G^ 
 
 
 ^^ -.^ 
 
 1?> ^ J " o « ■ . U • ^o 
 
 =^. 
 
 ,^^A.' 
 
• ^-o.^^" 
 
 » 
 
 
 ^-, % 
 
 *^/r777 
 
 ^^c,^' 
 
 •5^'^ 
 
 !^# 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 #^^ 
 
 ^' 't^ 
 
 ''Mil. 
 
 ^> 
 
 7^^ o V 
 
 :iiii.^ ^ -^ <^ 
 
 i^ 
 
 
 
 
 -^^^' .i;4: 
 
 
 .0"' 
 
 
 
 ^^-u^. 
 
 0^ :£ 
 
 
 
 
 ^:: 
 
 
 
 
 ■^^ 
 
 •'>^. 
 .<i^ ^^^ 
 
 1^ ^L4^°UST(NE ' "^ 
 
 fMc^ * O V 
 
 ■y 
 
 'CR. 
 
 .^^ 
 
 FLA. 
 
 ^"■'^^ 
 
 
 ^^S^ 32084 '^ 
 
 -^^ 
 
 
 " .^^ 
 
 
 •^ 
 
 ^ ^^^^irf^*. ^ 
 
 .f"