TEEEDOM NATIONAL-SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 
 
 STEECII 
 
 OP 
 
 HON. JOHN J. PERRY, OF MAINE, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 COMPARATIVE NATIONALITY AND SECTIONALISM OF THE 
 REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC PARTIES; 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 1, 1856. 
 
 THE HOUSE BEING IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE ON THE STATE OF THE UNION. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
 1856. 
 

 i 
 
FREEDOM NATIONAL-SLAVERY SECTIONAL. 
 
 The House being in tlic Committtc of the Wliolc on the 
 state of tlie Union — 
 
 Mr. PERRY said: Mr. Chairman, in the dis- 
 cussions tlmt havo taken place upon tliis floor, and 
 at various other places in the Union, the Republi- 
 can party has been charged with "sectionalism." 
 The authors of this groundless assumption have, 
 in the same connection, boasted of the nationality 
 of the Democratic party. These two propositions 
 I now desire to discuss. 
 
 Prior to the meeting of the Thirty-Third Con- 
 gress, the country was enjoying a remarkable 
 state of repose. The waves of agitation, which 
 in former years had rolled over the country, had 
 abated their fury, and ceased to disturb the peace 
 or threaten the perpetuity of the Union. The 
 discordant political elements had become qui- 
 eted, and universal peace and almost unexampled 
 prosperity reigned throughout the States. The 
 people, a few months before, passed through a 
 presidential contest, and elected to the executive 
 chair of the nation a son of New England by an 
 overwhelming majority. 
 
 General Pierce accepted the nomination upon 
 a platform which declared : 
 
 "The Democratic party will resist all attempts at renew- 
 ing in Congress, or out of it, the agitation ot the slavery 
 question, wider whalcver shape or color llie attempt may be 
 wade." 
 
 The President, at the opening of Congress, 
 declared, in the most emphatic terms, his determ- 
 ination to carry out the principles upon which he 
 was elected. In hia message he says: 
 
 " But notwithstanding differences of opinion and senti- 
 ment, which then e.visled in relation to details and speeilie 
 provisions, the acquiescence of distinguished citizens, 
 whose devotion to the Union can never be doubted, has 
 given renewed vigor to our institutions, and restored a sense 
 of repose and security to the public mind throughout the 
 Conli-dcraey. That this repose is to suffer no shock during 
 my olfieia! term, if I have power to avert it, tliose wlio 
 placed me here may be assured." 
 
 The last Congress had been in session only a 
 few months before the country was startled with 
 the unexpected rumor, that an old time-honored 
 compact, which was originally entered into to 
 avert the most threatening dangers, and which 
 had been most n ligiously lived up to for more 
 than thirty years, was to Le ru;liii.ssiy abrogated. 
 The sequifl is too well known to need an ex- 
 tended notice. Leading incn in the Democratic 
 
 party, in utter violation of their past profeasiona, 
 forced into Congress the most violent, fearful 
 s/nrej-y agitation that ever distracted this country. 
 President Pierce repudiated his pledges, trampled 
 under foot the platform upon which he was 
 elected, turned his back upon the friends that 
 had elevated him to power, and used tin; whole 
 force of his Administration to carry on this agita- 
 tion, and expose the vast regions of Kansas and 
 Nebraska to the inroads of African slavery. The 
 deed was done. 
 
 Slavery agitation, thus reopened in its most 
 violent form, was not long confined to the Halls 
 of Congress. It went out and s]iread all over 
 the country, kindling up the raging fires of inter- 
 nal discord in every direction. The people be- 
 came alarmed, and aroused themselves in their 
 lion strength to meet the impending danger. 
 Through all the free States they resolved that 
 " forbearance had ceased to be a virtue, and that 
 they would resist the outrage in the peaceable, 
 constitutional way of settling such questions — at 
 the ballot-box. This inaugurated a new politi- 
 cal era. With a patriotism worthy of the men, 
 and the cause which incited it, the freemen of the 
 North laid aside their old party predilections, gave 
 a paramount importance to the great issue forced 
 upon them, and in almost every instance gave 
 those members of Congress who had voted for 
 the Kansas-Nebraska bill leave to stay at home. 
 Only seven members from the free States, out of 
 the whole number who voted for this measure, 
 have found their way back to the present House. 
 The repeal of the Missouri compromise has 
 completely broken down old party distinctions. 
 The old Whig parly, once mighty and powerful, 
 and which in limes past has had intellectual giants 
 for its leaders, scarcely has a name in any State, 
 North or South. The once glorious old Demo- 
 cratic party has been stabbed in the house of its 
 friends; and, after retreating before the surging 
 waves of popular indignation, can now only be 
 foimd around the shades of the presidential man- 
 sion, or in little squads about our custom-houses, 
 post ofiices, and such otlicr places as are dispensed 
 executive favors, in the shape of " loaves and 
 fishes." Asa national parly, it has no longer 
 an existence. The c^usi-s, to which a brief allu- 
 sion' has been made, have created the necessity for 
 another party. That party has been iuaugu- 
 
rated ; and as its principles are but the revival of 
 the doctrines of the immortal Jefferson and the 
 republican fathers, it is pel-feclly natural and 
 proper for it to assume the time-honored name of 
 " Republican." 
 
 As I announced in the commencement of these 
 remarks, I shall now attempt to show that the 
 Republican party isa ?ia<(o?irt/party; that it stands 
 upon a platform of principles eminently national; 
 and that no national man, North or South, East 
 or West, can, with any show of consistency, 
 refuse to stand upon it. 
 
 The Republican party, through its delegates at 
 Pittsburg, on the 22d of February last, adopted 
 an address, containing a " declaration of its prin- 
 ciples and purposes," which has been published 
 to the world, and which is briefly summed up as 
 follows: 
 
 " We declare, in the first place, our fixed and unaltered 
 devotion to the Constitution of the United States— to the 
 ends for which it was established, and to the means which 
 it provided for their attainment. We accept the solemn 
 protestation of the people of the United States, that they 
 ordained it ' in order to form a more perfect Union, estab- 
 lish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the 
 common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure 
 the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.' 
 We believe that the powers which it confers upon the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States are ample lor the accomplish- 
 ment of these objects ; and that if these powers are exer- 
 cised in the spirit of the Constitution itself they cannot lead 
 to any other result. We respect those great rights which 
 the Constitution declares to be inviolable — freedom of 
 speech and of the press, the free exercise of religious belief, 
 and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to 
 petition the Government for a redress of giievances. We 
 would preserve those great safeguards of civil freedom, the 
 habeas corpus, the right of tri.il by jury, and the right of 
 personal liberty, unless deprived thereof for crime by due 
 process of law. We declare our purpose to obey, in all 
 things, the requirements of the Constitution, and of all 
 laws enacted in pursuance thereof. We cherish a profound 
 reverence for the wise and patriotic men by whom it was 
 framed, and a lively sense of the blessings it has conferred 
 upon our country and upon mankind throughout the world. 
 In every crisis of difficulty and of danger we shall invoke 
 its spirit a7id proclaim the supremacy of its authority. 
 
 "Jn the next place, we declare our ardent and unshaken 
 attachment to this Union of American States which the 
 Constitution created and has thus far preserved. We re- 
 vere it as the purchase of the blood of our forefathers, as 
 the condition of our national renown, and as the guardian 
 and guarantee of that liberty which the Constitution was 
 designed to secure. We will defend and protect it against 
 all its enemies. We will recognize no geographical divis- 
 ions, no local interests, no narrow or sectional prejudices, 
 in our endeavors to preserve the union of these States 
 against foreign aggression and domestic strife. What we 
 claim for ourselves we claim for all. The rights, privileges, 
 and liberties which we demand as our inheritance, we con- 
 cede as their inheritance to all the citizens of this Repub- 
 lic." 
 
 Now let me candidly ask if there is anything 
 sectional in the sentiments contained in the above 
 declaration .' If there is, then the whole country 
 has been laboring under a delusion ever since our 
 Governmcntwas formed. But, to be more specific, 
 it is not to be denied, that the great leading idea 
 of the Republican party is the non-exlension of 
 slavery, in other words, opposition to its extension 
 into free territm-y. This is no new dogma. The 
 heroes of the Revolution, the patriots of the early 
 times, who shaped and fashioned our political 
 institutions, entertained the same views, and in- 
 corporated them into their political action. They 
 believed chattel slavery to be a great moral, social, 
 and political evil. So believing, they adopted 
 every practicable mode in their power to prevent 
 its spread; at the same time looking forward to 
 
 the day which should witness the fruition of their 
 earnest hopes— its total abolition. To place this 
 matter beyond all doubt or cavil I will refer to 
 a few well-authenticated historical facts, in proof 
 of the position here assumed. 
 
 George Washington, in a letter to Robert 
 Morris, dated Mount Vernon, April 12, 1786, 
 said : 
 
 "I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes 
 more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abo- 
 lition of it, [slavery ;] but there is only one proper and 
 eflectual mode in which it can be accomplished, and that ia 
 by legislative authority ; and this, so far as my suflrage will 
 go, shall never be wanting." — 9 'Sparks''s Washington, 158. 
 
 In a letter to John F. Mercer, September 9, 
 1786, he expressed the same sentiment: 
 
 " I never mean, unless some particular circumstances 
 should compel nie to it, to possess another slave by pur- 
 chase, it being among my first wishes to see some plan 
 adopted by which slavery in this country may be abolished 
 by law." — Ibid. 
 
 And in a letter to St. John Sinclair he further 
 said : 
 
 " There are in Pennsylvainia laws for the gradual aboli- 
 tion of slavery, which neither Virginia nor Maryland have 
 at present, but which nothing is more certain tlian they must 
 have, and at a period not remote." 
 
 Thomas Jefferson, in an able article on the 
 rights of the American colonies, by him prepared 
 and laid before the Virginia Convention which 
 assembled in August, 1774, for the purpose of 
 appointing delegates to the proposed Congress, 
 remarks as follows: 
 
 "■The aholition of domestic slavery is the greatest ob- 
 ject of desire in these colonies, where it was unhappily 
 introduced in their infant state. But, previous to the en- 
 franchisement of the slaves, it is necessary to exclude 
 further importations from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts 
 to efli'ct tliis by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which 
 might amount to prohibition, have been hitherto defeated 
 by his Majesty's negative ; thus preferring the immediate 
 advantage of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests 
 of the American States, and the rights of human nature, 
 deeply wounded by this infamous practice." — American 
 Archives, 4th Series, vol. 1, p. 696. 
 
 Mr. Jefferson further declared his own senti- 
 ments in liis Notes on Virginia, when he said: 
 
 " Nobody wishes more ardently than I to see an aboli- 
 tion not only of the trade, but of the condition of slavery ; 
 and certainly nobody will be more willing to encounter any 
 sacrifice lor that object." 
 
 In the same work he further said; 
 
 "The whole commerce between master and slave is a 
 continual exercise of the most unremitting despotism on the 
 one part, and degiading submission on the other." * * 
 * * " With what execration should the statesman be 
 loaded, who, permitting one halfof the citizens thus to tram- 
 ple on the rigiits of the other, transforms those into despots 
 and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, 
 and the amor patriae of the other ! Can the liberties of a 
 nation be thought secure, when we have removed their 
 only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people 
 that these liberties are the gift of God.'' That tliey are not 
 violated but by his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my 
 
 COUNTRY WHEN I REFLECT GoD IS JUST, AND IJIS JUSTICE 
 CANNOT SLEEP FOREVER." 
 
 In the convention which framed the Constitu- 
 tion, Mr. Madison declared he" thought it wrong 
 to admit into the Constitution the idea, that there 
 could be property in man. " (3 Madison Papers, 
 1429. 
 
 Gouverneur Morris said he "never would 
 concur in upholding domestic slavery; it was a 
 nefarious instittUion; it was the curse of Heaven 
 on the States where it prevailed." (3 Madison 
 Papers, 1263.) 
 
 Mr. Gerry thought the convention " had noth- 
 
ing to do with the conduct of thu Stntt-s as to 
 shu't'S, but ouf^lit to be rnroful not to jrivc any 
 sanction to it." (3 Madison Pajicrs, 1394.) 
 
 INlr. Mason, of Vir<::inia, said " .-slavery dis- 
 courages arts and manufactures. The poor de- 
 spise labor when performed by slaves They 
 produce ilic most niTnicious efiects on manners. 
 Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. 
 Tiiey brins; the jud<:;nieMt of Heaven on a coun- 
 try.'"' (.'l iNladison Papers, Kl'Jl.) 
 
 Mr. Ellsworth, of Connecticut, said "slavery 
 in time will not be a speck in our country." (3 
 Madison Papers, 13i)2.) 
 
 Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, said "he was 
 opposed to a tax on slaves, because it implied 
 thiy were propcity.'^ (3 Madison Pajiers, 139G.) 
 
 Mr. Williamson said "that boili in practice 
 and opinion lie was against slavery." (3 Madi- 
 son Papers, 1428.) 
 
 Similar views were expressed l>y other mem- 
 bers. In the conventions of the States, called to 
 ratify the Constitutiim, similar opinions were 
 expressed by the leading men in the same. I will 
 only refer to a few of them. 
 
 James Wilson, of Pennsylvania, had been a 
 leading member of the convention-, and in the 
 ratification convention of his Statu', when speak- 
 ing of the clause relating to the power of Congress 
 over the slave trade after twenty years, he said: 
 
 " I consider this clause as laying tlie foundation for ban- 
 ishing slavery out of this couiiiry ; and tlimiiili the period is 
 more distant than I could wish it, il will produce the same 
 kind, gradual change as was produced in Pennsylvania." 
 
 * * » * >t 'I'lie „<;,(, st;ites vvhicli arc to be formed will 
 l)e under the control of Congress in this particular, and 
 slavery will never b^introduced among them." — 2 Elliot's 
 Debates, 4.')2. 
 
 In another place, speaking of this clause, he 
 said: 
 
 '■ It presents us with the ploasins prospect tliattlic rights 
 of mankind will be acknowledged and established through- 
 out ihe Union. Jf there was no other lovely feature in the 
 Constitution hut this one, it wonlil (lilfuse a beauty over its 
 whole countenance. Yet the lapse of a few years, and 
 Congress will have power to exterminate slavery from 
 within our borders." — 2 EllioVs Debates, 484. 
 
 In the ratification convention of Massachusetts, 
 General Heath said: 
 
 '• The migration, or importation, &c., is confined to the 
 Stales now cxi.-ting only; new States cannot claim it. 
 Congress, by their ordinance for creating new States, some 
 tnne since d' clared, that the new States shall be republican, 
 and that there shail be no slavery in tlieia." — 2 Elliot's 
 Debates, llo. 
 
 Nor were these views and anticipations con- 
 fined to the free States. In the ratification con- , 
 vention of Virginia, Mr. Johnson said: i 
 
 " They tell us that they see a progressive danger of bring- 
 ing about entancipation. The principle has begun since the 
 Revolution. Let us do wliat we will, it will come round. 
 Slavery has been the foutidalion of much of that impiety 
 and dissipation which have been so much disseminated 
 among our countrymen. If it were totally abolished, it 
 would do much good." — 3 Elliot's Debates, 6, 48. i 
 
 But I will not consume further time to prove 
 this point, i)ut will only add an extract from a 
 speech delivered by Mr. Leigh in the convention 
 of Virginia, in 1832, which fiilly corroborates the i 
 truth of this position. He said: | 
 
 " I thouL'ht, till very lately, that it was known to every- | 
 hody that, tUirin'^ the Revolution, and for many years after, 
 the abolition of slaveiy was a favorite topic with many of 
 our ablest slalesmeii, who entertained with respect all the 
 schemes whieh wisdom or ingenuity could suggest for its ! 
 accomplishment." ; 
 
 TIic founders of tlie Government not only left 
 
 .their testimony as individuals upon the (piestion 
 of slavery, liut their well-known opinicju.s were 
 
 ' iiicorporiitcd into the Constitution and legislation 
 ' of tlie country. 
 
 To go back to the Declaration of Independence, 
 we find Washington, and Jeflerson, and i'Vniik- 
 lin, and Shernian, and Pinckney,and lh".ir illus- 
 trious compatriots, solemidy Kul)Beril)in2; their 
 names tolhe.se " self-evident truths, that all men 
 are created equal; that they are endowed by their 
 Maker with inherent and malicnaijle rights; that 
 
 , among these are life, libcrtv, and tlie pursuit of 
 happiiiess." 
 
 The Constitution itself is a great chart of lib- 
 erty. Nowhere in it can be found tlic word 
 " slave," or " slaves," so careful were its found- 
 ers to give no implied sanction to the traffic in 
 
 j human beings. In its very commencement — in 
 its preamble, it declares — 
 
 "The I'KOi'i.E of the iri\itcd States, in order to form a 
 more perfect Onion, establish justice," ♦ • • i< pro- 
 mote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of lib- 
 erty," * * * "do ordain and establish this ConstUu- 
 tioii." 
 
 In the same mstrument it is declared — 
 " Ifo person shall be deprived of life, lilicrltj. or property, 
 without due process of law." — ^imeiulment, Jlrt. .5. 
 
 There is another provision contained in the 
 Constitution, which for the last ten years has 
 been the subject of warm discussion both in and 
 out of Congress. I mean that provision wiiich 
 gives Congress " power to dispose of and make 
 all needful rules and regulations respecting tlie 
 territory, or other property belonging to the 
 United States." In this connection, I do not 
 propose to go into a discussion of the question, 
 whether Congress has conslilutional power to 
 interdict slavery in the Territories of the United 
 States; but shall here content myself with show- 
 ing how the framers of the Constitution under- 
 stood it themselves. 
 
 On the 1st of March, 1784, Congress voted to 
 accept of a cession from the State of Virginia of 
 what was subsequently known as the North- 
 i west Territory. On the same day, Mr. Jc.'fTerson, 
 I from acomniittee consisting of himself, Mr. Chase 
 I of Maryland, and Mr. Howell of Rhode Island, 
 reported a jilan for the government. This plan 
 embraced all the Western Territory, and all ter- 
 ritory ceded or to be ceded by individual States 
 to the United States. (See Journals of Congress, 
 J April 23, 1784.) One of the provisions of said plan 
 I is as follows: 
 
 " That after the year 1800 of the Cliristi.in era there shall 
 
 be neither slaver}' nor involuntary servitude in any of the 
 
 (■aid States, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes 
 
 ! whereof the party shall have been duly convicted to have 
 
 j been personally guilty." — 1 Jour. Cong. Con/eii.,374. 
 
 I Territories were in this article of the ordinance 
 
 j spoken of as States, because it was contemplated 
 to erect the Territories into Slates. Under the 
 Articles of Confederation a majority of the thirteen 
 States was ivccessary to an affirmative decision 
 of any question. On the 19th of April a vote was 
 taken on this proviso. The vote stood for the 
 
 i proviso — 5ixStates, viz: New Hampshire, Massa- 
 chusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, 
 and Pennsylvania. Against it — three States, viz; 
 Virginia, Maryland, and South Carolina. Dela- 
 ware and Georgia were not represented. New 
 
 I Jersey by Mr. Dick voted ay, but her vote, only 
 
6 
 
 one delegate being present, could not be counted. 
 North Carolina was divided — Mr. Williamson 
 voting ay, and Mr. Speight no. From Virginia 
 Mr. Jefferson voted ay, and Messrs. Hardy and 
 Mercer no. Of the twenty-three delegates present, 
 sixteen voted for, and seven against — thus this pro- 
 viso was defeated by a minority vote. The people 
 were for it, and the States for it; but it failed by 
 a provision which enabled the minority to control 
 the majority. 
 
 In the same year, Mr. Rufus King, of Massa- 
 chusetts, moved the proviso in the following 
 form : 
 
 " That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary 
 servitude in any of the States described in the resolves of 
 Congress of the 23d of April, 1784, otherwise than in the 
 punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been 
 personally guilty ; and that this regulation shall be an article 
 of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of the con- 
 stitutions between the thirteen original States, and such of 
 the States described in the said resolve of the 23d of April, 
 1784."— 4 Jour. Cong. Confed., 481. 
 
 This was committed by a vote of two to one, 
 and resulted in the celebrated ordinance of 1787, 
 which expressly prohibited slavery and involuntary 
 servitude, except for crime, throus;houl the whole ter- 
 ritory [then belonging to the United States] for- 
 ever." This proviso received the votes of every 
 delegate (with a single exception from New York) 
 in the convention. The First Congress under 
 the Constitution ratified the ordinance of 1787. 
 In the convention which framed the Constitution 
 there were twenty men who were also members 
 of the First Congress under the Federal Consti- 
 tution. This proves very clearly that they un- 
 derstood that Congress /iac/ power, under the Con- 
 stitution which they themselves had made, to 
 prohibit slavery in the Territories. 
 
 Thus history vindicates the fact, that the 
 patriots of the Revolution, the members of the old 
 State Confederation, the members of the conven- 
 tion which framed the Constitution, andthe mem- 
 bers of the First Congress after the adoption of 
 the Constitution, entertained the same sentiments 
 upon the questions of slavery extension and re- 
 striction that are now advocated by the Repub- 
 lican party. 
 
 But I will not stop here, but proceed to prove 
 that the views of the Republican party on the 
 constitutional right of Congress to prohibit sla- 
 very in the Territories are sustained by the legis- 
 lation of Congress from the meeting of the First 
 Congress up to 1848, and that such legislation 
 has received the sanction of every President, 
 with a single exception, beginning with General 
 Wasliington up to, and including, President Polk. 
 To maintain this proposition I shall introduce 
 facts direct from the records of the Government: 
 
 1. The ordinance of 1787 was recognized by 
 chapter one, firstsession of First Congress. There 
 seems to have been no oljjectionto it. Mr. Mad- 
 ison's name appears on the Journal of the pro- 
 ceedings the same day it passed. He was, no 
 doubt, present, and concurred in the measure. 
 The act was signed by General Washington. 
 
 2. On the 7th of April, 1798, an act was passed 
 authorizing the establishment of a government in 
 Mississippi Territory. It authorized the Pres- 
 ident to establish therein a goverinnent similar to 
 that in the territory northwest of the Ohio river, 
 excepting the Jefferson proviso of 1787. It then 
 prohibited the importation of slaves from any 
 
 place without the limits of the United States. 
 This act passed about ten years before Congress 
 was authorized by the Constitution to prohibit 
 bringing slaves into the States which were origin- 
 ally parties to the Federal compact. This act 
 passed under the administration of the elder 
 Adams. 
 
 3. At the first session of the Sixth Congress, 
 chapter forty- one, laws of 1800, an act was passed 
 creating a territorial government for Indiana 
 out of the Northwest Territory — reaffirming the 
 ordinance of 1787 — and was signed by President 
 Adams. 
 
 4. On the 26th of March, 1804, an act was 
 passed dividing Louisiana into two Territories, 
 and providing that all that part of the Territory 
 south of the thirty-third parallel of latitude, now 
 the southern boundary of Arkansas, should be 
 erected into the Territory of Orleans. In this 
 act there are three provisions in respect to slavery 
 in the Territory: First. The importation from 
 any place without the limits of the United States 
 was prohibited; Second. The importation from 
 any place within the United States of slaves im- 
 ported since the 1st of May, 1798, was prohibited; 
 Third. The importation of slaves, except by a 
 "citizen of the United States removing into said 
 Territory for actual settlement, and being at the 
 time of such removal bona fide owner of such 
 slaves, "wasproliibited. This is one of the strong- 
 est cases on record to show the control of Con- 
 gress over slavery in the Territories. It was a 
 direct prohibition of the domestic slave trade. 
 This act was signed by President Jefferson. 
 
 5. On the 11th of January, 1805, an act was 
 passed establishing the Territory of Michigan, 
 reaffirming the ordinance of 1787. 
 
 6. On the 3d of February, 1809, a similar gov- 
 ernment was established for the Territory of Illi- 
 nois, recognizing the same ordinance. These two 
 last acts were under the administration of Jeffer- 
 son. 
 
 7. On the 4th of June, 1812, an act was passed 
 providing for the government of the Territory of 
 Missouri, and the laws and regulations in force 
 in the District of Louisiana were continued in 
 operation. 
 
 8. On the 3d of March, 1817, a government 
 was formed for the Territory of Alabama, and 
 the laws then in force within it as a part of Mis- 
 sissippi were continued in operation. These acts 
 were passed under Mr. Madison's administra- 
 tion. 
 
 9. On the 9th of March, 1819, the Territory 
 of Arkansas was formed froin the Territory of 
 Mississippi, and a government established for it. 
 
 10. On the 6th of March, 1820, the inhabitants 
 of Missouri were authorized to form a State gov- 
 ernment, and slavery prohibited in all that part 
 of the Territory north of 36° 30' north latitude. 
 
 11. On the 10th of March, 1822, a territorial 
 government was established for Florida, con- 
 taining provisions making it unlawful " to import 
 or bring into the said Territory, from any place, 
 without the limits of the United States," any 
 slave or slaves. These three acts were signed by 
 Mr. Monroe. 
 
 12. On the 20th of April, 1836, an act was 
 passed establishing the territorial government of 
 Wisconsin, reaffirming the ordinance of 1787. 
 This act was signed by General Jackson. 
 
13. On the 12ih of Juno, 1838, a territorial 
 govi'rnmont for Iowa was cstablishoil, cxiendinK 
 the laws of the United States over the same, and 
 signed by Mr. Van Kurcn. 
 
 14. On the 3d of March, 1848, an act waspa.ssed | 
 establishing the territorial govcrnnieiit of Oregon, 
 with the proviso forever proiiibiting slavery in • 
 the same. This act was signed by Mr. Polk. 
 
 Here is an almost uninterrupted series of le- , 
 gislntive acts, commencing with tlie first Congress, ^ 
 and running through tin- long neriod of more 
 than half a century, containing tlie official sanc- 
 tion of Washington, Adams, Jelferson, Madison, 
 Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, and Polk, direct- 
 ly recognizing the constitutional right (if Con- 
 Sress to prohibit slavery in the Territories of the 
 fnited States. 
 
 Thus the legislation of the General Government 
 for more than half a century furnishes a prece- 
 dent, in strict conformity with the platform of the 
 Republican party, on the right of Congress to 
 interdict slavery in the national domain. If, then, 
 the Republican party are to be denounced as sec- 
 tional on account of entertaining and defending 
 these time-honored doctrines, then the revolution- 
 ary heroes were sectional — the signers of the 
 Declaration of Independence were sectional — that 
 immortnl instrument was itself sectional, the 
 framers of the Constitution were sectional, and so 
 is the Constitution itself. Every President of the 
 United States, from Washington to Polk, were 
 sectional; and nearly all legislation of Congress, 
 in the formation of Territories for over fifty years, 
 has been of the same sectional character. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, 1 now desire to call the atten- 
 tion of the committee and the country to another 
 leading idea in the Republican platform, to wit : 
 The SUBSTANTIAL restoration of the J\Hssouri com- 
 promise. I have now no time to go into a histori- 
 cal detail of the circumstances that originally led 
 to the adoption of this act of Congress in 1820; 
 neither is it necessary; for the facts connected 
 with the admission of Missouri into the Union 
 are now pretty well understood. It is sufficient 
 for my present purpose to remark that, after one 
 of the most stormy periods of excitement through 
 which this country ever passed, it was solemnly 
 agreed that Missouri should be admitted into the 
 Union with a constitution allowing slavery; and 
 that all territory which had been acquired by 
 purchase from France, north of 360 30', should 
 DC forever free. The parties to this arrangement 
 were the free States on tlie one side, and the 
 slave States on the other. The prohibition north 
 of 36° 30' was both absolute and perpetual. I now 
 propose to give some reasons why this contract 
 should be restored in substance, if not in form. 
 
 1. Because the repeal of the Missouri compro- 
 mise was a breach of good faith. Each section 
 of the Union had become a party to this contract. 
 It became a matter of national honor. The North 
 and the South had both agreed to it. Each party 
 was not only bound by a solemn act, but there 
 was an implied pledgeof honor, incidentally con- 
 nected with the act, of which the parties could not 
 divest themselves. 
 
 2. The South received the consideration coming 
 to them paid in hand. The contract was rati- 
 fied; and, with the ratification, Missouri was 
 admitted. This repudiation is the more insulting 
 to the North, from the fact that, just as soon as 
 
 ' the consideration assigned her in this compact 
 become of any value to her, she ^ah cheated out 
 of it. Good faith, fair play, and hon.stdealingH, 
 
 ]| all require the restoration of the contract. 
 
 3. "rhis compact was abrogated under false 
 
 '' pretenses, and in its practical operation was a 
 fraud upon the people. This will appear for two 
 
 I' reasons: 
 
 Ij First. At the time the Kansas-Nebraska bill 
 
 i! was under consideration, it was declared over and 
 over again, both in and out of Congress, that 
 
 1 slavery never would go into any part of these 
 
 '. Territories. This pretext was used na an argu- 
 ment to quiet the excited feelings of the people, 
 
 |i and reconcile them to the outrage. Charity would 
 j leave us to presume that no mi'iiiber of Congress 
 
 I would make such an assumption and send it to the 
 I country, unless he believed it. If so, no greater 
 
 ' mistake could have been made. In looking over 
 
 !j the debates in the Senate upon the Nebraska 
 
 I bill, we find such opinions were expressed by 
 I Mr. Pettit, of Indiana; Mr. Hunter, of Virginia; 
 
 ■' Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut; Mr. Thomson, of 
 
 ' New Jersey; Mr. Brodhead, of Pennsylvania; 
 
 j Mr. Badger, of North Carolina; Mr. Everett, of 
 I Massachusetts; Mr. Douglas, of Illinois; Mr. 
 
 I Dixon, of Kentucky; Mr. Jones, of Tennessee; 
 ' and General Cass, of Michigan. 
 I In the House, the advocates of the bill gene- 
 rally said the same things. These declarations 
 were sent all over the country, and had their effect. 
 They were retailed out with great gusto by all 
 the office-holders of the Administration, from the 
 highest in grade and employment to the four and 
 six penny postmasters and tide-waiters. The 
 barrier of freedom was stricken down; and what 
 then become of all their pompous assumptions? 
 Slaveholders went into Kansas, carrying with 
 them their slaves. The first Legislature elected 
 under the organic law of the Territory, by slave- 
 holders and " border ruffians" — a Legislature, 
 the laws of which the friends of the Administra- 
 tion say are legal and binding — laws which the 
 President has threatened to enf'orce at the mouth 
 of the cannon and the point of the bayonet , enacted 
 and placed upon the statute-book of the Territory 
 a law, declaring — 
 
 " If any person print, write, introduce into, or publish, 
 or circulate, nr cau^e to be brou-jlit into, priiiK-d, written, 
 published, or circulated, or shall knowingly aid or assist in 
 bringing into, printing, publishini?, or circulatins, within 
 this Territory, any book, paper, pamphlet, nia;;azine, hand- 
 bill, or circular, containing any statements, argument, 
 opinion, sentiment, doctrine, advice, or inucndo, calculated 
 to produce a disorderly, dangerous, or rebellious disaffection 
 among the slaves of this Territory, or to induce such slaves 
 to escape from the service of their masters, or to resist their 
 authority, he shall be guilty of a felony, and be punished hj 
 imprisonment at hard labor, for a term not less than fire 
 years." 
 
 i Here is another section of this barbarous statute : 
 
 j " If any free person, by speaking or writing, assert or 
 maintain that persons have not the right to hold slaves in 
 
 1 this Territory, or shall introduce into this Territory, print, 
 publish, write, circulate, or cause ^o be introdiiecd into this 
 Territory, written, printed, published, or circulated, in this 
 
 ' Territory, any book, paper, magazine, pamphlet, or cir- 
 cular, containing any denial of the right of persons to hold 
 
 ' slaves in this Territory, such person shall be deemed guilty 
 
 ! of felony, and punished by imprisonment at hard labor for 
 
 I a term not less Uian two years." 
 
 In the "Squatter Sovereign," a newspaper 
 
 published at Atchison, in Kansas Territory, by 
 
 ; Stringfellow & Kelly, and which ia receiving tlie 
 
8 
 
 patronage of President Pierce and his Adminis- 
 tration, under date of February 19, 1856, I find 
 the following advertisement: 
 
 "For Sale. — A very likely Negro Girl ten years old. 
 Apply at this office. Feb. 18, '56. 50 4w" 
 
 We prove here by one of the Administration 
 organs — which, by the way, lauds Pierce and the 
 Democratic party to the skies — that slavery not 
 only exists de facto in Kansas, but that little negro i 
 girls are publicly advertised and sold in that Ter- 
 ritory. ] 
 
 I will give one more specimen of the barbarous 
 code of the " border ruffian" Legislature, which I 
 is designed to corrupt the very fountains of justice 
 and establish and perpetuate slavery in this Ter- 
 ritory: 
 
 " No pertJon who is conscientiously opposed to holding 
 slaves, or who does not admit the right to hold slaves in 
 this Territory, shall sit as a juror on the trial of any prose- 
 cution for any violation of any of the sections of this act." 
 
 Thus facts prove that the argument that, on 
 account of soil, climate, or other reason, slavery 
 would not go into Kansas in consequence of the 
 repeal of the Missoiu-i compromise, was all a de- 
 lusion; so far as it had an influence, it every- 
 where deceived and cheated the people. 
 
 Another reason urged with great vehemence by 
 the advocates of the Nebraska bill in favor of the 
 measure, was this; that it would " establish the doc- 
 trine of pojndar sovereignty," Rud give the people of 
 the Territories the right to form and regulate their 
 own domestic institutions. I have now no time 
 to go into an extended argument to show the utter 
 fallacy of this specious pi-etense, this false light, 
 held out to blind, bewilder, and cheat the people 
 into the support of a measure abhorrent to all 
 their better feelings. 
 
 But I will call the attention of the committee to 
 one or two facts, which go to prove, beyond all 
 controversy, that the friends of the bill, while 
 they declared when the same was under consider- 
 ation, that the bill would confer upon the people 
 of the Territories the right to legislate upon the 
 question of slavery in the sa.me, meant no such thing; 
 they were looking one way and rowing another; 
 that while they were pretending to confer certain 
 rights, they were forcing a bill through Congress, 
 the very object of which was to deprive them of 
 any such power. 
 
 Now to the proof. "When the Kansas bill was 
 under consideration in the House, an honorable 
 member from Indiana [Mr. Mace] offered the 
 following amendment: 
 
 " And the Legislature of said Territoi-y is hereby clothed 
 with full power, at any session thereof, to establish or pro- 
 hibit slavery." 
 
 This amendment was rejected — ayes 76, noes 
 94. (Cong. Globe, vol. 28, part 2, p. 1238.) 
 
 Another amendment to said bill was offered by 
 one of my honorable colleagues, Mr. Fuller, 
 which reads as follows: 
 
 " And the Territorial Legislature shall have power to 
 establish or exclude slavery, as to them shall seem proper." 
 
 In offering this amendment, my honorable col- 
 league said: 
 
 " This bill has been advocated at the North solely upon 
 the ground that itgives the people of the Territory the right 
 to legislate for themselves upon the subject of slavery while 
 in a territorial state. I declare myself here to be the friend 
 and advocate of that doctrine ; and it is because this billrfoes 
 not establish this great American principle, and vindicate 
 this doctrine, that I am opposed to it in its present state. 
 Now, sir, I wash my hands of any attempt to deceive tliein 
 
 upon this vital point in the bill. My constituents shall not 
 be deceived by me." — Cong. Globe, vol. 28, part 2, p. 1239. 
 
 My honorable colleague put the only reason- 
 able, legal construction upon said bill that it 
 would bear. This amendment, too, was voted 
 down. 
 
 In further proof of the position 1 am now 
 considering, I will cite the thirty-second section 
 of the " act to organize Kansas and Nebraska." 
 The phraseology of this section is peculiar. It 
 was artfully drawn; and, while it pretends one 
 thing, means quite another. It first undertakes to 
 extend the " Constitution " over the Territory by 
 declaring that — 
 
 "The Constitution, and all laws of the United States 
 which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same 
 force and effect in said Territory of Kansas as elsewhere 
 in the United States, excepting the act preparatory to the 
 admission of Missouri into the IJnion." 
 
 Who ever before heard of such a monstrous 
 absurdity? Congress, who derive all their power 
 to act /»-o»i the Constitution, here undertake to 
 extend this great fundamental law of the land 
 over a Territory within the jurisdiction of the 
 United States. When did ever a Congress under- 
 take before to legislate the Constitution into a Ter- 
 ritory? Never, sir; never. No such provision 
 was ever contained in any previous act organiz- 
 ing a Territory: hence,by fair reasoning, Oregon, 
 Washington, Utah, New Mexico, and Minnesota, 
 are all left without the protection of the Constitu- 
 tion; and Congress can have no jurisdiction over 
 them, for the reason that that branch of the Gen- 
 eral Government derives all its power to legislate 
 from the Constitution; and the only legitimate 
 conclusion which follows is, that these Territo- 
 ries are each now so many independent sovereign- 
 ties, owing allegiance to no power but themselves. 
 
 After declaring the Missouri compromise " in- 
 operative and void," the same section goes onto 
 say: 
 
 " It being the true intent and meaning of this act, not 
 to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, or to exclude 
 it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free 
 to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own 
 way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." 
 
 The deception lies in this — that, while this act 
 professes to make a certain grant of power to the 
 people of the Territories, it contains a proviso 
 which, according to the southern sectional con- 
 struction given it by the Democratic party, en- 
 tirely takes it away. 
 
 The argument to this: The Constitution is the 
 great fundamental law of the United States. 
 
 To make the fraud less perceptible, by a sort 
 of extrajudicial legislation the Constitution is 
 extended over the Territory. The grant of power 
 here is made " subject to the Constitution," which 
 is anotherpiece of extra-judicial legislation. Then 
 follow out the southern construction — that the 
 ^^Constitution allows slaveholders to carry their 
 slaves into the Territories, and there protects them in 
 that kind of property," and you have the whole 
 thing in a nutshell. Of course the people of a 
 Territory cannot make a law contravening the 
 Constitution. Thus it is plain that the act was 
 intended, not to give " popular sovereignty," but 
 to take it away; and, by a forced construction of 
 the Constitution, /egts^t^e slavery into the Territory 
 of Kansas. In order to show that I am treating 
 this matter fairly, and do not misrepresent our 
 Democratic friends, I will read from remarks ofj 
 
««M 
 
 an honorable member from Ponnsylvunin, [Mr. 
 J. Glanct Jonks,] niado in answer to ccrtnin ' 
 interrogatories }iro|)oun(li'(l to liini by an liomn-- j 
 able gentleman from Kenliicky, [Mr. Cox,] prior 
 to the orKaniz.alioi) of tlu' House. From the j 
 acknowledged talents and liii^li siauiiinj^ of the 
 honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania — from 
 the fact that he was the author of the resolution.s ' 
 ado{)ted i)y the first Demorraliccnueuaofmemliers 
 of the House, and is a distinguished leader of ! 
 tliat parly — I feel justified in drawing the infer-' 
 ence that he truly reflects the opinions of that 
 party. 
 
 In answer to certain questions propounded by 
 the gentleman from Kentucky, as to the legality 
 of the territorial laws of Kansas, he snid: | 
 
 " In my npiiiinii, llie I'niistitutidii limili llie power ofCon- I 
 rress to tlie extern (il'proliibiliii!: Uiein either Iroin cstuhti^h- \ 
 mi; or aholuihins slaviTy in the Territories. Adniitliii!; th:il 
 view to be correct, I suppose it follows, as u matter of 
 course, that the ("onsliliilioii of the United States confers 
 upon the people of the Territory no ri|iht to dispossess any I 
 man of Ins right to property, whether it be slave or any [ 
 other property. And thcretbre, the Legislative Council of a , 
 Territory, lliniigl) they may pass laws rcnnlating tlie dis- ! 
 posal and protection of properly, have nori^ht to so admin- 
 ister thost; laws as to establish or abolish the right to hold 
 that property." 
 
 Another honorable member, cx-GovcrnorSmith, 
 of Virginia, in the same debate, said: 
 
 " If I had supposed there was any one opinion more uni- 
 versal than any other in the t?oulli, it was the opinion that 
 8 territorial government, while it remained in a state of 
 infancy, has no power either to admitor to prohibit slavery 
 within its limits. I say that this Congress, this Government, 
 having no right or power whatever to admit slavery or pro- 
 hibit it in the Territories, has no right or power to delegate 
 tjiat jwwer to the Territories themselves." 
 
 A distinguished Senator from Mississippi, (ex- 
 Governor Brown,) a few days since, in a speech 
 ill the Senate, said: 
 
 " It will be seen at once that the line of argument which 
 I have marked out for myself will lead me to consider, to 
 some e.\tent, the doctrine of 'squatter sovereignly.' This 
 doctrine, however well designed by its authors, has, in my 
 judgment, l>een the fruitful source of half our troubles. 
 Before the people of the two sections of the Union having 
 — as they supposed, though 1 think erroneously — hostile 
 interest, and already inflamed by angry passions, were in- 
 .viled into the country, we, who gave them laws, should 
 have defined clearly and distinctly what were to be their 
 rights after they got there. Notliiiis slmiild have been left to 
 construction. 1 believed, when the Kunsiis bill was passed, 
 lliat it conferred on the inhabitants of the Territories, during 
 their territorial existence, no ri^lit to exclude, or in any- 
 wise to interfere with, slavery." * * * 
 
 " There seems to be a certain undefined idea in the 
 minds of some men that the sovereignty of a Territory is 
 inherent in the people of a Territory; that it came to them 
 from on high — a sort of political manna, descended from 
 heaven on these children of the forest. This doctrine, I 
 confe.ss, is a little too ethereal for me ; 1 do not comprehend 
 it; but this 1 know — if the sovereignty is in the people of 
 the Territory, whether they obtained it from God or men, 
 the conduct of this Government towards them is most 
 extraordinary. It is nothing short of downright usurpation 
 and despotism. We have now seven Governors ajipointed 
 by the President, by and with the advice and loiisenl of the 
 Senate, lo govern tlie seven Territories of the United .Slates. 
 We have seven diflerentsets of territorial judges, appointed 
 in the same way, to e.tpound the laws for the seven Terri- 
 tories. VVc have marshals to arrest, and district attorneys 
 to prosecute, the inhabitants of these sorerciiiiitics in their 
 own country. We re(|uire the Territories to legislate in 
 obedience to our acts; and, lestthey may go astray, we some- 
 times oblige tlicni to send up their laws for our approval. It 
 has happened, time and lime again, that their legislation has 
 fallen under the disapprobation of (Joneress, and thereby 
 become void. What a viockcry to disclaim the sovereignty 
 yotir.selves, declare that it is in" the people of the Territory, 
 and then send a governor to rule them, judges to expound 
 their laws, marshals to arrest, and district attr)rneysto pros- 
 ecute them ; and, finally, to require Uicse sovereigns to send 
 
 up their laws for your sanction ; and then, by your diBap- 
 pioval,to render them null !" 
 
 Till' Riehnionil Enquirer, (Virginia,) a lending 
 Denioeralie [laiier, recently ennlaiiied an elaborate 
 article, iViMii wliich I make the folliiwiiig c'Xtract: 
 
 " We must, in the Cineiniiali \>\M\'i>rm,rcituiHiilr squatter 
 sovcrci:'utii, and CTirrcmly iifieTi Sliite ci/unlity. We muet 
 declare that it is the duty of the General (Government to nee 
 that no invidious or injuriinis dislinetions are made between 
 the people or the property of diirerent sections in the Ter- 
 ritories. We do iiiil mean to dictate. It maybe that tho 
 assertion in thejil.itfnrmof the abstract propusitliin ol Stato 
 eipiality may siiflice to carry along with it the eoirseijueneeA 
 which we desire. Hut it is oHeii charged that llie KansaH- 
 Nebraska bill coiitnitis the doctrine of sr|ualter sovereignty, 
 and that siiuatler sovereignty is the most elfieieiit agent of 
 Free-Soilisin. Some [all] northern Oeinocrnts have main- 
 tained titui ground. Now, tuih iicm must iih simkki). It 
 must appear from our platform that we niainlain nrarlical 
 State equality, and repudiate that construction of tlie Kau- 
 sas-Neliraska act which would defeat it." 
 
 The doctrine that the Constitution carries sla- 
 very into the Territories, and there legalizes and 
 Crotects it, and that the ])eo|)!e of the TerritorieB 
 ave no rig/t/ under the Constitution to le'gislate 
 upon the suliject, except to "regulate" it, was, 
 at the time of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, and now is, the doctrine of the friends of that 
 measure. 
 
 Then I ask, sir, what becomes of your siren 
 song of "squatter sovereiijnty," and the right 
 given to the people of the Territories liy the Ne- 
 braska bill "to form their own doniestn; institu- 
 tions?" It is all a baseless humbug, an outrage- 
 ous imposition, whose light only 
 " Leads to bewilder, and 
 Dazzles 1*0 blind." 
 
 There is one more very important reason why 
 the Missouri compromise should be restored, it 
 is to protect the people of Kaiisas in the enjoyment 
 of their constitutional rights. As we have already 
 remarked, the Kansas-N(>braska bill was advo- 
 cated on tlic ground that it would confer powers, 
 rights, and privileges, upon the people of Kansas, 
 not enjoyed by the people of other Territories 
 under their organic acts. Now, what has been 
 its practical operation .' I have now no time to 
 answer this question in detail. Instead of en- 
 joying tho extraordinary rights promised Iry the 
 l^ansas-Nebraska act, the people of that Terri- 
 tory have been hunted down like wild beasts — 
 been waylaid and butchered in the streets; they 
 have been lynched and mol)bed; tin ir housea 
 sacked and burned to the ground; their printing 
 presses thrown into the rivers; their property 
 destroyed; and almost every indignity which the 
 wickedness of men or devils could invent, show- 
 ered down upon their devoted heads. 
 
 The Territory has been invaded by armed 
 mobs, who have spread themselves into every 
 settlement; the peaceful settlers have been forced 
 to surrender their ballot-boxes at the point of the 
 bayonet, and then driven from the polls. In 
 order to show the kind of spirit which actuated 
 these invaders, I read the following extract from 
 the Kiekapoo Pioneer, a paper which supports 
 this Administration, and receives its patronage: 
 
 " The South must be up and doing; Kansas must and 
 shall be a slave State. Mark what we say, southern 
 freemen ! Come along with your negroes, and plow up 
 every inch of ground that is at this moment disgraei-d mid 
 defaced bv an .•Vbohtion idow. Seii<l tlw scoundrels back 
 to whence they came, or send them to hell, it matters not 
 which destination ; suit your own convenience. Sound 
 the bugle of war over the length and breadth of the land, 
 and leave not an Aboliiionisi in the Territory to relate 
 
10 
 
 tlieir treacherous and contaminating deeds. Strike your 
 piercin" rifle-balls and vour glittering steel to their black and 
 poisonous hearts; let the war-cry never cease in Kansas 
 again, until our Territory is divested of the last vestige of 
 Abolitionism." 
 
 Sir, the "Constitution of the United States has 
 been legislated into Kansas," and the people given 
 " popular sovereignty," and this is the kind of 
 protection it has afforded them. All the protec- 
 tion the National Administration has afforded 
 these hardy pioneers has been the protection the 
 " wolf affords the lamb," by removing Governor 
 Reedcr and sending out Wilson Shannon to en- 
 force the bogus laws of a border-ruffian Legisla- 
 ture. There never will be ajiy permanent peace 
 in Kansas until the question of freedom or slaver)^ ; 
 is settled , either by the restoration of the Missouri \ 
 compromise, or her admission into the Union as | 
 a free State, which is substantially the saine thing, j 
 I now pause to inquire, Is there anything j 
 sectional on the part of the Republican party, in i 
 their constitutional attempts to restore the na- ] 
 tional honor, and protect the people of Kansas in 
 the peaceful enjoyments of their civil rights ? If 
 tliere is, make the most of it. 
 
 The second general proposition I now desire 
 to discuss, is the " Sectionalily of the Democratic 
 party.'' In pursuing this investigation I intend 
 to speak respectfully, but plainly. There are 
 many reminiscences still lingering about the old 
 Democratic party of a pleasant character. It was 
 once a great and powerful party. It was the 
 party originally founded by Jefferson; and as we 
 travel from its organization down the stream of 
 time, we find in its front ranks some of the greatest 
 and best men that ever honored and graced our 
 country. It was once a party providly standing 
 upon a platform of national principles, around 
 which the patriotic of every section. North and 
 South, could consistently rally. But " how have 
 the mighty fallen," and the " fine gold become 
 dim!" Where stands the so-called Democratic 
 party of the present day ? Has it not changed 
 fronts; abandoned its old landmarks; denied the 
 faith, and gone over to sectionalism.' These 
 questions I now propose to discuss. 
 
 Slavery can in no just sense be termed a na- ^ 
 tional institution. We have already shown that 
 tlie founders of the Republic did not so consider 
 it. Both the Constitution and the early legis- 
 lation of the country clearly indicate the fact, 
 that Washington, and Jefferson, and Madison, 
 and their cotemporaries, looked forward to the 
 ultimate extinction of this evil at an early day. 
 The framers of the Constitution left slavery where 
 tliey found it — with the States — a municipal regu- 
 lation, subject entirely to their jurisdiction and 
 control. Being left to the States, it became of 
 necessity sectional. Beyond the jurisdiction of the 
 States where it exists, it has no legal protection. 
 Again, slavery is an unnatural right, and can only 
 exist l)y virtue of the local laws of the States.^ 
 
 This question has been so decided by our judi- 
 cial coui-ls. North and South, over and over again. 
 But in order to put this matter beyond all doubt, 
 I will cite two or three authorities from the 
 decisions of courts in slave States. 
 
 In the case of the State of Mississippi vs. Isaac 
 Jones, the Court decided that — 
 
 " The right of the master exists not by force of the Invf 
 of nature, or of nations, but by virtue only of the positive 
 law of the State."— Walker's Reports, 86. 
 
 In another case in the same State, the Court 
 say: 
 
 " Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of nature. 
 It exists, and can only exist, through municipal regulation." ^ 
 — Hary vs. Decker; Walker's Reports, 42. 
 
 The next authority which I read is from 2 
 Marten's Louisiana Reports, 402, 403: 
 
 " Tlie relation of owner and slave is, in the States of 
 this Union in which it has a legal existence, a creature of 
 municipal law." 
 
 I will cite one other avithority to this point out 
 of the many that are found in the Reports. I 
 read from the case of Rankin vs. Lydia, 2 Mar- 
 shall's Kentucky Reports, in which the Court 
 say: 
 
 " Slavery is sanctioned by the lavys of this State, (Ken- 
 ucky,) and the right to hold them under our mimidjsni reg- 
 ulations is unquestionable. But we view this as a right 
 existing by positive law of a municipal cliaracter, irithout 
 foundation in the law of nature, or the unwritten and com^ 
 mon law." 
 
 Chattel slavery has no existence except in one 
 secHonof the country; therefore, any political party 
 which favors slavery, or in any way lends its 
 influence to spread it, favors one section of the 
 country at the expense of the other, and is most 
 emphatically a see/Jo?iai party. A party whose 
 leading object is to favor the "peculiar institu- 
 ' tions" of the South, can have no element of na- 
 tionality about it. 
 
 j I have already remarked that the Democratic 
 ! party was once a national party. The leading men 
 j of the party, until within a few years, held that 
 ' Congress had constitutional power to prohibit 
 slavery in the Territories, and that it is expedient 
 i to exercise this power. I have already spoken 
 ! of the position of leading Democrats in the early 
 j history of the country. So well settled was this 
 principle, that when the Wilmot proviso was first 
 I introduced into Congress in 1847, only two Dem- 
 ocratic members from the free States voted against 
 i it. Among those who voted for it, were the Hon. 
 1 Robert McClelland, now Secretary of the Interior; 
 Senator Brodhead, of Pennsylvania; ex-Governor 
 Dunlap, of Maine; and the late Senator Norris, 
 of New Hampshii-e. The late lamented Silas 
 Wright, General Dix of New York, and other 
 leading Democrats all over the country, favored 
 the measure. The leading papers of the Demo- 
 cratic press came out for it. The Eastern Argus, 
 the leading Democratic paper in Maine, and the 
 New Hampshire Patriot, the leading Democratic 
 paperin New Hampshire, both took strong ground 
 for the proviso. More than this, a majority of the 
 free States of the Union passed resolutions in- 
 structing their Senators in Congress to go for the 
 measure; and in a majority of these States the 
 Democratic party held the political control. In 
 1848 the following, among other Democratic mem- 
 bers, voted for the bill organizing the Territory 
 of Oregon with a proviso forever prohibiting sla- 
 very: "Messrs. Allen, of Ohio; Benton, of Mis- 
 souri; Bright and Brcese, of Indiana; Douglas, of 
 Illinois; Dodge, of Wisconsin; Dix and Dicker- 
 son, of New York; and Houston, of Texas. (Con- 
 gressional Globe.) 
 
 President Pierce himself, at a meeting held at 
 Concord, New Hampshire, June 12, 1845, as re- 
 ported in the New Hampshire Patriot, in reply to 
 Senator Hale, said: 
 " He had only to say now, what he had always said, that 
 
II 
 
 he regarded tUtvery ea one of the greatest moral and tocial 
 eviU — a curse-uponthe ii-hole country; and thin he helici-ed to 
 be the setilimcnt of all men of all parties at the North. iMr. 
 P. WHS (roe to iijiiiit that he had liiiiiscir !i|i|>riiai-|ii'il iliis 
 sulijec't of aiiiic.valiiiii [of 'I^•.\a^i] witli ull lii.s pn-juilic-i-H 
 and proposspssioiis asainst it, ami on onk iiniii'M) ai.onk — 
 
 ITS SLAVKRY FKATURK. His coiivirtioiis oil llli.s Klllljl-Ct 
 wi^rf, as lie had slated, slroii<;— not the rosiilt ol' any ni.'W 
 light, hut (li'i'ply fixed and ahidiiii;. The only iiirKKiM.TY 
 
 IN niS MIM> KVKR 1IAH HKKN TIIA r OF A RKICIGNITIOM BY 
 ANY SKW ACT OK OITR (JoVKItNMINT OK TIIK INSTITHTION 
 
 OK noMKSTir si.AVKRY ; and he had rciiiml it ••xtreiiiely ilil- 
 ticult to hriii<; his iiiiiul to a eoiuliiioii iiii|iarliully to \vei|>li 
 the argiiineiit lor and against the ineaMiie.'' 
 
 In 1851, General Pierce, in the convention of 
 New Hampsliiro for revising the Constitution, 
 left the chair, made a s|ieech which was reported 
 in tlie New Ilainpsliire Patriot, and among other 
 things said: 
 
 " I WOCt.D TAKK THE (iROOND OF THE NON-EXTENSION OK 
 SI.AVKKV — THAT SLAVERY SHOULD NOTUECOMK STRONOKR. 
 
 Hut Coiiiiress have only reonacted the old law ol" ITU.'t. 
 Union loving men, desiring peace and loving their country, 
 conceded that point — cnwii.lingly coNCEDEn it — and, 
 planting themseives upon this law against tlicouthursLs ol 
 popular reeling, resisted llic agitation which is assaulting 
 all who stand up lor their country. Hiit the^gentlenian says 
 that the law is obnoxious. Wii ^t single thing is there 
 
 CONNECTED WITH SLAVERY THAT IS NOT OBNOXIOUS.' 
 
 Even the okntleman from .Marlboroii:ii (Dr. Hatchel- 
 
 lar) CANNOT FEEL MORE DEErLY THAN I DO ON THE SUU- 
 JKCT." 
 
 New Hampshire and Maine have heretofore 
 been tiie two leading Democratic States, not only 
 in New England but the Union. Tlie Democratic 
 party in these two States were the very last to 
 falter, and the last to be conquered; for they, like 
 General Taylor, "never surrendered." As long 
 ago as 1828, the county of Cumberland, in Maine, 
 the larger portion of which is in my district, 
 "solitary and alone" in all J^ew En<;land, gave 
 her electoral vote to ^indrew Jackson. For this act 
 of fidelity to the gallant old hero, tiiis county 
 was long known as the " Star in the East;" and 
 the now venerable James C. Churchill, who was 
 die standard-bearer of the " unterrified" in tliat 
 great fight is ijow an honored member of the 
 Republican party. I have seen a letter written 
 by him, dated ^Portland, March 21, 185G, in 
 answer to an invitation from the "American 
 Republicans" of Dover, New Hampshire, to 
 meet with them and celebrate the late glorious 
 victory in that State, in which he says: 
 
 '• I congratulate you most heartily and sincerely in having 
 obUliiied a victory so signal and so glorious. It seems to iiie 
 tlie advocate of ' Rum' lacks good morals and jood juilg- 
 nient ; the advocate of extension of ' slavery" lacks gmid 
 sense and good principles, and every good thing for which 
 our fatJiers I'ought and conquered in the Kevolution." 
 
 In 1832, Maine gave her ten electoral votes 
 to Old Hickory, and gallant New Hampshire 
 wheeled in by her side, wiili her seven. In 183G, 
 they both went for Van Buren. In 1840, the 
 democracy of Maine, after a terrible fight, was 
 beaten only by a few hundreds. " Hard cider, 
 log cabins, and gold spoons," were too much for 
 her. But New Hampshire, firm as her" granite 
 hills," breasted the storm, withstood the shock, 
 and gave her seven electoral votes for Van Buren. 
 In 1844, both States went for James K. Polk; in 
 1848, both voted for Genera! Cass; and in 1852, 
 both, by overwhelming majorities, chose electors 
 for Franklin Pierce. 
 
 With this clean Democratic record, where has 
 the Democratic party in these States stood upon 
 the question of slavery prohibition in the Terri- 
 tories .' I answer, just where the Republican 
 party now stand; and 1 will proceed to prove it. 
 
 The Deiriocratic State Committee of New 
 Hampshire, in October, 1847, passed llie follow- 
 ing resolution: 
 
 " Ilcsolviul, That we declare it oiirhoi.emn convictiok, 
 as the Democratic party liavi; heretofore done, iliatneiihc-r 
 .v/nerrj/ nor involuiitiirii serfilude should hereafter rxi.-l in 
 any territory which may he ac(|uircd hy or annexed in the 
 ITiiited Slates; and that we approve of ilie votes of our 
 delegation in CongresH in favor of the VVilmot l'r<ivi>o." 
 
 In 1848, the Legislature of that State, which 
 had an overwhelming Democratic majority, re- 
 solved as follows: 
 
 " Keiolved In/ the Senate and Iloutc of RejrretenlatU'ca in 
 General -t'oiirt ronrfiieJ, That we are in favor of the pan- 
 sage of a law, hy( Congress, J'orercr jirohildtiu^ slavery in 
 New Mexico and ( 'aliltirn ia, anW inn// of /icr Territories I'low 
 acquired, or herealler to be acquired, by the (/iiited States, 
 in which slavery does not exist at the time of ouch aequiiii- 
 tion." 
 
 And in 1849, (he New Hamp.shirc Legislature, 
 still strongly Democratic, unanimously adopted 
 the following resolutions: 
 
 " Resolved hy the Senate and House of Representatives in 
 General Court convened, That, opposed to every form of 
 oppression, the people nf New llainpshin* have ever viewed 
 with deep regret tliiM'xistence of slavi^ry in this Union ; that 
 while they have steadfastly supported all si'clions in their 
 constitutional rights, they have not only lamented its exist- 
 ence as a great social evil, but regarded it as fraught uHth 
 danger to the peace and welfare of the nation. 
 
 " Resolved, That while we respect the rights of the slave- 
 holding as well as the free portionsof this Union— while we 
 will not willingly consent that wrong be done to any inem- 
 her of the glorious Confi'<liTacy to which we belong, we 
 are firmly and cnalteraiily oim'osed to the exten- 
 sion OF SLAVERY OVER ANY PORTION OF A.MERICAN SOIL 
 NOW FREE. 
 
 " Resolved, That, in our opinion, Congress has the con- 
 stitutional POWER to abolish the slavf. trade and 
 SLAVERY inthe DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ; and that our Sen- 
 ators BE INSTRUCTED, and our Representatives be re- 
 quested, TO TAKE ALL CONSTITUTIONAL MEASURES tO 
 accoiii|)lish these objects." — See sjieech of Senator Hale. 
 
 But how have the Democratic " veterans of an 
 hundred l>attles" in Maine stood upon this ques- 
 tion .' AVe will see. 
 
 In 1847, Hon. John W. Dana was Governor of 
 Maine, and the Legislature was strongly Demo- 
 cratic. In hisannual message Governor D. said: 
 
 " The territory which we may acquire as indemnity for 
 claims upon Mexico, is free ; sjiall it be made slave terri- 
 tory? The sentiment of the free States is profound, sincere, 
 and almost universal, that the influence of slavery upon 
 productive energy is like the blight of mildew, — that it is a 
 moral and a social evil ; that it does violence to the rights 
 of man, as a thinking, reasoning, and res|K)n^ible being; 
 that its existence in this territory will shut out free labor, 
 because the free man will not submit himself to the degra- 
 dation which attaches to labor wherever slavery exists. 
 Influenced by such considerations, the free States will op- 
 pose the introduction of slavery into the territory which njay 
 be acquired." 
 
 In speaking of the right of slaveholders to liold 
 their slaves in the Territories of the United States, 
 he further said: 
 
 " On the other hand, the slave States claim that this ter- 
 ritory will be acquired, if acquired at all, by the blood and 
 treasure of all the States of the Union, to become the joint 
 property of all ; to be held for the benefit of all. And they 
 emphatically ask, ' Is it consistent with justice." His rieht 
 to ac(|uireand possess property is one of the inherent rights 
 of man, independent of laws and constitutions. Not so 
 with the right to his slave ; that is an ijnnatural, an ar- 
 tificial, A statute right; and when he voluntarily 
 p;isses with a slave to a Territory, where the statute recog- 
 nizing the right does not exist, then at once the right ceases 
 to exist. The slave becomes a free man, with just as 
 
 MUCH right TO CLAl.H THE MASTER, AS THE MASTER TO 
 CLAIM THE slave." 
 
 This is precisely where the Republican party 
 now stand. And who is Governor Dana.' Now 
 
12 
 
 Minister to Bolivia, and appointed by President 
 Pierce. 
 
 The Legislature responded, and passed the 
 following resolutions, with only six nays in the 
 House, and by a large majority in the Senate: 
 
 " Resoli.'e<l, That the sentiment of this State is profound, 
 sincere, and almost universal, that the influence of slavery 
 upon productive eneigy is hke the blight of mildew ; that it 
 is a moral and social evil ; that it does violence to the rights 
 of man, as a thinking, reasonable, and responsible being. 
 Influenced by such considerations, this State will oppose 
 the introduction of slaveiy into any Territory which may 
 be acquired as an indemnity for claims upon Mexico. 
 
 " Resolved, That in the acquisition of any free territory, 
 whether by purchase or otherwise, we deem it the duty of 
 the General Government to extend over the same the ordi- 
 nance of seventeen hundred and eighty-seven, with all its 
 rights and privileges, conditions and immunities. 
 
 " Resolved, That our Senators be instructed, and our 
 Representatives requested, to support and carry out the 
 principles of the foregoing resolutions." 
 
 August 2, 1848, the Legislature of Maine, still 
 strongly Democratic, passed the following resolu- 
 tions relating to the extension of slavery in newly- 
 acquired territory: 
 
 " Resolned, That Maine duly appreciates the concession 
 and compromises which led to the adoption and establish- 
 ment of the -Constitution of the United States ; and she 
 will cheerfully and honestly abide by the letter and spirit 
 of them. At tlie same time she will firmly resist all demands 
 for their enlargement and extension. 
 
 ^'Resolved, That the sentijuenl of this State is profound, 
 sincere, and almost universal, that the influence of slavery 
 upon productive energy is like tin; bliglil of mildew ; that 
 it is debasing and degrading in its influence upon free labor ; 
 that it is a moral and social evil ; that it does violence to 
 the rights of man as a rational, thinking, and accountable 
 being; influenced by these and other important considera- 
 tions, this State will firmly oppose the introduction of sla- 
 very into any Territory acquired as an indenmity for claims 
 tipon Mexico. 
 
 " Resolved, That it is the duty of Congress to prevent, 
 by the exercise of all constitutional power, the extension of 
 slavery into territorj' of the United States now free. 
 
 " Resolved, That our Senators in Congress are hereby 
 instructed, and our Representatives requested, to support 
 and carry out the principles of tlie foregohig resolutions." 
 
 June 28, 1849, the Democratic party in Maine 
 held a State convention, at which Hon. John 
 Hubbard was nominated for Governor. This 
 convention was composed of six hundred dele- 
 gates, at which the following resolutions were 
 passed — only one solitary member voting against 
 them: 
 
 " Resolved, That the institution of human slavery is at 
 variance with the theory of our Government, abhorrent to 
 th£ common sentiment of mankind, and fraught with dan- 
 ger to all who come within the .s^phere of its influence ; that 
 the l''ederal Government jiosscsses adequate jioncr to inhibit 
 its existence in the Territories of the Union; that the consti- 
 tutionality of this power has been settled by judicial C07istruc- 
 tion, by cotemporaneous expositions, arid by repeated acts 
 of legislation ; and that we enjoin upon our Senators and 
 Representatives in Congress to make every exertion, and 
 employ all their influence, to procure the passage of a law 
 forever excluding slavery from the Territories of California 
 and New Mexico. 
 
 " Resolved, That while we most cheerfully concede to 
 our southern brethren the right, on all occasions, to speak 
 and act with entire freedom on questions connected with 
 slavery in the Territories, we claim the exercise of the 
 same right for ourselves ; and any attempt, from any quar- 
 ter, to stigmatize us or our Representatives for advocating 
 or defending the opinions of our people upon this subject, 
 will be repelled as an unwarrantable act of aggression upon 
 tlie rights of the citizens of this State." 
 
 At this convention a committee, of which Col- 
 onel Ephraim K. Smart was chairman, was 
 raised to report an address to the people, from 
 which address I read the following extract : 
 
 " TUo, Whig party of this State will undoubtedly present 
 a candidate in opposition to him [Hubljanl] who will be 
 a swift advocate of anti-slavery principles ; but he will, at 
 
 the same time, necessarily feel himself under greater obli- 
 gations to give aid and comfort to a President [Taylor] 
 and Cabinet hostile to the inhibition of slavery in our Ter- 
 ritories. A Governor with such associates irould utterly 
 fail to exact any moral influence in favor of frkedom in 
 THE Territories. The anti-slavery professions, we are • 
 sure, of one who is bound to do the biddinz of the pres- 
 ent Cabinet AT Washington, wiH be taken at Iheir true 
 value. The people have become justly jealous of those 
 who make such jirofessions and at the same time cling to the 
 great central power atthe Capitol, and, for favor there, 
 even submit to the sacrifice of principles. In the pres- 
 ent temper of the times it will be very difficult for such to 
 obtain jmwer." 
 
 And who is Colonel Smart.' Answer. Col- 
 lector at Belfast, Maine, appointed by President 
 Pierce, while he is now publishing a newspaper 
 called the "Free Press," puffing the President 
 to the skies, advocating the reelection of General 
 Pierce with a zeal and fanaticism which throws 
 every other Democrat in Maine far into the shade. 
 
 Governor Hubbard, after his nomination, was 
 written to by some of his political friends as to 
 his position, and made the following reply: 
 
 Hallowell, July 17, 1849. 
 Gentlemen : Yours of the 16th, re(|uestiiig a " state- 
 ment of my views in relation to the extension of slavery 
 into Territories of the United States now free," is before 
 me. The question in all its practical bearings, as a subject 
 of deliberative and solemn legislation, is an extensive one. 
 1 can only give here a brief statement of the principles which 
 would guide my action upon it. 
 
 First. I believe Congress to have entire, constitutional 
 jurisdiction over the whole subject of slavery in the Terri- 
 tories of the United States. 
 
 Second. I am opposed to slavery in all its bearings, moral, 
 social, and political, and especially am I opposed to its ex- 
 tension. 
 
 Third. I would adopt all constitutional and equitable 
 means to prevent tlie extension of slavery into Territories 
 now free. 
 
 Hoping, gentlemen, that this brief exposi will meet your 
 views, I am, with sentiments of respect and resard, yours, 
 
 JOHN HUBBARD. 
 Messrs. Adams Treat, Thomas M. Merkow, William 
 
 Merriam, Author Treat, Jesse Smart, J:mN Hodg- 
 
 DON, p. SiMONTON, G. N. WhITE, NaTHAN WORTHING, 
 
 Daniel Wentworth, Joseph Bachelder, Daniel 
 
 Smith. 
 
 In 1854 the Legislature of Maine — being in 
 session at the time the Kansas-Nebraska bill was 
 pending before Congress — passed the following 
 resolutions, with but six nays in the House, and 
 only one in the Senate: 
 
 " Resolved, That the Senators in Congress from Maine 
 be instructed, and the Representatives requested, to oppose 
 in every practicable way the passage of the Nebraska bill, 
 so called, so long as it shall contain any provision repealing, 
 abrogating, rescinding, or in any way invalidating that pro- 
 vision of the act of Congress approved March 6, 1820, com- 
 monly called the Missouri compromise. 
 
 " Resolved, That the Governor be requested to forward 
 a copy of the above resolution to each of our Senators and 
 Representatives at Washington." 
 
 Among those who voted for these resolves 
 were Hon. N. S. Littlefield, a leading Democrat 
 in ray State, and four years a member of Con- 
 gress, and president of the last Democratic State 
 convention in Maine, held in June last, and Hon. 
 Lot M. Merrill, another leader of the party, who 
 was the Democratic candidate for the United 
 States Senate in opposition to Hon. William P 
 Fessenden, and is now president of the Senate in 
 Maine. 
 
 During the congressional canvass in my dis- 
 trict, in 1854, and a few days before election, 
 my competitor for Congress, Hon. William K. 
 Kimball, came out in a letter, in reply to one 
 [ addressed to him by Hon. W. H. Vinton, and 
 I others, inquiring as to his position upon the 
 1 slavery question — which letter was extensively 
 
13 
 
 circulated through the district— in which Mr. 
 Kimbiill iitiid: 
 
 " (iciilli'iiicii, I have recL'ivcd your letter oftlio Isl iiisliiiil, 
 and li>.-<' no linir in rcplyinsj to it. I'pon the geiifiul snli- 
 Ji'ct orAmi'iiciuisl.ivriy, riiy 0|iiiiioiis, pi-rliiips, are iMt ilil- 
 Irrcnt I'mni your own, or from lliosi- u.-iiiilly mlcrlaiiK d l>y 
 liorllicrn nirn. I ri'fiard it as u social, moral . and polilii-al 
 evil; and its siiofi-ssliil iilxilllion in my judL'nii'nt would In.' 
 worth ahiiosl any price short of the I'nion iisc'lf. 'I'lie idi'a 
 (if its extension into new Terriloiies mint lie alihorciit to 
 every rifrht minded nndsouiidhearlediiian. Nothing could 
 induce me to i;ive my vote or iuHueiicu to estahlish it on a 
 single fool of free soil." 
 
 With this Idler in their liands, the friends of 
 Mr. Kiniliall, on the vtnj ere of the cleclion, went 
 throuu:h my district, ursrinj:: men who Imd for- 
 merly been eonneeted with tlie Fi-ec-Snil |);irly to 
 vote for him, alleirinc;, as a reason, that he was 
 more ultra tlian myself upon the slavery que.slion, 
 at the same time producing that letter as evidence 
 of that fact. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I could go on at almost any 
 ength in proving by the records of the past that, 
 Ithe Democratic ]iarty upon this question have 
 in years past, held the same jiosition now occu- 
 pied by the Republican party; but I have no lime 
 to put in much other evidence to thi.s point which 
 1 have cnllecled fortius purpose. But I will now 
 return, and desire to propound the same question 
 to the Democratic party which the Almighty put 
 to Adam afterhehad sinned, " AVhere art thou.'" 
 and, by the way, that party-is very much in the 
 same condition Adam was when thus interro- 
 gated; and as he was driven out of Paradise by 
 his Maker for his sins, so the Democratic party 
 has been driven out of power by the pe'oplc for the 
 same cause, with now no very good prospect of 
 ever getting back into "Paradise." But to the 
 question and the answer. 
 
 After General Cass, in liis celebrated " Nichol- 
 son litter," in lUiS, u-andered o£' South, and pub- 
 lished to the country the ftict that a " change had 
 been going on in his own mind as well as in j 
 others," out of respect for, or sympathy with, a 
 great political leader — with a love for the spoils, 
 or an inordinate thirst for power and place, or 
 some other reasons, he was soon followed by no 
 inconsiderable number of prominent inen of his 
 
 Earty. From that day to this they have been 
 acking down, backing down, and backing down, 
 until the Democratic party has lost every element 
 of nationality, and is now become a mere sec- 
 tional instrumentality to spread slavery into free 
 Territory, and build a great slave oligarchy to 
 override every other interest in the whole coun- 
 try. To allow slavery to go into the vast fields 
 of Kansas and Nebraska, the Democratic party 
 united with ihe South to break down the great 
 banner of freedom in the repeal of the Missouri 
 compact. This party is now using its whole power 
 to make slavery national. Having by sectional 
 legislation exposed every foot of American soil 
 to the withering, blighting mildews of slavery, 
 the party now hugs the viper to its bosom, and 
 declares eternal iiostility to " restoration," or a 
 correction of the great wrong by them committed 
 upon the best interests of the Union. 
 
 What is Democracy in 1856? Let us examine 
 this question. In order to a right understanding 
 of this matter,! will call the attention of the com- 
 mittee to Certain resolutions passed bj- Democratic 
 conventions in several of the States, as their 
 " platform of [u-inciples — as the basis of a national 
 organization." 
 
 First, I will read certain re.sohitions of the 
 Democracy of Alabama, at their late convention 
 to elect delegates to the Cincinnati convention. 
 Thi.s convention declared in favor of General 
 Pierce's n'noiniiiation: 
 
 licsolicl, "8. 'I'hat it in expedient that wo hlioiilil be 
 represenii'd in the lleiinieralie National (..'oiiventioii upon 
 such couilitiotii a.-i are hert-iiiatter expressed. 
 
 "9. 'I'lnit Ihedelei-aiesto the Dciiioeralie National Con- 
 vention, to noininaie n I'rcsi<lent and N'lee I'n-sident, «r« 
 hcreliy cvjtrcssl-ii iiitiruclnl to iiiviVf that tin; said convention 
 liliall adopt « jiltttfonn of jn-incijdcs ru Ihc liaais of a national 
 or liuni zillion, prior to the noininatioii of candidalus, un- 
 cpiivoeatty a.sserlini;, in suli^lanee, Hie Hdlowiii); proposi- 
 lioiis: 1. 'I'lie reeii';iiilii)n and approval of tin' principle of 
 lion intervention by ('oiiL'ress upon ihe siilijeet of slavery in 
 the Territoric's. 3. Thut no rcslrirlion or iiroliiliition of 
 slavery in any Territory shull hcrenflcr I'C made in ami act of 
 Congress. 'A. That no .Slate shall lie refused adinistiiMii into 
 the iJniou because of the existence of slavery therein. 4. 
 The faithful cxeuiitioii and inaiiiteiiaiice of the ttigitive 
 slave law. 
 
 '' 10. That if said National Convention shall refuse to 
 adopt the propositliins embraced in the priH'ediii!; resoliilioii, 
 our delegates In said eonvenlion arc hereby poiitiicly irv- 
 struitcd to uitlulraw IhercfrOTn.^' 
 
 The Democratic convention of Missis-sippi, 
 which assembled in January last to elect (dele- 
 gates to iht.' same convention, passed tiie follow- 
 ing resolutions: 
 
 licsoh-cH, ••4. That our delegates to the next National 
 Convention of the Democratic party, to be held for the pur- 
 pose of nomiiiatins candidates for president and Vice Presi- 
 dent, are hereby instructed thai they are to insist on the 
 adoption by said coiivimtion of a platform of printiplcs 
 which shall contain : 
 
 " 1. A recognition and adoption of the principles of the 
 act of Congress commonly called the Kansas Nebraska acU 
 
 "2. A pledge to resist all attempts to abolish slavery in 
 the District of ('olumliia, or to prohibit the slave trade be- 
 tween the States. 
 
 " 3. A pledge to resist all attempts to repeal the fugitive 
 slave bill or impair its faithful execution." 
 
 The Democratic State convention of Georgia, 
 the " Empire State" of the South, which, 1 think, 
 was holden on the 6th of June last, adopted the 
 following resolutions: 
 
 " Rcsolied, That we adopt as our own the following 
 re.soliilion, passed unanimously by the last Legislature of 
 Georgia : 
 
 " 'Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Geor- 
 sia, Tiiat opposition to the principles' ol the Nebraska bill, 
 in relation to the subject of slavery, is regarded by the peo- 
 ple of Georgia as hostility to the people of the South, and 
 that all persons who partake in such oppo.-iiion are unfit 
 to be recognized as component parts of any party or organ- 
 ization not hostile to the iHoulh.' 
 
 " Resolved, That in accordance with the above resolu- 
 tion, whilst we are willing to act in parly association with all 
 sound and reliable nen in cvi'iy section of the Union, we 
 are not willing to atlillate wilh any party Ihat shall not rec- 
 ognize, approve, and carry out the principles and provisions 
 of the Nebra^:ka-Kan>as act ; and that the Demiicralie party 
 of Georgia will cut olfall parly e()Mne<'tion with every man 
 and party at the North or elsewhere that does not come up 
 fully and fairly to this line of action.'' 
 
 1 have no time to refer to resolutions of Demo- 
 cratic conventions in other States; they are all of 
 the same tenor. 
 
 The Democratic platform has three principal 
 planks: 
 
 1. The Constitution of the United States carries 
 slavery into the Territories, and there protects it; 
 
 2. No restriction or prohibition of slavery in 
 the Territories; and 
 
 3. The maintenance and execution of the fugi- 
 tive slave law. 
 
 Here is a platform constructed exclusively to 
 favor southern interests. Is it a national benefit 
 to extend slavery into the Territories, or is it 
 done for the benefit of a section.' Was not the 
 fugitive slave law made for the benefit of the 
 
14 
 
 South, and do not its supporters demand its 
 execution to protect southern interests ? 
 
 The Democratic platform is sectional in all its 
 
 fiarts; and to call it a " national" platform is a 
 ibcl upon the common sense of every man who 
 reads it. 
 
 With all these facts glaring; them in the face, 
 the members of the so-called Democratic party, 
 the supporters of the present national Adminis- 
 tration, have the unblushing impudence to stand 
 up, and say to those of us who have, on the stump 
 and at the ballot-box, through good report and 
 evil report, supported Jackson, and Van Burcn, 
 and Polk, and Pierce, (until he forsook his friends 
 and abandoned his platform,) and have clung to the 
 Democratic party like the mariner to the wreck, 
 until there was not a single plank of its good old 
 
 Elatform left to save us from perdition , that we 
 ave left the Democratic party — that we have 
 changed and gone over to Abolitionism — when 
 they know, and we know, and the whole world 
 knows, that they are the men that have changed, 
 they are the deserters, that they have gone off and 
 offered sacrifices to strange gods, while we are 
 defending the sacramental altars and consecrated 
 fires of the " God of our fathers." While we 
 are, in good faith, maintaining and defending the 
 doctrines of Jefferson and the Democratic party, 
 they are bowing down and worshiping the Dagon 
 god of African slavery. 
 
 But it may be said the Cincinnati convention 
 will not adopt the platform dictated by the sev- 
 eral State conventions I have referred to. If any 
 one entertains this opinion he is grossly mis- 
 taken. What says the Democracy of Alabama.' 
 They instruct their delegates to "withdraw" 
 unless the convention comes up to the mark; 
 while the Democrats of Georgia declare they "will 
 cut off all party connection with every man and 
 party at the ^''orth, or elseichere, that does not fully 
 and fairly come up to this line of action. " It may 
 be a bitter dose for northern Democrats, and they 
 may at first resist it; but it will be of no use, for 
 they will have to drink the poisoned draught to 
 the very dregs. Yes, gentlemen, you have got to 
 take the whole dose; and, however bitter and 
 nauseating it may be, you have not only got to 
 swallow it, but say you love it. Every northern 
 Democrat will have to mount the Juggernaut car 
 of slavery, "hold the reins, or crack the whip," 
 or be thrown overboard to be crushed under the 
 
 !)onderous weight of its gigantic wheels. An 
 lonorable gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
 Keitt] the other day, in eloquent, but plain lan- 
 guage, announced to the Democratic party the 
 line of policy it had got to pursue to receive 
 southern support. That gentleman said: 
 
 "The Democratic party at the North has been cut down 
 In tlie fight. It has passed through tire and water. It has 
 come out cleansed, with whitened garments. It is nov/ 
 strong enough to dn liattle for the Constitution. Will you 
 swell it, for the spoils, with a motley horde, wearing soiled 
 and tattered robes? If you will, give the platform to the] 
 Sok/A, and the man to the North." * * * * *[ 
 ",The South should establish in the platform the principle, 
 that the right of a southern man to his slave is equal in its j 
 length and breadth to the right of the northern man to his 
 horse. She should make the recognition of the right full, 
 complete, and indisputable." 
 
 There is one other piece of evidence I will offer 
 upon this point. Frankhn Pierce and his admin- 
 istration are indorsed by the Democratic party. 
 Of course what he believes they believe. Now, 
 to show his position and that of the party who 
 
 support him, I will read an extract of a letter 
 from Senator Evans, of South Carolina, recently 
 written and published, recommending his State 
 to go into the Cincinnati convention. He says: 
 
 " President Pierce is a man after our own hearts. Both 
 in words and deeds he comes nearer to our opinions than 
 any man who has preceded him for the last thirty years. 
 Our vote may give him the nomination, and my best judg- 
 ment is that we ought to join in the selection." 
 
 In the face of these facts we hear it proclaimed 
 in these Halls, upon the stump, and everywhere, 
 that the Democratic party is a national party. 
 Members of this southern-sectional party talk 
 with greatflippancy about "national Democrats," 
 " national Democracy;" and almost in the same 
 breath denounce the only truly national party in 
 the country as " Black Republicans," sectional- 
 ists and fanatics. Black Republicans! Who can 
 help admiring the taste of a party who, for the 
 want of argument to sustain their cause, resort to 
 the doubtful experiment of dealing in opprobri- 
 ous epithets? "Black Republicans!" Sir, let 
 the party whose very existence is shrouded by 
 the "black" pall of Egyptian night, first wash 
 out the " black" stains of its own pollution before 
 it deals out contemptuous, reproachful terms upon 
 its neighbors. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, before closing my remarks, I 
 desire to notice another charge of a more serious 
 character brought against the Republican party. 
 The members of this party are charged with 
 being "disunionists." Never was there a charge 
 more unfounded, more untrue. I call upon gen- 
 tlemen who make this groundless assumption 
 to bring out your proof, or " back out." But it 
 was said on this floor, prior to the organization 
 of this House, that the distinguished gentleman 
 from Massachusetts, who with so much ability 
 and impartiality presides over our legislative 
 deliberations, upon a certain occasion said, there 
 " might come a contingency when he should be 
 willing to let the Union slide;" and almost any 
 amount of holy horror was expressed by the 
 administration members of the House over this 
 rumor. 
 
 Now, sir, supposing the honorable Speaker 
 did make this remark — which I do not admit — it 
 is no threat of disunion; it expresses no desire for 
 disunion; and it never can be tortured into the 
 expression of a sentiment /aroj-aft/e to the disso- 
 lution of the Union under any contingency. I 
 defy any gentleman to point me to a single Repub- 
 lican convention in any part of the country, that 
 has ever been holden, where anything like dis- 
 union sentiments have been uttered. These 
 charges of disunion against the Republican party, 
 or any of its members, when investigated and 
 weighed in the balance of truth, will all disappear, 
 like the "baseless fabric of a vision." Neither 
 is there anything in the political opinions or 
 platform of the Republican party, that tends to a 
 disruption of these States. We revere the Con- 
 stitution, and live up to all its obligations; and 
 when we are charged with disloyalty to this 
 great charter of freedom, we hurl back the charge 
 and deny the impeachment. 
 
 But who makes these charges against the Re- 
 publican party .' What political organization 
 stands up to charge the Republicans of this coun- 
 try with political treason .' It is the so-called 
 Democratic party that has done it, and is now 
 doing it. Sir, this issue hr.s been forced upon us, 
 and we accept it. We will not only act on the 
 
15 
 
 defensive, but we " carry the war into Africa." 
 How stands the Nebraska Democracy upon this 
 
 question ? 
 
 I have some recollection about a southern con- 
 vention at Mashville, in June, 18.')0. I do not say 
 for what [nu-pose this meeting was called. I will 
 let Colonel Trotti, a delegate tVoni Stuith Caro- 
 lina to said convention, give his uiuiersuiiulini: of 
 the matter, by givine; an extract of a siieeeii made 
 by him at the meeting at which he was chosen. 
 It may be found in the National Intelligencer, in I 
 June, 1850. He says in giving his own views: | 
 " 'I'hal p<iiiV('iitii)ii should .••ay to llii' imii slaveliolilint; 
 States, the t^oulh will riiaintaiii her righu uiid e<iualily in y 
 till' I'liinn, or she ti-ill dissolve it." 1 
 
 In this convention figured several distinguished 
 gentlemen of the Democratic party. One of the ; 
 resolutions there adopted declares — | 
 
 "Tliat tlio slavcliolding States raimo< and wil.l, not sub- ' 
 mit to Ui(" enactment by t'oiipress of any law iiin>o^itig 
 onerous conditions and restraints upon the rights of inast('rs 
 to remove with llicir property into llio Territories of tlie j 
 United t>tales." 
 
 I think a majority of the meeting, after getting 
 together, were opposed to takingany violent meas- 
 ures to bring about a rupture with the General , 
 Government; yet Governor Foote, of Mississippi, 
 in a speech in the United States Senate, July 18, 
 1850, says: | 
 
 " Tliat Ihero were disunioiiists there, (though I regret to ; 
 acknowledge it,) is a fact iclnch cannot he denied, for several | 
 gentlemen who aoteil a prominent part in the eonveiition [ 
 are understood to have unfurled the tlag of disunion sinee 
 tlie convention adjourned." — ^ppsndix Cong. Globe, \oi.i 
 22, p. lyJO. 
 
 Hon. Jefferson Davis, now Secretary of War, 
 in a speech in the United States Senate, June 27, ' 
 1850, when speaking of " disunion," said: | 
 
 " It is an alternative not to be anticipated— one to which 
 I could look forward to as the last resort ; but it is one, let 
 me say, which under certain contin!;cnries I am u-ilting to 
 meet; and I leave my constituents to judge when that con- 
 tingency arrives.'" — Cong. Globe. 
 
 I could go on and read from speeches of emi- ^ 
 nent gentlemen of the Democratic party, in times 
 past, in which they make direct threats to dis- 
 solve the Union; but I will only read two or | 
 three extracts from speeches made by Democrats 
 upon this floor, containing their opinions upon 
 this question. 
 
 An honorable member from South Carolina, j 
 [Mr. Brooks,] in a debate in this House on the j 
 24lh of December last, said: 
 
 "The gentleman from .Massachusetts lias announced to 
 the world Uiat, in certain contingencies, he is willing to 
 let the Union slide. Now, sir, let his contingencies bi; re- j 
 versed, and I am willing to let tlie Unian slide ; ay, sir, to j 
 aid in makiiig it slide." 
 
 Another honorable member from Virginia, 
 [Mr. McMuLUN,] in a debate in this House on 
 tlie 20th of December last, said: 
 
 " One of the greatest misfortunes of the country, Mr. Clerk, 
 is Uie fact that our northern brethren mistake the character 
 of the South. Th«y suppose that the southern disunionists 
 are confined to the Calhoun wing of the Uemocralic party. 
 That, sir, is the greatest error that the people of the North 
 have ever fallen into. And I tell you, sir, and I want the 
 country to know it — I waiit the genUemcn from the free 
 States, our Kepublicans, our Seward Itepublieans, our 
 AboliiionistJ, or whatever else you may be called, to know 
 it — that if you restore the Missouri compromise, or repeal 
 thetugilive slave law, this Union will be diy.wlied. 
 
 " If the Government goes into the hands of the North, into 
 the hands of the Republican party, of the Abolition party— 
 for I like to call things by their true names — I say if the 
 Government of »ho country' g"es into the hands of the Abo- 
 lilioiiiAta of the Norlli, and they either repeal liie fugitive 
 slave law or restore ttie Missouri compronusc, I tell the 
 
 (louse, and I tell the country, tlint iliere will then be union 
 at the South upon iliis question. " 
 
 The same gentleman goes on still further to say: 
 
 " .\nd let mo ask gentlemen from the North, if this Union 
 
 is dissolvi'd. who holds your National (-'apilol ! Ilul let me 
 
 say to i;<-iitli men ol'thi^ Ninth, you eiinnot get possession ol 
 
 this Naliiinal Ciipilol. 
 
 ''The I'aplliil now beiones to no seeljon. It belong* alike 
 to North, South, Kast, and West. Hut, sir. It wu.t en-eted 
 upon slave li'rritory. and if the hand of disunion shall ever 
 sever the Slati's of this Ki'pilblie. you shall never take pos- 
 session of it while I tic<'upy my seat as a Iti-presenlniive 
 upon this floor. -And more, I teil them that when llie North 
 and the South sevi-r the eonneelion wliieli now binds them 
 to^'illier, ilie North will never take possecsionof tliis Cupitol 
 unless they pass over my dead body." 
 I The gentleman says this Capitol was erected 
 upon slave territory: and, in ntsr of a dissolution, 
 if the North get any i)art of the iiiiblie plunder, 
 while he occupies a seat, they will have to " pass 
 over his dead body." When I listened to this 
 remark, it brought " vividly to my recollection a 
 scene that was witnessed in this same slavehold- 
 ing territory," in August, 1H14, when a handful 
 of British soldiers and sailors, after spending 
 about a month ujion the watersof the Chesapeake, 
 landed, and, dragging their three pieces of artil- 
 lery up by hand, over this same " slaveholding 
 territory, applied the torch to the Capitol, 
 reduced it to a heap of smouldering ruins, and, 
 after destroying our library and ptiliiic archives, 
 leisurely reiimharked, and quietly sailed away to 
 other scenes of operation. 
 
 The Democratic State convention of Alabama, 
 before referred to, in their fourth resolution de- 
 clare ; 
 
 t " That any interference by Congress /or the prevention of 
 slaveni in any of the Territories, wnu\d be an inexcusable 
 and unconstitutional infringement of the rights of the 
 South, which, it is Uie deliberate sense of this eonvention, 
 it would he the duty of thcjicoplc of Jllubama to rexUl even 
 
 to a DISRUPTION OF THE TIES TUAT Bl.ND THIS STATE TO 
 THE U.NION !" 
 
 ' This is the party which taunts the Republicans 
 
 with the charge of "disunion." Let this party 
 
 first" cast the beam out of its own eye," before 
 
 it undertakes to "cast the mote out of its brother's 
 
 i eye." 
 
 I Where can you find a Republican convention 
 passing resolves deliberately threatening to "dis- 
 solve the Union" if the particular measures of 
 ■ the party arc not adopted, or if the legislation of 
 I the country shall not happen to conform to their 
 j notions of constitutional law.' Sir, we hear a 
 'great deal of boasting about " National Demo- 
 crats" — "National Democracy." These terms 
 I mean nothing but this: a party that is in favor of 
 J spreading slavery into free territory. Again, we 
 hear geiulemcn declaiming loud and long about 
 ! our "constitutional obligations," which, when 
 I being truly interpreted, mean " catching runaway 
 
 negroes." 
 Ij Then, again, we hear the Republican party 
 denounced as Black Republicans, DisunionxslSy 
 \\MolHlonhts. Very well, we understand why these 
 ' reproachful teririsare applied to the Republicans. 
 ' It is simply becau.se they i>elieve in the doctrines 
 \ of the Declaration of Independence, that the Con- 
 j stilution embodies the great principles of personal 
 ' liberty; it is becauscthey stand upon the old 
 ' time-honored platform of Washington, of Jefter- 
 I son, of Franklin, of Lan^don, of Madison, and 
 1 all the early fathers. Sir, could the Father of 
 1 his Country awake from the tomb, and leave the 
 1' rjuict retreats of his own Mount Vernon, and his 
 1, stately form again revisit the national Capitol 
 
LIBRfiRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 16 
 
 bearing his name— could the sainted spirit of the 
 immortal Jeiferson be reunited to the dust that 
 now reposes amid the solitudes of Montic.ello, 
 and as;ain mingle with the living, they would 
 both be denounced by this same Democratic party 
 with contumelious opprobriums; they would both 
 be denounced as Black Republicans, Abolition- 
 ists, traitors to this great Republic, which their 
 wisdom and patriotism founded. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, we are gravely told, in this 
 House and other places, that if the Democratic 
 party are defeated in the next presidential elec- 
 tion, and the Republican party elect their candi- 
 date to the presidential chair, the Union will be 
 dissolved. Let me say to gentlemen on the other 
 side of the House, not tauntingly, but respect- 
 fully, in the face of your threat, we shall beat you 
 if we can. If we succeed, (as I trust in God we 
 shall,) then I say again, not to menace, but to 
 warn you, Dlssoive this glorious Union if you dare 
 do it. You have practiced this same game too 
 long — you have " dissolved the Union" too many 
 times before to disturb the repose or unsettle the 
 nerves of the intelhgent, patriotic citizens of these 
 thirty-one States. Gentlemen, "Othello's occu- 
 pation's gone." Your thundering gasconade, 
 that the "Union will be dissolved," has died 
 away in harmless accents, and ceases to alarm 
 even the fearful and timid. But, if gentlemen 
 really desire to dissolve the Union, why not do 
 something besides talk and threaten ? Why not 
 begin— why not try the fearful experiment? You 
 need not wait a day on the account of the Repub- 
 lican party. We are as willing to meet you now 
 as at any future time, and settle this question, if 
 you want to try it. Yes, gentlemen, we will 
 meet you upon this question whenever and where 
 ever you present it. The Republicans of these 
 United States, upon this issue, have but one flag, 
 the "stars and stripes." Not one star upon its 
 floating folds will they ever see bedimmed or 
 blotted out — not one stripe disfigured by the law- 
 less hand of treason. They have butone motto — 
 the motto transmitted to the American people by 
 the immortal .Tackson, " The Union— it must be 
 preserved;" and, like the old hero of the Her- 
 mitage, they arc, every man of them, ready to 
 " sw'ear by the Eternal" it shall never perish at 
 the hands of any party North or South. 
 
 A friend some weeks since placed in my hands 
 a pamphlet, containing the speeches by the dis- 
 tinguished Senator from California, Mr. Wel- 
 ler, and of three distinguished gentlemen belong- 
 ing to this House— Colonel Orr of South Caro- 
 lina, ex-Speaker Cobb of Georgia, and General 
 Lane of Oregon— made in Concord, New Hamp- 
 shire, prior to the last election in that State. Col- 
 onel Orr near his closing remarks is reported to 
 have said: 
 
 "Roll back this swelling tide of Republicanism. If you 
 desire to save the Union, you must overwlielm it." 
 
 This sounds very much like Caleb Cushing's 
 •'crushing out." The distinguished gentleman 
 calls upon his political friends to " overwhelm 
 Republicanism." Yes, gentlemen, if you "de- 
 sire to save the Union, you must overwhelm it." 
 But how did the descendants of " Molly Stark," 
 the unterrified yeomanry of the glorious old 
 granite State, respond to this call. Who was 
 " overwhelmed" in New Hampshire? Was it 
 the " swelling tide of Republicanism ?" No, sir ! 
 
 011 898 281 2 
 
 racy" — the 
 remains of 
 
 N( 
 le^ 
 
 thuw ....v.^ ..„., " "T "" ""°^ rty, led on 
 
 by General Pierce — that was " overwhelmed." 
 The honest people of that patriotic State " over- 
 whelmed" them, buried them up, and with the 
 funereal rites perished the last fading hopes of 
 Franklin Pierce of a reelection to the Presidency. 
 Who was "overwhelmed" in Rhode Island a 
 few weeks since, and who in Connecticut a few 
 days since ? Was it the " swelling tide of Repub- 
 licanism ?" No, sir; it was this same " sectional 
 Democracy" — a party that has gone so far South 
 that it has even lost sight of the " North star." 
 
 But, again, the Republicans are denounced as 
 "Agitators! Agitators!!" Sir, who began this 
 agitation? The very party who now denounce 
 it. Yes, gentlemen Democrats, you fired " the 
 faggot pile," and now, when its roaring flames 
 send their ghastly, lurid glare in every direction 
 all over the whole Union, you turn round and 
 denounce your innocent neighbor with incendi- 
 arism, when you yourselves apphed«the smoking 
 torch. You have raised the wind, now you must 
 " ride the whirlwind." 
 
 But what party continues agitation upon the 
 slavery question? Who sends message after 
 message into both Houses of Congress, falsifying 
 the great truths of history — denouncing the peo- 
 ple of the free States, falsely charging them with 
 numerous derelictions of duty? Who sends Gov- 
 ernors to Kansas to enforce the brutal laws of a 
 bogus Legislature upon the squatter sovereigns 
 of diat Territory? What party is now moving 
 heaven and earth to force slavery into Kansas 
 against the will of the people of that devoted Ter- 
 ritory, and in direct violation of an old compact 
 to which both sections of the Union were a party ? 
 I leave the people and the country to answer these 
 questions. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, we are deliberately told by the 
 Administration party, that if the Missouri com- 
 promise is restored and Kansas made free — that 
 if the old compact of 1820 is substantially carried 
 out — it "will be an end of the Union." You 
 make the issue, gentlemen, we accept it. It is a 
 part of the mission of the Republican party to 
 make Kansas a free State; and gentlemen on the 
 other side of the House have chosen Kansas as 
 the great battle-ground of freedom, and there we 
 meet you. The designs and purposes of the Re- 
 publican party upon this vital question are like 
 the " laws of the Medes and Persians," unalter- 
 able. Our southern brethren, more than thirty 
 years ago, for a consideration paid in hand, sol- 
 emnly agreed that the vast and fertile regions of 
 Kansas and Nebraska should forever he free ter- 
 ritory; and we mean to hold you to the contract. 
 The great Republican party has taken its posi- 
 tion. Its banner has been unfurled, and now 
 proudly floats in the breezes of heaven, while upon 
 its folds are inscribed in golden capitals of living 
 
 light — NO MORE EXTENSION OF THE FOOT-PRtNTS 
 OF SLAVERY INTO FREE TERRITORY. ArOUlld this 
 
 banner are rallying'the patriotic from all sections 
 in the Union. 
 
 But one spirit animates the great army of free- 
 dom. Their watchword is ^^ Onward! Onward!" 
 their battle cry the soul-stirring words of the im- 
 mortal Henry — " Give me liberty, or give me 
 death."